Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 2/23/04 04:45 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

At 2/23/04 01:13 PM, Gooie wrote: Yeah, you really lose the thought when you bring in ANY radical. I was trying to post something in here, but at this point, the topic is... shot

Moore isn't really a radical though. He's just left.

Yeah, a leftist who gets totally slammed on here whenever he's brought up.

"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."
- the Second Amendment

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - Patrick Henry

"When only cops have guns, it's called a police state".
- Robert A. Heinlein

"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776

"No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson

"Those who give up essential liberty for a little, temporary security deserve neither."
-Benjamin Franklin

"When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own house, his possessions are safe"
(Luke 11:21).

“The right of self defence is the first law of nature.”
-Saint George Tucker, 1803

An armed person is a "Citizen" but an unarmed person is a "Subject".
A citizen has rights, a subject doesn't."

Guns cause crime like spoons cause Rosie O'Donnell to be fat!

At 2/23/04 07:15 PM, MKII wrote: "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."
- the Second Amendment

This is the one that counts. Do you see anything about individuals rights? I see something about an organized, regulated militia.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - Patrick Henry

At 2/23/04 07:52 PM, MKII wrote: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - Patrick Henry

Others would contend that a "well-regulated militia" means a state-organized one to protect federalism.

To say that the entire populace of the American state is one, armed militia would be a tad bit dangerous and loony. My opinion though.

In the time of the Founding Fathers, the militia was made up of private citizens, who assembled when needed, so i think the word "militia" reffers to the american people. plus, the second line of the amemdment says "the right of the people to bear arms shal not be infringed.

just my 2C

At 2/23/04 09:50 PM, MKII wrote:

"the right of the people to bear arms shal not be infringed."

but who is to say what is the people, people could be an interpretation of what the militia is.

the militia is the people. the people are the militia. seems pretty clear to me. but then again, i stand on my head when doing this, so....

At 2/23/04 07:38 PM, -redskunk- wrote: This is the one that counts. Do you see anything about individuals rights?

The last time that the Supreme court heard a second ammendment case was in 1939. In US vs. Miller the court clearly states"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

More recent rulings at the district level have been divided, with the 5th circut ruling for an individual right and the 9th (go figure...) ruling for a state right. The High Court refused to review either of these cases, firmly disapointing gun rights group who seek a recent ruling. Until that review comes, the 1939 ruling still stands. That means many of you are members of the millitia.

Yay! does that mean I can go Commie hunting now?

I look foward to tracking down bin Ladenone day with a .357 Magnum in one hand and a .30-06 Springfield in the other.

At 2/23/04 11:46 PM, MKII wrote: Yay! does that mean I can go Commie hunting now?

Only with the proper tags. Commies are a dying breed and only with careful conservation efforts will there be any left for our children to kill.

I agree that any person may own a gun for protection. The law does state that if you find a person attempting to bring harm to you or one of your family you may defend yourself, but ONLY with equal force. Guns against guns cool, gun against anything else not self defence.

The one exception to this is: A person is attempting to forcefully enter your home. You may stand on the other side of the door with any wepon you choose and use it with the intent to stop or KILL your invaider. As long as they are not attempting to leave peacfully.

I speek from personal experiance. My friend had to shoot and kill a man entering his home. The guy carried only a crowbar and it was ruled self defence by the police.

Some people are arguing that Militia refers to a government sponsored military group. I wonder, if this is the case, would our founding fathers make sure it is specifically guaranteed as a right. Are there situations where governments wouldn't want militias under that definition?

At 2/24/04 12:15 AM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: Some people are arguing that Militia refers to a government sponsored military group. I wonder, if this is the case, would our founding fathers make sure it is specifically guaranteed as a right.

I'm saying it's guaranteeing a state militia, to protect the federalist set-up, against an over-powerful federal government.

couldn't the government order the State militia to disband before establiching a dictatorship? then we sould be disarmed and disorganised when Hitler II steps into power

At 2/24/04 12:24 AM, MKII wrote: couldn't the government order the State militia to disband before establiching a dictatorship? then we sould be disarmed and disorganised when Hitler II steps into power

I don't believe Hitler had any children. And, they would of been born in Germany, so they couldn't legally become president in America.

