Message boards :
Politics :
Teenager Shot by Vigilante
Message board moderation
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · Next
Author | Message |
---|---|
Hev Send message Joined: 4 Jun 05 Posts: 1118 Credit: 598,303 RAC: 0 |
I think I understand that the right to bear arms came out of forming a people's militia during revolutionary times. This is on a par with present day revolutionary party calls for an armed people's militia. Therefore I can only think that having a people's militia in every country might be a good thing and lead to global revolution. I might revise my opposition to a gun owning society and learn to shoot. As John Lennon sang "Power to the People", being May Day and all.. |
Robert Waite Send message Joined: 23 Oct 07 Posts: 2417 Credit: 18,192,122 RAC: 59 |
I ask for a news link and you give a link soliciting money to defend Batman? Sorry, but I'm fresh out of wooden nickels. As to your suggestion about closing this down. Like all good conversations, the topic wanders as new points are brought up. If someone wishes to start another thread on the 2nd amendment, go at it, but I'll leave this open in case anyone has anything else to say, no matter where it leads. |
KWSN Ekky Ekky Ekky Send message Joined: 25 May 99 Posts: 944 Credit: 52,956,491 RAC: 67 |
Guns are entirely neutral in intent. They may be used to attack or to defend. Since criminals by definition do not obey the law, only honest people will be restrained by laws controlling access to weapons, which puts us back to the unarmed victims situation. Not acceptable at all. Oh come on, getting guns off the street only affects decent people? Criminals would not be affected by a change in the law and would still be allowed to keep them? That's why you have to bristle with fire-power every time you step out of your SUV? I've heard, seen and smelt better sense than this issuing from the posterior end of bulls. Guns are not and never have been "neutral". Their sole purpose is to kill, never to defend. If you do not have a gun in your possession you are less likely to die because of it. There is no argument here the other way whatsoever, only childish attachment to dangerous toys. To pretend anything else is simply Maoist. I used to play with toy guns but I grew out of it. Get rid of all of them. Once you get tired of stamping your tiny feet in anger you will feel much better and we'll all feel safer. The only harm will come to your friendly out-of-business gun seller. The benefits will be to people everywhere and a large amount of wildlife too. |
Aristoteles Doukas Send message Joined: 11 Apr 08 Posts: 1091 Credit: 2,140,913 RAC: 0 |
jay, the numbers do not support what you are saying Homicides in 2005 you have to push "get table" button, sorry and guns are neutral when they are melted to from solid metal to liquid one. |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
Oh come on, getting guns off the street only affects decent people? Criminals would not be affected by a change in the law and would still be allowed to keep them? How has the prohibition on drugs worked? Why do you think that a prohibition on guns will be any different? Do you think the prison terms for drug offenses aren't long enough to actually do any good? Does that mean that to be effective a prohibition will need to carry a death sentence? Even that hasn't worked in Thailand for drugs. Face it, criminals do not care if they commit a crime. That's why they are called criminals. Prohibitions do not work. |
Jay Loveless Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 16 Credit: 862,026 RAC: 0 |
jay, the numbers do not support what you are saying Near as I can tell, "the numbers" from the page you cite support nothing whatever, since no results are being returned for any combination of variables as of this evening. Firearms are neutral just as are hammers, tongs, ropes or any other tool. Inanimate objects have no "intent" and are incapable of acting on their own. They may be used for aggression or self defense, and they neither know nor care which. God may have created man, but Sam Colt made him equal. Jay L "Dogs wear collars, wolves do not. I am a wolf. You can shoot me, trap me, poison me, or even set my brother the dog on me, but you cannot pat my damn head unless I say so. " -JWL '95"- |
Jay Loveless Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 16 Credit: 862,026 RAC: 0 |
Guns are not and never have been "neutral". Their sole purpose is to kill, never to defend. If you do not have a gun in your possession you are less likely to die because of it. There is no argument here the other way whatsoever, only childish attachment to dangerous toys. To pretend anything else is simply Maoist. Sometimes, self defense requires taking a life. Self defense is the most basic right of all regardless of what some socialist wonk from a neverland government may say. The right to self defense is less than meaningless without the appropriate tools to effectuate that defense. As far as being less likely to die if you are unarmed, numerous US government studies including a recent Department of Justice study show that intended crime victims who defend themselves with a firearm are the *least* likely of any to be injured during the episode. Further, the same DOJ study reported that 40% of incarcerated felons said they would always avoid choosing someone they believed to be armed as a victim. Jay L "Dogs wear collars, wolves do not. I am a wolf. You can shoot me, trap me, poison me, or even set my brother the dog on me, but you cannot pat my damn head unless I say so. " -JWL '95"- |
Aristoteles Doukas Send message Joined: 11 Apr 08 Posts: 1091 Credit: 2,140,913 RAC: 0 |
