Guns for home protection are fine, assuming the obvious, proper registration, no felons, etc.
No civilian without an absolute work related need should have a permit to carry a gun.
The typical gun rack in the pick up truck window for hunting should be allowed only during hunting season and should only be loaded when actually hunting.
No civilian without an absolute work related need should have a permit to carry a gun.
The typical gun rack in the pick up truck window for hunting should be allowed only during hunting season and should only be loaded when actually hunting.
Lander, there was an intense and lively (and unusually well-reasoned for the Rx) debate on this very topic a couple of months ago ... I will try to find the thread.
You should better research your position btw. Beat cops in the UK do not carry guns, but this does not mean that no law enforcement there does. Also, violent crime in the UK has been on a non-stop upward spiral for years. Despite many people's erroneous beliefs to the contrary, the US has one of the lowest per capita violent crime rates in the world ... it's only in dense pcokets like New York City, and Washington DC (both of which have state/local bans on firearms) where crime is out of control in the States.
As the Second Amendment suggests, the right of a people to keep and bear arms is the single greatest defence against tyranny available. Add to that the rational response to any form of government prohibition -- that the only people who will relinquish guns are those who probably should have them, and violent criminals are not going to turn them over just because the law says so -- they're violent criminals, duh. So with a prohibition all you get is a population already at theoretical risk, disarming itself voluntarily, to the delight of the power-brokers in DC and the criminals.
I do believe that I'll hang on to my guns thanks, and if anyone would like to take them I'll be surrendering them bullets-first.
Phaedrus
You should better research your position btw. Beat cops in the UK do not carry guns, but this does not mean that no law enforcement there does. Also, violent crime in the UK has been on a non-stop upward spiral for years. Despite many people's erroneous beliefs to the contrary, the US has one of the lowest per capita violent crime rates in the world ... it's only in dense pcokets like New York City, and Washington DC (both of which have state/local bans on firearms) where crime is out of control in the States.
As the Second Amendment suggests, the right of a people to keep and bear arms is the single greatest defence against tyranny available. Add to that the rational response to any form of government prohibition -- that the only people who will relinquish guns are those who probably should have them, and violent criminals are not going to turn them over just because the law says so -- they're violent criminals, duh. So with a prohibition all you get is a population already at theoretical risk, disarming itself voluntarily, to the delight of the power-brokers in DC and the criminals.
I do believe that I'll hang on to my guns thanks, and if anyone would like to take them I'll be surrendering them bullets-first.
Phaedrus
"You mean my carrying a firearm is a danger to you? How's that so. Do you plan on breaking into my home or something?"
In your home is one thing, carrying is another. People carrying guns are a danger to everyone because of factors such as, alcohol, drugs, stress, traffic, poor judgement calls, poor weapon safety, personality disorders, etc.
In all honesty I just get uneasy around people that have guns on them, I try to keep a good distance, keep an eye on them, once I even had to take a pistol from this stupid, drunk, phuck kept pulling it out and waving it around in a bar. How many truely close friends does one have in this life? How many family memembers? How many nut cases and wierdos are out there any where you go? How many people can you actually trust to carry a gun?
In your home is one thing, carrying is another. People carrying guns are a danger to everyone because of factors such as, alcohol, drugs, stress, traffic, poor judgement calls, poor weapon safety, personality disorders, etc.
In all honesty I just get uneasy around people that have guns on them, I try to keep a good distance, keep an eye on them, once I even had to take a pistol from this stupid, drunk, phuck kept pulling it out and waving it around in a bar. How many truely close friends does one have in this life? How many family memembers? How many nut cases and wierdos are out there any where you go? How many people can you actually trust to carry a gun?
Here is the danger of guns ..
when you have children at your OR anyone's house with guns.
It's naive to think that accidents do NOT happen, complete naive - a close friend of my mother had her toddler shot shoot himself in the head with a pistol ...
.. a pistol that wasn't "supposed" to be loaded ... wasn't "supposed" to be left out - but accidents happen.
I'm not saying guns are bad because everybody will run out and shoot each other - I'm saying they're an unnecessary danger to others, particularly children. This has nothing to do about being a good parent - it's simply IMPOSSIBLE to monitor the houses & guns that the parents of your child's friends may have.
