Post: #151

(01-12-2013 07:27 PM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  ...The right to a gun is to protect yourself from a tyrannical government...

Are you saying America is under the rule of a tyrant?

(01-12-2013 07:27 PM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  ...But obviously people use for self defense since the cops would never be there in time to save you anyways.

Defense from whom?

(01-12-2013 07:27 PM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  Now that you know what the 2nd amendment is for think back and see how helpful that would have been in Europe for the last 300 years. Something tells me 99% of the wars would have never happened.

Are you trying to say WEAPONS prevent war?

America's had civil wars in past if I'm not mistaken...

Post: #152

(01-13-2013 12:54 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  What do you mean by that?

He tried to make the 2nd amendment look stupid to Americans. Good luck with that...

(01-13-2013 12:54 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  Whether guns are illegal or not, they will still exist. Not to mention school massacres have ocurred using other weapons. Sometimes homemade.

If guns were illegal they would be harder to get hold of, that's the point.
As for school massacres having occurred using other weapons, give me an example of one? It takes a lot of effort to make a weapon yourself EVEN if it is easy, otherwise everyone would do this.

(01-13-2013 12:54 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  The problem is fear - you're right. Fear based on the false impression that school shootings are on the rise. Fear based on school shootings, which constitute less than 1% of homicides in America.

Really? If I'm correct the kids mother owned the guns. Why did she have those guns? To protect herself from a tyrannic government? I doubt she ever has or ever will use it.

That's my point, she owned those guns to protect herself. Yet, apparently there's more crime in places around Europe than in America.

(01-13-2013 12:54 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  Gun enthusiasts tend to be realists. Gun control advocates are the ones selling fear.

Oh, I just love this quote. So being armed in preparation for a future tyrannic government is being a realist?

(01-13-2013 12:54 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  Says who? You?

I live in a rough area where there are quite a few shootings. Do I need a gun to protect myself? No. Where I'm from the only people likely to get shot are those who themselves ALSO carry guns i.e. people in gangs.

(01-13-2013 12:54 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  We don't support it to protect us from criminals. We support the 2nd amendment to provide "insurance" against government tyranny. As a European, you no doubt realize instances of tyrannical governments abound in history and are not a figment of the imagination...

Fine. Wait for WWIII, but in the mean time expect more massacres.

(01-13-2013 12:54 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  It sure feels a lot safer than them having one while my government demands I go unarmed. Don't you feel safer when you at least have the choice to shoot back?

Those that shoot unarmed people are usually the deranged. People generally have ulterior reasons for being armed.

(01-13-2013 12:54 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  Undoubtedly less than 1%. Which raises the question - why are gun control advocates so afraid of guns in the hands of us law-abiding citizens? As you pointed out, we're not all shooting at each other.

For the record, I'm not a gun control advocate (though some may think I am) and I'm open minded, but what fears me about the lack of gun control is my six year old daughter could being studying at school when all a sudden a lunatic storms down the halls with an AR-15 and starts shooting at anything that moves.

I'm sure everyone knows a mad person is someone to be avoided, but give them a gun? And you're asking for trouble.

(01-13-2013 12:54 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  He shot himself as soon as he saw a cop....when the armed calvalry arrived. In most cases, that's what these cowards do. Kill themselves when they face armed opposition. Hmmmm...

Maybe I'm ignorant but this makes no sense. He shot himself because he was afraid he would be...shot?

(01-13-2013 12:54 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  Larry Pratt is not arguing for arming the schools. He's arguing for allowing teachers who already want a concealed carry permit to go ahead and get one. He's arguing for an end to gun-free zones, where these massacres almost always happen. With permits allowed, Lanza wouldn't have known when people were packing and when they weren't because "concealing" something hides it from view.

Perhaps I am ignorant but the problem here seems to be that because most people have guns, people need more guns to combat the people who already have guns.

Oh well, according to some here the death of 20 children and probably more in the future is a small price to pay...when after all there's a tyrannic government that needs protection from.

Post: #153

(01-14-2013 02:06 PM)3agle 3yes Wrote:  

(01-12-2013 07:27 PM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  ...The right to a gun is to protect yourself from a tyrannical government...

Are you saying America is under the rule of a tyrant?

(01-12-2013 07:27 PM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  ...But obviously people use for self defense since the cops would never be there in time to save you anyways.

Defense from whom?

(01-12-2013 07:27 PM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  Now that you know what the 2nd amendment is for think back and see how helpful that would have been in Europe for the last 300 years. Something tells me 99% of the wars would have never happened.

Are you trying to say WEAPONS prevent war?

America's had civil wars in past if I'm not mistaken...

America isn't under the rule of an outright tyrant. But if you pay attention to the executive orders like i do, you can clearly see they are heading down a path of tyranny. The president does not have the power to do anything really in the US. But through his executive powers and I may be wrong on this but I don't think there has been one repealed since Lincoln, the president is now becoming more and more powerful. Pretty much making congress (who controls the purse) irrelevant. But you can be sure if there was no guns in America this would have happened a long ago.

