text:
The DnD Sanctuary
General => DnD Central => Topic started by: SmileyFaze on 2014-01-05, 19:50:32
Question: Should Ordinary Citizens be allowed to own, carry, & use Firearms to defend their own lives, & the lives of their family & friends?
Option 1: Absolutely Yes!
Option 2: I thinks so.
Option 3: I don't think so.
Option 4: Definitely No!
Option 5: My name isn't String, so let me have a icy cold beer so I can ponder the options...
Title: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?
Post by: SmileyFaze on 2014-01-05, 19:50:32
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states:
"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."
Do you know the history (http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html) behind those words?
Should Ordinary Citizens be allowed to own, carry, & use Firearms to defend their own lives, & the lives of their family & friends?
Was the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution created to just protect a Citizen's right to target shoot & hunt, or was it created so that all Citizens could defend their Right to be free from a Tyrannical & Abusive Government --- along with having the ability to target/sport shoot & hunt as simply an added bonus -- merely a by product?
Can Governments legislate 'Gun Control' effective enough to completely protect their Citizens from deranged shooters & criminals, hell bent on killing the innocent & disobeying all law?
If not, do Ordinary Citizens have a 'Natural Right' to self-defend -- to protect their own lives, & the lives of their loved ones?
Will American Citizens, or any citizens of any country for that matter, be safer & better off if only the Government & Law Enforcement had Firearms? Does recent History (within the past 100 years or so) show this to be fact?
What do you think, & most importantly ---- why? (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/imthinkin6.gif)
This thread was created as a continuation of a thread in the old MyOpera Forum (http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=1257282&t=1388953619&page=1#comment11359942), which will be closing March 1st., 2014
Title: Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens be allowed to Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?
Quote from: string
These new teaching methods. In my day it used to be detention, now it's learn or die.
Better yet, learn & survive.
In a gunfight, bring a gun......it's more effective than flesh & bone.
Know full well that the crazies won't be playing by the rules, & will be armed to the teeth --- intent on killing all your children.
So, when push comes to shove, which would defend them better ---- a fully trained teacher, or security agent, carrying & ready to use a firearm to defend them, or a brave teacher or other adult who is willing to throw their flesh & bone body between your kids & the raging bullets of the crazy, unopposed shooter?
Give me a good guy with a gun anyday.
The Crazies are cowards anyway, that's why they almost always choose "Gun Free Zones" (schools, theaters, sporting venues, etc... where guns are forbidden--except those carried by crazies because they never obey the law). Crazies are cowards, & if they knew that armed resistance to thier plot was in the cards, they'd either look for a more opportunistic target , or give up on their plans all together.
If they didn't know there were trained shooters armed to resist them when they got there, when they see that they are being opposed by trained shooters, mindset on killing them, they'd probably turn tail, & run off like the cowards they are ---It happens every day! (https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm)
The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is with a good guy with a gun.
Legislation will never stop a crazy bad guy.
Bad guys never play by the rules, & they never ever obey the law.
So, learn, learn to survive.
Post by: ersi on 2014-01-06, 06:15:31
Quote from: SmileyFaze on 2014-01-05, 20:23:48
The Crazies are cowards anyway,...
Wrong. The most sure thing you can say about the crazies is that they are crazy. Everything else is arguable and varies. And even craziness may not be detected early enough, because pretty much everyone is crazy these days, including the psychiatrists.
Post by: Sanguinemoon on 2014-01-06, 08:20:09
Wrong. The most sure thing you can say about the crazies is that they are crazy.
And they go to those places not because it's "gun free," but because that where people congregate. If somebody's that insane, the thought another person might be armed might not even cross their deranged brain. Everybody knows that gun control will not be 100% effective, the object is to reduce the number of criminals and lunatics from getting guns.
What SF is also not considering is that the insane mass shooters often want to die. They create the situation knowing full well they won't survive. I guess he never heard of "suicide by cop" , either.
Any society where access to guns is not regulated at least on the level of drivers licenses is insane.
Post by: Jimbro3738 on 2014-01-06, 13:20:24
Adam Lanza of Sandy Hook Elementary fame was an ordinary citizen. And he had a gun which he used to kill 26 people. :'(
Of course ordinary people should be allowed to own a gun. They're allowed for hunting in England where over a ten year period three people were shot, five less than were killed in my hometown last year. Damned English!
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Faudio%2Fvideo%2F2012%2F12%2F18%2F1355853302760%2FNewtown-gunman-Adam-Lanza-001.jpg&hash=8653ab0b9bd472cd87d9af1e940c4521" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/audio/video/2012/12/18/1355853302760/Newtown-gunman-Adam-Lanza-001.jpg)
Post by: string on 2014-01-06, 13:57:11
The Poll is somewhat dysfunctional because it uses a heavily loaded question. With that in mind I would have voted for a beer but unfortunately that option requires me to continue pondering the basic insanity which is that everyone lives in a place where a lack of firearm regulation has apparently allowed gangs dripping with armament to flourish.
I think you'll find some answers in this article and the report to which it refers:
High gun ownership makes countries less safe, US study finds (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/18/gun-ownership-gun-deaths-study)
Guns do not make a nation safer, say US doctors who have compared the rate of firearms-related deaths in countries where many people own guns with the death rate in countries where gun ownership is rare.[/quote]
It's like this . . . If you ensure that everyone has a telephone then the number of telephone calls will increase, if you ensure that everyone has drugs then drug use will go up, if thou let everyone have guns then ...... well it's obvious is it not!
Post by: myminpins on 2014-01-06, 20:13:49
Quote from: string on 2014-01-06, 17:40:43
Post by: mjmsprt40 on 2014-01-06, 20:37:40
Er-- ahhhh--- If you could see some of the stuff I see, you'd wonder how some of these folk-- including "professional" truck drivers-- ever got drivers licenses. When you get passed on a snow and black-ice covered road by an 18-wheeler who is trying to do the posted speed when maintaining forward motion is driving too fast for conditions, you just know that they're giving out driver's licenses a little too easily. Frightening thought: that driver may be licensed to be able to conceal-carry as well.
Quote from: mjmsprt40 on 2014-01-06, 20:37:40
Please don't tar all truck drivers with the same brush. My husband drives truck and NEVER drives too fast for conditions - it's insane to do so with an 18 wheeler and those who do earn scorn and disgust from good truck drivers as well. If the weather is really poor, he won't drive at all. Period. Some truck drivers are exemplary and deserve respect - same with some car drivers.
Blame the schools who give those poor drivers truck driving licenses. There used to be one here who gave out truck driving licenses to drivers who could NOT back up with a 53 foot trailer in tow. It is now, thankfully, out of business due to complaints.
And, would you submit that legislation (laws) will stop the insane & hard core (gangs dripping with firearms) criminals from procuring & using firearms in commission of their crimes?
Wouldn't the only answer then possibly be (if you actually think it could be done) an outright ban on all firearms?
Will the criminals & insane honor your total ban?
Haven't you forgotten that there are millions upon millions of legal, honest, law abiding firearm owners (more firearms owners here than you have people) that never have, nor ever will break the law & use their firearms in the commission of any crime.
The only people that will honor most all gun control regulations are these honest & law abiding firearm owners.
The insane, & the hard core criminals will laugh their asses off at any regulations knowing that all you'll be accomplishing is (that is if any government on the planet could ever confiscate our firearms in the first place (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/cleanteeth09.gif)) is disarming the opposition, making their career path much easier to follow.
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/pissonguncontrol.png)
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FmzS0Qva.jpg&hash=e35e8f3d6b89b5277e455415ab724023" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/mzS0Qva.jpg) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/guns4.gif)
Quote from: myminpins on 2014-01-06, 20:13:49
Guns do not make a nation safer, say US doctors who have compared the rate of firearms-related deaths in countries where many people own guns with the death rate in countries where gun ownership is rare.
Comparing statistics in other countries does not prove anything. All it verifies is that the American Gun Culture is quite unique, & American Gun owners can not be compared to European, or Asian, or Australian, or African gun owners & or their respective societies.
May I say firstly, argue as you may, there is one constant you are forgetting to employ --- one variable you seem to never admit to or include in your Gun Control Crusades.
The American Gun Owners....the legitimate ones.....will never, ever allow their firearms to be confiscated, nor will they ever consider turning their firearms over to law enforcement because someone somewhere passed a law saying that they must.
American Gun Owners will fight any such Unconstitutional actions more violently than anything the world has ever seen.
Matter in fact, I firmly believe the very moment any such law is passed, American Gun Owners will band together by the millions to violently overthrow any government so ignorant to believe that passing any law, or any gradual groups of systematic laws, would ever be obeyed or supported by the American People.
It would surely be Armageddon!
There isn't a standing army on earth that outnumbers us, & furthermore, amongst the American troops & law enforcement community, we include in our ranks many of the ranking leaders & rank in file members --- far more than half would never fire upon American Citizen regardless of where the orders come!
Now, back to responding more directly to the above quote(s).
Quote from: Harvard Publication On Gun Laws
...."International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths. Unfortunately, such discussions [have] all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative," ..........
...the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world......
Quote from: The Boston Magazine
In the 46-page study........... Kates and Mauser looked at and compared data from the U.S. and parts of Europe to show that stricter laws don't mean there is less crime......
The Boston Magazine (http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/blog/2013/8/30/harvard-gun-study-no-decrease-in-violence-with-ban/)
The 46 Page Harvard Law School Study PDF (http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf)
American Statistics:
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.prisonplanet.com%2Fp%2Fimages%2Fjanuary2013%2F070113graph1.JPG&hash=eaaf3d59e3ac1391c0da4670251c3fe1" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://static.prisonplanet.com/p/images/january2013/070113graph1.JPG)
Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports.
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.prisonplanet.com%2Fp%2Fimages%2Fjanuary2013%2F070113graph2.gif&hash=612aa51cd0709a03a87fb8e845941a7b" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://static.prisonplanet.com/p/images/january2013/070113graph2.gif)
Source: The US Department of Justice
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.prisonplanet.com%2Fp%2Fimages%2Fjanuary2013%2F070113graph4.JPG&hash=bb0b0bead165d6b5a2d229fd94439dcc" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://static.prisonplanet.com/p/images/january2013/070113graph4.JPG)
For those living in countries where semi-automatics are frowned upon,
or pump-action shotguns are none to welcome
-- in England (Great Britain) & Australia for example --
try one of these beauties on for size (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/guns4.gif)
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FhTa296R.jpg&hash=d6d727f37159b61f9aa410fc93a42b6b" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/hTa296R.jpg)
The Chiappa Triple Crown Shotgun - Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQy-1_P8mqE)
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FDP5dV1Z.jpg&hash=51033202b9f094f7a0edc0ddd822b5f6" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/DP5dV1Z.jpg)
The Chiappa 1887 Lever Action Shotgun - Video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKBVETMNjxI)
Chicago gun sale ban unconstitutional, judge rules
Quote from: Fox News
A federal judge on Monday overturned Chicago's ban on the sale and transfer of firearms, ruling that the city's ordinances aimed at reducing gun violence are unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang said in his ruling that while the government has a duty to protect its citizens, it's also obligated to protect constitutional rights, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense..........
National Rifle Association lobbyist Todd Vandermyde applauded Chang's decision, saying the fact a federal judge appointed by President Barack Obama "ruled in favor of the Second Amendment, shows how out of step and outrageous Chicago's ordinances really are." .........Continued
Read it all here (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/06/chicago-gun-sale-ban-unconstitutional-judge-rules/)
BTW ........... Chicago still has a bans on imaginary assault style weapons, & those lawsuits are yet to be ruled on, but the NRA & the pro-gun lobby are cautiously optimistic that they will be overturned as well.
What do you "Gun Grabbers" think about that wonderful news?
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/pissonguncontrol.png)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/guns4.gif)
Quote from: Sanguinemoon
...... they go to those places not because it's "gun free," but because that where people congregate. If somebody's that insane, the thought another person might be armed might not even cross their deranged brain.
.........What SF is also not considering is that the insane mass shooters often want to die. They create the situation knowing full well they won't survive. I guess he never heard of "suicide by cop" , either.
Being you have such an incredible insight into the mind of the insane mass shooter, just one little immaterial question if I may ....... How many of your bravely insane mass shooters -- the shooters you know oh so well -- how many ever chose a shooting range to do his/their deadly deeds in? I hear people congregate there too.
So, 'Cooney, how many? Inquisitive minds want to know. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/exitstageright.gif)
Tic....toc......tic.....toc....Tic....toc......tic.....toc....Tic....toc......tic.....toc........ (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FAwypHxp.gif&hash=ac2a62e1065108e2901864fb2105d47f" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/AwypHxp.gif) <whisper>.......................none, not one -- ever
I say that's because they're yellow bellied cowards who almost always choose "Gun Free Zones" because before they take their own cowardly sick lives, they want the least possibility of being stopped or interrupted before they complete their murderous rampages.
Where better to guarantee the least possibility of any armed resistance while committing their heinous crimes..................
Why "Gun Free Zones", but of course, where all the little children, the teachers, & the horrified weaponless people they mercilessly slaughter have for their defense is their soft tissue & bone -- maybe a book or two!
How brave are your poor misunderstood, insane mass shooters again 'Cooney?
How would any of know what the gun grabbers think?
If one is committing suicide, it doesn't mean he's brave in the face of death. It means mental illness or series of incidents has driven them to that point. I guess I have to repeat to you that the mass shootings are often killer's suicide.
the shooters you know oh so well -- how many ever chose a shooting range to do his/their deadly deeds in?
Often they go to places that are meaningful to them. Why open fire at a Batman movie wearing a Joker outfit? Because the killer identified with Joker. You're trying to approach this as if mass shooters are rational, socially adjusted individuals. They're not. The "Gun Free Zones" are an attempt to reduce crime and violence by more sane people. Take down that "Gun Free" sign and I guarantee most of the mass shooters will still go to the same places because 1) If they're suicidal they know the police will arrive shortly to gun them down and 2) Again, the go after places and people that are meaningful for them in a positive or negative way. The teenage mass killers would have had to go the gun range previously and likely would have had to bullied there. They wouldn't have been allowed in because of their age without their parents for that to have happened. Have you really forgotten that the school shooters are minors (average age, 16)
Post by: Belfrager on 2014-01-07, 09:38:01
In consequence of the vile attack that Southern European countries are suffering, my position, contrarily to what I defended at the D&D version of this same thread, is that all citizens have the right to be armed.
Probably, more than a right, it's a duty. These are not times of peace.
Quote from: Sanguinemoon on 2014-01-07, 19:23:32
"Gun Free Zones" kill innocent people.....they are just as much to blame for the death & carnage as the killers that pull their murderous triggers in them.
"Gun Free Zones" are the worst damn piece of errant legislation the ignorant could have ever devised.
Calling it Retarded legislation would be an insult to the retarded.
"Gun Free Zones" will never save anyone, on the contrary they will, as long as they exist, they will provide a safe haven for every murderous criminal -- insane or not -- until they are all removed from the homeland of sane, responsible, people.
The legislation that created them will forever be known as the bastard result of a bad crack smokers horror nightmare, except innocent people get to experience the nightmare over & over each time there is a mass shooting, & the crack smoking liberals will continue to pontificate on how we need more of the same.
Your response to my post, though I do believe you honestly do believe in what you say, is the biggest ration of bullshit I have ever read in my long life, & probably the biggest load of bullshit anyone could have ever offered up. If I could prove it....after reading it over & over, I could swear it were written by someone quite high....either on drugs or booze.
Time to get off that psycho-spasmodic carousel your on there sonny boy, & join the sober thinking & sane real world.
No harm....no foul. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/aww its ok.gif)
Except for every word you attempted to regurgitate from your leftist handbook, you heart seems pure to a fallible, dead end conviction ---- consistently pure.
Quote from: Belfrager on 2014-01-07, 21:38:01
Well said brother, well said & spot on! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/cheerskj4.gif)
We could disagree on other subjects from time to time, but on this you hit all the right notes, & precisely on target! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/hatsoff.gif)
I see such drivers often enough. Also, I see them ticketed often enough. It would be less frightening if you knew gun licenses are not as easy to obtain as drivers licenses and punishments for the violations are prompt.
I see some of both to be sure. The truck-stops and rest areas fill up in bad weather with drivers who have concluded that it is insane to drive when the roads are icy, and on the flip side I've seen the writings of those who think that because they weigh 80K and have five axles the laws of physics don't apply to them. You usually see them later, in the ditch on their sides after having proven that the laws of physics do, indeed apply to them the same as to everyone else. Once those tires break traction with the road, it doesn't matter how much you weigh or how many axles you have. You're not driving any more at that point, you're just along for the ride.
Back on thread: I wondered if Smiley was gonna pick up on what the judge said about Chicago's gun laws. Seems that restrictive laws are failing the "Constitution Test" right and left lately.
Back on thread: I wondered if Smiley was gonna pick up on what the judge said about Chicago's gun laws........
Well, I have my own views on just about everything gun related, but this judge seemed to address the fundamental interpretations of the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution quite squarely & favorably to all of Chicago's Citizens.
What I will say is that the Judge basically said that all of Chicago's Citizens have a fundamental Constitutional Right to keep & bare arms, & Chicago's excuse/reasoning posed as rational in making legitimate firearm sales, purchases, & ownership extremely difficult, if not impossible to it's Citizens, are invalid in total as argued, & therefore Chicago's Firearm Laws being contested before him are declared Unconstitutional.
Quote from: The NRA
"Today's ruling is a vindication of the constitutional freedoms of Chicago's law-abiding citizens," said Chris W. Cox, Executive Director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action in a released statement. "Chicago's continued refusal to follow the U.S. Supreme Court's clear directive in its landmark ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago (http://tinyurl.com/n3hbqme) is unacceptable, and the NRA will continue to challenge the city until it fully respects the right of its law-abiding residents to keep and bear arms."
Rather than me defining what I personally see as the crucial points related to Judge Chang's rulings, I think you all should read the rulings 35 short pages, & we can then discuss Judge Chang's rulings here if you wish.
Judge Chang's 35 Page Ruling on Chicago's Gun Laws (PDF) (http://tinyurl.com/o62r42j)
Some additional information on this particular subject. (http://tinyurl.com/lyywf4a)
After reading the above links, what do you think about these rulings?
Bullshit. You're looking for the easy solution. Of course, mass killing are a type of strawman, anyway. Those are a tiny percentage of the killings. We're also trying to reduce total crime, which making guns less accessible to criminals and the mentally ill. Properly enforced gunfree zones can help do that. You can't just say gunfree zones ha
Your response to my post, though I do believe you honestly do believe in what you say, is the biggest ration of bullshit I have ever read in my long life, & probably the biggest load of bullshit anyone could have ever offered up.
No. It's basic psychology and criminology. Even in single killings, the murderer usually knows the victim and the victim was part of the killer's life. Usually even the insane don't just kill at random
Quote from: The National Review
........'Gun-free zones' have been the most popular response to previous mass killings. But many law-enforcement officials say they are actually counterproductive. "Guns are already banned in schools. That is why the shootings happen in schools. A school is a 'helpless-victim zone,'" says Richard Mack, a former Arizona sheriff. "Preventing any adult at a school from having access to a firearm eliminates any chance the killer can be stopped in time to prevent a rampage," Jim Kouri, the public-information officer of the National Association of Chiefs of Police, told me earlier this year at the time of the Aurora, Colo., Batman-movie shooting. Indeed, there have been many instances -- from the high-school shooting by Luke Woodham in Mississippi, to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo. -- where a killer has been stopped after someone got a gun from a parked car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter...........continued
Source: The National Review (http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund)
My answers stand, are valid, & are verifiable ..... No insane mass shooters ever chose a shooting range to do his/their deadly deeds in.......never.........why??.........simply because they're yellow bellied cowards who know that "Gun Free Zones" offer them the least risk of being interrupted in their heinous deeds...while they're busy slaughering school children, teachers, unarmed security, & anyone else within the boundaries of the safe & favorite hunting grounds they always use ..... "Gun Free Zones"...........unopposed......that's a fact......period.....
Cry strawman till you face turns blue, & till you balls glisten fuchsia in the moonlight,,,,,,,,,,,,you can't ever invalidate that fact......burns yer ass don't it.....that you're flat out wrong!
Every time you get caught in an inexplicable falsehood you leftists either scream racist from the bottom of your lungs, blame Bush, or claim a strawman did it, none of which ever pass the 'leftist stink test', & 'Cooney on this one your positions stink to the high heavens.
It's abundantly obvious you haven't the foggiest idea about anything you regurgitate, except what you recite from your leftist manifesto pocket manual AKA your democrat Party Handbook.
You're in over your head here 'Cooney, & I know there will be times when you actually have something of substance to relate to us, but this isn't one of them.
Anyone have anything factual to add, I need some fresh air! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/lolfun.gif)
Quote from: jimbro37 in that other Forum
Quote from: string in that other Forum
Oh, how I wish I'd had that option when I taught.:)
This is just one more case of media hype. One state, Utah, is teaching teachers to kill intruders and it looks like the U.S. has gone dafter than it really has. Why single out school shootings? There are shootings of innocent people across the country. And why put guns in the hands of people who ought not have them inside a classroom? How long will it be before some deranged and stressed out teacher shoots one of his students?
Teachers.....they, the most of them, take on the position because they feel it's a calling to help the youth of today reach for the stars tomorrow.....give them a better future. They also believe, & you should know this being an ex-teacher yourself, that while those children are in their care their lives are entrusted to them....they are to protect those children at all peril to themselves.
I remind you of how those brave teachers in Sandy Hook met their fate.......at last resort, they served up their own lives unselfishly to protect those children, & placed themselves between the deranged gunman's bullets & those children.....using the only weapon they were trusted with by their government, their very own soft-tissue bodies!
Well now teachers of late have made a very educated decision, they aren't being armed by the school boards, or the government, they have made the educated decision to freely self-arm in order to protect their own lives if push come to shove, but more importantly the lives they have the duty of care to protect.......their children/our children.
As I said previously they have made their brave decisions based on the very intelligence that drove them to their noble profession.
In the end they know for certain, their flesh & blood is better utilized being trained & armed, than unarmed & defenseless.
They have come to know that the only thing that can stop a bad person with a gun, is a good person with a gun.
Yes, Jaybro.......they haven't been forced into this by anything except their own intelligence, & the desire to protect in the only effective way they can ------ fully trained & with their own firearms.
Quote from: Jaybro
How long will it be before some deranged and stressed out teacher shoots one of his students?
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/crystal-ball_lg.gif)
Really, I never thought you would step down to that level.
Is that how you were taught to think?
Don't you think that regardless of these latest developments, that with or without permission, if they ever wanted to do the heinously & cowardly act that you suggest, they would find a way wouldn't they ----- or are you too naive to believe that they always could have?
The Obama Administration's latest lame attempt to "Europeanize" America, & destroy the 2nd Amendment will wither on the vine!
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FELvbPsZ.jpg&hash=184dede5a3359a5e03bfe1a53d8dbb42" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/ELvbPsZ.jpg) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eXivSbyadbs)
Video -- The U.N. - American Arms Trade Treaty ......... DOA!
Click on the image to see the video
Quote from: FOX News http://tinyurl.com/myyqlxd
Sens. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) and Joe Manchin (D-W.V.) released a bipartisan letter this week signed by 48 of their colleagues pledging to oppose the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which Secretary of State John Kerry signed on behalf of the United States in September.
This letter makes it clear that the Senate will not ratify the treaty in the foreseeable future.
Since a treaty requires a two-thirds majority to win the Senate's advice and consent, the ATT is at least 17 votes short of the 67 votes needed to secure ratification. And if anything, the Moran-Manchin letter understates Senate opposition to the treaty.
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FmzS0Qva.jpg&hash=e35e8f3d6b89b5277e455415ab724023" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/mzS0Qva.jpg)
SF - If all you say is true then the US is truly a frightening place; not only are there gangs of muggers roaming the streets looking for I'll-defended old ladies, but every country in the world is slavering over the prospect of invading America and eating all your hamburgers and are armed to the teeth to do just that. Your Government is in disarray, the communist lefties having "elected" a non-American to the White House where he plots continuously to take away all your God-given rights of mayhem.
In all of this your armed forces are in disarray, not being loyal to their Commander in Chief, but dedicated to defending a small edit of the holy American constitution.
So it's quiet clear that all citizens should be armed to the teeth, but not with puny handguns or rifles, but with tanks, battleships and an array of battle drones controlled from laser-toting Battle-Sats. We should also not forget a submarine or two just in case THEY come underwater.
That is, If everything you claim is right and accurate.
But then, as the saying goes,
if ifs and ands were pots and pans,
there'd be no work for tinkers' hands
Once again, with no valid retort to disprove my claims, you seek to trivialize man's most fundamental right......his 'Natural Right' to simply protect his own life & the lives of his family & friends -- man's Natural Right to Self-Defense.
;) The world is truly a dangerous place as you say, but unlike your portrayal, scores of Americans -- myself included -- feel quite comfortable knowing that if we ever needed to protect ourselves we have the means under our belts -- in our bags, in our glove boxes, at our nightstands, over our mantles -- & we would have a recourse other than surrender & submit. More Americans are armed today than since the early times, & our numbers are growing by the day. We are comfortable with our 'Natural Right' to self-defense, & no man or Government will ever dare separate us from that right except to their own extreme peril.
Our government can protect us from invasion, & with our help can defeat any invader. Whereas the police are only there to determine the names of the victims, & gather all possible evidence to hopefully convict the assailant(s) in a court of law. At the actual moment of need you'd be more likely struck by lightning while reading your winning lottery ticket, than have a squad car pull up to assist you.
No sir, you will only get our guns when you are brave enough pry them from our cold, dead hands. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/MP3/FromMyColdDeadHands.wav) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/guns4.gif)
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FmzS0Qva.jpg&hash=e35e8f3d6b89b5277e455415ab724023" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/mzS0Qva.jpg) :)
Of course Smiley doesn't know that Obama suggested allowing schools to hire armed guards, a solution preferred by 87 percent of teachers to carrying guns themselves . Further, the he doesn't understand that getting rid of Gun Free Zones means anybody can waltz into the school with a gun with out being questioned. Oh, I forgot "Criminals don't obey laws (TM) ." That's where the fore-mentioned guards come in, obviously. Learn to think beyond NRA truisms, please. I'm gonna make one of the dolls that you pull the string to make it talk, It will say "The only way to stop a bad a guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun." Of course, like gun nuts it won't understand that gun control in the form of background checks, not allowing guns to be sold without a background check at gunshows, etc actually prevents some bad guys from getting the gun in the first fucking place. Funny how people don't even know what gun control is. Many will will say they're opposed to gun control on the poll, but proceed to be in favor of all or most the actual components of the actual gun control, not the made-up Obama gun-grab.
Of course Smiley doesn't know that Obama suggested allowing schools to hire armed guards
What a crock of phony shit!
He also said facts like:
"If you like your health-care plan, you can keep it." (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FHAMv7jI.jpg&hash=d252bf909a9045529b37b917db019a17" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/HAMv7jI.jpg)
"The day after Benghazi happened, I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism." (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FHAMv7jI.jpg&hash=d252bf909a9045529b37b917db019a17" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/HAMv7jI.jpg)
"I believe in the Second Amendment. I believe in people's lawful right to bear arms. I will not take your shotgun away."
"The Capitol Hill janitors just got a pay cut" (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FHAMv7jI.jpg&hash=d252bf909a9045529b37b917db019a17" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/HAMv7jI.jpg)
Pick one, any one, they're just as truthful as your Obamma statement.
Well, aren't they?
Now, it seems that the American teachers have had it up to here, & they won't wait for the implementation of any empty suggestions & phoney speech promises.
Nope, they are taking the bull by the horns, gettin' down & dirty -- gettin' their own firearm training, gettin' their own concealed weapons permits, & gettin' their own firearms.
They'll be takin' the fight for self-defense to a new level, a level of security, a level totally out of your lot's control.
Obamma & his slimy band of syphilitic weasels would love nothing less than the total disarmament of America, & striking the Second Amendment from the Constitution, as would you, except you & they haven't the globes to say it flat out.
You all want everyone to believe that all you bums actually want is 'common sense, responsible firearm legislation' , as if there were such a thing, when all the while what you are looking for in America is total & complete firearm confiscation.
Well only the blind, brainwashed minions of your extremist gun-grabbin left will fall for that line of bull. The majority of Americans, when confronted with facts, will never fall to your deceptions.
Irregardless, you'll continue to blow smoke up America's ass in the hopes you can get a toe hold, which would in your dreams eventually get you a strong foothold into Anti-Second Amendment -- Anti-Gun Legislation.
Well, as long as we, the Pro-Gun -- Pro-Second Amendment, Legitimate Law-Abiding American Firearm Owners, band together as a united front stand firm, we will prevail & America will retain it's Natural Right to self-defense by keeping & bearing firearms, much to your complete & utter chagrin!
All the anti-gun legislation of your gun-grabbing left could muster wouldn't have saved one of those little Sandy Hook children's lives, & that's a fact your lot tries to talk around & past, but never will be able to as long as the pro-Second Amendment Right sticks shoulder to shoulder exposing your leftist Anti-Second Amendment lies at every turn.
The American People know who's telling them the truth, & all across America we are seeing anti-gun legislation being overturned & falling to the wayside.
We can keep that up forever, & will.
Ron Paul said it quite clearly, & his words still echo in the Congress,
& in our State Houses this day.
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F0Puf0Qg.jpg&hash=4c16f4d98335cecca04d53492989cf55" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/0Puf0Qg.jpg) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OEJnuVbz2Xw)
Ron Paul Video Click the image to watch Ron Paul's calm, simple, & factual message.
Getting rid of the gun-free zone is not enough to prevent the rampages. You must know this, but you saw the keyword "Obama" and script-like you pasted a bunch of stuff about incorrect Obama statements without reading that the guards were a proposal of his and not a statement. I expect that kind of idiocy from Fanfaron (In fact, there are times I really think he is script, but anyway...)
In poll after poll, more than 70% of teacher indicated that they wouldn't even consider having a gun. I already discussed with you the tactical advantages a gunman would have over the few teachers that have a gun. You fail to acknowledge the psychology of the gunmen themselves, that many actually want to die. Granted, if the a teacher wins the gunfight, it will save the life of students and factuality (and that's bigger "if" than you care to understand.) If you get rid of the gunfree zones, you'll need additional security to reduce the possibility of a gunman making into the school in the first place.
In your scenarios. the gunmen pulls out a gun. The teacher can whip her or his out and take out the psychopath. It's not that simple. In reality, a student-gunmen, aware that the teacher might be armed, will likely shoot the teacher before he/she is even aware a student is armed.
Yes, that's repetitive, but I needed to make sure you understood.
I already discussed with you the tactical advantages a gunman would have over the few teachers that have a gun.
Oh yeah Svengali (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/crystal-ball_lg.gif)
Refresh my memory ....... Where did this supposed discussion take place???
I think you did a few more (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/dopedoinlines01.gif) lines the night this 'discussion' supposedly took place.
Maybe you plain forgot to post it???
So, as you make abundantly obvious, you would rather have rooms full of dead students than have one or two armed teachers.
If you get rid of the gunfree zones, you'll need additional security to reduce the possibility of a gunman making into the school in the first place.
Actually, no more or less than now, for as you know those crazed gunmen don't follow procedures or the law --- never did, & your statement itself is proof positive why "Gun-Free Zones" don't work, never have, & never will.
All they do provide those would be defenseless victims/targets is a false sense of security, as if a clear thinking, deranged, potential gunman just might leave his guns outside simply because the sign says "Gun-Free Zone....No Guns Permitted Beyond This Point' (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/lolfun.gif)
Instead of calling these Schools "Gun-Free Zones" we should be calling them "Helpless-Victim's Zones"
Only an idiot, or a progressive liberal, would feel secure knowing that he's being protected by a piece of legal paper at the Capitol Building, & a pretty iridescent sign that says "Gun-Free Zone....No Guns Permitted Beyond This Point'! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/big%20laugh%20007.gif)
On a serious note though, with just one single exception, the attack on congress-woman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting in the US since 1950 in which more than three people have been killed, has taken place where citizens are not permitted to carry guns by force of law ---- your precious & valuable security blankets, the infamous "Gun-Free Zones" .
Yep, by golly.....they work great! We should create more!!!
Oh yeah Svengali
You seriously don't remember this from the D&D thread? I shouldn't be surpised. Republicans can't remember anything before Obama. I'm not digging through the massive thread all day for your amnesia
All they do provide those would be defenseless victims/targets is a false sense of security, as if a clear thinking, deranged, potential gunman just might leave his guns outside simply because the sign says "Gun-Free Zone....No Guns Permitted Beyond This Point'
This is why we're saying to enforce them. What part of this is so hard? Criminal would walk into gun-free zone, guard notes a gun (perhaps even the metal detector catches it). The guard demands the gun be surrendered. If the criminal doesn't comply, he finds himself on the ground with the guard's gun pointed at the back of his fucking head. Get it? But if you throw the baby out with the bathwater and take away the whole gun-free zone, the gunman can't be stopped he actually does something. I believe I pointed out to you before that not all "gun-free" zones are actually "gun-free" and already have authorized personnel carrying guns.
A democRat way of saying I made that all up, I have no idea why, & I don't care -- so leave me to my usual wet dreams fresh at hand. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/JerkOFF.gif)
Somebody in West Suburban St. Charles, Illinois found a novel use for his gun. He used a .22 to shoot icicles that were hanging from his roof, the neighbors understandably had an issue with this so the cops paid him a visit and told him to stop shooting icicles. This took place in an unincorporated area so shooting is not subject to the usual in-town ordinances against such things. Gee, I always used a pole to knock down icicles.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/suburbs/batavia_geneva_st_charles/chi-cops-tell-man-80-to-stop-shooting-icicles-from-roof-20140114,0,3488666.story (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/suburbs/batavia_geneva_st_charles/chi-cops-tell-man-80-to-stop-shooting-icicles-from-roof-20140114,0,3488666.story)
Somebody in West Suburban St. Charles, Illinois found a novel use for his gun. He used a .22 to shoot icicles that were hanging from his roof
Now, I've done a lot of things with a firearm, but that's a first to me.
Did you know the .22, as bullets go, is one of the least accurate at longer distances, so depending on the distance this guy must have been either 3 donuts shy of the looney bin, or a freekin ' outrageous marksman! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/big%20laugh%20007.gif)
Post by: Frenzie on 2014-01-15, 21:19:03
Gee, I always used a pole to knock down icicles.
Shooting at icicles in the air seems rather dangerous to say the least, but doing something with a gun just because it's more fun that way is not necessarily insane.
Just guessing here but I have a suspicion the range wasn't that great. Many of these houses around here are either ranch-style or bi-level, and in either case the roof isn't terribly high. A 20-foot ladder will easily be able to reach the roof in most of these cases, allowing you to keep the gutters clear and do minor roof repair without much trouble. Shooting icicles from, say, thirty feet away isn't that much of a challenge even for a .22. The problem comes in trying not to put holes in the roof. The other problem comes from the fact that the bullet won't stop once it busts through the icicle, it will keep going until it runs out of steam and hits the ground-- unless it hits something else first.
A democRat way of saying I made that all up, I have no idea why, & I don't care -- so leave me to my usual wet dreams fresh at hand
How can you not remember that entire discussion? Go get a CAT scan, you might have brain damage or maybe Alzheimers.
I say you probably made it up, or your lying, or are honestly confusing me with someone else, for if you were so absolutely sure, you'd be more than willing to back up your 'story', if for nothing else but to resurrect your badly shattered credibility. I guess we'll never know the truth.
One irrefutable fact still stands though.
With just one exception -- the attack on congress-woman Giffords in 2011 -- every public mass shooting in the US since around 1950 or earlier, in which more than three people were killed, took place where American Citizens, by law, are not permitted to carry guns.
They only took place in "Gun Free Zones", not at a gun show, not at a firing range, not in a police station, not at the White House, or in the Capitol Building.........
Nope, only in a "Gun Free Zone".
Outside of your lame excuse that that's where people tend to congregate, why do you think the clever, but deranged mass murders only chose "Gun Free Zones"?
I know what the experts in the law enforcement community attribute this to, but why do you (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/RaccoonStrut.gif) think those mass killings took place only in your cherished "Gun Free Zones" ?
~~ AND ~~
While your at it, & have your thinking cap on, why is it you consider your cherished "Gun Free Zones" are so sacred that you would rather have rooms full of dead students than have one or two armed teachers?? (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/QUESTIONS001.gif)
Why? Inquisitive minds want to know!
I say you probably made it up, or your lying, or are honestly confusing me with someone else, for if you were so absolutely sure, you'd be more than willing to back up your 'story', if for nothing else to resurrect your shattered credibility.
We most have argued for pages about who would actually have the tactile advantage, a teacher with a gun in her purse or the gunman. The only thing I'm not sure of is your intent. Is it to waste my time by looking through that thread for you, or do you seriously not remember me pointing how that the student gunmen can shoot the teacher while her/his back is turned?
Another question is are you guys really ridiculous enough to think that the reason a kid shoots up the school he attends is because the sign says "Gun-Free Zone?" You really and truly don't think there's more psychology to it than that? The studies merely serve to confirm what's common sense.
You haven't been to school or college since (insert deity) knows when, so you might really not know that some of these "gun-free" zones are really not gun-free. We have armed MetroPD officers acting as "resources officers" in some Las Vegas schools. You guys love to say "All mass shootings were in gun-free zones", not withstanding the fact that Virginia Tech had an armed SWAT team. "Gun-Free" zone does not mean the only that potentially has a gun is the shooter anymore. UNLV (University of Nevada Las Vegas) is a "gun-free" zone, but the campus police are bona-fide police officers, with guns. Let's say unfortunately somebody goes on rampage there. The NRA can say "another shooting at a gun-free zone" despite the fact the "gun-free zone" is not really gun free - just like they did at Columbine.
At a high school, you can keep the gun-free zone, but have an armed resource officer available at all times (at Columbine, apparently he was eating lunch.) Again, the trouble with not having a "gun-free" zone is that any idiot is now free to walk around the school with a gun and can't be stopped until he actually does something bad. Now one might say "Well only the facility and officers would be allowed to have guns and they would be certified." If the NRA was more sane at this time, I could agree. But the NRA doesn't stop there and seems to think only in extreme positions. You're for total freedom to have a gun anywhere you want without being question or having to turn in your gun or you're a gun-grabber, in their minds. I think you'll find that the vast majority, including NRA members, do not belong to those extreme positions.
Never happened, I think you're just making this all up.
And, as for all your "Gun Free Zone" rebuttal, you actually prove my point...."Gun Free Zones" don't work, have never worked, & never will work.
Murderous nut jobs are attracted to them like stink to shit.
"Gun Free Zone" legislation does nothing but give parents, knowledgeable children, teachers, & society in general a false sense of security while providing a crazed bunch of criminals all the cover they need to prosecute their heinous crimes.........period.
Tell me what the legislation to abolish gun-free zones would look like. If it simply allows to wonder in with a gun without being asked by armed security guard to turn it it, it's a recipe for disaster. You and the NRA talk about allowing facility to be armed, but who else gets to be armed? The gun mule that managed to avoid a criminal record delivering guns to gang members in the school?
Now about the tactical situation with an armed teacher versus a gunman, I actually mentioned at least a couple times. On time was here (http://my.opera.com/community/forums/findpost.pl?id=13941492). Feel free to dig through the rest of the results from this (https://www.google.com/search?as_q=tactical+&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=opera.com&as_occt=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=#as_qdr=all&lr=&q=sanguinemoon+%2Btactical++%2Bgun+site:opera.com) search. Or a slightly different one, like this (https://www.google.com/search?as_q=tactical+&as_epq=&as_oq=&as_eq=&as_nlo=&as_nhi=&lr=&cr=&as_qdr=all&as_sitesearch=opera.com&as_occt=any&safe=images&tbs=&as_filetype=&as_rights=#as_qdr=all&lr=&q=sanguinemoon+tactical++gun+site:opera.com)I'm sure the hell not going to just because you can't remember less than a year ago. Just because you can't remember something doesn't mean I made it up.
Why is this so hard for you? Why did Lanza choose that particular school and not some other gun-free zone? Why did Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold choose Columbine? I'm leaving out all Sociology, Psychology, Criminology and anything else you might consider "liberal" to let common sense kick in. If Harris and Klebold merely wanted to shoot random people up, it might have been tactically better and less risky to choose an elementary school. Remember Columbine did have a guard, but he happened to be in the parking lot at the time. The elementary school would have no guard at all. Sure, some shootings are random but most of the time there's a reason besides a sign.
Why did Lanza choose that particular school and not some other gun-free zone? Why did Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold choose Columbine? I'm leaving out all Sociology, Psychology, Criminology and anything else you might consider "liberal" to let common sense kick in. If Harris and Klebold merely wanted to shoot random people up, it might have been tactically better and less risky to choose an elementary school. Remember Columbine did have a guard, but he happened to be in the parking lot at the time. The elementary school would have no guard at all. Sure, some shootings are random but most of the time there's a reason besides a sign.
Well, I guess it's true, you know everything because you investigate the bona fide evidence gotten directly from the source....the minds & mouths of the shooters.......right?..............if not just where did you get your detailed information on why these people did what they did where they did?
I submit, these theories came from your own creative mind, & none of it came from the source.
Just like this:
Quote from: http://www.gunfaq.org/2013/04/aurora-and-the-gun-free-zone-theory/
On July 20th, 2012, James Eagan Holmes killed 12 people and wounded 58 more at the Cinemark Century 16 Theater in Aurora, Colorado.
Those are facts. But many questions still remain, and one of the most notable asks why the shooter choose that particular theater?
Location? Convenience? Or something else?
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gunfaq.org%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F04%2Faurora-cinemas.jpg&hash=22ce35343547461a74ad73d270a462fc" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.gunfaq.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/aurora-cinemas.jpg)
You might think that it was the one closest to the killer's apartment. Or, that it was the one with the largest audience.
Yet, neither explanation is right. Instead, out of all the movie theaters within 20 minutes of his apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, it was the only one where guns were banned.
Most movie theaters allow permit holders carrying guns. But the Cinemark movie theater was the only one with a sign posted at the theater's entrance............
So why would a mass shooter pick a place that bans guns? The answer should be obvious, though it apparently is not clear to the media - disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks.................continued
Both positions are theories ... one yours, one theirs ................ So what's the difference? .............. I'll tell ya ......... The theories from the people cited here in the above link are far more credible than those theories you hatched from your ripe, fertile & liberal imagination.
Agree or disagree?
Totally Agree ---- There's a glimmer of hope.
Totally Disagree --- You didn't read the article.
BTW .... I saw your links, followed them, saw that you posted gibberish.
I disagree with your theoretical positions.
There's a slight chance I may be wrong--but I doubt it.
Hey, SF, I've found a new gun for the family Barbecue, or - just the thing to take to a picnic!
A gun designed for Indian women (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-25727080)
I especially like the remark:
"Indian women like their ornaments"
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FhuWSrhp.png&hash=c4ecf66400a71dd71883016307af2d88" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/huWSrhp.png)
Personally, I think women would probably prefer a Beretta PX4 Storm SubCompact (http://www.slicky.net/misc/Beretta-PX4-Storm-Sub-Compact.jpg)...it's quite small & compact, has a larger round capacity,
& it most importantly presents more stopping power -- more bang for the Rupee so to speak.
Actually, I know quite a few men that carry this superb firearm.
In fact, it's so easily concealable, & having fired over 6,000 rounds with it under extreme conditions it's so dependable & accurate, that it's my personal carry of choice. One at my waist, & one on my ankle. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/exitstageright.gif)
Fucking brilliant. Holmes used tear gas in the theatre. So in dark, tear gas filled theatre a person with a CCW would have been take out Holmes (and hopefully not actually add to the death toll?) Again, the Right looks at the only factor that supports there positions, but not all the facts. Further, I don't think any of the large movie house chains (they own most of the them...) allow guns. If they caught you with a gun, they wouldn't allow in you with it - sign or no sign and your CCW not withstanding.
No hypothesis fits every situation, especially when dealing with the human mind and damaged ones at that. When I try to talk very mild psychology to you, it's neither liberal nor conservative. It's not even political. Most of the time, but not 100% of the time, there's a reason killers choose their victims. Even conservative pundits have noted that usually killers know their victims. Usually, but not always. So when it comes to public policy, you have to look at what happens most the time based to the data.
Further, I don't think any of the large movie house chains (they own most of the them...) allow guns. If they caught you with a gun, they wouldn't allow in you with it - sign or no sign and your CCW not withstanding.........
...... a person with a CCW would have been take out Holmes (and hopefully not actually add to the death toll?)
So, as you'd have it...........let the death count mount..........stand by watching the carnage, & do absolutely nothing because some dick-wad liberal democRATs legislated that citizens can't be trusted, & are forbidden to help even though anywhere else they would be legally able to.
How cowardly pompous!
You said so clearly, like a clever little bad boy wanting to be caught for telling the truth
Quote from: 'Cooney
You should start all your posts that way .......... I don't think, but....
So, as you still make it so abundantly obvious, you would rather have rooms/theaters full of dead students & innocent people rather than have any armed civilians..........all to save your precious "Gun-Free Zone" legislation that doesn't work, & never will work. You'd prefer to accept the body count attributed to passive inaction, right?
How many lives has you precious, good for nothing, "Gun Free Zones" legislation supposedly saved, as opposed to the scores of deaths the legislation has most probably (just count the bodies) caused?
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FJPY4U8B.jpg&hash=471c381e28cb524b3e21fb33f8debe2f" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/JPY4U8B.jpg)
Scrub as hard as you can, you can't clean those bloody hands of those lost lives.........lives that could have been saved..............lives lost that are directly attributable to your grossly misguided "Gun Free Zone" Legislation!
You still can't address my points directly, so you resort to insults. It clear that I'm the one who actually thought about the situations. What civilian could have actually shoot Holmes through the tear gas? Basic psychology, criminology, sociology tell us that most of the time, even in mass shootings, there's a reason the killer's choose their victims. You can't answer that. You really and truly believe a signs alone caused the killings. Nonsense, especially since some of the gun-free zones actually have armed guards.
People say things like "In a way, this is no surprise. If there's someone present with a gun when a mass shooting begins, the shooter is likely to be shot himself. And, in fact, many mass shootings -- from the high school shooting by Luke Woodham in Pearl, Miss., to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo., where an armed volunteer shot the attacker -- have been terminated when someone retrieved a gun from a car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter." source (http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/12/14/connecticut-school-shooting-gun-control/1770345/) That article opposes gun-free zones. By saying this, author's such as this unwitting actually support my point. Killers go into places knowing full well that despite the "no guns allowed" sign, there are guards with guns. The gun-free zones are not necessarily gun-free. The perpetrators don't even value their own lives.The know they're going to get shoot and often already planned on ending their own lives. Oh yeah, from s link with the article it wasn't a random congregation member that took out the killer. It was guard (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_7684728). Do you get it now? The "No guns allowed" sign often, if not usually means, only authorised people are allowed to have a gun. We have freakin' Metro Police in the high schools. Yet, if an incident happens here, the NRA and their disingenuous ilk will say "Another killing in a gun-free zone." Likewise in the nearby malls.
To put it another way, rational people value their lives and will take steps to perversive it. These people are not rational. NRA types say "Mass killings happen in gun-free zones." Yes, because those are public places where there are people to kill. The tactical situation is against a random civilian being able to defeat the murderer: noise, confusion, the chaos of people running for their lives, in Aurora add tear gas. What the gun-free zones (yet again, this often means on certain people can have guns, since you're slow on that) is try to reduce likelihood of more mundane incidents, such as the shooting in Florida over the pizza line. In mass shootings, the legal status of the killer having a gun there or not is irrelevant.
It's not that I don't understand your position. It's that you're overlooking a whole lot of other factors.
To put it another way, rational people value their lives and will take steps to perversive it.
They will take steps to preserve their lives, that is unless the legislature takes their legal guns out of their hands by declaring where they are going as a Gun Free Zone. Because they are law abiding citizen gun owners, they won't break the law, & if they choose to enter, they become a sitting duck.....this will no longer be the case.....read on.......
These people are not rational. NRA types say "Mass killings happen in gun-free zones." Yes, because those are public places where there are people to kill.
BTW JFYFI........I am one of those NRA Types, & proud of it. (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FZbQT530.gif&hash=e5451df3a5a17549618d432edb6209ab" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/ZbQT530.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/guns4.gif)
And what you refuse to acknowledge, is the overwhelming statistic, (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/RaccoonStrut.gif)Mr.Statistic, the overwhelming statistic --- which you can't deny or refute --- is "With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns."
The overwhelming logical reason is because "Gun Free Zones" are TOTALLY UNSAFE, Criminal-Empowering, & as you grudgingly concede, they are a "target rich zone" full of defenseless people, not because they want to be, but because they are honest & law abiding, they leave their legal firearms ----- that they are legally permitted to carry elsewhere ------ they leave their firearms elsewhere making themselves unarmed targets solely due to government legislation!
Well, the worm is beginning to turn, the gun owners permitted to carry, now blindly abiding by this law, will become a thing of the past, & now start carrying illegally in your precious "Gun Free Zones", & this year they will be openly stating that they will be doing so.....so take your "gun-free zone" legislation & shove it deep & sideways up where the sun don't shine!
I personally have carried illegally in "gun-free zones" over the past 3 years, & I have only been approached 2x, but I have never been stopped from carrying my legal firearms. I don't know any carrier who has. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/guns4.gif)
We, along with 2nd Amendment friendly law enforcement communities, will effectively nullify your legislation.
We have been told by many prosecutors all across America that they won't prosecute, & by many law enforcement organizations that their rank in file will not enforce.
Does that mean everyone?
Not by a long-shot ----------- yet, but those that need legal representation will be getting the very very best money can buy -------- until the legislation is eventually overturned, or they becomes meaningless, whichever comes first.(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BigGrin02.gif)
Not true. Ihop. Carson City Nevada. No "no guns allowed" type sign. 9/6/2011 five dead. 7/18/1984 McDonald's San Ysidro 22 dead. 10/7/2007 Crandon, Wi apartment complex, 7 dead. Louisville, Ky 9/14/1989. Forum Roller World in Grand Prairie, Tx July 24, 2011 five dead. Need I continue? The incidents that make the national and international news tend to happen in schools, etc but public shooting can and do occur where citizens are allowed to carry guns. The NRA pithy sayings you repeat like a parrot are lies.
Mass shootings are only a tiny percentage of homocides. The far more common occurances are guns fired in anger (just as at Domino's Pizza.) You parrot "criminals don't obey the law" like doll with a speech string, but most of those shooters were not criminals before. The object is total reduction in violent incidents.
Not by a long-shot ----------- yet, but those that need legal representation will be getting the very very best money can buy -------- until the legislation is eventually overturned, or they becomes meaningless, whichever comes first.
What of the businesses that don't allow guns? Would interfere with private enterprise like a communist and force them allow guns the premises? Notice the shooting incidents happening on organisation owned property and not property owned by any government entity.
Just a simple question:
Does Avis rent armoured cars in the US? It seems advisable. Perhaps one with a rear gunner?
Do you have a problem with front mounted guns?
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ-wirT843EoyWbZ51awIFkRqGEGwZlLvAobp6Ain_UlPYaHCOW)
Quote from: Jimbro3738 on 2014-01-19, 14:49:32
No - I think that would be an admirable choice of transport. I imagine that if you get hit by that gun it Hertz.
I am in the somewhat weird position of being pro-second amendment while at the same time being more than a little afraid of some of the pro-concealed carry crowd. I read some of what these guys write on various forums, and so help me they're some of the very last people who should be allowed to have guns. The reason is that in too many cases it's apparent that gun ownership has more to do with their manhood issues than it does with any legitimate need for protection, hunting, target shooting or any perceived threat a renegade government might provide. Before you have a conniption, Smiley-- I'm calling it the way I sees it, according to way too many posts on forums other than these D&D forums. I state again that way too many people want to carry because the gun seems to help them with their manhood issues-- which is one of the worst reasons imaginable for packing heat. Regrettable incidents have a way of happening when folk like that are armed, and they perceive they've been "slighted" in some way.
