was created in 1789 at a time of inner turmoil in the States, and guns were prevalent in a society that had a tempestuous law and order status... so it was fine for the time...
by contrast Scotland declared a law in 1789 stating that "if a man jumps over your fence to steal turnips then you are lawfully entitled to stab him the face with a boat and take his kids to the slave market to sell for new kilt material"
things were different 200 years ago... move with the times... now we arent allowed to sell his kids, but we can still poke him in the eye with a boat... an AMENDMENT it's called... americans have had loads before... make another one
oh scary... 40000 morbidly obese christians wearing fanny packs invading europe is probably the least scariest thing since I watched an edited version of The Care Bears movie in an extremely brightly lit cinema.
Americans use firearms to defend themselves from criminals at least 764,000 times a year. This figure is the lowest among a group of 9 nationwide surveys done by organizations including Gallup and the Los Angeles Times. (16b)
Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:
Florida United States
homicide rate -36% -0.4%
firearm homicide rate -37% 15%
handgun homicide rate -41% 24%
About 6,000 children were caught with guns at school in 1997 and 1998. Out of these, 13 were prosecuted by the Clinton administration Justice Department. (52)
* In October of 1997, sixteen-year-old Luke Woodham stabbed his mother to death and then went to school with a rifle where he shot 9 students, killing 2 of them. Assistant Principal Joel Myrick raced to his car, retrieved a .45 caliber handgun, and used it to subdue Woodham until police arrived. (51)(53)
was created in 1789 at a time of inner turmoil in the States, and guns were prevalent in a society that had a tempestuous law and order status... so it was fine for the time...
Wrong.
The Second Amendment is timeless. It was created to provide the ultimate of the "checks and balances", the duty of the people to overthrow the government should that government turn tyrannical.
Before you make the argument that a rifle can't beat an apache attack helicopter and therefore The Second Amendment is useless, remember that we have an all volunteer army made up of ordinary Americans. They would have to agree to fight for the tyrannical government against thier own friends, family, and neighbors in the first place which would be highly unlikely.
In any case I own an Armalite AR-50 so I'm not to worried about Helicopters ;-)
If the psycho is willing to kill someone with his guns, he's not too worried about breaking the law to take the guns on campus in the first place.
Therefore, we need to allow weapons on campus for at least professors. Currently there are NO guns allowed on Virginia campuses. We've seen what that results in: the only person with a gun is the psycho who isn't afraid of being caught with a gun on campus.
You think making it illegal to have a gun on campus is keeping criminals from bringing them on campus? Do you really believe that's working?
Yes, I think it should be illegal to have a gun on campus, except for campus security or campus police.
Do you honestly think bringing more guns into schools is the solution.
and i believe that. an armed citizen will not stop crime. nothing will. crime has been with us since cane and able. but a citizen with a gun will deter crime.
stats have proven that. which is why 23 states allow you to carry.
Bullshit. Stats haven't proven this at all. Correlation doesn't imply causation.
IT PASSED BOTH HOUSES!!!! Then the fucking hippie pinko commie uberliberal governer of ours VETOED IT! It went to an override vote and fell short by 2 votes of a two-thirds majority in the House.
The Second Amendment is timeless. It was created to provide the ultimate of the "checks and balances", the duty of the people to overthrow the government should that government turn tyrannical.
Before you make the argument that a rifle can't beat an apache attack helicopter and therefore The Second Amendment is useless, remember that we have an all volunteer army made up of ordinary Americans. They would have to agree to fight for the tyrannical government against thier own friends, family, and neighbors in the first place which would be highly unlikely.
In any case I own an Armalite AR-50 so I'm not to worried about Helicopters ;-)
and that says it all.
isn't it funny how the countries without guns call on the us when they get in trouble? in the last 100 years; europe has been taken by dictators twice; cuba once; iraq; iran; afganistan; several central and south american countries; yet people keep saying the second amendment is outdated.
i wonder if we'd have been taken by a dictator if we had been disarmed. it happened almost everywhere else so why not america? after d-day; missles were found aimed at the uk filled with nuclear waste. had we not invaded when we did; the uk would still be unfit for human life.
and that says it all.
isn't it funny how the countries without guns call on the us when they get in trouble? in the last 100 years; europe has been taken by dictators twice; cuba once; iraq; iran; afganistan; several central and south american countries; yet people keep saying the second amendment is outdated.
i wonder if we'd have been taken by a dictator if we had been disarmed. it happened almost everywhere else so why not america? after d-day; missles were found aimed at the uk filled with nuclear waste. had we not invaded when we did; the uk would still be unfit for human life.