When I was talking about defense I meant from robbers, rapists and potential mass murders. Guns save peoples lives in America everyday, they just don't get the news coverage.

And yes the US has had civil wars in the past. But they never had world wars every 20 years when one country tried to take over the whole world. I'm not just talking Germany, but Britain, France and Spain have all tried to conquer Europe at one point or another. Just think how far would anyone of them ever gotten if the country they were invading was armed to the teeth with guns ? We all know why no one invades Switzerland.

Post: #154

Our guv isn't becoming tyrannical. Nonsense. The 1.4 billion rounds of ammunition they are buying must be for the 4th of July.

Post: #155

Yeah those are just practice rounds. Same with the armed drones flying around. Those are just being tested to use on the muslims

Post: #156

(01-14-2013 02:06 PM)3agle 3yes Wrote:  

(01-12-2013 07:27 PM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  ...The right to a gun is to protect yourself from a tyrannical government...

Are you saying America is under the rule of a tyrant?

We are not immune to it.

I believe you're referring to a tyrant as in absolute power in a single ruler. But it also means "oppressive power exerted by government." Under that definition, it not only could exist but many believe does exist to a dangerous extent in America.

Many defenders of the 2nd amendment would say it is our right to bear arms that has kept us from even further tyranny.

That said, the existence of the 2nd amendment does not imply the existence of tyranny. It's meant to prevent it in the first place.

Quote:

(01-12-2013 07:27 PM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  ...But obviously people use for self defense since the cops would never be there in time to save you anyways.

Defense from whom?

Again, it's not constitutionally meant for self-defense in this specific manner, but for those of us who do support that use, the "whom" would be violent criminals and people who victimize those weaker than them. America is one of the most violent counties out there.

Taking guns away won't change that.

Mexico, another violent country, has a lot of gun murders despite strict gun laws - Mexico City is the most dangerous place in the world. Russia's oppressive gun laws have also shown little effect: "Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct - that "gun don't kill people, people do" - the study also shows that Russia's murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns." http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gu...roductive/

Violent societies are not violent because of guns. They're violent in spite of them.

Given that fact, law-abiding citizens in violent societies should have the right to defend themselves.

Quote:

(01-12-2013 07:27 PM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  Now that you know what the 2nd amendment is for think back and see how helpful that would have been in Europe for the last 300 years. Something tells me 99% of the wars would have never happened.

Are you trying to say WEAPONS prevent war?

America's had civil wars in past if I'm not mistaken...

I don't agree with BIGINJAPAN's statement either. Guns do not prevent war. And since Europe isn't even one country, that doesn't even make sense.

That said, they do help to prevent and hold back the onslaught of tyranny.

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Rudyard Kipling

Post: #157

No need for assault weapons to be honest, unless they really would hold off a dystopian government takeover. If the US gov really wanted to take over the citizens, they've got tanks, fighter jets etc.

Post: #158

(01-14-2013 02:58 PM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 02:06 PM)3agle 3yes Wrote:  

(01-12-2013 07:27 PM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  ...The right to a gun is to protect yourself from a tyrannical government...

Are you saying America is under the rule of a tyrant?

We are not immune to it.

I believe you're referring to a tyrant as in absolute power in a single ruler. But it also means "oppressive power exerted by government." Under that definition, it not only could exist but many believe does exist to a dangerous extent in America.

Many defenders of the 2nd amendment would say it is our right to bear arms that has kept us from even further tyranny.

That said, the existence of the 2nd amendment does not imply the existence of tyranny. It's meant to prevent it in the first place.

Quote:

(01-12-2013 07:27 PM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  ...But obviously people use for self defense since the cops would never be there in time to save you anyways.

Defense from whom?

Again, it's not constitutionally meant for self-defense in this specific manner, but for those of us who do support that use, the "whom" would be violent criminals and people who victimize those weaker than them. America is one of the most violent counties out there.

Taking guns away won't change that.

Mexico, another violent country, has a lot of gun murders despite strict gun laws - Mexico City is the most dangerous place in the world. Russia's oppressive gun laws have also shown little effect: "Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct - that "gun don't kill people, people do" - the study also shows that Russia's murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns." http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gu...roductive/

Violent societies are not violent because of guns. They're violent in spite of them.

Given that fact, law-abiding citizens in violent societies should have the right to defend themselves.

Quote:

(01-12-2013 07:27 PM)BIGINJAPAN Wrote:  Now that you know what the 2nd amendment is for think back and see how helpful that would have been in Europe for the last 300 years. Something tells me 99% of the wars would have never happened.

Are you trying to say WEAPONS prevent war?

America's had civil wars in past if I'm not mistaken...

I don't agree with BIGINJAPAN's statement either. Guns do not prevent war. And since Europe isn't even one country, that doesn't even make sense.

That said, they do help to prevent and hold back the onslaught of tyranny.

They definitely don't prevent all wars. But think about it, if governments did not strip their citizens of guns first do you think they would be led to war ?

Secondly why didn't all these empires tried to invade Switzerland over the last few hundred years ? They have a tiny population.

