Desert Scar, count me in on your plan. I know that compromise is essential in a free society, and I don't like making "slippery slope" arguments. I would vote for your plan as stated, and keep a sharp eye out for further encroachments on my liberty. I suspect that your argument sounds pretty reasonable to you- so you must think these extremists on the other side, who want to strip people of the ability to defend themselves, are pretty radical- right? ------------------ I hate rice and beans!
Get it straight HeyPartner- he argued the correct side, not my side. ------------------ I hate rice and beans!
Get it straight Beto, he was arguing your side in the Bovine Gas thread. Who cares which thread he posts the IP check? You must be embarrassing to him and all conservatives with your Bovine explosive burps that are throwing noxious Methane greenhouse gases into my server and overheating it. ...next
LOL, how would you know? Heypartner exists in a world that is 98% liberal. Since Liberals are the new Fascists, most conservatives are afraid to speak their minds, especially when their views are immediately drowned out by a chorus of well intentioned ignorance. ------------------ I hate rice and beans!
I suppose the argument that car ownership increases death risk for the owner is blind assertion? I trust statistics, when well used. Give a person a car, and the statistical odds of them dying in an incident increase. You can't deny this.
Beto, I wish the NRA were as reasonable as you on this issue and would enter this debate on which weapons are OK to have versus those that create unreasonable threats to public life and/or would infringe on another's liberty. If you point out the radicals you are talking about (those would want to take away knives and single shot 18th century muskets from US citizens), I'll back you up. Freak, my man, do you take to take my test above that Beto agreed to. [This message has been edited by Desert Scar (edited June 08, 2001).]
Scarvy -- I am against all weapons, how do you like that? I'm also against criminals having access to weapons that law-abiding citizens don't have access to. Do you remember the story a few years back about cops having to go into a gun store during a shoot-out just to be able to compete with the criminals they were fighting against? What is your solution for a problem like that?
There isn't an easy solution to that, but I am not sure how that impacts the debate on what weapons should be illegal or legal. (Did you mean all weapons should be illegal, I am not sure what your policy position is). If criminals build bombs, get machine guns, perhaps even buy weapons of mass destruction from rogue nations, does that mean we say since a fe criminals already have them, we might as well produce even more of them, legalize them, and spread them out to our citizens? Cops should be well armed and armored, especially because we have spread out the kind of weapons out there. But if we stop production of those weapons solely designed to kill lots of people real fast, stop producing ammunitions/parts for them, and start with getting law abiding people to trade such weapons in, maybe in 15 years a well-armed cop will not need quite the arsenal she needs today. Freak, I should just only seek out the thread you have posted on, I have always liked ping-pong but don't have a table. I do think we agreed on the KJ thing quite some time back , or something along those lines. [This message has been edited by Desert Scar (edited June 08, 2001).]
What nobody attacked me? Do yall like me or something... Well I feel the love so I don't know what to do... Maybe I should just throw my .30-06 rifle away..nah, I'll just wait till deer season comes closer! ------------------ Rarely is the question asked: Guns kill squirrels than REDRUM to fools across the nation?
a tragedy. I hope the girls recover. ------------------ "Hey America, you're so fine, You're so fine you blow my mind, Hey America"
That is the root of the problem not guns in itself! I find it humorous that wiping out all guns will cure the ill. Swirvy idiots will say "that it lessens death, and killing of the innocent in the world". After all, the goal is to eliminate killing, death, murder right?... Well maybe, maybe no, but why should I give up my right to bear arms..why should I? I don't break laws or go on a beserker barrage or something..Why should I give up my property? Why target guns? A gun is a tool. Yes, a tool that can kill, but other tools can kill too. Hey why do anything half-ass let's get rid of all tools or machines that can kill. O, you say a gun is designed to kill (whatever that means) well is a car kills someone and the result is the same, no? death, killing, and possibly murder. Tell a loved one that it mattered that their relative was wrongly killed in a auto fatality and not by a gun. Go ahead I challenge you to do so. We are talking about death, killing and murder right? O.K. just wanted to make sure we do all we can to stop the madness. I'm with you swirvy's. I'm with you demos.com people, but let's not give up the good fight. I will fight your good fight and not sleep till every man, women, and child is free from death by "tools"!!! So I am saying let's get rid of all cars, planes, motorcycles, elevators, trains, any tool or machine that can maim and kill, because I'm on your side fighting the good fight and we won't stop till every right or possession you own is taken away. How does that sound? Take away the tools of the world that can result in death and you will still have the tell-tale hearts of those who will do anything to harm you or your loved ones...Let's fix the real problem. ------------------ Rarely is the question asked: Guns kill squirrels than REDRUM to fools across the nation?
