Guns, Guns, Guns...

[E1701]

Nice... what models are those, btw? My crazy old uncle had an original M1864 Springfield that he used to go *hunting* with, of all things... but the oldest I've used is my father's 22 year-old Weatherby 12 ga. over-under. It's a nice gun, but it's easily in as good condition as our 3 year-old Remington 870 pump.

So yes, to emphasize here, well-maintained firearms can last a very, very, long time.


I think when it's ten years old, I'll consider my aught-six to be "broken in"...

[Alyeska]

Since you didn't address his entire post I am going to assume that you agree with some of what E1701 said.

[Darth Wong]

Since you didn't address his entire post I am going to assume that you agree with some of what E1701 said.

You mean the parts that were off-topic, such as delving into various well-worn gun arguments regarding which particular type of guns are the worst? No one was talking about assault rifles vs hunting rifles. It's a red herring and I don't see any point in addressing it.

[Alyeska]

Since you didn't address his entire post I am going to assume that you agree with some of what E1701 said.

You mean the parts that were off-topic, such as delving into various well-worn gun arguments regarding which particular type of guns are the worst? No one was talking about assault rifles vs hunting rifles. It's a red herring and I don't see any point in addressing it.

What about the fact that he stated the current system is shit and needs to be fixed? Neither of us are advocating a proliferation of guns to everyone. Were screaming for something that keeps guns away from criminals while educates those who want guns.

[Darth Wong]

What about the fact that he stated the current system is shit and needs to be fixed? Neither of us are advocating a proliferation of guns to everyone. Were screaming for something that keeps guns away from criminals while educates those who want guns.

That's good. Unfortunately, I rarely see anyone willing to state that they would be willing to see things like mandatory licensing come into effect, even though these laudable goals won't exactly achieve themselves.

[Alyeska]

What about the fact that he stated the current system is shit and needs to be fixed? Neither of us are advocating a proliferation of guns to everyone. Were screaming for something that keeps guns away from criminals while educates those who want guns.

That's good. Unfortunately, I rarely see anyone willing to state that they would be willing to see things like mandatory licensing come into effect, even though these laudable goals won't exactly achieve themselves.

Well IMO there is a difference between mandatory liscenses and the right to get a liscense providing you fit basic standards and education levels.

[E1701]

Yes. Your society is obsessed with violence, and has vastly greater inherent inequities than most other first-world nations, thus exacerbating certain frictions that go on to cause violence.

Right, so of course a socialist utopia built upon the forced reallocation of wealth is naturally the answer. And how exactly is our society obsessed with violence? Because Hollyweird and the absurdly vocal far-left say it is, while going about the business of producing movies and television shows founded upon the basis of mindless violence? Yes, they obviously know what the hell they're talking about.

In the US, you can literally buy justice (see OJ) and destroy anyone's life at a whim if you're wealthy (see the Scientologists' practice of financially destroying vocal critics through vindictive litigation).

Scientology produced "Battlefield Earth," so that's hardly a great example... :p But your only example of "buying" justice is OJ... and EVERYONE KNOWS IT! And that's not even entirely true. His race was as much a part of his verdict as his money. Ito was stark-raving pants-wetting terrified of provoking a racial backlash if he found OJ guilty. In context, your accusation would only make sense if we either did not know that, or did not care. But most intelligent people are outraged by it.

That said, welcome to the real world. Money = power. But then, there are other routes to power as well. And then, there are a lot of us who just don't give a damn about the acquisition of power.

The US is hardly a pariah, or singular in that respect, and you know that as well as I do. Thing is, we do not claim to have the perfect system, and we know damn well we don't. I think almost any American you talk to will freely admit that the justice system needs massive overhaul.

In all, a spurious charge.

In an environment such as this, it's not entirely surprising that certain people decide the entire system is simply so dead-set against them that they might as well say "fuck it" and become drug dealers.

Man, and I thought *I* had a lousy opinion of humanity in general. Because I find it quite surprising that *anyone* would be that morally bankrupt as a result of a little challange. For God's sake, I live here too, I'm sure as hell not wealthy, and I don't have all sorts of fun connections... but I hardly see the "system" as stacked against me. If I see something wrong with it, I'm damn well try and change it - but from within the system.

But I don't ever expect the world to be equal. And the sooner people pull their heads out of their asses and realize that the world is not fair, and never will be fair, the better. Make the best of the hand you've been dealt, because folding in the game of life is the coward's way out.

Mention civil liberties, and all of a sudden the tune changes because the world is supposedly so much more dangerous today than it was in their time, and we must give up liberty for Homeland Security.

Fan of the ACLU, are you? Again, this is a rediculous claim. When I see a violation of civil liberties, I'll be the first to scream about it. But in this instance, there *aren't* any, against despite when Hollyweird would have you believe. The biggest single add-on was the new wire-tapping regulations... and all of it *still* must be overseen by a judge at every step of the way. There's no carte-blanche Big Brother spying issue here.

Now, I think they have gone overboard. That Illuminati-like logo for the one department was over-the-top (and quickly pulled), and the terrorism alert system is seriously a joke.

But then, that's hardly surprising that it'd happen. It was only a year and a half ago that I could look out my window and see the smoke from the WTC over the treetops. People get scared, and when people get scared, government overcompensates. But that's no reason to panic about a return to Nazism either. The Constitution is more robust than any single administration, or any series of administrations. It survived McCarthy just fine, and it'll weather this too (not even counting for the vast increase in the number of political watchdog groups since the fifties).

Mention the wall of separation,

"Wall of seperation"? That'll need some 'splainin' Lucy.

But when it's GUNS, all of a sudden the Founding Fathers are unquestionable gods.

The Founding Fathers were never considered "unquestionable gods." And I resent the implication.

However, they *were* clearly visionary, although their framework and philosophical basis lies mostly in the Enlightenment movement. They were not heads-in-the-clouds loony tunes either though, and knew enough about political realities to build in some weighty checks on governmental power. Part of those were torn down by the Civil War (when the US went from "those United States" to "the United States") when the Federal government established through use of force it's preeminance over the states and local governments.

The point being, when these very intelligent men needed to codify the foremost freedoms that would be permanantly garuanteed by the Constituion, they had to select from 87 proposed amendments, and out of the twelve selections, only ten were passed. And they were indeed passed and listed in order of considered importance... which puts a *lot* of weight behind the second one of those.

But of course they are questionable. I have no problem with *intelligent* gun control, even though strictly, any control is a techical "infringement". And I also disagree with Alexander Hamilton's two assertions, the first that the government should be forcibly overthrown every twenty years or so, and second, that the "Masses are Asses."

