|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 9/18/2004 3:27:13 PM | | not only that but they view marksmanship as a national pass time... every one goes to the range every week almost.. it would be hard to invade a coutry full of snipers.... actualy it would be neer impossible.. | |
|
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 9/22/2004 1:24:25 AM | ok here goes. why do we need gun control? some will tell you its so they can feel safe at night in their beds. According to them, criminals were really not bad people. That was a myth started by redneck racist militia wannabe's. (after all if most prisons are filled with minorities then criminals must be minorities then if you would want to hard a criminal you must be a racist) In their eyes criminals had all been forced into a life of crime by an uncaring society. If you leave your keys in your car and someone steals it, it's your fault, not the fault of the piece of sh!t that stole it.
I might get slammed for this generilization but seeing as how most liberals are for gun control im just gonna start using them.
Many liberals apparently would rather have a law-abiding taxpayer get raped, mugged, assaulted, robbed, or killed than have just one criminal get shot while committing a crime.
This is just one aspect of the whole debate. "If you outlaw guns only outlaws will have guns."
People may hear that line and think "that has no real basis" Would it affect you more if it came from someone more important than myslef?? "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Thomas Jefferson (1764) Think about the laws on the books right now. Felons can not have a gun. It is illegal, point blank no argument. So why would more stringent gun control laws work? Its not as if they are going to go out and purchase them legally. For those that say gun control works i say bullsh!t. Look at Washington D.C. It is illegal to own a firearm in D.C. Yet there are still gang murders and drive-bys taking place. Now why is that? BECAUSE CRIMINALS DONT CARE IF IT IS ILLEGAL, THATS WHY THEY"RE CRIMINALS, THEY BREAK THE LAW.
But your forgetting the most important aspect to the gun control debate. The 2nd ammendment. Why was it written? BECAUSE AN ARMED CITIZENRY HAS NEVER BEEN OPPRESSED BY ITS GOVERNMENT. It cant be. Think about the mindset at the time that the 2nd ammendment was written. We had just finished a bloody revolution with england. We were trying to stand on our own two feet and make sure that the hardships and tyranny that had been endured under british rule would never again be repeated by our own people.
With guns we are citizens, without them subjects.
Hell the 1968 national firearms act was basically lifted ver-batem from hitlers own gun control laws. To that people say "oh now you're just talking stupid that cant happen here. People wouldn't stand for it, orThe ACLU would be all over that. What are you going to do if you have no weapons? And beside that it HAS happened here.
It did happen here. The conquest of North America by the European settlers of the future United States was accomplished by "the extermination of some Native American tribes and the near-extinction of others, by U.S. government forces . . . ." The forced march of the Cherokee people from the southeastern United States into Oklahoma along the "Trail of Tears" resulted in the deaths of a large fraction of the Cherokee population, and at best, differs quantitatively rather than qualitatively from the 20th-century genocides described in Lethal Laws. Hitler looked with admiration at how the United States government had cleared the continent of Indians, and he used the U.S. government's 19th-century policies as a model for his own 20th-century policies of clearing Lebensraum for the German people.
In the twentieth century, the United States government forced 100,000 United States citizens into concentration camps. In 1941, American citizens of Japanese descent were herded into concentration camps run by the United States government. Like the victims of other mass deportations, these Americans were allowed to retain only the property they could carry with them. Everything else--including family businesses built up over generations--had to be sold immediately at fire-sale prices or abandoned. The camps were "ringed with barbed wire fences and guard towers." During the war, the federal government pushed Central and South American governments to round up persons of Japanese ancestry in those nations and have them shipped to the U.S. concentration camps.
The American concentration camps were not death camps. The American-held prisoners were subject to strict discipline, but not to mass murder. After the American victory at Midway in June 1942, the threat of a Japanese landing on the mainland U.S. vanished, and the tide in the Pacific began to turn. Nevertheless, the incarceration of Japanese-Americans continued long after any plausible national security justification had vanished.
But, the authors ask, what if the war had gone differently? What if a frustrated, angry America, continuing to lose a war in the Pacific, had been tempted to take revenge on the "enemy" that was, in the concentration camps, a safe target. Would killing all the Japanese be a potential policy option? In 1944, by which time America's eventual victory in the war seemed assured, the Gallup Poll asked Americans, "What do you think we should do with Japan, as a country, after the war?" Thirteen percent of Americans chose the response "Kill all Japanese people."
