DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Christians4LessGvt on December 04, 2012, 06:22:22 PM
-
Sorry Libs
The NRA Was There to Help Blacks Defend Themselves From KKK Democrats,
Not the Other Way Around
(http://thegatewaypundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/kkk_misissippi-e1354598565763.jpg)
By Jim Hoft on Monday
December 3, 2012
On September 28, 1868, a mob of Democrats massacred nearly 300 African-American Republicans in Opelousas, Louisiana. The savagery began when racist Democrats attacked a newspaper editor, a white Republican and schoolteacher for ex-slaves. Several African-Americans rushed to the assistance of their friend, and in response, Democrats went on a "Negro hunt," killing every African-American (all of whom were Republicans) in the area they could find. (Via Grand Old Partisan)
Which brings us to today
Jason Whitlock, the Kansas City columnist whose article on Jovan Belcher's murder-suicide inspired an anti-gun rant by NBC?s Bob Costas, now says that the pro-Second Amendment National Rifle Association is "the new KKK," Newsbusters' Tim Graham reported Monday.
Obviously, Whitlock is as ignorant as he is offensive.
The NRA actually helped blacks defend themselves from violent KKK Democrats in the south, not the other way around.
For an idea of how gun control laws worked: Following the firebombing of his house in 1956, Dr. Martin Luther King, who was, among other things, a Christian minister, applied for a gun permit, but the Alabama authorities found him unsuitable. A decade later, he won a Nobel Peace Prize.
How's that "may issue" gun permit policy working for you?
The NRA opposed these discretionary gun permit laws and proceeded to grant NRA charters to blacks who sought to defend themselves from Klan violence, including the great civil rights hero Robert F. Williams.
A World War II Marine veteran, Williams returned home to Monroe, N.C., to find the Klan riding high, beating, lynching and murdering blacks at will. No one would join the NAACP for fear of Klan reprisals. Williams became president of the local chapter and increased membership from six to more than 200.
But it was not until he got a charter from the NRA in 1957 and founded the Black Armed Guard that the Klan got their comeuppance in Monroe.
Williams' repeated thwarting of violent Klan attacks is described in his stirring book, "Negroes With Guns." In one crucial battle, the Klan sieged the home of a black physician and his wife, but Williams and his Black Armed Guard stood sentry and repelled the larger, cowardly force. And that was the end of it.
As the Klan found out, it's not so much fun when the rabbit's got the gun.
The NRA's proud history of fighting the Klan has been airbrushed out of the record by those who were complicit with the KKK, Jim Crow and racial terror, to wit: the Democrats.
Sadly, Whitlock will get away with his outrageous lies.
The early KKK Democrats would be proud.
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/12/sorry-libs-nra-was-there-to-help-blacks-defend-themselves-from-kkk-democrats-not-the-other-way-around/ (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/12/sorry-libs-nra-was-there-to-help-blacks-defend-themselves-from-kkk-democrats-not-the-other-way-around/)
-
(http://media.townhall.com/Townhall/Car/b/gmc10551320121204070500.jpg)
-
Yeah, right.
Just after Dr King was refused a gun permit, the president of the NRA came immediately and gave him a permit and a brand new shiny Colt revolver and free admission to the Montgomery Gun Range.
-
IIRC, no NRA president has the power to provide ANY permit to carry. ::)
-
NEGROES WITH GUNS
April 18, 2012
Liberals have leapt on the shooting death of Trayvon Martin in Florida to push for the repeal of "stand your ground" laws and to demand tighter gun control. (MSNBC'S Karen Finney blamed "the same people who stymied gun regulation at every point.")
This would be like demanding more funding for the General Services Administration after seeing how its employees blew taxpayer money on a party weekend in Las Vegas.
We don't know the facts yet, but let's assume the conclusion MSNBC is leaping to is accurate: George Zimmerman stalked a small black child and murdered him in cold blood, just because he was black.
If that were true, every black person in America should get a gun and join the National Rifle Association, America's oldest and most august civil rights organization.
Apparently this has occurred to no one because our excellent public education system ensures that no American under the age of 60 has the slightest notion of this country's history.
Gun control laws were originally promulgated by Democrats to keep guns out of the hands of blacks. This allowed the Democratic policy of slavery to proceed with fewer bumps and, after the Civil War, allowed the Democratic Ku Klux Klan to menace and murder black Americans with little resistance.
(Contrary to what illiterates believe, the KKK was an outgrowth of the Democratic Party, with overlapping membership rolls. The Klan was to the Democrats what the American Civil Liberties Union is today: Not every Democrat is an ACLU'er, but every ACLU'er is a Democrat. Same with the Klan.)
In 1640, the very first gun control law ever enacted on these shores was passed in Virginia. It provided that blacks -- even freemen -- could not own guns.
Chief Justice Roger Taney's infamous opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford circularly argued that blacks could not be citizens because if they were citizens, they would have the right to own guns: "t would give them the full liberty," he said, "to keep and carry arms wherever they went."
With logic like that, Republicans eventually had to fight a Civil War to get the Democrats to give up slavery.
Alas, they were Democrats, so they cheated.
After the war, Democratic legislatures enacted "Black Codes," denying black Americans the rights of citizenship -- such as the rather crucial one of bearing arms -- while other Democrats (sometimes the same Democrats) founded the Ku Klux Klan.
For more than a hundred years, Republicans have aggressively supported arming blacks, so they could defend themselves against Democrats.
The original draft of the Anti-Klan Act of 1871 -- passed at the urging of Republican president Ulysses S. Grant -- made it a federal felony to "deprive any citizen of the United States of any arms or weapons he may have in his house or possession for the defense of his person, family, or property." This section was deleted from the final bill only because it was deemed both beyond Congress' authority and superfluous, inasmuch as the rights of citizenship included the right to bear arms.
Under authority of the Anti-Klan Act, President Grant deployed the U.S. military to destroy the Klan, and pretty nearly completed the job.
But the Klan had a few resurgences in the early and mid-20th century. Curiously, wherever the Klan became a political force, gun control laws would suddenly appear on the books.
This will give you an idea of how gun control laws worked. Following the firebombing of his house in 1956, Dr. Martin Luther King, who was, among other things, a Christian minister, applied for a gun permit, but the Alabama authorities found him unsuitable. A decade later, he won a Nobel Peace Prize.
How's that "may issue" gun permit policy working for you?
The NRA opposed these discretionary gun permit laws and proceeded to grant NRA charters to blacks who sought to defend themselves from Klan violence -- including the great civil rights hero Robert F. Williams.
A World War II Marine veteran, Williams returned home to Monroe, N.C., to find the Klan riding high -- beating, lynching and murdering blacks at will. No one would join the NAACP for fear of Klan reprisals. Williams became president of the local chapter and increased membership from six to more than 200.
But it was not until he got a charter from the NRA in 1957 and founded the Black Armed Guard that the Klan got their comeuppance in Monroe.
Williams' repeated thwarting of violent Klan attacks is described in his stirring book, "Negroes With Guns." In one crucial battle, the Klan sieged the home of a black physician and his wife, but Williams and his Black Armed Guard stood sentry and repelled the larger, cowardly force. And that was the end of it.
As the Klan found out, it's not so much fun when the rabbit's got the gun.
The NRA's proud history of fighting the Klan has been airbrushed out of the record by those who were complicit with the KKK, Jim Crow and racial terror, to wit: the Democrats.
In the preface to "Negroes With Guns," Williams writes: "I have asserted the right of Negroes to meet the violence of the Ku Klux Klan by armed self-defense -- and have acted on it. It has always been an accepted right of Americans, as the history of our Western states proves, that where the law is unable, or unwilling, to enforce order, the citizens can, and must act in self-defense against lawless violence."
Contrary to MSNBC hosts, I do not believe the shooting in Florida is evidence of a resurgent KKK. But wherever the truth lies in that case, gun control is always a scheme of the powerful to deprive the powerless of the right to self-defense.
http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-04-18.html (http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2012-04-18.html)
-
Let me give you a little clue, CU4numbnuts, what you posted in the thread opening. The Democrats in 1868 are the Rebuplicans of today. The South was the Democratic parties stronghold. Now, it's the Republican parties stronghold. You are the ones that massacured the African Americans.
BSB
-
Minus of course any facts to substantiate the ignorant accusation
-
Most of the hardline Kluxers of the 1960's are deceased, or far too old to make much of a difference today. But of course, after LBJ for the Civil Rights Bill passed, the Kluxers mostly abandoned the Democratic Party for the GOP.The GOP in places like Mississippi, Alabama and South Carolina was politically insignificant until 1964.
The fact is that the NRA does NOT move a muscle to protect Dr King, Medgar Edwards, and the SNCC, NAACP and other groups to get guns or permits or to defend them in any way.
The NRA was much less influential before the Vietnam War, and far more concerned with hunters than the right to bear arms.
It is always fun to make up phony history, but it really convinces few thinking people.