So do not presume to speak for me and millions of my countrymen, when you clearly don't even understand our culture.

Where the fuck did you hear that Canada has an outright ban?

My fault, bad choice of words. Compared to the US, what you have virtually is a ban... at least on many major models of firearms.

Japan has a full ban, the UK is pretty damned close (no pistols, only low-caliber rifles, and shotguns, and only then with a declared need beyond self-defense), and Australia is pretty close to the UK. I'm not up on my Canadian law, but I do know that it is far more strict and limiting than those in the States.

Of course not. Because while the second amendment supposedly protects all of the other rights, those other rights are being stripped away one by one while the second amendment remains untouchable.

Feel free to provide an example or two here...

Because I don't trust the government to use the money they take from me wisely, and I don't trust most of their bureaucrats to know how to wipe their own asses... but you sound even more paranoid than I do.

Whatever.

You ever astound me with your firey and incisive retorts...

[UltraViolence83]

Okay, considering the sheer amount of gun crime in the US at the moment. Why do you think of the right to bear arms? Is it a good thing?

Is it even necessary in the present (though Id like to avoid the 'we need guns to protect us from the gun crime' arguement.

Basically, why not make gun ownership illegal? Aside from the constitional right to bear arms, what is the the necessity for gun ownership in the US, would the place be worse with out them?

I swear I will never let guns be illegal. Sparing you all the right-wing rant, I'll put up some good points. Here's one I hardly ever see: With guns, we can rebel against an oppressive government. If that (or any) government takes away all legal guns, we would be at their mercy. Personally, though I don't own a firearm YET, I'd feel much better and safe carrying one around with me. There's a reason for the 2nd Amendment, and it wasn't just fer keepin' redskins at bay and the King O' England outta yer face, either. Someone comes at you with a knife, shoot the dirty bastard. Besides, guns are historic. Collectors would fume with fury over their total banning. And also, guns helped our beloved democracy come to power in the world. Giving a dirty illiterate peasant the ability to kill a highly-skilled knight/archer with minimal training allowed the concept of democracy to replace the sick tyrants, whom where on their last legs anyway. Making them illegal wouldn't solve anything, either. People would go back to fists, swords (hehe) or bows. Okay, the last two are probably a pipe dream but the battle for survival on the dark streets would become a contest of strength. The little wuss without his peice isn't going to be able to stand up to the gang member who seemed to be fed only steriods as a kid. Besides the point of 'legal' guns...I have the proper channels to purchase a revolver for at least 50 bucks if I so desired. Thanks to people like Shep and...less right-wing people like me, the banning of firearms isn't going to happen.

As a side note, I've toyed with the idea of wanting to relegalize dueling. Why bother with a lawsuit when you can engage in semi-mortal combat?

[E1701]

Heh, I'm still in favor of GWB have a duel with Saddam... C'mon, we could sell tickets and make a killing! Texan with his finger on the button vs tinpot Iraqi with almost as many doubles as Elvis... what's not to love?

[Coyote]

well, why not? guns ARE dangerous objects which are primarily designed to kill people. yes they sure can be fun. nukes can be fun too. do we want people to run around with nukes? i don´t. and yes, cars are also dangerous objects but they´re necessary and they are not designed to kill.

Flawed analogy; cars actually are not necessary and public transportation is better for the environment. Also, cars are marketed to be 'fun' and 'sporty' and ads boast how fast you can go in their cars. Guns are packaged with warning in them that say "This is a dangerous weapon, never point it at anyone".

Nukes and other explosives kill through uncontrolled release of energy in an omnidirectional pattern. You cannot control the destructive effects of an explosion; once unleashed it is beyond the wielder. A gun, however, must be aimed and shot consciously, and the wielder is responsible for what happens. The guns vs. explosives argument is a poor comparison.

Are you affraid of what I MIGHT do with the weapon?

yes![/quote]

Are to start accusing, jailing, and punishing people simply because of what they might do? That is scary.

Do you realize you have a better chance of dying in a car wreck then getting shot by a gun?

bad argument. cars are necessary for transportation. guns not necessary

Actually, compare the rate of car-owner deaths to the rate of gun-owner deaths. You'll find that overall, the gun owners have a higher safety average than car owners-- kinda odd for something "designed only to kill". I can provide numbers if you wish, I don't have my book with me now.

Be careful of the anti-gun statistics in general: recently, HCI/VPC got in trouble for presenting gun-death statistics touting the effects of gun "crime"... it included police use of guns to stop criminals, free citizens legally defending themselves form criminals, suicides and accidents as "crime deaths". One of HCI's favorite statistics was that most guns were used to kill "friends and acquaintances" but they included drug dealers havign turf wars as "acquaintences" in domestic disputes.

btw, we´re not talking only about fully automatic guns. i don´t think that revolvers and normal pistols are fully automatic guns. aren´t normal pistols semi autmatics? and aren´t they more spread than any other gun?

This is why I have such a problem with ignorant people making "decisions" without doing an ounce of research. "Semi-automatic" does not, repeat, does not mean "rat-a-tat-tat" machinegun style fire. It shoots only as fast as you can squeeze the trigger and no faster. Semi-automatic means that the next round is loaded automatically after the previous round is fired. You must then squeeze the trigger again to make it fire.

What possible justification do you have that gives you the right to say your sense of security is so much more important then the rights of law abiding citizens?

i think that my security is more important than some right that people have as soon as i think that this law is crap.

However it has been proven that allowing law-abiding citizens to own and cary weapons reduces crime. The criminals-- who get guns regardless of the law, they are criminals, remember?-- becoem fearful of attacking someone who can fight back.

I guarantee you that if you draw a map of the US and color in the areas where there is the most crime... and then another map and color in the areas with the most restrictive gun control... they will essentially be the same map. Everyone and their dog has a gun here in Boise, Idaho.. and guess what? Per capita, we have gun crime rate of almost zero. Criminals here attack property mostly, not people.

owning one of them probably is one of the less dangerous things in life. the problem comes up when so many people own them. when a nation is flooded with guns, with objects designed to kill, like the us is.
and jaja, i know that canada has just as much guns as the us. but the canadians apparantly can handle this amount of guns whereas the usa can not.

Then Canada is a perfect example that guns in society is not the problem-- you have to look somewhere else.

[Coyote]

The city of Chicago seemed to take this idea seriously enough to launch a lawsuit against gun manufacturers over it, on the charge that they were selling to high-volume supposedly end-user customers who were obviously turning around and re-selling on the black market.

