|
|
|
|
|
| Gun Control
Posted: 10/21/2004 3:00:27 AM | i too agree some control is a must.Humans need limits,only takes one to prove that and its been proven time and time again ending in anothers loss.
I love to target shoot,(man-made targets)rifle/shotgun.
Being that im a single female.I have the right to protect myself & family.
and i am for a shotgun for protection.I love to go camping and a rifle is essential to protect incase of attack & i havent a problem what so ever with guns,rifles/shotguns that is.Hand guns are of the same but hold its own controversy as to their benefits & non benefits to ones right to bare arms.Icannot physically guarantee my right to protect if im overpowered by a male.Shotgun is my controlled protection and balance in the protection for my family and myself.I wouldnt own a hand gun.
Bottom line for me= no one has the right to victimize another and if one makes my home their target for their selfish,thieving,perversions, i have the right to make it clear to him that he wasnt welcome and insure my household he wont be back.Im not going to wonder if the robber plans to hurt me or my kids,Im gonna shoot his a** and im gonna shoot to kill! if i can .. | |
|
| Gun Control
Posted: 10/21/2004 11:24:26 AM | | has anyone brought up the fact that the phrase "the right to bear arms" ACTUALLY meant that the original US colonies had the right to have an organized army for defense? it's been interpreted to mean "I have the right to sleep with a gun under my pillow and point it anyone who threatens me". | |
|
| Gun Control
Posted: 10/21/2004 2:06:15 PM | | This is a moot academic issue. Rank and File Paladin Policeman all over Mayberry support the 2 Amendment and ARMED CITIZENS. They will fight. They have already picked their Big Brother targets if it comes to that. I have heard some speak. All this hot air is meaningless in the face of that resolve including PDD 25. | |
|
alura2
|
Joined: 3/18/2004
Msg: 79 | |
| Gun Control
Posted: 10/21/2004 2:24:05 PM | | ok this guy is freeaking me out^^^^^^^^^^^^ | |
|
yna6
|
Joined: 5/2/2004
Msg: 80 | |
| Gun Control
Posted: 10/21/2004 11:32:09 PM | "that's like saying that just because I have boobies that makes me a lesbian."...I'd have to see proof of that...feel free to e-mail a pix!
Ok....hand guns....forget them....as far as I am concerned, the carry and conceal laws have more than proven themselves as detterents to criminals. The numbers prove it. | |
|
| Gun Control
Posted: 10/23/2004 5:24:22 PM | | People are crazy about their guns. In South Africa the government wanted to install a law that restricted people to no more than 3 guns. A politician in parliament threatened to emigrate if the law was passed. What the hell are you going to do with so may guns. Are you going to start using your feet to shoot the things. I just find the whole thing very funny. Another incident: A guy shot his daughter dead late at night in their home because he though she was an intruder. People with guns are just as crazy as criminals. How can you just shoot at someone without even checking who they are. | |
|
| Gun Control
Posted: 10/23/2004 11:15:48 PM | OK ALL YOU PRO GUNNERS
WAKE UP
LOOK AT THE STATITICS FOR YOURSELF
HOW MANY PEOPLE DIE BECAUSE THEY GET SHOT IN
1)- THE USA
2)-CANADA
3)-BRITIAN
IN A GIVEN YEAR?................................
PLEASE, GO RESEARCH THIS.............................
IF YOU CAN COMEBACK WITH A LOGICAL EXPLANATION WHY PEOPLE SHOULD OWN GUNS
AFTER YOU READ THAT..................THEN COME SHARE YOUR "LOGIC"
WITH THE REST OF THE ROOM...........I WILL BE WAITING HERE TO RESPOND. | |
|
| Gun Control
Posted: 10/23/2004 11:20:19 PM |
has anyone brought up the fact that the phrase "the right to bear arms" ACTUALLY meant that the original US colonies had the right to have an organized army for defense? it's been interpreted to mean "I have the right to sleep with a gun under my pillow and point it anyone who threatens me".