How about something else to think on. Look at the photo below, and ask: What could possibly go wrong?
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Ffrenchspin.com%2Fen%2Fblog%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2010%2F08%2FWhat-could-possibly-go-wrong...-300x216.jpg&hash=75ca845eb1f94ddde7c2cd5ac734a943" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://frenchspin.com/en/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/What-could-possibly-go-wrong...-300x216.jpg)
I imagine so. The Rooskies had a nice one, too, but a bit dated.
RARE WWII RUSSIAN 1944 T34-85 COMBAT TANK
This Unit was built in mid to late 1944 in the Omsk, Russia factory. Many historians have rated this the #1 tank of all time. The unit is original and complete at $100,000. We have the facilities and will; restore it for an additional $25,000 . However you may want to leave it as is.
PRICE (AS IS ) $100,000.00
PRICE ( fully restored ) $125,000.00
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Farmyjeeps.net%2FT34-0118X%2FT34X.jpg&hash=6cd14e226827f035ead9bdcba0f2843f" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://armyjeeps.net/T34-0118X/T34X.jpg)
Is that the wagon of choice in Detroit mjm?
Search me. I don't hang around Detroit enough to know and go by reports, mostly. I have a brother who lives near there in Novi, Michigan, but his area is pretty quiet. Jimbro probably is more up-to-date with Detroit than I am.
Agreed. I'm pro-second amendment too. I just question the wisdom of allowing anyone that feels like to stroll into the school, courthouse, etc with a gun. I'm also for universal background checks, but don't suffer the delusion that they'll stop all criminals and lunatics from getting guns.
As far as the NRA itself goes, my own father is a member. He took me hunting in Louisiana. (Surprised, Smiley. How many times did I tell you I'm not what think I am.) But their leadership is off its rocker lately. They want to remove "gun-free" zones claiming all mass killings happen in in those zones. Thirty seconds and Google is all it takes to cast serious doubt on those claims, as I did above. It's not that the zones are "precious" as Smiley puts it; it's that the NRA will need to a lot better than that to support the claim the gun-free zones are more dangerous.
I am in the somewhat weird position of being pro-second amendment while at the same time being more than a little afraid of some of the pro-concealed carry crowd. [...]
Agreed. I'm pro-second amendment too. I just question the wisdom of allowing anyone that feels like to stroll into the school, courthouse, etc with a gun. I'm also for universal background checks, but don't suffer the delusion that they'll stop all criminals and lunatics from getting guns. [...]
Perhaps that's somewhat weird in the US, but it doesn't sound like a particularly weird position to me.
Quote from: Frenzie on 2014-01-21, 09:42:43
Except that in Europe there's no second amendment. This constitutional amendment is interpreted by pro-gunners as a declaration of total freedom to shoot and bomb without any restriction or regulation. Nothing makes them back down from this interpretation, no reason, logic, nor even facts on how any point of constitution is actually implemented. For example, there's the first amendment, guaranteeing freedom of speech, but can you say absolutely anything without restriction or regulation?
No, I am not arguing. Enemies of reason don't make good discussion partners.
Naturally. The things people (Americans!) say about the US constitution can be downright bizarre. At the risk of going off topic, although I intend this to be about interpretation of legal frameworks, just a few weeks ago an American asked another American to "provide where in the US Constitution, separation of church and state is mentioned."
Quote from: me
In other news, it's okay not to tell the truth because it's not lying.
Separation of church and state is a means to succinctly describe the much more specific language in the first amendment, and that's similar to the way it is in most Western nations. Afaik only France and Turkey have laws that use the words separation between church and state, but that is followed by further qualifications because on its own that doesn't suffice.
Also, again in just about every modern democracy--and I hope you're not one of those silly "the US is a republic, not a democracy" people--there is a tradition of interpretation called (legal) precedent. The details of course vary. In Dutch it's called legal peace; in English it's called stare decisis (to remain by the decided, or something along those lines). The result is much the same: courts are generally supposed to follow precedent unless there's a really good reason not to. To avoid setting a precedent, a court might also produce a brief (if that's the right word) that says it's a one-time-only exception. I don't know if the US has something similar in place, but I'm already straying from the point.
So, what's my point here? Even if your interpretation of the words were correct; even if saying government and church aren't allowed to be the same thing were somehow not separating them: legally speaking all that would matter is how it has been interpreted over the past two centuries. And in the rare case that interpretation does seem to differ wildly from what is written, it's probably most likely that some aspect of the language changed since.
A guy walked into a crowded bar, waving his 1911 Colt
45 with an 8 shot magazine, and yelled,
"Who in here has been screwing my wife?"
A voice from the back of the bar yelled back,
"You're gonna need more ammo."
"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," goes another false refrain from the gun lobby. As with the claim that only mass shootings only happen in gun-free zones, this doesn't appear to be true either. Antoinette Tuff (http://www.bing.com/search?q=Antoinette+Tuff&pc=MOZI), for example, talked down a would-be school shooter who had already fired into the police. She gives credit to her faith, but her actions also speak of personal courage and at every point she knew the next word she spoke could be the difference between life and death. Choose your example (http://www.bing.com/search?q=killers+talked+down&pc=MOZI&form=MOZLBR) of killers talked down.
This isn't to say that an armed guard, or other personnel authorised to carry a gun can't be helpful or used as a last resort. Having said that, there seem to a lot of pro-gun sites and posters and various forums that call for complete abolition of gun-free zones. None seem to be able address that it really isn't a good idea to allow guns in the court house (the criminals family, friends, fellow gang-members making an ill-conceived effort to rescue him, vengeance from the crime victim,etc ) nor can the address the fact that gun-free zones can be properly enforced . Nor even what such legislation would consist of. The school is no longer a gun-free zone; can just facility carry a gun or can any idiot (possibly with malicious intent) stroll in with a gun? If fact, do even legislators given a high rating by the NRA actually support abolishing without questions like that being answered, or are they just playing people like Smiley for fools and are in fact relieved to know such legislation would fail?
How about abolishing the gun-free zones on planes and seeing how that goes. ;)
One could start with transatlantic flights.
Better yet, arm the flight attendants.
"Coffee, tea, a slug between the eyes?"
Then somebody can play Samuel L Jackson :yes:
Quote from: Mr. Jackson
Enough is enough! I am tired of these mother fscking snakes on this mother fscking plane!
watch (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PZ2QFmJ7h0A)
Arm store clerks! "I am tired of these mother fscking shoplifters in this mother fscking store!"
Arm Dallas Cowboys fans!
"I am tired of these mother fscking Redskins in this mother fscking stadium!"
On the local front in my town of Grand Rapids, there's this gem.
GRAND RAPIDS, MI - Prompted by more school shootings and a local open-carrier's desensitization trainings, Mayor George Heartwell criticized Congress for being too lax on guns and called on like-minded people to "arm yourselves with the righteousness of our position."
I'm speechless.
Post by: tt92 on 2014-01-30, 22:03:18
I'll believe that when I don't hear it
Quote from: tt92 on 2014-01-30, 22:03:18
[whispering]Always parroting somebody.[/whispering]
Post by: Banned Member on 2014-02-03, 11:13:12
Seems on topic:
Pupils in one of Moscow schools shot a bunch of people including a guard, a law enforcing guy, couple of mates, and a geography teacher, the last reportedly being the cause of the incident.
It was a rifle and maybe something else or not, I didn't get...
BBC Cambridge
My personal contribution to gun violence. I can pull it down at a moments notice.
(https://files.myopera.com/jimbro37/files/0gun.jpg)
Apparently, guns should be better controlled in Russia.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/video/idUKBREA120CB20140203?videoId=276686505 (http://uk.reuters.com/article/video/idUKBREA120CB20140203?videoId=276686505)
At the end the video it notes the upcoming games. I'm not really sure why the media outlets feel compelled to mention that. Let's say Colorado Springs gets chosen to host a Winter Games and a shooting happens in Houston. What exactly would the Houston "events" have to do with the security levels in Colorado?
Post by: Colonel Rebel on 2014-02-14, 01:36:00
Although SF already knows my answer to the OP question, I do have to point out to him that the 2nd Amendment doesn't mean anything at all to anyone outside of the US, as their laws on guns vary widely. (Probably already knows that, but I am pointing it out regardless)
Quote from: Colonel Rebel on 2014-02-14, 01:36:00
On the face of it, the biggest difference is that it's a paragraph in the constitution, which is not the case anywhere else I know of. And it's written sloppily, something that should not have been allowed in the first place.
Let's examine the text: "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."
This is an egregious case of syntax error. What is this thing about "well regulated Militia"? Does this set the context, in light of which the entire amendment should be read? This would actually make sense, but why not make it clear? Who are the people in the latter part? People in general or the people of the "well regulated Militia"?
If the "people" part of the amendment is to be read radically apart from the "militia" part, as pro-gunners would have it, then what would the "militia" part mean? Pro-gunners read the amendment simply as "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." But in such case, the militia part inevitably reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, [...] shall not be infringed." What does it mean to say that "Militia shall not be infringed"?
Poor wording in the amendment, but from what I have understood, it's often the case in English (and medieval German) common law tradition. Over here we have a tradition of writing laws sensibly, so it will be unnecessary to forcefully try to read meaning into the text afterwards. That's a basic difference.
The practical differences in our gun laws are not too considerable. The regulations are pretty much the same all over the world. It's just that the regulations in the rest of the world are written in a manner that makes sense.
Who are the people in the latter part? People in general or the people of the "well regulated Militia"?
It's clear that English is not your language.
The word "people" usually refers to the general public, particularly in the legalese.
Poor wording in the amendment, but from what I have understood, it's often the case in English (and medieval German) common law tradition.
It's one of the problems that emerges from consuetudinary system of laws instead from Latin/Roman system where precision and logic are the values not the populace usage, custom or habits.
It's not a syntax error, nor is it unclear: it's 18th century English confounded further by 18th century comma usage. In Dutch and German it's not unusual to use commas to separate clauses, much like it used to be in English.
After removing two commas which are possibly distracting to English people and adding a because for similar reasons, you get something like this: "[Because] A well regulated Militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Or, paraphrasing something I read a few years ago, consider this alternative: "A well informed electorate, being necessary to the governance of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."
Yes Ersi - I agree - the 2nd Amendment, held in such reverence by some, is atrociously written, but that' what lawyers and politicians do so well isn't it!
There's an interesting article here (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/opinion/16freedman.html?_r=1&) on the matter of commas, capitals and meanings.
I can't link this I'm afraid, it requiring more time to find it again than I have at present, but I read an historical assessment of the original wording which noted that the reason for the original sentence was to acknowledge the fact that the fledgling America did not have a standing army and thus a well trained militia was a necessity in times of strife to take the part of a standing army. It was thus necessary to ensure that the population at large were able to have arms so that they could form part of that army.
So the arguments go round and round, but the casual link with the phrase "being necessary to the security of a free State" is pretty clear I think (the clue is in the use of the word "being" which points it to being the objective of the whole sentence, not simply one of a list of items).
It's not a syntax error, nor is it unclear: [...] "[Because] A well regulated Militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."
Now this is a clear explanation, thanks :) I can easily believe this may be the intended syntactic structure, as it makes sense in other Germanic languages too - even though not in legal text, imho.
The problem persists:
By degrading "well regulated Militia" into a subordinate clause in the sentence, this interpretation plays entirely into the hands of pro-gunners. When in subordinate clause, what force do the words "well regulated" have? Apparently none over "the people" and their "Arms".
It's a bad sign that the wording of the American second amendment confounds me - bad sign for the constitution, not for me. I have professional experience with euro-legalese and, according to my experience, such syntax does not occur in European English legal texts. Which, imho, is of course a GOOD THING. Europe may suck otherwise for many reasons, but laws have uniform (il)legibility here, instead of haphazard selection of styles more suitable for poetry.
So, as per you, it would be possible to make out the whole amendment as referring to the security of the incipient state? Does it mean that now, when the state is considered secured by other means, the right of people to bear arms can be gracefully interpreted as obsolete or nearly so?
I don't follow your argument. Terms like adjunct clause and subordinate clause are purely syntactic. Such clauses are disposable in the sense that you still have a grammatical sentence without them, not in the sense that they don't affect the meaning.
such syntax does not occur in European English legal texts.
It does not occur in European English legal texts from the second half of the eighteenth century? Moreover, string's link makes a really interesting point:
Quote from: Adam Freedman
The situation was even worse in the law, where a long English tradition held that punctuation marks were not actually part of statutes (and, therefore, courts could not consider punctuation when interpreting them). Not surprisingly, lawmakers took a devil-may-care approach to punctuation. Often, the whole business of punctuation was left to the discretion of scriveners, who liked to show their chops by inserting as many varied marks as possible.
A little bit further in, it also supports my reading:
Likewise, when the justices finish diagramming the Second Amendment, they should end up with something that expresses a causal link, like: "Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." In other words, the amendment is really about protecting militias, notwithstanding the originalist arguments to the contrary.
It even closes with a remark I might've made myself: I'm far more disturbed by the seemingly random use of capitalization than about the use of commas.
so well isn't it!
An extra comma is better than lack of them.
I see I used the wrong word "casual" in stead of "causal link", but to answer your question --- Logically, based on the premise I had there, I would say yes, it would be justified to revisit that amendment. But of course that's not going to happen because American thinking and expectations are so polarised and, as we both wrote, the amendment is so badly constructed (mainly punctuated I think) that it opens the door to all sorts of interpretations and conclusions drawn are often tainted by the preconditioned opinion.
There is a review of Freeman's article here - part way down the page on the right under the title "Supreme Court Affirms Individual Right to Keep and Bear Arms" (http://neveryetmelted.com/categories/2nd-amendment/feed/). I don't reference it because it sheds any light but just whimsicality because his phrasing amused me.
As long as the "2nd Amendment" is treated as some sort of Holy Statement by the God of Guns or, conversely, by the God of Peace, I don't think there will be a change.
I was not making an argument. I was asking: What kind of legal bearing does such a syntactic clause usually have? Is there a solid line of interpreting it?
But I got the answer. Looks like the interpretation of the whole amendment should revolve around the "well regulated Militia" bit rather than anything else, but of course pro-gunners construe the second part as a holy human right, to which the wording - the wording of the second part specifically - seems to entitle them, nevermind the first part of the same amendment.
I always felt that the militia part should set stage for the interpretation, but didn't care to dig in the sources to find support or rejection, because I don't like jurisprudence in general and English common law practices in general. Thanks for linking stuff to me :up:
It does not occur in European English legal texts from the second half of the eighteenth century?
I meant current EU law in English. Older Anglo-legalese is only of historical interest, which is unfortunately not my area of interest...
You might also be interested in this: http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/thom-hartmann/47623/the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
Incidentally, Dutch fire arm laws are based on similarly idiotic rationales: in 1896 carrying weapons around was banned in an effort to prevent poaching, and in 1919 fire arms were made difficult to obtain in order to keep guns, "the revolutionary weapons of choice," out of the hands of Bolshevists. Ergo, Dutch gun restrictions are ab initio bollocks.
Bravo ... finally a ray of sanity rises above the dark grumbling masses! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/good.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/applause001.gif)
Post by: rjhowie on 2014-02-16, 02:14:46
The US of A is the land of adult chidren on guns. They use a war footing at the birth and early years of the country as an excuse for still having the right to bear arms. In the democracies it is the worst in this area as they miss the past and chance to play cowboys and Indians. What the deuce they pay billions for armed forces and armies of police but still need a late 18th/early 19th century to justify their gun craziness is beyond reason. You are hardly safe to go to popular places like shopping centres, cinemas and going to school is a 50-50 chance of mayhem as the nutjobs start younger than most other places. Over 10,00 killed each year and of course the corporate gun lobby and their childish gun toing pals brain us with guns don't kill people do. Well what un-intentionally only backs up what I say about playing cowboys.
Thank heavens we lost the ex-colonies it is a gun crazy lot of head banging numpties.
Quote from: rjhowie on 2014-02-16, 14:14:46
Thank heavens we lost the ex-colonies.........
Yes, we're all glad your ancestors were thrown out on their miserable kilted (petticoated) asses twice (2x) too!! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/clapping.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/guns4.gif)
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FmzS0Qva.jpg&hash=e35e8f3d6b89b5277e455415ab724023" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/mzS0Qva.jpg) (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FwfW4MyL.jpg&hash=de690c0078bea9eed6d52f0cc8f6d9a9" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/wfW4MyL.jpg)
Over 10,00 killed each year and of course the corporate gun lobby and their childish gun toing pals brain us with guns don't kill people do. Well what un-intentionally only backs up what I say about playing cowboys.
The trouble with the gun lobby and their Republican buddies is they fail to consider the consequences of legislation. Formerly "law abiding" citizens become murderers because teenagers played music too loud (http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-13/dunn-davis-loud-music-shooting-stand-your-grounds-race-problem) at the service station. Oh yes, Dunn involved the "Stand Your Ground" law, claiming the teens aim a shotgun at him. Of course, there was no shotgun to be found in the teens' car. Some of the unnecessary laws they push open the for people to shot each other on the grounds they feel "threatened." Argument in line at the pizza place, shot. Music too loud and teens refuse to turn it down? Shot dead. Before these laws, no jury in America would convict someone legitimately defending himself.
Music too loud and teens refuse to turn it down? Shot dead. Before these laws, no jury in America would convict someone legitimately defending himself.
The jury is having difficulty with this one. It ain't easy, and I'd not like be be among them. It looks like this guy might get off scot-free.
At any rate I'm certain that the intent of the writer was to ensure the right to "keep bare arms."
Quote from: A news article here .... http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-michael-dunn-loud-music-verdict-20140213,0,5446202.story
A jury has found Michael Dunn, the Florida man accused of shooting an unarmed teenager to death during a dispute over loud music, guilty of four charges, but the jury was unable to reach a decision on the top count, first-degree murder.
Dunn, who is white, fired 10 shots into an SUV, killing Jordan Davis, 17, who was black. The shooting in a convenience store parking lot in Jacksonville erupted after Dunn asked the teenagers in the vehicle to turn down their music.
Dunn was charged with first-degree murder, three counts of attempted second-degree murder and one count of firing into a vehicle in the Nov. 23, 2012, shooting. The jury couldn't reach a decision on the first-degree murder charge, but convicted on the other four.
Dunn contended he acted in self-defense. Prosecutors suggested that Dunn, 47, was angry because he was being disrespected by a young black man.....
...... Florida's "stand your ground" law allows the defense to seek a special hearing to receive immunity from prosecution before a trial. Dunn did not choose to go that route, but argued that he had acted in self-defense because he thought there was a weapon in the car and he feared for his life........
......Dunn was remanded to the custody of authorities. Sentencing, which could total as much as 75 years in prison, was set for around March 24.
Nothing needs to be changed .... the laws on the books were properly enforced ....
The law (attempted murder) was obviously broken, law enforcement charged the law breaker, a jury of his peers overwhelmingly agreed with the charges (4 of 5) -- against the direct testimony of the defense -- justice was/will be served ..... the beat goes on. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/yawning003.gif)
Ergo: use headphones! :P
looks like we are going to get a very long repeat and circles like in the Opera Forum. Any wide country would not want to copy and live like the US of A. They are too busy missing wanting to be Wild West cowboys but they do partially well killing around 10,000 of each other annually. And all based on a thinking rooted in the past. Talk about immature childishness. The right to bear arms leans more towards a war footing and with the damn place spending half the world's military budget why do they want to use a long time ag attitude for now? Audy Murphy, John Wayne and Hollywood have a lot to answer for but when you get a nation that can be so brained not surprising there are so many nut jobs.Indeed I wouldn't give so many ex-colonists the chance to carry a water pistol never mind what they do have. Keep on shooting each other as a right by all means.
.........killing around 10,000 of each other annually. And all based on a thinking rooted in the past.
Our great land & our Constitution has survived for well over 230 years, & will survive that again irregardless of the difficulties associated with our right to our type of freedoms......irrespective of your want, need, or desire to argue our future.
If we choose to kill ourselves with automobiles, recreational vehicles, firearms, or by any other means of choice, we freely understand & accept that freedom is not free.
There are costs -- prices to pay, & as a people it is us that live & die with them. Your prospective of our way of life ends at the loudness of your voice --- your free speech ends at our ear.
Americans do not need, want, nor seek your individual or collective European indulgence to continue our chosen American ways of life.
That said, & all aside, RJ, you old piece of dog kibble ..... welcome to DnD. Took you long enough.... (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/cheerskj4.gif)
Freedom to kill. Love it so much that you are ready to die for it. So noble that everyone must look up to you...
In fact, justice hasn't been done. Michael Dunn was found guilty on 3 accounts of attempted murder, but a mistrial was declared on the actual murder charge. When you pass all these "Stand Your Ground" laws, what happens is the people start to feel empowered to shot and kill others because they feel "threatened." What is the Old West when everybody has to carry a pistol against perceived threats? Anyway, the NRA wants to increase gun ownership so they get more dues paying members. It's not about freedom at all, it's about the almighty dollar. They're corrupt and in bed with Republican politicians right down to their rotten core.
Mr. Howie, don't let people like the NRA leadership distort your picture of America. Every country has screwball minority opinions, even yours.
In fact, justice hasn't been done. Michael Dunn was found guilty on 3 accounts of attempted murder........
Mr. Dunn is 47 years old. Each count of Attempted Second Degree Murder holds a 20 year minimum jail term. The 4th count he was found guilty of -- Shooting into the Vehicle -- holds a 15 year term.
Mr Dunn's age = 47
3 x 20 years = 60
Effectively a life sentence being Mr. Dunn will be under lock & key until the feisty old age of 122*. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/lolfun.gif)
Even though the jury was hung -- Prosecution was unable to prove it's case beyond a reasonable doubt -- on the First Degree Murder charge, Mr Dunn is subject to retrial on that charge, but in light of the other conviction's combined terms & Mr. Dunn's age, the odds are against retrial.
* The oldest person ever from the United States was Sarah Knauss (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Knauss), who died on December 30, 1999, at age 119 years 97 days.
He will take his last breaths behind bars --- Justice served.
Should Ordinary Citizens be allowed to own, carry, & use Firearms
Define Ordinary Citizens.
People like Dunn are ordinary citizens, right up to the moment they snap and fire into a car full of unarmed teenagers or something else pisses them like the line at Dominos being too long. That's why you're not allowed into certain places with a gun. What we're looking for is an intelligent middle ground between NRA absolutism and trying to make guns all but illegal.
What we're looking for is an intelligent middle ground between NRA absolutism and trying to make guns all but illegal.
Read the 2nd Amendment's 'Middle Ground Clause'
Why for heaven's sake, how silly, they didn't include one.
Awwww, disappointing, isn't it?
"...Shall Not Be Infringed..." sounds awfully absolute to me.
Well, if you want to change the 'absolute' 2nd Amendment, then simply call for a Constitutional Convention, offer an intelligent - less absolute - 28th Amendment to replace the 2nd Amendment, repeal the 2nd Amendment, & then start the ratification process outlined in the Constitution of the United States of America. * See below for more detail
* The Constitutional Amendment Process:
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi4.ifrm.com%2F10958%2F81%2Fupload%2Fp4927434.jpg&hash=09c03942b8d9feab22d3e2049dbf5585" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i4.ifrm.com/10958/81/upload/p4927434.jpg)
Now, until the proposed Amendment is passed or not ----- deal with what you have....an absolute 2nd Amendment
~~~ OR ~~~
You can permanently move to Europe.
In short, there is no middle ground........period (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/guns4.gif)
Interesting that a terrorist supporter like Smileyfaze is so chuffed we were thrown out because the money men took charge and place went downhill afterwards and became a land of nut jobs, school massacring and so on. By all means keep shooting 10,000 a year it's a right you know!
That's a rather large accusation to make.
Care to elaborate?
I have proudly supported the Irish Republican Army Freedom Fighters (IRA) & Sinn Fein in the past, both financially & technically.
rj considers both to be Terrorist Organizations, whereas I differ with his opinion, & consider them Freedom Fighters & Patriots.
We all know there are extreme elements over there on both sides, that said I would have always sided with family & close friends there.
In 1776 rj would have considered Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, Paul Revere, Nathan Hale, Ben Franklin, John Hancock, John Paul Jones, George Washington & his troops, & my all time favorite -- Francis (Swamp Fox) Marion (http://militaryhistory.about.com/od/americanrevolutio1/p/American-Revolution-Brigadier-General-Francis-Marion-The-Swamp-Fox.htm) -- terrorists one & all, whereas I consider them Patriots & Freedom Fighters.
I would have, if I lived in that time, openly called for the bloody heads & hearts of every representative of the Tyrannical British crown.
One man's freedom fighter, is another man's terrorist.
I thought this might be of interest in our nauseatingly unending discussion of guns.
Do You Support Banning The Possession Of Handguns?
ONION POLL • Opinion • Guns • ISSUE 50•07 • Feb 19, 2014
No. I need this handgun in case I have to shoot a person.
Certainly not the Beretta Px4 Storm Inox! Talk about smooth action.
Yes, but only if we can still make our hands into the shape of a gun and pretend to blow smoke from it after dishing out a great insult.
Not until I settle a few scores.
Only for criminals and men of poor repute.
You can't possibly be suggesting I get rid of Peggy?!
I'm so good at fighting that it doesn't really matter.
Another Adam Lanza moment courtesy of El Smiley One.
A big, big difference, I would have been revered as a patriot, & I wouldn't have been alone by a long shot. Thousands would have stood by my side demanding the same. The British Monarchy was a hated lot in those Revolutionary times. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/awright005.gif)
PS......the Inox is fun to play with, but the Px4 Storm Sub-Compact is my carry handgun of choice....
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FzpkfCyd.jpg&hash=df9104b3c22dde343c26f0f4ecb3b8ab" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/zpkfCyd.jpg)
BTW...... Nice satire piece (poll) (http://www.theonion.com/articles/do-you-support-banning-the-possession-of-handguns,35315/) from the ONION (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fimg215.imageshack.us%2Fimg215%2F2860%2Fgrinwink.gif&hash=af36752928813f2f47e43cd6a074db09" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://img215.imageshack.us/img215/2860/grinwink.gif)
(https://scontent-a-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn2/t1/1743726_10151930351730143_1831403235_n.jpg)
The IRA, in fact, has been one. I've personally let Howie know the multitude of crimes the British committed against the Irish, but the there's a big difference. The Continental Army met the Redcoats on the battlefield. The IRA bombed the subway, etc destroying the lives of innocent civilians. The difference between a freedom fighter and a terrorist is in their actions, and is not just a matter perspective.
The IRA bombed the subway, etc destroying the lives of innocent civilians.
Dresden Germany, Hiroshima, & Nagasaki Japan...........etc......etc.
Innocent civilians, or the enemy?
I say they were the enemy.
Paul Warfield Tibbets Jr. will always be considered an American hero in my books.
The IRA was at war against the Brittish invaders. All's fair in love & war.
To the IRA their women breed tomorrow's invading soldiers.
To the IRA they were the enemy.
All the Brittish need do is cease & leave.
I feel no empathy for their loss.
The IRA were freedom fighters.
BTW...... check out the Gorilla Warfare tactics & less celebrated activities employed by the renowned Indian Fighter, Continental Army & South Carolina Militia Commander Francis Marion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Marion), the "Swamp Fox" --- American Patriot, Freedom Fighter, & Father of Modern Gorilla Warfare.
Extremely unconventional warfare against both Brittish Officers & troops --- not to mention the loyalist 'civilians'!
Bombing loyalists as they slept, how uncivilized. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BigGrin02.gif)
In the end, as always, we will just end up agreeing to disagree.
More Guns, Less Crime............An Armed Society is a more Polite Society.
True gun control is knowing when to pull the trigger!
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/guns4.gif)
I still disagree with some the IRA's tactics, but all the British had to was leave Ireland alone in the first place.
......but all the British had to <do> was leave Ireland alone in the first place.
100% Bloody Correct...(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/friends01.gif)...if they did there would have never been a need for an IRA..........period!
This continuation from the long and drawn out theme on Opera just shows how juvenile the menatality is across the pond .
Complaining as you continually do effectuates the same outcome.
And this continuation of America bashing from across the pond has now migrated from D&D to DnD.
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.netanimations.net%2FMoving-picture-United-Kingdom-flag-waving-in-wind-animated-gif.gif&hash=4a96fb70041a7639911d28b51ce3c1ff" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.netanimations.net/Moving-picture-United-Kingdom-flag-waving-in-wind-animated-gif.gif)
America bashing?
More like a spirited slap on the wrist with a wet lettuce.
The way the adult children go on about playing cowboys and kill each other could be a help in the long run. If immigration is halted and they keep gunning each other down in 5 figures annually should save some tax money. Yeah you kid minds keep going and use the 18th century as an excuse. And all from a nation that regards itself as modern and a shining light to the world. What a land of nut jobs and mass fruit cakes. Millions homeless and losing homes, tens of millions of poor, trillions on wanting to be the Imperial controller of the world and they go on about right to hold weapons. No wonder so many laugh at the utter hypocrisy of the country. Having been brained into it for generations since young they practice a nefarious type of nationalism they have been told is patriotism. Hollywood has a lot to answer for.
In place of not being able to answer the point properly the terrorist supporter on this thread has to fall back on US bashing. Maybe if he lived in the real world and that is actually outside the land of the head bangers he would maybe be forced to realise the place is a, laughing stock of hypocrisy! Seeing you want so many gunners why not reduce the armed forces by ceasing to create wars as you would save a lot of money. Even more disbanding the police you pay so muc for too. How immature to use centuries ago for the right to shoot each too bits. With so much hypocrisy the power of the ne-fascist NRA and that late eejit actor who was leader for a while small wonder the word hypocrisy comes up. Bashing the USA is so easy and never lets one down! :(
and they keep gunning each other down
This particular moment reveals that your 'thinking' is linear.
What's the problem? There's not a single linear process in the entyre past, present and future Universe.
Bashing the USA is so easy and never lets one down!
Particularly for slow witted folk who have a one track mind.
American scientist, Edwin Hubble, discovers that the universe is expanding.
Rjhowie? "Fookin Americans don't know shite!"
Neil Armstrong first person to walk on the moon.
Henry Ford develops the assembly line.
Dr. Jonas Salk invents polio vaccine.
"Fookin Americans don't know shite!"
Assorted Americans invented the internet.
Miley Cyrus invents the twerk.
Few people know that Alex Salmond is actually an American.
"Fookin Americans finally got one right."(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.softcom.net%2Fusers%2Fbbeacham%2Fimages%2Fanimations%2Fscotland_flag_ani.gif&hash=dc86e1abeb544390e1afb5b1f00f60e5" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.softcom.net/users/bbeacham/images/animations/scotland_flag_ani.gif)
None of that changes the act that the ex-colonies have a terrible history of rights, freedoms and honesty. That much heralded Constitution is neatly ignored time after time Yet it blows around the world interfering everywhere causing trouble if their commercial string pullers don't get their way. The nation,s internal history is a shocking one too and still is. As for lists of achievements we could say the same about some dodgy places too like Germany during the 3rd Reich. Goodness they produced cheap holidays for low income families, a cheap car for people, great highways and so on.There cannot be a nation with so many spy agencies as the wonderful shining light to the world.
Not a good idea to try lists of achievements as this can be done this side of the water from the first embryo computer, medical discoveries, railways metalled roads and a whole lot more. Even WW2 was shortened when we solved Enigma Codes although Yanks think it was them. It is one thing having good attributes but when you see the other side it is horrific hence it is so easy to emphasise the terrible side with so much wrong chest beating around the world. Of course many don't want to have attention to this and think because they are okay then no problem folks! Tens of millions of Americans bang on about a different, belligerent and Imperial stance so as we are just supposed to take no note? ders and tens of millions of your associates produce another America which is not very enticing or to boast about. Trouble with intellectuals is is they want to have a sanitised reaction.
Of course I do feel for the decent who haven't a hope in Hell of changing a political system which is not there for them . So they sigh and try to exist without the permanent weight round the neck. How sad.A while ago Smileyfaze made a silly comment that if there were any probs it was our fault. Now there's a beaut that the place was so dumb it took so .long to be mature? Boy am I glad the way things went that we cannot be held resposible for the millions of Smileyfazes! :D
Tens of thousands of Connecticut residents refuse to register guns under new law
Quote from: http://tinyurl.com/ketcobu
On Jan. 1, 2014, tens of thousands of defiant gun owners seemingly made the choice not to register their semi-automatic rifles with the state of Connecticut as required by a hastily-passed gun control law. By possessing unregistered so-called "assault rifles," they all technically became guilty of committing Class D felonies overnight.
Police had received 47,916 applications for "assault weapons certificates" and 21,000 incomplete applications as of Dec. 31, Lt. Paul Vance told The Courant.
At roughly 50,000 applications, officials estimate that as little as 15 percent of the covered semi-automatic rifles have actually been registered with the state. "No one has anything close to definitive figures, but the most conservative estimates place the number of unregistered assault weapons well above 50,000, and perhaps as high as 350,000," the report states.
Needless to say, officials and some lawmakers are stunned.
Contunued ...... read on from the above title link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqbB67N-YB0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VaP6LcXPdxg
Strength in numbers ........... en masse acts of civil disobedience (http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/371093/en-masse-connecticuts-gun-owners-defy-new-registration-law-charles-c-w-cooke)!!!
Let 'em come & get 'em!
Its the Govt. of Connecticut's move -- the ball is in their court.
Many Police organizations State wide have already put the State on notice they will not enforce this law.
They cite that they swore an oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, & not any local law in conflict with the US Constitution.
As the law is interpreted, there will be no amnesty (http://weston-ct.patch.com/groups/cagv-dissenter/p/no-to-assault-weapon-amnesty--cagv-dissenter).
The 100,000 +/- Civilly Disobedient Citizens of Ct. are past the point of no return.
What do I think? - I think it's all rather hysterical.
But coming to the old, old joke about the "Right to Bare Arms", I note that progress has, indeed been made by the Bare Arms Movement
Right to Bare Arms (http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Right-to-Bear-Arms-Marines-to-Allow-Rolled-Up-Sleeves-247677181.html)
Unfortunately this means that we can all look forward to even more smelly armpits. Clearly regulation is the right way forward, criminals should only be allowed to have bare wrists, for example, and repeat criminals should loose the right to bare arms entirely, and ......
Naturally the State should issue masks for those badly affected.
Of course, some people will refuse to register their arms.
But that's the US of A.
There are worse things than bare arms.
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Frender.fineartamerica.com%2Fimages%2Fimages-iphone5-cases-covers-medium%2Fimages-medium-5%2Fnaked-woman-butt-and-red-rose-oleksiy-maksymenko.jpg&hash=bb0b90323031efeb7e44cc6ed114b100" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://render.fineartamerica.com/images/images-iphone5-cases-covers-medium/images-medium-5/naked-woman-butt-and-red-rose-oleksiy-maksymenko.jpg)
What a bum reaction.
And talking about importing bashing from Opera do try and check your own eye before waffling on someone else's .Russian ignorance on your part boy? Or that thread that went on for scores of pages on the juvenile minds over the pond and their childish love of guns? It is here in all it's daftness. So you are falling well into just another example of the would-be frightfully, frightfully, would-be intellectual club mindset. That seems to have been imported here too just to ensure a broad outlook......!
ps. Bet this gun continuation goes on and on.
It will, but there are limits.
Open carry is legal in Texas, but nonetheless police arrested Derek Poe for carrying his AR-15 through the Parkdale Mall.
"Multiple witnesses claimed that they were 'terrified' and 'thought they were going to die,' according to Burnt Orange Report, a major Texas political blog. But Poe maintains he did nothing illegal. He told KBMT that "it was clearly obvious I didn't have criminal intent. I had a drink in one hand and a bag in the other. I didn't commit a crime. I legally carried a long arm in Texas."
Poe, a gun store owner, faces up to 180 days in jail and a $1,000 fine after his arrest for "disorderly conduct." The charge was brought by police on the grounds that he was carrying his weapon "in a manner calculated to alarm."
They're stealing my rights!(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/sherriff.gif)
The AR-15.
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.youthink.com%2Fimages_quiz%2F2012%2F07%2F23%2F100_792052574.jpg&hash=f0e1d527471dc7dc3d5293a7d262e3a4" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://media.youthink.com/images_quiz/2012/07/23/100_792052574.jpg)
A safe bet it will go on well after the last worm scrapes your bones of the final flesh ole man. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/kissingmonkey002.gif)
Tiocfaidh ár lá ... (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/guns13.gif) may the sad little Royal Scot rest restlessly in a bed of Irish thorns (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BigToothSmile.gif)
It ain't only guns!
Should Ordinary Chinese Citizens be allowed to Own, Carry, & Use knives?
An attack by knife-wielding men at a railway station in Kunming in south-west China has left at least 29 dead, the state news agency Xinhua says.
Another 130 people were wounded in what authorities said was a "premeditated, violent terrorist attack".
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26403530 (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-26403530)
Not much smarter than that guy in New Jersey who keep his gun in the seat while being pulled over. Both men would be food for worms once LV MetroPD arrived. They may complain about "I did nothing illegal", but the part they don't get is they're lucky they didn't earn a Darwin Award. Short of earning dubious honors, they also fail to understand they're setting back their own cause by showing what the NRA's agenda would really look like in practice. He probably was just stupid and didn't have criminal intent, but how easy it to drop your drink and bag to open fire; in fact to use those effects in an attempt mask your malignant intent?
Great day in the morning!!! Is there something in the water that causes these "He-Man" types to do the dumbest things you can find to do with guns? They're always wanting to walk around like it's "The Day After The End of the World" or some such nonsense, ready for trouble at all times--- in the meantime, I've lived 58 years so far and never once been in a situation where a gun would have done me much good, most times it's just something else I'd have to be concerned about-- got plenty on my plate already, don't need a gun adding to the "festivities".
As I've said before, I have a gun but don't carry it with me. Frankly, I don't think it would do me much good, either. I have two water pistols for my grandboys that are lots of fun.
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi1217.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fdd389%2FJaybro37%2FJimsGun.jpg&hash=14e59bbde0d494add4c22e79325f5384" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i1217.photobucket.com/albums/dd389/Jaybro37/JimsGun.jpg)
This dude (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=99.msg10947#msg10947) must have fallen out of the stupid tree, & hit his head on every freekin' branch on the way down!
I'm glad that of the about 100,000,000 or so gun owners in America ( One Hundred Million for the decimally impaired ) that 99.9999% probably aren't so inclined.
While I understand & respect your "personal choice" when it comes to deciding if you'd ever need a firearm for protection, police records are replete with accounts of those that were carrying, & until an actual life threatening event, never needed to upholster their firearm either. I'm sure they were glad they live in a wonderful country where most everywhere they have the recognized right to make a "personal choice" to pack heat or not.
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F5Njvw7h.jpg&hash=eed90854807046a70addb7c9cd907ec7" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/5Njvw7h.jpg)
Smiley-- I've been in situations where having a gun would have CAUSED trouble rather than preventing it. Pulling the gun and trying to use it would have made things worse.
I occasionally make deliveries to places like nuclear power plants and military bases. When you pull up to the guard shack, both your vehicle and your person are searched--- and guns are a definite no-no. There is a list of contraband items that will at the very least bar you from entering the site; weapons, bombs,alcohol and drugs being near the top of the list. These guys aren't playing, either. They mean business. Call me stupid for not carrying all you want-- I remarked on Sang's post showing a couple of guys who displayed remarkable stupidity for the way they carried and where they chose to carry, and you say that I hit every branch on the stupid tree. I'll have to remember that-----.
Hint: Take this sort of picture from the side so you don't get the flash reflection and then take out perspective using Paintshop Pro or something.
I'd say if at all possible just take it during the day. Certainly simpler than editing it! :)
Call me stupid for not carrying all you want-- I remarked on Sang's post showing a couple of guys who displayed remarkable stupidity for the way they carried and where they chose to carry, and you say that I hit every branch on the stupid tree. I'll have to remember that-----.
The dude I was talkin' about wasn't you silly -- read the post Mike. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/lolfun.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/big%20laugh%20007.gif)
I doubt that I ever have called you stupid, & I sincerely doubt I ever would -- You've expressed your needs, & situations, & I respect them.
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/exitstageleft.gif)If you have reason to believe otherwise, now's the time. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/exitstageright.gif)
Nice job of editing after the fact. Don't think I didn't notice. This way, I look like I flew off the handle for no reason-- before editing, it looked like I just might have a point.
I fancy that keeping an eye on you might be good practice.
Nice job of editing after the fact
I was adding links & the pic at the bottom as a finishing touch/after-thought while you were probably reading it....you were posting during my edit revisions.
I have no desire to make you look bad, & never had you in mind when I was discrediting that asshole jaybro posted about, & who was later quoted by 'cooney, & subsequently yourself.
At the time I started developing my post, your post was the next to last post....the last post being jaybro's
My sometimes constant & incessant need to revise & detail my posts sometimes overlaps subsequent posts.....posts that I'm completely unaware of, as was in this case. You responded to my post prior to it being finalized, but if you read the post, it should be abundantly obvious I never meant you in any way, manner, or form.
I do not now, nor have I ever thought you as stupid.
The asshole strolling the mall ---- the actual 'Stupid' object of my scorn ---- with the AR-15 was stupid....not you.
I respect your positions & opinions.......Though I may not always agree.......sorry for your misunderstandings.(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/confused5.gif)
JFYI......I made at minimum of 3 revisions of the above (this post) spanning over 15 or so minutes, but I guess because it was still the last post, no edit remarks appeared until the last
EDIT: Maybe the problem is deeper, & not all mine ? ? ? ? ? ? Exhibit 'A' (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=188.msg11027#msg11027)
I witness there were no abuse to you before your post appeared, Mikey.
It's time-bound, so you can still correct a few typos without it showing up as edited. It's currently set to 10 minutes. It's a bit of a balancing act, but I thought the default of 1.5 minutes was a bit short.
@Frenzie
Thanks......I like a longer 'adjustment period',
1.5 minutes would be way too quick.
The only problem that exists here is that I was unaware of any subsequent posts to the one I was busy updating & correcting.
I think one reason might be because of the 'Modify Message' icon at the bottom of the post does not permit a Preview, unlike the top 'Modify' option which does provide for a Preview. The non-preview Modification option causes me to actually post in order to proofread the modification, & if I find something I modified--or forgot--unacceptable I need to repeat the process. This can cause problems when others can read the incorrect posts while I'm still proofreading & correcting. With a Preview the post actually never goes live until it's hopefully a final product.
Another reason might be that after a modification is made, I don't think subsequent posting is shown unless you additionally do a refresh of the page.
I think this was automatic in MyOPERA, but there's no way to verify this for MyOPERA exists no more. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/dunno04.gif)
I think the point of it is to edit without any page refreshes. Whether that's actually a good thing is another matter. The "real" edit does warn you if new replies were made.
OK. Perhaps it was a mistake, a misunderstanding. Things happen, especially when we're dealing in print and can't see each others' faces which can tell so much in person-to-person communication. Besides, I hate carrying grudges, the doggone things get heavy after a short time.
.....Things happen, especially when we're dealing in print and can't see each others' faces which can tell so much in person-to-person communication. Besides, I hate carrying grudges, the doggone things get heavy after a short time.
"I would rather walk with a friend in the dark, than alone in the light."
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/friends.gif) I wholeheartedly agree......110% (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/friends01.gif)
I wish someone really thoughtful over there could explain this.
The US Constitution in all the arguments over it mentions that the gun thing was in conjunction with a properly organised militia. No problem with the militia in a young country not yet full up so why the deuce is this thing about the right to carry arms when there is an army a National Guard a wide police force everywhere? Is this saying that having these normal parts of a definitive State ar just for some kind of show?
I watched a very tough interview in the BBC's Hard Talk programme with the former head of the NRA who advised all countries to be like America. Heaven forbid we give an open sesame to thousands of gun killings. But my point of query remains. Have I just missed a Militia because it is hidden....?
The US Constitution in all the arguments over it mentions that the gun thing was in conjunction with a properly organised militia. No problem with the militia in a young country not yet full up so why the deuce is this thing about the right to carry arms when there is an army a National Guard a wide police force everywhere?
The existence of the Second Amendment wasn't there so we can duck shoot, & target shoot, it was created so we could cast off any tyrannical government that in part or in total refused to abide by the Constitution , & honor the rights of the people as primarily outlined in the first 10 Amendments to the US Constitution --- The Bill of Rights.
A militia is simply any man, any woman, & any boy, any grandad, & any grandma...........any citizen of age capable of shooting &/or being trained to shoot in.
The Militia is not a National Guard, The Militia is not a police force, nor is the Militia a small unit in any army.
It is any citizen or group of citizens capable of joining in with another citizen or citizens in time of need....locally all the way up to nationally, using their own personally maintained weapons of choice, for defense against all foes either foreign or domestic --- to protect themselves, their families, their friends, & their property.
You may wish to argue need, but in the end it is not up to any person or government of the people to define.
Defining the need has always rested with the individual --- It is not a collective Right as defined by the Supreme Court, & as written, is not negotiable.
Correct. Now this isn't an argument against the right to bear arms, but back then citizens militias might have a chance against the US military (although in practice, they were unsuccessful as in Shay's Rebellion.) Today, you would need to turn substantial elements of the military itself to your side. Your AR-15 vs cruise missiles, etc? I don't think so. The romantic notion of militias being the saviors of representative government is a just that, a romantic fantasy. I've read some pro-gun posters in other forums note (more like parrot) that the second amendment is the most important because it guarantees the liberties of the rest of the Bill of Rights. They don't know their potential enemy.
each others' faces
"Each other" doesn't get plural... I could guess that could be sorta "paronym": "see each other" mixed with "see others' faces". (I must post this. For Krake (Bel is unamendable:P).;))
....back then citizens militias might have a chance against the US military...
75 to 100 million gun owners make a substantial guerrilla fighting force, if called upon.
"Give me Liberty, or Give me Death" ........ Those words still mean the same thing....better to die in the pursuit of Freedom, than to serve to the whim of a government in breach of it's Constitutional obligation to the people.
Also, about 75% of the military, when asked, said they would never fire on another American..........ever.
Due to their oath of military service, they owe allegiance solely to the preservation of the Constitution, not a Government, a Flag, or a Commander in Chief.
"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.........
So, I wonder where their loyalties lay?
Will they honor their oaths?
Below are 3 videos.
I strongly suggest, to understand what Oath Keepers is all about, watch all 3 videos ...... at minimum the first one.
I have taken the Oath Keepers Oath at the 6:20 mark of video #3 with my family & friends, many of which are present & former service & law enforcement personnel.
Quote from: Part of the Oath Keepers Declaration http://oathkeepers.org/oath/about/
1. We will NOT obey orders to disarm the American people.
2. We will NOT obey orders to conduct warrantless searches of the American people
3. We will NOT obey orders to detain American citizens as "unlawful enemy combatants" or to subject them to military tribunal.
4. We will NOT obey orders to impose martial law or a "state of emergency" on a state.
5. We will NOT obey orders to invade and subjugate any state that asserts its sovereignty.
6. We will NOT obey any order to blockade American cities, thus turning them into giant concentration camps.
7. We will NOT obey any order to force American citizens into any form of detention camps under any pretext.
8. We will NOT obey orders to assist or support the use of any foreign troops on U.S. soil against the American people to "keep the peace" or to "maintain control."
9. We will NOT obey any orders to confiscate the property of the American people, including food and other essential supplies.
10.We will NOT obey any orders which infringe on the right of the people to free speech, to peaceably assemble, and to petition their government for a redress of grievances.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1IzGEJvxOO0?start=183
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zztaj2AFiy8?start=243
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4f8oWVZ3Qwg
EDIT: gorilla to guerrilla
gorilla fighting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obrUcxsCemM
Quote from: Josh on 2014-03-04, 10:10:31
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/lolfun.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/busted.gif)
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/little-rocking-monkey.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/monkeythumbwinkerbi5.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/kissingmonkey002.gif)
If anywhere near that could be mustered, yes. I'm not sure where to begin. There would be resistance, but you'll be lucky to get a couple hundred thousand out of all those gun owners. In this day and age, every electronic communication and be intercepted. Cruise missile to the armed resistance.
This (http://www.taurusarmed.net/forums/firing-line/17333-has-us-army-ever-fired-american-citizens.html) might clarify the issue for you. See last post of the first page. It might clarify for you that the US military has, in fact turned on the Americans multiple times. This doesn't count the civil war. In fact, it turned on veterans. Don't even begin to think American troops won't turn on Americans again. I'm sure 75% say they won't and actually believe it but there's also the issue being trained to follow orders, the propaganda they're given about the targets. Yes, they're likely to believe that firing on the resistance cells is protecting the country.
I agree on this last point of yours... 8)
Quote from: 'Cooney on 2014-03-08, 04:32:17
..... Don't even begin to think American troops won't turn on Americans again. I'm sure 75% say they won't and actually believe it but there's also the issue being trained to follow orders, the propaganda they're given about the targets. Yes, they're likely to believe that firing on the resistance cells is protecting the country.
I sure hope you're wrong, 'cause that day is probably a commin' ...... sooner than you think. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/He%20Did%20It%20004.gif)
It's another reason the military needs to be decreased, aside from the usual less paranoid-sounding budgetary arguments. Massive militaries have this bad tendency to take over, either directly or indirectly. Give agencies such as the NRA more money to survey "criminals" and "terrorists." No, because you're building a spying apparatus that old USSR, or DDR would be green is envy over. And never in your life support anything like the Patriot Act , which the real liberals opposed even as their Democratic Representatives and Senators voted for it.
There was a brief news item a couple of days ago that referred to a report that said a third of the military over the pond have mental problems. Kind of a concern in a land of gun nutjobs.
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/index.php?action=reporttm;topic=99.157;msg=12222)
I'm not too much versed in American reality, but in what concerns to Europe the problem is not the army but the police.
The army is made of people that, through the entire chain of command, were never trained nor indoctrinated to fight their own people.
The Police is different, they are trained and indoctrinated to see the populations as the enemy.
The more they repress effectively their own populations the more they will be promoted...
For some reason, a special force, the Eurofor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurofor), has been already created joining polices from several European countries. Their mission is not like the army, to fight an external enemy, but to repress their own people.
It is made with the polices from Italy, France, Portugal and Spain. Like the Nazis, they are using local forces to do the dirty job.
Interesting how laconic in information wikipedia is about such extraordinary force.
I wanted to link to their website but it seems that is not anymore available.
what concerns to Europe the problem is not the army but the police.
Same here.....most of the local police force, if they ever had to discharge their firearms in the line of duty, it has been at other Americans.
The difference here is that we are a gun culture, & the greater majority of police officers, sheriffs, etc are fervant gun owners themselves, acutely aware of their oaths of office (that the protection of the U.S. Constitution is the first & foremost part of their duty), & are -- except for some metropolitan police -- are strong believers in the right of Americans to keep & bear arms. They have been at the forefront of ignoring enforcement of the 'new' gun laws, which they agree infringe upon the right of Americans to keep & bear arms.
What a nation with so many adults acting like children and living in the past. Small wonder psychiatry is big business in the land of nut jobs. You sensible ex-colonists here have a mighty big groan to contend with as there are legions of Smileyfazes. Apart from being such a dangerous place it is a laughing stock of the world. Sad, sad.
http://www.npr.org/2014/03/10/287311237/kentucky-southern-baptists-draw-crowds-with-gun-giveaways?ft=1&f=1001 (http://www.npr.org/2014/03/10/287311237/kentucky-southern-baptists-draw-crowds-with-gun-giveaways?ft=1&f=1001)
It's an hour before suppertime, and the line outside Lone Oak First Baptist Church in Paducah, Ky., is wrapped around the building. The people are waiting for more than a Bible sermon; there's a raffle tonight. Twenty-five guns are up for grabs.
