GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS

I have certainly changed my position on this issue over the years.

I never would have considered owning a firearm when I lived in the suburbs, and it's not something I look forward to doing, but I'd rather be responsible for my own safety than finding out that Public Enemy was right when they said, "911 is a joke." I have also found that when the cops get involved in an incident, it usually is more of a hassle than a help. I am not anti-police, either, but I do question their preventative effect on crime- even in my wild and crazy youth, I had no ill will towards them. They did their thing, and I did mine. I knew when I was breaking the law, and that if I got caught it had EVERYTHING to do with taking personal responsibility and nothing to do with them as individuals. I just think they aren't much help after the fact.

This is NOT being started as a political debate about the Second Amendment. By the way, I am a Green Party member, and a Libertarian in spirit. I am more conservative than I was fifteen years sgo, but I am still a liberal when it comes to most social issues. Politically, I believe that less government is better, but I don't advocate anarchy. We aren't ready for that, and may never be.

So, go ahead and sound off...I realize this is a charged issue for some, and to those folks I simply ask you to be respectful. Get angry, just don't lose your head.

Guns are good.

i cant own a fully automatic akm with a 100round drum magazine...

this makes me sad.

gat you down wit da fo pound dunny.

As far as RESPONSIBLE gun ownership, it goes back to ' Guns dont kill people, People kill people".

I dont think very many persons would have a problem with them if they were all used responsibly which kinda makes this thread pointless. Its the same with responsible bomb ownership, Im sure a number of people including myself have made crude bombs outta fireworks etc. and not blown up buildings or familys of four driving home...

Its the People who are NOT RESPONSIBLE that cause the problems and following heated debates.

I really think guns arent the problem but the overall state of mind surrounding them that is the real issue esp. in the USA that NEEDS to be fixed. How you even start to fix it i cant say but i guess tougher gun laws , education and awareness might be a good a start as any.

guns provide illusionary power for an illusionary reality.

Originally posted by KYU@Dec 25 2005, 12:51 AM

guns provide illusionary power for an illusionary reality.

Quoted post

So if you get shot by a cop, is the reality of your death just an illusion?

:haha:

the second amendment says "the right to bear arms." It doesn't say anything about guns. Arms refers to any type of weapons from an ax to a sword to a cannon. This was written into our constitution because america at the time was mostly rural and people needed weapons to depend on for food and for defense at a time when we had no real national army or local police forces...this was important beacuse the british tried to confiscate the weaponry of the citizens due to insurrection, but had the unintended effect of depriving people of the ability to hunt and protect themselves... hence the 2nd amendment.

fast forward to the 21st century. America is mostly urban or suburban. We pay taxes for a police force and national military. There is still nothing wrong with having arms even still. But they should be regulated. I see nothing wrong with that. Why should I? In england you have to register your TV, in most countries you have to register your car. Why should it be any different for what is an essentially dangerous and much abused tool? Having guns, but not registered or regulated, actually negates the purpose the 2nd amendment serves. Its pretty ironic actually. But I have nothing against guns. I would love to go hunting or to the shooting range. Its fun... but there seems to be no point for people to have them otherwise. texas has the most liberal gun laws in america and also the most gun deaths. Mass has the most conservative gun laws and the lowest death by gun rate...If a cop shoots someone in boston, its a scandal for months. If it happens in LA or in Dallas, it may not even make the newspaper or evening news...

I support the 2nd as much as anyone, but those gun rights/NRA folks are just hypocrites if you ask me, and un-american ones at that too...

my xmas eve rant, thank you

certified gun nut right here.

i think every able bodied male, 18-45, should be doing our duty, as members of the militia under US code, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Section 311. we should all own atleast one service arm, in a nato caliber, preferably a US nato round, with a minimum of 500 rounds, and all accouterments to go with it. a side arm, and other necessaries are a plus.

with high capacity magazines?

john birch is on some bullshit.

what part of "infringed" dont you understand? have you ever read the federalist papers? have you ever actually read what the writers of the amendment explained it to mean? simply put, the people were to be armed for self defense and to defend liberty. it was put in place to stop the federal government from imposing tyranny on the people. i can bore you with an ass load of references, but it would probably be pointless.

the militia is not some collective body of a police force, the militia, still to this day is the people. every able bodied man, 18-45, at the time of the revolution, every able bodied man 18-60. please refer to the department of justice report put out last year that shows the amendment is refering to an individual right, not a police force right. it is well understood from both jefferson and madison, that when referring to "arms" they were referring to military service arms.

the founders of this country were anti standing army. why? they felt that if the government were under control by the wrong person, the national police force would use force against the people and invade thier liberty. most libertarians hold to this today. militias are for defense of the homeland.

the 2 clauses of the second amendment dont necessarily flow together.

what does infringed actually mean you ask? infringed is anything stopping me from walking into a gun store, flopping down a large sum of money, for a full auto m16a4, 1000 rounds of 5.56, and 10 .45 1911's. gun control is unconstitutional.

to say that defenders of the second amendment are un american hypocrites is very offensive. the constitution does not grant rights, it recognizes natural rights, and creates a government to protect them. they are not doing there job.

sorry to the creator of this thread for taking the bait on dudes post and turning this into a second amendment political thread.