I always thought it was the U.S. Armed Forces that fought these wars, not regular citizens with their own guns.
:rolleyes:
edit: I might have read this the wrong way.
Anyway, I think America and indeed any country no matter how heavy its citizens are armed can be taken by a dictator. True, the American freedom fighters will have an advantage, they'll already have the weaponry to fight back, the other countries will have to wait longer before they can obtain them. But either way, I honestly doubt that this will make a difference in the long run.
I always thought it was the U.S. Armed Forces that fought these wars, not regular citizens with their own guns.
:rolleyes:
it was ordinary citizens fighting with their own guns when our mainland was invaded. that includes britain twice; mexico once; and possibly the french; although i think we bought their candy arses out. when japan was poised off california the citizens were prepared to defend the mainland too. that was august of 1944. only 63 years ago. current history. during the cold war citizens were prepared in the event of war. i don't know how old you are but invasion by ussr was a real threat.
it was ordinary citizens fighting with their own guns when our mainland was invaded. that includes britain twice; mexico once; and possibly the french; although i think we bought their candy arses out. when japan was poised off california the citizens were prepared to defend the mainland too. that was august of 1944. only 63 years ago. current history. during the cold war citizens were prepared in the event of war. i don't know how old you are but invasion by ussr was a real threat.
See my edited post.
A president or whatever can become a dictator before you know it, the economy might be low, all he needs is the people's trust and then he can do whatever he wants (including as you said taking guns because the people will feel safe), if he can make people feel safe and create a booming economy... a president (a closet dictator?) can start doing his thing and the people won't notice because they're too occupied with buying new cars and houses and fancy holidays...
I always thought it was the U.S. Armed Forces that fought these wars, not regular citizens with their own guns.
:rolleyes:
edit: I might have read this the wrong way.
Anyway, I think America and indeed any country no matter how heavy its citizens are armed can be taken by a dictator. True, the American freedom fighters will have an advantage, they'll already have the weaponry to fight back, the other countries will have to wait longer before they can obtain them. But either way, I honestly doubt that this will make a difference in the long run.
instead of my usual long rant; let's just say a small handfull of insurgents are holding the us and british armed forces at bay in iraq. i think 150 million gun owners could fend off a dictator.
instead of my usual long rant; let's just say a small handfull of insurgents are holding the us and british armed forces at bay in iraq. i think 150 million gun owners could fend off a dictator.
True, but things are never that black and white. A dictator can earn the sympathy of millions. Look at Hitler, he was extremely popular. What makes you think these 150 million won't be fooled as well? The ones that aren't fooled will be named terrorists and haters of freedom.
A president or whatever can become a dictator before you know it, the economy might be low, all he needs is the people's trust and then he can do whatever he wants (including as you said taking guns because the people will feel safe), if he can make people feel safe and create a booming economy... a president (a closet dictator?) can start doing his thing and the people won't notice because they're too occupied with buying new cars and houses and fancy holidays...
no worries. and i agree with you; mostly. hitler did it. the kaiser did it too. but americans will never give up their guns. a large amount of the population live in cities and there's really no place for a gun in the city. except maybe at a gun range. but the amount of open space in america is amazing. i think it was earlier in this thread where i said my nevada ranch is 30 minutes from any human contact. i'm sure your first thought is that it would be ok to shoot in an area like that. but that's not the problem. you see; those of us in remote areas are perfect targets. there's no neighbours to hear gunshots; if i were tied up and left; it would be a month before anyone knew because i only leave the ranch about once a month. except when i travel. there is no phone service so everything is done via satellite. sending an email to someone to call the sheriff could take a day to be answered. so i'm not trying to be an arse about it. all i'm saying is that in many areas of the us; guns are still needed.
True, but things are never that black and white. A dictator can earn the sympathy of millions. Look at Hitler, he was extremely popular. What makes you think these 150 million won't be fooled as well? The ones that aren't fooled will be named terrorists and haters of freedom.
