There is a need for him to walk around with a gun. He wants to defend himself if somebody attacks him with deadly force. Perhaps he wants to contribute to society if some nut goes on a shooting rampage and he there before any police officers. Crime has gone down in Texas since private citizens won back the right to carry a concealed firearm, and that is a fact. ------------------ Bob Rainey is my hero!
Let the cops keep the guns, and just take the bullets out of the stores where civilians can access them. Obviously the whole process of phasing out guns would be difficult. However, surely the most powerful nation in the world could find a way to pull it off. How about developing some sort of stun-gun technology, for people to use to defend their families. Weapons of self-defense that don't result in death, now that's a crazy thought. ------------------ Hakeem "The Dream" Olajuwon is the greatest player in the history of basketball. If you disagree, you are not a Rocket fan.
You are obviously not a student of history, or you would realize that disarming the public, but allowing the government to have guns, is a recipe for tyranny. One of Adolf Hitler's first tasks when he came to power was to disarm the public. You don't think tyranny can happen here in our wonderful U.S. of A.? It won't if you let the people defend themselves. Are you a better study of human nature than our founding fathers? Please take a moment a read a more complete list of quotes from the men who thought up this great experiment called the United States of America. "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, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and punishment (1764). "Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property . . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." Thomas Paine, Thoughts on Defensive War (1775). "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution (1776). "The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." Edmund Burke (1784). "The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution Proposed BV the Late Convention (1787). "To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense or by partial orders of towns...is a dissolution of the government." John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America (1787-1788). "Americans need not fear the federal government because they enjoy the advantage of being armed, which you possess over the people of almost every other nation." James Madison. "A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms …To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms . . . " Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters From the Federal Farmer 53 (1788). "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." George Mason, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788). "…The said Constitution be never construed …to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Samuel Adams, during Massachusetts's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788). "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined." Patrick Henry, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788) "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." --James Madison, The Federalist Papers, No. 46 "Suppose that we let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal: still it would not be going to far to say that the State governments with the people at their side would be able to repel the danger...half a million citizens with arms in their hands" --James Madison, The Federalist Papers "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."-- Benjamin Franklin Historical Review of Pennsylvania. [Note: This sentence was often quoted in the Revolutionary period. It occurs even so early as November, 1755, in an answer by the Assembly of Pennsylvania to the Governor, and forms the motto of Franklin's "Historical Review," 1759, appearing also in the body of the work.--Frothingham: Rise of the Republic of the United States, p. 413. ] "False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crime."--Cesare Beccaria, quoted by Thomas Jefferson "The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been recognized by the General Government; but the best security of that right after all is, the military spirit, that taste for martial exercises, which has always distinguished the free citizens of these States....Such men form the best barrier to the liberties of America" -- Gazette of the United States, October 14, 1789. "The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..."--James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789. "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." --Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Framer (1788) at p. 169 "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."--Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at p. 750, August 17, 1789. "...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380. "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." --James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 46 at 243-244. "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States"--Noah Webster in "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution," 1787, in Paul Ford, ed., Pamphlets on the Constitution of the United States, at p. 56 (New York, 1888). "...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights..." --Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist No. 29. "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." --Tench Coxe in `Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution' under the Pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789 at 2 col. 1. "Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" --Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." --Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124 (Univ. of Alabama Press,1975. "The great object is that every man be armed" and "everyone who is able may have a gun." --Patrick Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution. Debates and other Proceedings of the Convention of Virginia,...taken in shorthand by David Robertson of Petersburg, at 271, 275 2d ed. Richmond, 1805. Also 3 Elliot, Debates at 386 "The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." --Zachariah Johnson, 3 Elliot, Debates at 646 "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" --Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836 "The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." (Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-8) "That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of The United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..." --Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850). "And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms....The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants" --Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William S. Smith in 1787. Taken from Jefferson, On Democracy p. 20, S. Padover ed., 1939 "A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. --Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318, Foley, Ed., reissued 1967. "The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them..." --Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1894). "...the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms" --from article in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette June 18, 1789 at 2, col.2. "What country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, Dec. 20, 1787, in Papers of Jefferson, ed. Boyd et al.) "[The American Colonies were] all democratic governments, where the power is in the hands of the people and where there is not the least difficulty or jealousy about putting arms into the hands of every man in the country. [European countries should not] be ignorant of the strength and the force of such a form of government and how strenuously and almost wonderfully people living under one have sometimes exerted themselves in defence of their rights and liberties and how fatally it has ended with many a man and many a state who have entered into quarrels, wars and contests with them." --George Mason, "Remarks on Annual Elections for the Fairfax Independent Company" in The Papers of George Mason, 1725-1792, ed Robert A. Rutland (Chapel Hill, 1970). "It is not certain that with this aid alone [possession of arms], they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to posses the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will, and direct the national force; and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned, in spite of the legions which surround it." --James Madison, Federalist No. 46. What the Courts Have Said About the Right to Keep and Bear Arms "To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm . . . is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege." [Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878)] "For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing of concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former be unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise. But it should not be forgotten, that it is not only a part of the right that is secured by the constitution; it is the right entire and complete, as it existed at the adoption of the constitution; and if any portion of that right be impaired, immaterial how small the part may be, and immaterial the order of time at which it be done, it is equally forbidden by the constitution." [Bliss vs. Commonwealth, 12 Ky. (2 Litt.) 90, at 92, and 93, 13 Am. Dec. 251 (1822) " `The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right." [Nunn vs. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846)] "The provision in the Constitution granting the right to all persons to bear arms is a limitation upon the power of the Legislature to enact any law to the contrary. The exercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be made subject to the will of the sheriff." [People vs. Zerillo, 219 Mich. 635, 189 N.W. 927, at 928 (1922)] "The maintenance of the right to bear arms is a most essential one to every free people and should not be whittled down by technical constructions." [State vs. Kerner, 181 N.C. 574, 107 S.E. 222, at 224 (1921)] "The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)] About the Constitution and the Bill of Rights "On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." --Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322 "The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals.... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." --Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789. "the ultimate authority ... resides in the people alone," --James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, in Federalist Paper No. 46. Other Quotes About the Right to Keep and Bear Arms and Freedom "If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival.--There may be even a worse fate. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." --Winston Churchill “Certainly, one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible.” --Humphrey, Hubert, “Know Your Lawmakers,” Guns, February 1960, p.4. "Both the oligarch and Tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms."--Aristotle "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus (A.D. 55?-130?) "If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I never would lay down my arms-- never --never--never!" William Pitt (1777) "Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." --Mahatma Gandhi, An Autobiography, p. 446 "Those, who have the command of the arms in a country are masters of the state, and have it in their power to make what revolutions they please. [Thus,] there is no end to observations on the difference between the measures likely to be pursued by a minister backed by a standing army, and those of a court awed by the fear of an armed people." --Aristotle, as quoted by John Trenchard and Water Moyle, An Argument Shewing, That a Standing Army Is Inconsistent with a Free Government, and Absolutely Destructive to the Constitution of the English Monarchy [London, 1697]. "No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion." --James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. "Men that are above all Fear, soon grow above all Shame." (John Trenchard and Thomas Gordon, Cato's Letters: Or, Essays on Liberty, Civil and Religious, and Other Important Subjects [London, 1755]) "The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to Congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretense by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both." --William Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125-6 (2nd ed. 1829) "Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction." St. George Tucker, in his edition of 'Blackstone's Commentaries,' 1:300 (1803). "No man is good enough to govern another man without that other's consent." Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." --Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States; With a Preliminary Review of the Constitutional History of the Colonies and States before the Adoption of the Constitution [Boston, 1833]. "If the Constitution is to be construed to mean what the majority at any given period in history wish the Constitution to mean, why a written Constitution?"--Frank J. Hogan, President, American Bar Assn. (1939) "If we advert to the nature of republican government, we shall find that the censorial power is in the people over the government, and not in the government over the people." --James Madison " 'Necessity' is the plea for every infringement of human liberty; it is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."--William Pitt "One man with courage is a majority."--Thomas Jefferson "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."--Mao Tse-tung "To trust arms in the hands of the people at large has, in Europe, been believed...to be an experiment fraught only with danger. Here by a long trial it has been proved to be perfectly harmless...If the government be equitable; if it be reasonable in its exactions; if proper attention be paid to the education of children in knowledge and religion, few men will be disposed to use arms, unless for their amusement, and for the defence of themselves and their country." --Timothy Dwight, Travels in New England and New York [London 1823] "The whole of the Bill of Rights is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals…It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of." Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789. "Gentlemen may cry, 'peace, peace'--but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! Is life so precious, or peace so dear, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!" -- Patrick Henry to the Virginia Convention on March 23, 1775. "Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined" --Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836) "War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." John Stuart Mill "These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of men and women." -- Thomas Paine, The Crisis, Intro. (Dec. 1776). "Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise."-- Thomas Paine, Common Sense, (1776), Chap. 1. "When my country, into which I had just set my foot, was set on fire about my ears, it was time to stir. It was time for every man to stir." Thomas Paine, 1788. "The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections." Lord Acton, English historian, 1907 "It is the American vice, the democratic disease which expresses its tyranny by reducing everything unique to the level of the herd." Henry Miller, American author, 1947 "You can never have a revolution to establish a democracy. You must have a democracy in order to have a revolution." G.K. Chesterton, English journalist and author, 1955 "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through this sequence: "From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to apathy; From apathy to dependence; From dependence back into bondage." -- Alexander Fraser Tytler (later Lord Alexander Fraser Woodhouslee), in "The Decline and Fall of the Athenian Republic," published 1776. "You are bound to meet misfortune if you are unarmed because, among other reasons, people despise you....There is simply no comparison between a man who is armed and one who is not. It is unreasonable to expect that an armed man should obey one who is unarmed, or that an unarmed man should remain safe and secure when his servants are armed. In the latter case, there will be suspicion on the one hand and contempt on the other, making cooperation impossible." --Niccolo Machiavelli in "The Prince." "You must understand, therefore, that there are two ways of fighting: by law or by force. The first way is natural to men, and the second to beasts. But as the first way often proves inadequate one must needs have recourse to the second." --Niccolo Machiavelli in "The Prince." "Giving money and power to Government is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." -- P.J. O'Rourke ------------------ Bob Rainey is my hero!
You're right, that is a recipe for tyranny. Dumb idea, granted. What isn't a dumb idea is to ban guns entirely, and develop stun gun type weapons. Weapons that immobilize, but don't kill. Ban guns, develop stun guns. It would take a while, but society would eventually benifit. I believe this could work, eventually. ------------------ Hakeem "The Dream" Olajuwon is the greatest player in the history of basketball. If you disagree, you are not a Rocket fan.
I have enjoyed posting to you tonight, and I am going to bed, but I would like to leave you with one thought. Our country will never be able to control what other countries produce in the way of guns. Even if we could ban guns here, criminals would bring them across the border to gain an advantage over law abiding citizens. Also, why should I be forced to use some kind of non-lethal weapon to defend myself? The only deterrant to crime or tyranny is the knowledge that criminals or opressive government will SUFFER GREATLY for robbing the citizenry of their God given rights. Personally, I want a robber or burglar to think he might get killed for sneaking in my house. If I only have a non-lethal stun gun, where is the deterrant? I say, let's put the fear of flying lead into those who would steal our liberty. I know its not a very popular opinion these days, but history shows that I am correct. "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it." -George Santayana ------------------ Bob Rainey is my hero!
Hey Jim, So, could you give us a few more quotes? I do hope you cut and pasted and did not waste all that energy typing those out! Are you seriously suggesting that gun control will lead to the Gov'ment getting totalitarian? Is this because they, with their stealth fighters, chemical warfare, long range missiles, etc., fear Billy-Bob and Cletus in the backwoods of Mississippi with their rifles? Good thing most of those quotes came from the abysmal 18th Century (sorry, academic bias coming through). Ugh, guns are for sissies. I do not need them. I, instead, rely on my panther-like reflexis, amazing intellect, and Classical good looks to fend off would-be assialants and oppressors. this amazing ability is compouded by the fact that I must defend two "homes" in two different states. Glad I came in to lend insight and respectability to this thread. ------------------ Whitey will pay.
