Decyferon Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Also, on a side note, I don't think that legal gun ownership makes for a safer society, it just increases the chances of getting shot. In the UK a burglar is not gonna carry a gun, because in 99% of burglaries they will not encounter someone with a gun, whereas in the US there is a much greater chance of them encountering someone with a gun, so they need to carry one as well. Which means either the burglar (hopefully) gets killed or the home owner gets killed (which I wouldn't want). I'm certainly not defending criminals, they are scum bags, but the fact that a lot of people in the US have guns just means that for more minor crimes guns will then be involved, when in most other countries they wouldn't. Like I have said before if I lived in the US I would own a gun because the vast majority of people do and I would then need a gun to defend myself, I don't need a gun to defend myself in the UK because I have never encountered a criminal with a gun (and I have known a lot of criminals, the only gun I have ever known was a friend's dad who had a sawn off shotgun). If guns were legal here then the number of criminals using guns for petty crimes would increase significantly and that is a bad thing. I was reading about this the other day and this question interested me The Second Amendment reads as follows: 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. Now that the United States is protected by a trained, volunteer military force rather than a civilian militia, is the Second Amendment still valid? Does the Second Amendment exclusively provide for arms to supply a civilian militia, or does it guarantee a separate universal right to bear arms? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 the supreme court recently ruled in Heller that the second amendment is talking about an individual right. however, it also ruled in the same case states and the feds can restrict ownership however they want. which is very contradictory. when the second amendment was written, the 'militia' was any able bodied male 16-60 (or some small variance depending on the state). still to this day the US Code details that males 18-45 are the 'unorganized' militia and can technically be called into service by the states. im sure with the equal rights laws, this would apply to woman as well. however the national guard has essentially taken away the 'state' militias and the citizens 'unorganized' militia. the national guard wasnt the 'national guard' until 1903. the people who wrote the constitution and fought in the revolution did so with their own civilian owned weapons for the most part. the federalist papers and the philosophers of the period unanimously agreed with the universal right of a free individual to bear arms. the second amendment according to original intent means everyone has the right to bear arms, in whatever capacity, variation, design, without any infringements from the government. to think that the people who took up arms against their own government with military assault weapons of the day, the unregistered flintlock rifle, musket or fowling piece meant in some way that citizens should not be allowed to own firearms is absolute absurdity and is true fiction. which is why, even though the courts have ruled that states dont have the right to BAN guns or otherwise totally deny the RIGHT to own a gun, they can still restrict them however they see fit. which is why if the gun confiscationists were really serious, technically the second amendment would have to be repealed. but since when has a little technicality stopped the government from doing something Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Do you think that the people that wrote the constitution would have had the same view on guns if they could see the problems caused by guns in American society these days? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 i think the fact that without guns we'd still be british subjects is their view. the fact of the matter is back when you could order a BAR through the mail and deal with virtually no gun laws or background checks along with a millions rounds of ammo, or you could order 20mm solothurns for $99 through the mail to your house with no background check... crime was dramatically lower. to me, guns are nothing but a tool. if a massive amount of killings with ball peen hammers occurs, you dont ban the hammer, you catch and punish the criminal. in effect, gun control only disarms the people who follow the laws, which are the same people who wont be shooting other people for no reason. so its absolutely pointless. taking out frustrations with gun crime on the guns is sort of silly, as they are inanimate objects. it is the people that do the killing. when you have a murder trial, you do not incarcerate the bullet, the proximate cause, you incarcerate the ultimate cause which is the man behind the trigger. i dont propose to have an answer to crime in the world, other than i'd like to have the ability to defend myself with whatever means i deem necessary when attacked without infringements. is this a perfect approach? no. is getting rid of all guns in the world possible? no. so i'd much rather have the legal right to own and carry a gun for my self defense in a world where there is a chance i might get shot. and even though, the chance of brandishing or using a weapon is probably still relatively low for most people. maybe we need public hangings of violent criminals. maybe we need actual justice instead of 'rehabilitation.' im not sure what proper solution is. but i do know that taking away the means of self defense of law abiding peaceable folks is only victim disarmament as the initiators of violence dont follow the law as it is. i think your concerns about felons, etc not being able to own guns is a valid point. but i take it step further. i think there would be no need to have a debate about whether violent criminals can vote or own a gun, if violent criminals were dealt with accordingly. murder or rape someone? life in prison or death penalty. no need for a debate about them owning a gun when they get out. im just rambling... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LosingMyMind Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Yes it is. "Assault Rifle" is wrong. You can assault anyone with any type of gun. That's why I said assualt type rifle...I really don't know much about this subject, just running on a few assumptions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsmbfan Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 I think the one thing that Decyferon fails to realize is the cultural diversity in America. Like it or not, people are afraid of people: mainly people different than them. AND BOY WE GOT A LOT OF THAT HERE!! It doesn't help that the government knows this and actively scares the shit out of the public through mass media. Nobody knows their neighbors here anymore. They're scared to meet them, and you would to if the first 45 minutes of every news cast on EVERY CHANNEL depicts the most gruesome and violent parts of human civilization. Short list of shit we hear about all the time that you might not: pedophiles, murder/suicide, women mutilating their children, terrorists, poison in your foods, fake ass diseases, and whatever threat is the latest TREND to hit the shelves. People own guns because they're trained to live in fear. Period. Most crime is committed not out of greed, but out of necessity. We starve our own population and lock up undesirables based on government agenda. AND IT'S WORKING FUCKING FLAWLESSLY!!! Decyferon: Be grateful that you have the luxury of commenting on how the other half of the world lives. But take it with a grain of salt... bruh. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Oh I do take it with a grain of salt, and by and large I try to play the devils advocate in this arguement mainly because so many people are pro gun, so i like to point of things from the other view. We have a hugely multicultral society here as well, so I do understand that point, however I feel our media is softer on other cultures than maybe the mainstream American media is meaning we are maybe a little more accepting and trusting. I mean my nextdoor neighbour is Filipino, my son goes to school with Muslims a from all different countries, maybe we don't have the segregation of cifferent nationalites that you do in the US. We are bombarded with the same news stories as yourselves but I just think the way it is portrayed here is less scare tactic than in the US, having watched a fair bit of American news coverage from some of the american new sources we get here on digital TV. I completely agree with AOD on punishment though, I have stated before that if you rape or murder someone and get life then it means life, none of this stupid cushy cell, TV and weights, I mean bare stone walls and the minimum in food, it isn't punsihment they way that prisons are nowadays, maybe that would make people think twice before pulling the trigger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feed Yer Ego Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Yeah! Take away legally owned guns! Only people who have illegally imported, stolen, or otherwise improperly obtained assault weapons deserve to own them! YEAH! BECAUSE LOTS OF PEOPLE SUGGEST THAT ALL THE TIME AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT GUN CONTROL MEANS! I'M YELLING @ THE PAST! THO IM SURE THIS GUY IS STILL RETARDED! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lord_casek Posted October 15, 2009 Author Share Posted October 15, 2009 That's why I said assualt type rifle...I really don't know much about this subject, just running on a few assumptions. All good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nsmbfan Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 im not responsible enough to own a gun. i probably need psyche meds. also everything i own amounts to less than $3,000. so until I have something worth stealing or killing for, I don't need a gun. but i'm glad i can get one with a fairly low amount of hassle. but this is Texas, everythings different. the wild west man, you need to have a gun to protect your gold and kill coyotes. i can see how people would like to think that they're protected. hell, that's what law and religion is pretty much centered around - this grand notion that something, someone, SOMEWHERE has our best interests in line. truth is, nobody does. protect your own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
