100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: another question | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Figures don't lie but liars figure. Don't talk rate of murders per 100,000 people talk total numbers and then see where the bodies stack up. We have a smaller population so 2 murders would skew our figures, in Portland however 2 murders would be a drop in the bucket. Once again explain how Washington D.C. ended up the murder captiol of the U.S. several years running, I guess those were drug o.d.s Well, if we are going to remove the ability to discuss figures in proportion to one another.. I really don't have much to add. It is clear that you believe the sole reason DC maintained its claim to fame is solely because of the ban on handguns. Completely disregarding the study that suggests it significantly reduced the deaths in the city. I could argue the point for days to come... Maybe simplify it more and more as we go. But why would I? Sometimes a mushroom prefers to be a mushroom. It can be so much better to sit in the dark on a pile of crap. In other words...Ignorance is bliss! Talk about a mushroom, you maintain that banning guns will cause a decrease in crime yet a place where they are forbidden claims the title of Murder Capitol of the U.S. several years running. Talk about sitting in a pile of crap and being blissfully ignorant my unregistered legally owned firearms have killed less people than Ted Kennedy's or Bill Janklow's cars. Yet you somehow seem to think that by disarming me it is going to have a significant effect on the crime rate. Here is a news flash for you if a criminal is intent on comitting a crime he don't give a big rats ass about the fact that it is illegal for him to have a firearm. He is a criminal, breaking the law is his business. He is damn good at what he does because otherwise he would be in jail or would be forced to get a job to support himself. One thing that he does know is that where firearms are against the law, the chances of his victim being able to defend themselves is greatly reduced and his job is a whole hell of a lot easier. Using statistical figures to support your argument is a way of sugar coating the less than savory number of dead. A murder rate of 1 per 100,000 would equal 7 dead bodies in South Dakota that same rate would equal several hundred dead bodies in Los Angeles or another major city. But if you use the statistical figures you can say wow we have a murder rate as low as South Dakota but when you start counting bodies things look a little different. I am sure the hundreds of grieving families in a major metropolitan area would take great consolation in the fact their city had a murder rate as low as South Dakota. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Talk about a mushroom, you maintain that banning guns will cause a decrease in crime yet a place where they are forbidden claims the title of Murder Capitol of the U.S. several years running. Talk about sitting in a pile of crap and being blissfully ignorant my unregistered legally owned firearms have killed less people than Ted Kennedy's or Bill Janklow's cars. I'm sure you find some comfort and security in how you feel about your relationship with a piece of steel.. and far be it from me to stand in between the two of you. You, my gun loving friend.. brought up statistics in the first place! I personally have chosen to not have such an intimate relationship with inanimate objects, such as my firearms. That is my choice, my only stance. The statistics you used to prove your point gave more merit to outlawing cities then outlawing guns! Yet somehow you fail to see that! Which really makes a pretty good argument for more gun control! So.. maybe your best bet in winning your argument in this? Is to sit quietly on the side lines? Should I ever move to a more remote area? A farm.. or ranch? Or go back to being a hunting and fishing guide? I will most assuredly get a few of my weapons back, which are safely in the care of a retired cop...and possibly buy a new one or two. Right now though? I 'hunt' at the neighborhood grocery. I put down any animal that needs euthanization by lethal injection giving by the vet down the street. I defend myself, mine and strangers by being aware of my surroundings and preempting anything before it becomes deadly. I know.. a thinking mans game you may not be familiar with... So..until I wake up one morning and war has broke out in my neighborhood? Or I move to a place where arms are a necessary tool? I will continue to be safer, more at peace, and less of a threat to myself, mine, and people around me. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chazter.. There is no doubt that the 2nd Amendment is open to interpretation. Much in the same way that scripture is. Depending on your point of view..both can take on some pretty strange meanings. Even if the highest court in the land determines how it is to be interpreted... There will still be those who will disagree and prove it with every step they take. Most of the argument is not so much in the wording of the 'Right' itself... IMO. It is in how we define a 'Right'. We see this all the time in how people feel their right to free speech is violated in these forums. It isn't.. Their definition of what free speech is..is just so heavily bastardized it does not even look like the intent of the original text. The fact of the matter is simple. No right is absolute! No right gives us license to cause imminent danger or abridge an other's rights. My right to free speech does not allow me to yell 'FIRE' in a crowded theater, or publish possibly libelous material regarding someone without verifiable proof of those statements. It also does not give me a right to just babble incoherently, rudely, without regard for others or accountability for my actions, in here. In that vain.. It is also not my right to defend my driveway with a howitzer. Therefore putting my neighborhood in imminent danger. We could go on and on.. bringing up Supreme Court case after Supreme Court case... in an endless attempt to help define the 'Right to bear arms...' However.. we are discussing it with some who apparently do not have a clear understanding of the limitations of our 'Rights'. I agree, its open to interpretation. It is just the rebuttal to all those who are saying the amendment is so simple. My point is its not that cut and dry. The meanings of words were different 200 years ago and I am sure the founding fathers didnt just want people walking around with guns all the time. People seem to not take into account how written word has changed over the years. