|
|
|
|
|
| Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/7/2009 8:56:04 PM |
I am assuming all these countless number of people are terrorists in your eyes, right?
Nope, only the ones that go around America shooting and killing Americans .....there is a big difference between criticizing the War and Killing people because of your beliefs....... | |
|
| Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/7/2009 9:39:31 PM |
Nope, only the ones that go around America shooting and killing Americans .....there is a big difference between criticizing the War and Killing people because of your beliefs....
As things stand he's a mass murderer, not a "terrorist." I just think that we need to be careful with labels before we know the facts. If it turns out that he's been involved in some kind of larger conspiracy...that he envisioned this as an act of jihad and himself as committing an act of terrorism (and many jihadists who commit acts of mass murder admit that this is what they do), then fine. But as of now, we don't know that, and I personally feel that his religious affiliation is driving the terminology in an unhelpful way.
Just because a person committing mass murder is a Muslim, don't make his mass murder anything BUT a mass murder. It's horrid enough as it is. | |
|
| Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/7/2009 11:44:24 PM |
Nope, only the ones that go around America shooting and killing Americans .....there is a big difference between criticizing the War and Killing people because of your beliefs.... As things stand he's a mass murderer, not a "terrorist." I just think that we need to be careful with labels before we know the facts. If it turns out that he's been involved in some kind of larger conspiracy...that he envisioned this as an act of jihad and himself as committing an act of terrorism (and many jihadists who commit acts of mass murder admit that this is what they do), then fine. But as of now, we don't know that, and I personally feel that his religious affiliation is driving the terminology in an unhelpful way. Just because a person committing mass murder is a Muslim, don't make his mass murder anything BUT a mass murder. It's horrid enough as it is.
And I'm willing to bet that... had he been a white Christian conservative... all these comments about being a terrorist would be replaced with something like...
"You can't say he's a terrorist. You can't paint Christian conservatives with that brush. He was a homicidal nut-bar and nothing more"
... kind of like what happened when the Christian conservative shot up his church a while back... | |
|
| Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/8/2009 7:23:36 AM | Etourdi
Nope, only the ones that go around America shooting and killing Americans
- So if someone goes around killing Americans, he is labeled as "terrorist" but invading other countries, killing their innocent children, men, women, destroying their infrastructure with carpet bombs and drones are not considered terrorism, right? 
And...................
- When James, Peter, John takes a gun to school and shoots all the classmates and himself, that's definitely not an act of terrorism and he is not labeled as "Christian terrorist" either although his name is very Biblical, right?
Also....................
Neither you nor the media have provided any sort of evidence where he explicitly claimed that he killed people because of his religious belief, so labeling as "Muslim terrorist" all over the news network is totally wrong and shows how biased these news corporations are despite the fact that we claim that we are "democratic" and that newspapers are "free and independent". 
.....there is a big difference between criticizing the War and Killing people because of your beliefs.......
- Of course there is a difference. However, you haven't provided any evidence on here to suggest that this person actually did it because of his religion and neither have the rest of the media provided any evidence to that fact either, so as of now labeling him as a "Muslim" terrorist is totally inaccurate and incorrect and bringing about his Palestinian background all over the news network is totally wrong as well.
When Timothy McVeigh blew up the Oklahoma buildings, nobody labeled him as "Christian" terrorist. How come? He has got a Christian name. That's because the media is smart and they know that the man may not be practicing his religion, but when someone has a Muslim name, they are quick to put his/her religion first as if they know from the inside head of that person that he is a devout Muslim.
But.....................
Even if it turns out that he has done it because of religion, then evidence should be provided as to where does it say in the Koran anywhere to go around killing people. There is no such concept in Islam as to killing or hurting people.
Unless.................
You are in a situation where you defend yourself WHEN attacked first. And that is common sense. I am pretty sure you would not be sitting on your ass doing nothing if a bunch of people attacked you and try to beat you up. Police will not be there for you for the next 5 minutes while you get beaten. 
Thus.....................