Sadly, Roger Daniels, the author of a recent study of the Japanese internment, concludes that a concentration camp episode could indeed happen again in America. He points out that in 1950, a time by which the oppressiveness and uselessness of the American concentration camps during World War II had been well-established, Congress enacted the Emergency Detention Act, which gave the Attorney General unilateral authority to imprison Americans at will, using the World War II concentration camps as a model. Fortunately, the law was repealed in 1971, but as Daniels points out, the original detentions occurred even though they were not authorized by any law.
Disarming citizens before killing or oppressing them is a time-honored American tradition. After the Civil War, the first act of the Ku Klux Klan (like the Khmer Rouge) was to round up all the guns in the hands of ex-slaves. Only then did other oppressions begin. From the middle of the nineteenth century to the first quarter of the twentieth, race riots in the United States usually took the form of white mobs rampaging against innocent blacks. Black attempts to resist or to shoot back were often followed with governmental efforts to disarm the blacks.
Are modern Americans so dramatically different from their ancestors that concentration camps or mob violence are safely confined to the past? While Mayor of New York City, Edward Koch (who is Jewish) proposed that the federal government set up concentration camps for drug users, in remote locations such as Nevada and Alaska. Under Mayor Koch's successor David Dinkins, after a Jewish religious leader's driver killed a black child, rampaging black mobs conducted a three-day pogrom against a Jewish section of Brooklyn and killed an Australian Jew who was visiting the United States, while the police passively refused to intervene.
Hatemongers such as Louis Farrakhan are now treated as important leaders by an increasingly large segment of the American black community, including the NAACP, which for decades before had been steadfastly opposed to racial hatred and anti-Semitism. In an age of Louis Farrakhan and Al Sharpton, is America immune from the influence of bigots, crackpots, hatemongers, or potential dictators? A Klansman and former Nazi named David Duke was elected to the State House of Representatives in Louisiana in 1989. He then won 44% of the vote against the incumbent U.S. Senator in 1990. The next year, he won 39% of the vote in a race for Governor, garnering over 60% of the vote from the white middle-class and from white Protestants.
What other countries can be presumed forever safe from hatemongering rule? In August 1994, the Labor Minister of the Italian government--a government which a half-century earlier was a Fascist ally of Hitler--blamed the fall of the lira on the "Jewish lobby" in the United States. [146] Virtually none of the world's democratic nations can boast an uninterrupted history of democracy, nor can they claim that racist or anti-Semitic elements are of no significance in the nation's current political life.
Imagine that the year is 1900. You are told that within fifty years, a nation in the world will kill over six million members of a religious minority. Which nation would you pick? If you were well-informed about world affairs, it is very unlikely that you would pick Germany. In 1900, Germany was a democratic, progressive nation. Jews living there enjoyed fuller acceptance in society than they did in Britain, France, or the United States. In 1900, probably much less than 13% of the German population favored killing all Jews. Thirty-five years later, circumstances had changed.
my post has rambled on long enough and i shall bring it to a close. i bid you all gutte nacht
| |
|
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 9/22/2004 4:35:26 AM | [/quote]read somewhere about a country that required each male to join the army for 2 years. At the end of the 2 years they returned home(if they wished) as part of the reserves, taking their army rifle home with them. This country had an incredibly low violent crime rate. They claimed it was because the criminals knew that in each home was a rifle, and someone who knew how to use it. I've been searching in google to find this research paper, I keep thinking that it's a Scandinavian country. If some one can find this it would be great.