Post: #159

The other day I was watching Laurence O'Donnell and he was interviewing a schoolteacher from Utah. Utah has some of the most permissive gun laws in the US and they enjoy a low crime rate. Utah does allow people with concealed carry permits to carry in schools. So anyway, he asked the woman why she wanted to carry. Her reply:

"If something like this were to happen at my school, I want options." What is irrational about this?

Gun grabbers always make comments like "who/what are you so afraid of?" They're implying that anyone who feels the need to own guns must also feel as though they are under imminent threat from someone or something. It suggests that I am somehow living in a state of irrational fear, and may actually be irrational, or maybe even a little crazy, because in their minds, only people like Lanza and Alex Jones have guns.

I carry a lug wrench, jack, and a spare tire in my truck. I also carry an extra quart of engine oil and a spare ignition coil. Do they think I live in a state of irrational fear that I might get a flat tire, run low on oil, or need to swap a coil on the side of the road? Do they think these fears consume my every waking hour? Judging by the logic they use to make their gun grabber arguments, they must. It makes me wonder if they're not the ones who need a reality check.

The fact is, a gun is a tool much like a lug wrench or a jack. And UNDER THE RIGHT CIRCUMSTANCES it is a problem solver just like a spare tire, coil, or the extra quart of oil. I don't obsess over the possibility of a flat tire any more than I obsess over government tyranny, or a home invasion robbery. But I've got the tools to cover these situations should the need arise.

The Brits rounded up 99% of the guns about 15 years ago. They're very proud of this. Last year the Brits started putting people in jail for saying mean things on the internet. Less than 20 years after they disarmed their population, they've done away with freedom of speech.

Post: #160

(01-14-2013 02:19 PM)3agle 3yes Wrote:  

(01-13-2013 12:54 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  What do you mean by that?

He tried to make the 2nd amendment look stupid to Americans. Good luck with that...

Oh, I'll hand it to you. That was a bad move on his part.

Even worse, he floundered and resorted to name-calling when losing a rational argument. That doesn't work anywhere.

Quote:

(01-13-2013 12:54 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  Whether guns are illegal or not, they will still exist. Not to mention school massacres have occurred using other weapons. Sometimes homemade.

If guns were illegal they would be harder to get hold of, that's the point.

No, you just think they would. That's the point.

In America, there's a real tendency for people to ignore laws, especially with something they care about as deeply as the right to bear arms. We are an outlaw society. Every legal gun dealer I know can and will also sell me a “throw-away” gun if I want one. People can and will make guns. People can and will smuggle guns.

Look at what the drug war has done in America for an inkling of what a gun ban would do.

Perhaps a “dent” could be put in the available guns if they stormed into houses to round them up, but I assure you that would cause a Civil War.

Speaking of the drug war, look at guns in another violent country, Mexico, where the laws are very strict. Mexico City is the most dangerous in the world. They're not supposed to have guns there, but they do. And I'd add that many of the gangs in that country, who make that possible, exist here as well.

How about another violent society?

“Finally, and as if to prove the bumper sticker correct - that "gun don't kill people, people do" - the study also shows that Russia's murder rate is four times higher than the U.S. and more than 20 times higher than Norway. This, in a country that practically eradicated private gun ownership over the course of decades of totalitarian rule and police state methods of suppression. Needless to say, very few Russian murders involve guns.”
http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gu...roductive/

Violent countries are violent in spite of guns and not because of them. If I'm going to live in a violent country, I want the option to defend myself and my family.

You're basing arguments on what you feel rather than what is so.

Quote:As for school massacres having occurred using other weapons, give me an example of one? It takes a lot of effort to make a weapon yourself EVEN if it is easy, otherwise everyone would do this.

I'll give you two.

Homemade flame thrower. Before the Information Age. 10 dead.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cologne_school_massacre

Homemade bomb. Before the Information Age. 44 dead. 58 injured. Most deadly school attack in U.S. History.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Quote:

(01-13-2013 12:54 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  The problem is fear - you're right. Fear based on the false impression that school shootings are on the rise. Fear based on school shootings, which constitute less than 1% of homicides in America.

Really? If I'm correct the kids mother owned the guns. Why did she have those guns? To protect herself from a tyrannic government? I doubt she ever has or ever will use it.

Yes, she owned guns. Why she owned them means nothing to me. She was supposedly preparing for a doomsday (how convenient for this to be reported with no evidence), so I suppose either tyranny or self defense could have been her concern. Either way, she made a huge mistake not only failing to lock those guns up but actually teaching her violent, mentally ill kid to use them.

This says nothing to me about the overall issue.

Why base our talks on gun control on one incident that when added to all other incidents of gun attacks of its kind constitutes less than 1% of gun murders? It makes no sense. These massacres have always happened, will always happen, and are in fact happening less. The media is hyping you.

Let's talk about the real issues we all face rather than anomalies.

Quote:That's my point, she owned those guns to protect herself. Yet, apparently there's more crime in places around Europe than in America.