Until the investigation is done and it is found out whether he was a lunatic or suffered from some sort of depression, stop making false claims unless you are his partner and he told you all the things and you have some recorded video of his suicide mission that you could provide as evidence here for us.
| |
|
| Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/8/2009 7:32:54 AM |
Gun control also hasn't worked in Australia, Belgum, Japan, and Jamaica.
Strict gun control never works because the criminals will always finds some way to get a gun.
Thus the amount of guns in the hands of those who use them for criminal intentions ends up to be way more than those who are protecting the people. | |
|
| Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/8/2009 8:11:29 AM |
Strict gun control never works because the criminals will always finds some way to get a gun.
Thus the amount of guns in the hands of those who use them for criminal intentions ends up to be way more than those who are protecting the people.
A gun is a pistol, shot gun, water gun,BB gun, paint gun, it is used for social interaction, target practice, hunting, home or self protection, a weapon is an automatic or semi automatic weapon it's sole purpose is for killing and should not be allowed for non military or non police use | |
|
| Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/8/2009 11:14:48 AM | | Why not? The Framers of our constitution the founders of our country wanted to insure that citizens had the means to defend themselves from Tyranny....Remember, to be able to create a militia...wouldnt really make sense to have citizens be denied the right to own guns at least as good as those owned by the Tyrants..... | |
|
| Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/8/2009 1:30:34 PM |
Why not? The Framers of our constitution the founders of our country wanted to insure that citizens had the means to defend themselves from Tyranny....Remember, to be able to create a militia...wouldnt really make sense to have citizens be denied the right to own guns at least as good as those owned by the Tyrants.....
The Second Amendment doesn't say that. You WANT to think that by "well regulated militia" the founders meant "army of bad ass citizens taking down the government"......but that's not what they said. | |
|
| Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/8/2009 1:58:08 PM | | The 2nd Amendment also says the right to Keep and Bear arms...interpret it however you like ...but it does say the right to Keep .....guess we will have to wait and see if a militia becomes necessary | |
|
| Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/8/2009 2:04:30 PM |
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.
It's not actually that complicated. The people have the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of providing a well regulated militia necessary for the SECURITY OF THE STATE--not its destruction.
Yes, we have cynically pretended in this country that this means that every redneck from hell is allowed to arm himself as if he is preparing himself to go to war AGAINST the government (and all the big, bad ass, penis-substitute guns you can buy isn't going to help you win that war, guy).....
But that doesn't mean that this is what the founders intended.....cuz it isn't what the constitution says.....and being pretty smart guys they knew how to say what they meant. | |
|
| Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/8/2009 2:18:17 PM | The Swiss have a militia army and the soldiers in Switzerland take their military rifles and ammo home with them. How many of our liberal friends in here think that the National Guard should take their military rifles and ammo home with them?
A few definitions of a Militia
-Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws.
-The entire of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms
-A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.
-An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers. Called by various names in different countries such as; the Army Reserve, National Guard, or State Defense Forces.
Our farmers and towns people who were non-government and un-paid helped free this Nation from it's oppressors. And how can a non-government, un-paid militia force be created when needed if the right to bear arms is violated? By removing the right to bear arms we remove the right of the people to form a non-government unpaid militia like during the revolution.
It sounds like many people are saying that after the Revolution the Founding fathers were in constitutional Violation since they allowed the public to keep and to continue buying arms.
On a off note I did see a funny bumper sticker a while back. It had a picture of Hitler doing the Nazi salute with the caption that read-"Everybody who believes in gun control raise your right hand." | |
|
| Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/8/2009 2:23:07 PM |
The Swiss have a militia army and the soldiers in Switzerland take their military rifles and ammo home with them. How many of our liberal friends in here think that the National Guard should take their military rifles and ammo home with them?
I think that would be HUGELY preferable to a situation in which any Jimbob Dumbass can buy similar weapons just because he's never been convicted of a felony. | |
|
| Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/8/2009 3:21:45 PM | There is no comparison (as many are trying to make) to how things are done here and how things are done in (for example) Europe.