jay, the numbers do not support what you are saying sam colt, you are joker. but no, you are wrong, guns are made to kill people and nothing else, hammer etc are made for totally different purpose, even if you can use them to that too, but they were never invented for that. |
Aristoteles Doukas Send message Joined: 11 Apr 08 Posts: 1091 Credit: 2,140,913 RAC: 0 |
Guns are not and never have been "neutral". Their sole purpose is to kill, never to defend. If you do not have a gun in your possession you are less likely to die because of it. There is no argument here the other way whatsoever, only childish attachment to dangerous toys. To pretend anything else is simply Maoist. so 60% percent of them will rob you and your gun regardless of your weapons, so it is not effective and you have to carry 1-2 kilograms extra weight all the time, that is not clever. learn to use your arms and legs, and most importantly your eyes and brains. |
skildude Send message Joined: 4 Oct 00 Posts: 9541 Credit: 50,759,529 RAC: 60 |
Lets take this one step further. We are accepting Convicted Felons are telling us the truth. lets look even deeper. How many of those felons actually admitted their guilt in a court of law. Very few I'm betting. then theres the nifty videos of attempted robberies upon liquor stores and conmvenience stores. Knowing full well the clerks are most likely armed and yet that info didnt deter a thief. Weapons clearly make little difference to criminals. If they want to commit a crime they will no matter how many tanks and artillery pieces you have around you.Guns are not and never have been "neutral". Their sole purpose is to kill, never to defend. If you do not have a gun in your possession you are less likely to die because of it. There is no argument here the other way whatsoever, only childish attachment to dangerous toys. To pretend anything else is simply Maoist. In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face. Diogenes Of Sinope |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
It's happened again. Only this time the criminal didn't die. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/05/burglary-suspect-shot-by-resident-in-mar-vista-.html Burglary suspect shot by resident in Mar Vista |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
Lets take this one step further. We are accepting Convicted Felons are telling us the truth. lets look even deeper. How many of those felons actually admitted their guilt in a court of law. Very few I'm betting. then theres the nifty videos of attempted robberies upon liquor stores and conmvenience stores. Knowing full well the clerks are most likely armed and yet that info didnt deter a thief. Weapons clearly make little difference to criminals. If they want to commit a crime they will no matter how many tanks and artillery pieces you have around you.Guns are not and never have been "neutral". Their sole purpose is to kill, never to defend. If you do not have a gun in your possession you are less likely to die because of it. There is no argument here the other way whatsoever, only childish attachment to dangerous toys. To pretend anything else is simply Maoist. [ed. quoting fixed] You mean like the Pirates off Somalia. This is a good argument in favor of no mercy. If the person will not conform under the most severe threat then it becomes obvious that no amount of rehabilitation pr punishment is going to make them conform. It appears as if their brain is wired so that conforming isn't possible. Removing that trait, sociopath, from the gene pool appears desirable. If that means welding the criminal into a cage and tossing in food or if a quicker method is more humane is only a choice of method as the decision has already been made. so 60% percent of them will rob you and your gun regardless of your weapons, so it is not effective and you have to carry 1-2 kilograms extra weight all the time, that is not clever. learn to use your arms and legs, and most importantly your eyes and brains. |
Jay Loveless Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 16 Credit: 862,026 RAC: 0 |
Sometimes, self defense requires taking a life. Self defense is the most basic right of all regardless of what some socialist wonk from a neverland government may say. The right to self defense is less than meaningless without the appropriate tools to effectuate that defense. As far as being less likely to die if you are unarmed, numerous US government studies including a recent Department of Justice study show that intended crime victims who defend themselves with a firearm are the *least* likely of any to be injured during the episode. Further, the same DOJ study reported that 40% of incarcerated felons said they would always avoid choosing someone they believed to be armed as a victim. Perhaps sixty percent claim to be willing to try. That does not mean they will succeed, and as I mentioned above, in any case, my chances of being injured are reduced if I am carrying a firearm and am willing and able to use it. I have used firearms to defend myself in the past, both in war and as a civilian. I am alive and healthy. A significant portion of those who attempted to harm me no longer are. That is the desired result. It is morally correct and causes me absolutely no loss of sleep. Jay L "Dogs wear collars, wolves do not. I am a wolf. You can shoot me, trap me, poison me, or even set my brother the dog on me, but you cannot pat my damn head unless I say so. " -JWL '95"- |
Jay Loveless Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 16 Credit: 862,026 RAC: 0 |