That is a canard of gun control advocates like HCI/VPC, a very "fundamentalist" organization when it comes to gun control. Many, many attempts have ben made in the last few years ot sue gun owners for illegal uses of guns, they have all been thrown out of court.

Following the logic-- can I then sue GM for a car that hits my little sister? Can I sue Budweiser for the drunken boyfriend that assaults her later in life?

[Darth Wong]

Yes. Your society is obsessed with violence, and has vastly greater inherent inequities than most other first-world nations, thus exacerbating certain frictions that go on to cause violence.

Right, so of course a socialist utopia built upon the forced reallocation of wealth is naturally the answer.

Hey look! Another knee-jerk dumb-fuck peddling black/white fallacies!

And how exactly is our society obsessed with violence? Because Hollyweird and the absurdly vocal far-left say it is, while going about the business of producing movies and television shows founded upon the basis of mindless violence? Yes, they obviously know what the hell they're talking about.

Yes, of course, your society is NOT obsessed with violence. There must be some OTHER explanation for the fucking >10,000 gun homicides in your country every year. Mind you, if you won't blame society, and you won't blame guns, what the fuck DO you blame?

Scientology produced "Battlefield Earth," so that's hardly a great example... :p But your only example of "buying" justice is OJ... and EVERYONE KNOWS IT! And that's not even entirely true. His race was as much a part of his verdict as his money. Ito was stark-raving pants-wetting terrified of provoking a racial backlash if he found OJ guilty. In context, your accusation would only make sense if we either did not know that, or did not care. But most intelligent people are outraged by it.

Oh, so you think money doesn't buy justice? Wow, I don't often run into people this painfully naive.

That said, welcome to the real world. Money = power. But then, there are other routes to power as well. And then, there are a lot of us who just don't give a damn about the acquisition of power.

Justify it all you want, I'm just pointing out that a "dog eat dog" society will engender more hostility than a more conciliatory type of society. Spin-doctor it all you like, but unless you've got some BETTER explanation for the ridiculous levels of violence in your society, then you must suck it down and accept it.

The US is hardly a pariah, or singular in that respect, and you know that as well as I do. Thing is, we do not claim to have the perfect system, and we know damn well we don't. I think almost any American you talk to will freely admit that the justice system needs massive overhaul.

In all, a spurious charge.

How is it spurious? Could it be that you just want to disagree with me and don't particularly care whether you make an ass of yourself in the process? If the violence in America is not caused by guns and is not caused by society, then what is your fucking explanation? Alien mind-control rays?

Man, and I thought *I* had a lousy opinion of humanity in general. Because I find it quite surprising that *anyone* would be that morally bankrupt as a result of a little challange. For God's sake, I live here too, I'm sure as hell not wealthy, and I don't have all sorts of fun connections... but I hardly see the "system" as stacked against me. If I see something wrong with it, I'm damn well try and change it - but from within the system.

I don't get the impression that you're a poor black kid growing up in an impoverished inner-city district with schools that have rotting ceilings. Perhaps you shouldn't speak for the entire population of the country when you say you don't think you have it too bad.

But I don't ever expect the world to be equal. And the sooner people pull their heads out of their asses and realize that the world is not fair, and never will be fair, the better. Make the best of the hand you've been dealt, because folding in the game of life is the coward's way out.

I have found that people with shallow morality tend to view it as a simple matter of fairness, with little or no need for the human quality of sympathy. The idea of balancing the two goals does not seem to occur to them.

Mention civil liberties, and all of a sudden the tune changes because the world is supposedly so much more dangerous today than it was in their time, and we must give up liberty for Homeland Security.

Fan of the ACLU, are you? Again, this is a rediculous claim. When I see a violation of civil liberties, I'll be the first to scream about it. But in this instance, there *aren't* any, against despite when Hollyweird would have you believe. The biggest single add-on was the new wire-tapping regulations... and all of it *still* must be overseen by a judge at every step of the way. There's no carte-blanche Big Brother spying issue here.

Right, and indefinite detainment without formal charges is perfectly acceptable in your world? The virtual destruction of copyright fair-use rights is a perfectly acceptable trade-off for the profits of Time-Warner and Disney? Face it; your rights are ERODING, and after all the rhetoric about standing up and fighting, I haven't seen it. And I seriously doubt I will; if they passed Patriot 2 without a single alteration, I'll bet every NRA member would just passively take it. All of that talk about rising up and fighting for rights and using the second amendment to guarantee all of the other rights through the threat of armed rebellion is a lot of hot air and macho posturing as far as I can tell.

Now, I think they have gone overboard. That Illuminati-like logo for the one department was over-the-top (and quickly pulled), and the terrorism alert system is seriously a joke.

But then, that's hardly surprising that it'd happen. It was only a year and a half ago that I could look out my window and see the smoke from the WTC over the treetops. People get scared, and when people get scared, government overcompensates. But that's no reason to panic about a return to Nazism either. The Constitution is more robust than any single administration, or any series of administrations. It survived McCarthy just fine, and it'll weather this too (not even counting for the vast increase in the number of political watchdog groups since the fifties).

Ah, good. Hope everything will solve itself. Always the best way to make sure things turn out for the best

Mention the wall of separation,

"Wall of seperation"? That'll need some 'splainin' Lucy.

I was unaware that you were so totally ignorant of your own country's principles of government.

But when it's GUNS, all of a sudden the Founding Fathers are unquestionable gods.

The Founding Fathers were never considered "unquestionable gods." And I resent the implication.

However, they *were* clearly visionary, although their framework and philosophical basis lies mostly in the Enlightenment movement. They were not heads-in-the-clouds loony tunes either though, and knew enough about political realities to build in some weighty checks on governmental power. Part of those were torn down by the Civil War (when the US went from "those United States" to "the United States") when the Federal government established through use of force it's preeminance over the states and local governments.

The point being, when these very intelligent men needed to codify the foremost freedoms that would be permanantly garuanteed by the Constituion, they had to select from 87 proposed amendments, and out of the twelve selections, only ten were passed. And they were indeed passed and listed in order of considered importance... which puts a *lot* of weight behind the second one of those.

Since the current administration is already shitting all over the First Amendment with nary a whimper from the right or left wing, I don't see why you think you can seriously claim that there isn't some uneven application of respect for "Founding Father Wisdom".

But of course they are questionable. I have no problem with *intelligent* gun control, even though strictly, any control is a techical "infringement". And I also disagree with Alexander Hamilton's two assertions, the first that the government should be forcibly overthrown every twenty years or so, and second, that the "Masses are Asses."

So, does that mean you would have no problem with a mandatory licensing scheme?

So do not presume to speak for me and millions of my countrymen, when you clearly don't even understand our culture.