Also, I don't really believe that Canada's gun control laws are the cause of a lower crime rate(see my previous post). To compare USA and Canada is not realistic....we have a larger land mass and a smaller population...so, for the most part, aren't as densely populated. True, in major cities, it could be comparable, but not over all. [/quote]
im not 100% sure but i do know what your talking about..i think its Switzerland...and theres proof right there the gun control does work.. | |
|
yna6
|
Joined: 5/2/2004
Msg: 30 | |
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 9/26/2004 11:27:05 AM | | I think crime rates are more influenced by population density. Canadian cities are more "spread out" than american ones....we have the space for it, even IF we do pave over some of the richest farmland in the country doing it! Should drive back all the cities a mile from the coast of Lake Ontario, and return it to the farmland... | |
|
| Gun Control
Posted: 9/26/2004 6:44:49 PM | | I didn't do my homework and read what everyone has written, so I may repeating someone... so for that. BUT... why is a gun constantly being looked at as a weapon?!? What is a baseball bat for?? PLAYING BASEBALL. Now what are you going to go say to the parents of the people who were beaten to death by one? A bat is intended for sports. Guns are also used for sport. For the people who say... but kids can get a hold of them from their parents and do shit with them... BLAME THE PARENTS! NOT THE GUN! They make gun cases with locks on them for that sort of protection. Just remember... ITS THE GUN THAT LED TO YOUR FREEDOM IN THE U.S.! Its not just a bad thing. Open your eyes. Most of the domestic deaths caused by guns are done so by inner-city niggers or other sorts of low-lives who lead the same life-style. And as for that last statement... yes, I said niggers, because they do commit the most crime, look at the statistics. A ghetto is a place where a minority is forced to live, and who makes up the majority of the minority in them?? I rest my case, so don't bash me for it, I'll prove my point to anyone who challenges. | |
|
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 9/27/2004 12:43:32 AM | I still have a 450 lb. crossbow with high-power scope which I am legally allowed to keep without permits, as I bought it just before the new regulations came in at that time. It's always ready for action "at the pull" less than 10 ft. away from my bed, rubbertipped (as I don't care to kill) and on arrow-impact of the torso, will send the person flying backward and into complete shock, where without immediate medical attention, he will internally bleed to death within an hour.
This is the very best of all worlds - no noise, no laws broken, no death.
And still able to protect my home at the same time. | |
|
yna6
|
Joined: 5/2/2004
Msg: 33 | |
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 9/27/2004 8:25:49 AM | | An excellent choice ticket! Some folks just keep a can of RAID by the bed.....shot of that in the face and they "bug-off!" | |
|
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 9/27/2004 11:59:46 PM | yna6, I did some legal checks on "discharge of a crossbows upon a person" a decade back and was told the following:
1. You bought the crossbow BEFORE new legislation + You DO NOT have a Gun Licence = you walk scott-free.
2. You bought the crossbow BEFORE new legislation + You DO have a Gun Licence = you'll end up with a Legal Black Eye.
2. You bought the crossbow AFTER new legislation + You DO have a Gun Licence = you'll get convicted and possibly do a little time.
Since I fit category #1., I don't have to lock the crossbow up. Since it takes knowledge, technique and an awful lot of power to crank the bow, there is little chance of it being of any use to anyone. Unlike guns, there is virtually zero possibility of anyone getting hurt.
My kid says, that break-in intruders wear sky-goggles because they are worried getting nailed by either Pepper Spray or Bear Repellants. I don't know if this is an odd-case out, or the edict of Some B&E Union Local 137.
It would be interesting if anyone else has any info on this. | |
|
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 9/28/2004 9:51:52 AM | I totally think it depends on how many people live in the area with the crime. And also the type. I think violence begets violence. People who have a harder life are, in my humble opinion, alot more likely to commit a violent crime rather than someone who has had a nice cushy, easy life.
I have an issue with gun control because people also think that if someone goes "postal" and kills people that makes them insane lunatics. I doubt highly that this is true especially in todays society. Take Columbine for example. Those kids were physically and verbally abused by the society that they were around. All they new was depression and negative feelings. No wonder they went out and shot people!
Also I think that instead of stronger gun control they should have stricter ammunition control. I mean if a clip for a handgun (or any other gun for that matter) costed alot more, I mean like 4x the original amount that would make people think of a better alternative to guns.
Honestly if I was gonna kill people, I would kill them with a sword so they have to bleed to death and there is almost no chance of them being saved due to a mass wound. Also that might be kinda fun...  | |
|
yna6
|
Joined: 5/2/2004
Msg: 36 | |
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 9/28/2004 11:32:21 PM | I've heard about the goggle thing too....guess they are the "pros"....and not the newbies! Ah well...grab that native made carving and aim for the head, just like a former Primeminister did....those things got to have SOME use, eh?