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776, Jefferson Papers 344 "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 ratification convention, 1788 "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 (Sorry i just like this one) Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. - Benjamin Franklin Has anyone even read the posts I made about the meanings of "the People" and "bear arms"? I posted them twice and I don't feel like arguing in circles if you are just gonna ignore my posts. yes and you are wrong did you even read the declaration of independence post |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world ----------------------------- ****WHO IS GOING TO HOLD THE GOVT ACOUNTABL AND ENFORCE THE DECALRATION OF INDEPENDANCE ENTER THE 2ND AMMENDMENT ---------------------------- U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment Second Amendment - Bearing Arms Amendment Text | Annotations 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. ---------------------------- DEFINITIONS ----------------------------- Main Entry: in·fringe Pronunciation: in-'frinj Function: verb Inflected Forms: in·fringed; in·fring·ing Etymology: Medieval Latin infringere, from Latin, to break, crush, from in- in + frangere to break transitive verb : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another <the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed —U.S. Constitution amendment II>; especially : to violate a holder's rights under (a copyright, patent, trademark, or trade name) intransitive verb : ENCROACH —in·fring·er noun Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law, © 1996 Merriam-Webster, Inc. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another en·croach (n-krch) intr.v. en·croached, en·croach·ing, en·croach·es 1. To take another's possessions or rights gradually or stealthily: encroach on a neighbor's land. 2. To advance beyond proper or former limits: desert encroaching upon grassland. 3. Football To commit encroachment. +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ peo·ple (ppl) n. pl. people 1. Humans considered as a group or in indefinite numbers: People were dancing in the street. I met all sorts of people. 2. A body of persons living in the same country under one national government; a nationality. 3. pl. peo·ples A body of persons sharing a common religion, culture, language, or inherited condition of life. 4. Persons with regard to their residence, class, profession, or group: city people. 5. The mass of ordinary persons; the populace. Used with the: "those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes" Thomas Jefferson. 6. The citizens of a political unit, such as a nation or state; the electorate. Used with the. 7. Persons subordinate to or loyal to a ruler, superior, or employer: The queen showed great compassion for her people. 8. Family, relatives, or ancestors. 9. Informal Animals or other beings distinct from humans: Rabbits and squirrels are the furry little people of the woods http://www.thefreedictionary.com/people ------------------------------------ SO IF THE GOVT INFRINGES (see DEFINITIONS) THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE (SEE DEFINITIONS) TO BEAR ARMS WHO IS GOING TOENFORCE THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE WHEN THE GOVT BEGINS ABUSING THEIR POWERS ------------------------------------ deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ------------------------------------ AND BEGIN RESTRICTING THE ------------------------------------ We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men ------------------------------------- WHO WILL STEP IN AND REMOVE THE ------------------------------------- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government ---------------------------------- AND INSTITUTE THE NEW GOVT DO YOU THINK THE GOVT IS GOING TO DO IT IT IS UP TO THE PEOPLE AND TO DO SO THE PEOPLE NEED TO BE ARMED AN UNARMED PEOPLE ARE SLAVE TO THOSE IN POWER AND THE GOVT ARE THE MASTERS WHICH IS NOT WHAT IS WRITTEN IN THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDANCE ------------------------------------- deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IT IS UP TO THE PEOPLE AND TO DO SO THE PEOPLE NEED TO BE ARMED AN UNARMED PEOPLE ARE SLAVE TO THOSE IN POWER The Iraqis were some of the most well armed citizens in the world. Yet tyranny ruled... They are still well armed... and we are still occupying their country. So.. depending on how they define tyranny..Whether we are or Saddam was.. A warm gun is just that.. a warm gun. The sense of security you get from it..is largely a false one. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Fri 02/22/08 11:20 AM
|
|
IT IS UP TO THE PEOPLE AND TO DO SO THE PEOPLE NEED TO BE ARMED AN UNARMED PEOPLE ARE SLAVE TO THOSE IN POWER The Iraqis were some of the most well armed citizens in the world. Yet tyranny ruled... They are still well armed... and we are still occupying their country. So.. depending on how they define tyranny..Whether we are or Saddam was.. A warm gun is just that.. a warm gun. The sense of security you get from it..is largely a false one. a gun is merely a tool. It can be used for good or bad. He is right, we pretty much have them to protect against tyranny. It is up to the people to know when to defend themselves. They may never know better (like the Iraqi's). However that does not mean that the power to do so would be better off not existing. And in the right hands, in this world, a gun is a very real sense of security. But it can be a false one in the wrong hands. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
However that does not mean that the power to do so would be better off not existing. Fair enough. Yet... somehow this thread is not all that assuring of some having it being a good thing. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
woa, hiya peach!!
