| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Guest
|
 Posted: Wed, Oct 20 2010, 10:55 pm EDT Post subject: guns |
 |
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: |
You're probably the type that believes the reason why kids are shooting up our schools is because we have removed school prayer. It never occurs to an ossified mind such as yours that perhaps it's because we have a gun-crazed culture that allows children easy access to firearms. |
FYI- we've been living in a "gun crazed culture that allows children easy access to firearms" for a long time now. The prevalence of bringing guns to school to mow down classmates and teachers is a relatively new phenomenon. While I'll grant you that access to guns must be considered a contributing factor, I don't see how this can be the primary cause. Perhaps it does have something to do with our increasingly Godless society. Perhaps religion tempered our gun culture. Perhaps not. Either way, something has changed beyond access to guns. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed, Oct 20 2010, 11:29 pm EDT Post subject: Re: guns |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | Guns were meant to be kept by citizen-soldiers to protect and defend against government intrusion, whether foreighn or domestic. "A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA". Not just any kook who feels like having one.
Anyway, the founders most likely meant muzzle-loaded, single shot, black power muskets. |
So if I understand your interpretation of the constitution, we're all supposed to keep a muzzle-loaded, single-shot, black-powder musket in the closet to defend ourselves from the government? Good point, Scooter. That makes sense. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Oct 21 2010, 7:48 am EDT Post subject: Re: guns |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | Guns were meant to be kept by citizen-soldiers to protect and defend against government intrusion, whether foreighn or domestic. "A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA". Not just any kook who feels like having one.
Anyway, the founders most likely meant muzzle-loaded, single shot, black power muskets. |
So if I understand your interpretation of the constitution, we're all supposed to keep a muzzle-loaded, single-shot, black-powder musket in the closet to defend ourselves from the government? Good point, Scooter. That makes sense. |
It's preferable than having any random nutbag running around with an assault rifle tellung people, " Ma gun es jest fer huntin' wit".
Have you seen the average gunowner????????????
They seem invariably to be people who just naturally have short fuses.
I just don't think the framers thought that there would be a day when people would be running amok with guns. Eventually, they will fall into the hands of a maniac who will use them to shoot up a school or a McDonalds. It's just a statistical certainty.
Read it again, Zippy...................WELL REGULATED MILITIA.
IGNORE THE COMMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Oct 21 2010, 9:51 am EDT Post subject: Re: guns |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | | Guest wrote: | Guns were meant to be kept by citizen-soldiers to protect and defend against government intrusion, whether foreighn or domestic. "A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA". Not just any kook who feels like having one.
Anyway, the founders most likely meant muzzle-loaded, single shot, black power muskets. |
So if I understand your interpretation of the constitution, we're all supposed to keep a muzzle-loaded, single-shot, black-powder musket in the closet to defend ourselves from the government? Good point, Scooter. That makes sense. |
It's preferable than having any random nutbag running around with an assault rifle tellung people, " Ma gun es jest fer huntin' wit".
Have you seen the average gunowner????????????
They seem invariably to be people who just naturally have short fuses.
I just don't think the framers thought that there would be a day when people would be running amok with guns. Eventually, they will fall into the hands of a maniac who will use them to shoot up a school or a McDonalds. It's just a statistical certainty.
Read it again, Zippy...................WELL REGULATED MILITIA.
IGNORE THE COMMA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Scooter, I haven't stated a position on gun control. You are ranting against your own assumptions about my position, which is silly in its own right. I am simply pointing out that your position on gun control is poorly contrived, just as your positions on other issues appear to be little more than a knee-jerk reaction to the mindless "right-wing nut-jobs" you loathe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Oct 21 2010, 10:03 am EDT Post subject: Re: guns |
|
|
I believe that the original discussion was about the Constitution, not guns. Somehow, the argument got turned around and morphed into something else.
The right-wing has a propensity to cherry-pick which amendments they want to obey and which ones they want OTHERS to obey.
I do agree that when it comes to seperation between church and govenrment, they LOVE to blur the lines. When it comes to guns, they clearly become liberals all of a sudden!!!!!!!!
Liberal in the sense that they liberally hand out weapons to anybody who wants to have one.
I think thats what the discussion was all about.
Somebody put a spin on it and it got all turned around. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Oct 21 2010, 11:09 am EDT Post subject: Re: guns |
|
|
Canadians have just as many guns as Americans do.
I wouldn't consider canadians neccessarily "godless" people.
The British police don't carry guns. You know how many gun deaths there are in Brittain every year? Maybe, a handful.
Most of Europe is secular. Most people there don't attend church any more, yet guns are sparse. Gun deaths are fairly rare over there.