-
"Minus of course any facts to substantiate the ignorant accusation"
Ha ha, it's a good thing being ignorant is a criminal offense, Sirs, you'd have gotten life long ago.
BSB
-
Facts to a toe tag liberal.....like kryptonite to superman. Fold like warm jello, and throw insults. In this case the ignorance being that the GOP is supposedly home to the modern day kkk folks. Don't worry B, we won't indict you for your offense 8)
sirs
-
"In this case the ignorance being that the GOP is supposedly home to the modern day kkk folks"
Which it is you dumb fuck.
BSB
-
Which factually, it is not, you #@*&$*@#*% ::)
gads, such a potty mouth
But by all means, presents some facts to back up the asinine claim. Your say so doesn't cut it. "Code words" that supposeldy only liberals can identify, doesn't cut it. FACTS actually cuts it. Ball in your court
-
The Democrats in 1868 are the Rebuplicans of today.
democrats have usually been the party abusive towards african americans
it's actually quite well documented
a Democrat founded the Ku Klux Klan
the Democrat Party in the South instituted Jim Crow Laws
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher percentage
of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress
LBJ said "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years"
Before LBJ's Great Society welfare programs,
the black illegitimacy rate was as low as 23 percent,
but now it has more than tripled to 72 percent
today it's really no different
it was democrats in 1950-60's standing at the school house door
trying to keep blacks from attending better schools
and today it is once again democrats standing at the school house door
only this time the democrats are trying to keep blacks inside the failing schools
democrats oppose school choice trying to protect the unions as well as
keep blacks in failing schools so they will not be educated and be dependent on gvt
it's really quite sad the democrats and the left is so racist
-
See? THAT would be mostly facts that Cu4 is using to back up his position. No "code words", nothing nefariously inferred that supposedly only smart liberals can claim to know, just simple facts and time line, with one of the most egregious the ongoing effort to keep minority parents from being able to be given more choice as to where to send their kids for a better education. The party of pro-choice is anything but, when it comes to education
-
Most of the hardline Kluxers of the 1960's are deceased, or far too old to make much of a difference today. But of course, after LBJ for the Civil Rights Bill passed, the Kluxers mostly abandoned the Democratic Party for the GOP.The GOP in places like Mississippi, Alabama and South Carolina was politically insignificant until 1964.
The fact is that the NRA does NOT move a muscle to protect Dr King, Medgar Edwards, and the SNCC, NAACP and other groups to get guns or permits or to defend them in any way.
The NRA was much less influential before the Vietnam War, and far more concerned with hunters than the right to bear arms.
It is always fun to make up phony history, but it really convinces few thinking people.
Let me correct a little detail there.
The GOP in places like Mississippi, Alabama and South Carolina was politically insignificant until 1981.
There, that is more realistic.
Mississippi first post reconstruction Republican Govenor---1991, Kirk Fordice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Republican_Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Republican_Party)
Alabama first post reconstruction Republican Govenor---1986, Guy Hunt
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_Republican_Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama_Republican_Party)
South Carolina first post reconstruction Republican Govenor---1975, James B. Edwards Succeeded by Richard Wilson Riley Democrat
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina_Republican_Party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina_Republican_Party)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_B._Edwards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_B._Edwards)
Georgia first post reconstruction Republican Govenor---2002 Sonny Perdue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Perdue (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonny_Perdue)
That you believe the phony history strongly does not make it genuine.
-
*golf clap* 8)
-
Which factually, it is not, you #@*&$*@#*% ::)
gads, such a potty mouth
But by all means, presents some facts to back up the asinine claim. Your say so doesn't cut it. "Code words" that supposeldy only liberals can identify, doesn't cut it. FACTS actually cuts it. Ball in your court
Didn't think so
-
The fact is that the NRA is fueled mostly by the ammo and weapons industry. It is not now, nor has it ever been a civil rights group.
I imagine that the weapons and ammo makers and their retailers do not actually care who buys their stuff, so long as they do not wear their NRA logo hats, shirts and jackets to massacre sites, which would be offputting.
I read that since the Gaby Gifford massacre there have been SIXTY multiple murders of that sort.
Of course, sirs will tell us that there would have been many, many more prevented by well-armed gun enthusiasts. And of course, that would be typical bullpoop.
-
The fact is that the NRA is fueled mostly by the ammo and weapons industry. It is not now, nor has it ever been a civil rights group.
Nor should it be. It's a pro constitution 2nd amendment group ::)
I read that since the Gaby Gifford massacre there have been SIXTY multiple murders of that sort. Of course, sirs will tell us that there would have been many, many more prevented by well-armed gun enthusiasts.
Based on facts and statistics, not would have.....HAVE been. Nor are they my facts, they belong to the FBI, though I doubt they've made qualifiers as crimes prevented by well armed gun enthusiasts vs those crimes prevented by well armed non gun enthusiasts vs those crimes prevented by poorly armed gun enthusiasts
-
Sure, the FBI has statistics on crimes that did not happen.
You started this idiotic discussion that the NRA "was there to help Blacks defend themselves", as thought it WAS a Civil Rights group.
Bah!
It isn't a"pro constitution" group, either. It is driven by the desire of gun and ammo companies to sell guns and ammo.
-
Sure, the FBI has statistics on crimes that did not happen.
The issues is crimes prevented, as in started but prevented from going foward from what had far worse potential, not simply "crimes that did not happen", and yes, those stats belong to them
You started this idiotic discussion that the NRA "was there to help Blacks defend themselves", as thought it WAS a Civil Rights group.
Actually it was Cu4 who started the excellent thread, and it was Cu4 that debunked the notion tha the NRA is the modern version of the KKK, so no, it NEVER thought itself a Civil Rights group, merely an organization attempting to defend those who couldn't better defend themselves
It isn't a"pro constitution" group, either. It is driven by the desire of gun and ammo companies to sell guns and ammo.
Do you ever get tired of being so wrong, so often? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association)
-
http://www.nradefensefund.org/
(http://www.nradefensefund.org/images/img_hp-banner.jpg)
I would say the NRA is indeed a civil rights group, because in my estimation wepons are a civil right.
I am not aware of the NRA ever advocating more wepons for one race or class over another, but it is an old organisation, what was their stance before I was born?
http://www.facebook.com/NRADefenseFund (http://www.facebook.com/NRADefenseFund)
The NRA is 141 years old.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_oldest_civil_rights_organization_in_the_US
Answer:
The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, or NAACP (founded as the National Negro Committee), is the oldest surviving national civil rights organization in the United States. It was established on February 12, 1909 on the centennial of Abraham Lincoln's birth. The National Rifle Association, or NRA, has begun to lay claim to this designation based on their 1871 founding date. However, while the NRA was founded to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis" the NAACP was established for the express purpose of protecting the civil rights of non-whites. The NRA did not involve itself in the politics of the second amendment until the 1930's. So, while the NRA existed prior to the founding of the NAACP, it did not function as a civil rights organization until well after the NAACP began its civil rights work.
In the late sixtys The NRA follows the lead of Huey Newton and Bobby Seale.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/1/ (http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/09/the-secret-history-of-guns/308608/1/)
(This is a great article , eyepopping strange facts.)
Good ol' Charlton Heston.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlton_Heston
Heston was also known for his political activism. In the 1950s and 1960s he was one of a handful of Hollywood actors to speak openly against racism and was an active supporter of the Civil Rights Movement. Initially a moderate Democrat, he later supported conservative Republican policies and was president of the National Rifle Association from 1998 to 2003.
Gun controll on the poor.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ccrkba-nra-civil-rights-coalition-sues-san-francicso-over-public-housing-gun-ban-57557382.html (http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/ccrkba-nra-civil-rights-coalition-sues-san-francicso-over-public-housing-gun-ban-57557382.html)
-
No one I have ever know has ever been so wrong and so ignorant of the facts as you.
-
No one I have ever know has ever been so wrong and so ignorant of the facts as you.
I set the standard!
-
http://www.nradefensefund.org/
(http://www.nradefensefund.org/images/img_hp-banner.jpg)
I would say the NRA is indeed a civil rights group, because in my estimation wepons are a civil right.
I am not aware of the NRA ever advocating more wepons for one race or class over another, but it is an old organisation, what was their stance before I was born?
Wow....I stand corrected. I was ......wr.....on.....arrrrrgh......I can't say it ;)
-
Weapons are a civil right, what an interesting thought. Why not bazookas, Poison pellets of ricin, mustard gas as well?
Owning lethal items is somehow a civil right. Bull.
The NRA has zero influence on the Civil Rights movement. In the '50's and '60's, the NRA was mostly composed of hunters. The self-defense phase in which the NRA started hollering about how there was a right to bear arms in theatres, colleges, and bars began after the NRA was financed mostly by sellers of guns and ammo.
-
NRA was financed mostly by sellers of guns and ammo.
That has never been true, the NRA is always mostly financed by membership and it is amoung the biggest memberships of any organisation.