Firearms are neutral just as are hammers, tongs, ropes or any other tool. Inanimate objects have no "intent" and are incapable of acting on their own. They may be used for aggression or self defense, and they neither know nor care which. God may have created man, but Sam Colt made him equal. Actually, the best guess anthropologists have is that the hammer evolved from weapon to tool, with the first hammers being simply a hand sized rock that someone figured out might be useful for knocking things other than skulls about. Jay L "Dogs wear collars, wolves do not. I am a wolf. You can shoot me, trap me, poison me, or even set my brother the dog on me, but you cannot pat my damn head unless I say so. " -JWL '95"- |
Jay Loveless Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 16 Credit: 862,026 RAC: 0 |
Firearms are neutral just as are hammers, tongs, ropes or any other tool. Inanimate objects have no "intent" and are incapable of acting on their own. They may be used for aggression or self defense, and they neither know nor care which. God may have created man, but Sam Colt made him equal. Guns are a tool, a remote hole punch, if you will. They may be used to kill humans, certainly, but also to kill animals for food or to remove a non-human threat - poisonous reptiles being the primary category here in South Texas. I choose to be armed, as is my unalienable right, recognized (not granted, recognized) by the US Constitution. Like many millions of other currently law-abiding gun owners in the US, I have made a firm decision that I will not be disarmed, nor will I be unduly hindered in my choice of firearms regardless of what some silly bozo politician may decide. Jay L "Dogs wear collars, wolves do not. I am a wolf. You can shoot me, trap me, poison me, or even set my brother the dog on me, but you cannot pat my damn head unless I say so. " -JWL '95"- |
Robert Waite Send message Joined: 23 Oct 07 Posts: 2417 Credit: 18,192,122 RAC: 59 |
A gun is a weapon, not a tool. You would not use your "remote hole punch" if you lost weight and needed to make a new hole in your belt. The only uses you listed for your "tool" are killing. I always chuckle when some of you gun types make a big deal about being "law abiding" while going on to state that no one will take your guns away. If gun control laws are passed in the U.S. are you still going to be proudly law abiding or are you going to choose to be a criminal by keeping your weapons? |
Gary Charpentier Send message Joined: 25 Dec 00 Posts: 30608 Credit: 53,134,872 RAC: 32 |
If gun control laws are passed in the U.S. are you still going to be proudly law abiding or are you going to choose to be a criminal by keeping your weapons? Of course they obey. They move or they sue over the unconstitutional restriction. BTW a weapon is a tool. |
skildude Send message Joined: 4 Oct 00 Posts: 9541 Credit: 50,759,529 RAC: 60 |
If gun control laws are passed in the U.S. are you still going to be proudly law abiding or are you going to choose to be a criminal by keeping your weapons? A tool of destruction. In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face. Diogenes Of Sinope |
Jay Loveless Send message Joined: 18 May 99 Posts: 16 Credit: 862,026 RAC: 0 |
No I wouldn't. I do however use one to remotely punch holes in paper targets, bowling pins, and metallic silhouettes in competition, along with smashing clay pigeons remotely. Further, firearms are rightly considered tools when used to take game. The only uses you listed for your "tool" are killing. Yes, and? You say killing as though it were always a bad thing. Killing game to be eaten, killing enemy combatants in war time, and killing in defense of life and property are all good and necessary (not pleasant, but necessary). If you are a Jew, defending yourself even with lethal force is not only ok, it is a mitzvah. If your are a Christian, you should remember that Christ himself said "Let him who hath not a sword sell his cloak and buy one." I always chuckle when some of you gun types make a big deal about being "law abiding" while going on to state that no one will take your guns away. First, notice that I said "currently law abiding". Second, an armed man is a citizen, a disarmed man is a slave. I would far rather die a citizen than live as a slave. Sure, I know there are more of them than of me, and that in an armed confrontation, no individual is going to beat the forces the Feds can bring to bear. But somewhere, sometime, you have to be willing to stand up for your beliefs. For me, that line is firearms confiscation. I will not be disarmed, period. Jay L "Dogs wear collars, wolves do not. I am a wolf. You can shoot me, trap me, poison me, or even set my brother the dog on me, but you cannot pat my damn head unless I say so. " -JWL '95"- |
Rhe Send message Joined: 17 Dec 99 Posts: 50 Credit: 488,837 RAC: 0 |
First, notice that I said "currently law abiding". Second, an armed man is a citizen, a disarmed man is a slave. I would far rather die a citizen than live as a slave. Sure, I know there are more of them than of me, and that in an armed confrontation, no individual is going to beat the forces the Feds can bring to bear. But somewhere, sometime, you have to be willing to stand up for your beliefs. For me, that line is firearms confiscation. I will not be disarmed, period. Jay, if someone stands up and believes that they are fighting and defending themselves within a "cultural war", then aren't they fighting against the very society that is within that culture? No one is standing outside watching and waiting to disarm the masses at a moment's notice. Someone who abides by federal laws has no risk of ever having to resort to using their lawful firearms to "beat the forces of the Feds"... Team SETI.USA Forums Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. ~~Carl Sagan |
©2024 University of California
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.