I think that it says more about the American "wild west" cowboy attitude than anything else. I don;t think that God really enters into it very much. You're giving "Him" way too much credit!!!!!!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Oct 21 2010, 12:31 pm EDT Post subject: Re: guns |
|
|
The US Supreme Court did indeed declare the 2nd ammendment guarantees an individual right to own firearms (http://www.nraila.org/heller/)
I was raised in a home that owned guns, and never once had the thought of taking one to school, other than to go hunting when school let out.
Check the homicide rate in Great Brittain, and check the homicide rates in the U.S. states that allow concealed carry. You'll find the rate much higher over there.
The news loves to promote stories of guns used illegally, but rarely do you hear about all of the times a firearm was used to defend a life, or a family, or someone else's life. Especially in NJ where you are guilty untill proven innocent when firearms are involved.
Just some points to ponder |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Oct 21 2010, 2:41 pm EDT Post subject: Re: guns |
|
|
| Guest wrote: |
I believe that the original discussion was about the Constitution, not guns.
|
Actually, the conversation was about religion and the constitution. You started ranting about guns, so I started a new thread.
| Guest wrote: |
Somehow, the argument got turned around and morphed into something else. |
That would be a result of your wild assumptions, a by-product of your 2 dimensional world view. Somehow you assumed that anyone who is not opposed to a "moment of silence" is a gun-crazy religious fundamentalist. In indsight, perhaps you'll agree that's a bit of a stretch?
| Guest wrote: |
The right-wing has a propensity to cherry-pick which amendments they want to obey and which ones they want OTHERS to obey.
|
And vice versa. Neither side gets to have it both ways. You can capitalize "well organized militia" in your posts if you want, but then don't insist everyone must "read between the lines" when it comes to religion.
| Guest wrote: |
Somebody put a spin on it and it got all turned around. |
On this we agree, aside from the identification of "somebody".
Must be that rascal "guest", again.
Have a good day, Scooter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Oct 21 2010, 2:43 pm EDT Post subject: Re: guns |
|
|
| OY VEY, what an asswipe! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
numbers
Guest
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Oct 21 2010, 5:03 pm EDT Post subject: Re: guns |
|
|
Snap!
Nothing like showing someone is an idiot by contradicting them while doing exactly what they say. They probably never checked themselves, just heard that sound bite on some "news" show and believed it without question for themselves... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu, Oct 21 2010, 6:12 pm EDT Post subject: Re: guns |
|
|
| When you put the "right of the people to bear arms" in historical context, it is amusingly pragmatic. Our young nation had just fought a war we could not afford. By far, the largest financial obligations of the federal government at the time were fielding and equipping an army when necessary. As a practical matter, the government granted its people the right to keep and bear arms with the understanding that those who could afford to bear arms would serve in the militia as necessary. In other words, our government simply found a slick way to pass the buck for its primary financial responsibility back to the people. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Oct 22 2010, 9:03 am EDT Post subject: Re: guns |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | | When you put the "right of the people to bear arms" in historical context, it is amusingly pragmatic. Our young nation had just fought a war we could not afford. By far, the largest financial obligations of the federal government at the time were fielding and equipping an army when necessary. As a practical matter, the government granted its people the right to keep and bear arms with the understanding that those who could afford to bear arms would serve in the militia as necessary. In other words, our government simply found a slick way to pass the buck for its primary financial responsibility back to the people. |
My main beef is that the framers didn't expect every Tom, Dick & Harry to be toting concealed weapons onto subways for their morning commute. They couldn't be thinking that far ahead. In their day, a gun was a muzzle-loaded, smooth bore, single-shot musket. Primarily, a gun used for hunting game and feeding families. Occasionaly used to fight off Indian raids and other squabbles, but, used more or less with common sense.
I don't think that the founders wanted their names co-opted to be used by the NRA and their bought-and-paid-for political cronies.
It's a good marketing tactic, but, it is historically innacurate. Do you believe that any of our founding fathers walked around with a flintlock pistol concealed in their waistcoat or their longstocking? I don't think so. I LOVE when people trot out the "founding fathers" to try and make a point, but, do so without any historical knowledge aforethought.
I can see guns being used to hunt with or maybe, perhaps, for protection if you live in a bad neighborhood, but they should be very highly regulated. I just don't want to see any nutbag on the streetcorner getting their paws on these weapons of mass destruction.
If you're some country folk out in the sticks it probably doesn't matter all that much if you have a gun or two. But, we live in THE MOST highly urbanized area of the nation. NY city is less than an hour away and more people there live cheek-to-jowl more than anywhere else in North America. Guns in NY city may not be such a good idea.