The first ten admendments to our constitution are known as the "bill of rights" because they were added all together to ensure certain rights for the people.
Do you think that item two on that list has nothing to do with human rights?
-
It has to do with forming a militia. That is what it says.
If running about with lethal weapons is a civil right, why not ANY weapon?
The NRA is subsidized by ads in its magazine and by selling its mailing list to people peddling ammo and guns.
-
It has to do with forming a militia. That is what it says.
If running about with lethal weapons is a civil right, why not ANY weapon?
The NRA is subsidized by ads in its magazine and by selling its mailing list to people peddling ammo and guns.
The NRA is people , who welcome the subsidy to their dues.
Indeed what makes a proper limit on a civil right?
Voting is a lesser civil right , and some object to even having the votor identified before he is allowed to vote.
Wepons intended to protect the people from an opressive government need to be wepons a large fraction of the capability of the governments wepons, we are at present woefully underarmed .
-
BINGO!!
-
Weapons powerful enough to bring down any modern government are banned everywhere.
The NRA is defending the right of some paranoids to own dangerous toys.
-
Weapons powerful enough to bring down any modern government are banned everywhere.
The NRA is defending the right of some paranoids to own dangerous toys.
Tell that to Mr.Assad.
-
Note that Assad does not have all the weapons available to the US govt.
Also note that the Syrian rebels have more than just pistols and rifles, and that they have been fighting for a year now.
Overthrowing the government is not something that would be easy to accomplish in the US with the sort of weapons that are legal.
-
Weapons powerful enough to bring down any modern government are banned everywhere.
The NRA is defending the right of some paranoids to own dangerous toys.
Amazing how the 2nd amendment to the U.S. Constitution and those that advocate its protection, is now mutated into dangerous paranoia, for supporting such. Perhaps that's why Hitler & Stalin were such huge anti-gun critters.
Why stop at the 2nd amendment......let's start mutating the 1st. Anyone that dares speak of the President in any negative way is obviously a racist, and should be prosecuted for a hate crime. Fits the paranoia parameters
-
The second amendment is about a "well-regulated MILITIA, not about enabling yokels to arm themselves to the teeth.
-
And the militia is every able bodied person NOT in the military, which means the rest of us
-
And the militia is every able bodied person NOT in the military, which means the rest of us
===========================================
That is your opinion.
However, nowhere is the militia defined in this way, anywhere, by law.
And again, legal firearms would be incapable of bringing down the US government, assuming that the military obeys its orders.
-
Not mine....the courts'. Or is your position now that every other amendment to the bill of rights that is specific to the individual is also really group related? Which group is allowed freedom of speech?
or
Is your position that the 2nd most important right the founders believed necessary was deemed to be a specific group right, while all others pertain to individual rights?? Really? Were the founders of this country, that twisted?
-
NOWHERE is the general population defined as a militia.
I DARE you to show where it is.
-
Courts have ruled....it's an individual right, just as the other Bill of Rights are.
It's not specific to some nebulous group of militia
I DARE you to show where it is
-
Where is the general population defined as the militia?
How can a "well organized militia" possibly be organized when no one even knows they are a member?
-
Note that Assad does not have all the weapons available to the US govt.
Also note that the Syrian rebels have more than just pistols and rifles, and that they have been fighting for a year now.
Overthrowing the government is not something that would be easy to accomplish in the US with the sort of weapons that are legal.
Then we agree that the US public is in need for more andd better weapons?
-
And the militia is every able bodied person NOT in the military, which means the rest of us
===========================================
That is your opinion.
However, nowhere is the militia defined in this way, anywhere, by law.
And again, legal firearms would be incapable of bringing down the US government, assuming that the military obeys its orders.
So you think that the second admendment was written with no purpose at all?
-
Where is the general population defined as the militia?
Where in the Bill of rights does militia mean non-individual?
Here, I'll help. Per the definitions of Cornell, The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. Now, jump down to the next answer
How can a "well organized militia" possibly be organized when no one even knows they are a member?
Glad you asked 8) According to definitions provided by Cornell, there are 2 forms, or "classes" of militia...the organized and the unorganized.
The organized militia, consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia and the unorganized militia, consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
The Guard is subject to absolute federal control (Perpich v. Dept. of Defense, 1990) and thus is not the "well regulated militia" named in the Second Amendment.
"The Militia of the United States" is defined under federal law to include all able-bodied males of age and some other males and females with the Guard established as only its "organized" element.
The militia can be "both" organized (National Guard) AND unorganized (Individual citizens). So we're ALL members, you included, unless of course you're a member of the National Guard....in which case you'd still be a member, just part of the organized militia. And that is why the courts have ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right, and not limited to some nebulous non-governmental militia group
-
A "well ordered militia" as described in the Constitution cannot by definition be composed of people who are oblivious that they are members of said militia. If such militia is to be armed, then either arms should be supplied or at least required of a group aware that they are part of a"well-organized militia".
As you describe it, halfwits and the unincarcerated insane are also members of this fictitious militia. The Second Amendment was not written to allow everyone to have a gun. And even if this were the case, in the 1700's, people needed to defend themselves from wild animals, Indians and other dangers. It is pretty clear that the idea was that the Founders knew that they would never be able to disarm the populace, as the British tried to do this during the Revolution and it caused a lot of trouble. So they made up this phony militia crap to make their inability sound somehow noble and intentional when it was simply expedient.
There is no such thing as an "unorganized militia" except in the enfeebled minds of ratbag gun nuts. Because of them, we have hundreds of people killed by guns each year that would not get killed in Canada or Europe or places with sane gun ownership restrictions.
-
A "well ordered militia" as described in the Constitution cannot by definition be composed of people who are oblivious that they are members of said militia.
Sure they can. It's made crystal clear in both the definitions of militia, and how the Constitution references the militia. It CAN NOT be an arm of the Government, so that nixes the notion of the national guard, and any other military wing of the government. As the Constitution clearly states, its ALL able bodies 17+years in age. There was no stipulation it had to be "organized" and thus led by ..... someone(s). The Constitution merely referenced who makes up the "militia". You have the organized class, run by the Government, and the unorganized class, as in everyone else NOT run by the government
If such militia is to be armed, then either arms should be supplied or at least required of a group aware that they are part of a"well-organized militia".
If you're now advocating that the 2nd amendment's freedom to bear arms should be supplanted with a law that you WILL bear arms,.....well that's another debate entirely
As you describe it, halfwits and the unincarcerated insane are also members of this fictitious militia.
We have laws against felons and those unsafe to carry should own them. But yea, prior to any felonies, or medical diagnosis that includes some form of insanity or mental instability, yea, they'd be part of the unorganized militia as well
The Second Amendment was not written to allow everyone to have a gun.
YES, IT WAS....IF THEY CHOOSE SO, and purchase one. It is their right, if they wish to exercise it. No different than free speech is applied to everyone
Court has ruled on this (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf)
-
A "well ordered militia" as described in the Constitution cannot by definition be composed of people who are oblivious that they are members of said militia. If such militia is to be armed, then either arms should be supplied or at least required of a group aware that they are part of a"well-organized militia".
As you describe it, halfwits and the unincarcerated insane are also members of this fictitious militia. The Second Amendment was not written to allow everyone to have a gun. And even if this were the case, in the 1700's, people needed to defend themselves from wild animals, Indians and other dangers. It is pretty clear that the idea was that the Founders knew that they would never be able to disarm the populace, as the British tried to do this during the Revolution and it caused a lot of trouble. So they made up this phony militia crap to make their inability sound somehow noble and intentional when it was simply expedient.
There is no such thing as an "unorganized militia" except in the enfeebled minds of ratbag gun nuts. Because of them, we have hundreds of people killed by guns each year that would not get killed in Canada or Europe or places with sane gun ownership restrictions.
The second admendment was written for the purpose of ensureing that the government could not disarm the population.
Tecnology has progressed to the point that the government can outshoot the people pretty badly , this situation will serve us badly if we ever elect a truely bad government .
-
Remind me again.....weren't some of the biggest folks that supported strict gun control messers Hitler & Stalin?? Disarming the populace (in the name of safety) makes an oppressive regime all the more possible. no?
-
So your philosophy of good government is to do the opposite of what Hitler and Stalin did?
That sounds simplistic and stupid to me.
Japan, Australia and even Canada have sufficient restrictions on guns that the gun death rate is minuscule compared to the US.
And there is no "unorganized militia",and the NRA did nothing to promote civil rights, either.
-
So your philosophy of good government is to do the opposite of what Hitler and Stalin did?
That's a start. And one of the 1st starts is to not start down that road of disarming the populace. What other countries do is their business. The U.S. Constitution outlines our business.
-
It certainly is nice that we lead the world in insane mass shootings like Columbine, Gaby Gifford and such. It adds excitement to our lives, no t knowing when some idiotic gun nut might decide to blast away just for fun.