Originally posted by CACashRefund@Dec 24 2005, 09:53 PM

with high capacity magazines?

Quoted post

indeed, atleast 10 30 round mags, all loaded, less 1 round, with a tracer the 4th from the end so you know when your gonna have to dump the mag.

you got my vote

I am a firm beleiver in gun rights...However I think too many people hold onto advocating gun rights religiously while seemingly supporting those who would take away the rights the guns are intended to preserve in the first place. If you support absolute freedom to buy guns you must by default support absolute freedom to of expression (burning flags) and freedom of self determination (abortion rights) to name a few...if you don't, you're basicly a hypocrite with a subscriptions to "Rifleman"...

AOD, I kinda lost you...federalist papers, madison etc etc. uhh those guys are not like some gods or heroes or anything, just in case you didn't know. They were memebrs of the ruling and business elite and no better than the Gates family or the Bushes...

stop living in the 18th century...

"the constitution does not grant rights, it recognizes natural rights, and creates a government to protect them. they are not doing there job. "

so having one of those things above is a natural right? hmmmm

Originally posted by angelofdeath@Dec 25 2005, 02:52 AM

certified gun nut right here.

 

i think every able bodied male, 18-45, should be doing our duty, as members of the militia under US code, Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Section 311. we should all own atleast one service arm, in a nato caliber, preferably a US nato round, with a minimum of 500 rounds, and all accouterments to go with it. a side arm, and other necessaries are a plus.

Quoted post

I'd bet a months pay that muggings and other armed roberies would drop 99% and the streets would be alot safer.

I'd also bet that the instances of trigger-happy cops just blasting niggas on GP would drop drastically.

And i'd also bet that the number of murders spawned from beef stays about the same.

Originally posted by angelofdeath@Dec 25 2005, 03:02 AM

john birch is on some bullshit.

what part of "infringed" dont you understand? have you ever read the federalist papers? have you ever actually read what the writers of the amendment explained it to mean? simply put, the people were to be armed for self defense and to defend liberty. it was put in place to stop the federal government from imposing tyranny on the people. i can bore you with an ass load of references, but it would probably be pointless.

the militia is not some collective body of a police force, the militia, still to this day is the people. every able bodied man, 18-45, at the time of the revolution, every able bodied man 18-60. please refer to the department of justice report put out last year that shows the amendment is refering to an individual right, not a police force right. it is well understood from both jefferson and madison, that when referring to "arms" they were referring to military service arms.

 

the founders of this country were anti standing army. why? they felt that if the government were under control by the wrong person, the national police force would use force against the people and invade thier liberty. most libertarians hold to this today. militias are for defense of the homeland.

 

the 2 clauses of the second amendment dont necessarily flow together. 

what does infringed actually mean you ask? infringed is anything stopping me from walking into a gun store, flopping down a large sum of money, for a full auto m16a4, 1000 rounds of 5.56, and 10 .45 1911's.  gun control is unconstitutional. 

 

to say that defenders of the second amendment are un american hypocrites is very offensive. the constitution does not grant rights, it recognizes natural rights, and creates a government to protect them. they are not doing there job.

 

sorry to the creator of this thread for taking the bait on dudes post and turning this into a second amendment political thread.

Quoted post

MY NIGGA!!!!!!!!!!!

the thing about gun control is where do you draw the line?

the point where ok this is for personal use, enjoyment, protection and the like

and this is a fucking nuclear weapon what the fuck are you thinking?

nuclear weapons are extreme yes, but on a smaller scale how large of a caliber weapon or what weapons should your average citizen be allowed to have?

mortars? heavy artillary?

heavy machine guns?

light machine guns?

rifle grenades?

angel of death,

if every able bodied male between the ages of 18-45 has the right to own a firearm

does this apply to felons convicted of violent crimes?

Originally posted by KING BLING@Dec 25 2005, 03:41 AM

I am a firm beleiver in gun rights...However I think too many people hold onto advocating gun rights religiously while seemingly supporting those who would take away the rights the guns are intended to preserve in the first place. If you support absolute freedom to buy guns you must by default support absolute freedom to of expression (burning flags) and freedom of self determination (abortion rights) to name a few...if you don't, you're basicly a hypocrite with a subscriptions to "Rifleman"...