Hmmm...cutting someone with a sword....well..having worked in a slaughterhouse with a knife in my hands killing thousands of animals a day, I must say that it really isn't "fun". It is a bloody mess that has to be done, and I was WAY underpaid for it. Next time you want to have chicken, go kill it yourself. I can say that MOST people won't be eating it. Not all...but most. | |
|
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 9/29/2004 5:14:53 AM | | sweet i wish i had that job, lol..i slaughter metal now..well bend it and make parts.. | |
|
yna6
|
Joined: 5/2/2004
Msg: 38 | |
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 9/29/2004 11:22:14 PM | | Believe me...when it is -40, NOT counting the wind chill factor, and you are wet, covered in blood, trying to get the cages off a transport and inside you won't be thinking it is so sweet. I had those plastic coveralls on that farmers wear...brand new! They froze and the rubber coating on them cracked and fell off....was I ever mad! | |
|
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 10/7/2004 2:53:19 PM | Have to make this quick, my amigo is coming over & he as a PS2....
Making ammo more expensive may prove to be a bad idea, as this would prevent people from purchasing cheap ("ball") ammo to shoot at the range; in turn, people get less practice, are poorer shots, miss out on the opportunity to learn from experienced shooters while at the range, etc. Plus, ammo retailers should have the right to set their own prices, how can the state do that?
For safety, one can purchase several types of things. One, there is what they call "snakeshot". Basically it turns a pistol into a low-powered shotgun. Instead of a solid piece of brass or lead, it's a thin plastic case with sand-size'd bb's in it. One shot may not kill someone, but you can take their whole face off in one shot without really aiming, even with a slight distance. Plus, the bb's are way too small to go through even thin drywall, so there's no chance of killing the neighbor's children, esp if you live in an apartment.
Two, there's also what they call "safety shot". Same concept, except the plastic piece doesn't disintegrate upon firing; instead the plastic piece fires out with the bb's in it. It disintegrates when it hits something. The downside is that you have to be a good shot & hit your target -- which may be hard if you wake up to a strange noise at 3am in a dark room. If you miss, the plastic will disintegrate when it hits a wall. If you have a sheet-metal firewall installed, the bb's likely won't go through, if you don't they'll go through but will slow down enough so that they may injure but not kill the people on the other side. The upside is that if you hit your target, you blast a subway tunnel in them. Hit them in soft tissue (belly) and you get a basket-ball sized hole.
If you do shoot an intruder, being sympathetic and not wanting to kill them, (while your integrity is quite admirable) can get you into ****LOADS of legal trouble.
I'll give my opinions regarding crossbows etc later.... mucho thanks to all for the input... gots ta go, peace.
--MasterB. | |
|
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 10/7/2004 8:38:02 PM | | I'm with blueeyed. Just the difference is i'd make sure there was nothing to find. | |
|
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 10/7/2004 9:17:25 PM | We once had a firearms instructor(a cop) tell us to always fire a warning shot....then he proceded to demonstrate:
''Get out or I'll shoot!!'' ** he fires one shot to the head of the target....walks up to target and fires one into the heart, then one into the ceiling**
We thought he was kidding. Then he explained...If you injure an intruder you will go to jail or get sued or both. If you kill someone in self defense you have a better chance of staying out of jail. If there are no witnesses fire the warning shot last, after you are safe. If you aim a gun at a person you better be prepared to shoot to kill, if you aren't prepared to...do not pick up a gun...use a baseball bat instead.
I thought this was pretty harsh at the time, but my mind still goes over the pros and cons of his stance, I haven't come to any conclusions yet. | |
|
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 10/7/2004 10:31:30 PM | Eve Damiana.
Canadian Law says up to (5) Five years in the slammer if you even point a gun at anyone, irrespective of reason. I am sure if you used a gun to shoot someone in self defence, you'd still be charged, although the term/fine might be drastically reduced from the maximum. | |
|
yna6
|
Joined: 5/2/2004
Msg: 43 | |
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 10/7/2004 11:45:40 PM | | depends on the situation. If it is self defense, go for a jury trial...you'd walk. Depends on your lawyer and the way it is told. Minimum is 10 years for manslaughter....BUT...jury might not find you guilty anyways IF they know that. The Latimer jury did NOT know...and afterwards said they'd of probably said NOT guilty if they'd of known about the minimum sentence. | |
|
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 10/8/2004 12:23:23 AM | | The Gun issue is way over debated. All you need to know is that if I kill somebody, I'm gonna use a spoon to do it. Hey. Lets ban spoons so nobody gets killed. Guns don't kill people. People kill people. Funny how crack cocaine is illegal too but crooks still get it. All you do by taking away people's rights is make it easier for the criminals to do things. I own a few guns and to tell the truth. If somebody breaks into my house I'd rather use the baseball bat. I'll get less sh*t for it. I wish guns too wouldn't have been invented. But that ain't gonna happen. And it wouldn't stop criminals. As a matter of fact it would probably lead to more horrific violent crimes. Look at England for example. Criminals still kill. They use guns and the ones that can't get them illegally just use their cars. | |
|
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 10/8/2004 12:24:40 AM | Pakana, great points up there.