-
You take the good with the bad. With increased freedom, comes increased risk. Good thing that MORE insane shootings, muggings, rapes, robberies, etc., are prevented with a gun vs used by a gun. Good thing also that the Supreme Court sided with the Constitution and the populace vs the oppressors
-
So your philosophy of good government is to do the opposite of what Hitler and Stalin did?
That sounds simplistic and stupid to me.
Japan, Australia and even Canada have sufficient restrictions on guns that the gun death rate is minuscule compared to the US.
And there is no "unorganized militia",and the NRA did nothing to promote civil rights, either.
The gun death rate of Canada and Austrailia was pretty small compared to ours before their restrictions became so tight.
That is not an apple to compare to our apple, I know somewhat less about Japan , but I suspect that it , is an orange too.
In citys and states of the US that have stricter gun restrictions , there is a high rate of crime .
In districts that have relaxed these tight controlls , there was absolutely no rise in crimes relating.
This seems natural to me , our culture does produce a lot of criminals , and practicly every one of them is going to be armed at least part of the time. The law is only about how much the rest of us are armed.
-
In citys and states of the US that have stricter gun restrictions , there is a high rate of crime .
In districts that have relaxed these tight controlls , there was absolutely no rise in crimes relating.
This seems natural to me , our culture does produce a lot of criminals , and practicly every one of them is going to be armed at least part of the time. The law is only about how much the rest of us are armed.[/b]
BINGO!!
-
LOTS of criminals are unarmed. Those who steal the most are rarely armed. Bernie madoff may or may not have owned a pistol, but he did not use it in his theft of billions of dollars.
As I have said, there are far too many guns in this country, and all we can do is realize that we, as Americans,are far more likely to be shot than other people from more rational societies.
When anyone buys a gun, that increases the number of guns that can be used in a crime. It is pretty clear that regardless of sirs devotion to his arsenal, when he kicks the bucket, he will not be taking even one firearm with him. We could say that God does not allow guns in Heaven and the Devil does not allow them in Hell, either. But then, everyone is already dead and cannot be killed in either place. The guns that each person puts into circulation will stay in circulation until they are destroyed, lost or confiscated.
-
When anyone buys a gun, that increases the number of guns that can be used in a crime.
No.
The number of guns in circulation is irrelivant to the number of murderers willing to use them after it passes the ratio of one each, which it is greatly above since way back.
What changes is the number who are defenseless when attacked, untill there is a gun apeace for them , which we are on the way to acheiving.
Thus the number of guns in circulation has increased a lot , at the same time that murders have fallen, if your theroy was supportable this could not happen.
-
LOTS of criminals are unarmed.
LOTS are
Those who steal the most are rarely armed.
Based on.....what evidence exactly? Are you trying to make this about "the higher the score, the less likelyhood of it being an armed score". Considering that MOST robberies are of the nickle & dime variety compared to the Madoffs of the country, that would seem to imply a higher likelyhood of the robber being armed. Not to mention you're ignoring violent crimes, such as assault, rape, & murder, all likely to have an armed perp.
As I have said, there are far too many guns in this country, and all we can do is realize that we, as Americans,are far more likely to be shot than other people from more rational societies.
Your opinion and deflective effort to compare apples to oranges as to this country vs some other country, is duly noted. In THIS country, based on FBI statistics, more people's lives are saved with a gun vs those who are taken with one. That's an FBI FACT.
The Supreme court has also ruled that the 2nd amendment is an individual right. That's a FACT as well.
What's that ole' saying?.....facts to a toe tag liberal --> kryptonite to superman
-
Go play with "American Exceptionalism" with your militia, sirs. And watch out in public places, gun toting morons are just as likely to shoot you as me.
-
Facts & Reality of course refuting that claim, since the only real "gun toting morons" are criminals who are either already illegally carrying or having not been dignosed with whatever mental disorder would lead them to just start shooting, per your parameters
I also noticed no back up to the claim that Those who steal the most are rarely armed. Again, not surprising
-
Did Bernie Madoff use weapons to steal all that money? He stole hundreds of times more than any bank heist ever planned. And he was not the only criminal to do this. Everyone knows this. If every investor and every investigator had been armed to the teeth, it would not have prevented his many thefts over decades.
Again, some mass shooters have had permits, others have not had them. And guns are so readily available that they are amazingly easy to obtain.
-
We already addressed the Madoff nonsense, so let's get to the latest claim, and see how well that's backed up......In the last 40+years, with all those thousands upon thousands of deaths, at the hands of a gunmen, how many "mass shooters" had permits to carry a weapon?
And no, they're not easy to obtain.....at least legally
-
They let you have gun permits and you are pretty much an insane fanatic.
-
Let's try again, since your medical degree is sorely deficient, to make such a diagnosis.......In the last 40+years, with all those thousands upon thousands of deaths, at the hands of a gunmen, how many "mass shooters" had permits to carry a weapon?
-
Did Bernie Madoff use weapons to steal all that money? He stole hundreds of times more than any bank heist ever planned. And he was not the only criminal to do this. Everyone knows this. If every investor and every investigator had been armed to the teeth, it would not have prevented his many thefts over decades.
Again, some mass shooters have had permits, others have not had them. And guns are so readily available that they are amazingly easy to obtain.
Do you want to discuss non-violent crime also?
-
I did not want to discuss any sort of crime.
My goal was to call everyone's attention to the fact that the NRA did bupkiss, zilch, nada, to help Balcks get their civil rights.
A medical degree has nothing to do with mass murderers having permits or not for their guns.
-
Help get their civil rights, no. Help defend their civil rights, yes
And still waiting to see this list of mass murderers who had gun carry permits. Are we going to see a back up to that claim of yours, anytime soon?
-
I did not want to discuss any sort of crime.
My goal was to call everyone's attention to the fact that the NRA did bupkiss, zilch, nada, to help Balcks get their civil rights.
A medical degree has nothing to do with mass murderers having permits or not for their guns.
They still work to protect the second admendment rights of black people.
Along with everyone eleses.
-
Could someone blow this thread up? It's a bullshit thread from the opening post.
BSB
-
Fire away. Ironic though how one person's BS is another person's constitutional & civil rights
-
That is not what you started this inane dialog with. You claimed that the NRA helped Blacks get their civil rights in the 1960's.
That claim is B O G U S.
And I really doubt that Black participation in elections is even on the NRA's list of goals.
-
That is not what you started this inane dialog with. You claimed that the NRA helped Blacks get their civil rights in the 1960's.
Actually, you're WRONG again. I actually referenced that they weren't a civil rights group. Plane then posted a link as to how the NRA assisted in the Civil Rights movement, not I. It's primarily along the lines of their general focus, DEFENDING ones self, and in the case of civil rights, the act of assisting in DEFENDING those rights. That would make your above claim BOGUS
Now, about that other claim of yours, about all those mass murderers with gun permits. Still waiting to see that list. Or is it as non-existant as all your other invalidated accusations?
-
You are wrong, wrong, wrong.
And full of it to boot.
Why don't you name some Black people who the NRA helped get the right to vote?
Or better yet, just give it a rest.
-
LOL.........wrong in what......specifically? I specifically demonstrated where you were wrong, so where am I wrong? Not just some irrational proclamation that I'm wrong in everything, you have to be specific
You could have just as easy stood on your head and yelled nananananananana. It'd been just as valid as your nonsubstantiated claim that I'm wrong. Again missing the part that I never claimed the NRA helped aquire the right to vote, merely helped defend it. You want to claim something as wrong, you'll have to point your invalid accusations in Plane's direction, about naming some black people
Speaking of naming peoples, Let's try again.......In the last 40+years, with all those thousands upon thousands of deaths, at the hands of a gunmen, how many "mass shooters" had permits to carry a weapon? That's YOUR claim, not someone else's. Or is it as non-existant as all your other invalid accusations?
-
(http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/negroeswithguns/images/home_front.jpg)http://www.pbs.org/ (http://www.pbs.org/)
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/negroeswithguns/ (http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/negroeswithguns/)
Now , that is just wild.
I don't think the NRA was a major palyer in the civil rights struggle , but it was not on the wrong side.
I did not know this yesterday, so , all the better.
-
8)
-
Colin Ferguson, the Jamaican guy who shot and killed and wounded a bunch of people on the Long Island Railroad, had a proper permit for his gun or guns.
You can look this up.
The NRA was mostly a hunting organization in the 1960's. it did not start being political until after Vietnam.
-
Naaa....I'll let you look it up and back up your own claims. Your say so has pretty much nill credibility. And....is that it? ONE fella, who murdered 6 people is the reason to condemn those who do have a carry permit? Thousands upon thousands of lives saved with a gun, but this 1 fella is the reason to condemn carry permits??
Seriously?
And the NRA was founded LONG before the 1960's, and was never "mostly a hunting organization". Like I said, do you ever tire of being so wrong so often?
-
SIRS....look what's on my desk!
About to join!
(http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y273/ItsZep/NRA_zps12738b92.jpg)
-
I know more about the 1960's than you ever will.