In areas of America where concealed carries are easy to get, there is less violent crime than anywhere in Europe.

What was your point again?

Quote:

(01-13-2013 12:54 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  Gun enthusiasts tend to be realists. Gun control advocates are the ones selling fear.

Oh, I just love this quote. So being armed in preparation for a future tyrannic government is being a realist?

Oh, this is rich. Look, mocking a valid point is not going to get you anywhere with me. It's a flaccid excuse for an argument and lacks substance. In the end, it discredits you more than your real arguments already have.

So, feel free to present why you think it's unrealistic but leave the child's play at home.

Quote:

(01-13-2013 12:54 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  Says who? You?

I live in a rough area where there are quite a few shootings. Do I need a gun to protect myself? No. Where I'm from the only people likely to get shot are those who themselves ALSO carry guns i.e. people in gangs.

Your first-person diagnosis of why you've never been attacked proves nothing. Are you saying every person who is a victim of murder, violent robbery, or rape is a criminal? Show me the facts.

Quote:

(01-13-2013 12:54 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  We don't support it to protect us from criminals. We support the 2nd amendment to provide "insurance" against government tyranny. As a European, you no doubt realize instances of tyrannical governments abound in history and are not a figment of the imagination...

Fine. Wait for WWIII, but in the mean time expect more massacres.

What does war have anything to do with it?

Quote:

(01-13-2013 12:54 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  It sure feels a lot safer than them having one while my government demands I go unarmed. Don't you feel safer when you at least have the choice to shoot back?

Those that shoot unarmed people are usually the deranged. People generally have ulterior reasons for being armed.

What's your point?

I don't care why someone shoots at me, should it ever happen. All I care is having the right to protect myself while the nation argues about mental health, keeping guns away form the mentally ill, and crime rates.

Quote:

(01-13-2013 12:54 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  Undoubtedly less than 1%. Which raises the question - why are gun control advocates so afraid of guns in the hands of us law-abiding citizens? As you pointed out, we're not all shooting at each other.

For the record, I'm not a gun control advocate (though some may think I am) and I'm open minded, but what fears me about the lack of gun control is my six year old daughter could being studying at school when all a sudden a lunatic storms down the halls with an AR-15 and starts shooting at anything that moves.

I'm sure everyone knows a mad person is someone to be avoided, but give them a gun? And you're asking for trouble.

For the record, you sure sound like one. If I had a dime for every person online that says that and then argues for a complete gun ban...

I feel sorry for your daughter that you'd rather not let her sane, responsible teacher teacher carry a pistol for the slim chance that ever did happen. Instead her teacher will be forced to throw her body between them to slow him down.

Great...

And don't tell me you don't know if you can trust her teacher with a gun. If you're leaving her with people you wouldn't trust having a gun around her, you really need to rethink you choices.

But the real question is why are you so irrationally afraid of something that is so unlikely to happen that you would argue for banning guns? It's ludicrous.

And no one is arguing to put guns in the hands of crazies. We have laws against that. Lanza's mom fucked up.

Quote:

(01-13-2013 12:54 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  He shot himself as soon as he saw a cop....when the armed cavalry arrived. In most cases, that's what these cowards do. Kill themselves when they face armed opposition. Hmmmm...

Maybe I'm ignorant but this makes no sense. He shot himself because he was afraid he would be...shot?

Maybe you are.

Whether it makes sense to you or me or not is irrelevant. It happened and always does in these situations, so there it is.

My thoughts, though also obviously only conjecture, are that they get hit by the reality of the situation and are too overwhelmed by the idea of real combat, flesh wounds, possibly guilt, and prison time to fight. So they end it.

You seem to have an issue with basing arguments on what makes sense to you or how you feel rather than what is happening in the real world.

Quote:

(01-13-2013 12:54 AM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  Larry Pratt is not arguing for arming the schools. He's arguing for allowing teachers who already want a concealed carry permit to go ahead and get one. He's arguing for an end to gun-free zones, where these massacres almost always happen. With permits allowed, Lanza wouldn't have known when people were packing and when they weren't because "concealing" something hides it from view.

Perhaps I am ignorant but the problem here seems to be that because most people have guns, people need more guns to combat the people who already have guns.

Yes. You you very well may be ignorant about this issue, and that's fine, but it's also pretentious to assume you know more about it than those who read the literature and then to come in here and tell us we're all missing the point.

Go read what's actually going on (on both sides) before presenting your short-sighted theories. Then we'll talk.

Quote:Oh well, according to some here the death of 20 children and probably more in the future is a small price to pay...when after all there's a tyrannic government that needs protection from.

Don't stand on their graves and use the emotions associated with their deaths to prove an invalid point. You sound like Piers Morgan with that rhetoric.

If you want to play that game, I could just as easily say people like you don't care because you advocate making gun free zones (where all these attacks happen because people are sitting ducks) and not allowing teachers who want to protect themselves against massacres to do so. “How dare you allow innocent children to go unprotected in massacres?”

Let's talk issues. It's not about their deaths being exchangeable to begin with. These are less than 1% of gun deaths in America. The rest are happening on our streets and in our homes. The rest often happen with illegal guns and often by criminals who'll continue having them.