There's nothing new about gun raffles in Kentucky, even at a church. Last year, there were 50 events like this one in the state. The Kentucky Baptist Convention says it's a surefire way to get new people through church doors.
I'm almost speechless.
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia-cache-ak0.pinimg.com%2F236x%2F9d%2Fb3%2Fa4%2F9db3a46e4153d1e1195284d7e0b88282.jpg&hash=3745be0f09ace416a1c43289c9c53fac" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/9d/b3/a4/9db3a46e4153d1e1195284d7e0b88282.jpg)
Apart from being such a dangerous place it is a laughing stock of the world. Sad, sad.
Guilty of overspeak again, Mr. Howie.
77 and I still haven't been shot.
Please note that the US has a larger population than the below foreign nations.
Don't mistake me...we have far too many guns. So does Smileyfaze Eastwood.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rF08MzKlm4M
In the matter of guns, we're no match for Iran, Iraq, Pakistan and Afghanistan.
The estimated total number of guns (both licit and illicit) held by civilians in Iran is 3,500,000.
The estimated total number of guns (both licit and illicit) held by civilians in Iraq is 9,750,000.
The estimated total number of guns (both licit and illicit) held by civilians in Afghanistan is 1,000,000.
The estimated total number of guns (both licit and illicit) held by civilians in Pakistan is 18,000,000.
The estimated total number of guns (both licit and illicit) held by civilians in the United States is 270,000,0001 to 310,000,000.
is 270,000,0001
Now the Interstellar Vacuum starts to become clear.
Jimbro was hacked by an evil extragalactic vermin, and those vermin ain't familiar with Earth's "numerology".
The total mass of the gas and dust in the interstellar medium is about 15% of the total mass of visible matter in the Milky Way.
That's more gas that I get from eating beans. Beans, beans, the musical fruit, the more you eat, the more you toot. The more you toot, the better you feel, so let's eat beans with every meal! (U.S. Dry Bean Council)
I think that was written by Señor Shakespeare, the ex-President of the U.S. Dry Bean Council.
What a wonderful revelation.
Mess with our right to keep & bear arms, well we'll have the last laugh!
Infringe no more!
California Democrat & Gun Control Advocate Charged With Arms Trafficking
Quote from: A National News Alert http://www.forbes.com/sites/gregorymcneal/2014/03/27/california-democrat-and-gun-control-advocate-charged-with-arms-trafficking/
California Democratic State Senator and candidate for California Secretary of State, Leland Yee, a gun control advocate, has been charged with conspiring to traffic in firearms and public corruption. The charges are part of a 26 person criminal complaint and a major FBI sting operation. The full criminal complaint is a massive 137 pages that tells the story of Yee's involvement with a broad ranging conspiracy that includes firearms trafficking, murder-for-hire, drug distribution, trafficking in contraband cigarettes, money laundering, and honest services fraud.
Yee is charged with "conspiracy to deal firearms without a license and to illegally import firearms" as well as six counts of honest services fraud. Each corruption charge is punishable by up to 20 years in federal prison and a fine of up to $250,000, while the gun-trafficking charge is punishable by up to five years and $250,000........... continued
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/guns4.gif) Senator Yee, your Peking Duck has come home to roost! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/yes2.gif)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9gNUJpILD1Y
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FOGyyX25.jpg&hash=45b9028bf832bb82e4678f78c6ace5f9" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/OGyyX25.jpg)
Gun company releases it's re-designed AR-15 (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/05/missouri-gun-company-to-sell-new-york-compliant-ar-15-rifle/) which overcomes all the objections in the recently passed (by the skin on it's teeth) New York State's Anti-Second Amendment "Assault Style Weapon" Ban, making New York's legislation toothless & irrelevant because the new weapon is completely compliant! (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIAMjnkA.png&hash=75d0d7eea719091c2572795fb09fe4a5" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/IAMjnkA.png)
New York's Anti-Gun Gov. Cuomo is said to be absolutely furious! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/lolfun.gif)
CNN.com (http://CNN.com)
A noted internet poster and staunch gun advocate, SmileyFaze, was shot yesterday by a seven year old boy.
Details at eleven.
And now yet another school on a rampage. Kind of typical of routine reality over the pond although for a change this nut job in the land of such used knives.
Absolutely typical and routine. It happens in Grand Rapids all the time.
You have a little bit of information which you use as a sledgehammer. You know very little about daily life here. Two trips here and you're an expert on everything American. If you had a backyard telescope, you'd be pontificating on the far reaches of the universe beyond the observable horizon.
The Anti-Gunners all clamor that if we eliminate Guns, especially large magazine firearms, then our children would be safe from the crazed & insane bent on murderous blood lust.
We've (us legal gun owners & pro 2nd Amendment supporters) been saying that a crazed/insane bad guy will find whatever weapon he chooses to do his heinous deed & succeed regardless of any law on the books.
We have also been saying that this banter from the anti-gunners about "Gun Free Zones", as if they are like a 'protective shield' to save our lil ones from harm, is just pure bullshit....which it is, & it has been proven that it's bullshit over, & over, & over....
Well here's what happens when the deranged perpetrator knows he won't be opposed by deadly force (a good guy with a gun) in the safety of a "Gun Free Zone".
Quote from: ABC NEWS http://abcnews.go.com/US/stabbings-reported-franklin-regional-high-school-pennsylvania/story?id=23253018
A knife-wielding student had a "blank expression" as he went on a mass stabbing spree at a Murrysville, Pa., high school at the start of the school day, a witness said.
Witnesses told the Associated Press the assailant, who was carrying two knives, first tackled a freshman and stabbed him in the abdomen before running down the hall inside Franklin Region High School and slashing other students.
Nate Moore, 15, was stabbed during the rampage and said he had to be treated with 15 stitches.
"It was really fast. It felt like he hit me with a wet rag because I felt the blood splash on my face. It spurted up on my forehead," Moore told the AP.
At least 20 people were injured after the stabbings at the start of the school day, Westmoreland County emergency management spokesman Dan Stevens said.
No fatalities were reported.
The stabbing spree ended when assistant principal Sam King helped tackle the 16-year-old suspect, according to Thomas Seefeld, the police chief in Murrysville, Pa.
The motive for the rampage remains under investigation. However, Seefeld said the outcome could have been a lot worse if immediate action had not been taken **.........
** It took over 30 minutes to subdue the crazed knife wielding perpetrator.
An armed & trained teacher or security officer with a Glock probably could have scared this asshole into dropping his weapons much sooner, either that or he could have popped this scumbag in the grey matter way before most of those 30+ minutes of butchery took place, probably sparing many of the young victims.
We should be thankful that this asshole didn't choose to use a firearm!
Thankfully he chose 2 kitchen knives instead!
This crazed 16 year old has been charged as an adult with attempted murder.
His intent was to kill, not to maim!
Imagine him having 30+ minutes in this "Gun Free Zone" filled with well over 1,000+ defenseless students & staff, wielding a blazing firearm unopposed instead??!!??
A law on the books wouldn't have stopped him in his rampage, would it.
My point here is not what weapon was used or not used, it's simply that this crazed dude couldn't be subdued in this "Gun Free Zone" during his stabbing rampage, for over 30+ minutes, when if faced with a firearm, most of those injured children might have been spared their serious -- some life-threatening -- injuries.
Just as a further thought, would this scumbag have had his butchering way for 30+ plus minutes in a bristling police station or a packed shooting range?
Why, other than the overwhelmingly obvious reasons, why did this coward choose this "Gun Free Zone" rather than one of those other places?
He was law-abiding -- he carried kitchen knives, not firearms.
RANCHO CUCAMONGA, Calif. (KABC) -- A suspect has been arrested in the fatal shooting of a security guard during an armed robbery at a mini-mart in Rancho Cucamonga.
Diego Dominguez, 36, of Rancho Cucamonga, was arrested Sunday. He is suspected of shooting and killing 45-year-old Dean Sena as he worked at a strip mall on Arrow Route and Hermosa Avenue around 11:20 p.m. Saturday.
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/bandito09.gif)
Your point? (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/hmm.gif)
For goodness sake jimbro. How can you scoff an dismiss. Just how many such things have went on in your schools? One of those top of the pile wins the US won't brag about. It is hardly just one or two. Between these semi-regular occasions and so many loose grey cells in the military you have a problem whether you like to be reminded or not. Meanwhile your pal Smileyfaze is content that it was a knife that effected so many and not a gun. Kind of tells you something!
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FbP2zO8W.jpg&hash=f7f9805e54614d89da8271d8e9de78ef" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/bP2zO8W.jpg)
What don't you understand about the difference between a tyrannical regime in Syria and mass killings in the United States?
:lol: Who did you vote for in 2012? :lol:
You are talking to a neo-con and terrorist killing supporter jimbro so don't expect common sense.
Post by: krake on 2014-04-22, 05:06:38
Politicians have their own way to tell us what they think. What Obama tells makes sense to me.
(https://vivaldi.net/media/com_easysocial/photos/6183/38861/337a7d46613da740f80d5b318568fe6e_original.jpg)
It depends where those Syrian weapons end up...maybe our good friend Al Qaeda. I wonder how Al's doing.
Nope. Him and the hysterical anti-Obama crowd seem to have no concept of tyranny. It's one thing to disagree with a president's policies and quite another to even try to compare the president to Assad, not to mention disrespectful to the latter's victims and their families and those that live under true dictatorship. Obama's term winds down. Who's guns did he take away? Who lost their freedom of the press? Hint: if Obama was anything like the neo-cons say he was, sites such as Brieitbart would have been taken down or only accessible through through proxies or whatever. Clues for sale dirt cheap, GOPers!
....Who's guns did he take away?.....
Ah, that's the key, he didn't take our 2nd Amendment Rights away simply because against all his best efforts he wasn't permitted to -- by a vigilant & united front of gun owners & protectors of the Second Amendment, combined with the efforts of wonderful organizations like the NRA, Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, GeorgiaCarry.org, Grass Roots North Carolina, Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners of New Hampshire, Gun Owners' Action League, Handgun Club of America, Law Enforcement Alliance of America, Liberty Belles, Massachusetts Rifle Association, National Association for Gun Rights, New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Pink Pistols, Saint Gabriel Possenti Society, Second Amendment Foundation, Second Amendment Sisters, Stonewall Shooting Sports of Utah, Students for Concealed Carry, Virginia Citizens Defense League, & thousands of other patriotic gun advocacy, & activist organizations all across America --- from sea to shining sea. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/guns4.gif)
If he coulda, he woulda, & you can bank on that!
The fight is never over, Obama, & those that will follow him, still have heinous Anti-Second Amendment plots to hatch, but we're on to them like white on rice!
We will never give an inch to any anti-firearm legislation....ever --- none, zero, ziltch! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/nono.gif)
...Shall Not Be Infringed.... has no room for compromise!!!!!
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FZbQT530.gif&hash=e5451df3a5a17549618d432edb6209ab" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/ZbQT530.gif)
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FmzS0Qva.jpg&hash=e35e8f3d6b89b5277e455415ab724023" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/mzS0Qva.jpg)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/guns4.gif)
Because he didn't try. In fact, that was used against him in 2012 by members of some second amendment groups. Yeah, the screwballs said that because he didn't try to take away guns in the first time meant he planned to in his second. WTF kind of reasoning was that? There's so much paranoia regarding this president that it's ridiculous. This paranoia is deliberately cultivated by groups such as the NRA to increase gun sales, More pernicious is that they seek to cultivate a "need" to have a gun, a type of fear of their fellow man, even as the crime rate (both violent and non-violent) continues its decades long fall. They do this for the same reason.
Because he didn't try.......
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/big%20laugh%20007.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/bs010.gif)
Is prevarication going to be your call 'Cooney? (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/nono.gif)
You know what you said could be called a split tongued, bold faced lie if I wished to call you a liar, but rather than bore everyone with a litany of ways Barrack Hussein Obama & his Administration has attempted (& failed as he always does & hopefully always will) failed to weaken & destroy America's Second Amendment Rights, I'll just post a single (1) (yes, just one) little truth to completely refute & destroy that falsehood that "<Obama> ... he didn't try".
Quote from: The Washington Times ..... Obama's backdoor gun ban .. Government is blocking sale of historic weapons http://bit.ly/1ht779n
...... It's hard to see how these M1 rifles could be considered risky when they already are offered for sale by the U.S. government through the Civilian Marksmanship Program. In fact, the federally sponsored CMP puts on summer camps that teach boys and girls how to handle the Garand properly and safely. In the past seven years, there hasn't been a single accident. Many of the participants go on to serve their country or take part in shooting sports at the collegiate and Olympic level.
It's more likely that the administration is seeking to win the admiration of gun grabbers. Mr. Obama has a history of supporting gun control as a state senator and U.S. senator, but he's been limited in his ability to implement this anti-gun agenda as president. Democratic members of Congress remember the federal assault-weapons ban as one of the lead issues motivating voters to turn Congress over to Republicans in 1994. Senators facing tight races in pro-gun states don't want to see a repeat of that midterm landslide. Therefore, the best way for Mr. Obama to appease the gun-grabbing fringe is to take actions that won't bring too much attention to what he's doing. As long as the destruction of these rifles stays under the public radar screen, he will have achieved his goal ..........continued
Now 'Cooney, stop telling your childish & foolish lil fibs -- to put it mildly.
EVERY AMERICAN knows Obama has tried, & will continue to try, to take down the Second Amendment of the US Constitution ... from the Bill of Rights ... The Right of American's to Keep & Bear Arms...........via the front door, via the back door, via any way his fiendish little mind thinks it can accomplish the deed.
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/quotess.gif) Well, it ain't gunna work! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/quotess.gif)
Nope. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/NoFreekinWay.gif)
We will never permit Obama, or any of the other little self-righteous politicians for that matter, we will never permit them to Infringe on our Right to Keep & Bear Arms, in any way, manner, or form!
No Compromise....ever......period!
The only way to accomplish Obama's anti-firearm agendas is if the gun-grabbin' left is able to repeal the Second Amendment via a 28th Constitutional Amendment --- Any other way would have to be over the cold dead bodies of 80+ million armed gun loving Americans. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/guns4.gif)
Time to Lock 'n Load?
I like the (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/cleanteeth09.gif) odds, so I'm up for the challenge ---- How about (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FrBO2dVN.gif&hash=4e0c994eab7168db17b5e3c7ef382145" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/rBO2dVN.gif) lil ole you?
Ah, a see you can't point out any examples of Obama taking away everyone's guns, or even attempting to. Hell, Reagan did more to "gun grab" throughout his political career than Obama did. Look it up.
Of course, the point isn't who did more to try a "gun-grab." It's the the Right has completely lost it with the current president. I'm not saying Obama is a good president. I am saying you folks have lost perspective. It started while he was still President-Elect and didn't even take office. Yes, I've personally seen a protest against all the things Obama supposedly did - before the man had a chance to do anything at all. You see, I live in the real world, not the world of pundits - more than half of whom are borderline plagiarists passing along the same lie without checking the facts.
Of course, none of that means anything to you. You think I'm a gun-grabber, not understand that I received my first gun from my father while in the fifth grade and grew up around guns. That's how I know that some people shouldn't be allowed to have one. When we came to Vegas we hired some Mexicans in front of Home Deport to help unload the truck. You should have seen the look on the workers faces when the saw all my dad's rifles, even the weapons where packed away in their cases and unloaded. You still want me to be as anti-gun as you're pro-gun. I can't do that for you. I'm pro-gun, but also pro-common sense laws.
Quote from: 'Cooney ''at no dime does his fingers leave his palms'' the mooner
Ah, a see you can't point out any examples of Obama taking away everyone's guns, or even attempting to. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif)
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/busted.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BigGrin02.gif) Ah, I see --- same ole 'Cooney, get caught-out with yer ass & weenie dangelin' in the breeze --- gotta deflect, deflect, deflect... (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/lolfun.gif)
Quote from: 'Cooney ''at no time does his fingers leave his palms'' the mooner
.......I am saying you folks have lost perspective. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif)
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/lol015.gif) (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smiley-lol.com%2Fsmiley%2Fheureux%2Flollarge.gif&hash=cc78d35b88dd655637714b01138a1063" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.smiley-lol.com/smiley/heureux/lollarge.gif) You wouldn't know a perspective if it smacked you flat in the face like a 6 month old dead carp!
You should have seen the look on the workers faces when the saw all my dad's rifles, even the weapons where packed away in their cases and unloaded.
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/JerkOFF.gif) Ewwwwwww, an in his own mind, gun-totin', ornery Procyon!! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/koolaid.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/RaccoonStrut.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/fright.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/big%20laugh%20007.gif)
Now, I'm supposed to be really, really impressed!! ...... NOT! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/taunt.gif)
You're so confused........do another line or three! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/dopedoinlines01.gif) :lol:
The idea of being pro-gun boggles my mind as much as being pro-taxi or pro-enema.
Roughly 11,000 Americans are murdered yearly by gunfire. Where gun ownership is low, Japan is an example, other methods are available...knives are popular.
In a chilling rampage that shocked the nation, a 37-year-old man burst into an elementary school in Ikeda, a suburb of Osaka, about 310 miles west of Tokyo today and began stabbing and slashing students and teachers.
The mass killing, the worst in Japan since a nerve gas attack on Tokyo's subway six years ago, sent hundreds of panicked children -- many of them sobbing and screaming for help -- scrambling to get out of the school premises.
Gun haters are sometimes quick to make stupid arguments.
Since 475 people were murdered with a gun in Mississippi in 2010, that drop in gun ownership would translate to 80 lives saved in that year alone.
Were there no guns available murderers might find other methods, à la Japanese killers.
Whining, shouting and hysteria aren't going to change the gun debate. If this topic is here in twenty years, the only thing that will have changed will be the number of posts.
I do have to say that I have oft been puzzled by this love of the gun in the ex-colonies. As was pointed out by jimbro the matter of militias was the original purpose and has now become an almost juvenile need for them. Is the place that bad that 300,000,000 guns are needed. SmileyFaze in warping the Constitution's meant aim only continues to make the country look absurd not only to sensible Uncle Sams but the wider world. Strange.
The idea is right, and Smiley at least isn't going to exterminate innocent animals for the sake of farmers.
154 Gun Control cartoons! Count 'em!
http://www.usnews.com/cartoons/gun-control-and-gun-rights-cartoons?int=a6f909&int=962e08 (http://www.usnews.com/cartoons/gun-control-and-gun-rights-cartoons?int=a6f909&int=962e08)
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usnews.com%2Fdims4%2FUSNEWS%2F17c3254%2F2147483647%2Fthumbnail%2F766x511%253E%2Fquality%2F85%2F%3Furl%3D%252Fcmsmedia%252F55%252F1dec1ab748892cae202f584bfbd6ba%252F856-125&hash=6dcf515cf0d5a231f79daec9ea5f53cf" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.usnews.com/dims4/USNEWS/17c3254/2147483647/thumbnail/766x511%3E/quality/85/?url=%2Fcmsmedia%2F55%2F1dec1ab748892cae202f584bfbd6ba%2F856-125)
Oh, I remember those words from Heston years ago and not surprised he was an NRA apostle as I always thought him a yeuchy and dumb bloke. However jimbro, unfortunatelyit seems that what is already going on is schools some have already jumped the point!
Post by: jax on 2014-04-27, 06:22:09
Heh (http://www.charlesapple.com/2014/04/two-recent-infographic-fails-you-ought-to-know-about/).
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.charlesapple.com%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F04%2F1404GunDeaths01.jpg&hash=dea52102b040fc9e24aae2f24d49255f" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.charlesapple.com/uploads/2014/04/1404GunDeaths01.jpg)
Hey ,do you think jimbro moving back up north was a point?!
Moving back north was about family, but I don't understand your question/statement.
I see you still have no answers. I was trying to get specific examples out of you, but continue in your failure to provide them. I can only assume they don't exist.
The point wasn't to impress you. It's that just because one thing is white, it doesn't follow the other is black. Get it now?
Let me know when you're ready to discuss this like an person with a brain larger than a walnut.
Inconclusive. It shows a sharp drop for a couple years and then a rise. After that it follows the national trend downwards.
Well, if you remove the numbers and turn the graph upside down, perhaps.
Like this you mean?
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.charlesapple.com%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F04%2F1404GunDeaths02.jpg&hash=2ece8d32cbc8d596221df9588c0c0cfb" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.charlesapple.com/uploads/2014/04/1404GunDeaths02.jpg)
I think everybody should be allowed to have whatever sort of gun they want. Even heavy artillery, if you're into that sort of thing.
I think I am the only one who should have ammunition.
That is because most people don't seem to be able to safely handle anything more dangerous than a box of rubber bands.
I might think about confiscating Smiley's rubber bands.
Michigan: Senate Committee Passes Youth Firearm Education Bill
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fi6fbjGJ.jpg&hash=a2ab3b880443222a92f9d15a5c147fb8" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/i6fbjGJ.jpg)
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FikHdQKS.jpg&hash=108d2a9b457ce289eec01bc3f55d8f05" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/ikHdQKS.jpg)
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FpnNpm7X.jpg&hash=338694b8246a796b6e09f71b64b541cf" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/pnNpm7X.jpg)
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F1DVnUve.jpg&hash=3e10b5deeed8e1282f8b7c437f9a3d0e" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/1DVnUve.jpg)
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fly79Jpk.jpg&hash=98e086a475b4b50ec899163b72096e7d" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/ly79Jpk.jpg)
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FzaTcPPB.jpg&hash=719ec18d5cbe96ecd8d0b30f106ae264" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/zaTcPPB.jpg)
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FHXE8gf2.jpg&hash=36ea562bca6bf1105192d41fccddae9f" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/HXE8gf2.jpg)
Quote from: http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/4/michigan-senate-committee-passes-youth-firearm-education-bill.aspx
Today, an important youth firearm education bill passed unanimously in the Michigan Senate Judiciary Committee. House Bill 5085 (https://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28itc114iw5trwc255kod1iw55%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=2013-HB-5085) now goes to the Senate floor for consideration. Introduced by state Representative Phil Potvin (R-102), HB 5085 corrects an unduly burdensome restraint on youth firearm education by reasonably expanding the class of individuals who are allowed to supervise and instruct Michigan youth on the safe use of pistols......,continued
Firearm Safety --- first & foremost ....... an armed society is a polite society. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/good.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/signsandflags2.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/guns4.gif)
Your voice needs to be heard! Urge your lawmakers to oppose any and all gun control proposals that have been, or will be, introduced, particularly so-called "universal" background checks, which would criminalize the private transfer of firearms and any legislation that would arbitrarily limit ammunition magazines or reinstate the failed ban on commonly owned semi-automatic rifles.
I see from the picture of the girl with with the red ear muffs, that these kids are being taught to kill, not just shoot.
But only "to defend their own lives, & the lives of their family & friends"
100% Correct!
She is being trained to use a firearm safely, to shoot accurately, & hit her target repeatedly --- with extreme prejudice & crystal clear intent if required.
If she believes she is in imminent mortal danger, killing her assailant would be considered justifiable in the eyes of the law.
Killing your assailant is the best & only way to guarantee the assailant won't mortally assault you.
As TT92 said with brilliant accuracy ..... 'to defend <her> own life, & the lives of <her> family & friends'
However the dummy (the one who is being shot at) does not seem to be carrying a gun.
ROSWELL, N.M. (AP) -- A 12-year-old New Mexico boy drew a shotgun from a band-instrument case and shot and wounded two classmates at his middle school Tuesday morning before a teacher talked him into dropping the weapon and he was taken into custody, officials and witnesses said.
TAFT, Calif. - The 16-year-old boy had allegedly wounded the teenager he claimed had bullied him, fired two more rounds at students fleeing their first-period science class, then faced teacher Ryan Heber.
A 17-year-old Omaha high school student murdered a classmate after the victim threatened him to not make sexual comments about his sister.
Christopher D. Spears, a junior at Omaha Northwest High School, was at the home of sophomore Dominique Hollie, when Spears made sexual comments about Hollie's sister Friday night, authorities said, according to Omaha.com.
A suspected high school shooter in Central Florida is in custody after targeting a classmate just as after classes were getting out Wednesday afternoon, according to police.
The 15-year-old victim identified as Ja'Roderick Smith of West Orange High School in Winter Garden was downgraded to stable condition after being shot in the face and abdomen around 1:10 p.m., according to police and local reports.
BEND, Ore. (AP) -- Police say a Bend High School student died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound in the presence of classmates.
KTVZ reports that Bend Police Chief Jim Porter says the student brought the gun onto campus and fired the fatal shot Friday in a modular classroom. No one else was injured.
Police did not identify the student or provide a gender or age. Police also wouldn't say how many students were present, or describe the type of gun used.
HOUSTON - A Texas high school senior is in custody after shooting a 9th grade student in the leg early Tuesday afternoon, authorities say.
The suspect, 18, shot a 16-year-old classmate in an upstairs hallway of North Forest High School, reports MyFoxHouston.com.
If anybody is interested, I can provide more examples of youngsters shooting folks in self defense and to protect family members.
There's also the question about how much of a threat a cardboard cut-out actually represents.
I will be interested jimbro to see what fiction SmileyFaze comes up with to say those school incidents are just part of life. I gave up playing cowboys and indians at 11 but maybe he is a slower developer?
#1 through #6
We can play this game all decade long, you post a negative firearm story, & I post an equal amount of positive stories relating to how many times honest everyday citizens protected life, liberty, & property using their legal firearms.
Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.
Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.
As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.
Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.
Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606). And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."
Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year. Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials."
Nationwide. In 1979, the Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful.
Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, Rape Victimization in 26 American Cities (1979), p. 31.
Just the tip of the iceberg.
The above, & many more facts can be found here (https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm)
Now, firearms have good & evil uses. The overwhelming majority of legal firearms owners never ever commit a crime using their legal firearms.
I'd say we'd all be better served, being that firearms, like it or not, will definitely be a part of Americana way past our expiry dates ---- we'd be much more realistically served if we'd find more efficient ways of dealing with the mentally ill & violent criminals in general, rather than coming up with ways to punish the honest, law abiding firearm owning American citizen, by flat out banning & outlawing his & her present day legal firearms.
I think enforcing the existing laws on the books against violent criminals, & sharing information on the violent mentally ill nationwide would make a much better starting place, rather than dreaming up new ways to ban the firearms people depend on daily for self-protection.
Yup like that. The misunderstanding was my fault for it being almost 8:30 am and me not having been to bed yet.
What possibly makes folks think that everyone carrying guns will reduce crime. They say "Defend yourself against criminals" but fail to take into account crimes of passion and the fact that those actually intending to commit a crime can now easily just walk into a place with a gun. I've never seen a good answer to why we're now seeing people in Florid getting shot over things such as the pizza line. (Why would one feel the need to bring a gun to Domino's Pizza anyway? The .0001% chance that somebody might be trying to hold up the joint while we're there and one thinks he can play John Wayne?)
Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand-your-ground_law
In the United States, stand-your-ground law states that a person may justifiably use force in self-defense without an obligation to retreat first. The concept sometimes exists in statutory law and sometimes through common law precedents. One key distinction is whether the concept only applies to defending a home or vehicle, or whether it applies to all lawfully occupied locations. Under these legal concepts, a person is justified in using deadly force in certain situations and the "stand your ground" law would be a defense or immunity to criminal charges and civil suit. The difference between immunity and a defense is that an immunity bars suit, charges, detention and arrest. A defense, such as an affirmative defense, permits a plaintiff or the state to seek civil damages or a criminal conviction but may offer mitigating circumstances that justify the accused's conduct.
More than 50% of all the States in America have adopted the "Castle Doctrine" in one form or another. There are wide variations, but basically what adoption says is that one no longer will be required to flee prior to resorting to deadly force.
I applaud such doctrines.
If all goes well, which tips you off as to where I stand on the issue, over 75% of the States will have adopted such doctrines in one form or another by 2016. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/guns4.gif)
Remember, a well armed society is a polite society.
If criminals fail to take into account that their prey just might be armed, then they deserve whatever comes their way.
Now, that said, laws --- good or bad --- will be used by shrewd lawyers to their advantage, thus emboldening those that might see that using the ins & outs of a law as a means to skirt the desired effect of the law.
I'm glad that these laws have had an overall positive effect on deterring crime nationwide to date (never enough for some, but they either need to change the laws or deal with it's occasional abuse).
Your Gun Rights, On the National Scene: Big Advancements for Pro-Gun Legislation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQx-A9NYMO0
NRA Seeks a Universal Gun Law
Quote from: http://foxbaltimore.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/nra-seeks-universal-gun-law-at-national-meeting-27503.shtml
INDIANAPOLIS (AP) - With concealed weapons now legal in all 50 states, the National Rifle Association's focus at this week's annual meeting is less about enacting additional state protections than on making sure the permits already issued still apply when the gun owners travel across the country. The nation's largest gun-rights group, which officially opens its meeting of about 70,000 people Friday in Indianapolis, wants Congress to require that concealed weapons permits issued in one state be recognized everywhere, even when the local requirements differ. Advocates say the effort would eliminate a patchwork of state-specific regulations that lead to carriers unwittingly violating the law when traveling.
When traveling, your carry permit should follow you from state to state, being that all 50 states have now approved Concealed Carry (CCP).
Well, with our support, the NRA is sponsoring a bill in Washington D.C. that will make it law that all states must honor the CCP of another state.
With a fantastic prison population nearly 11,00 being killed annually and in the top 5 nations for legal executions so much for the need for a gun culture. One would have thought over two centuries you would have grown up.
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif) With a fantastic prison population nearly 11,00 being killed annually and in the top 5 nations for legal executions so much for the need for a gun culture. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif) One would have thought over two centuries you would have grown up. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif)
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/big%20laugh%20007.gif)
We're doin' just fine rj Terrorist, just fine. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/beach02.gif)
No, the misunderstanding was the designer's fault (http://www.charlesapple.com/2014/04/two-recent-infographic-fails-you-ought-to-know-about/) for making a graph that was blatantly lying. There are many ways of publishing misleading graphs. A popular one is to truncate the axis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misleading_graph#Truncated_graph). It is prudent to look for that 0.
Turning a graph upside down is fortunately very rare. You could just as well mirror image the graph, to make it appear as if gun deaths are at an all-time high (in the interval depicted in the graph anyway).
Only in America...
Death threats stop gun store from selling 'smart' gun. Why? (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/2014/0503/Death-threats-stop-gun-store-from-selling-smart-gun.-Why)
The White House has urged gun companies to invent safety technology that could limit a gun's use to its owner. But two gun shops decided not to sell such guns after receiving death threats.
Andy Raymond, a Rockland, Md., firearms dealer, found out how much some people who love guns and the Second Amendment really hate some guns, causing the owner of Engage Armament this week to reverse his plan to sell the Armatix iP1, the nation's first "smart" gun.
The German-made Armatix iP1 won't fire unless it's in proximity of a special watch, thus making it useless if stolen. Gun control advocates, including Attorney General Eric Holder, have cited such technology as potential life savers.
But the NRA and many gun owners say it's a government Trojan horse intended to open the door for laws that will mandate "smart" technology in new guns in order to identify gun owners - a notion that's widely seen by gun owners as a threat to Second Amendment rights.
We have smart technology. Smart people might be a little harder to come by.
I recently heard of a woman who died in a single-vehicle accident when she used her "Smart Phone" to send a text to somebody while driving. She wasn't paying attention, the vehicle drifted a little and hit a pole at speed. There are laws in most states-- maybe all-- that make texting while driving illegal and billboard advertizing all over the place telling you this is a really stupid thing to do, but of course wrecking while texting always happens to the other guy-- not to me, right?
Here in Illinois, and I think in most other states, the idea that a "smart" gun is going to let government know who has guns is a bit of a stretch. In order to legally buy a firearm here, I would have to pass through enough checks and balances that only a willfully blind government could not know that I had a gun. I have to pass a government screening to see if I'm convicted-- and in some cases maybe only suspected-- of a long list of crimes, if I've been under medical care for mental illnesses, if I'm under restraining orders because I don't like somebody and so on. Then, the state of Illinois may issue me a "Firearm Owner Identification Card", without this card I can't legally have a gun. Today, having complied with that, I have to get training and a certificate-- issued by the State of Illinois-- if I want to carry the gun concealed. Now, with all of that state-issued ID and training, you mean to tell me that having a "Smart Gun" is going to let the state know that I have a legal gun????
Somebody ain't so smart, raising this issue. If you're a licensed gun owner-- most states have some sort of licensing-- they already know you're a legal gun owner. A "Smart Gun" isn't going to make any discernible difference in that.
Post by: Banned Member [2] on 2014-05-05, 13:37:08
Maybe those not-so-smart guys should be disarmed?:)
Quote from: Jоsh on 2014-05-05, 13:37:08
I do begin to wonder about them. Smiley will go ballistic if anybody even thinks of depriving him of his legal arsenal, but let somebody suggest a way to make sure that only the legally authorized owner of the gun can fire it-- something that "smart gun" technology is supposed to do-- and they have melt-down because it's too much government control.
As was posted earlier:
Quote from: Jax citing an article from the Christian Science Monitor
......it's a government Trojan horse intended to open the door for laws that will mandate "smart" technology in new guns ................. a notion that's widely seen by gun owners as a threat to Second Amendment rights.
Now, JFYI I am categorically apposed to any sort of 'smart gun' technology whatsoever because they are not 100% dependable or fool proof.
I expect my firearms to be 100% dependable, 100% of the time, if needed in a pinch.
A very simple example would be this firearm that requires a watch (which communicates via radio waves) to enable the user to use his firearm.
Theoretically the firearm is enabled if, & only if, your wearing the watch.
The rub is, say I don't sleep with my watch on, now when I depend on my firearm I would have to get my watch too?
That knife wielding Ice crazed crook standing at your bedroom door might not wait till you strap on yer watch, whereas in my case, in the not so smart days, he'd be chattin' with Saint Peter at the Pearlies in way less time it would take me to fiddle with my watch!
OR......batteries dead,,,,ooops, so am I.
Now, back to the article, a Governmental Trojan Horse:
It already is, & I bet the majority of the people in NJ don't even know it.....and it's their law:
Quote from: http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/5/5683504/gun-control-the-nra-wants-to-take-smart-guns-away
....... a New Jersey law passed in 2002 (http://www.myfoxny.com/story/23689373/nj-smart-gun-law-could-take-effect-soon) known as the Childproof Handgun Law, which says that all guns sold in New Jersey must be state-approved smart guns (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/12/nyregion/smart-guns-a-clever-bit-of-legislating.html)within three years of a smart gun being sold anywhere in the country. The goal was to make smart guns mandatory as soon as the technology existed.
Now, even though that's just NJ, do you honestly think the goose steppin' Anti-Gun Radical Left in congress wouldn't jump to their feet in glee while mustering up support to pass such a legislation buried somewhere in a bill......say an Obamacare type bill, where we were all told that we had to pass it before we could find out what the hell is in it!
No thanks!!!! ..... I say being totally against every form of "Smart Gun" & "Smart Gun Legislation" come hell or high water is the only Smart way to protect our Second Amendment Rights!
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F94j2TVz.png&hash=8c84b3646ed928a783199449a1b89ec2" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/94j2TVz.png)
Smiley--- I really think you must live in the middle of a horror movie. Your house seems to generate murderous maniacs almost out of thin air. Now an icepick-wielding fiend at your bedroom door, another time a pack of thugs in your house, still another what-if concerning thugs disrupting a family barbecue and you might need a belt-fed machine gun to dispatch them---. Smiley, I don't know who you've ticked off to have all of those weirdos in your place but maybe you should consider (a) moving or (b) hiring an exorcist or (c) getting some serious help if you're seeing things.
I've lived in a couple of bad neighborhoods-- Garfield Park and South Austin neighborhoods in Chicago-- and never once had the kind of problems you seem to have on a regular basis in your home. Those neighborhoods I just mentioned have real bad gang problems, not as bad perhaps as certain South Side neighborhoods but they still manage to get in the news from time to time. I regularly sleep in the van at rest stops, visit truck stops and so on, never once ran into any of the characters that seem to frequent your nightmares-- not that it can't happen, there's always a first time, but it hasn't happened yet and I really have to wonder every time a new and improved "what if" comes along.
I wonder if gun ownership-- specifically handgun ownership-- carries a sort of paranoia with it. Could it be possible that a man sleeps without fear, doesn't conjure up nightmare scenarios like having a team of thugs in his house late at night and so on-- until the day he buys a gun for protection, and from that day he never has a peaceful moment because his "peacemaker" keeps his head full of what-ifs? The reason I wonder that is because I know that many people go through their entire lives without having knife-wielding fiends, Ice-enraged lunatics, gangs of thugs and axe-murderers roaming their houses and neighborhoods, on the other hand it seems some gun-owners have this going on ALL THE TIME and of course you must be prepared with heavy weapons and huge ammo clips to feed the heavy weapons "just in case".
No paranoia here, no maniacs bangin' at my door 'cuz I pissed 'em off somehow.
Why you insist in saying that because I have an assortment of legal firearms, & the ammunition for them, I'm somehow besieged by either imaginary threats or deranged mobs?
You seem to be a good fellow, as far as I've interacted with you, but you seem to harp on the points that I must have pissed off mobs of bloodthirsty evildoers & vicious drug lords out to cap my sorry ass. That, or I must live in a real bad neighborhood, etc...etc...
You seem to have to quantify my 'need' for the firearms I own, when 'need' has absolutely nothing to do with my owning them.
Do I 'need' over 150 firearms from a derringer all the way up to machine guns, & even a grenade launcher?
Nope..... I haven't 'needed' a single one of them in any form of desperate situation to date.
Why do I have over 150,000 rounds (give or take) of ammunition for my various firearms?
Do I 'need' them?
Nope..... Outside of having them for my own pleasurable uses, to date I haven't 'needed' a single round for any form of desperate situation.
So why do I have all my firearms & ammunitions?
I have them for many reasons. I have them because some are collector items.
I have some of them to use for my shooting/sporting pleasure so to speak.
I have some of them for personal protection.
I could go on & on with reasons I have them, but the bottom line in a nutshell, I have them not because I 'need' them, but because I 'want' them, I 'can afford' them, & it's 'my God given right' to have them, & I will continue to have them until I see fit to part with them, or I die, whichever comes first.
I'm simply saying I have the gawdamn right to protect my life, the lives of my family, my property,
& the lives of my friends any way I see fit .........PERIOD!!!
It means that no governments -- local, state, or federal --- no goose-steppin' politicians --- are going to tell me as to what I might 'need', how 'much' or 'how many' of whatever I can have, or how I should be allowed to go about keeping them.
We've been down this road before, & I end up having to say the same things over & over, & over....
Maybe you should start listening......then again it means no matter what....It simply means I'm going to exercise my 'Rights' (my Natural Rights, not those offered to me by any man) come hell or high water until the moment I die.
Post by: Macallan on 2014-05-07, 01:01:26
I wonder if gun ownership-- specifically handgun ownership-- carries a sort of paranoia with it. Could it be possible that a man sleeps without fear, doesn't conjure up nightmare scenarios like having a team of thugs in his house late at night and so on-- until the day he buys a gun for protection, and from that day he never has a peaceful moment because his "peacemaker" keeps his head full of what-ifs?
I have a nagging suspicion that at least some of these people have a constant, horrible itch to actually use their shiny new toys in real life. Those aren't nightmares but wishful thinking.
Quote from: Macallan on 2014-05-07, 01:01:26
Anything is possible, but then again it's part of human nature to kill, so a human being fantasizing about killing wouldn't surprise me at all.
On the contrary, if they didn't think about it at all, that would surprise me.
Actually, the only reason most human beings don't kill another human being is when they wake up each day they subconsciously decide that they aren't going to kill that day, & then as nature has it, they usually don't.
Smiley, I don't know what you dream about, but I think I can assure you my dreams aren't full of murder and mayhem. I don't make a subconscious decision not to kill today because the issue never comes up in the first place.
People who fantasize about killing other people probably shouldn't have guns.
On the other hand, Michael, if you're not ready to use your gun - what is the use of it? You'll be like a movie blonde: "Get off from me! I have a gun! Aaaaaaaaa!"
I am quite capable of subconsciously deciding not to kill anybody, even without going to sleep.
Or at least I assume it's subconscious, never having been near a situation where that was anything like a relevant decision.
Oh correction, I have been to the US a few times, although maybe not to the US-according-to-SF.
A while back jimbro asked for informationon militias. Strikes me that there is a very deep and emotional side to many Americans in this love affair with guns. The Constitution does refer to having them with a Militia. Obviously at a time of emergence of a new country and the aftermath. How that morphs into more guns than the population is utterly stupid, childish and ridiculously immature. So the Militia thing has been hijacked so millions can feel many and stalwarts when in fact they are a bunch of soft in the heads and lacking in the grey cells.One cannot but feel for the decents over there who mentally shake their heads at the Constitution misuse.
And like very much else you can see the gun corporates rubbing their hands with glee at the money they make and stuff the thousands being shot. If the country is that bad as I once said just scrap the police and National Guard, etc and let everyone shoot away. What these clowns don't realise is that they make the rest of decent America look stupid to the world at large elsewhere. It also gives the impression that the country is unstable and dangerous. Not that such bothers the |Smiley thinking as they have hijacked patriotism as an excuse too.
Thank goodness the Americans I know and have a regard for are too intelligent to be of the mindset he portrays.
While we're on the subject of militias, doesn't that word imply some sort of regimental training, working together in simulated battle conditions, following orders and so on? Many of the people who are so gun-ho are probably the most resistant to any actual militia type stuff. Demands that "Nobody but me has any business knowing how many of what type of guns I have" flies in the face of actual militia training, where the commanding officers have every business knowing what his resources actually are before any kind of action gets started. Knowing what you have available is essential if you hope to deploy that to your advantage. Men who keep you guessing what they can bring to the field are worse than no good, you can't rely on them or plan effectively.
No, no, no. Many of these guys would be useless in any actual militia, and if I had to command such a group of questionably armed misfits I might do well to sue for peace before shots are fired. Can't go up against a well-stocked and trained enemy when the best that I know I have is some guys with 30.06s that can hit the broadside of a barn if they try real hard.
The "Castle Doctrine" that Smiley approves of so much might be a good idea if---.
There's a problem. The problem is "if". "If" is, without a doubt, one of the biggest if not THE biggest two-letter word in the English language.
I just finished reading a story about a shooting that took place in Montana over the weekend. A teenager walked into a partially open garage at night, admittedly (by his friends, since he's not around anymore to admit to anything) to pilfer some stuff. Seems to be a game amongst certain teenagers to go into open garages at night and grab beer or whatever they can grab that's just laying around and leave. The homeowner in this case had set alarms, when the alarm alerted him he came out with a shotgun and just started spraying underneath the partially open door until the body fell down.
The homeowner, as of last I knew, is being charged with homicide. He is trying to claim self-defense under Montana's Castle Doctrine laws.
My thoughts: This was very stupid. Spraying shotgun blasts at an unknown who is NOT attacking you is hard to play as "self defense", and it might not play well in Montana even though it is a Western state with rather "Old West" ideas. It's one thing if, in fact, you are being attacked. Do what you have to do to defend your life and the lives of your family-- I think we all get that. Somebody stealing your Crescent wrench and running off with it is NOT attacking you-- that's stealing your stuff, and maybe putting the fear of God into the thief is justified, but sending the thief to meet God personally is not.
Think about it before opening fire, eh?
http://www.kpax.com/news/daines-backs-mt-castle-doctrine-despite-controversy/ (http://www.kpax.com/news/daines-backs-mt-castle-doctrine-despite-controversy/)
I believe the gun issue, the right of the people to keep & bear arms without infringement, is the straw that just might break the camel's back so to speak.
The author of the following piece, though some may see him as a bit further to the right than you or I, lists some very significant & salient points that should not be ignored or dismissed:
Quote from: The Liberty Sphere http://tinyurl.com/lrkt73n
The official line in the sand is the gun issue. And thus, I have some definitive declarations that need to be considered by the powers that be before they go off on an unconstitutional rampage on the rights of the people.
1. We will not comply with any new gun control law.
2. We will not turn in any firearm that you suddenly decide to be "illegal." They are illegal only in your own delusional minds.
3. In the event you limit ammunition or require us to register to get it, we will create the biggest black market in the history of the world. We can make our own ammunition.
4. We will not comply with any new gun bans. We can make our own guns as well, even the type you wish to take from us.
5. The attempt to gain entrance to our homes to confiscate our guns and ammunition will be considered an act of war. We will not comply. Be prepared to kill us if you do such an asinine thing in what is supposed to be a FREE country. But then, also be aware that you will pay a heavy price for perpetrating such tyranny..................
Are these words prophetic, or just theoretical?
Are you so sure you know the difference?
I wonder if gun ownership-- specifically handgun ownership-- carries a sort of paranoia with it....you must be prepared with heavy weapons and huge ammo clips to feed the heavy weapons "just in case".
Let me suggest this for Mr. Smiles...
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Favatars.drugsforum.eu%2Fcustomavatars%2Favatar30273_1.gif&hash=f05c0713709e4eb7e16e589639ae31e1" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://avatars.drugsforum.eu/customavatars/avatar30273_1.gif)
A couple of questions on that quoted viewpoint SF, but first . . It's not clear what you mean by your "last straw" remark. What consequence is concerning you?
On the quoted passage, it's a very self-centred viewpoint which seems to ignore some important factors. I couldn't possibly list all them, but a few would be (relating to who should be allowed to have guns):
Children under the age of 2 . . 3. . 4. ?
Those with physical impairment that prevents them hiding or aiming a weapon
Those with a mental deficiency that makes them dangerous
Criminals, depending on what crime they have committed, for example terrorism, murder, mutiny, treason, habitual violent anti-social behaviour or threats
members of outlawed organisations
One would then have to decide what category the guy who wrote that drivel comes into.
What does it matter if they are the words of a prophet or a theorist?
They are without doubt the words of a crackpot.
Anybody here ever...
1. been shot
2. been shot at
3. been threatened with a gun
4. worried that he might run into Smileyfaze
5. known anybody in categories 1, 2, 3 or 4
I gotta admit, running into Smiley could give you a sleepless night or three. About the other questions-- no, no and no. Not even in Garfield Park or South Austin, where those possibilities might be expected.
No,no,no,yes,no
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45glq7huJJc
I thought Cyanide & Happiness was just a comic.
By the wrong reasons, SmileyFaze's right.
By the right reasons, all of you are wrong.
His wrong reasons, even wrong, are much righter than your right reasons that even right are wrong.
So, don't bother me anymore with this. If you have a gun start firing, if you don't, start die.
Wait, what? Care to explain?
[quess]J&B[/quess];)
Sure. It will take a nice bar and lots of whiskeys.
Dancing girls are welcome for some table dance.
That, would be a decent DnD discussion without irritating Joshes constantly around.
Fence sitting can be painful.
So did I, but evidently they started making the animated shorts quite early on. The strips seem better overall.
1. Yes, but only flesh wounds....lucky for me just grazings. I got worse knife & bayonet wounds, but again nothing to take me out of commission.
2. Yes, more times than I could count.
3. Duhhh, you fill that in
4. Never ran into a mirror, but there were quite a few gooks & chicoms that will never forget me. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BigToothSmile.gif)
5. Hell yeah
Now how immature is that question on whether someone on these Forums has been shot or shot at. This group if tiny compared to what is 11,00 killed every year in the land of so many non-grown ups.
Just about as immature as the person who can't even get a simple little number correct everywhere he posts. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/lolfun.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/booxu9.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/big%20laugh%20007.gif) (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fsmileys.on-my-web.com%2Frepository%2FTongue%2Fmockery-035.gif&hash=9fef650157e4de1e0349602261c64dd3" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://smileys.on-my-web.com/repository/Tongue/mockery-035.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/finger005.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BigToothSmile.gif)
RJ--- better check that number. Not that I'm complaining, of course. 1,100 killed in the nation annually would probably be cause for wild celebration because of having so few deaths in most countries in the world. The odds of survival would be close to excellent at that rate.
The comma is used instead of the decimal dot in "Russian mathematics", so I reckon
1) RJ may be a Russian undercover in Britain,
2) it's eleven point zero deaths (huh?).
11.00 deaths annually is about what we have in DuPage County, Illinois from gunfire. Naperville accounts for
most of that.
I imagine that even Scotland racks up a higher death toll than that. If you could get it down to where only 11 people die annually---.
Alright. Now will you stay off my lawn, or do I have to use the heavy artillery?
(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7111073280/hF2524830/)
Oh you know fine well mjsmsprt40 that was a typing matter! :D
Anyway we in Scotland have around roughly between 120 - 130 killings annually and has fallen recently.
Tragedy struck our fair city yesterday. Not one but three "good guys with a gun" + plus an unspecified number of other MetroPD officers failed to stop "bad guys" with a gun. Sadly, two officers were disarmed by the "bad guys with guns" and killed. The other "good guy with a gun" was man with a concealed weapon. The incident began at CiCi's Pizza and moved into a Walmart. You can read the story in the Las Vegas Review Journal (http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/las-vegas/shooters-metro-ambush-left-five-dead-spoke-white-supremacy-and-desire-kill-police)
It was a sad day, but drives home the points I've been making. What makes you even begin to think you can stop maniacs with you're concealed weapons. Note the killers committed suicide, which is not unusual in these situations. I told SF before these people don't think like us - they have no expectation of making out alive. In other words, they don't care about you and your conceal weapon. Oh, and note there wasn't a "No Guns Allowed" sign supposedly encouraging the violence.
Another point, gun laws are so liberal as it is that these White Supremacists managed to get the guns. Now you want to make it even easier for them relaxing regulations, not having some kind of national database. How many more people have to die because "Obammar's gonna git yer gun" and therefore ALL gun control has to stopped? But it wouldn't do any good for just Las Vegas to have better gun control (meaning more through background checks, not "gun grabbing." Or even Clark County or the whole state, since Arizona (the Alabama of the Southwest) and Utah are a hop, skip and jump away. No, it has to be national. The NRA and their miscreant ilk must resist and regulation of their toys even as the death toll rises.
Why, Las Vegas alone can beat you in that! (http://www.inquisitr.com/1072946/las-vegas-fatal-shooting-115th-murder-of-2013-in-city-of-sin/) Better loosen your gun laws if you have any chance of beating us!
Tragedy struck our fair city yesterday......
Yes, it was an unfortunate tragedy. Too bad the liberals can't find a way to legislate sanity, but leave them at it for about 20+ years, & they'll try real hard, but get nowhere except mountains of ineffective regulations on the law abiding, like their attempted "Gun-Control" laws, that look so pretty on paper, but unlike this senseless tragedy, miss the mark totally, entirely, & so completely except in their grandiloquent speeches.
BTW......stay tuned, I'm going to post a lil about my newest 'toy' tactical firearm. I doubt you'll like it, because it looks sooo mean & naughty.
My dear Texan friends have scored a grand slam with this wonder!
I will personally attest to it's technological magnificence.
It tests beautifully, & it's a must have for us experienced shooters that can afford it.
TrackingPoint XS1 (http://tracking-point.com/precision-guided-firearms/xs1)
Actually the XS3 (http://tracking-point.com/precision-guided-firearms/xs3) is more hunter friendly, & to the non-hunter/shooter types, it's non-military looking -- less scarey, but fear not, it's just as naughty.
With it even a 12 year old girl (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfpZjTOyiFA)can hit small targets repeatedly at up to 1000 yards (that's not to suggest anything other than it's simplicity & ease of use...so get yer mind out of the carnage market). Actually it's an ammo saver, because it's so precise, & nearly foolproof. Hunters will love it, that is when the price gets down below $15,000, closer to $5,000.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBC8IFWC1P0
You'll also be happy to know that I've sold off & gifted away 80%+ of my ornamental, but quite functional, antique & nostalgic Firearms, with more to follow (from both display & working stock).