At 2/23/04 07:15 PM, MKII wrote: "When only cops have guns, it's called a police state".
- Robert A. Heinlein

I should like to point out that by that argument, virtually every single other democratic country is a 'Police State'

An armed person is a "Citizen" but an unarmed person is a "Subject".
A citizen has rights, a subject doesn't."

People without guns have no rights now? You're insane. The most powerful weapon you have against your government is your vote.

I'd just like to say, that in my point of view, this topic is as close to unimportant, as it gets. Think for a second. Do you think criminals get their guns at stores? Criminals will ALWAYS be armed. There is this little thing called the blackmarket.
Now let's look at the other side(yes, I'm actualy gonna say something, which is favourable to the libs). Even if you buy a gun, are you going to sleep with it under your pillow, or are you gonna stow it away in some remote corner of the attic? I'm pretty sure the latter. Therefore, in the case that an armed robber DOES break into your house, by tthe time you reach your gun, he'll have shot you, or he'll be done and he'll have left, with all your valuables. Of course there are those rare cases, when your gun just happens to be nearby, you can protect yourself.
In retrospect, there are two reasons why i'm AGAINST gun control are as follows.
a)(this is EXTREMELY minor, this reason is SO MINOR it almost doesn't count)That one out of a million peopl, who DOEs have his gun close by, when attacked.
b)(this is the important one) Since I think this debate is SO FUCKING POINTLESS, it should be stopped as soon as possible, thereby leaving thins as they are(var=1, you don't change var, thereforfe var is still 1)

At 2/24/04 11:37 AM, stonedpimp69 wrote: I'd just like to say, that in my point of view, this topic is as close to unimportant, as it gets. Think for a second. Do you think criminals get their guns at stores? Criminals will ALWAYS be armed. There is this little thing called the blackmarket.

Whyn make it easier for them. Before a man commits his first crime, he is not a criminal, no? Well, you can get your first gun, to commit a crim eiwht, absolutely legal!

a)(this is EXTREMELY minor, this reason is SO MINOR it almost doesn't count)That one out of a million peopl, who DOEs have his gun close by, when attacked.

What about the one in ten thousand people, who has his gun close to him when he's arguing with someone, and then shoots the someone in a second of passion?

b)(this is the important one) Since I think this debate is SO FUCKING POINTLESS, it should be stopped as soon as possible, thereby leaving thins as they are(var=1, you don't change var, thereforfe var is still 1)

If you thinm it's pointless, then you must hold very weak views about it, therefore you shouldn't mind if it was changed, because you wouldn't care. Right?

At 2/24/04 11:49 AM, bumcheekcity wrote: If you thinm it's pointless, then you must hold very weak views about it, therefore you shouldn't mind if it was changed, because you wouldn't care. Right?

I really wouldn't
c? even i have some non rightwing views.... lol

At 2/24/04 11:52 AM, stonedpimp69 wrote: I really wouldn't
c? even i have some non rightwing views.... lol

Seeing as your only other thing agsinst Gun Control is the almost infinitely tiny majority that use their guns to legitimately protect themselves. Wouldn't you agree it would be safer, and cost less innocent lives if there were no guns? Consider these following statistics, from http://www.getunloaded.org/statistics.htm

The greatest number of firearm-related accidental deaths occurs in the 15-19 age group; from 1994-1997, 1,634 children died this way. [Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, National Injury Mortality Statistics, 1990-1997.]

In 30% of handgun-owning households, the gun was stored unlocked and loaded at the time of the survey. [National Institute of Justice, "Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and Use of Firearms," May 1997.]

2/3 of students in grades 6-12 say they could obtain a firearm in 24 hours. [Harvard School of Public Health, cited in The Boston Parent’s Paper, August 1999.]

I hope you also chose to visit the page. Maybe you did. Sure, guns might help a tiny minority of people a year, but the readiness of the avaliability means they're the perfect weapon for suicides (instant and painless), also the perfect weapon for many spur-of-the-moment killings.

At 2/24/04 12:07 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

:loads

:I hope you also chose to visit the page. Maybe you did. Sure, guns might help a tiny minority of people a year, but the readiness of the avaliability means they're the perfect weapon for suicides (instant and painless), also the perfect weapon for many spur-of-the-moment killings.

spur of the moment killings - agreed. I will alow myself to argue wether the painless and instant suicide thing is a bad thing. Sure, I wouldn't go shoot myself, but hey, if someone else want's to, that's none of my business...
On the other hand.( I wouldn't know, I haven't tried, but...)I think jumping head first of the roof of an 8 story building woud take only a second or two longer, so by that argument... what should we do? stop building appartment buildings?