Should we care about this other 99%+ of murder victims less because it wasn't splashed across the news? Oh yeah, we'd be far better people then...Let's just throw out that concern and focus on this one incident...

Stop using fear and emotion to make irrational points.

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Rudyard Kipling

Post: #161

(01-14-2013 03:31 PM)Teedub Wrote:  No need for assault weapons to be honest, unless they really would hold off a dystopian government takeover. If the US gov really wanted to take over the citizens, they've got tanks, fighter jets etc.

I hear this argument a lot. I find it debatable as a valid point for several reasons:

1) We have a volunteer, civilian army. Many would side with the people, bringing their skills with them.
2) Declaring all-out war against the American public would cause worldwide outrage (against a gov. everyone hates already) and put our leaders in spotlight they don't want.
3) Just because they could win doesn't mean they want the fight. For now, the arms are a legitimate deterrent.
4) Would you rather hand over all guns because you think defeat would be imminent or at least have a fighting chance?
5) Don't ever underestimate guerilla warfare. Look at Vietnam. Look at Afghanistan. Even with the toys, these things are never clear-cut.

I don't want to go too far down this rabbit hole and argue the full implications, but for now let's recognize it's very well debatable, even if you don't agree with it.

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Rudyard Kipling

Post: #162

(01-14-2013 05:06 PM)Beyond Borders Wrote:  

(01-14-2013 03:31 PM)Teedub Wrote:  No need for assault weapons to be honest, unless they really would hold off a dystopian government takeover. If the US gov really wanted to take over the citizens, they've got tanks, fighter jets etc.

I hear this argument a lot. I find it debatable as a valid point for several reasons:

1) We have a volunteer, civilian army. Many would side with the people, bringing their skills with them.
2) Declaring all-out war against the American public would cause worldwide outrage (against a gov. everyone hates already) and put our leaders in spotlight they don't want.
3) Just because they could win doesn't mean they want the fight. For now, the arms are a legitimate deterrent.
4) Would you rather hand over all guns because you think defeat would be imminent or at least have a fighting chance?
5) Don't ever underestimate geurilla warfare. Look at Vietnam. Look at Afghanistan. Even with the toys, these things are never clear-cut.

Don't forget americans have 50 cals and can build IEDs. I don't think a tank would be much of a deterrent.

Post: #163

(01-14-2013 03:31 PM)Teedub Wrote:  No need for assault weapons to be honest, unless they really would hold off a dystopian government takeover. If the US gov really wanted to take over the citizens, they've got tanks, fighter jets etc.

And ummmm....Who is gonna operate those tanks and fighter jets? We're a long way off from the military turning on their fathers and brothers. The gov is taking steps, but it is still a ways off.

Post: #164

It's interesting that Mexico's gun controls popped up in this discussion. A recent report showed that as many as three out of four weapons used in crimes in Mexico were sold in American cities bordering Mexico, so lax American gun laws don't just affect Americans.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/mexican-cr...d=11574583

Post: #165

(01-14-2013 04:32 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  I carry a lug wrench, jack, and a spare tire in my truck. I also carry an extra quart of engine oil and a spare ignition coil. Do they think I live in a state of irrational fear that I might get a flat tire, run low on oil, or need to swap a coil on the side of the road? Do they think these fears consume my every waking hour? Judging by the logic they use to make their gun grabber arguments, they must. It makes me wonder if they're not the ones who need a reality check.

Do you carry all that crap in your porsche (i'm assuming you have one) too? I have none of that in mine, and I've never had a flat tire, run out of oil, or anything like that in it. Not saying that I'm immune to a flat tire, but if I get one, a call to AAA will solve that problem.

To complete your analogy, my preference is to let others, whether it be AAA or the police, do the dirty work. That's why I've fired guns only a few times in my life, and that's probably the same amount of times I've had my hands on a flat tire. And I would be perfectly happy if I never have to touch either of them again.

Post: #166

You want to fight gangbangers in nightclubs, but at the same time, you're too dainty to get your hands dirty?

Yes I've got a Porsche. I only carry a quart of oil and a quart of trans fluid in it. I don't drive it much.

Post: #167

(01-14-2013 08:31 PM)Jalouse Wrote:  It's interesting that Mexico's gun controls popped up in this discussion. A recent report showed that as many as three out of four weapons used in crimes in Mexico were sold in American cities bordering Mexico, so lax American gun laws don't just affect Americans.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/mexican-cr...d=11574583

Does that have anything to do with operation Fast and Furious ?

Post: #168

No assault rifles used by Lanza?

http://video.today.msnbc.msn.com/today/5...5#50208495

Emphasis mine:

"So they finally had to come out and admit it, now that the Coroner has released some info along with police.