Don't bullshit me. I lived within 500 goddamned yards of Michigan for 4 fucking years, and crossed that border more times than I can count. I get your TV, your radio, your newspapers. Inasmuch as you know anything about the country outside your own particular community, I know about your culture.

Where the fuck did you hear that Canada has an outright ban?

My fault, bad choice of words. Compared to the US, what you have virtually is a ban... at least on many major models of firearms.

I know lots of gun owners who never complained about any of those regulations prior to the Giant Scam known as Bill 160 (the registration database that ended up costing taxpayers more than a billion dollars, probably because they're funneling money into corrupt suppliers; a BILLION dollars to set up a fucking database with a few million entries ).

Japan has a full ban, the UK is pretty damned close (no pistols, only low-caliber rifles, and shotguns, and only then with a declared need beyond self-defense), and Australia is pretty close to the UK. I'm not up on my Canadian law, but I do know that it is far more strict and limiting than those in the States.

First you agree that the laws are fucked up, then you say that something more strict and limiting than the current system would be so awful that it might as well be a ban?

Feel free to provide an example or two here...

Because I don't trust the government to use the money they take from me wisely, and I don't trust most of their bureaucrats to know how to wipe their own asses... but you sound even more paranoid than I do.

Perhaps I'm just more observant. Your current government has shit on fair-use laws, antitrust laws, and first-amendment guarantees against federal money being used to support church activities. Am I supposed to take this as a sign of a POSITIVE trend?

Whatever.

You ever astound me with your firey and incisive retorts...

You were expecting something more, as a response to your semantic nitpicking over the placement of a fucking comma?

[UltraViolence83]

I'll respect the good arguements for gun control/registration made by Darth Wong and other responsible people, but I can't fucking stand the ultra-left on the anti-gun issue. Seeing what they would like to change in our country, I can assume they hate things that need personal responsibility to manage effectively. Firearms (and weaponry in general) are one of the few things in our society that teaches personal and moral responsibility. I don't see anyone after martial arts training. These bleeding hearts and their vile ilk are of the "If someone ruins it, get rid of it!" arguement. It's pathetic.

Fucking naive commie assholes. Get a fucking clue on reality.

Note: This post isn't aimed at anyone on this board in particular.

[Utsanomiko]

Yes. Your society is obsessed with violence, and has vastly greater inherent inequities than most other first-world nations, thus exacerbating certain frictions that go on to cause violence.

Right, so of course a socialist utopia built upon the forced reallocation of wealth is naturally the answer.

Hey look! Another knee-jerk dumb-fuck peddling black/white fallacies!

Yet another reason I made this:



Totally regardless of what his stance is, that 'not american=socialist' logic just left me exasperated. It's not a very good fallacy to use if you want to look like you know what you're talking about.

[DPDarkPrimus]

It's not the number of guns in the society that make the violence, it's the society which possesses the guns that makes the violence.

[Perinquus]

Yes. Your society is obsessed with violence, and has vastly greater inherent inequities than most other first-world nations, thus exacerbating certain frictions that go on to cause violence.

Hey look! Another knee-jerk dumb-fuck peddling black/white fallacies!

Well, I think to say "American society" as a whole is a bit of a generalization. We have a subset of violent criminals who are responsible for the lion's share of violent crime. FBI statistics state 7% of our criminal population is responsible for about 70% of our violent crime. That tallies pretty well with my experience on the street as a police officer. I have arrested the same people over and over again for some crimes, even violent crimes (and when I see someone I just put in jail for malicious wounding out three months later committing violent crimes again, I sometimes wonder why I even bother coming to work). A lot of our violent crimes are caused by a cancerously growing gang culture, and most of the crime is drug related. A lot of these gang members are terrifyingly violent people, and are barely understandable by most people. I can tell you some pretty blood chilling stories. Some of these people are just incomprehensibly violent and will kill in response to the slightest perceived insult, and they are certainly not representative of most members of American society, but they are responsible for a disproportionate number of violent crimes.

So I wouldn't say American society is especially more violent, but rather a certain subset of our society.

Yes, of course, your society is NOT obsessed with violence. There must be some OTHER explanation for the fucking >10,000 gun homicides in your country every year. Mind you, if you won't blame society, and you won't blame guns, what the fuck DO you blame?

See above. This gang situation is a problem I desperately wish I had the answers to. I think it's going to get a lot worse before it gets better. And the frightening thing is that it is liable to become such a problem eventually that a majority may demand extremely harsh measures to curb it, and this would all too easily lead to further erosion of our civil liberties.

Oh, so you think money doesn't buy justice? Wow, I don't often run into people this painfully naive.

I cannot disagree with you here. Tort reform and reform of the criminal justice system is badly needed. Of course, this just proves my point that gun control is not the cure for violence in our society. Certain sensible gun control measures would help (many of which are already on the books, but sporadically enforced), but the poblem of violence in our society is multi-faceted, and a lot of different things will have to be done to fix it. Politicians use gun control as a high profile quick fix to get votes; and like most quick fixes, it's not really going to solve the problem.

How is it spurious? Could it be that you just want to disagree with me and don't particularly care whether you make an ass of yourself in the process? If the violence in America is not caused by guns and is not caused by society, then what is your fucking explanation? Alien mind-control rays?

See above.

Mention civil liberties, and all of a sudden the tune changes because the world is supposedly so much more dangerous today than it was in their time, and we must give up liberty for Homeland Security.

I am watchful of the government encroaching on all our civil liberties. For example: here in Virginia we have Project Exile, which on the face of it, is exactly what 2nd Amendment supporters have been wanting for ages - a gun control measure that focuses on criminals and not gun owners in general. It mandates harsh penalties for those who use guns in the commission of crimes, but leaves law abiding gun owners alone. There's just one problem: it gives Federal jurisdiction over matter specifically and explicitly reserved in the Constitution to the States. I fear this may be used as a precedent to justify the erosion of other constitutional rights later. (Better by far would be a program that keeps the harsh penalties for these same offenders, but keeps it all at the State level).

I was also very alarmed by the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill, which is a crystal clear violation of the 1st Amendment, and I was infuriated by Geo. W. Bush not vetoing it.

As a student of history, however, I am saddened and completely unsurprised by any of this. I have never heard of a government which did not progress to more and more corruption, abuse of power and repressiveness over time. The only time governments have become more free rather than less is after violent upheavals, and not all of them produce this result either. Historically, there's no reason to believe the U.S. government would buck this trend forever. I wish it could.