I gave you an example of a mass murderer with a permit, and as I predicted you refused to acknowledge, just as you always do. Just as I knew you would.
Go speak volumes to someone who gives a shit about your imbecilic opinionss.
-
Brilliant rhetort. Summed up.....it is what it is, because I say so, you (insert latest in a long line of grammar school namecalling here) You may "know the 60's", but you no squat as it relates to when the NRA was founded or what kind of a "mostly organization" they are
You gave me an opinion, not a link, not a source, nothing but your say so, and told me to go look it up. And yea, I did aknoledge your opinion, and referenced IS THAT IT? You want to universally condemn the carry of a weapon, by a perfectly rational person, with a legal permit, based on ONE person who killed 6 people?
Seriously??
-
It you can't google "Colin Ferguson, LIRR", t=then you are too effing stupid to live. Go suck and egg.
-
You want to universally condemn the carry of a weapon, by a perfectly rational person,
with a legal permit, based on ONE person who killed 6 people? Seriously??
dont worry SIRS....they aren't listening to him!
Florida nears 1 million permits for concealed weapons
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/12/us-usa-florida-guns-idUSBRE8BB1SR20121212?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/12/12/us-usa-florida-guns-idUSBRE8BB1SR20121212?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews&rpc=22)
-
You want to universally condemn the carry of a weapon, by a perfectly rational person,
with a legal permit, based on ONE person who killed 6 people? Seriously??
dont worry SIRS....they aren't listening to him!
True true. Just highlighting this ongoing, arguably pathologic, inability to back up pretty much ANYTHING he claims, out side of his obvious say so.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Ferguson_(mass_murderer) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Ferguson_(mass_murderer))
I suppose you do not mean the Canadian Colin Ferguson.
What a caricter! Just a big ball of hatred.
What would the law look like that would have made him safe to be around?
-
Thanks Plane, for doing Xo's work...........however, can you help me out here. I've gone thru the link once, and I have yet to see where Ferguson was issued a legal permit to carry a weapon, and in which state it was initially authorized for. I admit I haven't gone thru the link it with a fine tooth comb, because I have to run out for a while, so perhaps I didn't see it the 1st go around.
If you get a chance can you highlight the particular passage that supports Xo's claim that Ferguson had a permit to carry a firearm, and if possible, which state it was issued in?
I thank you in advance
-
In this article it says he purchased it leagally in California, not that he had a permit for New York or New Jersey.
I don't know whether this is a moot point or not, he was definately contrary to the law to threaten or to harm innocent people.
In April 1993,[6] Ferguson moved to California in search of new career opportunities. He unsuccessfully applied for several jobs, including a car wash, where the manager laughed at him. Ferguson purchased a Ruger P-89 9mm pistol at a Turner's Outdoorsman in Long Beach for $400, after waiting the 15-day waiting period required under California's gun laws.[12][13] Ferguson presented himself as a California resident by providing a driver's license he received two months earlier, which had an address of the Long Beach motel where he stayed.[13] After Ferguson was robbed by two men, he started carrying the gun with him in a paper bag.[6] Ferguson moved .....
-
In this article it says he purchased it leagally in California, not that he had a permit for New York or New Jersey.
But, in reply #59, Xo clearly stated "Again, some mass shooters have had permits, others have not had them." Which of course initiated the ongoing request for back-up as to who were these "mass shooters who had permits". At 1st there was no response, then there were deflective responses, then there was the reference that even if provided, I, sirs, wouldn't believe it, and FINALLY we got 1 name, and now HE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE A PERMIT? No wonder Xo kept saying for someone else to go look up Ferguson. He was a bogus answer to the question as to what mass murderers had some permit to carry
I guess I was correct in my 1st going thru the article Plane. Thanks for doing Xo's grunt work 8)
-
He legally bought the gun that he murdered all those people with. Can't you read?
Dumbass!
-
No one is arguing about a gun he legally purchased, you idiot. The issue was your claim about him having a permit to carry it, you moron. Can't you even read what you type, you neanderthal? Or do you not know the difference between what YOU typed, a permit to carry, and simply purchasing a gun, you ignoramus?
Nope, can't see what adding all the asinine insults does to help the sentence or response. Maybe that's just how Xo taught his students :o
-
Once an idiot has a gun, he does not need a f%cking permit to go on a spree and murder people.
The permit is IRRELEVANT to public safety.
Dickhead.
-
What you're referencing is something already considered illegal. He was NOT LEGALLY allowed to carry one, so its irrelevent redundacy to then rant that Once an idiot has a gun, he does not need a f%cking permit to go on a spree and murder people. That's already illegal. The murdering is then on top of that illegal act
The permit is RELEVANT to the ongoing leftist claptrap of how folks shouldn't be allowed a permit to LEGALLY carry a weapon. You tried to pull it with the now debunked claim of yours that some mass shooters have had permits. In fact, if someone had a CCW on that subway, it's likely the only person who would have been killed would have been Ferguson
Moron
-
The permit is IRRELEVANT to public safety.
XO how can it be "IRRELEVANT" when we have
so many people now with permits but very, very, few incidents?
The permit must do a decent job of "weeding out" the nutcases you speak about?
-
D'OH....C, stop throwing logic in Xo's direction. It might spring a sprocket....or he might curse you out ;)
-
XO how can it be "IRRELEVANT" when we have
so many people now with permits but very, very, few incidents?
==================================================
There have been around SIXTY mass shooting incidents since the Gaby Giffords shooting.
Guns are readily available at gun shows, and the NRA is all for such unrecorded purchases.
-
XO how can it be "IRRELEVANT" when we have
so many people now with permits but very, very, few incidents?==================================================
There have been around SIXTY mass shooting incidents since the Gaby Giffords shooting.
And WHO of those folks had permits to carry.....THAT's the relevant part here, per your claims of some mass shooters have had permits, that Cu4 and myself have been inquiring about
-
Once an idiot has a gun, he does not need a f%cking permit to go on a spree and murder people.The permit is IRRELEVANT to public safety.
I agree mostly , but I would add that all the restrictions on gun buying are simularly limited in effectiveness.
-
If you cannot buy a gun, then the only other way to get one is to steal it.
The more guns there are in circulation in a given country, the more easy it is likely to be to steal one.
Possession of a guns and ammo is what makes guns dangerous.
Permits are even less relevant to endangerment than a license plate is to driving, because the plate must be visible, while the permit is not.
-
If you cannot buy a gun, then the only other way to get one is to steal it.
Ummm.....yea.....and? Those would be the 2 ways to aquire a gun, 1 legal and 1 illegal. Unless you make it yourself. So? ::)
The more guns there are in circulation in a given country, the more easy it is likely to be to steal one.
Umm....hypothetically yea.....and?
Possession of a guns and ammo is what makes guns dangerous.
NO....the use of guns by folks who are intent hurting/killing someone makes guns dangerous. No different than the use of car or the use of a baseball bat to hurt/kill someone makes them dangerous. Simply possessing one, legally, does not.
Permits are even less relevant to endangerment than a license plate is to driving, because the plate must be visible, while the permit is not.
Then why did YOU find it relevant enough to try and connect them to mass murderers, when you have yet to provide 1 example of a permitted mass murderer?? Not to mention that the whole notion of a permit to carry is so the bad guy doesn't know you have one. It'd be idiocy to go around with your permit exposed for all to see. Might as well paint a target on yourself
-
What a caricter! Just a big ball of hatred.
What would the law look like that would have made him safe to be around?
============================================================
If he had been unable to obtain a gun, he would surely have been less dangerous. It would be really hard to kill that many people with even a really large, sharp knife.
I imagine that Japanese gun laws would have prevented him from killing so many people.
-
What a caricter! Just a big ball of hatred.
Deflection alert. :o How the hell is support for everyone's right to possess a firearm, if they exercise that right, tantamount to "ball of hatred"?? (this should be interesting) Nice spelling, by the way, professor
What would the law look like that would have made him safe to be around?
Something like Nazi Germany perhaps
If he had been unable to obtain a gun, he would surely have been less dangerous.
Yea......and? Are you again trying to trample on everyone's right to possess a firearm, because some psychopaths out there might used them to try and kill?? Where's your call to ban knives, baseball bats, cars, and don't forget chainsaws
It would be really hard to kill that many people with even a really large, sharp knife.
Hard, but just as dangerous to the person(s) with the pointy end of the knife stuck into them
I imagine that Japanese gun laws would have prevented him from killing so many people.
I Imagine that UK Gun bans would not have. and don't think you're getting off the hook with your permitted mass murderers crack, that spawned this whole tangent
-
What do you mean "getting off the hook"?
Mass murderers- DOZENS of them - have acquired guns with ease in the US and have killed hundreds,and the idiotic NRA and morons like you support laws that made it possible, either by allowing so many guns to be in circulation or that gun shows make ammo and guns available to these murderers.
I have no responsibility for this at all.
Bottom line: stupid sirs and the idiot NRA enable mass murder in the US.