Phadeus,
Don't make sny comments about "better" researching my position - your philosophic tone doesn't make you any more "enlightening" than the next Kant-wannabee ...
btw - Since we're "correcting" people, I though you'd appreciate that crime is hardly "running rampant" in NYC .. in fact over the past 10 years (particularly during the Guiliani administration) crime has DRAMATICALLY declined throughout NYC, particularly in Manhattan.
Your egotistical comments are complete unnecessary.
when you have children at your OR anyone's house with guns.
It's naive to think that accidents do NOT happen, complete naive - a close friend of my mother had her toddler shot shoot himself in the head with a pistol ...
.. a pistol that wasn't "supposed" to be loaded ... wasn't "supposed" to be left out - but accidents happen.
I'm not saying guns are bad because everybody will run out and shoot each other - I'm saying they're an unnecessary danger to others, particularly children. This has nothing to do about being a good parent - it's simply IMPOSSIBLE to monitor the houses & guns that the parents of your child's friends may have.
Phadeus,
Don't make sny comments about "better" researching my position - your philosophic tone doesn't make you any more "enlightening" than the next Kant-wannabee ...
btw - Since we're "correcting" people, I though you'd appreciate that crime is hardly "running rampant" in NYC .. in fact over the past 10 years (particularly during the Guiliani administration) crime has DRAMATICALLY declined throughout NYC, particularly in Manhattan.
Your egotistical comments are complete unnecessary.
I think we should ALL have guns.
Catholics/protestants and black/white and christians/islamics and jews/palestinians.
We should also be allowed RPG's and light mortars.
Then we can all live in peace and harmony forever.
Those Liberal homos haven't a clue.
Long live the freedom to have enough kit to kill as many as your neighbours as is necessary to continue to live in the freedom that is nececessary to carry enough kit... to kill the other guys...that is necessary.
Woooooooo. Yay, way to go dudes.
(cue star spangled banner music)
Um, I do have one question tho guys, why do all us gun nutz seem to live in the US of A?
How come no-one else is like that?
It must be cos we are smart, and they are dumb.
woooooooooooo.
(re-cue star spangled banner music)
[This message was edited by eek on July 23, 2003 at 06:46 PM.]
Catholics/protestants and black/white and christians/islamics and jews/palestinians.
We should also be allowed RPG's and light mortars.
Then we can all live in peace and harmony forever.
Those Liberal homos haven't a clue.
Long live the freedom to have enough kit to kill as many as your neighbours as is necessary to continue to live in the freedom that is nececessary to carry enough kit... to kill the other guys...that is necessary.
Woooooooo. Yay, way to go dudes.
(cue star spangled banner music)
Um, I do have one question tho guys, why do all us gun nutz seem to live in the US of A?
How come no-one else is like that?
It must be cos we are smart, and they are dumb.
woooooooooooo.
(re-cue star spangled banner music)
[This message was edited by eek on July 23, 2003 at 06:46 PM.]
We had around 2 million weapons issued to civilians in the UK in world war 2, as part of the home guard project.
Orwell was intruiged that they were nearly all handed back afterwards, and none were used for revolutionary or self defence purposes.
http://www.orwelltoday.com/guncontrol.shtml
You might find him interesting, he wrote a lot of stuff.
Hes a socialist dude too.
Its nice to see you gun guys have a lot in common with socialists.
http://archive.8m.net/orwell.htm
[This message was edited by eek on July 23, 2003 at 07:15 PM.]
Orwell was intruiged that they were nearly all handed back afterwards, and none were used for revolutionary or self defence purposes.
http://www.orwelltoday.com/guncontrol.shtml
You might find him interesting, he wrote a lot of stuff.
Hes a socialist dude too.
Its nice to see you gun guys have a lot in common with socialists.
http://archive.8m.net/orwell.htm
[This message was edited by eek on July 23, 2003 at 07:15 PM.]
kaya man wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The second amendment was for a time when the militia was the military, people lived isolated on farms, there were indians and wild animals and the need to defend one's self.