actually it was not for the colonies to have an army. "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the preservation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined "militia of the United States" to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. This statute, incidentally, remained in effect into the early years of the present century as a legal requirement of gun ownership for most of the population of the United States. There can by little doubt from this that when the Congress and the people spoke of a "militia", they had reference to the traditional concept of the entire populace capable of bearing arms, and not to any formal group such as what is today called the National Guard. The purpose was to create an armed citizenry, which the political theorists at the time considered essential to ward off tyranny. From this militia, appropriate measures might create a "well regulated militia" of individuals trained in their duties and responsibilities as citizens and owners of firearms.
keep in mind we had just broken away from british rule, the founders wanted to make sure that later down the road the people would still be free. all you have to do is read some of their quotes.
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." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)
"The great object is that every man be armed . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution.)
"The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans possess over the people of all other nations . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.)
"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." (Second Amendment to the Constitution.)
Samuel Adams, a handgun owner who pressed for an amendment stating that the "Constitution shall never be construed . . . to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms," would be shocked to hear that his native state today imposes a year's sentence, without probation or parole, for carrying a firearm without a police permit.
His purpose was to incorporate, not distinguish by technical changes, proposals such as that of the Pennsylvania minority, Sam Adams, or the New Hampshire delegates. Madison proposed among other rights that "That right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person." I n the House, this was initially modified so that the militia clause came before the proposal recognizing the right. The proposals for the Bill of Rights were then trimmed in the interests of brevity. The conscientious objector clause was removed following objections by Elbridge Gerry, who complained that future Congresses might abuse the exemption to excuse everyone from military service.
The proposal finally passed the House in its present form: "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the preservation of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." In this form it was submitted into the Senate, which passed it the following day. The Senate in the process indicated its intent that the right be an individual one, for private purposes, by rejecting an amendment which would have limited the keeping and bearing of arms to bearing "For the common defense".
The earliest American constitutional commentators concurred in giving this broad reading to the amendment. When St. George Tucker, later Chief Justice of the Virginia Supreme Court, in 1803 published an edition of Blackstone annotated to American law, he followed Blackstone's citation of the right of the subject "of having arms suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law" with a citation to the Second Amendment, "And this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government." William Rawle's "View of the Constitution" published in Philadelphia in 1825 noted that under the Second Amendment: "The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by a 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 pretense by a state legislature. But if in blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." The Jefferson papers in the Library of Congress show that both Tucker and Rawle were friends of, and corresponded with, Thomas Jefferson. Their views are those of contemporaries of Jefferson, Madison and others, and are entitled to special weight. A few years later, Joseph Story in his "Commentaries on the Constitution" considered the right to keep and bear arms as "the palladium of the liberties of the republic", which deterred tyranny and enabled the citizenry at large to overthrow it should it come to pass.
They argue that the Second Amendment's words "right of the people" mean "a right of the state" — apparently overlooking the impact of those same words when used in the First and Fourth Amendments. The "right of the people" to assemble or to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures is not contested as an individual guarantee. Still they ignore consistency and claim that the right to "bear arms" relates only to military uses. This not only violates a consistent constitutional reading of "right of the people" but also ignores that the second amendment protects a right to "keep" arms. These commentators contend instead that the amendment's preamble regarding the necessity of a "well regulated militia . . . to a free state" means that the right to keep and bear arms applies only to a National Guard. Such a reading fails to note that the Framers used the term "militia" to relate to every citizen capable of bearing arms, and that the Congress has established the present National Guard under its own power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia.
it is your right to not have a gun, and it is my right to have one, or several as the case may be. | |
|
| Gun Control
Posted: 10/23/2004 11:24:34 PM |
Posted By: GUITARMAN100 on 06-09-2004 06:43 PM
Subject: Gun Control
Message: OK ALL YOU PRO GUNNERS
WAKE UP
LOOK AT THE STATITICS FOR YOURSELF
HOW MANY PEOPLE DIE BECAUSE THEY GET SHOT IN
1)- THE USA
2)-CANADA
3)-BRITIAN
IN A GIVEN YEAR?................................