And you were the fool that started this by claiming that the NRA helped Blacks get their civil rights by helping them get guns. A totally bogus claim.
-
What do you mean "getting off the hook"?
Your rather transparent effort to lump mass murderers with folks who have legally aquired permits to legally carry a weapon, was shot down with your own "best example"
Mass murderers- DOZENS of them - have acquired guns with ease in the US and have killed hundreds
With "ease' is far more likely "illegally"
and the idiotic NRA and morons like you support laws that made it possible, either by allowing so many guns to be in circulation or that gun shows make ammo and guns available to these murderers.
2nd amendment gurantees the right to bear arms. Sorry if you don't like that right. "So many" is not what kills. Killers are what kills
I have no responsibility for this at all.
Who ever claimed you did?
Bottom line: stupid sirs and the idiot NRA enable mass murder in the US.
Actually, given current facts & reality, I have a higher credibility in claiming that "stupid xo and like minds" enable more people to be murdered by supporting efforts to disarm those who otherwise legally aquire their firearms and follow current law
-
It's very simple. Guns, used improperly, are a problem. All you have you have to do is read the paper every day to see how much improper use of firearms there is. That is OUR problem. The problem isn't over there somewhere, it's everybody's problem. Therefore if you're a responsible citizen you take this into account if you're a gun owner. Carrying a weapon around when the need is no more then protection against that very rare possibility is not acting responsibly, period. In fact it's dumb. We're not in Vietnam in 1967.
(Now, CU, I'm not talking about the Texas brush. I have no problem with someone carrying a gun in that kind of situation. If I lived in Texas, and spent time in the brush, I'd have a nice Ruger wheel gun.)
BSB
-
Official: 27 dead in Conn. school shooting
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN
Associated Press / December 14, 2012
NEWTOWN, Conn. (AP) — A shooting at a Connecticut elementary school Friday left 27 people dead, including 18 children, an official said.
http://www.skweezer.com/s.aspx?q=http://www.boston.com/news/education/2012/12/14/official-dead-conn-school-shooting/KM9WtTx8sSYd8agMntLHvN/story.html (http://www.skweezer.com/s.aspx?q=http://www.boston.com/news/education/2012/12/14/official-dead-conn-school-shooting/KM9WtTx8sSYd8agMntLHvN/story.html)
-
It's very simple. Guns, used improperly, are a problem.
So are cars, so are power tools, so are baseball bats
All you have you have to do is read the paper every day to see how much improper use of firearms there is.
Want to guess how many car related deaths there are compared to gun deaths?? Want to be reminded that guns SAVE more lives than they take. Want to be reminded that violent crime is coming DOWN in the U.S., even with this supposed gun culture problem, while countries like the UK watch their violent crime going up with the use of guns, which are banned??
Ignorance of guns and their use in defensive situations......That is YOUR problem.
-
Official: 27 dead in Conn. school shooting
By JOHN CHRISTOFFERSEN
Associated Press / December 14, 2012
NEWTOWN, Conn. (AP) — A shooting at a Connecticut elementary school Friday left 27 people dead, including 18 children, an official said.
And refresh my memory.......aren't schools referred to as "gun free zones", as in it was illegal to have entered the school grounds with a firearm, period?
Our prayers go out to those families, yet think if someone had a CCW on the campus. May have been in a position to have prevented even 1 death. Food for thought
-
"Ignorance of guns and their use in defensive situations......That is YOUR problem"
Right asshole. Of the 13 wounds I'm compensated for 4 of them are gunshot wounds.
BSB
-
Which doesn't refute a damn thing I said, but cudos on trying to use your wounds as some form of rhetoric proof vest ::)
-
Yeah, right, you're a joke.
BSB
-
Brilliant rhetort
-
This ship has always listed towards unreality but now, between Sirs, and the self-proclaimed king of the mountain, the ship is now on it's side and beyond any hope of righting itself.
BSB
-
It's very simple. Guns, used improperly, are a problem.
I agree BSB.
Maybe we can offer more gun training classes.
Carrying a weapon around when the need is no more then protection against that very rare possibility is not acting responsibly, period. In fact it's dumb.
Thus far I personally choose to not have a conceal permit,
but I actually think they make us safer as a society.
When I was much younger I had a much worse temper
around bullies....so it may have been not wise to carry a gun.
Now that I am older and hopefully wiser, I dont think it
would be a problem....but thus far I still dont want to always
carry one.....I just am a tad scared of the George Zimmerman
situation....I dont think George Zimmerman did anything wrong
but look at whats happened to the man....of course on the
other hand if Mr. Zimmerman had not had the gun, I honestly
100% believe Mr Zimmerman may have been beaten to death.
(Now, CU, I'm not talking about the Texas brush. I have no problem with someone carrying a gun in that kind of situation. If I lived in Texas, and spent time in the brush, I'd have a nice Ruger wheel gun.)
Yeah even though it would be very rare to be attacked and/or killed by a wild hog
I still like to carry out in the woods. I wonder if I am more likely to be murdered than
killed by a hog?....lol....I bet more likely murdered. Who knows. Where and when did
you live in Texas BSB? Were you stationed at Fort Hood?
-
This ship has always listed towards unreality but now, between Sirs, and the self-proclaimed king of the mountain, the ship is now on it's side and beyond any hope of righting itself.
BSB
As I said (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/say-it-ain't-so-gun-crime-up-in-the-uk/msg148012/#msg148012)
Oh, ever going to unveil who this king of what mountain supposedly is? More curious than anything. If you need to keep it a secret, no biggie
Sirs
-
Ever going to unveil who this king of what mountain supposedly is?
I would assume he refers to BT.
BT is KING of 3DHS!
And most times a very good King.
(http://www.gallery.oldbookart.com/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=18550&g2_serialNumber=2)
-
A law that would make it truely hard to commit an atrocity with a gun would have to be a very drastic law.
Maybe not in Austrailia , where after the Port Morsby incident the public gave up thier guns with little fuss.
We arn't likely to do that , we don't beleive in the benevolence of Government as much as Austrailians .
-
Port Moresby is in Papua New Guinea, isn't it? I have not heard of that one.
Australians are far less conformist and a lot more rebellious as a group than Americans, because of their history as a penal colony.
Preventing crazed loonies from murdering schoolchildren by the dozens seems like a rather good idea. It has little to do with belief in the benevolence of any government.
-
Preventing crazed loonies from murdering schoolchildren by the dozens seems like a rather good idea.
Indeed.....any credible suggestions? Hint, trying even more to disarm the law abiding, isn't credible
It has little to do with belief in the benevolence of any government.
The 2nd amendment, hell the entire Bill of Rights, is all to do with the lack of belief in the benevolence of our Government
-
It has little to do with belief in the benevolence of any government.
The 2nd amendment, hell the entire Bill of Rights, is all to do with the lack of belief in the benevolence of our Government
I agree , it is nearly inevitable that the government will get overbearing someday, once the population is disarmed the rise of a well regulated militia will become impossible, already it seems unlikely.
-
A well regulated militia cannot by definition be composed of people who have no idea that they are members of it. Again, the federal government could not morally or physically confiscate rifles from the citizens, most of who lived in rural areas where there were wild animals and outlaws running about, and where rifles provided a way for the people to feed themselves by hunting.
The weapons used were single or at most, double shot rifles and pistols and there was no way that any crazed Minuteman with PSTD could stroll into a school and kill 27 children and teachers, reloading his cap and ball musket 27 times. The times were different, the needs were different, the mindset was different.
Imagine an 1800 version of sirs, walking about with a loaded musket about the city "because he chooses to do so". People would have considered such a doofus to be at least a nut and mostly a threat.
-
Is the problem that the wepons are better?
Does that change the basic nature of the situation?
-
Is the problem that the wepons are better?
Does that change the basic nature of the situation?
===================================================
Of course!
Imagine the Newtown shooter doing his nefarious deed with a Revolution Era 1770's black powder musket: swab barrel with ramrod, pour in black powder, stuff a wad down with the ramrod, drop in the ball, stuff with ramrod again, aim and FIRE!
Repeat 26 times, taking care that the barrel is not so hot it will ignite the black powder when you pour it in.
It would be easier to kill the kiddies with a crossbow.
Perhaps we should insist that those wishing to be armed join and train with a "well-organized militia" and in return, be allowed to own a 1780's musket, rifle or other c. 1800 weapon of their choice.
I understand that Lewis & Clark had a really fancy air rifle that could shoot several times without pumping it up.
-
By definition, any able bodied person over 17, not in the military or some Government branch of militia, IS part of the unorganized branch of the militia, referred to in the Constitution. The problem is SCHOOL, as in public education not teaching history as it was and is. Folks who don't realize that the Bill of Rights are specific to individuals can blame our vaunted public education system
-
"A well regulated " is the missing part .
There are militias but they are not large enough nor organised in terms tha would make them a realistic challenge nor a balance to the US Army.
So we have come to be entirely reliant on the loyalty of our soldiers and officers, it has been so long since those have let us down that wwe take their loyalty as granted.