herbsyntec Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 ^I think it is a bit dangerous to make connections between religion and police officers. I love Christ, and want nothing to do with a police officer. They are extremely corrupt and we have no right whatsoever to fight back against them and their error in enforcement. I would also gladly give up a handgun for a fully automatic weapon. When you look at the original intent of the bill of rights...it seems as though I'll just let it speak for itself. 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. It seems as though they were referring to the people being able to protect the country itself. In the context of the time it was written, this seems to be an appropriate analysis. George Washington never wanted a standing army, we obviously have that and more. I think that the purpose of the second amendment was to prevent a standing army, and defend the freedom of the United States and the people if the government became to oppressive. Handguns are good for murdering, but the police allow them not fully autos because they don't want to be outgunned and they want to be able to assert control over society(the reasons for this is a completely different discussion). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 the supreme court recently ruled in Heller that the second amendment is talking about an individual right. however, it also ruled in the same case states and the feds can restrict ownership however they want. which is very contradictory. which is why, even though the courts have ruled that states dont have the right to BAN guns or otherwise totally deny the RIGHT to own a gun, they can still restrict them however they see fit. which is why if the gun confiscationists were really serious, technically the second amendment would have to be repealed. but since when has a little technicality stopped the government from doing something I don't sweat gun rights so I'm certainly no authority, however, I'm not sure you're entirely correct with that characterization of the SCOTUS ruling. Generally, my understanding is the Feds license gun dealers and there are provisions for arms dealers to own/sell all types of ordnance. There are many federal export rules but that's not what we're talking about here. I know that FFL dealers must comply with state laws as well but I think that really only restricts who is allowed to buy. Most state laws apply to private ownership rules by unlicensed owners. Things like carry laws and gun security (i.e. no loaded guns where children have free access, not sure if there are any states that mandate gun locks but I don't think so). Speaking directly to the SCOTUS ruling, they struck down the DC ownership ban. This is tricky because DC isn't actually part of any state or territory. However, there is currently a case in front of the SCOTUS concerning a Chicago suburb's handgun ownership ban, signs point to that ban being struck down as well. After that comes the NYC ban if it isn't covered in the Chicago ruling and that should effectively eliminate restrictions on handgun ownership except in the case of felons. Since some states allow felons to own guns, but NOT handguns, then perhaps that would be the next step but I don't think that's gonna be as easy to fight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Generally, my understanding is the Feds license gun dealers and there are provisions for arms dealers to own/sell all types of ordnance. There are many federal export rules but that's not what we're talking about here. I know that FFL dealers must comply with state laws as well but I think that really only restricts who is allowed to buy. Most state laws apply to private ownership rules by unlicensed owners. Things like carry laws and gun security (i.e. no loaded guns where children have free access, not sure if there are any states that mandate gun locks but I don't think so). the feds regulate lots of things about weapons. NFA GC68 and '86 weapons are all federally regulated. ownership, creation, etc. but overall you are pretty much correct in your statements above. and yes locations do have restrictions on locks, gun storage, etc etc. Speaking directly to the SCOTUS ruling, they struck down the DC ownership ban. This is tricky because DC isn't actually part of any state or territory. However, there is currently a case in front of the SCOTUS concerning a Chicago suburb's handgun ownership ban, signs point to that ban being struck down as well. After that comes the NYC ban if it isn't covered in the Chicago ruling and that should effectively eliminate restrictions on handgun ownership except in the case of felons. Since some states allow felons to own guns, but NOT handguns, then perhaps that would be the next step but I don't think that's gonna be as easy to fight. the ruling was to narrow. it struck down the DC BAN, but it didnt say that DC couldnt outlaw gun shops, gun registration, or basically make it damn near impossible to own the gun that you have an 'individual right' to own. it should of struck down all gun 'bans' in the country, if you use the courts inclusion of the 14th amendment precedents. the NRA types praise heller. i dont. if you read the decision, you will find the court recognizes an individual right to firearms ownership, but allows states and the feds to regulate however they want to. if the case was decided in favor of the second amendment and not in favor of gun CONTROL like it was, with an inclusion of the 14th amendment, no state would be allowed to pass any law restricting gun ownership nor would the FEDS. this will never happen. even the pro gun portion of the court will never deny that the feds have a right to regulate them, even though the second amendment specifically says the right shall not be INFRINGED. however to the statists, back ground checks, fingerprints, carry bans, wait periods when you might have a specific threat where you need a gun, restrictions on parts and types of weapons, retina scans and penis molds are just reasonable measures to prevent criminals from getting dangerous weapons! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