An AR-15, or the so-called "Assault Weapon", was not used in the school shooting. The shooter even tried weeks earlier to buy a rifle but was turned down in the background check. So he had to kill his Mother to steal her rifle. There were initial reports, right after the shooting, that police found the AR-15 in his car, NOT IN THE SCHOOL. The rifle was not used. The shooter went into the school with 4 handguns, NOT an Assault Rifle as the media has charged. I remember in the initial hours of this shooting, the Police said they found the rifle in the car. But the Administration-controlled MSM had a pre-planned attack already waiting, to ban so-called assault weapons and jumped on that line of reporting, knowing it was a lie, which included people like Piers Morgan who said the shooter used an AR-15 that shoots hundreds of rounds per minute, as if it were a machine gun. Could it be that the Democrat Liberals and THEIR MEDIA were pushing for the new law, hoping they could do it, before the Coroner released the info? Absolutely."

(01-14-2013 08:31 PM)Jalouse Wrote:  It's interesting that Mexico's gun controls popped up in this discussion. A recent report showed that as many as three out of four weapons used in crimes in Mexico were sold in American cities bordering Mexico, so lax American gun laws don't just affect Americans.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/mexican-cr...d=11574583

Since I'm in here, might as well respond to this as I never took the time when you posted it.

I understand you implication, but in my own opinion, the problem in Mexico has FAR more to do with drugs being illegal in America than it does with guns being legal. If anything, it's a frightening example of what happens when the government declares "war" on something the people feel they have an inalienable right to and should serve as a stark warning to the gun control crowd.

On top of that, anyone who believes taking guns away from the caliber of gangsters doing the murdering in Mexico will stop them from killing people lives on another planet. Again, have a look at Russia for how that plays out...

Furthermore, anyone who thinks the likes of the Mexican Mafia and MS13 wouldn't find another source of guns than the States if that stream dried up also lives on another planet. These are truths conveniently ignored in all those documentaries about the murder epidemic in Mexico City.

All a U.S. gun ban would do is lead to rises in black market gun sales and gun prices in the U.S. markets, making the Mexican gangs the sellers instead of the buyers and put a whole new industry straight in their pockets, making them more powerful and dangerous than ever. Basic black market economics.

Better handling of gun sales could help curb the issue a little as it is now, but they'll always find a source of guns. For now, we're simply the cheapest, easiest supplier. To really put a dent in their violence, we need to put an end to this bullshit drug prohibition and thus shrink their money supply - not create MORE business opportunities for them!

By the way, implicating America's lax gun laws in Mexico's crime problem raises the question of why a similar effect isn't seen in Canada, the other bordering country... Methinks it goes back to this yet again:

"Violent societies are not violent because of guns. They're violent in spite of them."
http://theacru.org/acru/harvard_study_gu...roductive/

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Rudyard Kipling

Post: #169

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/04...-Amendment

"Why liberals should love the Second Amendment" by Kaili Joy Gray

Quote:Liberals love the Constitution.

Ask anyone on the street. They'll tell you the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is a liberal organization. During the dark days of the Bush Administration, membership doubled because so many Americans feared increasing restrictions on their civil liberties. If you were to ask liberals to list their top five complaints about the Bush Administration, and they would invariably say the words "shredding" and "Constitution" in the same sentence. They might also add "Fourth Amendment" and "due process." It's possible they'll talk about "free speech zones" and "habeus corpus."

There's a good chance they will mention, probably in combination with several FCC-prohibited adjectives, former Attorney Generals John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales.

And while liberals certainly do not argue for lawlessness, and will acknowledge the necessity of certain restrictions, it is generally understood that liberals fight to broadly interpret and expand our rights and to question the necessity and wisdom of any restrictions of them.

Liberals can quote legal precedent, news reports, and exhaustive studies. They can talk about the intentions of the Founders. They can argue at length against the tyranny of the government. And they will, almost without exception, conclude the necessity of respecting, and not restricting, civil liberties.

Except for one: the right to keep and bear arms.

When it comes to discussing the Second Amendment, liberals check rational thought at the door. They dismiss approximately 40% of American households that own one or more guns, and those who fight to protect the Second Amendment, as "gun nuts." They argue for greater restrictions. And they pursue these policies at the risk of alienating voters who might otherwise vote for Democrats.

And they do so in a way that is wholly inconsistent with their approach to all of our other civil liberties.

Those who fight against Second Amendment rights cite statistics about gun violence, as if such numbers are evidence enough that our rights should be restricted. But Chicago and Washington DC, the two cities from which came the most recent Supreme Court decisions on Second Amendment rights, had some of the most restrictive laws in the nation, and also some of the highest rates of violent crime. Clearly, such restrictions do not correlate with preventing crime.

So rather than continuing to fight for greater restrictions on Second Amendment rights, it is time for liberals to defend Second Amendment rights as vigorously as they fight to protect all of our other rights. Because it is by fighting to protect each right that we protect all rights.

And this is why:

(Reasons below the fold)

No. 1: The Bill of Rights protects individual rights.

If you've read the Bill of Rights -- and who among us hasn't? -- you will notice a phrase that appears in nearly all of them: "the people."

First Amendment:

...the right of the people peaceably to assemble

Second Amendment:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Fourth Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects...