I'm into downsizing these days, because I'll be overseas more & more often, & Stateside less & less, taking in my retirement. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/beach02.gif)
JFYI 'Cooney.....most of them were sold privately on a handshake, quite legally, & for cash....much to your chagrin I'm sure. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BigToothSmile.gif)
You missed it entirely. The concealed weapon provides a false sense of security that ultimately cost the carrier his life.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/two-cops-three-others-killed-las-vegas-shooting-spree-n125766
A shopper, Joseph Robert Wilcox, 31, of Las Vegas had a concealed weapon and decided to confront Jerad Miller, police said. As he walked toward the suspect, Amanda Miller came up behind him and shot him several times in the ribs, police said.
CNN tells us:
http://www.cnn.com/2014/06/09/justice/las-vegas-shooting-couple/
Court records describe Jerad Miller's past run-ins with the law, including drug charges. In 2007, he pleaded guilty to a felony criminal recklessness charge and was sentenced to a diversion program. In 2011, he pleaded guilty to a felony charge of dealing marijuana and was sentenced to two year's probation and drug counseling.
He was arrested and charged with battery in 2009. A jury acquitted him later that yea
So you might say he couldn't have gotten the gun legally.
In Nevada, All he needed to do was go to a gunshow (http://www.governing.com/gov-data/safety-justice/gun-show-firearms-bankground-checks-state-laws-map.html) Get it? Even if that's not how he got the guns (an unknown factor at this point) it demonstrates that a slight inconvenience is worth heading off a killing spree. Individual gun sales also need to subject to background checks. Set up a 1-800 number and a website and the seller gets the yes/no answer in five minutes, if that.
So you say "JFYI 'Cooney.....most of them were sold privately on a handshake, quite legally, & for cash....much to your chagrin I'm sure" So you're comfortable with gang members and people like Miller being able to do this? Lunatics and criminals being able to do this should be much to any sane persons chagrin. You might say it would be impossible to stop them, ie "criminals don't obey laws (tm) " Is it? Each gun needs to have internal identification that can't be filed off, so we can can determine the criminals' supply chain and sever it while preserving the rights of legal gun owners.
This comes from Mother Jones, so should be taken with a grain of salt and a few more seasonings while you're at it. However, the basic reporting that the Millers at least attempted to purchase guns through Facebook (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/06/did-las-vegas-shooting-suspects-obtain-their-guns-facebook) is most likely correct.
Individual gun sales also need to subject to background checks. Set up a 1-800 number and a website and the seller gets the yes/no answer in five minutes, if that.
Sorry, in the end that would create a permanent record of transaction, not only to the buyer, but to the seller. It develops a database of legitimate ownership, that can be used by the State to aid their confiscation agenda. History is replete with all forms of forced registration followed by confiscation..
No dice...Flat out no.,....period.
So you're comfortable with gang members and people like Miller being able to do this?
What I am not comfortable with is if there were legislation mandating recording each & every transaction, each & every personal transaction I spoke of (between friends, friends of friends, family, & friends of family) would be illegal unless records are kept of the transactions.....,transactions that are overwhelmingly conducted between law abiding individuals.....but what of the non-complying criminal & nut job?
What, just to catch people like Miller, or the odd gangbanger --- neither of which would ever transact that way regardless of the law & it's consequences, so once again the focus strays away from the criminal, & it's the law abiding gun owners that are the focus of that law.....a flawed law.
Nope. Not the way it's going to be.
Prosecute the criminals, treat the sick of mind, with the laws already on the books.....period
Each gun needs to have internal identification that can't be filed off, so we can can determine the criminals' supply chain and sever it while preserving the rights of legal gun owners.
In Camelot, or some other fairy tale world maybe, but think of it.....you're only talking about an extremely small percentage of the future merchandise on the market. whereas 300 to 400 million existing firearms will not have any such markings. What about them? We going to turn them all in so you can replace them with complying firearms? Riiiiiight! :lol:
And how are the records kept? By whom? For what purpose? For how long?
Will records exist for all/any illegal firearms.....of course not....We're again tracing back to a legal owner & prosecuting them for weapons that fall into the hands of criminals?
That dog wont hunt, irregardless of how many people comply.....because again, only law abiding gun owners would comply to any law regulating sales, thus excluding those that should be the actual focus of such laws --- criminals & nut jobs.
As you correctly noted earlier, criminals & nut jobs won't comply to any law because it's an absolute fact that that's what they do---or won't do depending on your point of view.
So far nothing you've suggested has any hope of working, or having any affect on the question at hand.
Until you can find a way to legislate sanity, & where all criminals comply with any proposed legislation, the idea is destined to absolute failure.
Shame will never cause a overwhelmingly decent & law abiding society to sign on to unproven & ineffectual legislation meant to right all the wrongs at it's fringes, especially when noncompliance is guaranteed by the element you wish to control.
One thing that repeatedly gets my attention, anyway, is the "well regulated militia" part of the 2nd Amendment.
Smiley, do you even have a ghost of a clue what "well regulated" means? Any idea at all? I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean "I get to have whatever weapons I want and nobody, not even my commanding officers, have a right to know what I have or how much of it I have or who I buy from or sell to".
That, in my never-to-be-humble opinion, is where so much of this falls apart.
There IS a very real need to get a handle on who is buying and selling, and one way or another it will happen. Sooner or later we'll have one too many of these mass school-shootings where a man who clearly shouldn't have had a pea shooter got high-powered weapons and committed yet another atrocity-- and I think the day isn't far off if my reading of the tea leaves is any indication. Your constant "Nobody has any right to know what I have-----" just won't do. Not in any "well regulated militia" I've ever heard of, anyway.
You never spoke a truer word there mjsmsprt40 regarding the Constitution and such. How in goodness name child minds can morph what the founders meant into this Hopalong Cassidy stuff is beyond comprehension. Plus the fact that even a militia is in the past as there is an army and a National Guard. With over 10,000 killings by shooters annually that means every decade a hundred thousand. The country has moced on since the late 18th and early 19th century but you wouldn't think that due to the brain dead that misue the words of that Constitution. That mindset only makes the world shake it's head with a sigh at the stupidity and terrible picture it portrays. Indeed it would indicate that there is a widespread mental gun problem.
The gun lobby and that nig corporates who make their big money off the fanatacism of the simple are a disgrace. I do understand that the SmileyFaze mentality lot don't care a fig what the world thinks but it compromises the rest of the decent population who know how to use their grey cells. The miuse of the written word of the founders is a disgrace.
Smiley, do you even have a ghost of a clue what "well regulated" means? Any idea at all?
Thank you for the question.
Here is but (1) one document of many that might help you understand the Second Amendment a bit better in your thirst for knowledge.
Original Intent and Purpose of the Second Amendment
(http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html)
I've investigated the Second Amendment in depth many times in the past, & have noted many links in the now defunct OPERA Forums specific to the subject matter for all to investigate this issue for themselves.
For you, I will put it in a 'nutshell'.
Ok, in today's vernacular, which is not actually germane, it could mean "more than adequately controlled", whereas government could pass any law it saw fit to control access, use, & transport, .....etc.
In the vernacular of & about the time of the formation of the Constitution, & it has been extensively documented -- related to the Second Amendment -- it meant simply being trained to the degree of proficiency needed to be effective.
The trainee needed to be of reasonable age, & sound of body.
The reasonable age was usually understood as somewhere over 14-16 years of age, & being the life expectancy in those days was much lower than today, the age of 50 was considered a ripe old age.
The training could either be self-training, or formal training.
In that time most training was of the informal nature --- father trains son, brother trains brother, neighbor trains neighbor.
As you can see there is quite a difference between today's so called logical interpretations, as opposed to what the framers actually meant back in the 18th Century, so the confusion in the minds of the uneducated is understandable.
For more clarity, try investigating here, (http://bit.ly/1q1AlFC) taking specific note to those passages where documentation from that era is deeply investigated & documented. (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fiy2e5.gif&hash=4eadf212b645b5163195c4284d1efb17" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/iy2e5.gif)
.....How in goodness name child minds can morph what the founders meant into this Hopalong Cassidy stuff is beyond comprehension. Plus the fact that even a militia is in the past as there is an army and a National Guard..........
Before you start to pawn yourself off as some sort of 'expert' on the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, please note to the readers of all your extensive investigations into the intent of the original framers of the document you pretend to know so much about.
If you can't, then it would be fair to say all your expertise directly related to this matter is gathered from your own imagination, which is infertile of fact to say it politely.
To sum you, rj the man, up neatly in one tidy little human package, I would suggest this small passage be adequate:
Quote from: Harry G. Frankfurt
"The contemporary proliferation of bullshit also has deeper sources, in various forms of skepticism which deny that we can have any reliable access to an objective reality and which therefore reject the possibility of knowing how things truly are. These "anti-realist" doctrines undermine confidence in the value of disinterested efforts to determine what is true and what is false, and even in the intelligibility of the notion of objective inquiry. One response to this loss of confidence has been a retreat from the discipline required by dedication to the ideal of correctness to a quite different sort of discipline, which is imposed by pursuit of an alternative ideal of sincerity. Rather than seeking primarily to arrive at accurate representations of a common world, the individual turns toward trying to provide honest representations of himself. Convinced that reality has no inherent nature, which he might hope to identify as the truth about things, he devotes himself to being true to his own nature. It is as though he decides that since it makes no sense to try to be true to the facts, he must therefore try instead to be true to himself.
But it is preposterous to imagine that we ourselves are determinate, and hence susceptible both to correct and to incorrect descriptions, while supposing that the ascription of determinacy to anything else has been exposed as a mistake. As conscious beings, we exist only in response to other things, and we cannot know ourselves at all without knowing them. Moreover, there is nothing in theory, and certainly nothing in experience, to support the extraordinary judgment that it is the truth about himself that is the easiest for a person to know. Facts about ourselves are not peculiarly solid and resistant to skeptical dissolution. Our natures are, indeed, elusively insubstantial -- notoriously less stable and less inherent than the natures of other things. And insofar as this is the case, sincerity itself is bullshit."
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/finger005.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/Whistle003.gif)
It is all dancing around the matter that mjsmsprt40 raised. I suppose because you march around the globe killing people you want to keep the hobby active at home as well. I tell you this - if you had to depend on a militia all hell would break out. I simply don't fathom why you have such a big damn military but find excuses to go around toting guns and everything short of a bazooka! You could save a fortune and I dare say you would continue shooting each other in the tens of thousands. What sensible country would want to follow the example going on inside America? Next time you want to add an Amendent to the Constution set a minimum number of above 10,00 nutjob shootings. That will be easy-peasy.
Plus the fact that even a militia is in the past as there is an army and a National Guard.
You could probably make a fairly decent case that the National Guard is in fact what the old, well regulated state militias became.
So, a quickie question. How many more mass shootings by nutjobs will we have before somebody figures out that our "well regulated militia" is not at all well and probably could use some halfway decent regulation?
Right now, I can't drive a heavy truck (anything over 10,000 lbs) commercially because I can't pass the DOT physical . My left eye is bad, that stops me from driving semis. I can get cleared to own the heaviest piece of firearm a civilian can legally own, though, without much trouble. Most of these mass-shooters got their weapons legally enough precisely because they didn't actually belong to a "well regulated militia" which would have asked tough questions, made them go through basic training and so on-- and would have weeded out most of the misfits who shouldn't have been armed in the first place. You know, it takes a bit more than just being able to fog a mirror to pass muster in most any proper militia. They weed out a lot of crackpots in the physicals and basic training.
Think about it. I don't have any past convictions, my most serious run-ins with the law involve speeding tickets, I have no contact with the mental health people so no record there, not much really to stop me from getting the proper paperwork-- Illinois requires you to get certain paperwork if you're gonna do this legally-- and then getting the gun(s) I want to do whatever I want as long as I can convince the law that I'm not buying weapons to off my ex, do in my neighbor or shoot up a warehouse. Since nobody asks those questions until after the fact, it's never hard to convince LEO of these things. And, I don't have to actually join any militia to do it. Well regulated or otherwise. Oh, the fact that I'm a loner? That won't come out until after I off my ex, do in my neighbor and shoot up the warehouse. Then of course you'll read "Well, he was a bit of a loner, a quiet man...".
How many more mass shootings by nutjobs will we have before somebody figures out that our "well regulated militia" is not at all well and probably could use some halfway decent regulation?
So Mike, for you, a not so quickie answer.
There are in excess of One Hundred Million (100,000,000+) Firearm owners in America.
How many of them became mass shooters/murderers in the last 50 years?
There are in excess of Three Hundred Million (300,000,000+) Firearms in America.
How many of those weapons were used in commission of mass murder in the last 50 years?
Nothing in life can ever be 100% guaranteed ....... that is except death (by any means imaginable--pick one).
I don't think any form of new loophole free Firearm Regulation, even an absolute ban on all firearms -- big, small, ugly, pretty, automatic, single shot etc, etc, etc, etc -- will stop a nutjob or criminal intent of getting & using a firearm, from doing so.
Now, be honest & answer this ------ What do you intend on regulating? -- Who do you intend on regulating?
Criminals? ....... Really, you honestly think that will work?
The Insane Nut Jobs? ........ Really, you honestly think that will work?
Or will your halfway decent regulations fall on once again ------ fall upon the shoulders of the Law Abiding Gun Owners?
What do you mean by 'halfway decent'?
Regulations that will only work 50% of the time?
If not, what?
And then, when you think all your new halfway decent regulations are running like a well oiled machine, what do you do when it happens again (and it will).....you get word about the next mass shooting, & then another......? Will you be running around screaming with your arms flailing over your head demanding that our politicians pass some more halfway decent regulations? --- And who & what will these next generation regulations regulate? ......... Law Abiding gun owners......AGAIN?
Seriously now...........What halfway decent, or any particular type of regulation for that matter, which one will stop 100% of the -- known or unknown -- nutjobs from becoming mass shooters?
Can't think of a single loophole? I think think of three possibilities. 1) You haven't been thinking about it at all. 2) Your head is filled with cement 3) Or you're outright lying
In the incident in our fair city, the man was known white supremacist with criminal record. If for person to person and gun sales required a background check, he wouldn't have been able to purchase the guns.
"Now, be honest & answer this ------ What do you intend on regulating? -- Who do you intend on regulating?
Criminals? ....... Really, you honestly think that will work?" Another variation of "criminals don't obey laws." The object isn't regulating people per say. It's regulating the transfer of guns. With my proposals, yes, criminals will still be able to buy guns from each other next year from their existing stockpiles. However, those stockpiles will gradually diminish as the criminals throw away the guns to get rid of evidence, get shoot by police, are caught, etc. Flunkies still able to buy guns will face grave consequences in procuring weapons for the criminals and think twice. I don't think anybody suffers the delusion that any legislation will be 100% effective, however this will save lives. What's 100% ineffective and frankly insane is shifting from defending existing gun rights to demanding more of them in the wake of tragedies such as this.
This is what you are responding to.....read it again, then once again.......then read your answer(s).
Quote from: SmileyFaze
Now your response to that:
Can't think of a single loophole?
I think think of three possibilities.
1) You haven't been thinking about it at all. 2) Your head is filled with cement 3) Or you're outright lying......,.
What are you smokin' 'Coony??
It makes no sense whatsoever.
Criminals? ....... Really, you honestly think that will work?"
Another variation of "criminals don't obey laws."
The object isn't regulating people per say.
It's regulating the transfer of guns......
Of course it's regulating people ...... Firearms don't transfer themselves ......
99%+ of those regulated people will be law abiding, honest people ------- not criminals --- not nutjobs, but good, honest, law abiding American Citizens, regulated all in the hopes of possibly halting an occasional criminal or a nutjob in their tracks, & maybe keeping them from possibly ever getting their hands on a firearm.
The laws you propose won't stop criminals & nutjobs from getting whatever they want, if they want it bad enough, they will just move on until they eventually succeed ...... ever hear of the underground black market? Been around since the beginning of time, & will outlive us & all our posterity.
So you & your leftist gun-grabbin' progressives can just shove that idea way up where the sun don't shine.
History has proven that registration always precedes confiscation, & your plan is merely an end-around to registration -- ergo a prelude to confiscation.
Deny all you want that that's not your legislation's intent, but the American People -- some of which might not be the sharpest knives in the drawer --- the American People won't have that wool pulled over their eyes.
Well, the American People won't allow their Natural Rights to be negotiated away on some theoretical proposition that has been proven ineffective elsewhere, in the hopes that they might work every once in a while the next time.
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FZbQT530.gif&hash=e5451df3a5a17549618d432edb6209ab" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/ZbQT530.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/guns4.gif)
What you are saying there SF is not at all logical.
The first part suggests that it's not worth doing anything if the problem is confined to a small part of the population and the last part infers that regulation has no effect on anything at all.
Statistically not that many people die from snake bites, does that mean we should not have serums?
Should we not teach students about music because not many actually play an instrument,
Or, and this may be closer to your heart, should we not bother about Quality Control on Ammunition because what does it matter of two or three rounds in a box do not fire?
It's just as daft to say that we should not bother to regulate firearms because people will still get shot; the aim of regulation is to reduce the number that get shot.
And then the bit about regulation not stopping a single unsuitable person from getting a gun; that would only apply in NRA Heaven where everyone is free-issued a gun at birth.
PS By the way, you are still misquoting the 2nd Amendment - you have missed out the part about regulation, what you write is not a free-standing sentence.
Better a dud than that they explode in the wrong way! ;)
I've heard about that happening. Not so often these days, but it has happened where a round misfired and set off the entire cylinder-- note that this happened in old revolvers mostly.
....Statistically not that many people die from snake bites, does that mean we should not have serums?...
Apples & Oranges.....A serum doesn't protect you from being bit, but hopefully comes to the rescue to save you from the poisons after the fact of being bitten.
.....Should we not teach students about music because not many actually play an instrument.....
Your right there String & you might not have realized it........Yes, I think that even though many adults & children will never use or own a firearm, firearm safety & the proper handling of firearms should be a required course of study in every grammar school, high school, & university....as should be CPR. ;)
.......PS By the way, you are still misquoting the 2nd Amendment - you have missed out the part about regulation, what you write is not a free-standing sentence.....
As I noted in a previous post, the "regulation" you speak of from the phrase "A well 'regulated' militia....." meant (and therefore still means unless changed via Constitutional Amendment) , in the vernacular of the times (18th century) it has been extensively documented that 'regulated' meant, & still means, quite a different thing than it is being erroneously interpreted by the wanna-be regulators of today.
To make it perfectly clear, the Second Amendment phrase concerning regulation & militia:
All Americans of proper age, & of sound body, are meant to be the Militia ----- Not a National Guard or any other government sponsored organization of law enforcement, & diametrically opposed to what is being erroneously interpreted as a Militia by the wanna-be regulators of today.
Regulated in the vernacular of the day= being trained to the degree of proficiency needed to be effective.
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which was said by some to have been inserted to protect the First Amendment, by no means gave, or gives today, Government any right whatsoever to pass any regulations on the citizens it is hired to serve regarding keeping & bearing firearms.
The Second Amendment, & the rest of the first Ten (10) Amendments to the United States Constitution, also known as the "Bill of Rights", were specifically meant to convey where government may not tread, & what government was forbidden to do.
Laid out, in what was a clear terminology & thinking of the times, these 'Amendments' were a direct set of restrictions placed on government ordering government not to infringe upon the Rights of the People.
New America had just been through ridding itself of one of the most restrictive & tyrannical governments of all time, the 18th Century English Monarchy, & they wanted to ensure that government specifically knew it's place & duty for all time, & that this government never encroached upon the Rights of the people, while serving in an extremely limited & restricted capacity as it was designed to........period.
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/PointRt.gif) Now, if the American People wish to change the Second Amendment's infringement notice & meaning, they are perfectly free to do so via the mechanism provided to them by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, through the Constitutional Amendment Process,
which was specifically spelled out in Article V of the Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution) for this purpose.
Baring such a Constitutional Amendment, government must not, & can not, pass any law restricting the Second Amendment Rights of all the American Peoples it is sworn to serve, as well as the United States Constitution it is under sworn oath to uphold.....period!
.....It's just as daft to say that we should not bother to regulate firearms because people will still get shot; the aim of regulation is to reduce the number that get shot.......
While I respect your right to say so, "Daft " is your personal feeling about this emotional issue, & in your own personal interpretation of our American Constitutional issues, but it changes nothing related to the charge the United States Constitution gives the United States Government ---------- from our American inception until the end of times.
The American People have but one solution to be able to do what you, & the rest of the outside world seemingly wish. If they wish the same as you, they must amend the Constitution as outlined in Article V of that Constitution...............period. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/smileys/cheers.png)
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FmzS0Qva.jpg&hash=e35e8f3d6b89b5277e455415ab724023" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/mzS0Qva.jpg) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/guns4.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/cleanteeth09.gif)
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F4Xxk1CX.png&hash=895bdce16d3efaa9d7f03f14aaf817d2" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/4Xxk1CX.png)
Your right there String & you might not have realized it........Yes, I think that even though many adults & children will never use or own a firearm, firearm safety & the proper handling of firearms should be a required course of study in every grammar school, high school, & university....as should be CPR.
Yup. Gonna need CPR after you do everything your power to keep it easy for criminals and lunatics to get guns, huh? You guys are enabling those people to get guns and don't even realize it in your paranoia. Tap on an app on your phone, enter the buyer's info and it's done.
In fact, this protects the buyer in the event that the gun is used in a crime by creating the record that you so fear. Think law enforcement doesn't attempt to trace the serial number of recovered weapons used in crimes now? Murderer steals a gun or buys it person to person from a non-criminal. He shoots someone and tries to hide the gun. The police find the gun. After running the gun's serial number, it's traced back to the non-criminal. Guess who's the number on suspect now? Hopefully his alibi checks out, but it's disturbing to read how many people were executed in the US that were later found to be innocent. You think that person to person background checks are a threat to a non-criminal sell, if anything the checks exonerate them of crimes committed with the weapon.
you still miss the words "well regulated." Still picking and choosing what you want from the constitution, while ignoring everything else, are we? The "constitutional" Rightest rank among the least informed about the document or basic civics. Guns can't be banned outright, but can be regulated.
I thought I heard it all, but that pile of horseshit takes top prize!!!! Now, I really have heard it all!!!!! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/big%20laugh%20007.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/lolfun.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/lol015.gif)
you still miss the words "well regulated."......
And you still cant comprehend the plethora of documentation provided by Constitutional experts & historians on what the phrase actually means.
It brings a broad smile to my face every time one of your leftist progressives make claims that it means otherwise, & then they crash & burn when proven so wrong. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/chuckle002.gif)
Ignoring it's actual documented meaning as you do, wont make it magically change to mean otherwise, mean what you want it to, or mean what it doesn't mean. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/yesyesyes.gif)
A "well regulated militia" means every able bodied American of age, having enough training to be effective in the use of a firearm (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BigGrin02.gif)
So, Smiley, are you part of a militia? I mean, an outfit that conducts regular field drills, has officers that you have to answer to and so on? I don't mean just that you possess an arsenal and you've been to the firing range a couple of times, I mean actually belonging to a militia.
Your handy-dandy definition does not apply, most Chicago street-gangs could fit that definition with relative ease-- and probably shoot your http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Donkey_1_arp_750px.jpg (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Donkey_1_arp_750px.jpg) off if you came to town, too.
I mean, a regular, bona fide, gotta take orders militia.
These days, it seems the state National Guard posts fulfill the traditional "militia" rolls, from what I gather. Your random collection of gun-nuts really don't, you're just about the most resistant to regulation bunch I've clapped eyes on and the idea of you turning out for field drills--- almost laughable. That would mean somebody else-- perish the thought, maybe a state official-- would have to know how much of what you've got, so he could know what resources he had in case of attack. Can't have a state official knowing squat, now can we? Not even if he IS your militia commanding officer.
I think this is relevant (http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/beararms.htm)
In 2008 the Supreme Court concluded
"the Court recognized that the government can regulate gun rights. The Court said its decision should not be interpreted to question the right of government to: prohibit felons and the mentally ill from owning weapons, prohibit guns in schools or public buildings, ban certain categories of guns not commonly used for self-defense, and to establish certain other conditions on gun ownership."
All Americans who are sound SmileyFaze? There seems to be an awful lot of poor mindset considering you kill each other in 5 figures annually, schools get shoot-outs, colleges, places where people gather. It is not surprising that the head shrinkers are big business in the ex-colonies. The nutjobs even pervade the army and just shows that even after two centuries plus you haven't grown up yet. Who would want to imitate a country that is bananas over guns??
Dear, oh dear.
So, Smiley, are you part of a militia?
Not by your definition. The wanna be regulators & gun-grabbers insist, erroneously, that the only valid "Militia" is the National Guard, but we all know that's only wishful thinking on their part....They don't like the definition, well then they change the definition(s) to suit their leftist agenda(s) claiming "it's a changing world, so definitions must change....". Isn't that convenient, & some head in their asses Americans follow blindly out of emotion.
As was defined in the 18th Century, & the only valid definition when defining the meaning of an 18 Century Document, the Militia is every able bodied American man who is of age.
I am the Militia, you are the Militia, & together we all are the Militia.
Don't like that, that's too bad, go pass a Constitutional Amendment, & change the definitions to suit you.
As for any so called "organized" Militias, they can fit the criteria, but membership in them is not required to be part of the Militia.
We are all part of the Militia, provided we are of age, & are able bodied.
No uniforms or titles required.
Us Pro- Second Amendment gun-owners will never become merely slaves with privileges, instead of citizens with rights!
Again, don't like that, that's too bad, go pass a Constitutional Amendment with words that suit you.....till then, suck it up princess, it is what it is. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/guns4.gif)
VICTORY: Nebraska Passes Major Pro-Gun Bill
Not exactly breaking news, but it represents the trend across the nation:
Quote from: http://www.capitalisminstitute.org/ne-passes-pro-gun-bill/
There are a number of states that are pushing back against the progressive left's anti-gun agenda (http://www.capitalisminstitute.org/impeach-obama-over-anti-gun-agenda/).
Numerous states are standing up to the federal government by nullifying gun control measures within their borders (http://www.capitalisminstitute.org/states-nullifying-gun-control/).
Many other states, from Arizona (http://www.capitalisminstitute.org/az-passes-pro-gun-laws/) to West Virginia (http://www.capitalisminstitute.org/wv-passes-pro-gun-laws/), are passing pro-gun legislation that restores and expands the rights of gun owners.
Nebraska has joined that list now that Governor Dave Heineman signed Legislative Bill 699 into law, which will make positive changes to the gun laws of the state. The law will take effect immediately due to an "emergency" clause.......
........ LB 699 repeals an outdated state firearms statute and brings state law into conformity with federal law by allowing Nebraska residents to purchase long guns in non-contiguous states. This long-overdue reform will align Nebraska with forty other states that already allow their residents to purchase rifles and shotguns in non-contiguous states, provided that the purchase or transfer complies with state and federal law. LB 699 repeals this antiquated restriction, allowing Nebraska residents the freedom to purchase long guns in states beyond their immediate borders.
LB 699 also requires the reporting of records of persons unable to purchase or possess firearms due to a federal mental health disqualification -- adjudicated mentally deficient or involuntarily committed to a mental institution -- to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and changes provisions related to hunting licenses and hunter education programs. Nebraska still retains a strong restoration of rights provision for those who have been involuntarily hospitalized or have been adjudicated mentally deficient, providing the ability for relief through an application process to the court system, allowing for restoration of gun rights.............continued
No. I didn't just read that. It's impossible that any sentient being could ---- no, it's not possible.
Again, don't like that, that's too bad, go pass a Constitutional Amendment with words that suit you.....till then, suck it up princess, it is what it is.
You do know the Revolutionary War ended in 1783, more then a couple years ago, right? You're trying to use definitions more than 200 years old that no longer fit. In 1973, the draft ended in favor of an all volunteer military. Welcome to the 21st century, where just because you're over the age of 18 doesn't mean you're part of the militia. That time is long over.
Post by: OakdaleFTL on 2014-06-14, 03:21:11
Sanguinemoon said:
In 1973, the draft ended in favor of an all volunteer military. Welcome to the 21st century, where just because you're over the age of 18 doesn't mean you're part of the militia. That time is long over.
Indeed, since 2009 the sovereignty of the United States has -by the current executive administration- been doubted, denigrated, and -yes, friends, it's true: dhimmi-ized... (Although Mexicalification is rightly seen, in some environs, as the more immanent threat!) There is no "America," according to these 'true believers' in -- whatever: There is only the eventual uprising of the oppressed! (Marx couldn't be wrong! Right? :) )
Well, such may find that there is indeed a militia... The Oops! moment of the intelligentsia will go down in history as another Cinco de Mayo, a PR event that -in the end- makes no difference. But the quiet preparedness of denizens acclimated to freedom in these United States will have their say, and keep their ancient rights.
Sanguinemoon will benefit, however much he complains.
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2014-06-14, 03:21:11
But the quiet preparedness of denizens acclimated to freedom in these United States will have their say, and keep their ancient rights.
What quiet preparedness would that be? It's been replaced by consumer culture decades ago. Once again, nobody is trying to take away existing rights. It's about finding out criminals and lunatic get their guns and reducing the availability of weapons to people such as the Millers. Smiley doesn't understand this, but we're actually on the same side. The only way I can see preventing more draconian measures in the future is to allow universal background checks. The only way to have interstate gun sales without opening up the "gun ownership opportunities" for lunatics and criminals is a centralized database in combination UBCs.
Think of it this way. Anarchy is often replaced by despotism. For an obvious example, look at the French Revolution and the dictator that followed. Napoleon was able to provide order, but he was a tyrant. So now tearing down existing gun regulation, most of which is common sense, will (not can) make it easier for people like the Millers to acquire weapons. Eventually, the people will have had enough and demand stronger regulation.
The Blaze (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/19/how-many-people-own-guns-in-america-and-is-gun-ownership-actually-declining/) of all places notes that gun ownership rates in the US having declining for decades, from a peak of 53% in 1973 to 32% and if anything the rate seems to be accelerating. SF might say something about the gun sales in the wake of possible regulation, but these seem to be to existing gun owners.
To put it all together, time is not on the NRA and their puppet Members of Congress and Representative's side. Quit pretending sensible gun regulation, such as universal background checks, are a "gun grab" and let them go through - before something worse happens.
Come to think of it, the NRA is gun abolisher's best friend. They make the gun owners look and sound like raving lunatics that will answer a school shooting by allowing anyone into a school with a gun, as opposed to exploring ways to keep guns out of schools (better security, metal detectors built into the doors, etc.) Talk about being your own worst enemy. I support the right for law abiding, mentally sound citizens to own guns. I'm just saying we need better ways to make sure people buying guns fall into that category, since known White Supremacists and Neo-Nazis like the Millers can get them easily. To find his worst enemy, Smiley and people like him only need look in the mirror.
"We are all part of the militia". What utter codswallop that kind of thinking is. Based on the attitude expressed behind that is almost like Anarchistic. If that is supposed to be the case then the ten plus thousand a year mowed down shows how completely hopeless America is. The place is awash with guns and shows how immature, politcal inept and bokkers the place has become. Nothing to compare with what their founders wanted at all even though i didn't agree with them. The complete juvenile mentality profligates like mad over there and all carefully arranged by the big money men who seel the stuff yo the adults with child mindsets. A million in uniform and still the gun poppers use an 19th century situation for modern day. It has only made things damn worse and it is just as well the psychiatry industry abounds in great numbers.
Why would a militia be needed with such a big military? The country spends about half the world total of armamnents and each war it starts it ends up making money for the corporates afterwards. When you look at the gun situation in the USA and how it blunders across the globe causing mayhem and arrogance whilst a killing spree back home you couldn't make this up. Small wonder the US has supported so many rightist dictatorships they can sell guns to as well. The Constitution has been hijacked by child minds meant to be adults. The country is awash with the gun crowd and the anti-social aspects and crime wash that go with it. Unbelievable for a modern society and only dictators would want to copy it not sensible people. If finance doesn't collapse it the internal social and sense weaknesses will.
Sanguine, you give the same old song and dance! And, if you're asked where your preferred prescription has been profitably enacted, your perennial reply is: Why, not widely enough! A city, a county, a state are too limiting for sensible regulation. Indeed, a nation may be!
You want control -- both senses apply.
If I am, indeed, part of the militia, then I fully expect to be answerable to somebody.
So, who is my commanding officer? Who do I report to? Come on, somebody knows--- after all, that's the way a proper militia does things you know. There's a chain of command, somebody in charge of mustering the troops in time of emergency if nothing else. Otherwise, you haven't got a militia. You just got a collection of odds and ends that might or might not be there when you need them, might or might not have the appropriate weaponry and sufficient ammo for those weapons, might or might not be able to hit the broad side of a barn from inside the barn, and most certainly will have trouble working with other militiamen because-- oh, I know you won't believe this-- because most of us "militiamen" have never, ever trained together.
What kind of "militia" is this, anyway? To me, and to a fair number of others, it looks suspiciously like a bunch of NRA fanatics who worship guns as gods, and can't understand that their neighbors don't share their fondness for and worship of guns. Sorry, but-- if it looks like religion, talks like religion and behaves like religion, there's a good chance that it's a religion. In this case, one that bows down to guns.
If I am, indeed, part of the militia, then I fully expect to be answerable to somebody........
YOU are the Militia............ You're only answerable to yourself, the guy you're fighting next to, & your Creator (if your a lost soul, only the first 2 apply .... for the time being that is)
I told ya this was a weird "militia"! Every last one of the crackpots that went into schools, theaters and shopping malls, shooting the place up and killing a bunch of people, could have used that definition of "militia". The Millers almost certainly did. Answerable to nobody but yourself, whatever weird idea pops into your skull goes unchallenged and you carry out the orders issued by yourself only--- and God help your neighbors. After all, if you're in full-metal Katsung mode, your neighbors are all spies for the Feds anyway.
No, no, no and a thousand times no. Such a definition of "militia" will never do. Militias have chains of command, most proper ones have-- oh, I know you won't believe this-- armories where the weapons and ammo are kept, responsibility and a paper-trail for that responsibility and so on.
So, now I'm a militia. All by myself, answerable to me only-- and God, if it shall be that He makes His desires known. I tol' ya, this is one strange "militia".
Well, lets see here. I have a pocket knife and a couple of hammers. Not much as weapons, but it's a start. Pretty poor showing for a "militia", but not bad for a driver who uses the pocket knife to cut plastic wrap and the hammers to persuade boards to either join together or come apart.
It's not about control. It's about effectiveness. Chicago tried to ban guns, not constitutional of them and going as overboard as the NRA, just in the opposite direction. Why didn't it work? It's documented that the criminals simply had their gun mules go to the suburbs. Nevada tries to have more sensible measure, such a background checks at gunshows. It's a quick trip from Las Vegas across the state line to Arizona.
Funny you should talk about control when you vote for a party that historically and in recent history tried to use state power to enforce their social agenda. Everytime a Republican bitches about "control" he's a hypocrite. A real libertarian, as opposed to the false self-proclaimed ones, has a basis to make that argument. A Republican, no.
A "well regulated"militia as a command structure. Mjmsprt40, nor anybody else, can't proclaim himself a militia. As military units, a "well regulated" militia would be answerable to the President, as per the constitution. Sure, there are groups that proclaim themselves "militias" but not being answering to anyone but themselves, they are not "well regulated." The reason I keep repeating that phrase from the second amendment is that you guys don't get that part.
Post by: Jochie on 2014-06-15, 14:41:07
I remember reading the written papers by our founders on the 2nd Amendment. They wrote that the amendment is to protect the people against a national army, despotic power, using local organized militias. The papers were quite obvious the right to arms were because of the need to arm local militias.
The NRA has part of the 2nd Amendment engraved on their building. They left the part about "militias" out of their engraving.
Guns can obviously restricted. Many states have gun control laws which are legal. That is why the NRA goes into paroxysm with threats to politicians because they damn well know laws to restrict guns can be passed.
The difference, I think, is that I know that I can't proclaim myself a "militia", I'm not at all sure that Smiley has realized that yet. A one-man "militia", answerable only to himself, is a terrifying concept and one which sane people should be resistant to.
Citizens banding together because their community is under attack or is threatened with attack--OK, that concept of "militia" can be grasped. Somebody will be in charge, somebody will have an idea of what to do next, and if the citizens need to gather together to learn how to work together to defend the community against the coming assault, there will be a structure to make that happen. The type of "militia" which Smiley is promoting is no such thing, it's just the individual declaring himself to be sovereign in his own right.
I don't think Smiley disagrees that a well-regulated militia is, as you say, a disciplined and trained unit. It seems to me that he mostly thinks the training should be done on an individual basis, although I would think that there is slightly more to training as a militia than merely knowing how to handle a weapon. Interestingly, Wikipedia alerted me that Alexander Hamilton proposed yearly mandatory training just like in Switzerland.
Quote from: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers/No._29
Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the People at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
OK, the Switzerland/Alexander Hamilton idea at least makes some sort of sense. The idea of the able-bodied men in the community training together works.
Of course, that leaves a basic problem. That problem is that I live in a suburb of Chicago. When, exactly, have we heard of recent attacks on Villa Park, Illinois that would require the citizens to form a militia to defend it? Against whom? Have the natives of Glendale Heights been getting restless again? At the time of Hamilton, we had small towns that had to defend against Indians. Switzerland is a small country, and while not presently being threatened the fact remains that in order to field a credible army they have to train every man who can carry a weapon. Israel is reputed to be training every able-bodied man, and in that case the country is surrounded by enemies who would be glad to push Israel into the sea if they get the chance.
Here, we have Mexico to the South and Canada to our North. Neither of these countries appear to be mounting armed aggression against us. Last time we tangled with Mexico it was before the Civil War, and the time we tangled with Canada-- maybe the Canadians needed to band together to defend against us, seems there was a bit of a land-grab planned during the War of 1812. But, since those incidents--- I reckon my pocket knife and couple of hammers will handle all the threat these two countries presently offer. Nobody else offers a credible threat that a civilian militia is likely to be much good against.
I get your point, & to a point I agree.
You seem to need a Militia to be a structured entity, one with an elected or designated leader/chain of command.
If you recall the definition I used was:
You simply need to incorporate the other part of my definition too ........... the guy you're fighting next to ..........into the equation.
Maybe a hypothetical example would clarify it better:
Your community is under attack.
The call goes out for all to gather & secure their firearm(s) & meet at the public high school in your neighborhood.
You are the Militia, but until you join up with another/others you are alone.
Once you join up with others, you are still the Militia--always were, but now this group has formed, & combined they are the Militia ...... answerable now to the others they are banding with.
Depending on the size of the group collectively they, as would normally be the case, decide to choose one person to lead them.
They could even go as far as selecting roles for others in this combined Militia.
If & when they go into battle, they now will not be fighting as individuals for the most part, but as a team under the leadership of the person or persons they chose. All the while you are answerable to those you fight beside -- & they as individuals answerable to you, as well as answerable to the others, & collectively all of them will be answerable to those chosen to lead.
BTW.....if these once strangers, but now band of brothers gather often, the chosen leaders may stay the same or they could change depending solely on the will of the group.
They may even decide to train together to better their overall function & performance.
This is (or was) known as regulating.
A simple, & effective concept.
I hope this clarification helps further illuminate the concept of Militia for you.
Mike, just remember one thing.......throughout this simple example, you always were, & you always are the Militia.
Mike, just remember one thing.......throughout this simple example, you were, & always are the Militia.
I don't know. That sounds a bit like my hand was and always will be me. I think that without the rest of my body, it's just a hand. :P
I believe in Latin it is something like one miles (soldier), two miletes (soldiers), and a certain number of miletes forms a militia. I realize that pointing at etymology can be a rather silly endeavor if the meaning of the word changed, but I don't believe it has.
It's not about control. It's about effectiveness.
Utopians (Progressives) usually prate about 'effectiveness'... And how, if only they were in control, there would be enough! Eventually.
Would you also support the Precautionary Principle?
I modified, as I do from time to time, I modified that phrase you quoted while you were posting (unbeknown to me) .... causing an overlap. Hope it doesn't affect your meaning, but it might. ;)
Utopians (Progressives) usually prate about 'effectiveness'... And how, if only they were in control, there would be enough! Eventually......
Ain't that the freekin' truth!!
Prate ... Nice word, btw, & quite apropos. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/awright005.gif)
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/captianboat.gif) Welcome aboard. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/cheerskj4.gif)
And what is the NRA utopia, their end game? Mine is to simply reduce criminals access to guns. Of course, it's impossible to completely eliminate it. That's hardly a Utopian vision. What are you up to anyway, trying to me on the defensive for having a "Utopian" vision, when my views match the overwhelming majority (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/gabrielle-giffords/gabby-giffords-says-americans-overwhelmingly-suppo/). So the majority of Americans are Leftist Utopians now - for having common sense?
...And what is the NRA utopia, their end game? Mine is to simply reduce criminals access to guns. Of course, it's impossible to completely eliminate it. That's hardly a Utopian vision.
The NRA is there to protect & defend American Gun Right's, Gun Freedoms, & Liberties, & protect us from Leftist Anti-Gun Progressives who would slowly whittle away at those rights, slice by slice, until they inevitably legislate regulations that make American Gun Rights virtually non-existent --- with the most cowardly form of confiscation to follow.
The common mantras being ".....to simply reduce criminals access to guns..." , "....Common sense regulations & measures to scale down gun violence..." when all they actually want to do is build up a firearm database through registrations, which is a prerequisite to confiscation & control -- not of criminal arms, but of legal firearms belonging to law abiding firearm owners.
When one set of regulations fail to completely stop gun violence, they will call for more restrictive regulations, then when those regulations too fail to attain their ever changing objectives, they will push harder for yet more restrictive regulation, & on, & on, & on it goes until every promise made to law abiding, legal firearm owners is broken, & every facet of "...we don't want to take anyone's legal right to keep & bear firearms away...", becomes a total mockery as they spit on the cherished Flag, Constitution, & the Bill of Rights we Americans hold dear.
They will attempt to cunningly spoon-feed America their diabolical lies, in order to divide & conquer, gaining followers not through truths, but by playing on their deep emotions --- black tongued lie after black tongued lie, just as those "Non-Anti-Gun Anti-Gunners" in these forums might blatantly lie when they attempt to "sugar-coat" how they "....just want common sense firearm reforms....", when actually they want nothing of the sort. They truly seek to end every vestige of firearm rights that every brave American Soldier died defending, & once Americans have no way of protecting their rights from a tyrannical government, all the other rights will surely follow post haste.
They will slyly mask their dubious & cowardly intentions, because in reality all they pray for is the first day of an enslaved, gun free, populace ---- a populace of which in their hopes will be totally dependent upon, & at the absolute mercy of their tyrannical & controlling socialistic government.
Yes, they pray for the day when all Americans become merely slaves with privileges, instead of citizens with rights!
Now, I am beginning to understand a little more about how Patrick Henry must have felt when he spoke these words:
It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace - but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/Rights.gif)
And what is the NRA utopia, their end game? Mine is to simply reduce criminals access to guns. Of course, it's impossible to completely eliminate it.
As far as I know, the NRA doesn't propose a Utopia or an end-game. They simply support an ancient right supposedly secured to a free people...
You want to feel safe and secure; and unencumbered by an oppressive government... Pard, you can't get there from here. Leastwise, not by that road: Government regulation doesn't go there.
If you really want to reduce criminals' access to guns, get a concealed-carry permit! Most criminals are cowards and, by your own reasoning, every little bit helps. No?
But you'd rather the coercive might of the federal government absolve you of personal responsibility. Even if it does little or no actual good. Even if it does actual harm.
If I'm wrong, please explain how.
In other words, what would it take to make you feel safe and secure? That's a simple enough question, I think. I'll reply, after consideration, to your answer -- if you make one.
Does anyone buy that crap anymore? Someone's an anti-gun leftist for what? Supporting background checks? Questioning the wisdom of allowing anyone to carry guns in schools?
The really sad thing is you guys don't understand this over the top rhetoric you use on yourselves causes you to lose to be public debate. Then there's the habit of calling for guns in schools after there's been a Sandy Hook style shooting. The sane public shakes their collective heads in a "Are you fucking kidding?" moment. That's just one obvious example of when the NRA goes off the road of preserving 2nd amendment rights and takes the next exit to Crazytown.
Oh yeah, and gun control does tend to reduce gun violence (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/03/07/gun-violence-study-chicago/1969227/).
.Of course, most of us would say "No shit, Sherlock" to those findings. Law-abiding citizens can get their guns for hunting or whatever; criminals have a tougher time committing their crimes. I don't think it takes a genius to understand this. Common sense, Smiley.
Science, Sang? Nah. Of course not...
Despite the findings, researchers did not establish a cause and effect relationship between guns and deaths. Rather, they could only establish an association.
That failure illustrates the limits of the study, said Garen Wintemute, an emergency physician and director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis.
"Policy makers can really draw no conclusion from this study," Wintemute said, explaining that the study doesn't provide critical answers to which laws work and why.
The larger problem is that the United States effectively stopped doing research on gun laws and violence 15 years ago and now has no evidence that shows causes and effect, he said.
Wintemute added, however, that he believes gun policies are important and can drive rates of violence down. In the future, researchers must look at how several factors including culture, gun ownership, and gun trafficking between states, he said.
Fleegler and his colleagues became interested in the relationship between gun laws and deaths last summer after the Trayvon Martin case sparked conversations about self-defense laws and the use of guns.
Despite the early lapses in grammar early-on in the article, I feel the reporters' pain! Spinning this 'correctly' must have been anguishing, and futile...
No statistics for the last 15 years?! Maybe they're hiding among Lerner's 2009-2011 emails...
Their end game seems to be no background checks and carrying guns anywhere. Carry your gun into the courthouse if you want, never mind that you'll have the opportunity to shoot the judge if your friend or loved one gets a guilty verdict.
Look at all this oppression I'm calling for. Tap an app on your smartphone and enter in your buyer's information. Don't have a smartphone? Use your computer (probably easier anyway with a real keyboard and whatnot). Doing this is personal responsibility, as opposed to selling your gun to the Millers and the like without bothering to check who you're selling to. None of this is even close to taking away personal responsibility.
That's when you take into account the numerous other positive correlations between high gunownership rates, lax regulations and state-wide crime rates. The result remains the same. That's when you said "But-but South Dakota (or some other low population state) has a high rate of gun ownership and low crime. That's when you use your brain to understand there's a difference if your next neighbor is a mile away or not :p
Same old song and dance: Gun control works! (Except where it's tried -- because they don't try hard enough...? DC? Chicago?) The available statistics (...the last 15 years, eh?) are murky, at best.
Cherry-picking data and performing feats of academic prestidigitation don't count for much.
Wait, what?? No cause and effect relationship between guns and death? What, exactly, do you think the murder rate in Chicago has been all about? Seems to me the cause and effect is well enough established. An angry person points a gun at his enemy, he pulls the trigger, and his enemy falls down. Hmmmm.... Seems to me those researchers need to go back and re-do that study. Oh,, about those statistics-- Go to Chicago's Harrison-District police station, and I'm sure they'll give you all the statistics you can handle from the last 15 years-- or any other time period of your choosing. You'll have all the cause-and effect you can stand and maybe then some.
Post by: Sparta on 2014-06-16, 12:36:06
Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens be allowed to Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?
i think if access to mentall health is easier than access to the gun shop .
it will reduce the Guns issues .
bc people with mentall health issues need --> CBT , Haldol , lithium , alprazolam , etc .
--not a Gun .
Quote from: Sparta on 2014-06-16, 12:36:06
That's an approach being totally ignored by the Progressive Left.
Because it is intelligent, & has the best chance of helping people, rather than oppressing people, that's why.
Imagine that, rather than redoubling efforts to actually help people through better mental health care, as I'm sure you would strongly suggest, they prefer to go the route of regulation through firearm legislation, which btw, no matter how many times the black tongued lie is spoken by the Progressive Left, their firearm legislation doesn't work, & newer laws will be just as ineffective.
I agree with you here Sparta.
Make the Mental Health Care System actually work, & redouble efforts in apprehending & prosecuting criminals --- enforce the laws ALREADY ON THE BOOKS, rather than insisting on passing :yawn: new oppressive laws, yet again, that are doomed to fail as they have already failed in Chicago, & the Nation's Capital Washington, D.C. where they already have the most restrictive & oppressive Firearm Regulations in the Country!
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/pissonguncontrol.png) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/guns4.gif)
Why is it called "gun control"? Do you call the regulations concerning driver's licences "car control"?
Why Should Ordinary Citizens be allowed to Own, Carry, & Use Firearms it's a matter of resistance.
As so, it's irrelevant what happens at already occupied societies where the only right people have is to conform, consume, obey.
American gun defensors, Europeans like it or not, are the last ones to keep on defending their right to resistance and actually doing something for it.
Criminal statistic minutiae is the weapon being used against populations so people don't get armed, so people can't ever resist.
This is not a matter of police and statistics, this is a mater of Freedom.
There's a thought. You actually have to go to the DMV and prove that you know the law concerning driving a car, and if it's your first time you will have to prove proficiency in driving the car.
If you want to get a Class A CDL, you'll have to jump through a ton of hoops to prove you actually can drive a rig safely.
Here in Illinois, you have to pass state-police checks to get a "Firearm Owners Identification Card" and the concealed-carry permits if you're doing this legally-- note, if I ever DO decide to own a gun it will be legal, having to buy weapons and ammo from the shady characters at 5th and Homan is not my idea of the way to do this right. To get the concealed carry, they make you pass classes in gun handling and gun safety, don't know for sure if they try to weed out the freak-show but I sure hope so.
Smiley, I gotta say that if you're wanting to keep the state from knowing what you have or even if you have, here in Illinois you're a trifle late legally. After I secure the permits I would need and get the training I would need-- of course they're gonna know. How could they not? But, you know, that doesn't really bother me. Especially if I AM the "militia" because-- oh, I know you won't believe this-- in time of need, when the troops-- meaning me-- would be mustered in the town square-- it would be the business of the local government, and maybe the state-- depends on the size of the emergency-- to know "for sure" who they can depend on to face the emergency. If anything, I probably would need a lot more training than I'm likely to get at "Sam's Sporting Goods and Shooting Range"--- so maybe a little bit of real, bona-fide militia training would be in order. You can only get that through semi-official channels, or through knowing guys who meet in the back woods behind Jed's barn-- one of the two. In any case, it really doesn't bother me to have my paperwork in order, so that I can answer legally and constitutionally for any and all weapons I might possess. I have to have a driver's license, registration and proof of insurance to drive a car-- why should I not have legal paperwork to possess and use an arsenal?
That's what both sides of the political spectrum have decided to label it, so until further notice that's what it's called.
Oppression & Tyranny by any other names would dominate & subjugate just the same! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/guns4.gif)
Smiley, I gotta say that if you're wanting to keep the state from knowing what you have or even if you have, here in Illinois you're a trifle late legally.
The word NULLIFICATION comes to mind.
Unjust laws can only oppress if they are enforced.
There are quite a few local law enforcement people refusing to enforce unjust gun laws, laws that are infringing on your Constitutional Right to Keep & Bear Arms, because in their oaths of office they swore to uphold the US Constitution first & foremost.
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FpJpic5J.jpg&hash=624cb5c9a6145c40a38fdd74f10f9c96" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/pJpic5J.jpg)
In any case, it really doesn't bother me to have my paperwork in order, so that I can answer legally and constitutionally for any and all weapons I might possess. I have to have a driver's license, registration and proof of insurance to drive a car-- why should I not have legal paperwork to possess and use an arsenal?