I lived in a provincial part of Germany for 10 years and became quite familiar with a lot of their customs ... one being the way they train their hunters as opposed to how we train people here in hunting skills (not that that's something we could give that much credit to). Here all one has to do is be born into a gun-toting redneck family, mix in a little racism as the child gets old enough to start school and then the kid gets his own shotgun on or around his 8th birthday ... to proudly hang on Daddy's gun rack in the truck.
In Germany, no hunter can be a hunter without first doing an apprenticeship with a licensed hunter ... and that hunter is licensed by the actual county he hunts in ... and there are only a certain number of areas that are available for assignment. It quite an intense course and they have to take written tests as well as firearms tests. They have to show proficiency in handling their hunting dog as well and then they are assigned a certain area where they can hunt in. The only time a hunter can hunt outside of his assigned territory is if he's with another hunter in their territory.
If a deer is killed on the road, the hunter of that territory is notified and is expected to go examine the animal as well. They are responsible for various things such as maintaining the numbers of animals in their territory ... not killing off all animals of one species, they are expected to maintain the salt licks and winter feed areas, they are expected to monitor for rabies ... one of the reasons they are called to examine road kills.
There are veterinarians who can also be called but are only called if the hunter can not be reached as they are only primarily responsible for domestic animals.
The hunters in our country are nothing like that. In that case and I would venture to say and most cases, it seems to me there is no way you can compare other situations such as militias in other countries to the gun-wielding/gun-toting rednecks of our country. | |
|
| Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/9/2009 6:35:14 AM | | There is no where in the Constitution that says that the Only Guns that should be allowed are those for Sports and Hunting or any other thing.Its says the Right to Keep and Bear arms. I agree the Founding Fathers were intelligent people and realized the importance of citizens being able to Arm themselves if necessary. | |
|
| Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/9/2009 1:32:39 PM |
There is no where in the Constitution that says that the Only Guns that should be allowed are those for Sports and Hunting or any other thing.Its says the Right to Keep and Bear arms. I agree the Founding Fathers were intelligent people and realized the importance of citizens being able to Arm themselves if necessary.
It also doesn't state that you can have any weapon you choose... nor can it be reasonably argued that the Framers had any way of anticipating how massively weapons technology would expand in future years... nothing greater than tomahawks (the axe kind, not the cruise missile kind), swords and black powder weapons existed (all of which were essentially "dual use", military and sporting/hunting) nor were contemplated at that time... which is why your State NG has all the "non-sporting" and "non-hunting" military weapons... such as main battle tanks, armed aircraft, artillery, anti-tank/anti-air missiles and aerial bombs, for example, which are HEAVILY regulated with regard to civilian possession as they have no legitimate civilian use... all legally upheld as Constitutionally lawful regulation rather than 'infringement'... Argue against that as you will but such would be moot and futile... SCOTUS has yet to determine that the 2nd entitles you to such weapons... but the courts have upheld such regulation... including concealed weapons laws and restrictions on bladed weapons | |
|
| Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/9/2009 1:41:09 PM | | ^^The Founding fathers also had no way of anticipating things like Radio, the Internet, Cell Phones, TV's, etc. So by your theory that mean's that free speech only applies to what the Founding Fathers were familiar with. Correct? | |
|
| Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/9/2009 2:10:57 PM |
The Founding fathers also had no way of anticipating things like Radio, the Internet, Cell Phones, TV's, etc. So by your theory that mean's that free speech only applies to what the Founding Fathers were familiar with. Correct?
A false analogy... the first amendment does not say:
"Well regulated town-criers, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to free speech, shall not be infringed."
If it did then there might be a point to the analogy...
Further... even though the 1st does not mention any medium of communication or specify what content is protected... it has been determined that the content of that free speech and the medium by which it is communicated CAN be reasonably regulated (e.g. shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre, slander and libel, regulations regarding access to transmission over the 'air waves', what speech can be transmitted over the 'air waves', etc.)...