Ninth Amendment:

...shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people

Tenth Amendment:

...are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Certainly, no good liberal would argue that any of these rights are collective rights, and not individual rights. We believe that the First Amendment is an individual right to criticize our government.

We would not condone a state-regulated news organization. We certainly would not condone state regulation of religion. We talk about "separation of church and state," although there is no mention of "separation of church and state" in the First Amendment.

But we know what they meant. The anti-Federalists refused to ratify the Constitution without a Bill of Rights; they intended for our rights to be interpreted expansively.

We believe the Founders intended for us to be able to say damn near anything we want, protest damn near anything we want, print damn near anything we want, and believe damn near anything we want. Individually, without the interference or regulation of government.

And yet, despite the recent Heller and McDonald decisions, liberals stumble at the idea of the Second Amendment as an individual right. They take the position that the Founders intended an entirely different meaning by the phrase "the right of the people" in the Second Amendment, even though they are so positively clear about what that phrase means in the First Amendment.

If we can agree that the First Amendment protects not only powerful organizations such as the New York Times or MSNBC, but also the individual commenter on the internet, the individual at the anti-war rally, the individual driving the car with the "Fuck Bush" bumper sticker, can we not also agree that the Second Amendment's use of "the people" has the same meaning?

But it's different! The Second Amendment is talking about the militia! If you want to "bear arms," join the National Guard!

Right?

Wrong.

The United States Militia Code:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Aside from the fact that the National Guard did not exist in the 1700s, the term "militia" does not mean "National Guard," even today. The code clearly states that two classes comprise the militia: the National Guard and Naval Militia, and everyone else.

Everyone else. Individuals. The People.

The Founders well understood that the militia is the people, for it was not only the right but the obligation of all citizens to protect and preserve their liberty and to defend themselves from the tyranny of the government.

And fighting against the tyranny of the government is certainly a liberal value.

No. 2: We oppose restrictions to our civil liberties.

All of our rights, even the ones enumerated in the Bill of Rights, are restricted. You can't shout "Fire!" in a crowd. You can't threaten to kill the president. You can't publish someone else's words as your own. We have copyright laws and libel laws and slander laws. We have the FCC to regulate our radio and television content. We have plenty of restrictions on our First Amendment rights.

But we don't like them. We fight them. Any card-carrying member of the ACLU will tell you that while we might agree that certain restrictions are reasonable, we keep a close eye whenever anyone in government gets an itch to pass a new law that restricts our First Amendment rights. Or our Fourth. Or our Fifth, Sixth, or Eighth.

We complain about free speech zones. The whole country is supposed to be a free speech zone, after all. It says so right in the First Amendment.

But when it comes further restrictions on the manufacture, sale, or possession of firearms, liberals are not even silent; they are vociferously in favor of such restrictions.

Suddenly, overly broad restrictions are "reasonable." The Chicago and Washington D.C. bans on handguns -- all handguns -- is reasonable, even though the Supreme Court has now said otherwise.

Would we tolerate such a sweeping regulation of, say, the Thirteenth Amendment?

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

What if a member of Congress -- say, a Republican from a red state in the south -- were to introduce a bill that permits enslaving black women? Would we consider that reasonable? It's not like the law would enslave all people, or even all black people. Just the women. There's no mention of enslaving women in the Thirteenth Amendment. Clearly, when Lincoln wanted to free the slaves, he didn't intend to free all the slaves. And we restrict all the other Amendments, so obviously the Thirteenth Amendment is not supposed to be absolute. What's the big deal?

Except that such an argument is ridiculous, of course. Liberals would take to the streets, send angry letters to their representatives in Washington, organize marches, call progressive radio programs to quote, verbatim, the Thirteenth Amendment. Quite bluntly, although not literally, liberals would be up in arms.

And yet...A ban on all handguns seems reasonable to many liberals. Never mind that of 192 million firearms in America, 65 million -- about one third -- are handguns.

Such a narrow interpretation of this particular right is inconsistent with the otherwise broad interpretation of the Bill of Rights. And just as conservatives weaken their own arguments about protecting the Second Amendment when they will not fight as vigilantly for protecting all the others, so too do liberals weaken their arguments for civil liberties, when they pick and choose which civil liberties they deem worthy of defense.

No. 3: It doesn't matter that it's not 1776 anymore.

When the Founders drafted the Bill of Rights, they could not have imagined machine guns. Or armor-piercing bullets (which are not available to the public anyway, and are actually less lethal than conventional ammunition). Or handguns that hold 18 rounds. A drive-by shooting, back in 1776, would have been a guy on a horse with a musket.

Of course, they couldn't have imagined the internet, either. Or 24-hour cable news networks. Or talk radio. When they drafted the First Amendment, did they really mean to protect the rights of Bill O'Reilly to make incredibly stupid, and frequently inaccurate, statements for an entire hour, five nights a week?

Actually, yes. They did. Bill O'Reilly bilious ravings, and Keith Olbermann's Special Comments, and the insipid chatter of the entire cast of the Today show are, and were intended to be, protected by the First Amendment.