This is the land of the free, so if you wish you can be & do as you are, so if you choose Lemming, who am I to argue. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/chuckle002.gif)
BTW JFYI....... All those rules, & paperwork you speak of are not there to protect you, don't kid yourself, they are there to make doing what you have already done very difficult......the powers that be are hoping to turn off as many Citizens as possible from exercising their Constitutional Rights to keep & bear arms through intimidation, which is being litigated (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/MP3/We will not go down without a fight.mp3)in your courts as we speak.
BRAVO!!! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/clapping.gif)
How eloquently stated!! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/exitstageright.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/victorypi2.gif)
You are 100% SPOT ON! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/friends01.gif)
Thank you sir, thank you very very much! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/adoreen7.gif)
May God bless you, & protect you.
So are we discussing whether or not nullification is constitutional or not? (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sectalk.com%2Fboard%2Fpublic%2Fstyle_emoticons%2Fdefault%2Ftrollface.gif&hash=665db6eec9584d69e6bd4e70d368aa3a" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.sectalk.com/board/public/style_emoticons/default/trollface.gif)
Pretty sure the Civil War settled that, as we (The South) tried that for some time.
Again, though. What tyranny? Pressing an app on your phone. The horror! :no:
Neither does pretending the data is cherry picked. Murky at best? No. But I'll address that briefly at the end of the post.
http://www.childrenshospital.org/news-and-events/2013/march-2013/states-with-more-gun-laws-have-a-lower-rate-of-firearm-fatalities
Between 2007 and 2010, firearms were responsible for 31,224 to 31, 672 fatalities a year, with an average annual death rate ranging from a high of 17.9 per 100,000 individuals in Louisiana to a low of 2.9 per 100,000 in Hawaii. In 2010, firearms killed 68 percent of the homicide victims and 51 percent of the suicide victims.
"We found that the states with the greatest number of laws not only had dramatically lower firearm-associated homicide rates, but dramatically lower firearm-associated suicide rates as well," says Fleegler.
Findings from the study include:
States with the most firearm legislation had a 42 percent lower overall firearm-associated mortality rate than states with the least legislation.
The firearm-associated homicide rate was 40 percent lower, and the firearm-related suicide rate 37 percent lower, in states with the most legislation.
There was no increase in non-firearm-associated fatalities in states with the most firearm legislation as compared to states with the least legislation.
The types of legislation associated most clearly with decreasing rates of firearm-related homicides and suicides involved universal background checks and requiring permits to purchase firearms.
States with the most firearm laws had the lowest levels of household gun ownership.
Fleegler notes that the study did not determine cause and effect, but instead established the association between firearm laws and firearm fatalities.
Note the type of legislation that I'm advocating is the that's "most clearly with decreasing rates of firearm-related homicides and suicides."
Of course this notes the correlations do not prove causation. However, there are so many studies done utilizing different methodologies that DaVince couldn't paint a clearer picture. Now you had the silliness to bring up Chicago, where the gun laws were circumvented simply by going to the suburbs.
None of this is a threat to mentally sound, non-criminal gunowners.
Oh and what has changed in 15 years? The same states that had murder rates and loose gun laws did in 1989 and 1990 as now. The lax gun laws allowed criminals to get guns easily back then as they do now. The correlation, as noted early in the thread, even crosses national borders. Murky at best, my ass. It's only murky when people like the NRA make it so. They say "The overall murder rate declined as the numbers of guns increased." The same state-by-state correlations reminded intact (in addition the percentage of households owning guns actually decreased...)
Hurt people , Hurt people .
and what's the most reasonable thing to cure hurt people than --> mental health care ?
i dont give a shit about people with mental health issues .
they need help , not a shit .
great people like philosophers , scientists ,artists , etc
usually have mentall illness issues , like -- Bipolar , etc .
but in the dark side
for some reason , they commit crimes
article below
IMHO is valid enough to identify some people with mentall illness issues .
basically , it's because they have hormonal and chemical imbalance in Brain .
that can causing have dificulty with Perception .
lack of conscience, empathy , remorse and social skills
The Hare Psychopathy Checklist was initially developed to assess the mental condition of people who commit crimes, and it is commonly used to diagnose people who may exhibit the traits and tendencies of a psychopath. Most mental health professionals define a psychopath as a predator who takes advantage of others using charm, deceit, violence and other methods to get what they want. Identify a psychopath by using the Hare Psychopathy Checklist and trusting your own intuition.
http://www.wikihow.com/Identify-a-Psychopath
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi60.tinypic.com%2Fk0k76p.jpg&hash=05484050912db717c4e9454eb1fb36ad" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i60.tinypic.com/k0k76p.jpg)
..........in addition the percentage of households owning guns actually decreased........
Well, that's debatable.
Since the big push to disarm America started in earnest five (5+/-) or so years ago, many gunowners have become very protective of their privacy relating to their firearm ownership.
If I were asked in any poll if I owned a firearm I'd probably say no.
Why? Just to fuck with their polls.
That said, I know for a fact I am not alone, matter in fact it's becoming the rule rather than the exception.
As you know there is no accurate measurements as to who does, or does not own firearms.
We (the NRA --yes I'm a card carrier, & various other Conservative groups I belong to/associate with that consider the Second Amendment extremely important) are promoting the view that why should we help the pollsters when all they seem to do is twist our views in order to make political points --- either way, but never to our betterment.
So, when asked, we have for over 3 years now been telling everyone to provide false information - if asked if you own firearms, always say no, & if the question relates to the Second Amendment never tell how you really feel about it, so if the polls are viewed, the leftists will get skewed numbers & hopefully a false sense of security.
Even if FOX News polls you, the same applies to them too. We don't have any firearms, & are luke-warm to the Second Amendment at best.
Everyone we talk to loves this approach, to the point some of them go 360° ---"I don't own guns, never have, never will, & I hope they rip up the Second Amendment....it kills babies"
We make note as long as you're not under oath, skrew with their heads big time, & give 'em totally false info.
If you are under oath, give Yes or No answers only....never explain, even if asked to.
They can't force you to answer otherwise, but if they insist always say you have no opinion one way or another.
So your quote "..........in addition the percentage of households owning guns actually decreased........", is undoubtedly
correct. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/chuckle002.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/tongue22.gif)
That's a terrifying thought. Guys who actually think like that are armed. Pleasant dreams, everyone.
Note: NRA membership in and of itself is not a reliable indicator of gun ownership. My Dad was a member, but had no guns. Good thing, too, because in his later years he wasn't the most stable person I've known. He's used guns-- as a soldier in WW2 and then once or twice getting rid of varmints in the garden, but in the years since 1960--- nope no guns.
That's a terrifying thought.
What thought, that we like to fabricate our answers to pollsters?
In fact, it is correct that percentage of households with a gun has been decreasing for decades. Even if some people like you would lie (indicating that you probably shouldn't have a gun....) most tell the truth. This is data going back to at least 1973. You should check it for yourself. Multiple polls Pew, Gallop, General Social Survey all show this same results. Gallup shows the highest rate of gunownership, but they seem to have a (probably accidental) conservative bias in their sampling as shown by their predications that Romney would win. There was a somewhat of a spike across all polls around 2010-2011, then the numbers start decreasing again. This isn't even new. As far back as 1999, even Gallup noted what it calls "a broad decline" in gunowners rates; since then it continued to decline. There are some years showing an increase, but that's why we look at long term trends.
Now if you consider that debatable, what about the actual number of guns? How many of the 300 million are decades old and not even in firing order?
It comes down there not being as much reason to own a gun anymore. With urbanizations, there's not as much need to hunt for food, defend your cattle from predators, chase away animals trying to eat your crops, etc.
I don't think you're understanding how many gun owners would have to fabricate their answers and for how long.
In fact, it is correct that percentage of households with a gun has been decreasing for decades. Even if some people like you would lie (indicating that you probably shouldn't have a gun....) most tell the truth.
And pray-tell how do you come to that conclusion.......(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/crystal-ball--small.gif)........your proof, or again just your overactive fertile imagination??
How many of the 300 million are decades old and not even in firing order?
What imbecile claimed that they knew exactly how well how many of them worked?
Sounds leftist to me.......
Geeeez, was it you??? It was you, wasn't it........Sounds like your kind of polling! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/taunt.gif)
You mixin' yer cocaine with peyote again!!??? (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/biglaughlg9.gif)
Quote from: How many guns are sold in the US? http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/dec/17/how-many-guns-us
.......However, if you want to know how many applications there are to buy guns each year, then the latest data from the FBI shows that 2012 looks like a bumper year for gun sales in America........
.......If you want to find out exactly how many guns are sold in the US each year, then the figures are not recorded........
.........The figures show that there have been 16,808,538 applications in 2012 so far to the end of November *. If they were approved, that would be enough weapons to stock every member of Nato's armed forces nearly five times over. The system has received 156,577,260 applications since 1998 and the US has the highest gun ownership rate in the world......
* That's an average of over 50,000 per day (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smileys.me.uk%2Fsmileys%2FHappy%2Fhappy0159.gif&hash=a66898d9605c2d2542a17440b9a40ba3" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.smileys.me.uk/smileys/Happy/happy0159.gif)
Yeah 'Coony.......going down.....way, way, way down! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/big%20laugh%20007.gif)
Even if some people like you would lie (indicating that you probably shouldn't have a gun....)
Geeeeez, imagine that, lying to a pollster now precludes someone from owning a gun!!!!!! ......... (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/laughing024.gif) .............boy, oh boy, oh boy, am I so freekin' glad your furry lil ass doesn't have anything whatsoever to do in the decision making on my guns.........by your reasoning, I'd owe someone more guns than I own...........that's assuming that I own any in the first place!!??
What's that crystal ball saying to you now 'coony?? How many I got....how many!!!? (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/crystal-ball--small.gif)
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/lol015.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/firefart.gif)
Sang, before I go on to the next page (14! My, my: Some things never change...) let me quote this comment to an article which you likely haven't read either:
Comment & Response | November 25, 2013
Firearm Legislation and Gun-Related Fatalities
Anupam B. Jena, MD, PhD1; Eric C. Sun, MD, PhD2; Vinay Prasad, MD3
JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(21):2011. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.9958.
To the Editor With regard to the study by Fleegler et al,1 critics of stronger gun control policies argue that there is no rational impetus to strengthen the laws. They note that gun-related deaths have remained constant over the last 10 years; 10.4 gun-related deaths per 100 000 in the United States in 2002 and 10.3 per 100 000 in 2011.
(source (http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1776998))
your proof, or again just your overactive fertile imagination??
Sorry to be so late to this part... But I take exception to your characterization of Sanguinemoon's imagination as "fertile"! Surely, you meant "fervid"? :)
I'd ask everyone here to consider the viewpoint presented <a href="http://takimag.com/article/the_mental_illness_cop_out_jim_goad">here...[/url].
But of course! Mea culpa, mea culpa!!! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/hatsoff.gif)
Damn f&@#%n'(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/2mafiahit02.gif) spellchecker!!!!
BTW.... welcome back....hope all's been well with you. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/cheerskj4.gif)
Thanks for asking, SmileyFaze. I won't complain.
I'm glad to see how many of "us" have made the transition to Frenzie's well-kempt refuge!
It's not Leftist or Rightist or political at all. The frequently made claim is that there are 300 million + guns in the US. If they don't work, there is nearly that many, is there? Therefore, the claim you, yourself made is disingenuous.
About the percentage of households with guns having declined, no imagination is necessary. There are multiple data points indicating this. Using decades of past data, is far from using a crystal ball. I continue to notice your failure to come up with a real answer. Yes, some people lie to pollsters, there are sampling errors, etc. That's why there's a built in margin of error. You can't explain away four decades of consistent data that way.
I remember the last time the Republican party denied and guffawed at mostly consistent polling data, not to mentioned tried to explain it away. Some even tried to "correct" it. That was in 2012. Get it?
The claim of the total number of guns in the US doesn't mean much anyway. You have to figure that Smiley-types have arsenals that could equip half their towns with sufficient firepower to repel a zombie attack, while a great many people have no firearms at all. Sooooo-- three-hundred-million guns is a meaningless number in and of itself. For all the great size of a personal arsenal, remember that a man can only fire one, or at the most two, guns at any one time. So, most of those guns are just sitting there waiting for their turn to be used. Then, too, consider that guns have different primary purposes. An AR-15 is a remarkably poor choice for duck-hunting and is unlikely to be used for this purpose. A .22 pistol can be used for home protection, but probably wouldn't be your first choice for that purpose. A 30.06 rifle-- deer hunting, but can be used as a sniper rifle in a pinch. So a gun owner might well have several guns for several different purposes, and will choose his weapon according to the job at hand.
The claim of the total number of guns in the US doesn't mean much anyway........
You're correct, it just simply says that if it ever comes down to it, resistance would be a formidable force against tyranny.
For what it's worth, & might I say without reservation, that if it came to an armed conflict with a tyrannical government, all my firearms & ammunitions, would be dispensed to all my fellow American Patriots.
We have discussed these exact issues at great length over the last 10-15 years, & plans have been in place for quite a while.
If they want our guns, they are more than welcome to them....but know full well we will not go down without a fight! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/MP3/We will not go down without a fight.mp3)
Years ago I took a solemn oath to protect & defend the United States Constitution from all enemies foreign or domestic..........The price I was willing to pay was the ultimate one.....I stand by that oath to this day, & evermore. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/guns4.gif)
Years ago I took a solemn oath to protect & defend the United States Constitution from all enemies foreign or domestic..........The price I was willing to pay was the ultimate one.....I stand by that oath to this day, & evermore.
Is that right? The problem is that it's become so fashionable to claim to be a constitutionalist or libertarian but, in fact, are merely social conservatives or far right neo-cons supporting a blatantly unconstitutional agenda.
You support the second amendment, obviously, but what about the 14th. It''s quickly becoming established constitutional law that same-sex marriage must be allowed under the 14th amendment, case after case. It's hard to intelligently even blame it on "activist judges" anymore. If you were truly interested in defending the constitution, you would now be forced to support equal marriage on constitutional grounds as a principled stance, regardless of personal feelings on the subject.
Flag burning. You would have support somebody's right to burn the American flag as an expression of his first amendment rights, no matter how it might personally offend you.
Actually being a stronger supporter of the Constitution is much harder than trying to wax eloquent about it, It means supporting the right to say and do things that utterly disgust you. Or are you another worthless sunny day constitutionalist only upholding the document that guarantees our freedoms on your own issues?
As far as my oath, my statement stands as is......
I suggest, if you wish to vent your obsessions with how many boys zippers you may have unzipped, or how many flags you may have burned, etc...etc...etc.....etc......etc......etc......etc......I respectfully request that you vent them in those threads devoted to those subjects, & if they don't exist please feel free to create them.
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/exitstageleft.gif) This thread is devoted to Gun Control, & the Owning, Carrying, & the Using of Firearms by Ordinary Citizens. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/exitstageright.gif)
Quote from: https://gosar.house.gov/issue/second-amendment-gun-rights
The Second Amendment is one of the most important rights set forth by the Bill of Rights. The operative text states that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." In spite of the clarity of this amendment, we have seen repeated, consistent, and sustained attacks on this right and efforts across the spectrum to "infringe" on this individual right. In the Federalist No. 46, James Madison explained that because American citizens were typically armed, the federal government would be unable to exert power beyond the powers enumerated in the Constitution. Madison explained that in contrast to European nations where "the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms" the Untied States would rely on an armed citizenry to protect themselves, their families, and the nation. I will continue to oppose efforts to restrict, infringe, or remove this constitutionally protected right. One important piece of pro-Second Amendment legislation that I have cosponsored is H.R. 822, the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act. This bill would allow any person with a valid concealed carry permit to carry a concealed firearm in any state that issues concealed permits, or at least does not prohibit carrying concealed firearms. This requirement for states to recognize each other's carry permits is not meant to create a federal licensing system or circumvent state law, but simply ease the transition for lawful gun owners traveling within right to carry states...........continued
What do you think about the National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act (http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2013/hr2959.aspx) ??
This thread is devoted to Gun Control, & the Owning, Carrying, & the Using of Firearms by Ordinary Citizens.
Hey, you're the one that claims to be so devoted to the constitution. I'm just seeing if it's true. There are entirely too many fake constitutionalists and confuse that with going as far to the Right as possible on every issue (not to be confused with simply being a conservative, a center-right position.*
Sounds good, eliminate us some red-tape and nonsense. I was just saying we need to make sure sure more people that buy guns are indeed legally eligible to do so, while acknowledging 100% doesn't exist for this sort of thing. You can't catch 100% of murderers, rapists, paedophiles, burglars, etc but that doesn't mean to not have the law and some people able to easily purchase guns do fall into those categories. Press an app on your iPhone to reduce the probability of selling to one of them. By the 2nd amendment, they can't use that to arbitrarily confiscate your guns if you're legally eligible to have them; the only cause for concern is if that's not the case.
*Hear about TP Candidate David Esk that "wouldn't have a problem" with stoning gays to death and yet evidently considers himself libertarian? You know how to use a search engine, look him up.) One issue does not a constitutionalist/libertarian make. That was his stance after "clarifying" his position, which was originally even worse.
I noticed an interesting news report on television that showed that a whole convoy os armed cars like used by soldiers is being sold to police forces all over the USA even though crime figures are meant to be down and some of these vehicles going to areas where really not needed. With all that SWAT stuff and looking more like damn soliders all the time things must be really bad in the land of nutjobs or is just another wheeze by corporates to get more money? Equally being a place of gun mania it is maybe not surprising the police are startig to not look well, like police.
It's more the corporates trying to get money, than actual need combined with fear of crime. Add to this mixture electoral politics when the mayor's up for reelection. The mayors can just see their opponents saying gibberish such as "The mayor turned down these armored cars! This puts YOUR children in danger..."
I wonder how many of our nation's problems can be attributed to nasty electoral politics and parties trying to "energize their base." Right now, the Republicans can't stop running against Obama and get on the business of forging legislation for the good of the country, which means working with the opposition.
Right now, the Republicans can't stop running against Obama and get on the business of forging legislation for the good of the country, which means working with the opposition.
Because, Lord knows! We need more legislation... :)
Because, Lord knows! We need more legislation...
Depends on the type. Legislation can expand freedom, reduce it, or be freedom neutral. The National Right to Carry Reciprocity Act that Smiley brought up is legislation. Legislation reducing funding for the NSA and reducing its domestic surveillance is still legislation. Legislation does not necessarily equate to more government, in fact it lead to less.
How about legislation to reduce some of the legislation? We have laws still on the books that have long outlived their usefulness, but law being what it is it will take a law to repeal the old law.
In a rather ironic note, Smiley's rants against gun regulations clearly shows why we need gun regulations.
Him and the NRA's winning hand is most Americans are in favor of 2nd Amendment rights, but they're overplaying it.
That's hardly a problem unique to them: some sexual and ethnic minorities get too thin-skinned if somebody says the wrong phrase (yesterday at work I noted Newports are popular among black people and got asked if I was a Klan member :rolleyes: My response was "well is it right?" and my accuser was forced to concede the point.) Judges overturn anti-same sex marriage amendments and suddenly Christians are an oppressed minority and gay people are bullies. Some gay groups still contend 10% of the population is gay, which common sense tells you is bullshit. Every election both Democrats and Republicans trade away selling points to the general public to energize their bases, forgetting that in the information age the stupidity you say at your primary rallies and fund raisers doesn't go away in the general election (hence "Etch-A-Sketch"ing Romney failed miserably.) Etc.
Perhaps I'm doing it now. What I just said has the potential to offend gays,Christians, African Americans, both parities ;)
Then 'Coony, this should be right up yer ............. alley (pardon the pun (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/chuckle002.gif))
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2FjYzVnvR.jpg&hash=5d9629df9e7cc4f1739faa1f9507598d" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://imgur.com/jYzVnvR.jpg)
Quote from: http://pinkpistols.org/?q=node/4
"Thirty-one states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "
--Jonathan Rauch, Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000
We did. There are now over 45 Pink Pistols chapters nationwide, and more are starting up every day. We are dedicated to the legal, safe, and responsible use of firearms for self-defense of the sexual-minority community. We no longer believe it is the right of those who hate and fear gay, lesbian, bi, trans, or polyamorous persons to use us as targets for their rage. Self-defense is our RIGHT........,.,.continued
I'm not sure if that's called a law? But yeah, the way changes are made in a law around these parts is by passing something that says "we'll scratch the words such and so from law bla section alb." Or of course simply something that says the entire thing will be repealed.
Over two centuries and still arguing over that Constitution and the mouse of it in modern times. The gun industry is just the same as the armaments and other money making money baron stuff. Kind of sad really and this thread subject went on and on in Opera and the nut job mentality has been carried on here too. It is time the Audie Murphy mentality grew up. It makes a farce of the country in the eyes of the world and is a contradiction amongst much else. A vast military and the same with police now with military stuff which makes the country look ridiculous. Who would want to copt this and help the corporates whilst the ordinary Joe struggles?
Florida Gov. Scott Signs "Stand Your Ground" Reform Law
Quote from: Truth About Guns http://tinyurl.com/np8gu39
The media coverage given to the Trayvon Martin/George Zimmerman case, and the attention paid to Florida's "stand your ground" law, resulted in the legislature considering flaws in the law. They passed a reform bill that was signed by Governor Rick Scott yesterday, June, 20 2014. From tallahassee.com: "The legislation, which marks one of the most significant changes to the state's self-defense laws since the 2012 killing of teenager Trayvon Martin, was one of nearly 60 bills signed by Scott on Friday."..................continued
Having more choices in the pursuit of defending oneself is always a good thing. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/awright005.gif)
Thank you (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/angel010.gif) Saint Trayvon (http://imgur.com/dleCMM4.jpg), your death gives birth to this new & improved version
of "Stand Your Ground" ............... a good law made even better. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/guns4.gif)
A military of a million, police forces with armoured cars, heavy guns everywhere what a dangerous country to live in. Must be if everyone needs a gun, machine gun or worse. Dear, oh dear.George Washington would be crying if he could see what has happened!
Don't let the propaganda fool you. It may surprise you to learn that some of us live without guns, and we're not afraid of our own shadows. I manage to drive through some rough looking neighborhoods without an armored car or heavy machine guns. I have an idea you've been cherry-picking the news you get so the USA appears as bad as possible. Shootings on every street corner, Al Capone and his mob ruling Chicago and all that sort of thing. It ain't necessarily so, Joe.
I have an idea you've been cherry-picking the news you get so the USA appears as bad as possible.
No need, the news does that for you. Business as usual isn't news.
Well mjsmsprt40, I am not overdoing things nor cherry picking. The number of military armoured cars were tremendous and even being bought by police forces that did NOT have a crime epidemic. Of course I am fully aware of the abhorrence of many Americans on the gun issue as they see it as a contradiction of values and much else. It is the big money men who really decide things not your political system and all sorts of excuses are brought out to justify - security always being the no 1 excuse. Throw in over 10,000 killings with guns and the neo-con mindset that is not happy until they have an arsenal of ridiculous proportions. From time to time I have seen the decent over there express great anger at the gun lobby and that gun lobby are a bunch of creeps but the trouble is my Chicago friend that the size of that gun neo-con lot is immense and takes some of your stance away.
No disrespect to you near city Chicago but it is hardly a good place to use to emphasise your point of view or on the dodgy districts you drive through. Just because you don't see the practical contradicts the crime epidemic that runs through the place and the police are now getting near unable to cope. Unfortunately you are stuck with the army of SmileyFazes my poor man and they make a mockery of the better things the country is meant to stand for. So keep driving but don't stop! :D
Yup. I'm sure most metropolitan areas do have cars like that for, shall we say special occasions. But most of the police cruisers around here amount to somewhat suped up Crown Victorias (http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=ford+crown+victoria&FORM=HDRSC2) and the newer ones are Dodge Chargers. The latter can look aggressive in some trims, but on other trim levels is just a full sized family car, hardly a war machine.
Here in wild, exciting Villa Park, one of our trustees has counseled the town against buying Dodge Chargers. Seems the cars just aren't that good, are more expensive to keep maintained and don't compare to Fords for the same job. We do have some older cruisers with over 100K miles on them, so replacement is coming up--- but this trustee, who happens to be an auto technician in his day job, is saying don't buy Chargers. Looking at the police lot--- nope, no heavy war machines. Just Ford Crown Vics and a couple of Chargers, bought apparently before this trustee counselled against them.
What do you know about America?
Do you have access to Scottish television?
Michigan: Youth Firearm Education Bill Takes Effect Today
Quote from: The NRA Institute for Legislative Action http://www.nraila.org/legislation/state-legislation/2014/6/michigan-youth-firearm-education-bill-takes-effect-today.aspx?s=&st=&ps=
...........Michigan Governor Rick Snyder (R) signed into law a bill that expands firearms safety training opportunities for Michigan youth. House Bill 5085 (https://www.legislature.mi.gov/%28S%28uv1gitrbkalao2exqpx4ikve%29%29/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectName=2013-HB-5085), which took immediate effect as Public Act 201 of 2014, corrects an unduly burdensome restraint on youth firearm education by reasonably expanding the class of individuals who are allowed to supervise and instruct Michigan's youth in the safe use of pistols.
"This new law makes it easier for young people to gain critical pistol safety training in a controlled environment," noted Chris W. Cox, Executive Director of the National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action. "In the past, family members, scout leaders and even firearms range instructors could not instruct youth unless a parent was physically present. In practical terms, this will mean more Boy Scouts can qualify for pistol shooting merit badges and grandparents will now be able enjoy a day at the range with their grandkids." .........,Continued
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/awright005.gif) Education is a good thing.....yes?
What do you think?.......
Are you FOR (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FKyapDYu.png&hash=feb6af59c2ef482fa96049357ff658f5" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/KyapDYu.png) ~~OR~~ AGAINST (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FXmLETZw.png&hash=8bfac2b9b5204fc59f46eada342bc769" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/XmLETZw.png) Firearms Education? WHY??
I'm positive that the trustee's decision not to go with a tank is based on the fact tanks would be more difficult to maintain than either the Ford or the Dodge for s suburban police department LV MetroPD should get their shiny new cruise missiles and few tactical nuclear missiles in soon. Mayor Goodman felt the ICBMs would blow the budget and might be overkill even for the roughest of neighborhoods and I can see her point.
With armoured cars, police looking more like soldiers and indeed becoming bosom pals now Michigan wants to go further in the shhoting games. I dare say on so-called firearm safety they will now be able to shoot better at school. Yep, progress in the land of nut jobs and child mind gun slinger cowboys who haven't grown up.
I dare say on so-called firearm safety they will now be able to shoot better at school.
No rj, they might just need to concentrate at taking out the kneecaps of sash wearing cranky old men in bowler hats.
With brilliant statements like that, I dare say Scottish Education might just have needed a bit of an overhaul 90 years ago, when rj was crawling around in nappies.
RJH = Against Firearm Safety Education
I'm not sure where you get your ideas about American police, Howie.
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm2.staticflickr.com%2F1379%2F1310053448_bfff81a5a3_z.jpg&hash=5d5ae92068ea30c5332124b9815d903d" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://farm2.staticflickr.com/1379/1310053448_bfff81a5a3_z.jpg) Police car
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8205/8224169183_a116c056af_z.jpg) Policeman on his motorcycle
Now it is true these exist....
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Ffarm5.staticflickr.com%2F4046%2F4329971148_f66bcc42ce_z.jpg&hash=495f91a33d2280d44ecf03985b45c424" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://farm5.staticflickr.com/4046/4329971148_f66bcc42ce_z.jpg)
But it doesn't look much different from the British ones:
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.armouredcarsuk.com%2Fvehicles%2Fspecial%2Fimages%2Fswatvehicle3.jpg&hash=4a4f6c4f4b79efa8fbfad88014afdb8e" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.armouredcarsuk.com/vehicles/special/images/swatvehicle3.jpg)
Looks like the same basic car, a few differences in the details (side windows, paint job, etc.) In either case, they're not for everyday law enforcement, but for when the police expect a shootout from the criminals. Even then, if it's a really special occasion. Even the Miller incident, the newspaper photos showed standard police cars on the scene when an armoured car might have been justifiable.
Oh, mjmsprt40, we do have newer Fords too. There are Explorers, which are widely known to be the vicious war machines in history. Presidents Bush and Obama should have sent Ford Explorers to Afghanistan and Iraq, because the terrorists would have taken one look at those monsters and surrendered :p
I had occasion to drive past the local police station today, as it happens. Fords predominate, there are a couple of Dodge Chargers, and maybe a couple of SUVs. No-not-any armor in that lot. Gee, I wonder why? Could it be that armor isn't too good for the kind of work most local police departments actually do? Setting up speed traps-- that's handled best by the Ford and Dodge crowd. SUVs, maybe they need to transport someone from the local lockup to County Jail-- otherwise, it doesn't seem to get much use. A heavy armored vehicle? Come on, RJ, you have to tell me what a suburban police department would do with that beyond using it in a parade. That purchase would never get through Village Hall, the trustees would have a field day shooting down the proposal.
Most likely he just reads a bunch of anti-American crap like RT and sensationalist ragsheets like Daily Mail. Villa Park might be small, but what about larger cities? Nope can't say I've actually seen a police armored car on the road, did see some civilian ones belonging to security companies transporting large amounts of money to and from banks though.
I've never seen a police armoured car here either.
Come to think of it I've only once seen Police carrying a weapon although come to think of it, they were some sort of special force, not the normal Bobby.
Wouldn't it be nice if that was the norm in every country.
... Education is a good thing.....yes?
Gun education can indeed be fun for children. I've done it myself, being taught basic field craft and shooting with .22 and .303 bore rifles, not handguns.
You check out the wind and (briefly) estimate the distance, adjust the sights, line up the target with the V sight, try a ranging shot if you didn't do it before, re-adjust, then off you go. Simple and easy stuff. But a bit pointless really.
Oh, in case you're wondering, Telescopic sights are for wimps; V sights are for Men.
Simple and easy stuff. But a bit pointless really.
In what way?
.......,Oh, in case you're wondering, Telescopic sights are for wimps; V sights are for Men.
I wasn't, but I do wonder how many times you (or any of your so called 'manly' shooters) could repetitively hit a 30cm target at 500 meters using basic "V Sights"?
At that range & greater, when the lives of many others depend on your repetitious accuracy, your girlie "V Sights" are totally useless.
The majority of my kill shots were taken on targets in excess of 500 meters --- mostly between 800-1000 meters. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/guns13.gif)
If I had missed, others (many others) would have died.
Ypu do sometimes talk such mince Sanguinemoon. It is the US police that have a love affair with SWATS now armouted cars, dressed like the army and utterly ridiculous and well over the damn top. The place must be even worse if they need fleets of these vehicles . It is another corporate money spinner and guns and uniforms are big things in the land of child mindsets. Between all that police paramilitary police a million in the armed forces you lot over there are either a bunch of scared freaks or been brained into the usual excuse of "security." Add in the 200 million or whatever number of guns floating about and the place is ideal for the insecure, mental midgets and a breeding ground for the brainshrinkers. Why any country would want to cpy this nonsense is beyond reason and says an awful lot on the negative.
I can laugh but it isn't really funny.Someone tell the ex-colonists to grow up or help them Hollywood is fiction. :devil: :rolleyes:
Well, the Netherlands has the following six arrestation teams: AT Noord-Oost Nederland / AT Midden Nederland / AT Noord-West Nederland / AT Midden-West / AT Zuid-Nederland / AT Zuid-West (Wikipedia (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrestatieteam)).
Belgium has one central CGSU in Brussels and four more regionally located in other cities: POSA Gent, POSA Antwerpen, POSA Charleroi, POSA Luik (Wikipedia (http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commissariaat-Generaal_Special_Units)).
What it would mean to say that the US police is excessively armed is, for instance, a significantly higher number of SWAT teams or equivalents, not so much whether you've seen any armored cars on the street. ;)
Of course, what Russia Today doesn't mention is that police in Russia is probably at least equally excessively armed and brutal.
It is another corporate money spinner and guns and uniforms are big things in the land of child mindsets.
Been living here for 77 years and have never seen police tanks or a policeman with a drawn gun. Hell, I've gone five years where I now live without seeing a police gun. I've known one person who owns a gun in my entire lifetime. This isn't the wild, wild West that you think it is.
Perhaps you've been watching too much BBC Two. Having said that, there are far too many gun deaths in this country. One has to go south of the U.S. or to some African countries to find worse.
Our gun laws are crazy.
The phrase "gun control" only appears on the pro-gunners side, as far as I have seen. And it supports only their propaganda. It provides the conceptual connection from "regulation" to "gun control" and further to "they are taking our guns away!"
This is mere shrill and has no logical equivalent. Nobody seems to get from drivers licence regulation to "they are taking our cars away!" or from construction business regulations to "they are taking our homes away!" Nobody calls the licencing of drivers "car control" or the regulation of construction "house/home control". Exactly the same way and for the same reason, "gun control" is also wrong.
I had to look it up, but yes, we do have Chicago police in heavily armored vehicles. It's not common-- if you get pulled over and given a ticket in Chicago, it's gonna be a blue-and-white Ford car as like as not. The SWAT team does have heavy stuff though, and the FBI office in Chicago can, if needed, lend some heavyweight support.
Some suburban police districts can field a heavyweight unit too. A standoff in Lockport ended with the arrest of a man after the SWAT team-- which I imagine may have been called from Joliet-- showed up and managed to convince the man to surrender
Sorry, RJH: As much fun as you're having with this, I can't say that every two-man police district has an armored surplus humvee and special weapons to set up speed traps. That's nice hate-America propaganda, but little else.
The majority of my kill shots were taken on targets in excess of 500 meters --- mostly between 800-1000 meters. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/guns13.gif)If I had missed, others (many others) would have died.
I thought that would get you going SF :D.
You ask "In what way"?
Well to answer that you need to know the context. I like many others at that time and of that age (teens), had military training at school, except it was not called military training it was a sort of compulsory extra-curriculum activity as part of what was called the CCF (Combined Cadet Force). That involved what I have already described followed by spells on further army activities, or navy or air force. After the basic army stuff was done, I opted for the air force.
The gun thing was a small part of that but considered essential. This was in the '50s when the country was at last getting over its WW2 war time footing.
The CCF was, essentially, a recruitment organisation for young people to join the forces. I didn't see the point of the gun thing because I was not of an age where people were conscripted into the forces and I didn't want to join anyway, let alone kill people, and from a civilian point of view, had not developed some form of defence paranoia since I did not live in a country where guns ran amok like you apparently do, from your descriptions of intruders and the necessity to accumulate some form of arsenal.
Hit the target at 500m? I really don't recall what range we shot at; 300 yards certainly but I really can't remember and don't care. You shot, hit the target somewhere and then finished.
No great deal and not that difficult.
But it wasn't a religion.
Of course as the range gets bigger it become more technical and gadget dependent (as you say) and less of a human skill. Some people can hit a target from several hundred miles away nowadays and they don't need steely eyes and a Rambo attitude to do it. The use smart missiles and sometimes remote guidance.
As for my remark about wimps, actually apart from pulling your leg, I was not thinking of the military. I normally have great respect for the military and the courage they show in their unpleasant but normally necessary work (from a tactical viewpoint), give or take being aghast at Rambo attitudes outside of the War context. I was actually thinking of these sophisticated telescopically-sited rifles used for hunting where skill is supplanted by the sophistication of the weapon, rather than the skill of the hunter; a fetish masquerading as a sport.
I am rather surprised this thread continues to go on.
Surely both sides covered most of the OP in the first 5 pages? :sherlock:
I think the need to be heavily armed against intruders is a localized thing, hardly a national phenomenon. Smiley's house seems to have hot and cold running intruders, so he needs an armory in his bedroom if he is to get any sleep at night. I, on the other hand, haven't had a malicious person inside my house in--- well, let's see,-- hmmmm....not an outsider at any rate, and the last time I had a malicious person in my dwelling it was a doggone good thing we didn't have a gun available. We had enough troubles during the last few months of that marriage.
Now, then. We have a problem. It's pretty serious too. It's like this: Guns are supposed, at least, to make you a little less fearful since, being armed, you can defend yourself against intruders, the government, assorted bad guys and Sanguinemoon, who just might legislate your guns away. So how come the most fear-laden posts you can find here come from one of the most heavily armed men here? Now that's a real curiosity, and one I'm at a loss to figure. Any attempt to make you register your guns, or become registered as a legal gun owner (legally required in one way or another in most states) prompts a tirade of slippery-slope arguments where registering a gun is the prerequisite to jack-booted state police raiding your place and confiscating your guns. Maybe-- just maybe-- they're only asking you to be a responsible gun owner. I have to register my van and have a license which allows me to drive that van. In order to get that license, I had to take tests-- a vision test, a written test that shows you know the rules of the road, and if it's your first time you have to pass a road test, demonstrating to the DMV agent that you can, indeed, safely operate a motor vehicle. Why should owning a gun not have any requirements placed on it concerning your ability to obey the rules and safely operate your weapon?
Surely both sides covered most of the OP in the first 5 pages?
It will continue as long as there are still people hell bent on ignoring or perverting the meaning & rights associated with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, & for those not covered by that amendment to keep & bear arms, any person's natural right to defend his country, his family, his friends, & most of all his own life, shall likewise be uninfringed.
Well that can include you too dear man!
Now one of the Southern States has made it legal for people to carry guns just about anywhere even a library for goodness sake. Talk about a country going bananas. With the police becoming more and ore militarised and not just in a few odd places the country is becoming very odd place indeed. Small wonder there are so many shootings and misusing the 18th and early 19th century as an excuse. When will you lot grow up? If such large numbers want to be would-be John Wayne types and claim they need to it says much about the society. Who would want to copy such a country that claims it is the shining beacon for the world? People in the regular outside world shake their heads.
Oh, we also talked about various models of police cars and whatnot. But continuing to go was my fault, when I noted the only civilian killed in a Las Vegas incident was with the CCW and therefore thought he was a hero. That isn't to say that CCW holder can't end a hostage situation, but you do have to be smarter about it and more aware of your surroundings than most people are capable of or all you'll do it get yourself killed.
Oh yeah, Smiley. That incident did not occur in a "Gun-Free Zone....." Get it? People like the Millers are not rational. They don't give two shits about a sign. They just want to kill people and don't need a sign to encourage them.
That isn't to say that CCW holder can't end a hostage situation, but you do have to be smarter about it and more aware of your surroundings than most people are capable of or all you'll do it get yourself killed.
Yep, so true. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/yes02ix3.gif)
Some of our very best trained Service Men & Law Enforcement Officers bite the dust every year because in the world of protection even the best can find themselves a victim of plain ole bum luck. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/bury004.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/exitstageright.gif)
Everybody gotta go sometime ya know.....ain't no cheatin' the grim reaper.
......carry guns just about anywhere even a library for goodness sake.
I never knew you couldn't, oooopppps, I've been breakin' the law all these years!!??!! ---- oh well, shit happens. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/chuckle002.gif)
Glad I didn't shoot anyone, it would have been freekin' illegal! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/lolfun.gif)
I wonder, if I should have had the pleasure of gunnin' down a potential mass murderer in the commission of his dastardly deed, would I have been arrested & prosecuted ....... somehow, I think not (unless the prick lived or I was in Scotland, which would be 99% unlikely --- I ain't into woundin', & I ain't stupid enough to be in Scotland (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/chuckle002.gif)).
Well, well Smile you are still daft enough to live in that increasingly police State of a country. Before long you won't be able to tell the difference between the police and the army at the rate things are going inbetween shooting each other in the thousands. So glad you don't live here nut mental health treatment is free here in the National Health Service. Hhhm that is assuming you don't shoot yourself in the foot having breakfast.
To those fortunate enough not to live in the ex-clonies the place increasingly looks like a nightmare. Widespread poverty, paramilitary police, consant infringments of rights, privacy and so on. The place actually needs another proper revolution and on the second atttempt not by the money barons. The land of the free and home of the brave, haha you do have a weird sense of humour with that stuff. Heavens it gives thee right to shoot over 10,000 people a year and the police doing everything but parachute..well not yet. Bet you drones will be next for the police.
The other day the BBC had an item where the government agency that covers airborne stuff is now going ban toy planes and helicopters! What a shambles the place has become. Anyone with a model railway better watch out! :yikes: When you watch what the police do against unarmed and peaceful protesters it is damnable. In New York they punched and kicked people sitting on the pavement including a superior officer. The batons come out if you twitch an eye and all hell breaks out. You can expect to be sprayed as well. You couldn't make America up and in another weird way small wonder television anchors here when interviewing make it obvious that it is beyond normality.
Well, well Smile you are still daft enough to live in that increasingly police State of a country.
In my life I haven't had a problem living anywhere I have chosen to live.
I've lived very comfortably, without fear for life or limb, in the country of my birth --- the land of the free & the home of the brave --- for 50+ years.
I've never had to fire a shot at another human being, for any reason, since 1977 in Vietnam, even though as a civilian over 90% of the time I'm usually very well armed, & quite capable of doing so.
RJ, it sounds to me from all your whinging & whining that you're the skittish girlie type (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FrZIEVHy.jpg&hash=1279c6e4043352f017785eb6101371f9" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/rZIEVHy.jpg) that's scared of his her own shadow, & so tempestuous that he she spits the dummy with the foaming froth of a dying rabid dog! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/lolfun.gif)
You were probably one of the first to toss his weapons aside, & turn tail frantically fleeing back into the waters off Dunkirk! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/taunt.gif)
From the land of the free and the home of the brave.
http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/07/02/3981387/boy-12-gets-maximum-sentence-for.html (http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/07/02/3981387/boy-12-gets-maximum-sentence-for.html)
ROSWELL, N.M. -- A New Mexico judge rejected pleas for leniency Wednesday and handed down the maximum sentence for a then-12-year-old boy who opened fire in a Roswell middle school gym earlier this year, injuring two students.
State District Judge Freddie Romero ordered the boy, now 13, held in state custody until he is 21. His decision followed a daylong hearing in which the shooter apologized, the defense argued he was the victim of chronic bullying, and the two students wounded in the shooting detailed their permanent injuries.
How about a little humor to lighten this up? While there were, regrettably, a couple of injuries in the video below, none appear to have done much more than wound pride.
Now, about gun control: Keep in mind, when you pull the trigger, that every action has an equal and opposite reaction and that will go a long way. Remember, too what the gun's safety is for and use it-- that helps too. If you're using a gun that ejects spent shells, remember that those shells have to go somewhere-- they don't teletransport into deep space, they fly out of the gun's action quite possibly back at you. I think that takes care of most of the stuff in the video-- keep these things in mind and maybe you can shoot without being shot by your own gun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvz6cM_LeW4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvz6cM_LeW4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uvz6cM_LeW4)
Why do I get the feeling most of those people aren't especially stupid, just what happens with the average person with a gun. Well, the exception might the guy whose pants fell down. I'm not really sure how that could have happened unless he's a true dumbass.
Post by: ensbb3 on 2014-07-05, 16:07:10
Most of those people just didn't have any experience with a gun, or at least the gun they were shooting, and were setup to fail for the video by some idiot. The guy's pants falling seemed staged in attempting a viral video. That explains all the gettin' scoped, guns flying and people pistol whipping themselves. The two idiots that shot themselves on quick draw are, perhaps, from the stupid side of things. If you just have to go cowboy... practice with an empty gun first.
Inexperience accounts for most of what you saw in that video. The quick-draw show-offs were something else.
When you shoot a gun, of course the bullet leaves the barrel at incredible velocities. The problem is that in order for that to happen, the gun has to be restrained in some way to resist equal-and-opposite reactions. All firearms have recoil-- it's part of the process. Part of being trained to handle a gun involves being trained to handle the recoil.
Special note about the quick-draw doofuses: The few times I was on a firing range, I saw a sign forbidding quick-draw shenanigans. Try it there, and you would be banned from the firing range. Seems it isn't particularly safe.
Now, about gun control: Keep in mind, when you pull the trigger, that every action has an equal and opposite reaction and that will go a long way................
Now, any activity---and I definitely do mean any activity --- dealing with firearms must be taken seriously, deliberately, with extreme caution, & with complete concentration.
As you noticed, most of those so called 'fails' were either done due to people treating deadly weapons lightheartedly, or outright inexperience.....actually, probably a mixture of both.
Many were of supposedly 'experienced' owners trying to get some sort of sick kicks & enjoyment seeing either an inexperienced good friend or loved one try shooting their firearm without any care as to the outcome.
Firstly, anyone that does that is definitely not a friend, & by no means can they be a loved one!
They are an asshole in the purest sense of the word.......period.
Sick muthafuker comes to mind.
They are the type of individuals that even I could say shouldn't have anything to do with firearms.
Involving an innocent party in their prankish lunacy is absolutely inexcusable.
Now, that said, most accidents happen due to inexperience, coupled with a lack of respect for the firearm itself & how deadly they are.
The 'quick-draw' fails in this video were caused by ignoring one basic & simple 'written in granite' rule of drawing a firearm ...... the trigger finger placement.
If they followed the basic rules of drawing & firing a pistol, better than 99% of those type of incidents would/could never take place.
For those that want to see the correct way, please closely follow the following video.
Keep a close eye on the shooters deliberate trigger finger placement in all the demonstrations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jVOs9KWyqig
Remember.........Proper training, & the consistently repetitive practice of proper safety techniques, is the only way to ensure safe & successful use of your firearms.
Have fun! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/cowboypistol_004.gif)
But how many people actually get that? There's actually little reason not to. A firearms range maybe 1/2 mile from my house offers free CCW classes and isn't the only range in Las Vegas to do this.
Nobody knows, but the numbers of attendees in those CCW Training seminars are increasing in leaps & bounds.
A close friend in the Personal Protection Industry, who is a range owner too, says he's booked for up to 2 weeks in advance, & the firearm training side of his business has quadrupled in the last year. He said he trains an average of 20-30+ a week (he employs 4 fully qualified & licensed instructors & 6 other licensed personnel at his range).
Glad to see LV has those facilities with free CCW.
Free CCW Training seems like the best business model to follow.
Attendees have little reason not to attend 'cause the price is right, & follow-up training & range use is virtually assured because 95% of those attending are most probably locals.
During my time there during a seminar I spoke at 3 years ago....the ones I visited during my 2 week long stay were state of the art then, & I was told recently numbers in the West & especially the South West were steadily increasing.
Maybe in part it's due to the larger number of more violent undesirables (wetbacks & their southern cousins) coming in from south of the border.
The country is made an almost laughing stock of the world due to the dreadful elementary brans of the gunners. You can't help but feel sorry for the sensible people who must sigh.
So, at risk of involuntarily eliciting another long winded Anti-American rant to add to the long list of simple minded Anti-American rants from you preceding it, what's your point? Presuming you have a point we here in our United States care about, or is that required anymore?
We have our firearms, we intend to keep our firearms, & we will in absolute, totally & completely, reject any methodologies that will attempt to infringe upon the Natural Rights of our citizens to their firearms, & the legal use of the same.
If Europe & the rest of the world has a problem with that, we couldn't give a flying rats ass. They have the right to abdicate their natural rights away, but we never will.
RJHowie sighs because we don't have a Union Jack flying over our houses of government and "God Save the Queen" isn't our national anthem. After that-- the rest is kinda pointless.
The country is made an almost laughing stock of the world due to the dreadful elementary brans of the gunners.
Of course there's centuries of stock for why Europeans would think that. Stark racism, but called nationalism, makes much of their history with guns look like a redneck family feud. :P
You really do miss the point mjsmsprt40. You lot are gun daft and to the point of sillyness. It is all part of American nationalism which is covered by the use of patriotism. I am not ranting which is an excuse by SmileFaze who is part of the vast legion of neo-cons. I most certainly do not want my Union flag over America and you lot singing our National Anthem because that would put us in with the land of nut jobs. As usual we get the guff about anti-Yank rants. So expected from the nation that thinks it is Moses and is the world's inspiration. What a daft position it oft claims what with over 10,000 shot down and killed annually the level of the prison population, executions, people on death row for years and years (disgusting), vast armies of the homeless, poor and struggling.
Unfortunately having been brained since childhood into the propaganda it is the world's No 1 and how wonderful it is the population is incapable of seeing the truth so naturally anyone reminding of the regular and actual situation will be labelled as a rant. Even if for the moment I was to accept the word in argument there is so much to do so about in the state of the place sitting alongside hypocrisy! One day all you ex-colonists will wake up one morning and see you are in a police State and be puzzled how that came about. Hhm, maybe on second thoughts your revolution was a good thing and your home corprates took over because it has become a mess-up and I wouldn't want my flag and gracious Monarch involved in what has been produced all by itself! :devil: :lol:
Isn't it about time?!
Bill Introduced To Allow Concealed Carry Permits to
Transfer Across State Lines Like Drivers Licenses
Quote from: http://tinyurl.com/l9vm4xl
Texas Senator John Cornyn has introduced new legislation that if passed would allow concealed carry holders to travel from state to state without fear of breaking the law. The idea is similar to national reciprocity and concealed carry permits would be recognized as legal just like a drivers license.............
Being that the Right to Carry is available in all 50 States now, if you have a permit to carry in say Nevada or California, shouldn't your Nevada or Californian permit to carry be honored in Massachusetts, or Colorado, or Utah, or New York?
Isn't it about time we honor Carry Permits Nationally so incidents like this (http://tinyurl.com/o9eg5qc)don't happen, as they so often do today?
What do you think (yes, that does mean you too RJ ;) )?
Murder rate drops as concealed carry permits rise, study claims
Quote from: http://tinyurl.com/mdom7n3
A dramatic spike in the number of Americans with permits to carry concealed weapons coincides with an equally stark drop in violent crime, according to a new study, which Second Amendment advocates say makes the case that more guns can mean safer streets.
The study by the Crime Prevention Research Center (http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Concealed-Carry-Permit-Holders-Across-the-United-States.pdf) found that 11.1 million Americans now have permits to carry concealed weapons, up from 4.5 million in 2007. The 146 percent increase has come even as both murder and violent crime rates have dropped by 22 percent.......continued
"When you allow people to carry concealed handguns, you see changes in the behavior of criminals."
More guns = less crime!
What do you think (yes, that means you too RJ ;) )?
Fluctuations can be cause by many things. Coincidence can be to blame because economic conditions have also changed.
(Although, rj ain't gonna like the upswing there neither.)
Not to mention murder has been on the downward trend for a long time. Even Smiley knows this is just trolling.
Spike in the gun frenzy in the US of A? Now why is that not a surprise as too many of the population are like a kindergarten mentality. Emotional, brained intro security stuff. What an emotional bunch of childlike mindsets. By the end of 2014 another 10 or 11,000 will have been shot dead so the Constitution bit of pointless paper is doing well. :beer:
.....the Constitution ........is doing well.
Thank You (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/adoreen7.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/cheerskj4.gif)
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fimg36.imageshack.us%2Fimg36%2F1224%2Fliberty02small.png&hash=634b21764ab1ed3911ea6d601892e75b" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://img36.imageshack.us/img36/1224/liberty02small.png)
Indeed the constitution is doing well and our rights are protected :yes: Perhaps we can use it to bring down the NSA spying apparatus (unreasonable searches and seizures?)There's has to be some right to bear arms. People think of having to use it against a criminal, but there are other cases. For example, coyotes stroll in neighborhoods on the edge of Las Vegas. You have to be able to shoot it if the animal is going after your small child, or more likely the family pet. All but a radical few see the need to keep the Second Amendment, with the only real point of contention is where you should be allowed to bring it.
Indeed the constitution is doing well and our rights are protected ........All but a radical few see the need to keep the Second Amendment, with the only real point of contention is where you should be allowed to bring it
On those points, I could agree with you completely.
Our GREAT American Constitution will endure far longer than we both, & in spite of all those lesser that mock it, it shall endure!
To date, thousands upon thousands have shed their precious blood, & paid the ultimate price to protect & defend it, & thousands upon thousands more will do the same along the future years to achieve the same end if necessary.
To us Americans, the Constitution is more precious than our own lives, & protecting, defending, & preserving it is worth any price, of which we will willingly pay for America & American posterity.