In modern day society citizen carrying fire arms on their person in public is nothing more than a danger to all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The militia should also be the military today. It worked extremely well for us, and works well for Switzerland in the modern day. A fifty-million man militia beats a million-man army any day, would be a 99.99% guaranteed pre-emptive defence against foreign incursion, would cost substantially less to maintain than our current military model, and would have the disatinct added benefit of usurping American presidents' peculiar ability to piss the entire world off with their constant flexing of military might.
You do have a point about carry vs. home defence. I do not carry in public, although I do keep a pistol in my glovebox when on the road. But again -- muggers, rapists, bank robbers, and other criminals who carry weapons seldom commit these crimes in their homes; by definition they are carrying.
outandup wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Phaedrus,
I'm starting to like you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's only a suprise to you, out. You and I agree on a lot more issues than we disagree; our personalities just clash from time to time -- and on those issues on which we disagree, we tend to disagree spectacularly.
lander wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'm not saying guns are bad because everybody will run out and shoot each other - I'm saying they're an unnecessary danger to others, particularly children. This has nothing to do about being a good parent - it's simply IMPOSSIBLE to monitor the houses & guns that the parents of your child's friends may have.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is a good point, but isn't the rub there personal responsibility and not the firearms? My home is a veritable death trap for children -- stove, cleaning agents, swimming pool, guard dogs without a sense of humour, steak knives, on and on. Plus, guns. People who practice responsible parenting should have the gun issue tackled hands-down, as it is far more difficult to be a responsible parent overall than a responsible gun owner.
lander wrote:
Phadeus[sic],
Don't make sny [snide?] comments about "better" researching my position - your philosophic tone doesn't make you any more "enlightening" than the next Kant-wannabee ... [/quote]
Kant was a moron. If you took offence to my tone, I apologise, but you were citing a specious and to some extent incorrect assertion in support of your position.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>btw - Since we're "correcting" people, I though you'd appreciate that crime is hardly "running rampant" in NYC .. in fact over the past 10 years (particularly during the Guiliani administration) crime has DRAMATICALLY declined throughout NYC, particularly in Manhattan.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Overall, yes. As a percentage of violent crimes involving guns, no. And if I am 100% incorrect on the matter, what does this have to do with the British gun thing?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Your egotistical comments are complete unnecessary.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well again, I'm sorry if you took offence, but you certainly wasted no time lashing back rather than addressing the argument. You're the one who started the topic and invited respones -- surely you did not just mean those which agree with your position and do not mind the odd skewed 'fact' thrown in.
Phaedrus
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>The second amendment was for a time when the militia was the military, people lived isolated on farms, there were indians and wild animals and the need to defend one's self.
In modern day society citizen carrying fire arms on their person in public is nothing more than a danger to all.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The militia should also be the military today. It worked extremely well for us, and works well for Switzerland in the modern day. A fifty-million man militia beats a million-man army any day, would be a 99.99% guaranteed pre-emptive defence against foreign incursion, would cost substantially less to maintain than our current military model, and would have the disatinct added benefit of usurping American presidents' peculiar ability to piss the entire world off with their constant flexing of military might.
You do have a point about carry vs. home defence. I do not carry in public, although I do keep a pistol in my glovebox when on the road. But again -- muggers, rapists, bank robbers, and other criminals who carry weapons seldom commit these crimes in their homes; by definition they are carrying.
outandup wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Phaedrus,
I'm starting to like you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
It's only a suprise to you, out. You and I agree on a lot more issues than we disagree; our personalities just clash from time to time -- and on those issues on which we disagree, we tend to disagree spectacularly.
lander wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>I'm not saying guns are bad because everybody will run out and shoot each other - I'm saying they're an unnecessary danger to others, particularly children. This has nothing to do about being a good parent - it's simply IMPOSSIBLE to monitor the houses & guns that the parents of your child's friends may have.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is a good point, but isn't the rub there personal responsibility and not the firearms? My home is a veritable death trap for children -- stove, cleaning agents, swimming pool, guard dogs without a sense of humour, steak knives, on and on. Plus, guns. People who practice responsible parenting should have the gun issue tackled hands-down, as it is far more difficult to be a responsible parent overall than a responsible gun owner.