Given that the 2nd does make specific mention of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"... and the fact that it HAS been determined that constitutional rights may be reasonably limited... regulating weapons on those bases is NOT 'infringement' ... as determined by the courts. | |
|
| Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/9/2009 2:22:37 PM | What if there really is a fire? Do you still have the right to speak out and yell "fire"? Of course you do.
The 2nd also makes specific mention that "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." "The Right of THE People." I think I have heard something similar like that before. Oh that's right. "We the People"
(During the American Revolution)--Militiamen were lightly armed, slightly trained, and usually did not have uniforms. Their units served for only a few weeks or months at a time, were reluctant to go very far from home, and were thus generally unavailable for extended operations. Militia lacked the training and discipline of soldiers with more experience, but were more numerous and could overwhelm regular troops as at the battles of Concord, Bennington and Saratoga, and the siege of Boston.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War
Our Militia men (at that time) were our farmers and towns people and they were non-government and un-paid. So how can a non-government, un-paid militia force be created when needed if the right to bear arms is violated?
By removing the right to bear arms we remove the right of the people to form a non-government unpaid militia like during the revolution.
So what you are saying is that immediately after the Revolution the Founding fathers were in constitutional Violation since they allowed the public to keep and to continue buying arms.
| |
|
| Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/9/2009 2:43:49 PM | So what you are saying is that immediately after the Revolution the Founding fathers were in constitutional Violation since they allowed the public to keep and to continue buying arms.
Once again... a false interpretation... I have never said or suggested any such thing...
By removing the right to bear arms we remove the right of the people to form a non-government unpaid militia like during the revolution.
This is a total 'strawman'...
Who said anything about "removing" the right to bear arms...? Such a statement has not been made on this thread... this is nothing more than an attempt to refute an argument which has not been made...
(During the American Revolution)--Militiamen were lightly armed, slightly trained, and usually did not have uniforms. Their units served for only a few weeks or months at a time, were reluctant to go very far from home, and were thus generally unavailable for extended operations. Militia lacked the training and discipline of soldiers with more experience, but were more numerous and could overwhelm regular troops as at the battles of Concord, Bennington and Saratoga, and the siege of Boston.
This... and NUMEROUS other such incident (like 'not so well regulated' militia breaking and running from Canadian militia, among others)... is exactly why the NG was developed... creating the "well regulated militia" stated in the Constitution...
Our Militia men (at that time) were our farmers and towns people and they were non-government and un-paid. So how can a non-government, un-paid militia force be created when needed
Simply by putting out 'the call to arms'... asking all the willing to 'show up'... | |
|
| Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/9/2009 2:58:26 PM | Sorry Jack, but the Bill of rights is what it is, there is no limitation specified...how the Supreme(lol) Court rules may make changes but the original intent was for citizens to be able to raise and bear arms if necessary...the problem is when you start limiting the weapons that are acceptable where do you draw the line? Slippery Slope...
one more point who cares what type of weapons we have now...if they were concerned about that when they wrote the Bill, wouldn't they have specified something somehow...I mean what is the point of being able to bear arms if all you are allowed is a 22 while the enemy has an AK47... | |
|
| Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/9/2009 3:04:25 PM |
Sorry Jack, but the Bill of rights is what it is, there is no limitation specified...
And only a few limitiations were specifically prohibited...
how the Supreme(lol) Court rules may make changes but the original intent was for citizens to be able to raise and bear arms if necessary...
And the Constitution makes the Supreme Court the arbiter of the meaning and intent of the Constitution as well... Do you think there was a reason for this...? | |
|
| Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/9/2009 4:05:14 PM |
Thank you for your service.
Your welcome
Following the rules of gun safety would preclude them from firing unless they:
Know your target and what is beyond.
Be absolutely sure you have identified your target beyond any doubt. Equally important, be aware of the area beyond your target. This means observing your prospective area of fire before you shoot. Never fire in a direction in which there are people or any other potential for mishap. Think first. Shoot second.