In all American oaths of office & service, first & foremost is a solemn pledge to protect & defend the U.S. Constitution (http://twothirds.us/the-oaths-of-office/).
Protect & defend the U.S. Constitution ................. Not the American Flag ............. Nor the Country ............... Nor it's Government.
Indeed, if the only contention to the Second Amendment was where one might be allowed to bring their lawful firearm(s), then we might just see a pinpoint of light at the end of the long, dark black tunnel. Unfortunately, some would see it quite differently, & want further restrictions. If so, any common bonds to date might just well crumble like a house of cards.
Over the top stuff about the great American Constitution. It is constantly argued over and doesn't guarantee anything in practice as the government will do sneaky stuff and sometimes even stretch the law to suit itself. Just look at how long Negroes had to wait for sensible emancipation and you lot over the pond waffled on the Civil War and the black situation. Your great hero Lincoln was a liar and said things about the blacks that showed where he was at dinner parties and private meetings. Even during the 2nd World War blacks in the army were treated like dirt and contradicting all that fine stuff on the bit of paper. In fact Apartheid was practiced in the army to the point of disgusting and it wasn't until around 1948 that President Truman got round to signing a bill banning discrimination in the armed forces! Bemusing that the land of heroes, etc was fighting with us against the racist Nazis yet the US was practicing it very suitably itslef (!)The practical history of the country since over two centuries ago has been one of contradiction.
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FqYIqCf6.jpg&hash=834ee51346101d26cbdb09085fa76d6e" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/qYIqCf6.jpg)
Our GREAT American Constitution will endure far longer than we both, &
in spite of all (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/quotess.gif) those lesser (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/quotess.gif)that mock & whinge endlessly about it, it shall surely endure! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/usa-flag-89.gif)
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/kissingmonkey002.gif)
Post by: jseaton2311 on 2014-07-27, 12:59:19
Bemusing that the land of heroes, etc was fighting with us against the racist Nazis yet the US was practicing it very suitably itslef (!)The practical history of the country since over two centuries ago has been one of contradiction.
You really are a sick fuck, aren't you? I'd hate to see you walking down a US street with an automatic pistol in your hand. You are exactly the type of nut that would shoot people indiscriminately because you think that somehow you got the short end of the stick in life. Instead of America-bashing, why don't you take up a nice hobby like basket weaving--it will be good practice for the insane asylum you are headed for, where they do lots of simple things like that.
I'm sorry...it must be pretty fucked up being you, huh? :knight: :cheers:
Post by: Luxor on 2014-07-27, 13:43:09
Rein yourself in a bit jseaton2311.
There's really no need for the start of your last post. You may not agree with the views of rjhowie but you can keep things civil.
ust look at how long Negroes had to wait for sensible emancipation and you lot over the pond waffled on the Civil War and the black situation.
Prior to that, there was no provision for racial equality under the in the Constitution. Following the Civil War, there were amendments added to the constitution providing for equal protection under the law among other things. Indeed discrimination did continue to exist. Some state instituted a poll tax, in the theory that black people would be less likely to be able to afford than white (in fact, the white sharecroppers weren't better off than their black counter parts.) However, that and other measures were defeated using the Constitution.
The practical history of the country since over two centuries ago has been one of contradiction.
The overall arch of American history is all citizens being equal in the eyes of the law. Coming close to the this objective, we need to stop being so polarized in the Democrat vs Republican party politics (both sides calling the other tyrants...) and bring down the real apparatus of tyranny such as the NSA. As it was with racial unequal protection under the law, I'm confident we can do so on Constitutional grounds. In the end, the Constitution always wins. Following our success, the British government is likely to scale back its own domestic spying, the likes of which Hitler and Stalin would orgasm over. You're welcome.
I wonder if Seaton actually bothered to read RJ's posts. If he had, he would know that RJHowie walking down the street with an automatic weapon isn't something that is likely to happen any time soon.
It was probably a fusion between rjhowie and SmileyFaze. Smiley "RJ" Faze or RJ "Smiley" Howie...
Don't like it, both deserve their own and full identity. :)
Precisely why us Americans are blessed with the Constitutional Right, an Inalienable Right, to Keep & Bear Firearms --- to protect the rights of an RJ to say what he does -- how he does, & then to overthrow his likes when their tyrannical & totalitarian government goes way too far in practicing what he preaches. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/imthinkin6.gif)
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FoyHn1du.jpg&hash=44eef77d5fe63852f13afd800a6f319c" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/oyHn1du.jpg)
Call me James. I am hardly worried about rj mowing people down with an automatic pistol in the streets of some US city. I had more of a knee-jerk reaction to the America-bashing he was expounding so judgmentally, as if he is from some haloed nation. I am appreciative of my country not because it's "the best", free from corruption or in any way perfect, but because I see my country trying. :knight: :cheers:
.....no provision for racial equality under the in the Constitution......
You missed the obvious ....... The Second Amendment, among many things, provides vital protection for Racial Equality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eXeBbDRoNU
Use this link if the player is broken ........ The NRA was Founded to Protect Freed Slaves from the KKK (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eXeBbDRoNU)
Now, whether or not there is substantiating evidence to support these statements by these renowned Black Leaders - it makes no difference, think about how the Second Amendment could & would provide a mechanism for newly freed slaves to protect & defend their rights as free men.
Keeping & Bearing Firearms might just cause the KKK, & their likes, to think twice about trying to keep the newly freed slaves from expressing their desire to exercise some of their inalienable rights as outlined in the Bill of Rights (the First 10 Amendments to the US Constitution) as free men.
The same might be said for all of us.
Quote from: jseaton2311 on 2014-07-27, 20:04:39
America-bashing is what RJH does best. Eventually you consider the source and get used to it. It seems that folk from the British Islands have a hard time getting used to the idea that ex-colonialists are at least as good as they are, and if we are bad at being empire-builders we had an example to follow-- namely the British Empire.
It's still a double-edged sword, though. The Second Amendment also made it difficult to keep the Klansmen away from their guns. That said, it's not the only right that's this way. Freedom of religion. Most people think of harmless denominations of Christianity, but it allows makes it difficult to go after the White Supremacist Christian Identity and the like unless they actually commit violent acts. The same freedom speech that allows for open expression of ideas such as Neo-Nazism allows for refuting it. There are many of examples I could provide, but this is sufficient to get the point across.
This larger point is that at end of the day, we need all the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. People like Howie might mock our constitution, but they can take their inbred European monarchs and shove them up their ass
Well firstly to foul-mouthed, pompusjseaton2311.
You really are a disgusting man. You came on to these forums trying to show how intelligent, controlled and astute you are but betray that right away by that reaction to me. That you need instantly to resort to foul language has only shown you for what you actually are. I prefer simple and to the point contributions without the sanctimonious tripe that you wax. Why in goodness name you resort to that kindergarten mentality regarding me walking down a street with some great loaded weapon when I have stated here and the previous Opera Forum this replaces how much I am against guns. Then you compound your inbuilt ignorance by commenting on security services here. Now there's a really big laugh. Your own country has more security services than probably any other nation in the world and all of them competing (at over the top costs to the tax payer) sometimes jostling to beat the other internal spies. Not just on the world but regular and decent Americans in their own homes, pc's, phones, whatever. Indeed you have more secret agencies than Hitler and Stalin had so you are either in a state of metal hyper or panic needs about security. Maybe you spent longer at elementary school and maybe missed the facts? If sosome allowance can be made for the lack of serious adult contribution. So look at your own because you are way ahead of dictatorships or snipe at a realer democracy. When a person has to resort to your filthy language I take exception and it betrays you as a self-righteous, sanctimonies, Neanderthal. However as an encouragement (ever an optimist), I do hope you are seeing to psychiatric help then I can make considerable allowances and progressive understanding. :headbang:
On a more routine note. Can I say Sanguinemoon, you are stretching it a wee bit on that Constitution which ex-colonists have been arguing and sniping over for over 2 centuries! The hard fact that it doesn't mention race is a nonsense. If all are equal under the law that is it but your argument in fact directly allowed deliberate racial subjection and persecution for 2 centuries plus. That will cover the KKK the wide purges on blacks and their communities and rights. This kind of daft nit-picking is as bad as your legal system that dances around the full stops rather than the main issues. Sits the lawyers fine. People on death row for 17 years? What sort of country allows that torture to exist. Now you torture people to death by doubtful poisons but I suppose that is okay. You see prisoners being walked not just in handcuffs but chains. It's a vengeful system. Has no-one ever told you this is the 21st century?! It is one thing defending a Constitution but the way it is warred on raises question not just about the national and political intelligence but must frustrate the ordinary decent person over there. Too much is about vengeance rather than anything decent. Oh and before i forget it do not try and tell me that we here are worse off not having a Constitution. I am thankful because all it does over in the States is give lawyers a lot of money not help the ordinary citizen. :whistle:
If all are equal under the law that is it but your argument in fact directly allowed deliberate racial subjection and persecution for 2 centuries plus.
But Irish subjectation by the British is justifiable? Cromwell's invasion of Ireland, which eventually lost Ireland half its population was okay? How about some potato famine? How about the British treatment of the locals in India? You can't pretend British history is any less dark than American, but the darkness went on longer. American law enforcement cracked down on the KKK and all but drove them out of existence, except for a few scattered, impotent groups. Using the Constitution, all races are guaranteed equal protection under the law. Yes, it was a long process, but now all men are equal under the law.
I wonder if the British would have treated the blacks any differently, if they had as many as Americans did. Even British history, you folks probably would have treated them worse than we did - letting Ireland starve (at least those two times I mentioned), taking Indian land just to grow tea so you can sip it with your stiff upper lips like a bunch of panty-wastes. This isn't to say modern British are like this, but your anti-Americanism blinded you to what your country did in the past. At least we have written constitution, protected under glass, to ensure it doesn't happen again.
It seems that folk from the British Islands have a hard time getting used to the idea that ex-colonialists are at least as good as they are,
Don't tar all of us with the same brush mjmsprt40. (https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/253164678/Wink.gif)
There's truth on both sides of the debate here, as well as exaggerations, the main difference being that some people are more polite about it than others. I'll re-phrase that -- some people are even more rude about it than others.
It's also true that some people are too happy to search their tainted history books to find their insults.
I apologise profusely for anything my great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandfather is reported to have done.
By the way, SF, while we're on the subject of insults, isn't it time you removed my name from the last option on your poll?
my great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great great grandfather
Twenty eight generations, I counted it. :)
At twenty five years in average equals seven hundred years, the fourteen century. What were you doing then? One hundred years war? certainly not massacring New World natives yet. :)
The answer is that I don't know, I can count directly back 27 generations (no kidding) until the first of my name who lived at the end of the 11th century and into the twelfth (10 something to 11 something), so that's as far as I can apologise for.
I doubt your grand fathers to want you to apologize for them.
I'm sure mine certainly don't so I do not.
Directly until the eleven century... that's a solid linage, congratulations.
Usual Irish-American stuff rom Sanguinemoon of course. May I inform you that there was also a potato famine in Scotland? Furthermore are you daft enough to want to suggest that Britain somehow poisened the potato? Eveb Irish historians away from the emotional reaction of Irish-Americans have questioned figures so the problem was in 2 countries. Shame it takes a bit away from you. The unfortunate ignorance of the Irish was not all Britain;s fault. Irish landowners were far from concerned about their own peasants and the Church was the controlling influence. The 1797 rebellion brought a stench of hypocrisy from the men in black. Black flags with MWS on them in stark white letters. That stood for 'Murder without sin' as the Roman Church regarded Protestants as heretics so they could be massacred and they did that okay.
Even after 1922 the Church still ruled the roost and when people were starving they would go the priest homes and beg for food as the men in black had plenty to eat. Trying get hekp from the SVDP was like begging on your knees.
The comment about how we would have dealt with the Negroes is interesting and I say that for two reasons. We banned slavery before you did and sent the navy out to see what could be done while you lot dragged your heels. In World War 2 when American troops came here to be based they were shocked and disgusted because when at dance was the British girls danced freely with black US soldiers. Why did it take you so long to deal with racism in the military? You bleat about a constitution but Negroes you try to claim were outside of that even though I pointed out everyone is supposed to be equal so that is a contradiction of the bit of wonderful paper. All the claims about the land of the free and principles and the other chest thumping stuff is a fairy tale. It is hardly surprising that the majority of those in jail are black after their treatment for over 2 centuries. What a country when the Apartheid was standard practice not only in society but even in the military tradition.
Instead of trying to avoid the disgraceful history of a land that beats out to the world on principles, freedoms, rights it has all been one long damn lie. Disgusting and arch hypocritical. You would have been better not chest thumping and flag waving.
I'll side with RJH about the slavery issue, anyway. British warships did what they could to halt the slave trade as early as the 1820s, probably earlier. Intercepting a slaver wasn't an easy task since the slave-runners favored small, speedy and highly maneuverable ships like the Baltimore Clippers, but the British-- and the French-- navies did what they could to stop them.
Oh dear, I seem to have hurt some feelings here. I was merely countering Howie's endless badmouthing of America by noting Britain's record is less than stellar. He did this to pretend the US Constitution is meaningless, despite the fact that it was used to end the unequal treatment given to minorities. Further, it provides protection against dictatorship (separation of powers), protection of expected rights and so forth. It doesn't provide those rights, per say, but protection against the government trying to take away the natural rights.
.....Further, it provides protection against dictatorship (separation of powers), protection of expected rights and so forth. It doesn't provide those rights, per say, but protection against the government trying to take away the natural rights.
That's the rub.
The Britts don't have the power, or the means to subdue any such action(s) by their government......nor the stones to act even if they could -- ergo, RJ's eternal, deep seeded, jealousy of our power -- our right to do what we might find necessary if government gets out of hand -- to big for it's britches.
This is why the Second Amendment is so important.
The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides the ability & means to back these ever so authoritative words, where the Colonialists declared their Independence once & for all, & put all future American governments on notice that they may experience the same fate as the tyrannical reign of King George III:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
I submit.....The means to make war on, & overthrow ones own government, would be impossible without the Second Amendment! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/guns4.gif)
....British warships did what they could to halt the slave trade as early as the 1820s, probably earlier.
Remember the Revolutionary War.....followed by the War of 1812.....does the word 'retribution' most probably fit better?
Yes, the British Empire wanted to stop the slave trade I have no doubt, but in the hopes of seeing the demise of the new fledgling America, to see them economically stumble, to falter & eventually collapse. Yes, that upstart American rabble that whipped their mighty royal asses not once but twice in very recent years had to be stopped at all cost. That was the Empire's motivation.
A British Empire's desire to halt the slave trade, I submit, was not borne out of any moral platitudes, but for the sole ends I alluded to earlier.
The British were ever so welcoming of the Dutch, Spanish, & the Portuguese slave ships into British controlled Colonial ports to supply the Carolinas vast Tobacco Plantation's with free labor when they controlled the Colonies. To suggest that they were actually morally interested in the plight of any African Slaves, noting their vast history to the contrary, would be absolutely absurd, to the point of being farcical.
The almighty £ & colonial power coupled with vengeance were the only motivators of the British Empire,
not some overwhelming 'newfound' moral desire to end a slavery which had lined the Empire's pockets unashamedly for many, many years.
Yes, the British Empire wanted to stop the slave trade I have no doubt, but in the hopes of seeing the demise of the new fledgling America, to see them economically stumble, to falter & eventually collapse.
So... you couldn't emerge without slavery...
Forget slavery, I see today much more forms of slavery.
Unfortunately, most probably not.....at least not as successfully.
And yes, I agree that today there are probably more clandestine forms of 'slavery' upon the hearts, minds, & souls of man.
There is always a great deal of tub thumping about terrible Eurpeans, etc and the slave trade but the thumpers neatly omit to remind everyone that slavery has existed eons before the European lot got involved. Thousands of years are involved and it still exists today. Wasn't all the pale faces either and as time went on about a million from that background got stolen by Muslims.
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/arrowRight002.gif) Just for everyone's information I have started a new topic specifically related to SLAVERY because I feel it is worthy
of it's own thread, & so this OFF-TOPIC subject can be discussed & debated in greater depth & length without reservation.
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/arrowRight002.gif) Here is the Thread Topic & link:
SLAVERY -- The History of Slavery in the Northern Hemisphere 1500's to Present (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=453.msg24575#msg24575)
Your cooperation & participation at that link location would be deeply appreciated. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/adoreen7.gif)
Thank you (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/cheerskj4.gif)
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Faxiomamuse.files.wordpress.com%2F2010%2F12%2Fbill-of-rights.jpg&hash=4a1b50568c1ee1b705b9af531afff4a4" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://axiomamuse.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/bill-of-rights.jpg)
The Inalienable Right that Protects & Defends all our other Rights & Freedoms
from the abuses of a Tyrannical Government
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FlMSApAo.jpg&hash=9e36b4bac7e2206cfebf2954a9837b7d" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/lMSApAo.jpg)
Isn't the National Guard a militia dear John Wayne?
The intent was to ensure the right to bear arms. There are a couple obvious reasons for this. First of all, the British had attempted to confiscate the colonists weapons. There needed to be assurance that the new American Government could not try the same thing. Then there was the nature of America itself. While the America's older coastal cities were well established, perhaps more than half the country was undeveloped or minimally developed wilderness. So, outlawing guns was never an option. The militia part of the amendment was merely to provide a reason.
The Article is actually two independent statements.
One stating the need for a Militia, & the other acknowledging man's Inalienable Right to Keep & Bear Arms.
The Founding Fathers knew that without that acknowledgment, there would be no way for free men to ensure that no government would usurp any, or all, their Rights. See Below
God bless John Wayne, may he rest in peace.....
Sincerely, maybe I can clear this up for you RJ.
Literally, the National Guard can be considered as part of the whole Militia, as Nevadans are considered as part of all Americans.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
-- George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Enlightening quotes from the Founding Fathers & others:
Quote from: The Right to Keep & Bear Arms http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/quotes/arms.html
"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
-- Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons entrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
-- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28
"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... "
-- Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)
"[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46
"To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws."
--John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
--Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
"Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it."
--Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356
"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J. Boyd, Ed., 1950]
"The right of the people to keep and bear ... arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country ..."
-- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
-- Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789
" ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
-- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380
" ... but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights ..."
-- Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist 29
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
-- Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836
"The great object is, that every man be armed ... Every one who is able may have a gun."
-- Patrick Henry, Elliot, p.3:386
"O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone ..."
-- Patrick Henry, Elliot p. 3:50-53, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them."
-- Zacharia Johnson, delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention, Elliot, 3:645-6
"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms ... The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible."
-- Hubert H. Humphrey, Senator, Vice President, 22 October 1959
"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally ... enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
-- Joseph Story, Supreme Court Justice, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p. 3:746-7, 1833
" ... most attractive to Americans, the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave, it being the ultimate means by which freedom was to be preserved."
-- James Burgh, 18th century English Libertarian writer, Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment, p.604
"The right [to bear arms] is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order."
-- Thomas M. Cooley, General Principles of Constitutional Law, Third Edition [1898]
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress ... to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.... "
--Samuel Adams
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.amuniversal.com%2F93bb6d40e08a0131734d005056a9545d&hash=a33b9564359ff0ee99faa95ae2b9ff06" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://assets.amuniversal.com/93bb6d40e08a0131734d005056a9545d)
http://news.yahoo.com/porch-killing-defendant-wasnt-going-cower-193755567.html (http://news.yahoo.com/porch-killing-defendant-wasnt-going-cower-193755567.html)
In a new development, it seems some fanatical gun owners are threatening shops selling smart guns.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/05/02/us-usa-maryland-smartgun-idUSBREA410SD20140502
The gun is implanted with an electronic chip that allows it to be fired only if the shooter is wearing a watch that communicates with it through a radio signal. If the gun is moved more than 10 inches from the watch, it will not fire.
Gun rights activists contend the smart gun violates their right to bear arms under the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
Okay, I'm not going to say the NRA is behind this, and I'm sure the relative number of people threatening shops that carry these is low. But I will say this another case of a few screwballs becoming a worse threat to Second Amendment rights than they imagine Obama is. It also so that some of the most fanatical "second amendment" supporters are again showing themselves to be the exact people that maybe shouldn't have a gun in the first place. Why is second amendment in quotes? Because some people can choose to exercise their right by having a gun with this feature, perhaps because they have children in the house and don't want their kids to become an accidental shooting statistic.
Now onto what happened.
A Maryland gun shop owner has dropped his plan to be the first in the United States to sell a so-called "smart gun" after a backlash that included death threats.
Andy Raymond, co-owner of Engage Armament in Rockville, a Washington suburb, said he was trying to protect his business by reversing his decision to sell the Armatix iP1 .22-caliber handgun, which electronically limits the ability to fire the weapon.
"I can't have my shop burned down," Raymond said on Friday. "I have people to look out for."
But he's not the only gunshop owner threatened by these fanatics.
The Oak Tree Gun Club near Los Angeles said it would sell the "smart guns" this year but the weapons were removed from shelves after protests and threats from gun advocates. The club owners later denied they ever planned to sell them.
Raymond said he planned to sell the German-made guns initially "on principle" because he believed in the right of gun ownership.
"You have freedom," he said. "It shouldn't be compromised."
Why threaten gunshop owners? Because they fear the state of New Jersey will require all guns sold in the state to have the technology in three years. Yes, fear of regulation triggers some of these folks to engage in behavior that can cause worse regulation if it continues because of the image of gun owners it projects. It's a little like gay couple literally making a Federal case of a bakery that doesn't want to make a cake for their wedding. With guns, the liberal media will exploit it for their cause; with gays the conservative media will do the same.
Now my position on the smart guns is that it seems like a good idea. There are too many stories of children playing with guns. This even happens in areas with strong gun culture where you would think the parents would have been around guns enough to know the precautions. Or maybe the parents have grown too comfortable with guns and don't respect them for what they are, machines designed to kill. Whatever happened in each case, this can prevent tragedies. However, it's not right for a state to try to force the sale of only smart guns.
So now we have smart guns. When do we get smart people?
Quote from: NRA http://tinyurl.com/kogqpqy
"Smart" Guns -- ........ President Barack Obama ordered the Consumer Products Safety Commission to review manufacturing standards for gun locks and gun safes. Gun control supporters have long wanted the commission to be able to impose standards on firearms that no manufacturer could meet. NRA opposes requiring guns to be made with electronic equipment that would allow the guns to be deactivated remotely, or with other features that gun owners do not want.
"Smart" Guns = Infingment
The very moment any gov't attempts to mandate that firearms be equipped with such features (unwanted by it's owners),
then the gov't oversteps it's right, infringing upon the rights of all free men to
choose how they can protect themselves ..... period.
The Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) that "the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right," and that the Second Amendment protects a pre-existing individual right to keep and bear arms.....
...... There are too many stories of children playing with guns. This even happens in areas with strong gun culture where you would think the parents would have been around guns enough to know the precautions .......
Too many stories of children drinking or eating poison, or running into the street after a ball too.
The list seems endless ................................
Gun locks are an option, & as long as they are an option they are fine.....& an option I sincerely suggest ...... but, the moment the gov't hints on making gun locks mandatory, then there is a serious problem. That graduates their use from a viable option to an infringement upon a free man's right to self-protection, which is protected by the U.S. Constitution -- but not granted or bestowed by the Constitution.
True about the government infringement. However, the technology's already out in the wild and genies don't stuff back into their bottles very well, if at all. Threatening gunshop owners accomplishes nothing except making gun owners look bad. What do they plan on doing if the New Jersey law takes effect, threaten every gunshop as if that can prevent a state from passing the law? If anything, besides making gun owners look like would-be terrorists, it's liable to encourage gunshops to close down and make weapons less available. Enough of this and the behavior might trigger a few congressmen to change their opinion on gun control.
It's 100 percent smarter and more sane to leave the gunshop owners alone and sue New Jersey on Second Amendment grounds.
They can be left withering on the vine, to die at their own pace, rather than attempting to
force them upon law-abiding gun owners who don't need them, nor want anything to do with them.
I personally prefer intense, (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/Angry_threat.gif) relentless persuasion myself, (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/angel010.gif) coupled with monetary incentives if necessary --
BTW....My type of methods have been time-tested & proven very effective with Congressmen too. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/chuckle002.gif)
Psssssst.....(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/secretrc9.gif).....If you haven't already noticed, gun owners already look bad to the
Anti-Second Amendment, gun-grabbing -- tree-huggin' progressive lot.
The NRA & other Pro-Second Amendment Groups, & their supporters, have been multi-taskin' fer years.
Gun owners can still hold the retailer's feet real close to the fire, while the legions of Pro-Second Amendment Legal Eagles strut their stuff in DC. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/cleanteeth09.gif)
All this turmoil can be simply avoided by keeping all these so called protections, & safe-guards completely optional as opposed to legislatively attempting to ram it down law abiding gun owners throats, & trying to make them mandatory. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/thumbs/good.gif)
In the end, if one desires war one must be willing to take high-levels of casualties.
BTW..........that's by no means a threat, it's just a clear minded, simple statement of fact. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/guns4.gif)
Smart people? Now you're dreaming. If anything, people are getting dumber and common sense is becoming less common.
How about a smart gun that will only fire if it identifies the owner's cornea?
I would put the sensor in the barrel. That would thin the ranks a bit.
More children die in the land of nut jobs than die of things like Cancer. What a violent place to try and show itself off as a world answer to great principles. No books showing wee children the wonder of being a gunner......
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/quotess.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/quotess.gif)
More children die in the land of nut jobs than die of things like Cancer.
Die of what in Scotland, the land of nutjobs.
Still proving you are one of the mental midgets there Sanguinemoon. You cannot answer my statement on children being killed and on top of that only use my regular quote (land of nut jobs - maybe I should acknowledge my thanks) about all you trigger happy nutters using the 18th and early `19th century as an excuse to kill them and the thousands of adults. What a terribly violent nation and doesn't get any better. So now the whole world knows that the killing of lots of kids is okay in the violent ex-colonies which hypocritically tries to show itself as a wonder to the world. Yeah it is as a gunslinger's paradise. Disgusting. :down:
Gotta question: Who is " all you trigger happy nutters"? You were responding to Sanguinemoon, and-- "trigger happy" isn't something likely to be said about him any time soon. Or haven't you noticed. Oh, wait, that's right. ALL of us here in the ex-colonies are trigger happy nutters. Gotcha.
It's all part & parcel of RJ's Anti-American Dancing Haggis Show ...... if it fits his perverted needs, it's in.
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FPSptV83.jpg&hash=996484903bb6064b74a1635b64e51bd7" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/PSptV83.jpg)
Even though 99+% of all legal firearm owners never commit any crime using those firearms, you -- by RJ's warped reasoning -- you are all trigger happy gun nutters because you have a Constitution that says the right to keep & bear firearms shall not be infringed --- which, as said before, was not a right bestowed upon the people by the writers & signers of that Constitution, but an acknowledgment by them of our inalienable right to self-defense.
All of RJ's cheese has slid off his cracker -- right into his Irn-Bru. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/lol015.gif)
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FVYFHkhb.jpg&hash=19f6661bf28260eb607268a16ac85204" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/VYFHkhb.jpg)
You cannot answer my statement on children being killed and on top of that only use my regular quote (land of nut jobs - maybe I should acknowledge my thanks)
You didn't ask a question nor specify what the children die of. That asinine statement was "More children die in the land of nut jobs than die of things like Cancer." Calling all Americans "you trigger happy nutters" is like calling all British people nearly illiterate based on your abuse of the English language. You're trying to paint all citizens of the world's third largest country by population with the same brush dipped in violent hue. Your anti-American rants beg the question of are you really concerned about the children or finding another excuse to lambaste America.
Here (http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/pdf/leading_causes_of_death_by_age_group_2011-a.pdf) are the causes of death in the US by age ranges. You'll that Malignant Neoplasms (malignant tumors) indeed outnumber homicide deaths among children up to the 15-24 age bracket. Even those numbers are low, considering the the US has a population above 311,000,000. Comparisons like that are nonsense regardless, since diseases such as cancer typically occur later in life.
To SmileyFaze and Sanguinemoon. I do understand that neo-con braindeaders have to have things as simple as possible. Regarding children (again!) your violent land sees more children killed with guns and accidents with guns to that point of 9 times anywhere else. For the majority here it was probably understood but there we are. Mind you it does show the consideration of jimbro to include you gunslingers and neo-cons to be considered a place...... :o :D
What or who is a neo-con?
As written it means absolutely nothing except that it's writer is childishly ignorant in how to spell the word. There is a word 'neocon' which is sort of short slang for neoconservative.
A neoconservative is a conservative who subscribes to neoconservatism.
Noun: neoconservatism
1. An approach to politics or theology that represents a return to a more traditional point of view (in contrast
to more liberal or radical schools of thought of the 1960s)
I actually assume that any time the word is encountered it is just that, but was trying to hint that Mr. H was cutting and pasting from journalistic ramblings that he only partly understood.
If you cannot figure out simple stuff laid out proves my point about so many ex-colonists. not surprised your government has a problem with education.
I do understand that neo-con braindeaders have to have things as simple as possible.
Neocon? Me? :lol: I never thought I'd ever be call that! The Irn Bru must have gone straight to your brain. Maybe that also explains your perverted dreams of dancing haggis. Has there ever been a study of the side effects of that stuff?
Quote from: Sanguinemoon link=topic=99.msg25462#msg25462 date=1407974[center
:lol: .......... perverted dreams of dancing haggis .......
Dancin' Haggis!!!
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FAIMb00m.jpg&hash=7eb4a0fd52342ea518ed3996168360a0" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/AIMb00m.jpg) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/laughing024.gif)
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FBDBIfzi.jpg&hash=f542c25b8f8ae8ee656586e995d38d14" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/BDBIfzi.jpg)
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.telegraph.co.uk%2Fculture%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F01%2FADAMS250112.jpg&hash=03eda393c0992c9cd23d6403612fb3fd" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/files/2012/01/ADAMS250112.jpg)
Unable to cope with the mental truth due to the level of nutjob characters over there you do a dance. One day the place will collapse due to the massive debts and you two can run about whooping and shooting to your heart's content. Mind you that would be an alternative as there aren't enough head shrinkers to cope as it is. Roll on the future. :yes:
Quote from: The National Journal http://tinyurl.com/kmvqdg2
.........Mental health is the ugly kid sister in the health care debate that gets ignored by all but the most passionate policymakers, many of whom have personal experience with mental disabilities. Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, protested on the Senate floor Thursday that Republicans and Democrats were fighting over the wrong issue. The issue isn't the guns, he said. It's mental health. "Let's make sure that guns aren't getting into the hands of people we all agree shouldn't have them."
The legal connection between gun buying and mental health is uneven and unfair. There is no single definition of an "adjudicated" mental-health problem that bars a person from buying a gun, and they can vary from court to court and case to case. Many states don't report mental-health cases to the feds for fear of violating privacy laws or because they lack the resources. Mental-health advocates fear that widening the gun-owning restrictions on people with mental-health problems will deter people such as veterans or police officers from seeking treatment. Once they are in treatment, what reassurances do they have that they won't be banned from owning a gun?
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a pro-gun Republican, sponsors legislation that would require states to report adjudicated mental-health cases to the national database of people barred from gun purchases, clearing up some privacy questions. But Graham's bill also would give people on that list a chance to prove they are rehabilitated or that they aren't a threat to themselves or society.
Gun-control advocates hate this bill because they say it would make it easier for people with mental-health problems to buy guns. Graham says he's only trying to be fair. "We're trying to make sure that seeking treatment--you know, we all go through tough times--does not deny you your Second Amendment rights. So we're doing a balance here," he said...........continued
Put in-depth emphasis on the proper objectives (the mentally ill & criminals) instead of the inalienable rights of all law abiding, gun owning citizens, who are not the problem, for which the anti-gun progressive left know oh so well.
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FmzS0Qva.jpg&hash=e35e8f3d6b89b5277e455415ab724023" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/mzS0Qva.jpg) (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fundefined&hash=9e8e11ba12f827c1e343b4c675b87bec" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://undefined)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/guns4.gif)
The term is too broad. There are many types of mental conditions that do not increase a person's chance of committing violent acts, but others do make it dangerous for the person to be anywhere near a gun. The trouble is the later group are far less likely to voluntarily seek help or even be aware they're sick. So there's the potential for someone that see the psychiatrist for bouts of depression being denied a gun (risk of suicide) but dangerous psychopaths (such as the Millers) being able to get one. In fact, that's a likely scenario. I don't think there's any one answer, besides going on a case by case basis. Some might say a quick mental health quiz before purchase, but you'd need to have the IQ of a retarded monkey or even lower, such as that of a Scotsman, to fail it.
I do have a great depth of sadness for all those ex-colonists who are not mental Audie Murphys as they represent a swathe of the country that has never grown up mentally and use the late 19th and early 19th century as an excuse to justify their nuttiness. With such a violent nation leading the "Free World", it is no surprise we have world problems. You have just over 4 moths to reach the annual target of 1 -11,000 gunnings a year. Like the increasing debt I am more than sure it will be excellently achieved.
Hrm, I think we can replace Howie with a machine. Let's see (http://www.pakin.org/complaint)
Quote from: Howie Blather Generator
I want this post to serve as an oasis of sanity in Ex-Colonists's desert of foolishness. Let's get down to business: Ex-Colonists says that the purpose of life is self-gratification. Whenever I hear such statements from Ex-Colonists I reel in disbelief. Does it really believe such deluded things? It's questions like that that honestly get people thinking about how I am not a robot. I am a thinking, feeling, human being. As such, I get teary-eyed whenever I see Ex-Colonists force me to undergo "treatment" to cure my "problem". It makes me want to evaluate the tactics it has used against me, which is why I'm so eager to tell you that I recommend paying close attention to the praxeological method developed by the economist Ludwig von Mises and using it as a technique to cast a gimlet eye on Ex-Colonists's escapades. The praxeological method is useful in this context because it employs praxeology, the general science of human action, to explain why Ex-Colonists will understate the negative impact of antiheroism one of these days. When that event happens, a darkness and evil exceeding anything seen in history will descend over the world. I can hope only that before it does, people will raise the quality of debate on issues surrounding Ex-Colonists's sanctimonious causeries. Only then can we admonish Ex-Colonists not seven times, but seventy times seven.
For years I've been warning people that Ex-Colonists plans to condemn children to a life of drugs, gangs, drinking, rape, incest, verbal abuse, physical abuse, and a number of other horrors. However, that's not my entire message; it's only a part of it. I also want you to know that those of us who are still sane, those of us who still have a firm grip on reality, those of us who still assert that we must stand united as free, sovereign individuals and focus on the major economic, social, and political forces that provide the setting for the expression of an annoying agenda, have an obligation to do more than just observe what Ex-Colonists is doing from a safe distance. We have an obligation to fight scurrility and slander. We have an obligation to create a world in which zabernism, totalism, and pessimism are all but forgotten. And we have an obligation to challenge its claims of exceptionalism. If Ex-Colonists had lived the short, sickly, miserable life of a chattel serf in the ages "before technocracy" it wouldn't be so keen to dispense outright misinformation and flashlight-under-the-chin ghost stories. Maybe it'd even begin to realize that its votaries argue that it can change its ill-bred ways. These are the same avaricious, overweening nutty-types who burn its castigators at the stake. This is no coincidence; if you think that this is humorous or exaggerated, you're wrong.
Pretty well spot on! :yes:
Not really. The spelling is too good, the grammar is too good,
That's what I thought, too. Otherwise-- it's close.
Known felons & other violent criminals with guns are not being prosecuted by the DOJ.........Why?
Why doesn't the DOJ enforce the existing gun laws on the books instead of wrangling for 'newer' gun laws
that only affect law abiding citizens?
Quote from: TPU http://tinyurl.com/ono6rmc
....... Liberals are not about doing, they are about posturing. Liberals love to perform for the camera as a way to play naïve, ill-informed, misguided Americans like fiddles. They are masters at publically wringing their hands and crying crocodile tears every time another nutcase uses a gun to act out his psychological disorders. But ask them to stop talking and do something--something like enforcing the myriad gun laws already on the books and they are stunned into silence. If liberals were really concerned about gun violence, they would demand that the Justice Department do its job and prosecute the gun-related cases recommended to it by law enforcement agencies. Don't count on this happening. Under the current Justice Department a violent criminal has a better chance of winning the lottery than being prosecuted by Attorney General Holder, et.al ..............continued
Usual elementary gobbley-gook from tt92. Being of a red neck mentality facing anything more than a sneer is beyond his capability however I do feel for him. So sad.
gobbley-gook from tt92. Being of a red neck mentality
In all seriousness. "Gobbledygook" (naturally a spelling correction) 'round these parts is a more redneck word. I understand you're a Scot tho.
Gun control? We don't need no stinking gun control in my home state!
http://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/index.ssf/2014/08/saginaw_county_sheriff_getting.html#incart_most-read (http://www.mlive.com/news/saginaw/index.ssf/2014/08/saginaw_county_sheriff_getting.html#incart_most-read)
Haha you lucky man! :yikes:
God Bless The Second Amendment, The Right That Protects All The Others!
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FlTAlVZ7.jpg&hash=3880cc79f244255506da1c9e76f414ba" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/lTAlVZ7.jpg) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/guns4.gif)
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FjSznKig.jpg&hash=c4987c3301557e014a0065ad06cb8ec3" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/jSznKig.jpg)
Yes Jefferson did say that and may well have meant it SmileyFaze but the trouble with the stand is it is not practiced now.
Oh contraire mon ami!
This is a thread dedicated to Gun-Control, which in America deals with the Second Amendment, which acknowledges an individuals inalienable right to self-defense -- to Keep & Bear Arms.
Until that amendment is struck in it's entirety, & a new Constitutional Amendment is ratified as prescribed in that Constitution (Article V) to replace it (as likely as being struck twice by separate lightning bolts while glaring at a winning lottery ticket), it remains intact, & the only authority to actually change any portion of that Constitution (the 'Law of the Land') rests with the people --- not government.
Now, of course you & your people do not choose to exercise your inalienable rights to self-defense -- to keep & bear arms, for you have renounced your rights to do so in law, & have given over control of such matters to government, whereas when dealing with the Second Amendment, the inalienable right to self-defense -- to keep & bear arms, we in America simply do not, & will not.
And in practice the country looks like a gun hell hole. You lot argue with each other on the interpretation of the Constitution and in the process made the dcuntry a dangerous place. The tendency is to sort things out by gunning each other and misusing something meant for a different time. Judging by the way your legal world and courts act over the most trivial detail it betrays inherent weakness in the American race. It's a bit like Africans being great athletes and live in wonky countries, Chinese are fanatical about gambling and so it goes on. So they are your created weaknesses.
Even with a written Constitution it hasn't stopped it being a dangerous country and murders by not just criminals but those supposed to be defending the law. It is also intellectually funny being so loyal to that bit of paper over guns but on human rights, privacy, government interference on rights, etc are conveniently ignored. If they weren't what a difference the country would be and eventually be what the founders were supposed to be creating - a democracy. From the beginning it was ruled by the cumfy off and the Freemasons so right away control was in place.
If some of the genuine founders could see how the place has turned out they would wonder why they bothered. Oh, and I am sue the 10,000 target for being shot annually will be kept up so well done.
Until that amendment is struck in it's entirety, & a new Constitutional Amendment is ratified as prescribed in that Constitution (Article V) to replace it
Just this afternoon my local talk show host, Dave Bowman (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCkQjBAwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.powertalk1360.com%2Fonair%2Fthe-daily-dave-40326%2F&ei=6Nf7U4rKKeO1igK7kYG4BA&usg=AFQjCNHp6r2RdlfY1VkCLIIlR8vvt8TO8g&sig2=cvan2hyhBU5GvXqK5NcOEQ&bvm=bv.73612305,d.cGE), made the same point: If those who oppose or would limit the 2nd Amendment are serious, their course should be
Prompt a congressman to author a replacement;
secure a two-third's majority vote for it, and
get the president to sign it; then,
get three-quarters of the states to adopt it.
Easy-peasy! :) But those who'd "reform" American society in so fundamental a way have neither the patience, the means, nor the moral fortitude to accomplish that...
(Please compare the War for the Abolition of Slavery to this more recent "cause"...)
what the founders were supposed to be creating - a democracy
Howie, when will you ever learn -- the "Democracy" you've so often belittled, condescended to, and denigrated is -in actuality, and by design- a republic? :)
(You wouldn't know about that. Neither your country's form of government nor your own education have ever dealt with such...)
Perhaps de Tocqueville's tome misled you? (Nah! You've not read it...) Some (Democrat) politicians have used the term -- seemingly, in the way that you mean: But they're our Labour and Socialist Parties (or un-careful speakers...), all rolled up into one! We don't and shouldn't allow ourselves to be defined by their ill-conceived words... And I'd reject -as I think most would- the rhetoric of our Marxists.
You'd be quite at home in Leninist U.S.S.R. -- and perhaps "okay" with Stalin's ascension...
get three-quarters of the states to adopt it
Exactly, I believe Mr Bowman is absolutely correct, except for the point of the President signing it.
The President is not part of the Amendment process, nor his signature a requirement at all.
The President is totally out of the loop -- a non-participant.
If the required percentage of votes are secured in Congress, the proposed amendment goes directly to the States for ratification where
38 of the 50 States -- 3/4 of the total States need to pass it within a designated time frame.
As Oakdale so succinctly put it:
Considering it is the money corporates who run the country not the Hill any sensible and revision of the system is up against it.
BREAKING NEWS: Missouri Senate Passes Bill Nullifying Obama's Gun Control
Quote from: The Conservative Tribune http://conservativetribune.com/missouri-nullifies-gun-control/
In an attempt to guarantee its citizens' rights under the Second Amendment, Missouri became the latest of several states in recent years to pass a "nullification" law designed to prevent the enforcement of federal gun control laws within the state's borders.
The broad-ranging bill passed by the state Senate essentially rejects the federal government's authority to regulate firearms within the state.
The bill would prohibit state employees from any acts enforcing federal firearms regulations and hold liable for damages any federal employees who attempt to enforce such laws within the state of Missouri.
In addition, the Senate version of the bill refuses future employment by the state of Missouri to any federal employee guilty of contravening the bill's principles of upholding the Second Amendment............Continued
What do you think about "Nullification"?
Typical of a country that has such a high proportion of men who never grew out of being cowboys when kids. You are gun nutjob mad over there. Maybe they want to increase the 10,000 plus gun shootings a year.What a ridiculous country to try and impress the world. :insane:
Is there any reason, anywhere, at any time, why a nine-year-old girl girl should be taught how to use a Uzi?
Absolutely not, none, never!
Think otherwise...........yer a bloody fool, or dead....take yer pick.
So a Federal Marshal arrests a criminal on Federal gun violations, and gets fined or arrested by the state?The authors of bills such as these must know that as soon something like that happens, the "nullifications" will get thrown out by Federal judge. The outcome of that case is predetermined by the Constitution's "Supremacy Clause." This election year bullshit is not smart and is liable to end in tougher regulations, not increased Second Amendment rights. And they're doing this with all the other events in Missouri? If this goes bad, it's incredibly bad PR. The better course of action is to challenge the Federal regulation in court. You might say they're doing that as well. Stick with doing the intelligent things and pass on idiocy like this.It's not just with gun laws. With states legalizing marijuana, there's not a real way to keep the Federal prosecutor from doing his job. It's well established by historical and legal precedence that a state cannot really nullify Federal law. No, Oakdale, it's not advocating "people control" nor stronger Federal government (you must have drunk that night you thought as I was into people control, despite my agitation for increased personal freedom :faint: ) It's just a reality check.
So a Federal Marshal arrests a criminal on Federal gun violations, and gets fined or arrested by the state?......
You paint with an awfully broad brush there.
Just a friendly question...........Have you actually even read the specifics of any of the laws you're referring to, in order for you to make that kind of illation?
Quote from: The Conservative Tribune http://tinyurl.com/mby5g3g
....Missouri's latest proposal, introduced this past week, would attempt to nullify certain federal gun control regulations from being enforced in the state and subject law enforcement officers to criminal and civil penalties for carrying out such policies......
Not as broad a brush as you might think/imply.
It wouldn't cover the criminally insane, or a convicted felon, both of which are already federally precluded from firearm purchase.
So if a Fed somehow needed to come in to arrest one of those guys for some reason, he wouldn't be impeded, but it sure as hell would cover say for making an arrest for something like the size of a legal magazine one wished to purchase or sell, or likewise for attempting the legal purchase or sale of an AR-15 hunting rifle, & new regulations like those.
It's not just with gun laws. With states legalizing marijuana, there's not a real way to keep the Federal prosecutor from doing his job. It's well established by historical and legal precedence that a state cannot really nullify Federal law.
Well, I know why you'd think so: Most of your "preferred outcomes" likely require Federal authority and action...
No, Oakdale, it's not advocating "people control" nor stronger Federal government (you must have drunk that night you thought as I was into people control, despite my agitation for increased personal freedom :faint: ) It's just a reality check.
Do you really manage to be so incoherent, sober? :)
Since you mention me by name (handle) I assume you refer to something I posted... What was it?
(I'll wait...)
Even with so-called controls a 9-year old girl accidentally kills a gun instructor with a sub-machine gun. You lot will never grow up.
See my statement above.... (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=99.msg26405#msg26405)
In the end, it's the price one pays for living in a free & open society .................. anyway, that said, shit happens, but that stupid assed, lame 'bullet riddled' brained 'so called' instructor won't be doing that again any time too soon! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/nopeyr4.gif)
They'll be hundreds of other silly downright stupid accidents with similar endings surely to come our way. You can't legislate out stupid...........Cest la vie
Well, I know why you'd think so: Most of your "preferred outcomes" likely require Federal authority and action
Well, a preferred outcome is for to actually pay attention to what I'm saying, instead of assigning positions for me. You said I was into "people control" within this very thread, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to read through it again to fill your memory gaps for you. Some people get dumped into the "liberal" camp precisely because they're anti-authoritarian when in fact their views are closer to libertarian. If Colonel Rebel jumps into this thread , I'm sure he can confirmed the following statement: there are a lot of "libertarians" that in fact are quite authoritarian. Advocating for a small Federal government while wanting to increase the power of the states to such an extent that the end result is more total government does not a real libertarian make. In fact, there's a lot of overlap in the views of real liberals (as opposed to progressives) that it confuses those that choose to brainwash themselves on rightwing blogs and radio programs.
The concern I expressed to Smiley was not in support of more Federal regulations, but the concern of the outcomes of Missouri and other states attempting to impose punitive measures on Federal officials attempting to enforce Federal law. The article Smiley offers says as much, but offers some insight into the strategy:
Quote from: From the Republican Townhall
The state of Missouri, which tried to nullify Obamacare, hasn't had much luck on its own in court. But it has a new plan: band together with other states to openly defy the feds on gun control.
Just as I said, legally a state cannot "nullify" Federal Law. The idea seems to that if enough states do this, the Federal government won't be able to much about it. But I don't believe this is correct. As we've seen in the equal marriage cases, Federal court can indeed strike down one state law after another as being unconstitutional (and even state constitutional amendments) and it doesn't seem to matter how many states band together. So I suggest this plan is flawed and the solution is to take Federal laws that are in potential violation of the the Second Amendment to court.
What have we learned from anti-marriage laws and amendments? This is the part where many conservatives start screaming "activist judge" in the knee-jerk reaction. We learned that laws that run afoul of protections guaranteed by the constitution (14th amendment for gay marriage and we all know the amendment for right to bear arms) will not stand. DOMA got struck down, and it was Federal law defeated by Federal Court. That's a teaching moment once some types of conservatives are done with their knee-jerk anger at that outcome. So you don't think I'm just picking on conservatives, I don't think Progressives have learned the broader implications of ruling such as those, either.
Equal marriage and the Second Amendment fight superficially are very dissimilar, but once you step out the liberal/conservative box and check non-partisan sources (ie legal academic papers, etc) , you'll an underlying theme. When Howie decided to bash the Constitution (thereby uniting Americans that butt heads often....) I noted that in the end the Constitution always wins.
Well, a preferred outcome is for to actually pay attention to what I'm saying, instead of assigning positions for me. You said I was into "people control" within this very thread, but I have neither the time nor the inclination to read through it again to fill your memory gaps for you
Well, this is the closest (to what I think you mean...) that I could find:
Ah! "People Control" is what you're not for! I get it now... :)
BTW: How do you decide which words to omit from your sentences? Do you throw suction darts at the screen?
I could try to pay better attention to what you say... But you sputter and spume, stutter and fume so much -- I don't see the point.
And you're hardly one to be giving advice, about painting with a broad brush and labeling people... :) It's how you "roll"!
The laws of the land need to be consistent, it's true. You can be within the law in one state, cross the border and your actions that aren't hurting anyone make you subject to arrest. So the solution is less total laws on both the Federal and State levels. I noted years ago on the old forum that totalitarianism is just as likely to come from state level as from the Federal one. Within the United States, there's a legal mechanism to challenge unconstitutional actions by a given state and it should be utilized. Turn the system against itself.
The laws of the land need to be consistent,
I think this goes too far. But you knew that... It's a big land with many diverse populations.
"Within the confines of the Constitution" should be enough consistency, eh? The 14th Amendment, as interpreted, has become a machine that manufactures new "rights" whenever five Justices agree... But the Commerce Clause has a similar history, granting "powers" to the federal government; the Incorporation Doctrine is not the only problem.
Where I see our main disagreement is in the area of Subsidiarity: I believe in it; I don't believe you do.
Certainly concentrating the power in the Federal government's hands can led to oppression. I don't believe and intelligent argument exists that says otherwise. However, it doesn't do allow the individual states to pass laws in violation of the rights guaranteed by the constitution. If that's a violation of Subsidiarity so be it. Again, however, this doesn't imply granting the Federal government additional power; merely using Federal power to prevent states from trampling rights, be it blacks, gays, gun owners when appropriate.
The trouble with "states' rights" in the Unites States is that's often whitewash for something pernicious. Ie, what was the "states' right in question during the civil war? Slavery. In the 1950's and '60's, it was forms of apartheid (if not in name, than in practice.) Subsidiarity is appealing in theory; in practice it sometimes needs to be checked for moral hazards that occur on state and local levels.
In short, despite the spelling, it's another "ism" that falls apart when applied to the real world in a pure form.
Pure form? :) You mean like Federalism? The point of subsidiarity is entirely practical...
Quote from: The Constitution of the United States of America http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution.html
One version of the History of the Constitution (http://www.history.com/topics/constitution)of the United States of America
The framers of the constitution were all in favor Federalism, however they included the Sovereignty Clause within the Constitution. The reason for that was the failure of the Articles of Confederation, which created a central government so weak that the United States was in danger of falling apart as unified country. Therefore, a less pure form of subsidiarity was the most practical. I still find it ironic that those that call themselves conservatives are the very ones that resist history's lessons. Likely this the difference between neo-cons and real conservatives.
Despite the tenth amendment, neither the states nor any lower level of government cannot overrule the Federal government in our deliberately unpure Federalist government. In many cases this a good thing, as it can overturn overreach by local government, ie the Federal court overturning San Diego county's conceal weapon law that required " good cause" to carry a concealed weapon. Nor can the states (or counties) deny due process of law nor deny equal protection under the law (which the states, counties, cities) did to African Americans and LGBT people. To fully explore this require a months of research and book-length tome which no doubt would be derided as liberal or Leftist by the neo-cons but is very conservative to the intent of the constitution.
It should go without saying we need to be mindful of Federal overreach, but what many people seem to forget about is local and state government overreach. Let me put it this way, when gun owners sue a state over restrictive laws, are they increasing Federal power? Of course not; they're using Federal power to ensure liberty. But pure Federalism would say that a state, let's say California, can indeed outright ban guns and that an otherwise law-abiding citizen can be arrested on the spot for merely having one. Fortunately, this is not the case because states cannot break Federal law.
But pure Federalism would say that a state, let's say California, can indeed outright ban guns and that an otherwise law-abiding citizen can be arrested on the spot for merely having one. Fortunately, this is not the case because states cannot break Federal law.