Right, and indefinite detainment without formal charges is perfectly acceptable in your world? The virtual destruction of copyright fair-use rights is a perfectly acceptable trade-off for the profits of Time-Warner and Disney? Face it; your rights are ERODING, and after all the rhetoric about standing up and fighting, I haven't seen it. And I seriously doubt I will; if they passed Patriot 2 without a single alteration, I'll bet every NRA member would just passively take it. All of that talk about rising up and fighting for rights and using the second amendment to guarantee all of the other rights through the threat of armed rebellion is a lot of hot air and macho posturing as far as I can tell.

I am an active NRA member, and I am flatly opposed to Patriot 2. I am certainly not ready to rise in revolt, but I am reasonably politically active, and would do all within my ability (and within the law) to oppose such measures. I write my congressman on issues I feel are important, and would do so in this case. I would also make my views known to my 2 senators and the president, as well as writing my local paper and communicating with like-minded people on the internet to try and hold those responsible for passage of such a bill accountable at election time.

But when it's GUNS, all of a sudden the Founding Fathers are unquestionable gods.

I never viewed the Founding Fathers in quite that light. But I do think they were men of vision as well as of practical, good sense, and they bequeathed to us a very good blueprint for our government, which has helped to keep us strong, free, and prosperous for a long time. The gun lobby focuses on the 2nd Amendment almost to the exclusion of others, true... but then think of people who are politically active about abortion, the environment, racial issues, etc. Tunnel vision is an unfortunate human characteristic. People who are passionate enough about a subject to become very active politcally, naturally tend to focus on their pet issue to the exclusion of most others.

So, does that mean you would have no problem with a mandatory licensing scheme?

I am of two minds about it. On the one hand, if I could be assured that it was not just the camel's nose under the tent, I would have no problem about it. On the other hand, I'm terribly afraid it might be.

I know you regard that as a slippery slope fallacy. The problem is, the political opponents of the 2nd Amendment have, in their more unguarded moments, admitted that precisely this is their strategy - to chip away at the right to own guns a little at a time, until it's finally all gone.

For example:

I'm convinced that we have to have federal legislation to build on. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. My estimate is from seven to ten years. The problem is to slow down the increasing number of handguns sold in this country. The second problem is to get them all registered. And the final problem is to make the possession of *all* handguns and *all* handgun ammunition -- except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors -- totally illegal. -- Pete Shields, Chairman, HCI "A Reporter At Large: Handguns", _The New Yorker_, July 26, 1976, 57-58

The "licensed gun collectors" part makes it sound more innocuous, but if all you can have are museum-like collections of firearms in your home, it makes them rather useless for self defense - which is why the right to own guns exists in the first place

or:

We're here to tell the NRA their nightmare is true!." "We're going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission! -- U.S. Rep. (now Senator) Charles Schumer NBC Nightly News 11/30/93

Other politicians like Diane Feinstein, Howard Metzenbaum, and Daniel Patrick Moynihan and others have, at various times, supported this strategy as well, and these are not lobbyists, these are members of Congress. Is it still a fallacy when your opponents admit that they are greasing the slopes?

[salm]

well, why not? guns ARE dangerous objects which are primarily designed to kill people. yes they sure can be fun. nukes can be fun too. do we want people to run around with nukes? i don´t. and yes, cars are also dangerous objects but they´re necessary and they are not designed to kill.

Flawed analogy; cars actually are not necessary and public transportation is better for the environment. Also, cars are marketed to be 'fun' and 'sporty' and ads boast how fast you can go in their cars. Guns are packaged with warning in them that say "This is a dangerous weapon, never point it at anyone".

ok, why the hell are people here saying that cars are not necessary for transportation? that´s a load of bullshit! of course they are necessary for transportation in our society. public transprotation wont take me everywhere i need to go esspecially not in most cities in the us.

Nukes and other explosives kill through uncontrolled release of energy in an omnidirectional pattern. You cannot control the destructive effects of an explosion; once unleashed it is beyond the wielder. A gun, however, must be aimed and shot consciously, and the wielder is responsible for what happens. The guns vs. explosives argument is a poor comparison.

and guns in the hands of idiots kill through uncontrolled release of energy or because of criminal energy. you need to understand that i don´t want to ban guns just simply to ban guns, i want to ban guns to get rid of the enormous amount of guns available. if you find better "ways" to reduce guns that´s fine too.

<edit>the word "ways" with the "" used to be reasons which was not what i meant.</edit>

Are you affraid of what I MIGHT do with the weapon?

yes![/quote]

Are to start accusing, jailing, and punishing people simply because of what they might do? That is scary.
[/quote]
um... where did i accuse anybody?

Do you realize you have a better chance of dying in a car wreck then getting shot by a gun?

bad argument. cars are necessary for transportation. guns not necessary

Actually, compare the rate of car-owner deaths to the rate of gun-owner deaths. You'll find that overall, the gun owners have a higher safety average than car owners-- kinda odd for something "designed only to kill". I can provide numbers if you wish, I don't have my book with me now.
[/quote]
so? how often do i have to repeat this?
cars = necessary
guns = not necessary.
and if you can prove that cars are not necessary in today´s society i´ll nominate you for the nobel prize of enviormental protection.

Be careful of the anti-gun statistics in general: recently, HCI/VPC got in trouble for presenting gun-death statistics touting the effects of gun "crime"... it included police use of guns to stop criminals, free citizens legally defending themselves form criminals, suicides and accidents as "crime deaths". One of HCI's favorite statistics was that most guns were used to kill "friends and acquaintances" but they included drug dealers havign turf wars as "acquaintences" in domestic disputes.

nice for you but let me tell you that no post i made included evidence from statistics.

btw, we´re not talking only about fully automatic guns. i don´t think that revolvers and normal pistols are fully automatic guns. aren´t normal pistols semi autmatics? and aren´t they more spread than any other gun?

This is why I have such a problem with ignorant people making "decisions" without doing an ounce of research. "Semi-automatic" does not, repeat, does not mean "rat-a-tat-tat" machinegun style fire. It shoots only as fast as you can squeeze the trigger and no faster. Semi-automatic means that the next round is loaded automatically after the previous round is fired. You must then squeeze the trigger again to make it fire.
[/quote]
and i have problems with people like you who apparently don´t follow the whole thread but step in somewhere in the middle forget whole passages.
alyeska argued that guns are not that evil because more people die by lighning than by FULLY automatic guns. i then said that we´re not only talking about FULLY automatics but about guns in general.
so what´s wrong with my above argument you attacked?

What possible justification do you have that gives you the right to say your sense of security is so much more important then the rights of law abiding citizens?

i think that my security is more important than some right that people have as soon as i think that this law is crap.[/quote]

However it has been proven that allowing law-abiding citizens to own and cary weapons reduces crime. The criminals-- who get guns regardless of the law, they are criminals, remember?-- becoem fearful of attacking someone who can fight back.