Everyone wants to defend themselves from an attack from a deadly force. Why doesnt everyone go around getting carrying liscences then? There are plenty of ways to defend yourself. The gun isnt the only option. Regardless, I never hear too many stories of people actually defending themselves from attacks of deadly forces with guns. Convenient stores dont count, cause as I said above, they are actually in dangerous situations. Crime may be down since citizens in Texas gained the right to carry a weapon, but who cares? Where is the proof of correlation between the two? Were there not periods in the past where crime also went down due to many factors. Im not saying this isnt one of them, but the correlation seems weak to me, and even with a positive correlation between the two, correlation doesnt always lead to causation. I feel safer knowing that the guy I brush by in the Subway isnt going to construe my bumping into him as a deadly attack and try and kill me. ------------------ Haha.. you fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is: Never get involved in a land war in Asia. Only slightly less well know is this: Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!
After a couple days, I thought this topic would slowly drift into oblivion, but thanks to today, this thread is still breathing. Thank you for your thoughts everyone, keep em coming. When this topic gets boring, I'll remember to start a new one, "The 2000 election: Who really won?" ------------------ Thoughts?
Thanks for posting those quotes Jim. It's important to remember why we have certain rights. BTW, when the government sends it Stealth Fighters after us everyone make sure to put up your radar installations so those things don't sneak up on us. Stealth Fighters... lol. ------------------ The ox is slow but the Earth is patient.
Jim: "Our country will never be able to control what other countries produce in the way of guns. Even if we could ban guns here, criminals would bring them across the border to gain an advantage over law abiding citizens." Gee, making guns inaccessible seems to have worked well for the rest of the world. Other countries have borders, don't they? "Also, why should I be forced to use some kind of non-lethal weapon to defend myself? The only deterrant to crime or tyranny is the knowledge that criminals or opressive government will SUFFER GREATLY for robbing the citizenry of their God given rights." Where do we start? What makes you think rights are God-given? It's certainly not in the Christian tradition to believe that. Rights are a creation by man. Tyranny? That's more likely in a country where a man has to be armed to be safe. Tyranny is a political process, one in which you should exercise political rights to prevent. Guns have nothing to do with it. Heck, half the people in Sudan have guns, and it's STILl authoritarian. You're just flat wrong here, deductively and historically. Can you say "blind assertion?" "Personally, I want a robber or burglar to think he might get killed for sneaking in my house. If I only have a non-lethal stun gun, where is the deterrant?" Statistically, YOU are the one who's more likely to die if you have a gun if you're robbed. Once again, blind assertion. "I say, let's put the fear of flying lead into those who would steal our liberty. I know its not a very popular opinion these days, but history shows that I am correct." Actually, history shows that you're WRONG. The possession of significant #'s of light arms has actually PRECEDED most conflicts. Conflict, civil war, and tyranny is LESS likely when there are fewer guns. Nobody wants to steal your liberty. If they do, exercise your right of democracy. Quite frankly, you sound like a gun-toting maniac. This is the sort of argument advanced by bearded wackos in Montana compounds who stockpile AK's and prepare for the coming battle. Logic is nice. True historical examples are nice. Crazy assertion is not. ------------------ I would believe only in a God who could dance. - Friedrich Nietzsche [This message has been edited by haven (edited April 09, 2001).]
Jim … you aren't Jimbo from South Park, are you? What makes him sound like a gun-toting manic? He is only defending the right to have a gun. This is showing you how shallow you sound and why we need more people like him to defend our rights. You people dream too much. A gun free world? Why not wish for world peace. Making the statement of giving cops and the military the only bullets is ridiculous. There will ALWAYS be criminals. As soon as you accept that, you might understand why we need protection. I was raised in a family of thieves, and the one thing that kept me from becoming one was the consequences. I DID fear someone having a gun and putting a bullet in my head. What is sad is this is how the government wants us to think. How many people actually trust the government? ------------------ Im too drunk to walk ... Im driving home!
Yeah, the rest of the world is so stable... there are never any dictatorships, invasions, wars, human rights problems, or anything like that. If only we could be like the rest of the world. ------------------ The ox is slow but the Earth is patient.
How did I know when I read Jim's post last night that it would start a frenzy of posting in this thread??? ------------------ And then, depression set in...