Bad parenting and carelessness leads to child finding and using guns. Republicans are the ones that claim to want government out of our lives....then take responsibility when you bring a ****ing gun into your home.
I have to say that the most dangerous thing in the world is our government having all the guns, and the citizens this country having none.
Personally I like my sword. Sure, it isn't going to do much good in a gun fight, but it is certainly a more elegant weapon.
Ask far as suicide, I went down that road before, I am glad you decided not to kill yourself Snoug. | |
|
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 10/8/2004 1:27:47 AM | Gun control promotes defenseless victems.
World leaders that have successfully implemented gun control are.
Adlof Hitler
Joseph Stalin
Mussoulini
Chairman MAO
and a host of other dead beats and warlords who like there victems unarmed.
During the cold war the soviet plan to invade america was detemined to be unwinnable.. why?
Because in America citizens have the right to bear arms. (please see movie RED DAWN for clarification).
Guns are are tool designed for hunting and defense and yes sometimes offense. but a tool none the less. It is the person who abuses this powerful tool and the society that shapes him that needs to be banned.
I love my country. I love my Second Amendment. I think an old US revolutionary war quote says it best. "You'll take my gun away when you pry it from my cold dead fingers" | |
|
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 10/8/2004 1:41:38 AM | | One other thing on this subject. The USA is known for its medical capabilities throughout the world. Yet 100,000 people a year die from complications during surgery. Whoops sorry.. your dead. This is all lot more than all the americans that will die this year from a gun crime. and that includes the americans currently fighting in Iraq. Out of the hundreds of millions of people that live in the US. Many of which have owned guns all there life. Have never shot anyone nor intend to shot anyone anytime soon. Here in Montana there are so many guns that there are probably two guns for every person in this state. There is very little crime here. Gun crime is rare. It is all about how you raise you kids. | |
|
yna6
|
Joined: 5/2/2004
Msg: 48 | |
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 10/8/2004 7:17:05 AM | | Wonder what the outcome would have been if Karra had had access to a gun in her home when her home was invaded? would we now be reading about her in the hospital? Hmmm....totally different scenario could have been played out there. | |
|
| Gun Control
Posted: 10/10/2004 9:41:00 PM | | Please watch what you are asking for I am a Canadian and we have gun control just it went a little to far.Check out the cssa sight before starting gun control.At this point here any legal gun owner hads no rights left under the law.The police need no reasion or warrent to raid your house to inspect.They have the right to tear up your house .When they do come they break down your door cuff you and take you out side at gun point till the search is over.At that point they will decide if you are breaking any laws.There has been a report from the Toronto chief of police stateing that as of yet there has been no change in crime due to the gun laws.Except that a few officers have been charged with abuse of power.Now that gun control did not work the goverment is trying to kill shooting sports by changeing the law concerning reloading of amunition.They have tryed to make it to pricey for the avrage shooter to enjoy there sport be it target practice or hunting.New hunters are forbidden to go and see what goes on till they have all ready jumped through all the goverment hoops.Right down to not walking along unarmed as for some strange reasion that is poching in the goverments eye.Good luck over there as the same or worse has happened in other contries that have tried to pass similar laws not counting the 2 billion price tag and still counting. | |
|
| Re: Gun Control
Posted: 10/10/2004 9:56:33 PM | Canada does have gun control.All that means if you want it you need a licence for it.The only guns that are hard to get are fully automatics and very small guns.The gun that brought gun control in was a mini 14 and thee are still no restrictions on it.You can buy a Ar14 short barrel
folding stock in Canada.Ha it's legal for any one except law enforcement in the US.We are also band from haveing reenforced barrels and fleshetts for shot guns.But most enyone that is willing to take a safety course can have hand guns and semi auto assult rifles. | |
|
|
| Page 2 of 50
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41 |
|
Home
login 