I guarantee you that if you draw a map of the US and color in the areas where there is the most crime... and then another map and color in the areas with the most restrictive gun control... they will essentially be the same map. Everyone and their dog has a gun here in Boise, Idaho.. and guess what? Per capita, we have gun crime rate of almost zero. Criminals here attack property mostly, not people.

owning one of them probably is one of the less dangerous things in life. the problem comes up when so many people own them. when a nation is flooded with guns, with objects designed to kill, like the us is.
and jaja, i know that canada has just as much guns as the us. but the canadians apparantly can handle this amount of guns whereas the usa can not.

Then Canada is a perfect example that guns in society is not the problem-- you have to look somewhere else.[/quote]

wrong! it´s a perfect example that guns are no problem in canadas society. it´s not an example of guns being no problem in the us.

[E1701]

Hey look! Another knee-jerk dumb-fuck peddling black/white fallacies!

Congrats, I was hoping the sarcasm would bludgeon you over the head with your own hypocrisy... and it seems you obviously missed it entirely.

How is my branding your ideals a "socialist utopia" any different than you immediately branding our society "obsessed with violence?" Oh, that's right, you said so, so obviously it must be true.

Yes, of course, your society is NOT obsessed with violence. There must be some OTHER explanation for the fucking >10,000 gun homicides in your country every year. Mind you, if you won't blame society, and you won't blame guns, what the fuck DO you blame?

I blame the criminals, myself. For fuck's sake, our overall murder rate is little different than any other country's, including Canada. We have ~15,980 murders annually (committed by all weapons). On the other hand, we also have nearly 10 times the population of Canada. Gee, I wonder if *that* might be part of the reason there are such numbers...

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_01/01crime2.pdf

And while old, this is interesting as well: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/cjusew96/crvs.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/html/cjusew96/crpr.htm

Seems we've got a higher murder rate than the UK, but far less of just about everything else... and in recent years, that trend has only been growing. So unless you are prepared to dismiss the UK as having the same "violence obsessed" culture we apparently have...

In fact, the UN Criminal Justice System Survey in 1999 reached the conclusion, based on their collected statistics, that firearm proliferation in any country could not be directly linked to an increase in crime, because some countries with lax gun laws have little crime, and some with strict gun laws have a lot of crime. The only conclusion they could find was that countries which had a large gun-owning population involved more murders via firearm (well duh), but not more overall.

Oh, so you think money doesn't buy justice? Wow, I don't often run into people this painfully naive.

How cynical of you. Money definately helps, as evidenced by the fact that the walking freak show Michael Jackson is still on the loose. But will it buy justice? Not hardly. OJ walked through a combination of money, celebrity (most judges tone down under the hostile glare of media spotlights), and race. Bill Clinton walked for similar reasons - money, celebrity, and an attorney general who was foursquare behind him.

It's not right, but it's also not a lurking secret that the public is totally innocent of. We know it, and we'll try to fix it - our own way.

And if you think *our* justice system is fucked, take a look at Germany, where they gave a guy 8 years in jail for 3,000 counts of intent to commit murder...

If the violence in America is not caused by guns and is not caused by society, then what is your fucking explanation?

I place the blame where it belongs - on the heads fo the criminals. That's part of what having a brain means - the ability to tell right from wrong, completely regardless of influences like media, weapon availability, and cultural imperatives. If you commit crime, it's because you damn well wanted to, and if you get caught, I hope you get locked away in a cell with a big guy named Moe for a long time.

"Society" is an abstract, and laying blame there is rampant idiocy, akin to blaming the French for the horror of male fashion that is the necktie, because once upon a time, they invented the cravat. You can't blame society because someone is a fucknut, no more than you can blame a gun or knife for the moron wielding it in a crime.

Perhaps you shouldn't speak for the entire population of the country when you say you don't think you have it too bad.

In point of fact, my school did have rotten cielings... :p But that's beside the point - I'm hardly wealthy by any means, I live in a very racially mixed neighborhood, and I'm about 30 miles from one of the largest metropolitan areas in the world, which also happens to be bastion of leftist ideology.

I may not be qualified to speak for all Americans, but I'm a damned sight more qualified than you. I live under our laws, in our society, and I've got enough guns and ammo to qualify as four legal New York state arsenals. I'd never use them in a crime, and none of the many legal gun owners I know would either.

I have found that people with shallow morality tend to view it as a simple matter of fairness, with little or no need for the human quality of sympathy. The idea of balancing the two goals does not seem to occur to them.

Sympathy is something that needs to be freely given, not government mandated. I have no problems donating to charity, or helping out the seniors in my neighborhood with raking, snow shovelling, etc. But the moment the government says, "You *must* give some of the money you earn to less fortunate," I say fuck off.

And that's the real core of the issue. People who do bad things are responsible for their own damned actions. And people who do good are likewise responsible for their actions.

You want the real reason behind our high crime rates? Here's one for you: The Death of Personal Responsibility.

Nowadays, it's fashionable to do what you're doing. Blame society. Blame weapons. Blame the media. Blame movies and video games. Blame the weapons. Blame everyone but the person who pulled the trigger.

Right, and indefinite detainment without formal charges is perfectly acceptable in your world?

Of course not. But it's nothing new. For the love of God man, our greatest president, Abraham Lincoln, suspended the writ of habeus corpus, and imprisoned an estimated five thousand anti-war protesters. It was wrong, but it was necessary.

In war, all bets are off, and if you don't consider 9/11 an act of war, you've got your head wedged so far up your ass you don't remember what the light of day looks like.

All of that talk about rising up and fighting for rights and using the second amendment to guarantee all of the other rights through the threat of armed rebellion is a lot of hot air and macho posturing as far as I can tell.

Or maybe you're just more paranoid than those guys who sit in little tin-foil shacks deep in the woods making bombs and forming militias.

I was unaware that you were so totally ignorant of your own country's principles of government.

Wow, that was some explanation teach'.

Either you're referring to the seperation of powers, or the much misunderstood seperation of church and state.

If the latter, I suggest you give some examples. Because for all of his religious fervor, GWB has not in any way promoted the establishment of a state religion. No, giving government money to religious charities doesn't quite do that, now does it? I think the less religion and government mix, the better - but I'm always left wondering why proponents of extreme seperation don't have anything to say about the clear deism of the Founding Fathers, or that fact that all currency reads, "In God We Trust".