Timing: If you want to put it that way, my case becomes stronger. In stable countries, guns are inaccessible. This is true in modernized SE Asia and the EU nations. In unstable nations, guns are accessible. It's easy to get a gun in Sudan, the Congo, or Algeria. Want to be like those nations? The statistical evidence that guns create a safer environment is horrible. They don't. If you *really* want to advocate teh right to own firearms, do so from a purely rights-based viewpoint. If you think you possess a right... hey, we'll disagree. But if you want to argue that they actually make the world safer... well, deductive reasoning and evidence is completely against you. ------------------ I would believe only in a God who could dance. - Friedrich Nietzsche
I don't know what you guys are talking about. I think we need guns, I mean, I know I'm terrified that one day Dick Cheaney might come flying through my door and try to kill myself, my friends and my family. *end sarcasm* ------------------ Nuggets4 The Pinnacle -- Proof that Rivals.com isn't COMPLETELY evil. NugsPinnacle.com [This message has been edited by Nuggets4 (edited April 09, 2001).]
Sounds like the arrogance of the Roman Empire U know the one that was suppose to last forever? I agree with Jim .. [GREAT QUOTES!] Rocket River 'Gun control means using both hands in my land' - Dela Soul ------------------
Haven, I don't know where to start with you. There are so many half-truths (unintentional, I am sure) and misrepresentations in your argument, and you seem to have a COMPLETE misunderstanding of the relationship between government and the people as set forth in our constitution. I will give it a shot though. Gee, making guns inaccessible seems to have worked well for the rest of the world. Other countries have borders, don't they? This general statement could not be further from the truth. Australia, a culture very similar to ours, outlawed guns in the last 25 years. The result was more murders, rapes, and robbery- especially against old people. Your point is baseless. Where do we start? What makes you think rights are God-given? It's certainly not in the Christian tradition to believe that. Rights are a creation by man. Tyranny? That's more likely in a country where a man has to be armed to be safe. You show zero understanding of our founding father's intentions. The whole concept of American freedom is based on the idea that rights DO NOT come from man, but exist naturally. I don't know how ANYBODY could get through even high school without understanding this SIMPLE CONCEPT. Tyranny is a political process, one in which you should exercise political rights to prevent. Guns have nothing to do with it. Heck, half the people in Sudan have guns, and it's STILl authoritarian. You're just flat wrong here, deductively and historically. Can you say "blind assertion?" Tyranny can be stopped by exercising your political rights? LMAO. What a inane statement! By definition, a tyrant would never respect your rights. Statistically, YOU are the one who's more likely to die if you have a gun if you're robbed. Once again, blind assertion. This is such a ludicrous statement, that I feel silly even responding, but let's look at several different studies. No. of Defensive Uses Source 2.1 million Point Blank: Guns & Violence in America, Gary Kleck 700,000 Mauser study 650,000 Hart study 108,000 1993 National Crime Victim Survey 76,000 1996 National Crime Victim Survey Significantly, even using the lowest estimate, 76,000 violent crimes are prevented by armed citizens each year. Thus, the number of violent crimes thwarted by armed citizens is about four times the annual murder rate. In stable countries, guns are inaccessible. This is true in modernized SE Asia and the EU nations. Wow! Another generalization that has ZERO basis in fact. To illustrate your ignorance, one only has to look at Switzerland, where EVERY man is required to have an automatic weapon in his home. This is the type of militia that our constitution calls for. The result- 2.7 gun deaths per 100,000. Denmark has outlawed weapons, and there gun death total is almost twice that of Switzerland. (source- 1996 United Nations Demographic Study) The conclusion here is that you are making up facts as you go along, which is not a very intelligent way to argue. The statistical evidence that guns create a safer environment is horrible. They don't. If you *really* want to advocate teh right to own firearms, do so from a purely rights-based viewpoint. If you think you possess a right... hey, we'll disagree. But if you want to argue that they actually make the world safer... well, deductive reasoning and evidence is completely against you. I have argued that guns make MY WORLD safer. I understand some of you (maybe not you?) are younger than me, and more idealistic. The relevant fact here is that the world is overrun with guns, and there is NO WAY to get rid of them. To argue that we should ban guns is PURE FANTASY. All people like you will do is prevent law abiding citizens from defending themselves and their families- a INALIENABLE RIGHT that our constitution says cannot be abridged by our government. Let me reiterate that point again in case you missed it. Our Bill of Rights outlines what our government is forbidden from doing, NOT what powers our government has. Please remember this distinction- it is what makes America great. Owning a gun makes it more likely that