Bullshit. Stats haven't proven this at all. Correlation doesn't imply causation.
i'm not going to repeat something i posted earlier. do some research about phoenix. seniors were targets of crime until the ccw law went into effect. crime against seniors dropped dramatically. do the research yourself if you don't believe anyone.
i'm more than happy americans like shooting each other and allowing geeks who get bullied by sport jocks the opportunity to waste 30+ lives in one day... its the sensible approach as it reduces the surplus population... and i believe it was Jesus..or maybe it was Walt Disney.... who said "shoot each other to death fat americans and heaven awaits... free tacos to the best mess of a kids face"...
keep on shooting each other.... funeral parlours need the income
as i recall; the shooter wasn't an american. is it that you don't know what you're talking about or do you just like to type?
no worries. and i agree with you; mostly. hitler did it. the kaiser did it too. but americans will never give up their guns. a large amount of the population live in cities and there's really no place for a gun in the city. except maybe at a gun range. but the amount of open space in america is amazing. i think it was earlier in this thread where i said my nevada ranch is 30 minutes from any human contact. i'm sure your first thought is that it would be ok to shoot in an area like that. but that's not the problem. you see; those of us in remote areas are perfect targets. there's no neighbours to hear gunshots; if i were tied up and left; it would be a month before anyone knew because i only leave the ranch about once a month. except when i travel. there is no phone service so everything is done via satellite. sending an email to someone to call the sheriff could take a day to be answered. so i'm not trying to be an arse about it. all i'm saying is that in many areas of the us; guns are still needed.
I'm not for a gun ban. Don't get me wrong. But I don't believe in people who seem to think more guns will solve the problems.
I found my uncle's rifle two days ago and I've been shooting at empty cans since I found it. It's fun. But I won't take it with me when I move out, nor will I buy a gun or a fire arm myself.
But you've described your place before and in places like that a gun can come in very handy and if I ever lived somewhere where wild animals still lived I'd probaby buy a fire arm myself.
I don't think I'll ever buy a gun to protect myself from other people, no matter where I live and I don't think it's a good way to protect yourself.
Guns aren't toys and shouldn't be in the hands of immature or irresponsible people. That's why I think it's wrong that a person (like the Virgina Tech shooter) can just walk in, pass a few simple requirements and buy a gun.
Yeah I was bitching. Our Governer happens to suck.
BTW, they say 'aboot' in Canada not Wisconsin.
Don't you have a banjo you should be playing or a sister you should be doing or something?
oh, I beg to differ my friend...the accent in cheezville is pretty much the same as the great white north, trust me, I've been there...don't ya know...
you've got the wrong sister....your sister happens to love my big banjo...;)
i'm not going to repeat something i posted earlier. do some research about phoenix. seniors were targets of crime until the ccw law went into effect. crime against seniors dropped dramatically. do the research yourself if you don't believe anyone.
I have more important things to do. If you have proof that the fact that the seniors started arming themselves caused a direct decrease in crime against seniors, show it.
Otherwise, there can always be third factors, it can be part of a bigger picture (generally less crime, a higher number of police officers on the streets, ...)
So to me it's correlation and not proof. I can post stats that "prove" that since guns were banned less crime was commited. You'll be able to check everything I post and see it's right, but that doesn't mean there's causation.
That's the tricky thing with stats and graphs, you can "prove" anything. My brother did it for a living. Selling things with stats and graphs, they were correct but people misinterprete them or think it's direct causation.
Anyway, I think America and indeed any country no matter how heavy its citizens are armed can be taken by a dictator.
Of course you do. You're a pacifist lib who couldn't fight his way out of a Starbucks paper bag.
Gun registration was mandatory before Hitler came to power in Germany. When he finally obtained power, he went around taking people's guns because he knew who had them based on the registration lists. This is yet another way he was able to dominate the people.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
I have more important things to do. If you have proof that the fact that the seniors started arming themselves caused a direct decrease in crime against seniors, show it.
Otherwise, there can always be third factors, it can be part of a bigger picture (generally less crime, a higher number of police officers on the streets, ...)
So to me it's correlation and not proof. I can post stats that "prove" that since guns were banned less crime was commited. You'll be able to check everything I post and see it's right, but that doesn't mean there's causation.