PLEASE, GO RESEARCH THIS.............................
IF YOU CAN COMEBACK WITH A LOGICAL EXPLANATION WHY PEOPLE SHOULD OWN GUNS
AFTER YOU READ THAT..................THEN COME SHARE YOUR "LOGIC"
WITH THE REST OF THE ROOM...........I WILL BE WAITING HERE TO RESPOND.
evening gman, im compiling stats for a post for ya gimme a few | |
|
| Gun Control
Posted: 10/23/2004 11:49:34 PM | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
YOU GO SUNSHINE
I AM RIGHT HERE BUDDY
OH YA, AND READ THAT CONSTITUTION STUFF TO SOMEONE'S MOTHER THAT JUST HAD HER SON KILLED IN A DRIVE BY SHOOTING.........SEE HOW FAR YOU GET
I AM NOT AN EXPERT BUT WASN'T THAT CONSTITUTION STUFF WRITTEN WHEN "THEY"
ALSO THOUGHT IT WAS OK TO HAVE SLAVES????(JUST TO ILLUSTRATE THE LOGIC/WISDOM OF THE TIMES) | |
|
| Gun Control
Posted: 10/23/2004 11:56:07 PM | | should we band house hold things too like knives, cause they can kill people.. or make it a law that people have to walk around with there hands in there pockets, cause your fist can kill someone? NO!!... guns dont kill people..people kill people.. ive said this before.. but you anti-gun people have no logic.. a gun sitting on a table is just as dangerous as a knife sitting on the kitchen counter... its not dangerous till the wrong person picks it up.. a gun by itself can do no harm.. i never heard of any incidents where a gun when on a wild killing spree.. have you? | |
|
| Gun Control
Posted: 10/24/2004 12:12:54 AM | these stats are mostly for the us... im having probs finding cdc-esque reports for ther countries
firearms kill 28,663 1.2% in the us (this figure include police shootings, self defense,
accidental, gang, everything)
In 2000, there were 28,663 firearm deaths in the United States,
including 16,586 (58%) suicides, 11,071 (39%) homicides
(including 270 deaths due to legal intervention),
and 1,006 (4%) undetermined/ unintentional firearm deaths.
as for the mother whose kid was just shotr in a drive by, there were 181 firearms deaths of
children under the age of fourteen. this includes suicides, homicide, and accidental. you're more
likley to die in the hospital than by a gun. now remember when we get to a point when people
are saying "yeah tell that constitution crap to (insert whatever here)" that can be said about anything,
if taken to the extreme. "OMG look what happened to the twin towers... tell the families about
that freedom of religion crap' (yes i know they were not citizens but you see where this could go?"
in comparison...
Cause Number
Motor-vehicle 3,059
Drowning 1,060
Fires, burns 833
Mechanical suffocation 459 (what the hell is mech. suff. anyway??)
Ingestion of food, object 213
Source: Figures are for 1995.
National Safety Council,
Accident Facts: 1998 Edition, at 10, 11, 18
wow, i guess its just not safe for mom to drive you to the pool. death by falling kills
more people in the us than guns do. how do we legislate that i wonder? anywho, this is part one
it took me a while to start finding stuff didn't want you to think i'd run out on a good debate
get back with ya in a few more | |
|
| Gun Control
Posted: 10/24/2004 12:19:37 AM | these are per 100k
Country Suicide Homicide Total
U.S. 12.2 7.59 19.79
Finland 24.4 2.86 27.2
Switzerland 24.45 1.13 25.58
France 21.8 4.36 26.16
W.Germany 20.37 1.48 21.85
Japan 20.3 0.9 21.2
these are not just gun death statistics but stat in general that include guns.
in france, germany, and japan they have almost total gun control. ready for the kicker
Israel 6 2 8
and people are constantly getting blown up in israel!!