you will die. It makes it more likely that your children will die. it provides NEGATIVE safety. WRONG. Up until 1968, New York city schools had shooting programs which allowed children to bring their guns to school. The problem is not guns, it is parenting. Children in this country has ALWAYS had access to guns. Your statement above is just another example of your ignorance. Who cares what the founding father's said in those quotes? Every judge except one wacko in Texas had decided that the right to bear arms was intended to allow for state militias only. This is a laughable assertion, and a ridiculous generalization. Several states have conceal and carry laws, and the 2nd amendment has never seriously been challenged. Also, "militia" is defined as any man capable of bearing arms. That is me and you, Haven. BTW, the founding father's owned slaves as well as guns... I think it's time our society bans the latter as well. Playing the race card is the cheapest and most illogical form of argument when race is not an issue. No comment. The "tyranny" arguement is pure silliness. It doesn't stand up to historical tests... and is actually contradicted by them. Hitler and Mao knew how important it was to take arms from the people. The above statement is so damn stupid, you should actually be embarrassed. The rest of us just trashed Jim... come on... if you're going to support him, provide some reasons and argue with him! You offered no facts, and no statistics. I have proven your generalizations to be untrue. You played the race card, and resorted to ad hominum attacks. If this were a debate, you would lose easily. Unfortunately, this is more important than a debate. There are many people out there, just like you, who (in you own words)"don't care about what the founding fathers" said. You ignore history, and you pontificate on subjects in which you ignorant. If one person reads this long post with an open mind and decides to try to understand the greatness of our founding fathers, then it was worth it to me. ------------------ Bob Rainey is my hero!
Thanks for the great reply. However, I think you're completely and utterly wrong. Here goes... "Explain that to the citizens of Switzerland. Every citizen there is REQUIRED by law to own a gun (I think a rifle, but I'm not sure about that). Yet the jurder rate there is extremely low. It may not seem reasonable to you, but it's true. You can even call it completely irrational if you want but it won't do any good." Very good point. I'd attribute the relative peacefulness of Switzerland to relatively high per capita income and a culture that is traditionally fairly peaceful. I don't think that guns automatically make a place more violent, but I do think they're a frequent symptom. I don't think you can establish a correllation there between guns and peace, since the surrounding countries all have ridiculously low murder rates as well. Besides, handguns are much more dangerous than rifles. Now, a general corellation still exists between an increase in guns and an in increased violence in society. The single-most useful sign for policy makers that an increase in violence will occur in the near-future is the proliferation of light-arms. While it is true that some of this is due to fear, it's hard to fight when you don't possess a weapon. This held true for Bosnia, Sudan, and the Congo. Concerning the studies debate: Damn, now you're going to make me find research I haven't used in a while . 1. the suicide question is valid. Suicide rates are 5 times higher in households that possess firearms. Contrary to expectations, people generally don't go out and buy firearms if there's a waiting period to kill themselves. Many people have momentary fits of depressing, then get on with living. If a gun is handy, sometimes they kill themselves.... five times as often (The Kellerman study). 2. A comprehensive study in the 90's by the Scientific American journal indicates that in cases in which the firearm at home is used to deter crime, the defender is more likely to be hurt or killed. This would address your objection that the methodology was flawed due to the sample collected and the suicide question... IN burglaries, they're less safe than not possessing one. Case closed. 3. a 1993 Kellerman study published in the New England Journal of Medicine indicates that possession of a gun in the home makes one 2.7 MORE TIMES LIKELY to be murdered. This study is valid, as it takes into account factors such as gang membership, socioeconomic status, and neighborhood. The variables are eliminated, the statistics hold true. 4. The Lott study which you cite concerning falling rates coinciding with the concealed weapons law is horrible in its statistical analysis. The studies fail to take into account the national decreases in crime in the same period, and hte economic effect that crime has had. It's not apparent that the actual enactment of the law had ANY effect... You accuse gun control advocates of poor methodology. The Lott/Mustard study uses techniques that have been discredited for decades. For instance, the authors of the study fail to use advanced statistical technique to determine if the data proves a significant deviation due to the fact that these laws are always introduced following violent crime spikes, which inevitably would go down even if nothing was done. So, historical data correllations are not consulted. Furthermore, these data fail to