Liberals are supposed to understand that just because we don't agree with something doesn't mean it is not protected. At least when it comes to the First Amendment. And one's personal dislike of guns should be no better a reason for fighting against the Second Amendment than should one's personal dislike of Bill O'Reilly justify fighting against the First Amendment.

And yet, when discussing the Second Amendment, liberals become obtuse in their literalism. The Second Amendment does not protect the right to own all guns. Or all ammunition. It doesn't protect the right of the people as individuals.

Liberals will defend the right of Cindy Sheehan to wear an anti-war T-shirt, even though the First Amendment says nothing about T-shirts.

They will defend the rights of alleged terrorists to a public trial, even though the Founders certainly could not have imagined a world in which terrorists would plot to blow up building with airplanes.

But we do not quibble about the methods by which we practice our First Amendment rights because methodology is not the point. Red herring arguments about types of ammunition or magazine capacity or handguns versus rifles are just that -- red herrings. They distract us from the underlying purpose of that right -- to ensure a free society that can hold its government accountable. The Second Amendment is no more about guns than the First Amendment is about quill pens.

No. 4: It doesn't matter if you can use it.

Fine, you say. Have your big, scary guns. It's not like you actually stand a chance in fighting against the United States government. The Army has bigger, badder weapons than any private citizen. Your most deadly gun is no match for their tanks, their helicopters, their atom bombs. Maybe two hundred years ago, citizens stood a chance in a fight against government, but not today. The Second Amendment is obsolete.

Tell that to the Iraqi "insurgents" who are putting up a pretty good fight against our military might with fairly primitive weapons.

The Second Amendment is obsolete?

What other rights might be considered obsolete in today's day and age?

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

When was the last time a soldier showed up at your door and said, "I'll be staying with you for the indefinite future"?

It's probably been a while. But of course, were it to happen, you'd dust off your Third Amendment and say, "I don't think so, pal."

And you'd be right.

What about the Twenty-Sixth Amendment? How much use does that get?

The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

We all know the youth vote is typically pretty abysmal. Those lazy kids can barely get out of bed before noon, let alone get themselves to the voting booth. If they're not going to use their Twenty-Sixth Amendment rights, shouldn't we just delete the damn thing altogether?

Hell no. And this is why liberals work so hard to get out and rock the vote -- to encourage citizens to exercise their rights. That is our obligation as citizens, to protect against the government infringing upon our rights by making full use of them.

And yet, when it comes to the Second Amendment, liberals do not fight to protect that right. Instead them demand more laws. Regulate, regulate, regulate -- until the Second Amendment is nearly regulated out of existence because no one needs to have a gun anyway.

And that, sadly, is the biggest mistake of all.

No. 5: The Second Amendment is about revolution.

In no other country, at no other time, has such a right existed. It is not the right to hunt. It is not the right to shoot at soda cans in an empty field. It is not even the right to shoot at a home invader in the middle of the night.

It is the right of revolution.

Let me say that again: It is the right of revolution.

Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government.

To alter or abolish the government. These are not mild words; they are powerful. They are revolutionary.

The Founders might never have imagined automatic weapons. But they probably also never imagined a total ban on handguns either.

We talk about the First Amendment as a unique and revolutionary concept -- that we have the right to criticize our government. Does it matter whether we do so while standing on a soapbox on the corner of the street or on a blog? No. Because the concept, not the methodology, is what matters.

And the Second Amendment is no different. It is not about how much ammunition is "excessive" or what types of guns are and are not permissible. Liberals cling to such minutia at the expense of understanding and appreciating the larger concept that underlies this right.

So.

What is the point? Is this a rallying cry for liberals to rush right out and purchase a gun? Absolutely not. Guns are dangerous when used by people who are not trained to use them, just as cars are dangerous when driven by people who have not been taught how to drive.

No, this is a rallying cry for the Bill of Rights -- for all of our rights.

This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "I just don't like guns."

This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "No one needs that much ammunition."

This is an appeal to every liberal who says, "That's not what the Founders meant."

This is an appeal to every liberal who supports the ACLU.

This is an appeal to every liberal who has complained about the Bush Administration's trading of our civil liberties for the illusion of greater security. (I believe I’ve seen a T-shirt or two about Benjamin Franklin’s thoughts on that.)

This is an appeal to every liberal who believes in fighting against the abuses of government, against the infringement of our civil liberties, and for the greater expansion of our rights.

This is an appeal to every liberal who never wants to lose another election to Republicans because they have successfully persuaded the voters that Democrats will not protect their Second Amendment rights.

This is an appeal to liberals, not merely to tolerate the Second Amendment, but to embrace it. To love it and defend it and guard it as carefully as you do all the others.

Because we are liberals. And fighting for our rights -- for all of our rights, for all people -- is what we do.

Because we are revolutionaries.

"The individual has always had to struggle to keep from being overwhelmed by the tribe. To be your own man is a hard business. If you try it, you'll be lonely often, and sometimes frightened. But no price is too high to pay for the privilege of owning yourself." - Rudyard Kipling