how many people were accidentally knifed to death in the past year? This is very interesting. Finish your thought, please-- how do you intend to prevent accidental shootings?
Dude, don't even. I was joking. You could try being a little more polite to these "Liberal youngins", given that some of them are friends of mine.
so BK, get to work and go visit the main forum and move those two Rocket Guys threads. Do you just wear that Admin label so you can win arguments or sumpin. [This message has been edited by heypartner (edited June 09, 2001).]
Sometimes when people talk about gun control they lose their minds for some reason. Handguns, rifles, and shotguns are often used for home and personal protection. Anthrax, hydrogen bombs, blackhawks, nuclear brief case bombs, rpg's, hand grenades, and cruise missiles are not used for home and personal protection. Glad I could clear up that mess for you. There are laws currently that draw distinctions on which firearms are legal and which are illegal. To take a leap over the Grand Canyon and say this will cause confusion in the future with bombs, nukes, and other weapons of mass destruction is just foolishness. ------------------ The ox is slow but the Earth is patient.
Beto- do you have proof of these Australian statistics? Oh, and I am a big believer in stun guns. They should be a priority in weapons development. They would be purely for protection, not for killing. ------------------ "Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning how to put food on their family while being put to death." It's back... Protrolls.com!
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~confiles/confiles.html Why should a person who wants to invade your home to rob, maim, rape, or kill get the advantage of knowing that the worst waiting for him is a stun gun? Criminals need to know that they will be killed if they break in the wrong home. Peace is only achieved through strength, whether we are talking about world politics or neighborhood politics. ------------------ I hate rice and beans!
Sometime back on this thread, Haven wrote that the 2nd Amend did not guarantee individuals the right to gun ownership..only that the states could create militias. This could not be farther from the truth. What legislative history we have from the Founders concerning this matter is that they absolutely intended for the 2nd Amend to guarantee that individuals have the a right, that the govt can't infringe on, to own weapons. I'm not arguing the policy, but simply stating that there is little question as to that. I have yet to see a court make the interpretation of the Constitution that you have concerning the 2nd Amend. It's just incorrect, though an easy argument to be made against private gun ownership. Also...as for crime statistics...check out crime stats in Australia AND GREAT BRITAIN since the implementation of the ban of private ownership of guns. Violent crime in both countries has increased at high rates. Listen to the interviews of people in jail who say the only thing that would have prevented them from breaking into a house would be if they had known for sure that the owner had a gun. I pray to God I never have to use a gun...but I thank God that if I have to, I can defend my family from an intruder. Oh, yeah..but I'm sure those who don't respect any other laws in our society will be happy to comply with these new gun laws! ------------------
If the judge in Texas is "wrong", he will be overturned. Also, I have read the Bill of Rights, and your cheap shot is hereby disregarded. Come on now Haven, even you can see the fact that the term "people's rights" or "group's rights" is oxymoronic. Groups cannot have rights, only individuals can. You are confusing the term "state's rights" with "rights of the people". These are two entirely different concepts. State's rights don't come into play until the 10th amendment (an amendment that is completely ignored today). The Bill of Rights refers to inalienable rights of the people in three places that I know offhand. The right to assemble, the right to not incur unreasonable searches, and the right to bear arms. Are you saying that the 4th amendment protect groups, and not individuals? Looking at your above statements, that is exactly what you are saying. ------------------ I hate rice and beans!