take into account other laws enacted in the same regions. If you studied these other laws, you'd find the exact same correllation if you used this poor methodology. Isolating statistical methods are not used to find specific causal links. Finally, there are some dubious hypotheses made within the analysis. For instance, the authors argue that these laws transplant crime from violent mugging to less violent robbery of automobiles... yet this is not suggested in the data. It simply must be in order for their hypotheses to be correct. They assume too much. Furthermore, the vast majority of rapes and murders are committed by someone known to the victim, in a situation in which possession of a hand gun would be irrelevant. Yet the cases of such attacks by people unknown the victim appear not to have been decreased disproportionately. This doesn't make sense, if you buy their study. Next, a great deal of Sheck's study was anecdotal or in survey form. That is to say, people were asked if they felt their gun had protected them. All the gun-toting crazies said yes... and if you believe them, then guns spared a great deal of violence. However, they claimed that guns had saved them so many times that nary a non-weapon holder would be alive today if this were true. Bad methodology yet again. In summary: new studies have emerged to indicate that guns have a negative effect on life expectancy and survival. Political scientists consider them as an early warning sign to conflicts. The studies that favor possession of guns are fatally flawed. Guns control is still a good idea. ------------------ I would believe only in a God who could dance. - Friedrich Nietzsche Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001
Jim: That recent post was much better. Addressing the questions not mentioned in my response to a previous poster. 1. The Constitution does assume that certain rights are inalienable. However, I don' tthink it is at all certain that they are God-given, even according to the Constitution. The fundamental basis for the modern human rights paradigm is NOT religious and thereofre not of God. It originated with the Kantian "unpacking" of human dignity, as espoused in "The Metaphysics of Morals." THAT is our philosophical tradition. 2. The founders beliefs are irrelevant. Truth is supposed to stand independent of the speaker or actor. 3. All people are not considered a militia. Supreme Court interpretation of this issue has been pretty ambiguous, to be honest. A militia is a unit of military action; not necessarily random (refer to 18th century British military order). 4. The case of Australia doesn't take into account rising murder rates internationally. The correllation doesn't really exist. Societies with fewer guns sitll have aggregately fewer murders. 5. I'm not playing hte race card. Damn, I could have mentioned any number of faults about the founding fathers. I didn't mean to imply that you or anyone else is a racist. Simply that htey shouldn't be seen as bastions of infallible wisdom. 6. Mao and Hitler - the key is that oppressive regimes try to neutralize the source of opposition to them. The fact that guns didn't stand up to them actually indicates that guns don't stop tyranny. 7. I'll look up those surveys. Of all the pro-gun studies, I'm most familiar with the ones I referred to in a prior post. Stay tuned. The only defense against tyranny is a robust democratic process. It is our faith in the system that allowed america to weather the trials of the recent election controversy; in many other systems, chaos would hvae broken lose. Democracy is seen as legitimate here. Political legitimacy matters. I'm proud of htis belief. 7. Sorry about the ad hominems. It turns out that my stereotyping was false. Unfortunately, you denigrate me in this passage. If this were a debate, I would lose? Sorry no... I replied to your initial post in kind. Now that you've argued better, so will I. I debated extensively in high school, and went to the state tournament where I did quite well. I'm a junior honor student in the political science department of Boston College with a 3.9 GPA. Am I ignorant? Certainly not. I think I have a keen underestanding of politics and democratic theory. I dislike bringing personal credentials into this, I just found your proclamation of my ignorance to be unjustified and somewhat scathing. I responded to your post with the necessary vigor to refute it. I'm doing so again, now that your post improved (combine this with my response to the other pro-gun post). ------------------ I would believe only in a God who could dance. - Friedrich Nietzsche Boston College - NCAA Hockey National Champions 2001 [This message has been edited by haven (edited April 09, 2001).]
I think of your Idea as treating a symptom instead of the actual problem. I think the untamed aggression of the American population is a bigger problems How do we rate among Vehicular homicides? it is not just because we own more cars. [that is not the *only* reason] How do we Rank among Knife related deaths? we are quick to say we rank Highest in Gun related crimes but I think we ranked the highest in violent crime in general. You want to take away a Method of Killing rather than killing. I personally think that: 1. while the survival rate of violent crime . may got down the overall rate will not 2. I do not think that TYRANNY in america is . an impossibility. Rocket River ------------------