That's the tricky thing with stats and graphs, you can "prove" anything. My brother did it for a living. Selling things with stats and graphs, they were correct but people misinterprete them or think it's direct causation.
You prove causation through consistent statistical analysis over time.
Consistent statistical analysis is not le fort of the gun-control movement.
All I know is that to see, and not to speak, would be the great betrayal.
-Enoch Powell
I have more important things to do. If you have proof that the fact that the seniors started arming themselves caused a direct decrease in crime against seniors, show it.
Otherwise, there can always be third factors, it can be part of a bigger picture (generally less crime, a higher number of police officers on the streets, ...)
So to me it's correlation and not proof. I can post stats that "prove" that since guns were banned less crime was commited. You'll be able to check everything I post and see it's right, but that doesn't mean there's causation.
That's the tricky thing with stats and graphs, you can "prove" anything. My brother did it for a living. Selling things with stats and graphs, they were correct but people misinterprete them or think it's direct causation.
i normally do post links when asked but i haven't slept in 2 days and i need to check for price list requests and orders and process those before i can take a nap. if you're about later i'll be more than happy to post the links. i do know that at the time; phoenix didn't have the money to hire more police and as policemen retired they weren't replaced. at that point in time; phoenix was mostly retired people who didn't work; therefore did not contribute taxes. i'll try to find that too.
I believe that overdoses are directly related to the illegality of the drug. Prohibition creates an environment where the potency of a drug is unknown to the user, which leads to overdoses.
stupid comment. maybe the drug is illegal BECAUSE of the amount of overdoses. every met anyone who takes drugs to the extent that it can kill you? do you honestly think they'd tell you that they started it or do it because its illegal?
actually ignore that comment - i read on further! im just getting worked up by this thread! good read
stupid comment. maybe the drug is illegal BECAUSE of the amount of overdoses. every met anyone who takes drugs to the extent that it can kill you? do you honestly think they'd tell you that they started it or do it because its illegal?
actually ignore that comment - i read on further! im just getting worked up by this thread! good read
or maybe not.....I got that once a drug is illegal its not regulated and hence no standards and hence users don't have information as to dosage..and what will kill you..along with not really knowing what your getting.
also i think its fairly irrelevant in the overall scheme of the issue...but have any of the major wars or invasions over the last century been met with any actual solid resistance from civilians taking to the streets to attack
i would classify "insurgents political / radical groups with guns" as being people who illegally own guns..im irish..it definitely rings a chord with me.
i cannot think of one single time in history where civilians legally carrying guns caused a military upset (except in civil wars)
im not saying anything about that argument as regards gun ownership but im just curious if anyone knows if it ever happened...
or maybe not.....I got that once a drug is illegal its not regulated and hence no standards and hence users don't have information as to dosage..and what will kill you..along with not really knowing what your getting.
thats true to an extent - for drugs that are legalized. like marjuana. but people dont die from marjuana, they die from coke and heroin etc. no government ive ever heard of succesfully regulated heroin use, and anyway heroin affects you so seriously you wouldnt be able to properly administer it yourself even if you were told how.
i just thought it was a brainless comparison because the compelling reasons for possessing and owning drugs are in no way similar to those for guns, just because they kill people doesnt mean its a appropriate example. thats all
Comments
was created in 1789 at a time of inner turmoil in the States, and guns were prevalent in a society that had a tempestuous law and order status... so it was fine for the time...
by contrast Scotland declared a law in 1789 stating that "if a man jumps over your fence to steal turnips then you are lawfully entitled to stab him the face with a boat and take his kids to the slave market to sell for new kilt material"
things were different 200 years ago... move with the times... now we arent allowed to sell his kids, but we can still poke him in the eye with a boat... an AMENDMENT it's called... americans have had loads before... make another one
Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:
Florida United States
homicide rate -36% -0.4%
firearm homicide rate -37% 15%
handgun homicide rate -41% 24%
About 6,000 children were caught with guns at school in 1997 and 1998. Out of these, 13 were prosecuted by the Clinton administration Justice Department. (52)
* In October of 1997, sixteen-year-old Luke Woodham stabbed his mother to death and then went to school with a rifle where he shot 9 students, killing 2 of them. Assistant Principal Joel Myrick raced to his car, retrieved a .45 caliber handgun, and used it to subdue Woodham until police arrived. (51)(53)
http://www.justfacts.com/issues.guncontrol.asp
Wrong.