Since the current administration is already shitting all over the First Amendment with nary a whimper from the right or left wing, I don't see why you think you can seriously claim that there isn't some uneven application of respect for "Founding Father Wisdom".

Ah, so we finally come to the root of your bitch-fest. You don't like Bush...

Well, that's hardly surprising, because he doesn't play by the rules, and it's about damed time. You guys got too used to Clinton smooching the ass of every foreign country on the planet, and you just don't want to deal with a little Texas-style beat-down. Frankly, I can live with that, because his job is to advance our interests, not toady up to the nearly-defunct UN. Hell, the only reason we're still talking with them right now is to help out Tony.

So cut the self-righteous bullshit. Your way ain't the only way, pal.

So, does that mean you would have no problem with a mandatory licensing scheme?

Of course I do. The government does enough "manadatory" things as it is, without adding one more. Besides which, you already need permits out the wazzoo just to *hold* a pistol in a gun store. If nothing else, cars should prove how useless that kind of legislation is anyhow. I mean, there as as many guns as cars in the country, and yet we have around 12,000 gun homicides annually, and 50,000+ car deaths, a huge proportion of which are caused by drunks. And yet, if you have a gun in your car that isn't in a locked case, you can get prison time... get caught mindlessly drunk in you car, and you get a slap on the wrist.

Like I said, I want intelligent legislation. On both fronts.

I don't fully agree with Alyeska's scheme, but it's a hell of a lot better than what we've got now. But the basis of it should be simple, and already exists in Project Exile. Yet oddly, despite the major impact that made, few other states are even considering adopting it.

Don't bullshit me. I lived within 500 goddamned yards of Michigan for 4 fucking years, and crossed that border more times than I can count. I get your TV, your radio, your newspapers. Inasmuch as you know anything about the country outside your own particular community, I know about your culture.

ROTFLMAO! *swallows down his coughed-up lungs*

Oh yes, that's right, you obviously know more about my culture than I do, because I live in one of the most economically, racially, culturally mixed parts of the entire country, and you've been to northern Michigan...

*starts giggling uncontrollably again*

the registration database that ended up costing taxpayers more than a billion dollars, probably because they're funneling money into corrupt suppliers; a BILLION dollars to set up a fucking database with a few million entries

Then we agree on that. Neither government knows what the fuck it's doing.

They're still trying that here, and after those "snipers", the media tried to push a database of all gun-barrel internal patterns... even though those patterns change with use.

Perhaps I'm just more observant. Your current government has shit on fair-use laws, antitrust laws, and first-amendment guarantees against federal money being used to support church activities.

The "church activities" consist of charity organizations. And btw, I might point out that based on 9/11, they're clearly far more trustworthy as well. Bill O'Reilly among others utterly shredded the Red Cross and Salvation Army, because they were using those donations to fund their own expansion! The anti-trust laws right now are a mishmosh, and need serious revising. And fair use laws? Sorry, but if I create something, then God dammit, it's gonna belong to me for as long as I want it to. If that means you can't use it without paying me 50 years down the road, tough shit.

No, it ain't nice, but that is the way it is.

You were expecting something more, as a response to your semantic nitpicking over the placement of a fucking comma?

I'm a strict Constitutional constructionalist. Semantics are everything in that context.



Edit: Perrinquus does bring up a very good point with Project Exile, and I do agree with him on that. It needs to be modified to be a state-level issue, rather than a Federal one.

[salm]

hey, kollege, can´t you read? guns are primarily designed to kill. knives are primarily designed to cut my food. and in case you come up with some sort of military knive primarily designed to kill, yes, ban the as well. where i come form even brass knuckles are banned and i like it.

And you have no logical reasoning behind this. Guns are not primarily designed to kill.

no of course not. guns are designed to clean them and keep them in your safe. this is ridiculous.

They can kill yes, but they can do more then that. You would ban combat knives regardless of their duel uses. If it can kill but wasn't designed to kill (according to you) its legal.

you still didn´t read my other posts. i clearly stated that it´s not to be illegal NOW what you imply on me.

If its designed to kill (or hurt, you hate brass knuckles afterall)

so you at least admit that brass knuckles are primarily designed to hurt and don´t pull out some flimsy arguments saying they are not.

it must be made illegal regardless of its secondary purposes. There is no rational logic to that.

how´s there no logic to that?
unecessary danger = bad = should be outlawed. simple logic. it´s not my problem that you can´t understand that.

you don´t think there are intelligent criminals?
anyway, if they´re around in the amounts as they are in the us they are likely to get into hands of idiots.

That is why you create laws that discourage their use by criminals and encourage law abiding citizens to properly store them.
[/quote]
nice. if these laws work properly that´s fine with me.

so what? the military is not the people. the military is trained to handle guns and the military needs guns. the normal population would not need guns (for more on that point of view read my first post)

You would be surprised how little you need. Furthermore if you had bothered to read what I wrote education is an important part of responsible gun ownership.
[/quote]
this is getting stupid. this is going to be same old "you don´t need a car" argument. bullshit! cars are necessary in todays society. guns might still be necessary. i want to reduce this necessity.

i think i already covered that in my last post

If its designed to kill according to you it must be banned but if something that isn't designed to kill according to you kills more people, its just fine. Yeah, you covered that alright.
[/quote]
never said it´s ok. if something is dangerous but necessary it must be made safer but it´s impossible to outlaw it.

has this got anything to do with the nuke example?

The nuke example is a flawed one.
[/quote]
nice that you don´t bother to explain why it´s flawed.

no, here in stuttgart they are not as necessary as in yorba linda. but they still are.

As I said, cars are not necessary and thus according to your reasoning they should be banned.
[/quote]
more of the same

wtf? if something is necessary i have to use it, no matter if it´s dangerous or not. if something is not necessary ánd dangerous i should NOT use/own it since it´s a non necessary danger.

Cars and planes are an unnecessary danger. Of course using your logic guns are a necessary defense tool that are sucessfully used in home invassion situations more then 2 million times a year with a 98% sucess ratio without a single shot being fired.

[/quote]
even more of the same

explain

Your computer is not necessary.
[/quote]
yawn

could you back this up?

Lets see... Heart disease, various forms of cancer, anything out in the wild, natural disasters...
[/quote]
all right, so i fell to your trick question. i was still thinking of you "fully automatics vs lighning" argument from your last post.

so very view people in the us get shot?

All things considered, yes.
[/quote]
ok, guns are no problem, shootings are not problem, move on, move on, there´s nothing to see here.

If gun crime by criminals is significantly reduced then gun violence will drop very markedly.

no shit, sherlock!