Quoted post

Word the fuck up!!!

Any NRA member that votes Republican is a fucking hipocrite and/or an idiot. They're just pretending to have the NRA's back now because it suits them to pretend that the NRA and Christian right are the ones that "toppled the vote". As soon as everyone gets used to the fact that we no longer live in a Democracy and "voting" is obsolete, the Republicans are gonna turn on the NRA. And the few of you that even have the balls to fight back are gonna get slaughtered and become the next "Waco" wakos.

Originally posted by John Birch@Dec 25 2005, 03:58 AM

 

 

AOD, I kinda lost you...federalist papers, madison etc etc. uhh those guys are not like some gods or heroes or anything, just in case you didn't know. They were memebrs of the ruling and business elite and no better than the Gates family or the Bushes...

Quoted post

No! They are the founders of our country. Motivated by love of freedom for themselves and their offspring and their offsprings offspring...The reason why we aren't British citezens. The reason why our ancesters were free to an extent and why we are suppose to be free. The reason why (eventually) minoritys were granted equal rights. Without the Constitution there would have been no arguement in defence of Civil Rights.

And they are also the reason why we should be fighting against this tyranical dictatorship to preserve our abillity to defend ourselves from enslavement while we still have a "Constitution" to base our way of life on!

i've grown up with guns. i will always argue that i should be allowed to own one. i will NEVER own one. (until i join the forces)

as in just about everything controversial in this day, education is what is needed to keep guns safe.

gun control is unconstitutional, however, based on the amount of violence, specifically murder, that exists w/ the limited control in place, i support gun control.

What we need is CRIMINAL CONTROL, not gun control. The vast majority of gun-related crime is committed by less than one-tenth of one percent of American gun owners. There are over 70 million gun owners out there that are straight-up, law-abiding, decent citizens. They never hurt anybody, and unless they are forced into defending themselves, they ain't never going to hurt anybody.

The murder rate in many European countries is lower than that in the United States in general, but in those areas of major European cities that approximate the equivalent socio-economic and racial make-up of American cities, the murder rates are substantially higher. Even Canada has substantially lower murder rates in cities geographically and culturally very close to nearby American cities, and it certainly cannot be blamed on the number of guns available, because all the other crimes are lower too. (Compare the statistics between Seattle, WA and Vancouver, B.C.) The VAST MAJORITY of American crimes, especially violent gun-related crimes, occur in poor, inner-city areas. As every single person on here knows, that means "black and Hispanic." The South has a much higher violent crime rate than the rest of the U.S., but very, very little of it is inter-racial. Black Americans absorbed the violent culture of "honor killings" from the Southern White culture, and carried this cultural tendency with them wherever they went. Along with the Southern American dialect ("y'all", "ain't" "fixin' to", etc.) they carried the Southern tradition of killing to revenge one's honor, and a misplaced emphasis, even an obsession, about "respect."

Along with angelofdeath and others, I believe 100% that the gun question cannot be discussed without including the Second Amendment, as well as the militia. I refer everyone to the Federal laws on this subject, as previously cited, in Title 10, Section 311. Federal laws do no just become "outdated." We base our laws on case law and acts of Congress dating back to the ratification of the Constitution. Title 10 declares those categories of persons who ARE IN THE MILITIA. You don't get a choice. If you are over 17 and under 45, male, able-bodied and not employed in a shipyard, armory or other defense industry, not the Vice-president of the U.S., not a clergyman, and not currently enlisted in the armed forces, YOU ARE IN THE MILITIA. If you are between 45 and 64 and have ANY previous military service, YOU ARE IN THE MILITIA. If you are female, and a member of the National Guard YOU ARE IN THE MILITIA. As a member of the militia, you may be called into active service any time the President decides it is necessary. In many states, the above categories of persons (or some set-up pretty close to Title 10, Section 311) are part of the "state military forces," or "reserve military forces." That means that in a disaster or state of emergency, the Governor of the state can mobilize not only the National Guard or State Guard, but just regular ordinary citizens as well.

Members of the Militia have a RIGHT to keep and bear MILITARY SERVICE RIFLES, as well as other weapons. Criminals, especially convicted felons, do NOT have a right to keep and bear ANY sort of firearms in most states. They forfeited that right when they committed a felony crime. (In Texas they may have rifles or shotguns on their own property, but may not possess handguns.)

The Second Amendment is not about SPORT. It is not about HUNTING. It is not about RECREATION of any kind. The Second Amendment enumerates the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense, defense of others, and defense of the Nation. Nobody gives a shit about duck hunting or target shooting. It's about FIGHTING THE ENEMIES OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

Like voting, like the rigfht to a free press, like the right to a speedy trial by a jury of one's peers, the right to keep and bear arms is NON-NEGOTIABLE, and forever. Anybody who tries to abrogate it had better be prepared to fight a civil war.