still working | |
|
| Gun Control
Posted: 10/24/2004 12:26:36 AM | http://www.cfc-ccaf.gc.ca/en/research/publications/reports/1990-95/reports/siter_rpt.asp
heres a page to look at, a friend has just showed up and i wouldn't want to be rude to her.
catch ya tomorrow | |
|
| Gun Control
Posted: 10/24/2004 12:34:01 AM | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
OK YOU TWO ARE OBVIOUSLY FROM THE STATES CAUSE YOU CANNOT TELL THAT YOUR SHIT SMELLS CAUSE YOU LIVE IN IT AND THINK IT IS NORMAL.
JUST LIKE WHEN YOU WALK INTO A ROOM AND IT SMELLS LIKE SHIT ........AND THE PERSON THAT HAS BEEN IN THERE ALL DAY GOES I CAN'T SMELL ANYTHING..............
"firearms kill 28,663 1.2% in the us (this figure include police shootings, self defense,
accidental, gang, everything)
In 2000, there were 28,663 firearm deaths in the United States,
including 16,586 (58%) suicides, 11,071 (39%) homicides
(including 270 deaths due to legal intervention),
and 1,006 (4%) undetermined/ unintentional firearm deaths. "
YOUR STAT HERE WILL DO JUST FINE..............
NOW FACT COMPUTER...................... HOW MANY PEOPLE DIED OF GUN RELATED DEATHS IN THE SAME YEAR IN CANADA AND BRITIAN ????
JUST ANSWER THAT.............
DO NOT BOTHER TRING TO WRIGGLE AROUND THE QUESTION I JUST ASKED...............
WITH A BUNCH OF STATS PLEASE.
YOU SEEM TO LIKE TO TYPE STATS MORE THAN YOU LIKE TO STATE AN OPINION. | |
|
| calm down buckwheat
Posted: 10/24/2004 12:48:18 AM | whoa, easy boy... debate not flame, i'd hate to get banned for rippin you.
anywho couple of things.
1) you asked me (pro-gun) to look up the statistics had i not done this and stated pure opinion you would have said i was pulling this all out of my a$$.
2)i haven't tried to "wriggle" (btw i think you mean wiggle) around anything. i am simply giving you access to the same information that i was pulling. hell i haven't even answered any questions yet.
as far as opinion goes i do not believe everyone has a right to their opinion, i believe everyone has a right to their INFORMED opinion. makes for better arguments and conversations. | |
|
| Gun Control
Posted: 10/24/2004 12:48:30 AM | @PANKANA
OH YES THE STANDARD RESPONSE...............
"GUNS DON'T KILL PEOPLE ...................PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE"
AND YES FROM AMERICA.................
WELL HERE IN CANADA
IF TWO NIEGHBOURS GET IN A FIGHT................YOU HAVE MUCH LESS CHANCE OF BEING KILLED BY YOUR NIEGHBOUR CAUSE HE WAS REAL PISS OFF
HAVING A GUN MAKES KILLING VERY EASY AND QUICK USALLY BEFORE SOMEONE HAS A CHANCE TO RATIONALIZE THE SITUATION AND COOL OFF..........
A HI POWERED RIFLE CAN KILL A PERSON FROM A MILE AWAY.............A KNIFE PROBABLY NOT
I SOMEONE CAME AT ME WITH A KNIFE I WOULD HAVE A BETTER CHANCE OF SURVIVING THAN IF SOMEONE SHOT ME FROM ACROSS THE STREET....................
IF SOMEONE IS NUTS THEY CAN KILL WAY MORE PEOPLE WITH GUNS THAN KNIVES
REMEMBER COLOMBINE .....................