Just for my personal information, what particular Federal Law says they can't do that?
BTW, this is not a trick question.
Article VI of the Constitution:
All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
Relevant part in bold, of course. This is why, despite the tenth amendment, a state can't pass a law or even a state constitutional amendment that's in violation of the Federal one. Nor can a city or county. When Chicago's gun ban was overturned, it was obviously a Second Amendment issue but this is what gave the Second Amendment some teeth (even if it went unmentioned in the ruling.)
It's a double-edged sword, though and part of why the Bill of Rights was needed to get the Constitution passed in the first place. Some recognized that unamended the document had the potential to create a dictatorship. It just frustrates me that some advocates of small government will do things to limit Federal power, but don't seem to understand that by trying to apply pure subsidiarity you can create larger total government and actually create more total laws. It's definitely a delicate balancing act when using Federal power to limit total government control.
You greatly muddy the waters with your "pure" this and that, Sang!
Try taking your State out the Union SmileyFaze.
Mud can be distilled back into pure water. Remember the time I talked about Constitutional fundamentalists and you disagreed and said something to the effect of "you mean strict constructionists?" Strict Constructionism requires knowing the whole Constitution, not just your pet amendments, just as knowing the Bible requires knowing the whole book not just a few pet passages as religious fundamentalists tend to do. With more complete knowledge you understand that the 10th amendment remains tempered by Article 6, and the Second Amendment remains intact. Therefore, nullification is all but what a waste of time and legally dubious not to mention all but unenforceable (what I said about a state actually trying to penalize a federal prosecutor for enforcing Federal law and add ANY Federal law.) The cynic in me views the nullification efforts as election year shenanigans, designed for no purpose but to keep the authors and backers of such bills in office for another term. In fact, I noted before that a state trying to nullify Federal is writing an invitation to more Federal prosecutors to come.
Here's where the stream runs clear, cool and pure. The action against the Federal law you dislike has to be taken at the Federal level. It takes Federal power to take down the same. End of story. You might object saying Federal authority won't weaken itself. Recently it has with DOMA. The ones adding silt to the water are the politicians and their games (if they don't know they're doing this, they obviously failed civics.)
Mud can be distilled back into pure water
Not quite. Besides, you'd most likely want to keep the dirt... :)
Here's where the stream runs clear, cool and pure. The action against the Federal law you dislike has to be taken at the Federal level. It takes Federal power to take down the same. End of story.
I appreciate that way of putting it. It's part of Progressive DNA: Power first, responsibility -- whenever, dude...
Of course, you discount the likelihood of an Article V Constitutional amendment by the states.
But aren't, say, California -and some others- with their "medical marijuana" laws; and Washington and Colorado -especially!- defying federal power (i.e., attempting the nullification of the federal statutory ban on cannabis?): Are they wrong to try?
Perhaps if enough states find themselves aggrieved by federal overreach the backlash will result in actual reform!
Why do you like slapping labels on everything? That's just constitutional law. " Power first, responsibility -- whenever, dude" is actually a disease of some types of Conservative. Ever lived in the southern Red states? I have. Talk about state and county power to control people's lives and try to take personal responsibility from them. Dry counties, beer sold in supermarkets can only be 3.2 percent alcohol because people don't have enough responsibility to handle stronger brew, etc instead of letting the marketplace decide what should be sold. It's a huge political fallacy to equate Republicans with small government and personal responsibility.
Passing an amendment is always and unlikely proposition. 99 to 1 odds against is still a possibility :p
That's what the House and Senate are for. The constituents feel aggrieved, so the Representative or Senator takes the issue to the floor of their respective chamber of Congress and tries to get the bill passed on their behalf. The NRA or some other group feels the the gun law is in violation of the Second Amendment, they can sue in Federal Court in addition to the other option. Lately, they've had good success in doing so.
The real answer is still to get Federal law off the books as described above. Let's throw some more silt in the water, shall we - and watch "some government" Republicans be the ones wanting to maintain that Federal power in their intellectual inconstancy. But if marijuana laws are stricken from the Federal books, individual states still have the option to keep on there's because they're not trying to violate Federal law .
I have read many accounts of the so called "Theory of Nullification".
First off might I say, a Nullification -- any Nullification -- that succeeds is no longer theory, it's becomes a valid process of law.
When a law is Nullified simply because those challenged with the law's implementation & enforcement refuse to implement & enforce it, that law is summarily nullified, & has no legal weight on the lives of the people.
That Nullified law, like grapes unpicked & left out in the sun, withers & dies on the vine.
Whether or not it's upheld by any court in our great land, if it is not implemented --- if it's not enforced --- it isn't worth the paper it's written on, & finds itself on it's hasty journey towards it's just deserts --- obscurity.
....Supporters of nullification have argued that the states' power of nullification is inherent in the nature of the federal system. They have argued that before the Constitution was ratified, the states essentially were separate nations. Under this theory, the Constitution is a contract, or "compact", among the states by which the states delegated certain powers to the federal government, while reserving all other powers to themselves.
The states, as parties to the compact, retained the inherent right to judge compliance with the compact.
According to supporters of nullification, if the states determine that the federal government has exceeded its delegated powers, the states may declare federal laws unconstitutional.
Nullification supporters argue that the power to declare federal laws unconstitutional not only is inherent in the concept of state sovereignty, but also is one of the powers reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.....
I ask, if a law --- any law --- is deemed unconstitutional ( Federal overreach) by the States, & those States nullify the law by any method at their disposal, & that law is after great debate, eventually found to actually be unconstitutional, the prior action(s) of Nullification stands, & was the correct course of action irregardless of the law's popularity, or where it originated..........no?
I submit in agreement:
.....Perhaps if enough states find themselves aggrieved by federal overreach the backlash will result in actual reform!
So Nullification, in & of itself, can be deemed as a form of reform then, could it not?
And could it be also said that if the States did not attempt to nullify in the first place -- successfully or unsuccessfully, reform might not have ever taken place at all.
.....The NRA or some other group feels the the gun law is in violation of the Second Amendment, they can sue in Federal Court in addition to the other option....
Or, they can petition enough people, State Representatives, & civic leaders to band together, & convince those charged with implementation & enforcement of a particular law to pursue a course of Nullification, which if successful halts that law dead in it's tracks, for if the law isn't enforced, how much of a law is it?
Even if all 9 men & women in black robes in Washington DC spit, cuss, & squeal in unity, the law won't be any stronger if it isn't enforced locally.
Ant vs. Rubber Tree Plant (http://tinyurl.com/a7q5m9u)
for if the law isn't enforced, how much of a law is it?
Yes, it is. Just for example (http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_25637645/arrests-made-investigation-colorado-medical-marijuana-businesses)
Federal agents made multiple arrests Friday in connection with high-profile raids on Colorado's medical marijuana industry last fall, and a lawyer for one of the raid targets confirmed his client has been indicted.
U.S. Attorney's Office spokesman Jeff Dorschner said the arrests were carried out by the Drug Enforcement Administration, IRS Criminal Investigations and the Diplomatic Security Service. [/url]
In spite of the "nullification" of Federal law. That's also part of what I mean by inviting more Federal agents. If the state won't enforce the law, somebody else will.
We only have to look as far as Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nullification_(U.S._Constitution)) to see nullification's abyssal track record. Nullification Theory was debunked 185 years ago. From the article:
In the Webster-Hayne debate in the Senate in 1830, Daniel Webster responded to this nullification theory by arguing that the Constitution itself provides for the resolution of disputes between the federal government and the states regarding allocation of powers. Webster argued that the Supremacy Clause provides that the Constitution and federal laws enacted pursuant thereto are superior to state law, and that the Article III gives to the federal judiciary the power to resolve all issues relating to interpretation of the Constitution. Under the Constitution, the federal courts therefore have the last word, said Webster. Webster said that the Constitution does not give the states a power of constitutional interpretation, and that any such power would result as many conflicting interpretations of the Constitution as there are states.[55] Therefore, said Webster, under the Constitution, the states do not have the power to nullify federal laws.
In Missouri's case, it's especially incredulous to find a legal threat against Federal Agents upholding the law. A state cannot arrest an agent of the Federal government for doing his job. That's absurd.
Just a little more from the article:
President Andrew Jackson denied that South Carolina had the power to nullify federal statutes, and prepared to enforce federal law forcibly if necessary. In his Proclamation to the People of South Carolina, Jackson said: "I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which It was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed."
He was right. I already pointed the letter of the constitution he referred to. "...incompatible with the existence of the Union" is interesting. If states really had the power to override the Constitution and the laws of the US, are we even still a unified country? If states could nullify gun laws, it would a victory for gun rights. Granted. But the article does hint at a darker side to it, ie states attempting to nullify Federal law by continuing apartheid. I think of a million nightmare scenarios involving free speech, freedom of religion/freedom from religion, worker health and safety laws, etc. So this is actually a good thing.
President Andrew Jackson denied that South Carolina had the power to nullify federal statutes, and prepared to enforce federal law forcibly if necessary.
If Jackson was not prepared to send in troops to forcibly enforce the Federal Law, I wonder if the law would have been enforced ...... I think not, & that's the power of Nullification.
A law, any law, is only as enforceable as the power behind it's enforcement.
All the screaming politicians, all the moral justifications laid end to end, & all the Majority Supreme Court rulings in Washington D.C. mean jack-squat without local enforcement to force the law from mere empty words on paper, into action.
No Enforcement = No Law ...... Period.
Federal Law = Federal Enforcement....Period. I've already demonstrated by the Federal raids in Colorado over a product that was legal in that state. The reason for wanting to expand Federal government to do this is unclear. The Missouri law, as written, is preposterous. If they took out the part about penalizing Federal agents enforcing the law, it would at least be sane, The overzealous wording the law pushes it into the lunacy territory. But it begs a question: if a Federal authority finds local authority not enforcing the law, can the later himself be arrested? In theory, yes.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for peaceful civil disobedience to unjust and unconstitutional laws. Although still legally dubious, nullification can certainly provide another voice of dissent. But the main part of the energy and resources is better spent in Federal Court and in the chambers of congress.
Aberrations of federal systems.
Add it up the aberrations of a presidential system, and there's America at all its glory.
If it's not enough, sum two centuries old aberration of illiterate constitution and amendments and the picture will be perfect.
History it's a funny thing.
Get guns and get it fast, the place where all of you originated it's gone, no more guidance. You have no solution but create your own disgrace.
That's life.
.........That's life.
Cest la vie (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/guns4.gif)
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FmzS0Qva.jpg&hash=e35e8f3d6b89b5277e455415ab724023" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/mzS0Qva.jpg) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/usa-flag-89.gif)
C'est la vie... yes it is.
I read that due to sanctions against Russia, AK-47 it's sold out at American shops.
Time to try Portuguese made G3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_G3). Nice and reliable piece of equipment. A classic.
I suppose that it even has a version for snipers...
BTW, I'm against snipers. Even in war there's moral obligations. Specially in war, should I say.
I know this is a bit off topic, but I completely disagree, so what is your moral argument?
What is the difference of shooting an enemy within 100 yards, as opposed to a highly selective shot originating at say 1000+ yards.
The common goal of the shot(s) is to kill the enemy, & as such the distance should be immaterial.
So, what is your disagreement. Is it war in general, or just sniping?
BTW.....I'll have you know I proudly served as a US Army Ranger, specifically as a Sniper, in South & North Vietnam for over 6 years.
Time to try Portuguese made G3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heckler_%26_Koch_G3).
Why does the wiki page say it's a German/Spanish developed gun? (With many countries adopting it for manufacture.) The AK-47 has many copies too. Is the Portuguese version unique in some way or just another copy?
For some reason, we - those who have military academies, mine being much older than yours of course - are instructed to the morals of war.
At 100 yards (much less than that for real situations probably) you shoot and shout. Shout your fear out while shooting. So does your enemy.
Killing has consequences.
At 1000+yards you play video games. Your "enemy" doesn't even realizes that he's dead. Do you want a medal for that? Not surprised if you received it.
Just another copy. Another copy unique enough to crush the terrorist movements financed by your country in Angola as well the Soviet ones. Both using the AK 47 you bought them by the way... copies or originals can you tell me?
copies or originals?
Probably a little of both. Tho, the copies just aren't the same.
For some reason, we - those who have military academies, mine being much older than yours of course - are instructed to the morals of war .......... At 1000+yards you play video games. Your "enemy" doesn't even realizes that he's dead. Do you want a medal for that? Not surprised if you received it.
There is no such thing as the morals in war. We soldiers leave such things to the politicians that order us to do their dirty work.
The outcome of a successful close range encounter in war is you & your buddies being able to count all the dead enemy.
That means you're alive.......they aren't.
How they got that way is immaterial, except when telling accounts to your buddies while awaiting your chance to take on your next encounter ---- to make more dead enemies. The only good enemy is a dead enemy --- that is unless your objective is to capture some for interrogation, after which you kill them.
Oh Bel, you have no concept of what you speak, but know this one thing, the enemy need not realize he's dead, but rest assured he/she is surely just as dead, & most importantly we know they are.
Shout out your fear.....you must have battalions full of whining lil gurley-men that never ever needed to complete surreptitious missions, behind enemy lines, & return to proudly serve another day.
Shouting at any time is a sure fire way to get yourself, & your buddies killed.
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FXJo2eZD.png&hash=a3731a2bce3fc75e57e45bc6389b3887" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/XJo2eZD.png)
It pays to be trained to fight unseen & as silently as humanly possible.
As a sniper your life & your mission depends on it ------- mine usually did.
JFMI ....... I just have to ask, when was the last time Portugal anywhere near successful in at major warfare, local disputes non-inclusive?
The only good enemy is a dead enemy
General T. Sherman thought otherwise, and a good thing he did! No? A demoralized enemy is all but defeated... Winning matters.
Winning matters.
Woodrow Wilson once said, "I would rather lose in a cause that will some day win, than win in a cause that will some day lose." :)
Woodrow Wilson once said [...]
A lot of things which he later contradicted... Are you familiar with his military career? :) If nothing else, consider his role in Mexico's revolution and the Treaty of Versailles.
I doubt he knew much of military history, that didn't come from the dime-novels of his youth.
Of course, the quote you gave may have referred to his slave-owning minister father's support of the Southern Cause during our Civil War... (Have you a source that gives it context?)
It just frustrates me that some advocates of small government will do things to limit Federal power, but don't seem to understand that by trying to apply pure subsidiarity you can create larger total government and actually create more total laws. It's definitely a delicate balancing act when using Federal power to limit total government control.
You might appreciate this, Sang:
Let the national government be entrusted with the defense of the nation, and its foreign and federal relations; the state governments with the civil rights, laws, police and administration of what concerns the state generally; the counties with...local concerns, and each ward direct the interests within itself.... This would form a gradation of authorities, standing each on the basis of law, holding everyone to its delegated share of powers, and constituting truly a system of fundamental balances and checks for the government.
To Joseph Cabell, Feb. 2, 1816; Koch and Peden, eds., Selected Writings of Jefferson, pp. 603-604.
Then again, you might not... :)
I think that, with your talk of "pure" this and that, you'd mean to defend what you truly believe is a coherent Libertarian position... (I see it slightly differently; but let it pass.) Yet still you'd insist everyone accept your libertarian views!
Okay! Not "accept" exactly: But certainly follow!
In this land there are conservatives, liberals, libertarians; Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Mormons, Muslims (and a great many others...) and, of course, Atheists! The moral views of each are -within the confines of the Bill of Rights (and the rest of the Constitution), and applicable federal law- to be respected, aren't they?
I believe that was the intent of the Founding generation's best thinkers. And it still seems best to me: Subsidiarity! And Liberty!
I don't see how we can keep the latter without the former...
You and I are going to view Wilson differently, but that's surely true for Sherman as well.
I believe the quote follows his failure to gain support for the league at home.
I'd wondered... Search engines are particularly bad at sourcing such quips! As for our differing views of Sherman and Wilson, they're understandable: I grew up in Massachusetts; you (presumably) in Tennessee? :)
you (presumably) in Tennessee?
Mostly. I was born here. Started school in Texas and returned a couple of times a year through to my early teens.
You clearly never suffered an ambush... what exactly guerrilla wars are made of.
Your men will start shouting, running and crying as babies. If you get two of them that reacts the way they should, you're a lucky man.
The reason why I mentioned military academies it's because that's the place where war strategics are taught and learned as well as what are the responsibilities and duties for Officers.
If your words resumes what they teach at West Point no wonder you lose all military adventures you get in. But I know that they teach much more than that.
You tell me how I'm supposed obtaining info from a dead corpse.
You tell me how dead corpses delays enemies progression.
You tell me how dead corpses diminishes enemy's food supply.
(There's only one usage for dead corpses, to put explosives bellow them for welcoming those who comes to get it. Usually are innocent familiars, children and civilian populations that dies from that.)
Killing it's done because either the enemy has this irritating tendency for not cooperate with your plans or you need to defend your life but it's not an end per itself.
Snipers have extremely reduced usage but for one situation, urban wars kind of Saravejo scenario by killing indiscriminately civilians as part of terrorist tactics. Regular armies are not allowed, by moral and civilized conventions, to use terrorist tactics and you don't win a war by killing all them, one by one, from a safe distance.
Because the automation of death by drones and robots, the moral discussion has let snipers in the shadow out of it but just because of that.
Anyway, I'm not at war with nobody. In the future the only thing to fight will be drones and robots and against it there are no moral rules.
Too bad you weren't advising the Viet Cong, back in the day... But, of course, they would have laughed at you and your "quaint" notions! :(
In the future the only thing to fight will be drones and robots and against it there are no moral rules.
This is pure fantasy. (You must -if you served- have been in the Air Force... :) Me, too -- so don't anybody get too upset about how that sounded: It's not a slur; just a fact that explains a lot.)
Too bad you weren't advising the Viet Cong, back in the day...
Each one knows his wars...
This is pure fantasy
I don't think so, it's pure logic (and business) not fantasy. Substitute the uncertainty of man by machines. It was done at our homes, at our offices and factories and it will be done at our wars.
No, I was not at the army, there was nothing left to defend.
Oh Bel, you have absolutely no concept whatsoever of what you speak, but know this one thing, the enemy need not realize he's dead, but rest assured he/she is surely just as dead, & most importantly we know they are.
After what I read in your lil boy, video playin', dreamin'-out-loud post, my above statement --- as modified --- is now completely relevant as to your state of perceived reality!
Bel, you sure are one funny, imaginative dude!!!! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/biglaugh023.gif)
I can respect that. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/cheerskj4.gif)
But, please excuse me for laughin' my ass off, 'cuz you certainly are one hell of a funny dude -- dude! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/big%20laugh%20007.gif)
Bel, you sure are one funny, imaginative dude!!!!
Bah... I have to train this better... :irked:
The morality, or effectiveness, of snipers in modern warfare has nothing to do with the OP's initial question.
I wholeheartedly agree, as noted here. (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=99.msg26810#msg26810)
The face of modern warfare has changed with every war that's come along. Methods that worked in America's Revolutionary War would have been a good way to get your men killed by the time of the Civil War, and one really good reason why WW1 was such a bloodbath was because generals were still trying to use tactics that worked in previous wars but wouldn't work in trench warfare facing modern machine guns.
Snipers are used because the method works. It's as simple as that. You could argue that in many instances, snipers are actually a more "moral" way of doing it because the sniper will seek to kill only his target, not killing civilians indiscriminately the way so many other methods do.
The wind had left the sails of the Anti-Gun, Anti-Second Amendment, Pro-Gun Control movements Countrywide.
Not That Many People Are Interested in Gun Control..so Says Google
"If I were a politician, I'd run away at flank speed on this topic, which seems to be of interest to few."
Quote from: TR http://tinyurl.com/oa5debt
Google is undisputedly the number one search engine in the world. No other search platform can match it. It has an estimated 1,100,000,000 unique monthly visitors.
So what happens when the words "gun control" is typed into their "Google Trends?"
For starters, what is Google Trends? "Google Trends is a public web facility of Google Inc., based on Google Search, that shows how often a particular search-term is entered relative to the total search-volume across various regions of the world, and in various languages."
Now, back to gun control.
The Truth About Guns posted a Google Trend search that shows besides a huge spike in interest immediately following the Sandy Hook shooting in December of 2012 and early 2013, not that many people are interested in stricter gun laws........
More Here (http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/08/daniel-zimmerman/whos-interested-common-sense-gun-control/)
With the exception of Anti-American rants from the likes of the 'RJ types', Americans, well people in general worldwide, seem to shrug them off, & turn their attentions to more important issues of concern.
In America, our right to Keep & Bear Arms will remain ever strong as long as we stay vigilant, & stay ever aware of the left's progressive anti-gun wolves sleeping at the Nation's legislative back door.
'Status Quo', no not at all -- never.
The Pro-Second Amendment Gun Owners in America will press ever forward in fighting repressive anti-gun laws throughout our great land.
A National Concealed Carry Permit Reciprocity Law (H.R. 2959) (http://www.opencongress.org/bill/hr2959-113/show) is high on our legislative agenda.
Quote from: The Washington Times http://tinyurl.com/or7z6f9
With concealed weapons now legal in all 50 states, the National Rifle Association's focus at this week's annual meeting is less about enacting additional state protections than on making sure the permits already issued still apply when the gun owners travel across the country.
The nation's largest gun-rights group, which officially opens its meeting of about 70,000 people Friday in Indianapolis, wants Congress to require that concealed weapons permits issued in one state be recognized everywhere, even when the local requirements differ. Advocates say the effort would eliminate a patchwork of state-specific regulations that lead to carriers unwittingly violating the law when traveling......continued
Nationalism irks me. A bunch of silly talk about nothing.
Perhaps why I chose to quote Woodrow Wilson? Plenty of talk of how to fight in war and pseudo-morals therein but no talk of how to prevent it by simply adjusting what we think (or our senseless pride) to accommodate other views.
Sounds like a (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/quotess.gif) Grass Roots Ground Breaking (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/quotess.gif) for a new topic!?
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/bravomore.gif) Go for it! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/awright005.gif) (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FhuWSrhp.png&hash=c4ecf66400a71dd71883016307af2d88" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/huWSrhp.png)
Suggestion: "Nationalism: Where is Woodrow Wilson when we really need him?"
Yeah, Smiley, I was thinking that, too. The Future of War? :) If someone doesn't beat me to it, I'll open one tonight...
Methinks the following video sums up @Belfrager's thoughts on OP's topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0Wn3Eey6dY
Unfortunately ensbb3, nationalism ifs embedded deeply in your land. It of course goes with the superficial name of patriotic but in practice is just as too much nationalism as many other countries have. Somehow people have been educated to think differently. This childish stuff wanting to run about armed doesn't do much for the slogan of being the land of the free and home of the brave. If it needs people in 9 figures to go about like cowboys on top of police and military you have a big and deep rooted problem. Wish it was not like that.
If it needs people in 9 figures to go about like cowboys on top of police and military you have a big and deep rooted problem.
Two (2) things you can't seem to comprehend, & get through your thick Glaswegian skull.
1. The Second Amendment doesn't grant, give, or bestow anything, it simply acknowledges an inalienable right, which far predates the Constitution itself. It acknowledges one device -- firearms -- which must be available to each & every person in order to defend themselves -- from foes foreign &/or domestic.
The Second Amendment, as with all the other first 10 Amendments of the Constitution from The Bill of Rights, tells government what it must do, or rather what it can not do --- what government is forbidden to do --- it specifically says Government must not, can not, & shall not infringe upon one's right to keep & bear arms ...... period.
2. Self-defense is each individuals responsibility & right. The police aren't there to defend the people, but if they so happen to arrive before things get out of hand, they are there to assist in keeping the peace, & assist in defending the people from further criminal activity.
All police are there to do is assist in determining the facts --- after the fact, & to take criminals into custody --- again, after the fact.
The only other function(s) directly attributable to the police force is to establish & keep the peace, & to enforce the law.
The military on the other hand is there to protect & defend us from external threats.
Again, we are responsible for, & have the right to, our own self-defense, so if any external threat gets past the military, it is up to us to defend ourselves -- with anything at our disposal, firearms being but one means of many.
The military isn't there to protect us from crime, or respond to any internal criminal activity. They are not a police force.
I'm serious, where at? I'm finding nullification failing more than it succeeds. I've seen sites attempt to support it bringing up the Whiskey Rebellion, but that ultimately brought down the wrath of the Federal Government. It seems Pennsylvania did succeed in nullifying the Fugitive Slave Act. But cases for nullification bringing change to Federal seem strained. I've seen Maryland attempting to nullify Prohibition, but that only brought Federal Law enforce in the from of the BOI (the predecessor to the FBI) in. It took another amendment to really nullify that one.
Oakdale seem to think this is a Progressive thing, arguing against Nullification, but it isn't. Note the Heritage Foundation arguing against it (http://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/2012/02/nullification-unlawful-and-unconstitutional), calling it "unlawful and unconstitutional."
They outline:
The Constitutional Path
Madison's Alternative: In the Virginia Resolutions, Madison asserted the power of states "to interpose for arresting the progress of evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them." This meant various state actions designed to arouse public opposition, challenge federal actions, and ultimately change or stop the objectionable action. Recent state Health Care Freedom Acts, not to mention subsequent legal challenges and pending elections, are good examples of state action challenging Obamacare.
The Constitutional Way to Change Laws: Rejecting nullification as an option does not mean that the states or the people have no recourse. The Constitution itself lays out the best path to change unconstitutional laws: object to the law and change opinions (and political leadership) in the political process, defund and slow its implementation, change or repeal the law, challenge it in the courts, and, if necessary, amend the Constitution.
Of course, Obamacare is not really nullified, the ACA itself offered an out to the states and provides a mechanism for Federal enforcement.
Of course they are. The only problem is when one group attempts to impose its beliefs to limit/restrict the rights of others or otherwise harms other people.
Yet still you'd insist everyone accept your libertarian views!
No. But I see some anti-gun control people going now a path that has potential to ultimately increase Federal power and even without that threat, has a high probability of failure. I remain cynical of the NRA and believe they must know the nullification usually fails, but are fine with that. They'll "need" more money for the next nullification attempt. How much of that lines their own pockets?
And it still seems best to me: Subsidiarity! And Liberty!
Again, because without subsidiarity tempered by the Constitution, the states themselves can run amok. The result is more limited Federal Government, but the total amount of government is less limited. The same-sex marriage fights taught me to be as wary of the states as I am of the Federal government. States' Rights itself has a dark history: slavery, apartheid, poll taxes designed to reduce minority participation in elections, constitutional amendments aimed at gay people but are so severe in their wording that they hurt heterosexuals as well. So again, I must use the word "pure." Your philosophy is more so than mine. Actually, I think you're more interested in philosophy, but I'm more interested in history - particularly in the the past outcomes of an idea that intuitively should increase liberty but historically has brought oppression. That's the flaw in Jefferson's reasoning in the quote you offered when he mentioned states being responsible for civil rights.
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.siliconrepublic.com%2Ffs%2Fimg%2Fjif%2520dog%2520tail.gif&hash=003fb92243d1556b497cb6f6a1eb1472" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.siliconrepublic.com/fs/img/jif%20dog%20tail.gif)
Oakdale seem to think this is a Progressive thing, arguing against Nullification, but it isn't.
Not what I've said, Sang! The "Progressive Thing" is -as I see it- a technocratic rejection of the actual Constitution... That "limited and distributed powers" thing seen as just a suggestion, and not actual law!
I've heard your complaints about Dry Counties many times. (I may even share your consternation...) But nowhere in the Constitution is there a "right" to purchase and consume alcoholic beverages; nor (except for that profoundly Progressive experiment called Prohibition) any removal of the presumption, that laws regulating such belong to lesser governments...
Likewise, same-sex marriage is -until and unless the Constitution is amended- the purview of the states. (DOMA had to do with federal finances, not individual rights.) The ADA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Americans_with_Disabilities_Act_of_1990) is a more instructive example, though...
It's that whole "penumbra" idea that I'd call Progressive: Not that -as the 9th Amendment requires- there aren't rights unspecified but enforceable. But that the federal government -as the 10th Amendment specifies- is not the agent of their enforcement.
Self-government is not and cannot be an established and immutable form, overseen by federal powers. It is, rather, a continuing experiment -- within the bounds set by legitimate federal power.
You may think I'm mincing words here... But the important point I'd like to make is that incorporation and federal overreach (NLRB, DOE, EPA...) have hobbled such experiments, and lessened their utility.
Likewise, same-sex marriage is -until and unless the Constitution is amended- the purview of the states.
The reason that's incorrect is there are so many rights and protections to marriage, even at the Federal level that it became a 14th amendment issue. Just as with some state and city gun laws, local authority found itself at odds with the constitution.
I understand the arguments (for both issues, "rights" and "protections"), Sang. I just happen to find them unconvincing -- and, if accepted, deleterious.
The reason that's incorrect is there are so many rights and protections to marriage, even at the Federal level [,] that it became a 14th amendment issue.
As with most "interpreters" of the 14th, you only read Section 1.; which is a convenient way of ignoring its circumstances and intent.
Would that politicians could speak "in language understanded of the people." Much mischief might have been avoided...
The 2nd Amendment language is less amenable to interpretation. The niceties of its opening clause have failed to convince many jurists that it was or should be considered a restriction...
The mischief was politicians speaking the "language of the people" to get flagrantly unconstitutional amendments in the first place so they could get reelected. The intent of the amendment is just as it says "....No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Do you not think they could have made it narrower if it was merely designed to prevent reoccurrence of slavery. It was broad on purpose. You confusing circumstances leading to its passage with intent. So now the judge after judge ruling in its favor any arguments against it on shaky legal ground (if not quickstand) total liberty is increased. Further, the precedent is set for the next time a state tries deny people of equal protection under the law. I will not have states denying this for sake of states rights.
Do you not think they could have made it narrower if it was merely designed to prevent reoccurrence of slavery. It was broad on purpose.
It's not as broad as you'd have it, I think. It wasn't designed merely to ban slavery but to grant citizenship to former slaves, and to codify that status fully. I know you feel strongly about "gay marriage" (and the ERA too?) but judicial fiat is a poor substitute for the amendment process...or even federal legislation.
I will not have states denying this for sake of states rights.
How long do you think your reign will last, King Sanguinemoon? :)
Guns save more lives than they take;
prevent more injuries than they inflict
Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives (https://www.gunowners.org/sk0802htm.htm)
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn2-b.examiner.com%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fstyles%2Fimage_content_width%2Fhash%2F25%2F0e%2F250e0a7d48b6b85950b8c728edc4446b.jpg&hash=602af4ab0f52b7e1be5925a05eb99465" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://cdn2-b.examiner.com/sites/default/files/styles/image_content_width/hash/25/0e/250e0a7d48b6b85950b8c728edc4446b.jpg)
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politifake.org%2Fimage%2Fpolitical%2F1303%2Fguns-can-empower-women-battaile-politics-1362786678.jpg&hash=81031699d52b1b4f9da281fd21d52f31" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.politifake.org/image/political/1303/guns-can-empower-women-battaile-politics-1362786678.jpg)
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Farchive.theamericanview.com%2Fdictator%2Fimages%2F787%2Fs_protects1.jpg&hash=ae056f91a1f7caad7412b6d4e137fd16" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://archive.theamericanview.com/dictator/images/787/s_protects1.jpg)
It's not as broad as you'd have it, I think. It wasn't designed merely to ban slavery but to grant citizenship to former slaves, and to codify that status fully. I know you feel strongly about "gay marriage" (and the ERA too?) but judicial fiat is a poor substitute for the amendment process...or even federal legislation
We have one Federal judge after another disagreeing with you. This includes conservative judges appointed by Republican presidents. Why is this? Because it had nothing to do with what one feels strongly about, but constitutional law. In that issue, it was equal protection under the law. Those that say its a state issue would seem to have no concept of how many protections marriage gives. In any case, allowing a state to not give equal protection under the law or any other protection ensured by the constitution on the basis of states rights is incomprehensible as well as dangerous.
In fact, part of that amendment should be of interest to gun owners. "... nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...." A state or the Federal government goes on a gun grab, it's not only in violation of the 2nd amendment, but also the 14th as they deprive people of their property.
We have one Federal judge after another disagreeing with you. This includes conservative judges appointed by Republican presidents. Why is this?
Because they're wrong... :)
BTW: The incorporation argument for "gun rights" is superfluous. The Supreme Court should make that clear. Plain wording is, well, plain. But of course plain language is anything but, for those who believe in "The Living Constitution."
Relatedly, if such were not a Progressive invention, the 15th and 19th Amendments would have been superfluous too. (Bear in mind that there was a gap of two years between the 14th Amendment and the 15th; and of fifty-two years between the 14th and the 16th Amendment! How would you explain that?)
The important thing is to keep up the minimum of 10,000 being gunned down annually and the jails overflowing. Great advert for the land of....... ( :()!
Quote from: FOX Nation http://tinyurl.com/oagalaf
With gun control failing nationally, The New York Times reports that Michael Bloomberg is heading back to private business at Bloomberg L.P.
This comes after he dumped $150,000 into the August 12th Milwaukee County Sheriff's race in an attempt to beat Sheriff David Clarke's "conservative pro-gun policies." Clarke won. Bloomberg lost.
It also comes after his gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety aired a video meant to justify firearm confiscation for women's safety, but which inadvertently made the case for women to own guns to protect themselves. Breitbart News reported that after a female panel reviewed the commercial on ABC's The View, three of the four panelists came away telling women to get a gun to protect themselves and their children.
Bloomberg's return to private business also comes after the most visible gun control group he supports, Moms Demand Action For Gun Sense in America, only managed to convince five businesses--Chipotle, Jack in the Box, Chili's, Sonic, and Target--to ask law-abiding citizens to come to their stores unarmed. Moms Demand was able to get a sixth business--Starbucks--to ask customers who openly carry firearms not to be so flamboyant about it.
On the other side of the coin, Breitbart News recently reported that 57,000 businesses were fighting this push by putting a "guns welcome" sign on their front doors......continued
Our Gun Rights Will Be Defended, Regardless of Any Cost;
We will never, ever give up our right to Keep & Bear Arms!
Each & every American life has meaning, & as Americans we all feel the loss of any of those lives.
That said, the unfortunate loss of a few lives does not outweigh our overall collective need to protect & defend all our Liberties & Freedoms. Our Right to Keep & Bear Arms provides us with the means to protect & defend all our Liberties & Freedoms, as well as our very own lives --- along with the lives of our friends, families, & neighbors.
Over the years Firearms have defended far, far more lives, than all the lives taken by criminals who have illegally used them in taking lives.
Smiley, the important thing for him is to come up with more reasons to bash America. The ones he has now are old and repetitive.
BTW: The incorporation argument for "gun rights" is superfluous.
When going to war, bring all your weapons. In close quarters battle, it may well be your knife that saves your life instead of your automatic and it doesn't weigh you down to bring it just in case.
Smiley, the important thing for him is to come up with more reasons excuses to bash America. The ones he has now are old and repetitive.
More reasons to bash America?
Old & Repetitive?
If how we are willing to legally defend & protect our Freedoms & Liberties is abhorrent to foreigners & some so called 'Americans' in name only, then let them bash on, but know full well that restraining from expressing pride in our/my Natural Right to Self-Defense acknowledged by our Founding Fathers in our Constitution will not be forthcoming. Nor, with God as my witness, will I be taking one step backward in fighting to maintain, & further promote that Right as long as I draw breath.
"......Shall Not Be Infringed." is not a suggestion!
I know some think this is the wrong place to argue such; but I disagree...
Judge Posner said, in a book review in 1997,
[Allow] the matter to simmer for a while before the heavy artillery of constitutional rightsmaking is trundled out, [...] Let a state legislature or activist (but elected, and hence democratically responsive) state court adopt homosexual marriage as a policy in one state, and let the rest of the country learn from the results of its experiment. [Eventually] the public acceptability of a decision recognizing the new right [could change].
I -sorta-of- agree with him.
But the "eventually" part has been relegated to the dustbin of history: All who won't acquiesce are to be shamed and shunned; and -if possible- put out of business...
Bake me a cake, or else!
The "heavy artillery of constitutional rightsmaking" is a travesty, a lawyerly warping of everyday meaning and eternal verities: License become licentiousness.
Whatever is not specifically forbidden is allowed is very different from whatever is not specifically allowed is forbidden. No?
Sang, how would you choose -- between those two alternatives? (It's a "trick" question, of course: Think "pure"... :) )
But perhaps you have an explanation of "constitutional rightsmaking" that isn't self-serving, political and absurd? Pray-tell. I'd like to hear it!
Nope. A bakery is not state.
ut perhaps you have an explanation of "constitutional rightsmaking" that isn't self-serving, political and absurd? Pray-tell. I'd like to hear it!
It doesn't exist. Once you understand the legal implications of marriage, you'll understand that denying marriage rights is indeed denying equal protection under the law. Civil marriage exists precisely to ensure those benefits. Marriage as a religious sacrament has no legal standing, hence gays were getting married before any of the rulings in places such as the Metropolitan Community Church and other pro-gay houses of worship. But those marriages meant nothing in the legal sense and offer no legal protection. Literature on this readily available, so I'll refrain from explaining why and offer you the chance to expand your mind beyond the rightwing blogosphere on your own.
The point is not to discuss equal marriage, but to illustrate the basic principal that state law cannot trump state law, An argument for states rights trumping Federal constitutional rights sets a dangerous precedent. If a Red State can successfully deny equal protection under the law to group of citizens on 10th amendment grounds, a Blue state can severely restrict 2nd amendment rights on the same basis. Why not allow a state to deny other protections enshrined by the Constitution while you're at it?
You argue about the "plain language" of the 2nd amendment.
The language of the 14th (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxiv) Is just as clear. Relevant parts quoted:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
No part of this is unplain. If one can read English, one can see no state may deny those principles.
This language is more plain than that of the second amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment)
Note the text in the yellow box:
The Second Amendment has most recently been interpreted to grant the right of gun ownership to individuals for purposes that include self-defense. At first it was thought to apply only to the Federal government, but through the mechanism of the Fourteenth Amendment, it has been applied to the states as well.
There you have it. Some conservatives seem to have turned against the 14th amendment because they're personally opposed to same-sex marriage.But the very amendment they're opposed to strengthens the right to bear arms against a state wishing to do the opposite. As explained to Howie, the constitution protects rights but doesn't create them. People have the natural right to protect themselves, not have the government arbitrarily seize their property, choose their partner, etc. Sometimes, such as in equal protection cases and second amendment cases, those rights need to be protected against the states.
Who is this interpretation attributed to?
Who deemed themselves as having that right to grant a right to this right?
Surely, not the Supreme Court.
The Second Amendment doesn't grant, give, or bestow anything, it is a simply acknowledgment of an inalienable right -- the Right to Self-Defense --- which far predates the Constitution itself. It acknowledges a device -- firearms -- which government must not stand between citizens rights to keep & bear -- be available to each & every person -- in order to defend themselves -- from foes both foreign &/or domestic.
It requires no other Amendment to empower it, & the right belongs to all citizens, not a select few depending on where they live, & all without intervention of any person or government,
The United States vs Miller (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/search/display.html?terms=United%20States%20V%20Miller&url=/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZS.html)
The basis of the decision was that right to bear arms could also be viewed as a collective right, not an individual right:
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158.
The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power --
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.
Note the emphasis on the militia aspect of the decision.
Later that decision was correctly overturned and now the 2nd amendment is understood to include the individual right to bear arms.
See The District of Columbia V. Heller:
(http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html)
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2-53.
(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22-28.
This is self-explanatory.
It requires no other Amendment to empower it, & the right belongs to all citizens, not a select few depending on where they live.
Perhaps Guncite (http://www.guncite.com/journals/senhal14.html) can help clarify this:
c. the fourteenth amendment
The need for a more solid foundation for the protection of freedmen as well as white citizens was recognized, and the result was a significant new proposal--the Fourteenth Amendment. A chief exponent of the amendment, Sen. Jacob M. Howard (R., Mich.), referred to "the personal rights guaranteed and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as freedom of speech and of the press; ... the right to keep and bear arms...."[35] Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment was necessary because presently these rights were not guaranteed against state legislation. "The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees."[36]
By itself, the Second Amendment protects against the Federal government. The 14th makes it clear that states can't infringe on the rights either. This ensures the rights aren't enjoyed "not a select few depending on where they live."
As you can see, the intent of the 14th amendment was never as narrow as Oakdale believes.
The main weapon against a gun-grab is the Second Amendment. But when the gun-grabbing vultures are circling above what they think is the carcass of secondment amendment rights, it can't hurt to get off a few shots with a smaller side arm.
When those "smaller side arms" sanction a pervasive "Right to Privacy" which includes abortion on-demand, same-sex marriage, and Gender Studies versions of Orlando (mostly having to do with bathrooms and other "public" facilities...) Well, then, we've gone off the rails.
It's better to live with same-sex couples getting married then to have the states being able to violate constitutional rights, citing the Federal Constitution technically only applies that level of government and tossing the 10th amendment at free speech, right to bear arms, freedom of religion, etc. Liberals, Conservatives and middle of the roaders are all going to be disappointed from time to time, but it's a small price to pay for the Constitution to remain intact and guard against tyranny.
First let me say, what my personal sexual prerogatives are makes no difference to what someone else does out of my sight, so as long as it doesn't effect me or my family have a gay-lala. Live & let live.
That said, based on your interpretations 'Coony, does someone who wants to marry his pig, or another who wants to marry it's Brahma Bull, or the woman that want's to marry a chimp......I know it's silly, but what would their rights be....do they have the same protections.....equal protection under the law, etc...etc???
Where's the line drawn, or does the 14th Amendment as you see it, eliminate all lines?
No. None of those animals are capable of giving consent and bestiality is considered cruelty to animals and thus otherwise illegal. The line is also drawn on abusive behavior, ie a man attempting to marry a 12 year old also doesn't get protection. The country nor the state has any business denying equal protection under the law to any class of of law-abiding people (the past basis was race/ethnicity as recently as the mid 20th century)
The point is not for this thread to be hijacked into a discussion about gay marriage, but to bring to light the mechanism by which the states are unable take away rights guaranteed the constitution and nullifies a tenth amendment argument for being able to do so. A tenth amendment argument in favor of Missouri able to nullify Federal gun laws is a dangerous thing. It also means California can go on an all out gun-grab by citing the same amendment and making the argument that Federal Constitution /technically/ only applies to the Federal government. This is why a Second Amendment argument might not be legally sufficient (note the court cases that I pointed out) and the 14 amendment invoked, especially to a pro-gun control judge.
The point is [...] to bring to light the mechanism by which the states are unable take away rights guaranteed the constitution and nullify a tenth amendment argument for being able to do so. A tenth amendment argument in favor of Missouri able to nullify Federal gun laws is a dangerous thing. It also means California can go on an all out gun-grab by citing the same amendment and making the argument that Federal Constitution /technically/ only applies to the Federal government. This is why a Second Amendment argument might not be legally sufficient (note the court cases that I pointed out) and the 14 amendment invoked, especially to a pro-gun control judge.
Within five years of its passage, the 14th Amendment's mischief commenced: First came the Slaughterhouse cases in New Orleans; and then, inevitably, the anti-Reconstructionist cause -- argued on the basis of privileges and immunities. (And conveniently eliding the "without due process of law" phrase...)
The 2nd Amendment refers specifically to -and codifies- the right to "keep and bear" arms. It's an error of considerable import, to attempt to bolster it by including it in the morass of 14th Amendment shenanigans.
Indeed, much of the Constitution applies only to the federal government... Whence the phrase "Congress shall make no law," otherwise? :)
Perhaps you like Holmes' "skin of a living thought" formulation? Note how often that skin has been flayed, to get to otherwise absurd results...
In fact, the slaughter house decision was based on a strict constructionist view by Justice Samuel Freeman Miller :p What did you do, try to discredit an entire amendment by googling up a case in which the plaintives lost? The butchers argued that the new Louisiana law deprived them of the right to practice their trade and they were found to incorrect and this was found to be outside the scope of the 14th amendment. No shenanigans here, just an unsuccessful lawsuit. It's puzzling why you would even bring this up.
The quote from Oliver Wendel Holmes is:
"A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanged, it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used"
While I applaud your use of language here, I find the meaning of your words in defiance of common sense. If you sit down to read a play by Shakespeare or watch a play or movie based on it, do you really think you'll understand it as the Elizabethans did? When you read the Bible, do you really think you're understanding will match that of the ancient Hebrews and early Christians? Likewise, those that consider themselves strict constructionists of the Constitution are often merely second-guessing the intent of the framers. Sometimes they're correct, other times wrong and disastrously so. I fail to understand why it's such a stretch for you to understand that the exact meaning of any work (not just the written word) is informed by a person's time and place. But we've only begun to scratch the surface. Often, authors hear a meaning to their words they haven't considered, and found the reader's interpretation to be correct despite it being a point of view he hadn't consciously considered when writing the book.
The three cases decided by the Supreme Court called the Slaughterhouse Cases, on a 5-4 split, did indeed take a rational interpretation of the 14th... But, as I'm sure you know, Justice Field's dissent was eventually "vindicated" -- that is, later Courts agreed with him on the matter of substantive due process (a phrase not used until much later!). If you're to argue Constitutional Law, Sang, you'll need to curb your "winning side" style of reading history, and especially, legal briefs.
In today's parlance, the same result might have been arrived at via rational basis analysis. But it surely matters what rationale is used to support the argument? I suspect you don't agree: that the result is all that matters... Am I wrong?
A word about language that might (but probably won't) help you: Legislation and legal briefs and court decisions rarely depend upon the "poetic" use of language (...some overly emotional jurists "prove" this rule :) ) and are written not with the intent of the literary hack or genius -to amuse, inspire or mystify- but to plainly give instructions, and the reasons for them. Careful usage is by no means as slippery as you assume.
As ever, your bent is to entice an irrational conclusion from the limited evidence you select; as often, your logic leads to its own refutation by reductio...
While I applaud your use of language here, I find the meaning of your words in defiance of common sense.
By your warped interpretation of "meaning," of course you do! But your "difficulties" of understanding, e.g., the Bible or Shakespeare, are the result of your ignorance; one would hope that such is remediable... To think that what was meant by previous generations of men (...even five years prior!) can't be known; and those of us who've lived longer or read more widely or more closely must acquiesce in the opinions of the "current" generation! Else we're retrograde and to be admonished and disempowered, for the "good" of society... That's true and consistent Progressivism!
The 2nd Amendment's initial clause does require explication, for modern readers... That's the job of historians and legal scholars.
Would you give it to ideologues or demagogues? (Do you know the difference?) :)
No matter: Same-sex marriage, and perhaps gun regulation and registration, is popular among a certain class of people... What more is needed?
The case is settled! :(
BTW: You didn't mean to praise my "use of language." Rather, you meant my quoting a trope of one of your unexamined heroes...pleased you! Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. was a petulant pedant who posed as a legal scholar:
The debate (still on-going) between "judge-made" law (Common Law) and statutory application and interpretation -among which is Constitutional Law- continues... You don't (I think) care: You only want this or that outcome.
Such inclinations have often led to insurrection... Would you go there?
Condignly given precedent has an odd habit of realigning modern innovations and ancient dicta... The "remedy" for this -as Miller opined- is the democratic process. (Not to be confused with Howie's Soapbox Socialism... :) ) Would you replace most or all of the Constitution with the 14th Amendment?
Being so widely read, you would know the precise meaning of words change over time. Why is this such a hard concept? Judges with far more legal than you or I have different determinations of the second amendment, each believing they were true to the intent of the founders. This crap about "progressive" is just that. You wind up with conservative judges making "liberal" decisions such as on same-sex marriage and liberal judges making "conservative" decisions, such as on gun control. You act as if there's only one reasonable way to understand and interpret a work, including the constitution. Both common sense and history say otherwise. Why are there so many different denominations of Christianity? One major factor is different understanding of the Bible, although each denomination has scholars that can strongly defend the understanding of the Bible their faith goes by and believe they're following the authors' intent.
Case point:
BTW: You didn't mean to praise my "use of language."
No. I liked your phrasing about the skin being flayed when I said "While I applaud your use of language here, I..." You seemingly failed to understand that I merely provided the entire quote from Holmes, to create a context for people unfamiliar with it.
The debate (still on-going) between "judge-made" law (Common Law) and statutory application and interpretation -among which is Constitutional Law- continues...
Despite the current conservative blather, judges don't make law. It's their job to determine the constitutionality of them. When a judge throws a gun control out on constitutional grounds, is he making law? Of course not. As I said, the 14th amendment is not popular with some conservatives because of the equal marriage issue, but it has a long and glorious history including allowing former slaves to own guns (which some states attempted to prevent) and other second amendment issues, ending the apartheid against African Americans, etc. To rail against it because you disagree with some court decisions based on it, you're doing worse than tilting at windmills - you're turning your lance against an ally.
Being so widely read, you would know the precise meaning of words change over time. Why is this such a hard concept?
Indeed, I know that usage is fluid, to an extent; that some words' meanings become obsolete, that some acquire a meaning opposite of what they originally meant (e.g., "homely"). But you make too much of a commonplace insight:
Can you cite a few words from the Constitution whose meaning has actually changed significantly?
That people disagree about the meaning of many political formulations is nothing new... Politics is contentious! It's seldom the case that a different understanding of the meaning of words is responsible...
Despite the current conservative blather, judges don't make law.
Again: Your constant politicization of all things betrays your analysis. Most of the U.S. has "merged" its courts of equity with its courts of law... Not all, of course! "Judge-made" law is something you're quite familiar with -if you think about it: It's called precedent!
Yes. If you paid attention, I actually already showed some.
...I wasn't paying attention. Humor me! Give me a few examples.
If all you mean is this:
(from Miller)
Well, you can forget it!
Rawle made the point plainly in 1825:
[...] the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
No clause could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.
(A View of the Constitution... (http://www.portagepub.com/dl/causouth/rawle.pdf?); p. 70)
And even Wiki notes that much earlier:
Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right [in English common-law], supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.
What you'd call the changing meaning of the term "militia" reflects a continuous bone of contention; that neither side has yet gained absolute victory for its view has little (I'd say, nothing) to do with the meaning of the word!
Yet, a hundred years latter it was interpreted differently. I'm still don't see what so wrong with using the part about the state not being able deprive a person of his property without due process against a gun grab. Because you read so many right-wing blogs that you somehow think that equal protection under the law and the state not being able to just take your property are somehow bad things? I'm sure you can dredge up some more dubious decision concerning that amendment, but same can be said about other amendments. In the Cuffley v. Mickes case the Supreme Court found in favor the Ku Klux Klan's free speech. Does that mean the First Amendment and is a "morass " and therefore should not be used as a legal argument? I can dig up dozens of cases, but the KKK is such a hideous organization that I think it will suffice
When the words are "Congress shall make no law" you read "Congress probably shouldn't...," it seems. That comes from your authoritarian, majoritarian and contrarian nature! :)
Also, your short attention span impedes your understanding: Your example of a "gun grab" admirably recognizes the phrase without due process; but you immediately forget or discount it... Why?
For some reason (...:) ) I'm not as outraged by Cuffley v. Mickes as you! (Hint: The 1st Amendment means what it says, and I accept that.) Hideous or not, the KKK still has the same freedom of speech as any other; your opprobrium does not translate to an exception to a clear constitutional right!
And the fact that I share your low opinion and odium permits me only to commiserate... And speak out, myself, against what they say and do -- even when permitted by law.
(Hint: The 1st Amendment means what it says, and I accept that.) Hideous or not, the KKK still has the same freedom of speech as any other; your opprobrium does not translate to an exception to a clear constitutional right!
In fact, I agree. But the point is that you can dig court cases to use against any amendment. That one can controversial based on who the plaintives were. Anyway, there doesn't seem to be anything especially bad about 14th amendment. Unfortunately the behavior of some states in deliberately attempting to disenfranchise the voting rights and equal opportunity in education serves as proof that it's need.