x5v1s Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 im a card carrying member of the nra ... the gun in bars issue is over the line in my opinion im in az too ,,shits close to home Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 You guys all go on about British colonial rule and how the guys that drafted the constitution blah blah fucking blah. It's all a complete crock! Everyone knows you didn't need guns to scare off the Brits, all you needed to do was wave a bar of soap at them!! [sorry Decyferon, I'm sure you shower] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 apologies in advance to Decyferon and all you other limey bastards who subjugated my ancestors, and are still at it to a marginal extent (the bodies in the graves shall never rest until...). Nothing personal. Still, I love me some stereotyping! is to: as is to: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 hahahaha damn you all having found my weak spot - I'm off to skulk in the corner!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laughslast Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 Amendment 2 - Right to Bear Arms. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note 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. http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am2 I really wasn't going to comment on this because of the simple observation that so many people have already covered most points. However, I must say that some of the basis for these arguments are very revealing about the basic framework we have crated in our minds as the reasoning behind the existence of government, the derivation of rights, and the purpose behind this Amendment. So in response to this...."assessment" of what I think people are trying to answer in their response to the initial video this is my answer. The reason I have deduced in my personal political philosophy as to why government in the form of the democratic-republic we have in the United States exists is because of the social contract. The social contract being where we as citizens give up a degree of control(such as immediate violent actions, to create nuclear energy in my backyard, and to wage war) to our representative in this particular government system for their protection. I think the reason government exists(that I have deduced in my own personal political philosophy as only applies to the US and should not be taken as "fact" even if derived from our own "Founding Fathers") directly implies where our rights derive from. Us. Not "god-given". I don't mean to be Nitzschean. Fuck, I mean to be Zarathustra. God is dead. At least as far as where you try and derive rights from a man made entity. You can pray to your god for mercy, but lets face it you are facing man. And man is a fucking beast. I get my rights because I stand up for it. At the very least I hope so, I hope I never regress to a neophyte plebeian. Which then leads to the purpose of this Amendment, which now the very obvious historical glaze over is: the Constitution would not have passed without this and 9 other Amendments. This Amendment and the others do not exist in vacuums of space and isolation. They interact with each one. That is the purpose of one document encompassing all this. Granted with flaws, but it is our framework that should be our reference point to our core arguments. Not the fire of our quick reactions of the heart and mind. The purpose I then see for this Amendment as per the necessity for a free State. Easy out. Same language as the Amendment itself. It is what it is. However, in response to the video. I don't think that the language of the Amendment in conjunction with the rest of the Constitution really supports what this and other people taking similar actions are doing. And lets be real REAL honest here. They aren't bearing arms to protect themselves from a State militarily threatening them. They are bearing arms to protest political actions at demonstrations through intimidation. Just not cool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 were the colonists in 1775 bearing arms against a state that wasnt 'threatening' them? when the british attempted to just 'do their duty' and 'follow the law' by disarming americans in 1775 on april 19th, the americans met them and shot them through the chest. bearing arms isnt limited to 'a state militarily threatening them' its to defend ones life liberty and property. end of story. the declaration of independence, a marvelous document in defense of natural rights and self government eloquently reminds us that when the state becomes tyrannical it is our right and duty to overthrow said state and replace it with another one. carrying a gun to a political protest hurts no one. the swiss carry full auto sig 550's to vote. americans should do the same. everyone should carry guns to political protests to remind these bastards exactly who the boss is. and the social contract theory is sort of silly. i didnt contract with anyone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