Back to gun control... I believe, someone on a BBS has actually changed my mind on something.... I was always sure that's impossible(to changfe anybody's mind over BBs), wow, you learn something new everyday...

At 2/24/04 12:59 PM, stonedpimp69 wrote: spur of the moment killings - agreed. I will alow myself to argue wether the painless and instant suicide thing is a bad thing. Sure, I wouldn't go shoot myself, but hey, if someone else want's to, that's none of my business...
On the other hand.( I wouldn't know, I haven't tried, but...)I think jumping head first of the roof of an 8 story building woud take only a second or two longer, so by that argument... what should we do? stop building appartment buildings?

That's the point. There aren't any 8-story buildings within a good few miles of me, and I can't get up the ones that I can find. If I have easy acess to a gun however (maybe simply by going upstairs and opening the box with ethe gun in it) I can shoot myself.

A lot of suicides may be effectively spur-of-the-moment ones. Someone is down for a month or two, tries to kill themself when he/she may have had one too many, but then gets their act back together and gets on with life. Can't do that if you've shot yourself.

At 2/24/04 12:59 PM, stonedpimp69 wrote:

At 2/24/04 12:07 PM, bumcheekcity wrote:

loads

I hope you also chose to visit the page. Maybe you did. Sure, guns might help a tiny minority of people a year, but the readiness of the avaliability means they're the perfect weapon for suicides (instant and painless), also the perfect weapon for many spur-of-the-moment killings.

Guns save the lives of over two million americans each year, and prevent a lot more crimes from taking place. i got that from a reliable scource, btw.

Does gun control help lower crime rates?

Washington DC and New York have high crime rates and tight gun control laws. Vermont has loose gun laws and much lower crime rates.

After guns were banned in London, the crime rate rose quickly. Now, the crime rate in London is higher than in New York.

In Swizerland, ever adult is required by law to own a gun. Concequently, crime rates in Swizerland are relativly low compared to other european countries.

The guns owned by private citizens serve as a deterrent to crime. A burgler will be less likly to commit crime if he knew that there was a substantial chance that the homeowner had a means of defense, and a rapistwould be less likely to assault women if he knew that he would likly be shot.

if we ban guns, then the only people with firearms will be the government and the criminals, for the bad guys don't care whether the government tells them to turn in their guns. So banning firearms does not really lower crime rates, and i cannot think of one person i know that honsetly belives so.

At 2/24/04 08:00 PM, MKII wrote: Washington DC and New York have high crime rates and tight gun control laws. Vermont has loose gun laws and much lower crime rates.

You can't compare the two simply on the amount of weapons. There's also a lot more poverty in Washington DC.

After guns were banned in London, the crime rate rose quickly. Now, the crime rate in London is higher than in New York.

No it's not.

In Swizerland, ever adult is required by law to own a gun. Concequently, crime rates in Swizerland are relativly low compared to other european countries.

No, no they aren't.

The guns owned by private citizens serve as a deterrent to crime. A burgler will be less likly to commit crime if he knew that there was a substantial chance that the homeowner had a means of defense, and a rapistwould be less likely to assault women if he knew that he would likly be shot.

No, the burglar / rapist would be more likely to carry a gun themselves, and more likely to use it at the slightest provacation. In the rape scenario, the woman is more likely to end up dead.

if we ban guns, then the only people with firearms will be the government and the criminals, for the bad guys don't care whether the government tells them to turn in their guns. So banning firearms does not really lower crime rates, and i cannot think of one person i know that honsetly belives so.

You don't know many people apparently. Or you surround yourself with entirely closeminded people with your exact ideals. Either way, it's kind of sad.

i hate talking to liberals. they're too close minded, bent on banning guns and softening up the justice system.

do you think that banning guns will make america safer?
i'd rather walk around armed than face a robber armed with a foot long machet and/or illegally bought firearm.

At 2/24/04 10:19 PM, MKII wrote: i hate talking to liberals. they're too close minded, bent on banning guns and softening up the justice system.

MKII, these clowns don't give up complaining. It goes in one ear and out the other with these idiots. I totally agree with you. Don't let these morons try to get the better of you.

Thanks for the support.

I'm off to the shooting range to vent off my anger now....