-
"By definition, any able bodied person over 17, not in the military or some Government branch of militia, IS part of the unorganized branch of the militia"
Rubbish. Whose definition is that? Post a source showing that definition.
BSB
-
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/militia (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/militia)
mi·li·tia (m-lsh)
n.
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
mi·li·tia
noun \m?-?li-sh?\
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/militia)
Definition of MILITIA
1
a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b: a body of citizens organized for military service
2
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
-
Ah huh, eligible by law for military call up. That is far from every able bodied person over 17.
BSB
-
Just found this
http://www.guncite.com/rrmilitia.html (http://www.guncite.com/rrmilitia.html)
Good thoughts.
-
Ah huh, eligible by law for military call up. That is far from every able bodied person over 17.
BSB
What is that law now?
We havn't had a draft in so long that people tend to forget that we still could.
-
The courts settled this B. Sorry if their decision rankles your bacon
-
It is pretty effing clear that a group of people who are unaware that they are in a militia, who have never been informed that they are in a militia and who have never done diddly worth of militia training cannot logically be described as a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA. To be regulated, it is obviousthat one must at least be made aware that one is a member of said militia.
If the Supreme Court says that they are, it does not make it so.
If the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution says that the president must be a marsupial,and then declares the president to be a marsupial, that still does not make it so.
-
Actually, it does. It'd be a pretty ludicrous ruling, kinda like RvW, but yea, it would. Again, your problem is with Public Education, but the Supreme Court has ruled, the 2nd amendment is an individual right, just as all the other Bill of rights are....period....end of sentence
-
It is pretty effing clear that a group of people who are unaware that they are in a militia, who have never been informed that they are in a militia and who have never done diddly worth of militia training cannot logically be described as a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA. To be regulated, it is obviousthat one must at least be made aware that one is a member of said militia.
If the Supreme Court says that they are, it does not make it so.
If the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution says that the president must be a marsupial,and then declares the president to be a marsupial, that still does not make it so.
Making it well regulated would be a better idea than our present policy of ignoring the concept.
-
The Founding Fathers were not idiots, and obviously did not believe that a totally uninformed group of citizens constituted a"WELL-ORGANIZED MILITIA"
The Supreme Court, if it ruled that they do, were idiots.
There IS no such concept.
-
Sirs, yes, Scalia did say something along those lines. However, that doesn't mean it isn't bullshit.
Plane, I don't know what the law is currently regarding a universal call up but I'm sure the gov has plenty of tricks up its sleeve.
BSB
p.s. I don't know about anyone else but I have to wait for these adds to downoad every time I make a move in here. It's a pain in the ass.
-
BTW, Miss Sirs, the ruling doesn't rankle my beacon. In fact I was happy to see it. Again, however, that doesn't mean it isn't bullshit. Incase you haven't figured it out yet, Miss Sirs, and you probably haven't, I'm profoundly pro-gun. I'm not stupid though. We have a problem and something needs to be done. That's the difference between you and me. I don't allow my personal likes and dislikes over rule my sense of social responsibility.
BSB
-
Oooo, such a manly man calling another man Miss. Well, despite the low class tactic, you're not "pro-gun", your pro "who YOU say can have a gun". MASSIVE difference than what the Constitution says. Your problem remains as clear as referenced earlier (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/say-it-ain't-so-gun-crime-up-in-the-uk/msg148012/#msg148012). Nor have I called you stupid. Ignorant, yes, stupid no. Most folks that attempt to oppress others are not stupid. They simply ignore anything and everything contrary to their preconceived superiority. Such as current Supreme Court rulings, and current stats that demonstrated DECREASED violent crime in areas with more permissive gun laws, compared to those areas with areas with stricter gun laws, with increased violent. So yea, you're allowing precisely your feelings, your likes, and dislikes to dictate your current train of thought, ignoring all facts to the contrary.
You made it painfully clear you don't like me having a CCW because......you merely don't like me. I shouldn't have one because YOU deem I don't need one. Your right, I don't NEED one, but I have the legal right to choose to have one. I exercise the utmost in gun safety, and as I referenced before, that you've been trying very hard to ignore, I've never had to pull my weapon. I pray I never do. But you just don't like me, and obnoxious people shouldn't have one based on.....nothing more than your dislike. So yea, you're allowing precisely your feelings, your likes, and dislikes to dictate your current train of thought, since I've demonstrated that I'm hardly some fella looking to showoff and pull my piece, if someone looks at me cross-eyed
If you have something minus the emotion and more valid, then by all means, states your case why sirs, or anyone like me, should not have a CCW
The Conn elementary school was like a barrel of fish, with these "gun free zone", that guranteed no ability to defend itself in the face of a sick mind, intent on killing. Perhaps these tragedies will wake some folks up to have a slighly more appropriate gun deterrent, in the future. No, not talking 50 calibers on top of the library, so you & xo can dispense with the hyperbolic idea of trying to go there
-
Yeah, right.
All those kids and teachers had to die because there was not a pistol-packing guard on duty at the entrance to this school.
That is lame, lame, lame.
The police claim that all the guns found were acquired LEGALLY.
-
All those kids and teachers had to die because there was not a pistol-packing guard on duty at the entrance to this school.
Not quite, as I'd have had a few guards, spread thru out, with their weapons concealed. But even if there had been, it's much more probable not 1 child would have died
That is lame, lame, lame.
actually, reality, reality, reality
The police claim that all the guns found were acquired LEGALLY.
Yea, and..........? They were NOT the 20year old's, as they were registered to the mom, so they were taken ILLEGALLY, and he took them onto a gun free zone ILLEGALLY, where due to the fact it was a gun free zone, no one could effectively defend themself, or the children.
-
A long time ago the NRA was pro regulation.
Then some regulation got absolutist.
In recent years the NRA has become increasingly suspicious.
But the NRA does not favor that regulation be abolished , they want it to be effective , enforced and easy to follow for the law abiding gun owner.
A measure that the NRA finds usefull probly is.
-
Sirs, you don't know anything about guns. It's all a little act you put on to make yourself feel better for some very odd reason. You have no idea what it feels like to chamber a round for real. You pack your little 9mm, go to the range, carry it when there's no reason to, and it's all a bunch of bullshit. And you're absolutely right, I wouldn't issue you a gun permit for any reason. You're as nutty as they come.
BSB
-
Not quite, as I'd have had a few guards, spread thru out, with their weapons concealed. But even if there had been, it's much more probable not 1 child would have died
=================================================
A tiny town where no one has ever threatened students before cannot afford to have a few guards spread out around the school with their weapons concealed.
How many guards would we need in this country to have "a few" of them in each and every school? sirs hates taxes, and I really doubt that they could sell enough in cookie sales to finance all those guards.
It would be cheaper to take guns away from crazy people.
-
It would be cheaper to take guns away from crazy people.
In the Lanza case, how would that have been accomplished?
The guns were legally owned by his mother.
-
Not quite, as I'd have had a few guards, spread thru out, with their weapons concealed. But even if there had been, it's much more probable not 1 child would have died
=================================================
A tiny town where no one has ever threatened students before cannot afford to have a few guards spread out around the school with their weapons concealed.
How many guards would we need in this country to have "a few" of them in each and every school? sirs hates taxes, and I really doubt that they could sell enough in cookie sales to finance all those guards.
It would be cheaper to take guns away from crazy people.
Armed guards don't necessacerily cost much.
Arming a squad of mothers could be very cheap, and tho it might take a while to train completely , the motivation would be complete on day one.
-
About 13 years ago I sold all my guns (well I kept my custom made M1A hidden away, too good a rifle to let go) and let my gun permit lapse. It was kinda a Buddhist thing. Then I got my permit back, and bought some nice firearms. I may let it all go again just because this event in Conn makes me sick. And as the Tibetan Buddhists say, asprin makes the mountains sick.
BSB
-
About 13 years ago I sold all my guns (well I kept my custom made M1A hidden away, too good a rifle to let go) and let my gun permit lapse. It was kinda a Buddhist thing. Then I got my permit back, and bought some nice firearms. I may let it all go again just because this event in Conn makes me sick. And as the Tibetan Buddhists say, asprin makes the mountains sick.
BSB
That is your right, your will and your carefull thought.
I havn't caught yet why asprin is bad for mountains.
-
Sirs, you don't know anything about guns. It's all a little act you put on to make yourself feel better for some very odd reason. You have no idea what it feels like to chamber a round for real. You pack your little 9mm, go to the range, carry it when there's no reason to, and it's all a bunch of bullshit. And you're absolutely right, I wouldn't issue you a gun permit for any reason. You're as nutty as they come.