 how ya been?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Everyone has the right to hang bear arms in their home;^]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
woa, hiya peach!! how ya been? great sweetie...how are you
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IT IS UP TO THE PEOPLE AND TO DO SO THE PEOPLE NEED TO BE ARMED AN UNARMED PEOPLE ARE SLAVE TO THOSE IN POWER The Iraqis were some of the most well armed citizens in the world. Yet tyranny ruled... They are still well armed... and we are still occupying their country. So.. depending on how they define tyranny..Whether we are or Saddam was.. A warm gun is just that.. a warm gun. The sense of security you get from it..is largely a false one. i find it ironic how you pull one piece out of a post and try to make seem something it is not and you spaek of iraq if they were so well armed (the ""people"") maybe that is why suddam was aways surround by his elite fighting force and never stayed in the same place for a long period of time just a thought but hey what do i know |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Fri 02/22/08 11:28 AM
|
|
However that does not mean that the power to do so would be better off not existing. Fair enough. Yet... somehow this thread is not all that assuring of some having it being a good thing. Very true, certain radicals can be dangerous with firearms... Like i said, it's just a tool. People can do good or bad with it. The only way everyone will ever truely be safe is if violent actions cease. Which is why i asked this earlier: if you make hammers illegal how much do you think the housing market would be hindered? But yes, i do agree. I guess "With great power comes great responsibility". Now it's up to the people to learn to be responsible with it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i find it ironic how you pull one piece out of a post and try to make seem something it is not and you spaek of iraq if they were so well armed (the ""people"") maybe that is why suddam was aways surround by his elite fighting force and never stayed in the same place for a long period of time just a thought but hey what do i know True.. he was certainly afraid.. He had Saddam look alikes and everything! So? Other then proving my point... what was your point? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Drivinmenutz
on
Fri 02/22/08 11:30 AM
|
|
i guess his point is that an armed populace is at least a deterant for tyrants
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An organized, thinking, well informed populace is..
A bunch of rednecks with guns? Probably will shoot each other long before getting into the fight. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
how does that prove your point
his fear proves an armed population can make a differnce he may of been in power but that does not mean he was happy and if the people were not armed then he would have been a happy dictator doing whatever to whomever whenever he wanted how would you like living your life looking over your shoulder and wondering if the person standing 50 feet away is gonna blow you away any minute or maybe it the person 200 feet away ya just never know but you do know they have reason to |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An organized, thinking, well informed populace is.. A bunch of rednecks with guns? Probably will shoot each other long before getting into the fight. this shows a certain intelligence level which proves those with this type of thought process know not of what they speak |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An organized, thinking, well informed populace is.. A bunch of rednecks with guns? Probably will shoot each other long before getting into the fight. I agree that the most important aspect (this is the one everyone seems to ignore) is to remain well informed and to think. (Ironic how the federal government is taking over the school system...) here's another quote hope my quotes dont bother you... This will be the best security for maintaining our liberties. A nation of well-informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the religion of ignorance that tyranny begins. - Benjamin Franklin |
|
|
|
|