In a hostile fire situation where the only one who knows for sure who is the bad guy is the bad guy it takes a trained professional to know who to and who not to shoot at. Even then as we see every year innocent people die as a result of mistaken identity
The lady officer who took the Fort Hood shooter out was trained | |
|
| Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/9/2009 4:23:57 PM | I'm absolutely no expert here,my understanding was we had a right to bear arms,and it was my understanding way back in that day,it was originally to protect yourself from the government,tyranny.I know throughout my life states have been playing with this right.
Some of the places I lived as a child ,seemed a portion of the men carried a hunting rifle in the back window on the rack in a pickup,nothing unusual.When I was a kid,if you had a really great hunting knife like a large Bowie,you brought it to grade school for show and tell,I'm about sure anyone would have thought of stabbing someone,in fact there was hardly a single boy, cub scout and boy scout age that did not have a knife in his pocket,I remember whittling sticks on grade school breaks,it was no big deal,on the rarest occasion some boy cut himself whittling so he went to the nurse. I would like to say the good old days,but it was also Ozzie and Harriet,Ward and June Cleaver people in amongst Klan,J Edgar types,and other sorts in the shadows.But there was a time in my life that guns were a normal part of being a boy or a man.Shame it came to this,and that it had to effect the normal people .Normal,boy that term,I guess is debatable ! Still the more the crazies the more I'm for gun ownership ! Its ,if the time comes,for protecting your innocent family !
I was taken by my dad age 10 or 11 to be taught how to shoot a rifle,most all my age did too.My dad was real careful to teach like he was taught in the Marine Corp..I loved nothing better than plinking.I have never seen a gun as bad.What I have seen are bad people .Its intent,not the gun,its who holds the gun,its his intent. I really don't know every fine point on "Right to Bear Arms",I would like to think once every scholar dissects whats written that I still have a right to protect myself.
When your awaken by your front door being kicked off its hinges and 10 steps later he's at your bedroom door opening ,that's a nice time for something like a riot shotgun,seems very appropriate for me.Certainly not a time when you kindly ask him shall we have a cup of coffee and work this out.
We read about people in the papers all the time that had that one time that I wished they had had a gun to protect themselves instead your hearing about how this family was killed by an intruder and the paper points out the home had no weapons.
If your afraid of the gun you own and will not have the nerve to protect yourself,then please don't own one,your then only giving a gun to the intruder, ,there's that intent word again.Hey same thing for a ball bat by the bed,if you won't use it,then its a weapon for the crook.You must have a clear "intent" on using it or its very dangerous towards you .
Food for thought,when my dad was alive his prized hunting rifle was a 7 millimeter,For elk,If you have never seen one ,its bullet is like 4 inches long.Now that's a hunting rifle ,and its legal.I have wondered at some of these guns that are termed illegal and the ones that are I guess safe,lol,I would have been just as afraid of the insane guy with a 7 millimeter and scope.Typical laws,usually written by people that do not shoot and have no idea of weapon types. For some of them its christian morals over ones own life or an upset parent, that lost a child, so she battles to remove everyone's right ! | |
|
| Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/9/2009 4:35:57 PM |
Food for thought,when my dad was alive his prized hunting rifle was a 7 millimeter,For elk,If you have never seen one ,its bullet is like 4 inches long.Now that's a hunting rifle ,and its legal.I have wondered at some of these guns that are termed illegal and the ones that are I guess safe,lol,I would have been just as afraid of the insane guy with a 7 millimeter and scope.Typical laws,usually written by people that do not shoot and have no idea of weapon types. For some of them its christian morals over ones own life or an upset parent, that lost a child, so she battles to remove everyone's right !
Put 20 elk out there all armed and firing now pick out the one that is shooting at you and the others, I am not against a persons right to bear arms, I am against having untrained civilians running around with semi and automatic weapons.
Weapons are dangerous enough in the hands of people who have been trained to engage an armed criminal | |
|
| Ft Hood Incident Highlights Dangers of Gun Control
Posted: 11/9/2009 7:28:50 PM | | This may be true but it is our right as American citizens to keep and bear arms.....that is your choice to be against it but the founders of our Country thought that it was important enough that they added an amendment to insure that we maintained that right | |
|
|
| Page 3 of 7
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
|
Home
login 