I did not forget due process part, in fact I brought it up in the post. My attention span is fine and lasts years (in fact, I had to remind you, Smiley and Howie of posts you made sometimes years ago. However, working on yours might be a great opportunity for self-improvement. This means that an all out gun grab is against the the 2nd, 5th, and 14th amendment. The 14th expands on the 5th by making it clear that an individual state can't deprive a person of his property without due process. Again, what's so odious about that?
Right now the pendulum is swinging in favor of gun rights, but it can reverse direction. Precedent is is not really law in the sense that a judge can go against it and provide a strong argument for doing so. Therefore, in theory the precedent of finding favor of the gun owners can be stop in its tracks with a single well-written and constitutionally correct decision. Please don't argue that a ruling against the secondment amendment can't be constitutionally correct, because past cases show otherwise according to the understanding of the constitution in generations past. That being the case, you'd want it strengthened not only on a second amendment basis but 14th amendment one in to guard against a judge deciding that the former amendment only applies to the Federal government (and a strong case can be made about that being technically correct.)
I did not forget due process part, in fact I brought it up in the post.
And then promptly ignored it!
I had to remind you, Smiley and Howie of posts you made sometimes years ago.
But -par for the course- you don't know where; and you usually get the content wrong... :)
Anyway, there doesn't seem to be anything especially bad about 14th amendment.
As an authoritative and controlling rationale for obviating other portions of the Constitution, it is unparalleled! And the form of argument it encourages leads away from "the rule of law" and towards "the rule of men"...
Your view of precedent is odd; indeed, it could be described as incoherent.
Where, Sang, in the Constitution is the "right" to abortion on demand? The "right" to same-sex "marriage"? The "anchor baby" interpretation of citizenship and naturalization?
Note that the 14th Amendment's incorporation theory provides such a muddle that racial preferences have been successfully installed and banned on its basis!
And you see nothing "bad" about that?
You're familiar with the truism, that a false premise implies everything? :)
It's all my fault for assuming that you would remember the amendment and associate due process with it
Hello, Mcfly? The paragraph in question basically takes the 5th amendment and clarifies that it applies to the states.
Fifth amendment:
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation
Note the last parts of it. Got it? Didn't think so, but let's move on anyway.
Section 1 of the 14th amendment:
It does had equal protection under the law, but the part we're talking about is being deprived of property. All the amendment does in that case, despite what the idiotic right-wing blogs tell you, is makes it clear that the state can't deprive you of property without due process of law.
No. It's called learning how precedent actually works. If a judge simply throws precedent out, yes is decision and possibly his position is in jeopardy. But if he can explain himself as described above, he can break precedent. Just because a judge rules one way now, thus establishing a precedent, it doesn't mean judges have to rule the same way a couple generations from now when the understanding of the law or the amendment shifted somewhat.
Will you focus, please? (although the marriage has already been answered, the numerous protections under the law offered by the institution :p )
A little more on precedent. When a precedent is broken, the court will often distinguish between the current case and the precedent, thus limiting the scope of the precedent. In other, simpler words, what is about this particular case that makes it different from the one that set the precedent? Asking the court to decide against precedent is certainly an uphill battle, but climbing a cliff is difficult but not impossible.
It also depends where the court sits in legal system's hierarchy. Ie, a higher court has some ability to overturn the precedent set in the lower court. Further, the Supreme Court broke its own precedent in the past. It does go without saying that lower courts can't go against the SCOTUS precedent, unless again that court is able to distinguish between its case and the one that set the precedent sufficiently. So you might ask what is sufficiently. That question is so difficult that they lower court won't risk it.
Only Judge Richard Posner or Judge Reinhardt (of the 9th Circuit) would agree with you... :) (Some few others.) Yours is a political fight; your refusal to admit it is is one of a many reasons we, on the right, don't take you seriously... You reject democratic institutions, and democracy in general.
That's a step too far!
(Your obvious recourse is a Howie-esque diatribe... I'll deal with that when you post it. Until then, make your case; present the best arguments you can; but don't assume I agree with you already, and try to convince me that what you intend and propose is nothing more than what I've already accepted! If that is so, spell it out.)
(But I like your "that question is so difficult that they lower court won't risk it" formulation!)
Has it occurred to you, that the political processes are the proper means and ways of dealing with such contentious issues?
Of course not! Others can hold views contrary to yours, as long as they keep quiet; they certainly can't enact "laws" that offend you... :( And you (and you cohorts), of course, can enact laws that offend them...!
Note: This section of this post had to be edited due to "personal attack" issues. Calling each other "idiot" or "retarded"- won't do. Keep it civil. mjmsprt40, moderator.
Post reported.
If I believed you had a sense of humor, I'd applaud your ironic reply (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=99.msg27426#msg27426)... But I own a serious doubt.
Use a smiley, if you mean to be -- Oh, wait! You reported my post? :)
Too funny for words!
I read multiple non-partisan legal papers to come up with that. It's just how the law works. But, seriously how do come with this stuff about me? I never called for anyone to be silenced.
I mentioned the political processes. But if the constitutionality of gun-control law is in question, it is taken to court, If congress passes a law of dubious constitutionality, lobbying the same congress won't help. That's what the Federal courts are for. It's part of the checks and balances. Further, it's part of a republican form of government. You know what? Never mind. You'll just come back with another personal attack after not researching the issue.
This has gotten rather far from gun-control, but as long as we're here anyway:
One big issue in every Presidential election is the make-up of the Supreme Court. The President appoints people to fill vacancies to the court, the Congress either accepts or rejects these appointees, and the newly-minted Justices sit on the Court until they either retire or die in office-- whichever comes first. In a Court that's nearly split between Conservative and Liberal Justices, the election of a Democrat or a Republican President makes a big difference. A President could serve two terms in office, and in eight years can make appointments that could swing the Court heavily one way or the other for nearly a lifetime to come.
The President appoints judges to lower Federal courts too, so the amount of mischief a President can do is considerable, considering that future Supreme Court Justices come from the lower Federal courts. Congress can blunt the mischief of course, since Presidential appointees have to pass muster before Congress before they become official "in office", so that keeps the checks and balances intact.
Which side gets to make laws? Who did we put into power? If more Liberals get voted in, you'll have Liberal-leaning laws and courts to back those laws. If we vote in more Conservatives, eventually the Nation will become more Conservative in its laws and its courts. At least that's the lie they told me.
How this gets into the Gun-Control debate--- it sorta depends. If we elect gun-grabbers into office, you can expect tougher laws on gun-ownership and eventually a court system that would back those laws. If we elect a bunch of guys from the radical wing of the NRA, you can eventually have a situation where every baby is given an AR15 the moment he/she comes into the world. By law. Which means the doctor may want to think about it before giving that baby the first slap on the butt, since that baby is armed. So-- who we elect is sort of important, eh?
Congress can blunt the mischief of course,
Unless the courts have to blunt the mischief of congress. When it reaches the courts, there might already be a Persuasive precedent (non mandatory) or a binding one.
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/exitstageleft.gif) For your pleasure, I have created a New Thread entitled:
Constitutional Law, & the Courts - Original Intent v. Legislating from the Bench (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/index.php?topic=501.msg27451#msg27451)
With that thread it is hoped that the very heartfelt subjects & contentions shown here, & in other threads, would have a home of its own, where your spirited, & sometime bare-knuckle debates, can flourish free from the intent & restraints of other topics.
Please take this most recent Constitutional debate there, simply because it has strayed too far from the original intent of this thread & topic.
Honoring this simple request would be deeply appreciated.....& by all means feel free to link back to remarks held here in this thread for your future consideration(s).
Thanks.... (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/adoreen7.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/cheerskj4.gif)
I will -of course- comply with your wishes. But you're mistaken, in the sense that the original topic was "disappeared" very early on: The natural "right" to keep and bear arms is justified, and defended, by those who keep -and are willing to bear- arms!
It is an ancient right, still prized -- even in some "civilized" nations. That there are few, nowadays, who'd argue such does not mitigate the power of such arguments...
(I've argued this for such a long time! I must be incapable of making a rational argument -- considering how few of "our denizens" have engaged with or understood my formulations, historical and logical. But, even if I'm a dolt and a dullard, my analyses and prescriptions might be worth consideration...)
Put "telegraphically": As Charlton ("what the hell kind of name is that"?) Heston said, "You can take my gun, when you pry it from my cold dead fingers!"
What else does "freedom" mean, beyond Don't Tread On Me? :)
Did you mean something different, when starting this thread?
Not to put too fine a point on it: Absent a religious viewpoint, what is left -as justification- beyond "Might makes right"...?
But, it seems, no one ever wants to discuss that... They won't admit it; they use every ploy and pretense to avoid it. And -in a time-honored tradition- all the fallacious means of avoiding the simple question for which they have no answer:
Why is the individual not entitled to protect himself? His family? His community?
I think, Smiley, that you know -- and don't accept it! I'd agree with you, if you'd come right out and say it. (I might have missed it, if you already did: Give me the link! You're "prolific," and I'm old and tired... :) )
As Howie says, "Be ye men!" (Our women are, too, men -- in his sense! We are "exceptional"...although we seem to be trying very hard to "devolve"...) But there is a proclivity among the "feminine" persuasion to seek safety first; to acquiesce to force, to admit incapacity rather than contend.
Perhaps, that's how the world is trending.
Some few of us will resist... :)
The natural "right" to keep and bear arms is justified, and defended, by those who keep -and are willing to bear- arms!
Course not.
Since our American friends seems to be unaware of any reality besides their... well, something, let me show how an European country solved the right to keep arms and I very much agree.
In fact, instead keeping arms to be considered a "right", it was considered a duty. Switzerland.
Swiss army was a mandatory thing for any man and consisted of two weeks per year of military train and exercises during all life until fifty or so years old. Between those periods, people were responsible for keeping their guns at home and zeal for maintaining it at a perfect operational condition.
You're basically discussing nothing.
And Swiss don't do it anymore.
I can see how this might relate. Your example is more apples and oranges tho.
In a document that starts "We The People" the people do have an obligation. That doesn't mean you have to take up arms in defense, but it can mean not getting in the way of those who would.
Pulling up an "Oldie" here.
I find evidence that as long as there are farms and maybe especially old tractors, guns and ammo may be here awhile.
I found a video of a tractor that not only uses a shotgun shell to get started, it wants a pre-start smoke too! So, two bad habits for the price of one--- what's not to like.
Now, the cigarette-like thing is actually smoldering paper which seems to serve the purpose of the modern-day glow-plug in the diesel engine. The shotgun shell provides the initial burst of power, the #1 cylinder having first been brought to TDC.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01Sr8S9uQMc
Not surprising in a country that is juvenile gun mad!
The tractor was made in the U.K.
The clip is from an antipodean country.
Countries aren gun mad; some people are gun mad. I ain't one of them.
I'm thinking WW2 era. Using a shotgun shell for starting engines seems to have been frequent back then-- some aircraft engines were started that way, if I recall my old movies right. Another way to start an engine involved getting a heavy flywheel up to speed by hand, then engaging a clutch which transferred the flywheel's energy to the engine for starting. Still another way involved winding what amounted to a giant clock-spring, which when released would start the engine.
For the shotgun shell method to work, you would first have to prime the engine by turning it over by hand, then bring the #1 cylinder to firing position. Once this was done, firing the shotgun shell would set off the fuel charge, which would be enough to set the engine to running.
I don't know if the cartridge is a shotgun shell or not. I think it is a "shotgun-type" shell. It certainly wouldn't have any shot in it.
I don't remember that I ever saw a shotgun shell complete with powder but without shot. The one in the clip looked like a twelve gauge shell in diameter but perhaps a bit longer. I think the cartridges used to start aero engines were bigger.
If the shell I saw used to start a Wildcat engine was any indication, the shotgun that would have handled it could have brought down an elephant. Yeah, aero-engine shells were HUGE by comparison with anything used in a standard shotgun. About the one in the video above-- elsewhere I've seen it noted that it is a twelve-gauge shell, though obviously special-purpose for this job.
Well I wish there were more damn sensible and thinking people over there like jimbro. He'd make a great President and I would then consider a third visit...... :beer:
ps That's Irn Bru
President jimbro? We'd be better off with an ISIS leader.
We've had an ISIS friendly HNIC for 6 years, so
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FuPY33AW.jpg&hash=c96904d7f437cb0bfe7547d6a242d644" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/uPY33AW.jpg)
couldn't be worse!! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/chuckle002.gif)
:devil: Couldn't agree more! :o
You're slipping boy. Get out that chair for some fresh air as the country needs a different way than the Democrats or Republicans. When one assesses what Obama has done he isn't any better than the one before him. Once in power and spread some democracy i might do a third visit. 8)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5ELyG9V1SY
Texas Rep Introduces Legislation Barring Federal Gun Control
'Past, Present or Future'
Quote from: BREIBART http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/12/03/Texas-Rep-Introduces-Legislation-Barring-Federal-Gun-Control-Past-Present-or-Future
On December 1, Texas state representative Matthew Krause (R-Ft. Worth) introduced legislation barring the in-state enforcement of nearly any federal gun control measure "past, present or future."
The legislation, HB422, "requires the state to refuse to enforce" federal gun control measures which infringe on the exercise of the Second Amendment.
Subsection (b) of the bill specifies how the agencies and law enforcement officers of the state or any local government entity in Texas would be prohibited from being used for that purpose:
Any agency of this state or political subdivision of this state, and a law enforcement officer or other person employed by an agency of this state or a political subdivision of this state, may not contract with or in any other manner provide assistance to a federal agency or official with respect to the enforcement of a federal statute, order, rule, or regulation purporting to regulate a firearm, a firearm accessory, or firearm ammunition if the statute, order, rule, or regulation imposes a prohibition, restriction, or other regulation, such as a capacity or size limitation or a registration requirement, that does not exist under the laws of this state.
...........CONTINUED (http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-Texas/2014/12/03/Texas-Rep-Introduces-Legislation-Barring-Federal-Gun-Control-Past-Present-or-Future)
27 States are poised to introduce similar legislation.
Growing Public Support for Gun Rights
More Say Guns Do More to Protect Than Put People at Risk
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2FaHeoxam.jpg&hash=66f7681a65cb2bb38bc6079fae18feb5" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://imgur.com/aHeoxam.jpg)
Quote from: PEW RESEARCH CENTER http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/10/growing-public-support-for-gun-rights/
For the first time in more than two decades of Pew Research Center surveys, there is more support for gun rights than gun control. Currently, 52% say it is more important to protect the right of Americans to own guns, while 46% say it is more important to control gun ownership.
Support for gun rights has edged up from earlier this year, and marks a substantial shift in attitudes since shortly after the Newtown school shootings, which occurred two years ago this Sunday.
The balance of opinion favored gun control in the immediate aftermath of the Newtown tragedy in December 2012, and again a month later. Since January 2013, support for gun rights has increased seven percentage points - from 45% to 52% -- while the share prioritizing gun control has fallen five points (from 51% to 46%).
Increasing Number Say Gun Ownership Protects People From Crime. The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center, conducted Dec. 3-7 among 1,507 adults, also finds a shift in attitudes about whether gun ownership in this country does more to protect people or put people's safety at risk. Nearly six-in-ten Americans (57%) say gun ownership does more to protect people from becoming victims of crime, while 38% say it does more to endanger personal safety. .......... CONTINUED (http://www.people-press.org/2014/12/10/growing-public-support-for-gun-rights/)
The People are falling in behind Gun Rights Nationally.
(Not you RJ.....We already know your Anti-Anything American Codswallop -- you know the 10,000,000 little kids killed by guns each year, & your billions upon billions of homeless with no moral right to free healthcare whinge (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/yawning003.gif) )
Now if ever anyone simple who isn''t aware there are sensible and decent Americans that latest spout from the terrorist supporter Smiley would misjudge everyone over there. You have no welfare state that EVERY political party supports - national health service EVERY party supports. When it comes to homeless a million Americans a year lose their homes and millions cannot afford any health insurance and 10,000 shoot each other to death annually. What a way to run a country. It looks like a system that encourages limited grey cells and never grown up from the days of cowboy films. At least here you can get a head shrinker at no charge and maybe that is why there are so many head bangers in the USA? You epitomise everything that is wrong in the system and the view you give the world is a horrendous one. Strident hypocrisy, dangerous and flawed. And remember forum people he supports terrorists who kill innocents and not much of an advert for anything except mental hospital aims.
Do try and keep up the near 10,000 shooting to kills annually as you wouldn't want to lose your position in the world. Maybe try Disneyland for a change from gun slinging morons. How sensible ex-colonists deal with so many loose mental cannons I do not know but unless you live in a nice leafy suburb too dangerous a country to wander about in!
Geeez, I'm glad RJ got his little girlie-man hissy fit out his faltering, aging system!!! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/biglaugh023.gif)
RJ, if you should ever get a Country (as opposed to being just an English colony), feel free to enjoy your Freedoms as much as we -- That is,
if they let ya! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/chuckle002.gif)
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/usa-flag-89.gif)
My Country 'tis of Thee, Sweet Land of Liberty!
Quote from: WASHINGTON POST http://bit.ly/1DkXvhM
.......... As recently as December 2012, in the immediate aftermath of the Newtown, Conn., shooting, 51 percent of people surveyed by Pew said it was more important to control gun ownership than protect the rights of gun owners.
That consensus has since disappeared, confirming the fears of many gun-control advocates that outrage after Newtown wouldn't last long.
What's most striking in Pew's new data is that views have shifted more in favor of gun rights since then among nearly every demographic group, including women, blacks, city-dwellers, parents, college graduates, millennials and independents. ............... CONTINUED (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/12/10/gun-control-advocates-are-seriously-losing-public-opinion/)
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2FZuMb9Ii.jpg&hash=4078c5bb6ee915518cea5c513d7e1165" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://imgur.com/ZuMb9Ii.jpg)
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2FKdbl8Jc.jpg&hash=cfedb3b3dd805fada79c9c769a5a842e" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://imgur.com/Kdbl8Jc.jpg)
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2FoRttzHv.jpg&hash=b831cfbb4a3b29a2827756c36201a83b" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://imgur.com/oRttzHv.jpg)
Yeah and children booked for killing too. George Washington has a lot to answer for nut there again he didn't expect a large part of the population to have child minds and never grow up.
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/laughing024.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/big%20laugh%20007.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/biglaughlg9.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/lol00100.gif)
Quote from: CONSERVATIVE TRIBUNE http://conservativetribune.com/state-nullify-obama-gun-control/#more-26400
South Carolina may become the 10th state to nullify federal gun control laws.
State Sen. Lee Bright filed two bills last week to rein in the Obama administration's attempts to infringe on the Second Amendment rights of South Carolinians.
The South Carolina Firearms Liberty Act and the Second Amendment Preservation Act would reject federal gun control regulations and prevent any future federal laws from restricting guns made in the state.
At least nine other states have passed similar nullification laws, the first being Montana, whose 2009 Firearms Freedom Act is largely seen as unenforceable.
States cannot pick and choose which federal laws apply to them, the Supreme Court decided in 1958.
However, de facto nullification can still work because the same court said that states and communities cannot be required to enforce federal regulations.
"Every state helps the feds enforce their gun control in major ways," Shall Not Campaign spokesman Scott Landreth said in a statement.
The Shall Not Campaign is a pro-gun group that supports legislation like Bright's, according to guns.com.
"The federal government simply cannot enforce gun control in South Carolina without the help of South Carolina," Landreth added ..............
With as many state legislatures and governor's mansions in Republican control after the 2014 midterm elections, we'd like to think that even more states will soon be considering such measures........... .......CONTINUED (http://conservativetribune.com/state-nullify-obama-gun-control/#more-26400)
The same goes for every State in the Union.
The Federal Anti-Gun Laws can't be enforced without the consent of State Law Enforcement, who can not be legally impelled to enforce any Federal Regulation.
Did anyone see Barbarella? It's a very odd but amusing movie. I don't recall the gun in this video from the movie at all; perhaps it was only featured in promotional material?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWiqr-lwYA0
If they ever make a well, remake of "Killing Fields" the ex-colonies would be a superbly ideal place to do it, Would decrease the cost and no doubt the inbuilt attitude of a right to shoot all over the place can be traced back of course to that bit of paper in the 18th century. If you hear a low rumbling noise SmileyFace it is Washington revolving in his grave. :whistle:
And this is the country that wants others to follow it's lead in the world and it's "values"/ Could have saved a load of cash not bothering with schools and education! :faint:
If they ever make a well, remake of "Killing Fields" the ex-colonies would be a superbly ideal place to do it, Would decrease the cost and no doubt the inbuilt attitude of a right to shoot all over the place can be traced back of course to that bit of paper in the 18th century.
If you hear a low rumbling noise SmileyFace it is Washington revolving in his grave. :
You seem to enjoy making up your own twisted history lessons as you go along, to fit your insatiable hatred of all things American.
Taklin' out yer ass about someone ya know nothing about again RJ?
Washington was a very strong believer in the Second Amendment, & a free man's individual right to keep & bear firearms.
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." ~George Washington
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FSLhcbTV.png&hash=124c964b3e3102e78d85a42776bff441" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/SLhcbTV.png)
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FNYrPg8V.png&hash=f68cf4d544beeee9715c1d6e9618b4ee" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/NYrPg8V.png)
Now, lets go out there & kill the British! ~ G. Washington
"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians." - George Mason, co-author of the 2nd Amendment.
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves." - Richard Henry Lee.
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams.
"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence." - George Washington
"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" - Patrick Henry.
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton.
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery." - Thomas Jefferson.
"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." - George Mason.
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe." - Noah Webster.
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms." - James Madison.
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin.
"A free people ought to be armed." - George Washington.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson.
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington.
We felt it appropriate to close this list with a quote from the father of our country - George Washington.
No man or woman in the history of America has been given more responsibility and trust, gambling the existence of our newborn nation in the hands of one righteous man. Washington could have been the King of America. He could have been the nation's first dictator. He could have enslaved the whole continent. But he proved time and again that protecting the freedom of the people was his only concern.
Are you sure you haven't been drinking something stronger than Irn Bru there, Howie? Perhaps batches are laced with some strange new drug? In fact, all states show a long term decline in murder. (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord) The moral is that you know nothing about America nor her people, so you can kiss our freedom loving ass.
In fact, all states show a long term decline in murder. (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/murder-rates-nationally-and-state#MRord) ......you know nothing about America nor her people, so you can kiss our freedom loving ass.
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FIAMjnkA.png&hash=75d0d7eea719091c2572795fb09fe4a5" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/IAMjnkA.png)
RJ's credibility is self-destructing word by word as he continues to spew his anti-American claptrap ad nauseam.
Title: Re: Gun Control - Should Ordinary Citizens Own, Carry, & Use Firearms?
Oh, boy. Let me check my Bible, it's gotta be in there somewhere. Sanguinemoon and Smileyfaze on the same page-- let me see,, end of the world--- nope, not there, I'm kinda surprised.
Not surprising though that RJ once again is pulling stuff out of his *** to describe his hatred for the United States, with or without sound facts to back it up. You DO know that you have to get your source-material about the US from places other than RT, don't you?
OK--- It IS established-- though we still argue about it-- that the Constitution, in the Second Amendment, does guarantee to the ordinary citizen-- that's you and me-- the right to bear arms, to keep ammunition for those arms, and to practice the use of those arms. Funny thing is, it was our rebellion from the Crown that helped enshrine those very ideas. If British Regulars hadn't marched on Concord and Lexington for the purpose of taking Colonial stockpiles of guns and ammunition, the whole thing might have had a different outcome than it did. As it is, that march showed the Colonials just how important such an amendment truly is to our Constitution and our way of life.
Get rid of the guns and our problems will be solved, right?
Maybe not.
I was just looking at a You-Tube video-- I decided not to post it, look it up-- about how to make a slingshot crossbow. A powerful little beastie, while you may not be able to push multiple bolts with the thing you would be able to shoot at least as fast as you can reload-- and with practice this can be alarmingly fast. It's a killing machine if you take the notion, and has a feature-- silence-- that gun-silencer makers try mightily to copy. Further--- anybody can make it at home. Out of common materials. You probably have most of the materials laying around in a junk-bin right now.
Oh-- you just used it in a crime and now police are looking for it? Much of it is made of wood, just throw it in a fire and be done.
It's a good thing I'm not a criminal. Imagine......
Crossbows are lethal. Never underestimate them. In Louisiana, not the liberalist of states, if I remember right you could only hunt with crossbow a couple weeks a year. You wouldn't be able to fend off a mugger with one, but in the event of human invasion and your family in danger, a bolt can do as much damage (if not more) than a bullet. I can feel some objections to that so I'll answer before hand. In the Police Psychology thread I mentioned that our guest speaker told everyone that a bullet to the chest is much more likely to be lethal than one to the abdomen. But I'd wager that a bolt there would be lethal.
Crossbows are treated much the same as guns under Dutch weapon regulations.
If British Regulars hadn't marched on Concord and Lexington for the purpose of taking Colonial stockpiles of guns and ammunition, the whole thing might have had a different outcome than it did. As it is, that march showed the Colonials just how important such an amendment truly is to our Constitution and our way of life.
How right you are Mike.
Founding Father, & co-author of the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, George Mason, said it simply:
"To disarm the people is the most effectual way to enslave them." ~ George Mason
If the British were successful in capturing Colonial arms (Concord & Lexington were but two depots of many they had on their list), the outcome of the Revolution might have taken much longer to attain, if at all.
The Colonists eventually came to the logical understanding that stockpiling their weapons & ammunition in central locations was a grave mistake, & decided that each of them should keep arms in their homes, & with them wherever they went -- always at the ready if & when the need arose.
There you go again mjsmsprt40 repeating my hatred of the United States. You cannot seem to fathom out the system from anything else which is surprising for an intelligent man. So once again (groan :faint:) I will explain it simply making allowances for different pond understanding use.
I have no time for your political system which is absurd. There is no limit to what is spent on elections and thus the corporates who really run the country and make so many have two jobs pander to democracy. InOn a world scale the idea that the USA is out to spread democracy is claptrap and it will support any dictatorship that pals with it or succumbs to corporate business. (billions spent helping the Ukraine coup for example) all the long history of aiding fascist military dictatorships in S. America, etc. Having always acknowledged the decents who DO live there including a female friend of mine now in California for years (she admits the political system is bananas) When you see what the rich pay in tax proprtions to the rest there is another falseness. Here the top 1% pay 28% of the taxes you cannot say that. That there are so many Smileys in the place does your nation no credit and to the grey celled ex-colonists an embarrassment is understandable. Gun mad and what a country for that ilk never mind jails full, over sentencing and people on death row for a decade??
As for that latest comic insert by our resident terrorist (your again!) it is not unlimited guns needed but control of the money men in-between shooting each either and the innocents. Just coming out so quickly with the hate word maybe shows a weakness there dear Chicagoan?! If i hate the place as you thrown in I would have hardly visited at great costs and twice. So leaving aside the sensible people there are far too many nut jobs like Smiley who live in the late 19th century and never caught up and that is a bigger problem for you than me. Self inflicted dear man! :lol:
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BS METER.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif)(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif)
Take a laxative ole man. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/biglaugh023.gif)
GUN RIGHTS WIN IN 9TH CIRCUIT
Quote from: SOF http://www.sofmag.com/gun-rights-win-9th-circuit
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals denied an effort by California Attorney General Kamala Harris to intervene in a case involving concealed carry permits. The refusal means that a lawsuit challenging California's "may issue" concealed carry law will succeed.
According to a report by FoxNews.com, Harris's effort to intervene in the suit after San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore announced that he would not appeal the ruling. The sheriff of Yolo County, California, which also was involved in a similar case, also declined to appeal the ruling, which struck down a requirement that applicants for a concealed carry permit show a specific reason to be granted one. The three-judge panel also heard a case from Hawaii, which also required that applicants show "good cause" to be granted a permit, and similarly struck down that state's requirement.
The result of these rulings is that California and Hawaii will become "shall issue" states, boosting the total number of states with either "shall issue" concealed carry or "constitutional carry" (requiring no permit) to 44. The only states with "may issue" laws, some of which are so strictly interpreted so as to make these states "no issue" states, are New Jersey, Maryland, Delaware, Rhode Island, New York, Massachusetts. The District of Colombia passed a restrictive "may issue" carry law after a court ruling, and most U.S. territories are either "may issue" or "no issue."
44 out of 50 either "shall issue" concealed carry or "constitutional carry" ......... it's gunna happen, sure as shootin' .......... anyone wanna bet?? (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/guns4.gif)
RJ, I think I have you pegged about right.
Several years back, MAD magazine had a picture of a fellow called the "Super Patriot". He was described as loving his country but hating 98% of the people in it.
That sorta describes the way you come off about the US. You might like us well enough, but you hate 98% of everything about the way we run things here. Every post describes how we don't do things to suit you.
Well, now that I think of it, I reckon we DON'T do things to suit you. How's about moving here, establishing citizenship, and actually--- oh, I don't know--- maybe voting people into office who will do things the way you want them done? Otherwise, I don't see any particular reason why anybody here should pay a lot of attention to anybody there. Stamp your feet, jump up and down and scream all you want, as long as you insist on remaining over there then there's no particular reason why anybody over here should pay much attention.
That sounds about right. He never misses a chance to go on an anti-American diatribe, as you know. Yes, America has problems but show me a seemingly perfect country and I'll show you the one with the most advanced propaganda machine. Historically, he is correct that America supported cold-war dictatorships but the British Empire took control of nations lorded over them in dictatorship; often resulting in the deaths of millions. Of course, he can answer with the American treatment of the natives. But this is the 21st century, and time to stop licking the wounds of the past and move forward.
Heh, that reminds me of how Vlaams Belang (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vlaams_Belang) is raging about the mainstream parties destroying Flemish values. I'm pretty sure the fact that they're mainstream probably means their policies give a better idea of Flemish values than whatever the fringe party says...
Sort of seems like a made-up issue designed to get the gun lobby more donations. Is there actually a problem with in which qualified people are not getting their CCWs? That would hardly be unique to Second Amendment issues. I think every group has activists that come with problems that turn out to be nothing.
I couldn't care a toss about whether America does anything to suit me it is what it should be doing for it's own people mjsmsprt40!
If you as a nation did not blow so much about the wonderful principles but not practice them and want the world to have a system of order you want it to have it makes you arch-hypocritical as a country and system. The bulk of the people are no doubt decent but tey have had their belief in the cuntry stolen for the aim of the money barons. The elite blows about how wonderful the country is when we know that is not true for tens of millions of the decent. Everywhere you have stuck your greedy money nose that contradiction continues. Many Americans do wish the country would stop having such a large military budget and spend more internally for the millions who are crawling. Many about the very system and so on. Time after time you leave yourself as a nation open to not just challenge but a place that has long ignored practical democracy, rights and so much more. But as the money people control the system they are frustrated. In trying to be an empire the trillions of dollars mount and the people are no further forward. Indeed the decline of the system is why there is such a poor turnout at national elections for the "great democracy." The loyalty and self- of the people has been taken over and not for the common good. Time you took a good self look mjmsprt40!
Retreat a bit from the world stage and look after your own suffering as there are legions of them and get back to what was portrayed on that Constitution instead of it being used by the narrow minded and intolerant. Many from there i have met over the years and chatted to on my trips are frustrated at what has happened to their country but the system is no longer controlled by the people instead they are controlled by an increasingly police state style. Sad for a country where family life, endeavour and a belief have been usurped.
Ho hum. More of the same.
Now, now, he does have a couple points. I was among the first to want the military budget decreased, but unfortunately his pal Putin now seems intent on starting Cold War 2.0 , I don't see that happening. There indeed is low voter participation, but that's because the parties produce poor quality candidates that spend the entire election cycle tearing each other part so much that you don't want to vote for either one (the race for Nevada Attorney General came down to a crook and an incompetent, according the attack ads at least.) But he's blind to how one sided his rants about America are. He lambasted America for being a "police state" but doesn't see that his beloved Russia is more of one, for example.
How blind my US rants are Sanguinemoon?? Let me remind you of some very glaring things that go beyond just empty rants.
-Nearly 10,000 killed by guns annually. People even stick military style weaponry.
-Police problems every week somewhere over misuses of guns.
-Schools a regular place for shootings. More police looking like military must be a hell of a dangerous living.
-Proportionally amongst the highest forin the world in jail - and executions many found later to be flowed. .
-People in death row for years sometimes a decade. Disgusting and form of torture.
-Half the world's military expenditure. Over 400 bases world wide and still increasing.
-A million a year lose their homes.
-Forty million poor on food stamps (quite a percentage population-wise. Can't all be stupid or worse prob.
-Many of poor die as too poor for meds.
-More spy agencies than the old USSR and the 3rd Reich. And a dumbness as "security" used.
-For all the Constitution people constantly spied or hampered. Phone, pc, mobile phone not secure.
-CIA torture regime for years.
-Concentration Camp Cuba (shouldn't be there). Even innocents declared still in it. Recognising sovereignty?
-Tries to corner Russia because won't give in to routine US attempt to control the world by US Cold War.
-Political system out of date and fewer people coming out to vote which says something.
-Race is still a big problem in the political system.
-What passes for a parliament is run by a millionaires club and all funded in background by corporates.
Now if these were the activities of an offical dictatorship then that would be expected. but this comes from a country political system that is determined to beat the globe into "democracy." Kind of odd that one considering the way the nation is run and that it has directly supported dictatorships of the bow to US commercial interests or be indirect ruling. Although i am aware there are concerned ex-colonists about how their country now is there are still too many brained emotionals like unfortunately Sanguinemoon (that's sad as it's Christmas!) and even more so by the resident terror supporter Smiley. Traditional American things like family being good at entrepreneurs, etc are or were fine but that has been hijacked by a rightist mentality that is selfish, arrogant and has usurped the basic things that the country was supposed to have been established for.
None of the things above are conjecture or a rant with no basis but hard facts of contradictory life.They are in the proverbial face Gun ho, gung-ho and kindling a Cold War but being grey celled into rubbish only emphasise. They all openly contradict and let's throw in the constantly increasing debt trillions. I only wish the old traditions were still a cause for celebration over the pond but the modern position totally contradicts. That the stance is that I rant can i say that is your corner. You lot rant about freedom, democracy and right across the world but have ran a political-military and corporate ethos around the world contradicting what you are supposed to be standing for. It may be self-comforting to wax about a rant as a cumfy way of shrugging all of these things but they exist and shows a degree of lack of being able to look at things properly and do something about them.
The decline in political voting nationally shows there is an undercurrent but the people who don't vote know they can do nothing about it and that is damnable. Oh I know that these will all be shrugged off but too many to justify the killing sprees, injustice, rights and all the other things. I could be selfish and shrug off the ignorance of some here because I do not live in that dangerous and wasteful politics place but that would be selfish. Instead I will leave the selfishness to those who do nothing about the above as they are comfortable and stuff everyone else. Certainly been a great country but today? Shameful. :irked:
How blind my US rants are Sanguinemoon
As much any other man's who walks around with blindfold, Howie. You always go for the big numbers. News for you. The US is has the third highest population of any country on Earth, so all the numbers will be big. You say 10,000 murders a year and lambast the US for that. Where's your criticism of Russia with nearly double the murder rate? There may be fewer total murders, but only because the population is much lower. You say 40 million on foodstamps in the US, while ignoring that the poverty rate of the UK is about equal.
Someone who has trouble with words is unlikely to understand numbers.
Yet, even with what RJ lists as his overwhelming reasons not to go there, America is still the most desired place where peoples from all around the world still wish to migrate to. People obviously think the price is miniscule in comparison to the Freedom, Liberty, & Opportunity that is available to those who wish to work hard for it - in RJ's hell hole (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BigGrin02.gif) - in the Good Ole U S of A (note below, more than 3x as many than desire RJ's UK)
138 million foreign adults want to immigrate to The USA
The Gallup Organization (http://www.gallup.com/poll/161435/100-million-worldwide-dream-life.aspx)just released the results of a poll of 500,000 people worldwide. It turns out that America is the first choice destination for 138 million adult would-be immigrants. (Their children would no doubt add scores of millions more, bringing the total up to around, say, 200,000,000.)
And America Jr. (i.e., Canada) is the first choice of 37 million adults, and America's nephew Australia is the first choice of 26 million.
Most of those would likely go to America instead if they could get in.
About 13% of the world's adults -- or about 630 million people -- say they would like to leave their country and move somewhere else permanently. For roughly 138 million people, that somewhere else would be the U.S. -- the No. 1 desired destination for potential migrants. Canada, France, and the U.K. also rank among some of the other top choices for potential migrants.
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2FpJxaXcn.jpg&hash=8c8ef36382a44026e472802a5b013961" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://imgur.com/pJxaXcn.jpg)
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/signsandflags2.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/usa-flag-89.gif)
Put that in yer book RJ .... Yer alone .... In the end all yer stats mean dick squat (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/taunt.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/cleanteeth09.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/guns4.gif)
What is that smell? :sniffs the air: Hrm, it smells like paste. More specifically, like an unattributed copy/paste from Howie. This begs the question, why is afraid to tell us the source? antiamerica.com? wehateamerica.com? biasedbullshitabouttheus.com? Britsthatcantgetoverthelossoftheempire.com?
Recognising sovereignty?
Hrm? weignorantnitwits.com (sic)? As a sovereign nation, Cuba leased the base to US, you dumb fuck chick-a-pooes.
This is sorta-off-topic, but RJ's rants got me to remembering where I've seen that sort of thing before. It was in a propaganda sheet put out by a local Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist group.
Many years ago, I worked in a hammer-shop, and the local commie faction of the above-mentioned beliefs-- it was on their letterhead on every pamphlet they handed out-- loudly declared how bad it was here, and how only giving them control would make things better for the working man. Problem was, most of the working men I knew weren't buying it because we could see how well it worked in countries that supposedly already had that system. They had to build walls to keep their own people in, it was that good. So, no sale.
RJHowie's rants look so much like those pamphlets that it could be almost word-for-word copy-paste. The only thing lacking is M/L/S letterheads and pictures of AK-47s on the front, along with Photo-shopped images of picketers. Otherwise--- it sure looks familiar somehow.
Then again: If I had to make an un-announced late-night visit to Smiley's house, or a late-night visit to the house of the fellow in the video below--- Smiley's place might be safer. He only has guns. This guy----- ........
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ru0sY_IPJIQ
If the grammar, spelling, and syntax are comprehensible, it probably is not a genuine rjh offering.
Well I expect the sycophantic stuff from you tt92. Kind of laughable that people who are wonky with wording like you have the gall to attack someone else. I dare say you have this wonderful intellectual self-belief and being too direct is too much for you. That too kind of contradicts the lifestyle from your corner of the world sonny.
And that confused Chicago man mjsmsprt40 coming out with that rightist US stuff about my thinking being Marxist-Lenin. Always the same over there if you dare to contradict the self evident list I gave. Typically Republican sentiment that anything out of that corner is Marxist. It betrays a deep flaw in American thinking and mind control. I have been a member of one of my country's leading parties and been a candidate for them and something more anti-Red pone couldn't imagine! Shows American immaturity, limited vision. Oh< I missed a point out in my list. If ordinary and you steal money you will end upin jail but not if you are rich and powerful. A brilliant exampe is the man who was head of the Global International lot who was brought before a Senate committee. Over a billion dollars had went missing and he couldn't explain where it went and lots of people who were simply investors lost their life savings. He had also been a Senator and the New Jersey Governor. A Democrats show shows the stuff is broadbased! Did anything happen? Nope.
The guff from Smiley, Chcago and smart mouth in Aussie all simply ignored the list. When I discovered that the US was allocating democracy in Russia I laughed my head off. A country like the US that wants to impose it's way of life and system everywhere as it says publicly is the biggest hypocritical, two-faced, corrupt and dangerous country on Earth. Massively in debt, people losing interest in voting, military threatening everywhere, corporate greed, tens of millions of por and you lot have a nerve to accuse me?!! I will give one acknowledgement to the kangaroo man. During that fiasco when the US lost South Vietnam there was a massive plan for peace in villages and communities. The Aussies and South Koreans did a brilliant job but the Yanks? hopeless they spent more time shooting the poor folk like the infamous incident we all know about.
Call me what you like but you cannot face the list because it is there for everyone to know and see and world-wide too. Not one thing i listed is wrong and makes my political stance about the US of A what it is in the world and when you go belly up the decent will go down and the corporates will survive. My list is irreptual and you know it. Keep avoiding it and be liars and avoiders of the truth.
Have a nice day folks! ;) :P :hat:
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/violin4qi3.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BlaBlaBlaBla.gif)
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/sleepingZzzzz.gif)
NOT MY NANA: Teen Kills Home Invader That Targeted His Grandmother
Quote from: BEARING Arms http://tinyurl.com/ku6hdvh
A 14-year-old North Carolina boy shot and killed one of two drug-craving home invaders who were attempting to break into his grandparents' home to steal her prescription drugs.
A teen is dead and his brother is charged after breaking into a home in southeast Mecklenburg County near Mint Hill on Tuesday, according to police.
The incident happened at a home in the 8600 block of Rolling Fields Road, off of Whispering Falls Ave. near Fairview Rd.
Police say they found and arrested 22-year-old Carlos Delcid on Tuesday night. His brother, 18-year-old Isai Robert Delcid, was shot by the resident's grandson, according to police.
"They heard some noises, saw an individual at the back of the residence trying to come into their house," said Lt. Eric Brady of Charlotte Mecklenburg Police.
Brady said when officers first arrived on the scene they found a man, later identified as Isai Delcid, dead at the back of the home.
Police say the brothers were reportedly trying to break into the home when a 14-year-old, who was visiting his grandmother, shot Isai Delcid. He was pronounced dead at the scene.
Believe it or not, it was the third time that these same criminals targeted this home since September.
The older brother, Carlos Delcid, had been arrested for breaking into the home in September and October and was out on probation. He was quickly picked up after the crime because he was being electronically monitored with a tracking device as part of his probation.
The Charlotte Observer notes that the teen's grandfather had wisely trained him to use firearms in self defense, and left the gun where he and his grandmother could access it for protection after the previous break-ins.
The teen gave these idiotic criminals every chance to flee. When Isai Delcid responded by forcing his way through the window, the teen fired his grandfather's .380-caliber Glock 42 as Delcid came through the window, and struck him with at least one fatal shot.......
Here's just one from RJ's famous list of 10,000 (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/2mafiahit02.gif)
One that deserved killin'.
But no, you won't hear that from RJ.
Nope he'd rather see the grandmother abused & beaten to a bloody pulp, & the grandson abused & beaten, rather than being legally defended with a gun.
Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict
Quote from: GOA http://tinyurl.com/d6no6sj
* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. [1] This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. [2]
* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.[3]
* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.[4]
* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.[5]
* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).[6] And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."[7]
* Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year. [8] Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials."
rj claims to have laughed his head off.
I will be interested to see if it makes any difference.
I have been a member of one of my country's leading parties and been a candidate for them and something more anti-Red pone couldn't imagine!
That doesn't mean the biased statistics didn't originate in some commie site or blog. These sites and blogs plagiarize the hell out of each other, usually without checking to see if the data presented is balanced or even correct. The statistics you copy/pasted (and are afraid to reveal the source of) can't be taken seriously for multiple reasons: I already mentioned the sheer size of the US will make any positive or negative number large. It doesn't offer any reference point to America's past performance or a it's performance compared to comparable societies/economies on any of those negatives about America except a weak in prison population. It doesn't taker into account other nations have that the same problems, ie Russia's total number of murders being nearly as the US despite having less than half the population.
I could probably spend hours pointing all the flaws in the list. However, that would a wasted effort since you refuse to learn anything.
I have been a member of one of my country's leading parties and been a candidate for them [...]
Twice IIRC, and twice defeated -- by the folk who know you best.
If it's any consolation: How you express yourself, alone, would cause those who don't know you to -- not want to.
RJ, you're old enough to remember Stalin... Have you opinions now (that you can verify you had previously...) about his regime?
No need have I for verification. You are as truthful as you are intelligent...
Perhaps you can elect Barak Obama your next queen? (For your sort of Scot, it isn't a stretch!)
-- This, of course, has much to do with "Gun Control"...?
I have to admit to finding RJH's list to be fairly ignorable. Seems to be the best thing to do with it, actually.
Truth is, most statistics put up by partisans of either side of a debate should probably be ignored. (Sorry, Smiley-- I especially mean all that NRA stuff. I'm sure there's truth in it, and I'm sure that there's enough politics in it to choke a horse, too.) Simply put, partisans grab the statistics that support their side of the argument while completely dismissing any and all statistics that would support the other side-- making the whole statistical thing openly suspect. It doesn't help that RJH would cut off his right hand before he would reveal where he got his statistics from--- leaving his position even more suspect. Smiley's statistics are heavily biased-- but at least you know where he got them.
I might as well drop in a statistic. RJHowie says we have about 10,000 people a year murdered-- presumably by being shot, I'm not gonna dig it up-- in the United States each year. That's a lot, way too many.
The safety experts would be thrilled if we could get the carnage on our nation's highways down to that level. We had nearly 33,000 people die in traffic accidents in 2013-- down from just over 33,000 the year previously. Of course that means we should get rid of all motor vehicles since it's obvious we're good at killing each other with cars and trucks. Ban them at once. Don't let the sun go down and there's still a functional auto anywhere in the US.
By those statistics, it's far safer to be around guns than it is to be around your Chevy or Ford. But, the headlines scream about guns killing people, and not about the carnage caused by renegade Chryslers. Hmmmmm....
Now--- the source: http://www.nhtsa.gov/NCSA (http://www.nhtsa.gov/NCSA)
Never let it be said I didn't practice what I just preached in the post above...
I, to a point agree with my fellow American from Chicago. Each sides stats will surely be chosen to bolster their particular positions.
So, even if we halved (RJ -- that means divide by 2), halved the stats I presented above pertaining to Defensive Gun Use in America, the conclusion actually remains the same.
* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.
Who's going to tell the 100,000 armed American Women that they will just have to grin & bear it rather than defend themselves by presenting their firearms?
Not me....
* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.
Again, I'll halve the numbers. Lets say the anti-gun criminologists exaggerated a bit, lets say that Defensive Gun Use was only experienced by 750,000 honest, law abiding citizens.
Who's going to say that three quarters of a million good citizens need to suffer at the hands of criminals, maybe even be murdered, rather than defend themselves with a legal firearm?
Hey, lets leave that to RJ.
Let RJ stand up to these good citizens (before they have their firearms taken from them), & tell them in his best Scottish lip, it's for their own good he's taking their firearms away, & it will save all those other 10,000 innocents he's always suggesting it will.
I envision RJ, like a slice of Swiss Cheese, with chalk lines around him! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/big%20laugh%20007.gif)
That's why you need to keep statistical data in perspective and read the whole data, not just the parts that you want. For example (http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/812101.pdf) table 3 shows alcohol is involved in nearly a third of the fatal crashes. Likewise, with the data Howie offered, what's the rest of the story? I think it was Al Capone that complained that "We only kill each other" (paraphrase). So how many of those gun deaths are criminals killing other criminal over drug dealing territory, revenge killings, etc? Data such as Howie's can be misused in multiple ways 1) guns are so dangerous they should be banned 2) You need to run out immediately to buy a gun so you don't become the next victim 3)the US in general (not just bad neighborhoods) is a dangerous and violent country, etc. All those are kneejerk, emotional reactions that ignores the big picture.
This is a fallacy as well. The Clinton advisers were all liars, so assign a "corrected" value. The phenomenon was also observed in conservative sites trying to "correct" the polling data that showed Romney was likely to lose. To get a real value, you would need to look the methodology and compare other data. Also it assumes that the ones defending themselves were all law abiding citizens. I don't have time to look up the data now, but a complain against "Stand Your Ground" was there was at least a drug dealer successfully using that law against charges of shooting another. To get the real picture requires a lot of digging.
This is a fallacy as well. The Clinton advisers were all liars, so assign a "corrected" value......
Personally, I feel the number is probably much closer to 2+ million, but I was just making sort of a
complimentary point with that lower 1.5 mil Clinton number. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/BigGrin02.gif) (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/guns4.gif)
First, let me mention that you, Sang, have no understanding of logic sufficient to allow you to talk about fallacies! :)
(You could name the fallacy you refer to...?)
But -second- there's the obvious (...not to you, of course!) point, that real statistics --actual data about actual occurrences-- are the same as polls or questionnaires...
When, in your view, does reality intervene in the narrative? I'd presume, never! You don't actually care.
You just want what you want; and you'll support anyone who will likely give it to you... (As far as I can tell, that's your "political philosophy" -- Do you have a more concise description? :) )
Two cops killed in Brooklyn. Their slayer was a bad actor, and nut-so; a "career" criminal. But De Blasio, Sharpton (NY radicals...); and Holder and Obama (folk on the national scene...) couldn't bring themselves to retract their incendiary rhetoric.
You and I both know why; so do they.
They don't care. I'm dismayed, that you seem not to, either.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMO_Hi-uA-s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AMO_Hi-uA-s
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/biglaugh023.gif) (https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FhuWSrhp.png&hash=c4ecf66400a71dd71883016307af2d88" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/huWSrhp.png)
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2FPvqUE2S.gif&hash=0bd6e3cffe10d1fbea4e5503ba9248c6" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://imgur.com/PvqUE2S.gif)
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2FjsD7H9S.jpg&hash=677633a223ea1bd82e3419a5125b189f" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://imgur.com/jsD7H9S.jpg)
Once again, as it's become a Christmas Tradition in my family, for the third year in a row I've given all my adult relatives the handgun/firearm of their choice.
It could either be a Collectors Item, or a daily carry firearm.
Most last year chose Collectors Items, but this year practical firearms were the call. (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/awright005.gif)
May you & yours enjoy all the Holiday Cheer, & may all your Seasons Hopes, & Dreams come true! (https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/guns4.gif)
(https://thedndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fimgur.com%2FgoPBGvV.gif&hash=7494411ffccc7e0655f68399b73af51d" rel="cached" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://imgur.com/goPBGvV.gif)
You do like to rattle cages, don't you?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/gregory-lanier-shot-by-dog_n_2767677.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/26/gregory-lanier-shot-by-dog_n_2767677.html)
Man's best friend apparently was feeling a little less friendly this weekend, according to police in Highlands County, Fla.
Highlands Today reports that Gregory Dale Lanier, 35, was shot by his dog while traveling in his truck Sunday.
According Highlands Today, Lanier told authorities that he didn't realize his .380 pistol was loaded, until his dog kicked the weapon, firing a round into Lanier's leg. "Lanier said he heard boom, saw smoke and felt a burning in his leg," Sebring Police Commander Steve Carr explained.
Police have ruled the shooting accidental and did not detain the dog for questioning.
Yet, even with what RJ lists as his overwhelming reasons not to go there, America is still the most desired place where peoples from all around the world still wish to migrate to. [...]
This argument is more in favour of rjhowie. USA is a bigger country, so would have more name recognition. A somewhat more useful metric would be to see how much bigger the population of the country would be if everyone who wanted to immigrate could, In that case the US does relatively badly, and worse than rjhowie's Britain. Only Germany does worse than the US in this list.
Country Immigrants Natives Pop. increase
USA 138 319 43%
UK 42 64 66%
Canada 37 36 103%
France 31 66 47%
Saudi-Arabia 29 32 91%
Germany 28 81 35%
Australia 26 24 108%
Have been in the ex-colonies twice some years ago and my list today shows my reluctance to return.
And anyway it is as we all know a great fun game using stats for everything! The USA constantly brags about being the greatest democracy the greatest in everything so one can almost understand why the place tops the list.However the daily practice of living there is for all to see in the list I gave and which it is very hard to ignore for the broader mind. Poverty, losing things or having to fight for basic things or rights does show the reason not to go there and with 40 million lost to a decent life