WOULD THAT AMOUNT DAMAGE/DEATH HAVE OCCURED IF THOSE SICK KIDS WENT IN THERE
WITH A NAPSACK FULL OF STEAK KNIVES??? | |
|
| Gun Control
Posted: 10/24/2004 1:01:50 AM | "From 1970 to 1996, approximately 37,399 individuals died or were killed as a result of gun shot wounds. This accounts for an average of 1,385 deaths per year over 27 years IN CANADA "
37,399 GUN DEATHS IN CANADA.............. OVER 27 YEARS FOLKS
CANADA---GUN CONTROL---->AN AVERAGE OF 1385 DEATHS PER YEAR CAUSED BY GUNS
AMERICA----"RIGHT TO BARE ARMS"-------->26,500 DEATHS PER YEAR CAUSED BY GUNS
SO HOW DO YOU LIKE THAT ?.....................
ANY DIRECT COMMENTS ABOUT THOSE STATS INSTEAD OF PAGES OF STATS THAT ARE NOT DIRECTLY RELATED TO THIS SUBJECT.... | |
|
| Gun Control
Posted: 10/24/2004 3:25:17 AM | Its twice that of Canada, since the U.S. has 10x the population.
Someone have some stats for how many were killed by legally Registered weapons vs. Illegal ones?
The U.S. has far more smuggling into the Country through Mexico, loosely stated 20x higher than that between Canada & the U.S.?
The Statistics above are an indicator, but by no means the complete story.
Furthermore, what percentage of death was cause by handguns vs. rifles, since handgun regulations are different in Canada than the U.S.?
Next item, there is a far higher percentage of poverty in the U.S. than in Canada, since the Canadian Social System picks up the slack, making crime not as essential to survival.
As such, without these considerations, the above Statistics are yet relevant to other matters.
Its not that Black & White. | |
|
| Gun Control
Posted: 10/24/2004 11:00:08 PM | | We should talk LAND MINES ! These are the real killers. Schu Mine ! Bouncing Betty ! TOE POPPERS ! If the US disarms we'll be like all those other worn-torn countries like Germany, France and Asia etc. Land Mines, D/U, and Toe Poppers ! I don't want that in the US. | |
|
| Gun Control
Posted: 10/25/2004 3:42:25 AM | UMMMMM^^^^^^^^^^^^^6
WHO IS GOING TO PUT LAND MINDS IN THE STATES? | |
|
| Gun Control
Posted: 10/28/2004 11:35:57 PM | One key element to look at is the relevancy of the facts/stats. Maybe there's 10x more people killed in country A than country B. And lets say there's a difference in the gun laws between the 2 countries too. This does not mean that every one of those persons killed was shot by a pistol-totin' drunk ending an argument with the neighbors the easy way. Sometimes people getting killed by guns is a good thing. Home intruder catches a .38 in the skull? Probably a good thing. Man runs through playground with chainsaw, slashing children and takes a hollowpoint through the heart.... good thing. Yet some seem to be saying that "hey, there's two more people murdered with a gun; so all guns are bad."
And what was that about "try quoting all that Constitution garbage to someone who just lost their child to a drive-by shooting."? Let me see if I get this straight, your opinion is automatically correct because someone in a highly agitated mental state *might* not want to hear some historical truth? Seriously, if you think the Constitution -- "Constitution" meaning the very FOUNDATION of the country -- is garbage, then basically you hate the US and/or all it stands for.... so why are you here? You hate those who love their country, and hate those who support the defense thereof? Tell me again who's the hippocrit?
Allow MasterBart to pitch an analogy. Headed east on I-10 through Texas, shortly before the Louisiana border you come to a small town called Vidor. This place has a reputation for being basically the largest concentration of Klansmen (KKK) per capita in the state, and probably the country. Yet, I'm sure there are a few people there who really aren't racist. Would it be wise for a black family to move there, because "not everyone there is bad?" No, heck no, absolutely not. Just as much as a few good apples don't freshen the barrel here, a few bad apples shouldn't spoil the bunch amongst gun owners. Sure, there will be people that do stupid things with guns. This doesn't mean that owning a gun automatically turns someone stupid. If you want a real solution, outlaw stupidity. MMM, sarcasm intended.