So, when speaking of the founding fathers, you should focus on their intent. You have to see the world from their perspective. They were writing about their own time and place. Do you really think they could have forseen laser guns with deathrays? In the near future, any citizen can walk into a Wal-Mart and buy one of these off the shelf ready to fire. Sure, I just made that up, but, you see my point. Just because a weapon CAN BE made and sold, doesn't mean that it should be. Does anyone really need an assault rifle for hunting? How sporting is that? Or do you just want to be one of those insane survivalists who want to be better armed than the local police?
All I'm saying is, don't throw common sense out the window.
Just because someone says that you can have something, don't be a spoiled child and stamp your feet and think that you deserve to have it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Oct 22 2010, 9:05 am EDT Post subject: Re: guns |
|
|
Right-wing nuts tend to be factually challenged!
They live in a faith-based world. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Oct 22 2010, 10:05 am EDT Post subject: Re: guns |
|
|
| Guest wrote: | My main beef is that the framers didn't expect every Tom, Dick & Harry to be toting concealed weapons onto subways for their morning commute. They couldn't be thinking that far ahead. In their day, a gun was a muzzle-loaded, smooth bore, single-shot musket. Primarily, a gun used for hunting game and feeding families. Occasionaly used to fight off Indian raids and other squabbles, but, used more or less with common sense.
I don't think that the founders wanted their names co-opted to be used by the NRA and their bought-and-paid-for political cronies.
It's a good marketing tactic, but, it is historically innacurate. Do you believe that any of our founding fathers walked around with a flintlock pistol concealed in their waistcoat or their longstocking? I don't think so. I LOVE when people trot out the "founding fathers" to try and make a point, but, do so without any historical knowledge aforethought.
I can see guns being used to hunt with or maybe, perhaps, for protection if you live in a bad neighborhood, but they should be very highly regulated. I just don't want to see any nutbag on the streetcorner getting their paws on these weapons of mass destruction.
If you're some country folk out in the sticks it probably doesn't matter all that much if you have a gun or two. But, we live in THE MOST highly urbanized area of the nation. NY city is less than an hour away and more people there live cheek-to-jowl more than anywhere else in North America. Guns in NY city may not be such a good idea.
So, when speaking of the founding fathers, you should focus on their intent. You have to see the world from their perspective. They were writing about their own time and place. Do you really think they could have forseen laser guns with deathrays? In the near future, any citizen can walk into a Wal-Mart and buy one of these off the shelf ready to fire. Sure, I just made that up, but, you see my point. Just because a weapon CAN BE made and sold, doesn't mean that it should be. Does anyone really need an assault rifle for hunting? How sporting is that? Or do you just want to be one of those insane survivalists who want to be better armed than the local police?
All I'm saying is, don't throw common sense out the window.
Just because someone says that you can have something, don't be a spoiled child and stamp your feet and think that you deserve to have it. |
Actually, if you really consider the context and intent of the founding fathers, we probably wouldn't have a standing army and most of us would own our own assault rifles as members of a well regulated militia.
That said, given how we evolved, I think most people agree that a well thought out policy regarding arms control is an important part of maintaining order in our society. I doubt the founding fathers envisioned people owning their own laser guided missles, for example, whereas they would have been psyched if private citizens brought their own cannons to defend DC in the War of 1812.
You may want to keep a few things in mind when you make your argument.
1. If you argue that the intent is to protect ourselves from the government, you are essentially justifying the need for private citizens to own comparable military equipment to the government.
2. There is a logical argument to be made that if you make guns illegal in some places, such as NYC, the only people who will have guns will be the criminals and the cops.
3. If you dismiss the slippery slope argument made by the gun lobby on this issue, it is hypocritical to invoke the slippery slope argument on other consitutional questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Fri, Oct 22 2010, 11:08 am EDT Post subject: Re: guns |
|
|
But, by the slippery slope argument, either EVERONE MUST own a gun or NOBODY CAN own one. It's an all or nothing propostion.
You're fairly safe if prudent, responsible, intelligent people only own guns. Or, if EVERYONE has them. Especially, if they are concealed. If only some of the people own them, how do you know if they are the "right" people?
Its a VERY sticky problem.
Its just like the nuclear weapon issue. Is the US responsible enough to own them?
We are the only nation, so far, to have used them. Who are we to say who may join the nuclear club or not, and if they want to, should we or even, could we stop them?
Weapons of any kind are a VERY thorny issue.
I'm sure that the framers never would've dreamed about nuclear weapons in their day.
I think that you're right about the standing army.
The founders, most of them anyway, would've dismissed the idea.
But, we are a very militaristic country, so..............................
Slippery slopes are everywhere, waiting to get us. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