laughslast Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 were the colonists in 1775 bearing arms against a state that wasnt 'threatening' them? when the british attempted to just 'do their duty' and 'follow the law' by disarming americans in 1775 on april 19th, the americans met them and shot them through the chest. bearing arms isnt limited to 'a state militarily threatening them' its to defend ones life liberty and property. end of story. the declaration of independence, a marvelous document in defense of natural rights and self government eloquently reminds us that when the state becomes tyrannical it is our right and duty to overthrow said state and replace it with another one. carrying a gun to a political protest hurts no one. the swiss carry full auto sig 550's to vote. americans should do the same. everyone should carry guns to political protests to remind these bastards exactly who the boss is. and the social contract theory is sort of silly. i didnt contract with anyone. Ok. I'm not exactly sure how to approach this response. Because at the core, I am an Anarchist. However, I think it is important to realize why our particular type of political system was developed. In such, it sprung from this sort of thinking about politics. Also, in this thinking it removed God or god from the reasoning as to why a political system gained its legitimacy. Not to say that you are referencing god but to clarify why I am using the Constitution as my point of reference. Also, the Declaration of Independence is quite a document but not the frame work for the political system I live in. It is a document that clarifies the political philosophy being pursued. To say you didn't contract with anyone is true in the sense that YOU didn't sign anything. Except maybe a wall. However, from the moment we are born or naturalized if you didn't pop out of a pussy here you become a part of the State. A recipient of its tools of coercing the people of the State into acquiescence of its control. Now to the Swiss argument. Good point. I personally am not a fan of solo force for the pursuit of goals politically because........well physics. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Well, now that I say that does that mean that you could eventually yield peaceful outcomes? hmmm... Well anyways. I just think that the guy wasn't trying to show political leaders who the boss was. He was trying to intimidate fellow citizens. But, I do think that with your Swiss argument sheds light on something a lot of Americans(I only reference Americans because...well, that is who I happen to interact with most) have as a misconception about Switzerland. That it is a calm, peace loving, and neutral country. Well, in reality every citizen is required to have a bunker and all that stuff. The people are required by the State to be the enforcement of the law. Which in actuality is way closer to democracy. Which the key to democracy is the demos, the people. I totally want pure democracy. I think you have a very good point. It's just.....I don't want to be intimidated. I really don't like cops walking around like I have to be subservient because they can shot to kill if I resist, and I don't like a guy walking around with an assault rifle to establish his point politically. Now me not liking it is completely different from saying something else, i.e. not allowed, illegal, should be banned. I just think politically....its intimidation. And kinda not cool. The thing is to reference how America should duplicate a system in another country is to remove historical, social and cultural points of significance that yielded both systems. Perhaps something to strive for? Yet.....its just not what we have to work with. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted October 22, 2009 Share Posted October 22, 2009 i understand the social contract theory, just these days, i reject it. im glad you made the distinction between saying you do not like to be intimidated by guns and that the practice shouldn't be banned. most do not make this distinction. usually if someone doesnt like something, automatically it should be banned. one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter... one man carrying a gun to a political rally to assert his rights and in his mind remind his masters who is supposed to be boss is another mans 'he is out to intimidate people!' i am uncomfortable with the state forcing people to own guns, serve in the militia, etc. however i think the overall stance of switzerland compared to the US is the way to go. if i had to choose between having a calm peace loving country that makes its citizens be armed i'd choose that over the war like aggressive policies w/ citizen disarmament in the US. i think the best bet if you dont want to be intimidated if someone else is carrying a weapon, is to carry a weapon. just my opinion though. but this sort of yields the question... when are we justified in using force to back up our points politically? do we wait till a time like now where are rights have been stripped slowly over time or do we wait until we have absolutely no rights? tough questions that all americans should be asking themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoonsOfSulkendastron Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 When everyones, including some of the lower levels of the elite, standard of living goes completely down the drain. That is when people will forcefully demand a change in government, and if denied "for your own safety" or "we(the elite) know better" they will be led to revolution. That being the most likely case, it is crucial to slowly take away rights;slow enough so noone will notice(i.e. temporary breach of rights, until crisis is resolved, only to eventually stay