The Second Amendment is timeless. It was created to provide the ultimate of the "checks and balances", the duty of the people to overthrow the government should that government turn tyrannical.
Before you make the argument that a rifle can't beat an apache attack helicopter and therefore The Second Amendment is useless, remember that we have an all volunteer army made up of ordinary Americans. They would have to agree to fight for the tyrannical government against thier own friends, family, and neighbors in the first place which would be highly unlikely.
In any case I own an Armalite AR-50 so I'm not to worried about Helicopters ;-)
Yes, I think it should be illegal to have a gun on campus, except for campus security or campus police.
Do you honestly think bringing more guns into schools is the solution.
And as for this:
Bullshit. Stats haven't proven this at all. Correlation doesn't imply causation.
naděje umírá poslední
that's the way she goes, that's the way she goes...
anyhoo, I was wondering about the 23 states that have supposedly passed concealed weapons laws based on voting...that's that data I'm interested in...
and that says it all.
isn't it funny how the countries without guns call on the us when they get in trouble? in the last 100 years; europe has been taken by dictators twice; cuba once; iraq; iran; afganistan; several central and south american countries; yet people keep saying the second amendment is outdated.
i wonder if we'd have been taken by a dictator if we had been disarmed. it happened almost everywhere else so why not america? after d-day; missles were found aimed at the uk filled with nuclear waste. had we not invaded when we did; the uk would still be unfit for human life.
I always thought it was the U.S. Armed Forces that fought these wars, not regular citizens with their own guns.
:rolleyes:
edit: I might have read this the wrong way.
Anyway, I think America and indeed any country no matter how heavy its citizens are armed can be taken by a dictator. True, the American freedom fighters will have an advantage, they'll already have the weaponry to fight back, the other countries will have to wait longer before they can obtain them. But either way, I honestly doubt that this will make a difference in the long run.
naděje umírá poslední
have you got a bloody fax? if not i'll write them out after a nap.
it was ordinary citizens fighting with their own guns when our mainland was invaded. that includes britain twice; mexico once; and possibly the french; although i think we bought their candy arses out. when japan was poised off california the citizens were prepared to defend the mainland too. that was august of 1944. only 63 years ago. current history. during the cold war citizens were prepared in the event of war. i don't know how old you are but invasion by ussr was a real threat.
See my edited post.
A president or whatever can become a dictator before you know it, the economy might be low, all he needs is the people's trust and then he can do whatever he wants (including as you said taking guns because the people will feel safe), if he can make people feel safe and create a booming economy... a president (a closet dictator?) can start doing his thing and the people won't notice because they're too occupied with buying new cars and houses and fancy holidays...
naděje umírá poslední
instead of my usual long rant; let's just say a small handfull of insurgents are holding the us and british armed forces at bay in iraq. i think 150 million gun owners could fend off a dictator.
um...would you happen to have any links or websites that would back up your assertion that in 23 states voters chose to allow concealed weapons...?
if not, that's ok, save your energy...
It's called a representative government. State Legislatures made up of ELECTED representatives voted those laws into existence.
What's your point?
True, but things are never that black and white. A dictator can earn the sympathy of millions. Look at Hitler, he was extremely popular. What makes you think these 150 million won't be fooled as well? The ones that aren't fooled will be named terrorists and haters of freedom.
naděje umírá poslední
no worries. and i agree with you; mostly. hitler did it. the kaiser did it too. but americans will never give up their guns. a large amount of the population live in cities and there's really no place for a gun in the city. except maybe at a gun range. but the amount of open space in america is amazing. i think it was earlier in this thread where i said my nevada ranch is 30 minutes from any human contact. i'm sure your first thought is that it would be ok to shoot in an area like that. but that's not the problem. you see; those of us in remote areas are perfect targets. there's no neighbours to hear gunshots; if i were tied up and left; it would be a month before anyone knew because i only leave the ranch about once a month. except when i travel. there is no phone service so everything is done via satellite. sending an email to someone to call the sheriff could take a day to be answered. so i'm not trying to be an arse about it. all i'm saying is that in many areas of the us; guns are still needed.
Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
the point is this, if people are going to make claims, they should be able to back them up...perhaps if you read the thread, you could keep up...
funny how you were bitching earlier about your "representative government" up thar in cheeze heaven, how aboot it, aye....?
i'm not going to repeat something i posted earlier. do some research about phoenix. seniors were targets of crime until the ccw law went into effect. crime against seniors dropped dramatically. do the research yourself if you don't believe anyone.
as i recall; the shooter wasn't an american. is it that you don't know what you're talking about or do you just like to type?
Yeah I was bitching. Our Governer happens to suck.
BTW, they say 'aboot' in Canada not Wisconsin.
Don't you have a banjo you should be pickin' or a sister or a pig you should be screwing?
I'm not for a gun ban. Don't get me wrong. But I don't believe in people who seem to think more guns will solve the problems.
I found my uncle's rifle two days ago and I've been shooting at empty cans since I found it. It's fun. But I won't take it with me when I move out, nor will I buy a gun or a fire arm myself.
But you've described your place before and in places like that a gun can come in very handy and if I ever lived somewhere where wild animals still lived I'd probaby buy a fire arm myself.
I don't think I'll ever buy a gun to protect myself from other people, no matter where I live and I don't think it's a good way to protect yourself.
Guns aren't toys and shouldn't be in the hands of immature or irresponsible people. That's why I think it's wrong that a person (like the Virgina Tech shooter) can just walk in, pass a few simple requirements and buy a gun.
naděje umírá poslední
oh, I beg to differ my friend...the accent in cheezville is pretty much the same as the great white north, trust me, I've been there...don't ya know...
you've got the wrong sister....your sister happens to love my big banjo...;)
I have more important things to do. If you have proof that the fact that the seniors started arming themselves caused a direct decrease in crime against seniors, show it.
Otherwise, there can always be third factors, it can be part of a bigger picture (generally less crime, a higher number of police officers on the streets, ...)
So to me it's correlation and not proof. I can post stats that "prove" that since guns were banned less crime was commited. You'll be able to check everything I post and see it's right, but that doesn't mean there's causation.
That's the tricky thing with stats and graphs, you can "prove" anything. My brother did it for a living. Selling things with stats and graphs, they were correct but people misinterprete them or think it's direct causation.
naděje umírá poslední
Of course you do. You're a pacifist lib who couldn't fight his way out of a Starbucks paper bag.
Gun registration was mandatory before Hitler came to power in Germany. When he finally obtained power, he went around taking people's guns because he knew who had them based on the registration lists. This is yet another way he was able to dominate the people.
-Enoch Powell
You prove causation through consistent statistical analysis over time.
Consistent statistical analysis is not le fort of the gun-control movement.
-Enoch Powell
i normally do post links when asked but i haven't slept in 2 days and i need to check for price list requests and orders and process those before i can take a nap. if you're about later i'll be more than happy to post the links. i do know that at the time; phoenix didn't have the money to hire more police and as policemen retired they weren't replaced. at that point in time; phoenix was mostly retired people who didn't work; therefore did not contribute taxes. i'll try to find that too.
stupid comment. maybe the drug is illegal BECAUSE of the amount of overdoses. every met anyone who takes drugs to the extent that it can kill you? do you honestly think they'd tell you that they started it or do it because its illegal?
actually ignore that comment - i read on further! im just getting worked up by this thread! good read
or maybe not.....I got that once a drug is illegal its not regulated and hence no standards and hence users don't have information as to dosage..and what will kill you..along with not really knowing what your getting.
i would classify "insurgents political / radical groups with guns" as being people who illegally own guns..im irish..it definitely rings a chord with me.
i cannot think of one single time in history where civilians legally carrying guns caused a military upset (except in civil wars)
im not saying anything about that argument as regards gun ownership but im just curious if anyone knows if it ever happened...
thats true to an extent - for drugs that are legalized. like marjuana. but people dont die from marjuana, they die from coke and heroin etc. no government ive ever heard of succesfully regulated heroin use, and anyway heroin affects you so seriously you wouldnt be able to properly administer it yourself even if you were told how.
i just thought it was a brainless comparison because the compelling reasons for possessing and owning drugs are in no way similar to those for guns, just because they kill people doesnt mean its a appropriate example. thats all