I think its safe to say just about every person on this forum is a criminal.

amen, Kabar2.

someone mentioned where do you draw the line? this is a common question. the intent and definition of the amendment by the people who wrote it, were talking about military service arms. at the time of the constitution convention, this was a flintlock musket of british or french origin, many were american at this time with imported parts. smoothbores were preferred for quick loading to volley fire in rows. many had rifles, but good riflemen fought in rifle units. these were essentially the "special forces" of the day. there are confirmed kills out to 300 yds with open sited flintlock rifles.

I personally hold the constitution and the people who wrote it to be the supreme law of the land. one cannot think about trying to interpret the meaning of the amendment and discount the federalist papers, which explains the constitution.

and yes, i do think the that the flag should be able to be burned under the constitution, as does justice scalia. It does however not protect someone from beating the shit out of you if you do it.

abortion, we have talked about this, neither the founders or myself believe that abortion should even be talked about by the federal government. period.

for someone saying something about gun control reduces crime...i just have one thing to say. "if guns kill people, then spoons made rosie odonnell fat."

if your serious about guns, join Gun Onwers of America, Jews For Preservation of Firearms, and The National Rifle Association, (even if they do play politics to much and keep yapping about hunting.)

Originally posted by MELLOness@Dec 25 2005, 03:48 PM

I think its safe to say just about every person on this forum is a criminal.

Quoted post

Originally posted by angelofdeath@Dec 25 2005, 04:26 PM

"if guns kill people, then spoons made rosie odonnell fat."

Quoted post

:haha:

Jews For Preservation of Firearms

^^^this would make a good episode of Curb Your Enthusiasm...

I don't trust whatever their motives are. :biglaugh:

there are jews for preservation of firearms because in nazi germany one of the first rights denied jews before the solution to the jewish "problem" really got going was the ability to purchase and own firearms of any kind.

I haven't had much chance to keep up with the debate...no constitutional threadjacks, no serious fights...okay.

Come on, SF...there's gotta be at least one Heeb you like. I'm part Heeb...1/4 kosher, to be precise.

My mom's family got out of there after WWI and before the Nazis gayed up the scene, but Weimar Germany was hard for everyone...after a while, it got so bad they needed someone to blame and they knew EXACTLY who to turn their wrath on...the bankers, of course! Who were incindentally Jewish, by the way, so logic would lead me to conclude the following-

A) One version of the story goes like this- the Germans were too busy picking up rubble and organizing meetings at beer halls to manage their own financial affairs, and the inflation was ridiculous since the war had pretty much laid Eurpoe to waste. It cost a wheelbarrow full of marks to do a week's shopping. The inflation got progressively worse as people began to hoard (worthless) money...EVERYONE did it...then, instead of the government doing something to HELP the economy such as bond isues or public works projects-whatever governments do to made dough.... they just printed a bunch of new money that, at one point, cost more to make than it was worth, and succeeded in driving inflation to unprecendented levels.

So, did people blame the state? NO FUCKIN' WAY. The Nazis did not have a reputation for being open to criticism. If one person said, "Hey, our hut has fleas from when the Fuhrer visited and you said that you would take care of the fleas... " That would get your whole village burnt down, They blamed bankers for inflation, Something like, "We gave them our money and now it's worthless....it's the Jews that did it!" Add that burning sensation to centuries of distrust and lack of communication, and voila! A pogrom is born.

Suddenly, thanks to National Socialism and some HUGE pep rallies, all of the people with nationalist tendencies in Germany had a common goal- They were gonna come back stronger than ever, so they could personally kick the ass of everyone on the planet. Starting with the "defectives" seemed to be an efficent way of purging society as well as getting some long overdue murder practice in.

The story ends with Germany losing the war. But things have come a long way, since then- 60 years later they elected their first female president. I'd settle for a president who can win an argument...

So, AS long as you ARE kidding, SF, I'll join in...I can use a laugh at times, and I have always thought yarmulkes look a little like potholders to me. but, we should all be cool, anyways....I'm tired, I've been recording some DJ sets and I think I'm stating the obvious here...I have no beef with anyone right now, I think... And it's my birthday Tuesday....and my first day at a new job...SO BE NICE TO ME, and the other Jews will have to look out for themselves. Oh. and it's Hanukkah. Not that it means anything, but it's a good enough reason to be chill.

GOOD NIGHT....I'll post some stuff that I couldn't get to today later.

(The above was a story for the 12 oz. Jewish community in light of the fact that it's a holiday and it seemed right. Yes, I'm drunk.)