lander wrote:
Phadeus[sic],
Don't make sny [snide?] comments about "better" researching my position - your philosophic tone doesn't make you any more "enlightening" than the next Kant-wannabee ... [/quote]
Kant was a moron. If you took offence to my tone, I apologise, but you were citing a specious and to some extent incorrect assertion in support of your position.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>btw - Since we're "correcting" people, I though you'd appreciate that crime is hardly "running rampant" in NYC .. in fact over the past 10 years (particularly during the Guiliani administration) crime has DRAMATICALLY declined throughout NYC, particularly in Manhattan.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Overall, yes. As a percentage of violent crimes involving guns, no. And if I am 100% incorrect on the matter, what does this have to do with the British gun thing?
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>Your egotistical comments are complete unnecessary.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Well again, I'm sorry if you took offence, but you certainly wasted no time lashing back rather than addressing the argument. You're the one who started the topic and invited respones -- surely you did not just mean those which agree with your position and do not mind the odd skewed 'fact' thrown in.
Phaedrus
Two questions any person against gun rights needs to ask themselves after doing the research:
1.) Compare gun crimes with the states with the strictest gun laws with those having the most open.
2.) How % of crimes are committed by registered owners of firearms?
After you answer those come back and talk. I have every right to keep my weapon in my house if registered.
Also, the reason for gun rights was not because of indians and wild animals. It was so the government could not become too powerful and the people have the right to stand up if need be. Ask the people in Germany what the 1st thing the Nazis did......took the guns.
1.) Compare gun crimes with the states with the strictest gun laws with those having the most open.
2.) How % of crimes are committed by registered owners of firearms?
After you answer those come back and talk. I have every right to keep my weapon in my house if registered.
Also, the reason for gun rights was not because of indians and wild animals. It was so the government could not become too powerful and the people have the right to stand up if need be. Ask the people in Germany what the 1st thing the Nazis did......took the guns.
"My thought is if the British Police DO NOT need guns, then surely the American public does not."
lander, this must be one of the most succint and well said arguments on gun control.
1.) Compare gun crimes with the states with the strictest gun laws with those having the most open.
Compare the gun crimes of states with "the most open" gun control measures to those in Europe where guns are strictly not allowed, a push over.
2.) How % of crimes are committed by registered owners of firearms?
That's completely misleading, a % means nothing here, it's the net amount that counts.
lander, this must be one of the most succint and well said arguments on gun control.
1.) Compare gun crimes with the states with the strictest gun laws with those having the most open.
Compare the gun crimes of states with "the most open" gun control measures to those in Europe where guns are strictly not allowed, a push over.
2.) How % of crimes are committed by registered owners of firearms?
That's completely misleading, a % means nothing here, it's the net amount that counts.
Should we ban doctors? Many more die from doctors accidentally killing people than firearm accidents.
Wake up and smell the koffi, it's not the guns it's the people killing people. The media never reports how many people are saved by being able to defend themselves with guns. It's far more than any leftist would admit.
Hitler rounded all the guns up in Germany. Hail Hitliary!
Wake up and smell the koffi, it's not the guns it's the people killing people. The media never reports how many people are saved by being able to defend themselves with guns. It's far more than any leftist would admit.
Hitler rounded all the guns up in Germany. Hail Hitliary!
for once i agree with grantt......american`s and america are the freaks of nature in the modern world...
much like barry bonds is a freak of nature in the baseball world...
roy jones is a freak of nature in the boxing world....
bill gates is a freak of nature in the business and technologolical world...
the most affluent...the most militarily powerful....the place where most down-trodden people would like to live...
yucchh!!!!!
freaks of nature...i agree....
i might consider leaving this freak of nature at some point in the near future....
btw,where exactly is grant-topia......and what does it have to offer to a malcontent like myself???
much like barry bonds is a freak of nature in the baseball world...
roy jones is a freak of nature in the boxing world....
bill gates is a freak of nature in the business and technologolical world...
the most affluent...the most militarily powerful....the place where most down-trodden people would like to live...
yucchh!!!!!
freaks of nature...i agree....
i might consider leaving this freak of nature at some point in the near future....
btw,where exactly is grant-topia......and what does it have to offer to a malcontent like myself???