BSB
That was your "case"? That was all the "substance" you could muster to make your case why sirs, and folks like myself shouldn't be allowed a CCW? Like I said previously (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/say-it-ain't-so-gun-crime-up-in-the-uk/msg148012/#msg148012), and as you continually demonstrate, your ignorance is topped only by your arrogance
Sirs
-
Not quite, as I'd have had a few guards, spread thru out, with their weapons concealed. But even if there had been, it's much more probable not 1 child would have died
=================================================
A tiny town where no one has ever threatened students before cannot afford to have a few guards spread out around the school with their weapons concealed.
Even accepting that notion, since its doubtful that the town has no armed anything, perhaps now they'll put that in their budget
How many guards would we need in this country to have "a few" of them in each and every school?
3-4 per school. Considering the size of some police departments, not a far fetched thing to consider, in the least
sirs hates taxes,
NOOO.......wrong again. Sirs hates wreckless irresponsible spending. Taxes are necessary for Government services. Overtaxing or hiking taxes to cover for wreckless spending, is the problem
and I really doubt that they could sell enough in cookie sales to finance all those guards.
NOT the schools.......state & local government. Perhaps we can get by with a few less assistant principals & assistant super intendants, in order to better protect our children
It would be cheaper to take guns away from crazy people.
A) Who gets to define "crazy people"? Folks like you? BsB? Yea right
B) How do you target "crazy people", in order to take their guns away? Generally "crazy people" are already denied guns
C) REALLY "crazy people" will still illegally aquire guns. That's kinda what makes them crazy, in the 1st place
-
The shooter's mother was a gun nut.
The shooter was trained in gun nuttery.
Switching the cost of putting armed guards in every school to the states is not going to cost less than including it in school taxes. They are NOT going to hire armed guards in every school, no matter who pays for it. Since you know diddly about how schools work, your cutting positions from their staffs is meaningless.
There are lots of crazy people who have been prevented from having guns, just not all of them.
NYC has the lowest rate of gun crimes among large cities, because Bloomberg has managed to get laws passed to accomplish this.
Bloomberg is the guy to listen to, not a nut like sirs.
-
"The shooter's mother was a gun nut"
That may very well be the case. Why so many guns of the same kind? And if she hadn't had them would he have gotten them elsewhere? He was too young to buy a gun in Conn. from what I understand. She may be a poster child for not acquiring guns way beyond a need.
BSB
-
A gun is a tool, if you don't have a need for one why buy one? Do people go out and buy an F550 to drive around in just because they can. Gun owners have to step up to the plate here and only buy after careful consideration concerning their needs.
Does gun-nut Sirs need his little 9mm? Hell no.
BSB
-
As I said (http://debategate.com/new3dhs/3dhs/say-it-ain't-so-gun-crime-up-in-the-uk/msg148012/#msg148012), if that's the most compelling case you can present, you've not convinced anyone, except for equally ignorant folk. Your all-too-frequent arrogant think-you-know-better say so just isn't going to cut it
-
I know three lives that were saved in two incidents of having a gun to drive off attack.
One of them was the infant me.
The other my brother and mother.
So in fifty years two incidents that threatened my immediate family were resolved with responsible gun use.
That is not everyday, it is downright scarce,but it is legatimate.
If the gun had not been there, my family would have been smaller years ago.
Perhaps only once in my life will a gun be absent when it might have saved my life , that is a rare thing indeed.
-
But Plane....your family really didn't need a gun, since it was a very rare event, that could have equally never have happened. I mean, be it your family or you, you are just being nutcases to even consider having one, much less needing one
All sarcasm aside, I'm thankful some lives were saved by the use of a gun, yours included
-
Most people know someone that rescued themselves with a gun.
Perhaps just an aqantience ,perhaps just once.
For most of the people who have self rescued with a wepon it is a once in a lifetime occurance.
All of the people who are now dead from such an incidence , but who could have saved themselves if they would have had a gun , that experience was once in a lifetime also.
-
So true, so true. And yet, there are those who would take it upon themselves to determine how much you or your family really "needed" a gun, because they apparently just.....know better than you, or me, or our families
-
I don't know one person who, outside of military service, ever "rescued" themselves with a gun. I've lived in and around a major city most of my life. In fact I know several people well who lived, and one who presently lives, in NYC and none of them ever had to "rescued" themselves with a gun. I know a guy who almost got himself killed with a gun than rescued himself with a knife. He was hunting in Alaska, shot a brown bear...... the bear looked to be dead....he approached it....the bear got up and bit him in the face........he pulled out his knife........stabbed/sliced the bear.....the bear let him go.......he took off.....broke a leg falling into a ravine....got back to civilization....today he has no tongue or lower jaw. I knew a bartender who was being robed, pulled a gun out from behind the bar, the thief then pulled out his own gun and killed the bartender. I've spent thousands upon thousands of hours in the woods, by myself, without a gun, never had a problem.
I guess if you're a paranoid nut-job you "need" a gun but most of us don't.
BSB (there is no pinnacle, or mountain to be king of, it's all just mind)
-
Funny...I've known and read of several who have indeed "rescued themselves with a gun" Go figure. I loved the F-150 analogy though. Pricless. Because someone might not "need one", the Bsb's of the world would make sure you couldn't aquire one :o
-
I don't know one person who, outside of military service, ever "rescued" themselves with a gun. I've lived in and around a major city most of my life. In fact I know several people well who lived, and one who presently lives, in NYC and none of them ever had to "rescued" themselves with a gun. I know a guy who almost got himself killed with a gun than rescued himself with a knife. He was hunting in Alaska, shot a brown bear...... the bear looked to be dead....he approached it....the bear got up and bit him in the face........he pulled out his knife........stabbed/sliced the bear.....the bear let him go.......he took off.....broke a leg falling into a ravine....got back to civilization....today he has no tongue or lower jaw. I knew a bartender who was being robed, pulled a gun out from behind the bar, the thief then pulled out his own gun and killed the bartender. I've spent thousands upon thousands of hours in the woods, by myself, without a gun, never had a problem.
I guess if you're a paranoid nut-job you "need" a gun but most of us don't.
BSB (there is no pinnacle, or mountain to be king of, it's all just mind)
I suppose the guy that shot the bear needed his gun once more after he put it down, isn't that a bear hunting rule ?
To keep the bear under the gun untill his death is sure?
I have never hunted bear , when I am in bear country I generally make enough noise that I am unlikly to surprise a bear , so I do not presume to speak as an authority.
If I ever do hunt bear , I will make an effort to learn more about it first.
-
I don't know of anyone ever rescued with a gun.
My neighbor likes to talk about his trusty pistol. After three beers he rarely talks about anything else.
He always suggests that people who do things he does not like had better not do it around him, because he will shoot them.
He taught his children well: he has three sons: Two went to prison for murder with a pistol. One got out, but decided he needed some really illegal military rifle,and kept it in the house when he knew he was forbidden to even live where there were any guns. He got into a fight with a cousin, and the cousin ratted him out. The cops came, surrounded the house and searched for hours. When they found the gun, they took him away for another 8 years.
On New Years and the 4th of July and occasionally when there is a sale on Heinekins, which my neighbor insists is made in Germany, he and the security guard who lives down the street shoot their guns in the air. At least one windshield has been broken this way, but it belonged to the security guard.
When I hear shooting, I stay in the furthest part of the house.
-
That sounds terribly irritating.
Owning a gun should be treated as a responsibility , and an important one.
Firing a gun within city limits should be in accordance with city ordanace .
Firing a gun at any time should be done with awareness of backstop.
Many guns are dangerous at long distances if fired at high angles.
-
"isn't that a bear hunting rule ?
To keep the bear under the gun until his death is sure?"
That has always been my impression.
My younger brother's, now deceased, wife's sister is a doctor in Alaska. This individual was her patient. When she told me about this incident I got the impression the hunter was experienced. Anyway, not being the king of the mountain, I'm not going to pass judgment on him. He gave a hell of an account of himself by just surviving the event.
I will say though, the Alaskan Brown Bear is almost as big as a Polar Bear. If you've had one successful hunt of one consider yourself lucky and don't do it again. In my opinion you'd be asking for it. Of course better yet, mind your own business from the beginning and leave them alone.
BSB
-
I suspect that more gun owners are like my neighbor and his pal El Security than like the responsible type. On holidays in Miami, one can hear guns going off all over the place.
I speculate that if my neighbor were not permitted to own a gun, he would not have taught his sons that the pistol was a proper way of settling disputes, and perhaps none of them would have gone to prison.
-
I suspect that more gun owners are like my neighbor and his pal El Security than like the responsible type. On holidays in Miami, one can hear guns going off all over the place.
I speculate that if my neighbor were not permitted to own a gun, he would not have taught his sons that the pistol was a proper way of settling disputes, and perhaps none of them would have gone to prison.
I don't think that necessacerily follows.
Is he irresponsible , but very law abiding?
-
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/s480x480/398440_538781049466143_403830931_n.jpg)
-
Notice how whenever there's a "mass shooting", its generally always in a location that's supposedly as near to a "gun free zone", as it can be, if not designated so, such as schools and theaters. The calls to disarm the populace and make it harder for them to purchase ammo seem to always miss/ignore that pertinent point