If gun owners have improved education, gun violence will drop even further. You can have little gun violence without making guns illegal.

al right, do it!

are you completely ignorant of the fact that i never said that? i just wonder where these programs are if they can fix all the problems.

Believe it or not, but these programs are not very popular with the bradey gun law groups and other gun control groups.
[/quote]
i don´t give a fuck about the bradey gun law groups or other gun control groups. they do not necessarily represent my oppinion. just because i don´t like guns does not mean that i have anything to do with the bradey gun law groups or other gun control groups.

do you completely ignore my first post?

So what are you arguing about then?
[/quote]
i´m trying to find ways to reduce shootings. one theory was my first post. that´s what i´m arguing about. i wanted to know what other people think about this theory. it´s not very developed since it pretty much popped into my mind 10 minutes before i posted it. until now only captain frank has really reacted to it by stating that it´s impossible to get rid of guns by letting them slowly rust in the owners safe.

do you completey ignore my last post

I do seem to recall responding to it hence your response back.
[/quote]
completely substituted with partially.

what the hell are you talking about? of course i conclude that is possible to own guns and be safe with it because i see that i works in canada.

So then why are you advocating their banning in the US? Would it not be more logical to impliment changes that makes society safer yet at the same time owning weapons remains legal?
[/quote]
whatever is more possible.

do you even understand why i suggested not to ban guns now but first get rid of the incredible number of guns in the us?

That is impossible. The drug war is proof of that. You can not stop the importation of weapons into the black market.
[/quote]
i´m not sure. drugs are different from guns. i guess they´re easier to detect and it´s probably harder to ship them. a box full of drugs is probably worth more than a box of the same size full of guns.

yup, i´d sacrifice the freedom to own guns.

Worse, you would sacrafice my freedom to own guns.

Funny, your arguments are contradictory. You admit that it is possible to own guns and have a safe society yet you continue to advocate banning of guns.[/quote]
you fail to notice that i said it´s possible in canada. canada is not the us. furthermore i didn´t say that it´s impossible in the us either. but it´s impossible in the us NOW. so you´d ever have to change the us society or get rid of the guns.
what ever is easier and more effective.

<edit>deleted a "not" which wasn´t supposed to be there"

[E1701]

*gleefully tosses more fuel on the fire*

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?...RD=1286&PAG=461


No, before someone starts shrieking, I do not agree with everything this lady says. Disarming the German populace was a specific action taken by the Nazi party to ensure no serious possibility of resistence to their policies from their own civilians. I do *not* think gun-grabbing liberals in the US are out to form a Nazi state and begin the conquest of Mexico and Canada. I think our variety of gun-grabbers do it out of misguided effort to make people safer. The problem is, they believe that anything that makes *them* feel safe must inherently be a good idea. And because they cannot stem the flow of black-market guns and illegally used ones, they target only those that they can, even if it's the wrong target.

In the meantime, I'll continue hunting, shooting, and plinking. Speaking of which, it is finally a beautiful day outside, so I'm off to the range. Toodles all.

[Vympel]

*gleefully tosses more fuel on the fire*

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?...RD=1286&PAG=461


No, before someone starts shrieking, I do not agree with everything this lady says. Disarming the German populace was a specific action taken by the Nazi party to ensure no serious possibility of resistence to their policies from their own civilians. I do *not* think gun-grabbing liberals in the US are out to form a Nazi state and begin the conquest of Mexico and Canada. I think our variety of gun-grabbers do it out of misguided effort to make people safer. The problem is, they believe that anything that makes *them* feel safe must inherently be a good idea. And because they cannot stem the flow of black-market guns and illegally used ones, they target only those that they can, even if it's the wrong target.

In the meantime, I'll continue hunting, shooting, and plinking. Speaking of which, it is finally a beautiful day outside, so I'm off to the range. Toodles all.

The link doesn't work.

[E1701]

Buck Futter! [/Connery]

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?news ... 86&PAG=461

[salm]

*gleefully tosses more fuel on the fire*

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?...RD=1286&PAG=461


No, before someone starts shrieking, I do not agree with everything this lady says. Disarming the German populace was a specific action taken by the Nazi party to ensure no serious possibility of resistence to their policies from their own civilians. I do *not* think gun-grabbing liberals in the US are out to form a Nazi state and begin the conquest of Mexico and Canada. I think our variety of gun-grabbers do it out of misguided effort to make people safer. The problem is, they believe that anything that makes *them* feel safe must inherently be a good idea. And because they cannot stem the flow of black-market guns and illegally used ones, they target only those that they can, even if it's the wrong target.

In the meantime, I'll continue hunting, shooting, and plinking. Speaking of which, it is finally a beautiful day outside, so I'm off to the range. Toodles all.

so, is there a specific reason ypu posted that link? i mean bush is a fucking asshole, but he´s far from being a hitler.

anyway all this we have to protect ourselves from the government crap is a load of bullshit anyways. if the government wanted to kick the peoples ass the people could hardly defend themselves with their fire arms against fighter jets and tanks.

[Alyeska]

*gleefully tosses more fuel on the fire*

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?...RD=1286&PAG=461


No, before someone starts shrieking, I do not agree with everything this lady says. Disarming the German populace was a specific action taken by the Nazi party to ensure no serious possibility of resistence to their policies from their own civilians. I do *not* think gun-grabbing liberals in the US are out to form a Nazi state and begin the conquest of Mexico and Canada. I think our variety of gun-grabbers do it out of misguided effort to make people safer. The problem is, they believe that anything that makes *them* feel safe must inherently be a good idea. And because they cannot stem the flow of black-market guns and illegally used ones, they target only those that they can, even if it's the wrong target.

In the meantime, I'll continue hunting, shooting, and plinking. Speaking of which, it is finally a beautiful day outside, so I'm off to the range. Toodles all.

so, is there a specific reason ypu posted that link? i mean bush is a fucking asshole, but he´s far from being a hitler.

anyway all this we have to protect ourselves from the government crap is a load of bullshit anyways. if the government wanted to kick the peoples ass the people could hardly defend themselves with their fire arms against fighter jets and tanks.

On the other hand, having such weapons would prevent the military from forcing the civilian populations from working to support the military.

[salm]

*gleefully tosses more fuel on the fire*

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?...RD=1286&PAG=461

so, is there a specific reason ypu posted that link? i mean bush is a fucking asshole, but he´s far from being a hitler.

anyway all this we have to protect ourselves from the government crap is a load of bullshit anyways. if the government wanted to kick the peoples ass the people could hardly defend themselves with their fire arms against fighter jets and tanks.

On the other hand, having such weapons would prevent the military from forcing the civilian populations from working to support the military.

er....