that way once everyone is used to it.) and slowly dumb people down to accept this(i.e. reality tv, caring more about what Paris Hilton(or Obama!) is wearing in People Magazine/Cosmo than the real things that matter). Just look at the things that make headline news these days! Anyway, people will forcefully back their points politically when they are not recognized and their lives are drastically affected by it. Luckily, people have seem to begun to wake up a little(thru emails, talk radio, etc.) and have begun to see whats going on, and more and more are acting and bringing awareness by using the system to make sure that our rights remain protected. USE THE SYSTEM-GETTING INTO POSITIONS OF POWER TO CHANGE THINGS. The last thing we need is a revolution....the people arent ready for that yet. Once things get abolutely out of control due to the government and/or elitists, that is when you will see force to protect rights and political points. Kinda hazy and not fully explained i know, but what do u cats think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.hopeless. Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 but this sort of yields the question... when are we justified in using force to back up our points politically? do we wait till a time like now where are rights have been stripped slowly over time or do we wait until we have absolutely no rights? tough questions that all americans should be asking themselves. who's to say that we need to use force to back up our points politically? there are other ways to inflict change than by being forceful. people are just too passive agressive about things and dont want to stand up for their rights.or their to fucking stupid to pay attention.the problem is people need to act now before we have to result to violence or show of force.i personally feel we should be able to eject any politician at any time if we feel he or she isnt meeting our standards.or listening to what we the people want.the politicians arent the ones with the power we are.or atleast we should be...but what im saying is its better to try to solve these matters in a peaceful manner first than to jump straight to using force.tho if its necessary then by all means.light them niggas up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 I think the peaceful attempts are over with. They have all failed. As a great author put it... America is at a strange crossroads. It's to late to try peaceful avenues and to early to shoot the bastards. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MoonsOfSulkendastron Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 I think the peaceful attempts are over with. They have all failed. As a great author put it... America is at a strange crossroads. It's to late to try peaceful avenues and to early to shoot the bastards. I dont think they have completely failed..yet. If the media changed to open peoples eyes and concentrate on the real issues rather than garbage things that dont really matter but are RELATED to significant things would help too....dont broadcast the entire day about a balloon yo, let people know exactly what legislation implies and what exactly their elected representatives are voting on. However that is an interesting quote. But i dont believe the people will be drawn to armed revolution until the economy is completely twacked and we are in a real depression. Americans are used to living luxurious lives provided by their forefathers who took risks to work hard, fight, and die for. They WILL NOT live like the rest of the world lives. (Sorry to any foreigners-but we paid our dues in a collective effort to be in the position to live the way we do. F what other countries think) Side note- Democracy is not the only way. def prolly the best, but let underdeveloped countries choose what type of govt. they want. if they dig tyrants and socialism, cool! And for those who say they want democracy but are scared to go vote-f off. Our Founding Fathers signed their own death certificate by signing the dec. of indep.; they took the risk and fought the greatest army of the day, and u dont think they were scared? if u want democracy, take the risk. otherwise keep true to allah and the regime(unless its been toppled by us already-your welcome) and live like you want. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Something that I've thought about for a while. I work with a lot of people that come from security and law enforcement agencies, the kind that would be tasked with taking your guns away, etc. etc. They are the biggest proponents of gun ownership I've ever come across. From ex-NY cops to ex-FBI to ex-USSS and special agents. All to a man pro-gun and are not fans of big government and heavy regulation. Sometimes feels like a bit of a contradiction but interesting all the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smart Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 This is because the majority of people involved with the 'enforcement' community consider themselves handpicked by God. It has 'always been their calling' and 'they just want to see justice served'. Most of those animals can't get more than basic security clearance, they have loud voices and numbers but they amount to a single pile. The people who's opinions really count on a national/global scale are those in the 'intelligence' community. This doesn't mean upper echelon FBI or some supre spooks from the CIA, just average folks with some clearance. The opinions are varied, the arguments anti/pro are many and astute. Most of these folks have an operational understanding of the issue, field conditions and their own opinion. Anything less is basically arguing about it with everyone on 12oz and anything more is arguing with a politician. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 The people who's opinions really count on a national/global scale are those in the 'intelligence' community. This doesn't mean upper echelon FBI or some supre spooks from the CIA, just average folks with some clearance. Interesting you should say that as that is exactly who I am talking about. These people used to work for NY/LAPD, military, USSS, ICE, etc. etc. Now they are in the intelligence field, predominately analysis. Also might add that some of them have never worked in the field before and have come straight from universities like Oxford, U. Texas, John's Hopkins, etc. They all have pretty much the same stand on the issue. They'll be happy to hear that their opinion counts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angelofdeath Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Something that I've thought about for a while. I work with a lot of people that come from security and law enforcement agencies, the kind that would be tasked with taking your guns away, etc. etc. They are the biggest proponents of gun ownership I've ever come across. From ex-NY cops to ex-FBI to ex-USSS and special agents. All to a man pro-gun and are not fans of big government and heavy regulation. Sometimes feels like a bit of a contradiction but interesting all the same. i think this is not really true. there are MANY in the LE/MIL world that are pro gun. there are some libertarian types. some are what you would call 'patriots.' most of the military is 'pro gun' and that also includes people who interpret pro gun as meaning that they (the .mil) want to retain the right to bear arms and that the people are peons that dont need them. i feel there are many allies to liberty in the military and law enforcement community, but overall they are the enemy of liberty. why? they take an oath. to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. they are to stand down or turn and shoot their officers if illegal orders are given to destroy the rights guaranteed by the constitution. i have yet to see cops and federal agents stand down over the drug war. why arent they standing down over orders to raid peoples houses and confiscate property in the drug war? it is blatantly unconstitutional, yet federal police and federalized and federally funded local law enforcement break their oath each and every day. in waco texas in 1993, the ATF enforced was supposedly serving a warrant over unconstitutional gun laws (if they are pro gun, why are they enforcing unconstitutional gun laws?) and a meth lab. these men took an oath, yet they simply followed unconstitutional orders. in new orleans louisiana during hurricane katrina military confiscated lawfully owned citizen's firearms. blatant disregard for their oath and the constitution. every time a police force knocks down a door in a no knock raid, they are violating the constitution, yet they still do it. why do cops routinely pull guns on citizens lawfully carrying a firearm open, in a state in which it is legal to do so? i did an experiment over the past few months. i wrote to various sheriff's departments across the US in states that allow open carry of firearms. almost every dept responded with something along the lines of...'there is no law forbidding open carry, but it will not go over well. you will be more than likely questioned.' some states with legal open carry responded with...'there is no law forbidding open carry, however a common law statute 'going armed for the terror of the public' is what is generally enforced.' when i enquired further as to weather all open carry cases are dealt with force by the police in one form or the other, i got the generic "it depends on the case." which basically means... there is no law forbidding open carry of firearms, but we, the police, do not like it, so we will find a reason to harass you at the very least and hopefully put you in jail and confiscate your weapon, because we do not like armed citizens. i have little faith in the .mil and le world to say they are really, overall, an alliance in the war for liberty. i have a feeling in my gut that if it came down to a concentration camp situation, half of the military would defect to defend the citizens. the other half would follow orders, and be brain washed by the propaganda that they are doing 'God's work.' Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 I'm glad the police are hassling someone who is walking around with a gun on display, they are doing their job, how do they know without questioning the person if the gun is legal or not. I would rather they presume it isn't legal and they need to question the legality of the weapon than to assume they have an open carry permit. If it is a legal weapon and the person has nothing to hide then they should have no problem answering the few enquiries the police have. If you want the right to walk around displaying a gun then you better have to put up with people questioning you if it is legal or not, because face it you don't live in the wild west anymore there is really no reason to walk around with a gun on display unless you want to look like a mild psychopath, there is just no need for it on a day to day basis Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.