If you want less violent crime in this country, outlaw the FDA. You can't go to the grocery store and buy fruits or vegetables that haven't been contaminated with a governmentally set minimum of fertilizers, fungicides, pesticides, herbicides, preservatives etc etc etc. Meats come with growth hormones, antibiotics and God-knows-what-else. And that's only on "pure" things. Most people drink "fruit-flavored beverage" instead of juice. Most of the meat we consume comes in the form of mechanically separated, processed meat by-products, with added chemicals. Yup, read the ingredients on your hot dogs, folks. In fact, read the ingredients on everything, then ask "what effect will this have on my brain, over years of consumption?".
Then tack on the number of people who smoke, drink and do drugs. Let's say you don't; still, how much time do you spend below hi-voltage power lines? How many radio stations are there in your city? -- do you realize those radio waves are passing through your body 24/7, for every station? Uh-huh, same goes for several million cell phone conversations -- the cellular radiation is going through your body too. How much time do you spend absorbing cathode ray tube radiation? Do you realize that every time you pass through a radar trap, there's over 150x the amount of X-rays passing through you than at the hospital having your bones photo'ed?
How much chlorine do you absorb through your skin when you take a shower in a city with a municipal water supply (filtered sewage)? Lead? Etc? Do you know how many chemicals leech out of a plastic bottle into liquid of any kind? -- yeah, and how many times a day do you drink something out of a plastic bottle?
And you wonder if ADD is something we have the "insight" to diagnose more often, or if the epidemic is growing. "Did people have behavioral problems like we do now 100 years ago" you may ask. I doubt it.
Now that we've taken a look at what goes into our brain chemically, let's look at other input. What do we get when we watch TV, read the paper, a magazine, a book, see a movie, listen to the radio or an album? We have a media that thrives on constantly outdoing the competition in a contest for maximum shock value. The ghetto gangsta criminal is now becoming the standard default social icon.
People are going to go nuts. Some will use guns. Blaming guns is looking in the wrong direction, and this kind of ignorance is downright dangerous. Yes, the Constitution has been overruled, ignored, underrated, misinterpreted, misrepresented and outright ignored for so long. Those who understand it's principles cannot ever manage to convince society to understand them, much less follow those principles. Still, saying that banishment of the tool will prevent bad things is dissillusionment, and dangerously so. | |
|
| Gun Control
Posted: 10/28/2004 11:51:41 PM | ^^^^^^^^^^^^thanks for typing that bart
I LIVE IN CANADA SO I AM NOT A HYPOCRIT..........
PEOPLE IN ANY COUNTRY FEEL MAD IF THEY "LOOSE ANY RIGHTS"
WHICH ,I THINK IS MORE "THE HEART OF THE MATTER"
AND, YOUR EXAMPLE OF THE KKK SHOWS THE EXACT TYPE OF B.S
WE DO NOT DEAL WITH HERE IN CANADA
IT IS A MUCH MORE PEACEFUL COUNTRY....IN CANADA
I THINK HALF OF THE PROBLEMS THE STATES HAS
IS BECAUSE OF THEIR GUN LAWS
THE STATES IS A MUCH MORE VIOLENT COUNTRY WHAT ELSE WOULD EXPLAIN IT?
OR IS IT THAT YOU GUYS ARE JUST IRRATIBLE? | |
|
| Gun Control
Posted: 10/29/2004 1:34:09 AM | | guitarman100, Hi! If the US citizens surrender their arms anyone could mine the place. We already have our own military conducting covert NBC warfare here and we're armed ! | |
|
| Gun Control
Posted: 10/29/2004 1:43:38 AM | [quote THE STATES IS A MUCH MORE VIOLENT COUNTRY WHAT ELSE WOULD EXPLAIN IT?
OR IS IT THAT YOU GUYS ARE JUST IRRATIBLE?
nah its just plain old PMS....for now thats all i got to say till read more of whats been said here | |
|
|
| Page 4 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 
