MovieChat Forums > Runaway Jury (2003) Discussion > Forty Reasons for gun control

Forty Reasons for gun control

posted 15 years ago by Scotty7617
56 replies | jump to latest

1. Banning guns works, which is why New York, DC, & Chicago cops need guns.

2. Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

3. Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

4. The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

5. We must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a lunatic is paranoid.

6. The more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

7. An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you.

8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

9. When confronted by violent criminals, you should "put up no defense -- give them what they want, or run" (Handgun Control Inc. Chairman Pete Shields, Guns Don't Die - People Do, 1981, p.125).

10. The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery.

11. One should consult an automotive engineer for safer seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems, and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

12. The 2nd Amendment, ratified in 1787, refers to the National Guard, which was created 130 years later, in 1917.

13. The National Guard, federally funded, with bases on federal land, using federally-owned weapons, vehicles, buildings and uniforms, punishing trespassers under federal law, is a "state" militia.

14. These phrases: "right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes," "enumerations herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively, and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arm" refers to the state.

15. "The Constitution is strong and will never change." But we should ban and seize all guns thereby violating the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments to that Constitution.

16. Rifles and handguns aren't necessary to national defense! Of course, the army has hundreds of thousands of them.

17. Private citizens shouldn't have handguns, because they aren't "military weapons", but private citizens shouldn't have "assault rifles", because they are military weapons.

18. In spite of waiting periods, background checks, finger printing, government forms, etc., guns today are too readily available, which is responsible for recent school shootings. In the 1940's, 1950's and1960's, anyone could buy guns at hardware stores, army surplus stores, gas stations, variety stores, Sears mail order, no waiting, no background check, no fingerprints, no government forms and there were no school shootings.

19. The NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

20. Guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

21. A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

22. Women are just as intelligent and capable as men but a woman with a gun is "an accident waiting to happen" and gun makers' advertisements aimed at women are "preying on their fears."

23. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers but revert to normal when the weapon is removed.

24. Guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun shows.

25. A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

26. Any self-loading small arm can legitimately be considered to be a "weapon of mass destruction" or an "assault weapon."

27. Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

28. The right of Internet pornographers to exist cannot be questioned because it is constitutionally protected by the Bill of Rights, but the use of handguns for self defense is not really protected by the Bill of Rights.

29. Free speech entitles one to own newspapers, transmitters, computers, and typewriters, but self-defense only justifies bare hands.

30. The ACLU is good because it uncompromisingly defends certain parts of the Constitution, and the NRA is bad, because it defends other parts of the Constitution.

31. Charlton Heston, a movie actor as president of the NRA is a cheap lunatic who should be ignored, but Michael Douglas, a movie actor as a representative of Handgun Control, Inc. is an ambassador for peace who is entitled to an audience at the UN arms control summit.

32. Police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger capacity pistol magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone and therefore need less ammunition.

33. We should ban "Saturday Night Specials" and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over hand guns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

35. Private citizens don't need a gun for self-protection because the police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the police are not responsible for their protection.

36. Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection but police chiefs, who are desk-bound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not.

38. When Microsoft pressures its distributors to give Microsoft preferential promotion, that's bad; but when the Federal government pressures cities to buy guns only from Smith & Wesson, that's good.

39. Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapon.

40. Handgun Control, Inc. says they want to "keep guns out of the wrong hands." Guess what? You have the wrong hands.

"Yes, I'm having difficulty controlling THE VOLUME OF MY VOICE."

[–] a_little_about_law 15 years ago

Awesome!!!!!

Gun control is a tight grip.

[–] lynsey_poushay 14 years ago

UGgg,

1) Implementing gun control and banning guns are not the same thing.

2) Statistically if you own a gun for self protection reasons you are more likely to harm yourself or someone else with it unintentionally than you are to use it against someone trying to harm you.

If you want to argue against gun control fine, but please use some logical while doing so. Otherwise you just look like an idiot. I don't get the pulling out the second amendment argument either, the reasons that amendment took place are so obsolete now it should be reviewed on that basis alone.

[–] a_little_about_law 14 years ago

Lynsey,

1) Agreed.

2) Can you provide a source for your statistics? I'd like to see them.

re the Second Amendment:

First, what do you think the reasons are that it was adopted?

Second, regardless of the reasons, until it is reviewed and changed, it says what it says: The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

[–] cajayson8301 14 years ago

it says what it says: The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

PRECISELY what I just wrote about in a reply! People excluding pertinent words from the amendment should such language counter their beliefs. HERE is the CORRECT wording: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Research yourself if in doubt.

Now what was that you said about "it says what it says"?

If mothers ruled the world, there would be no god damn wars in the first place-Sally Field

[–] a_little_about_law 14 years ago

Let me pose a hypothetical:

Say a law was passed back in "olden days" that said, "The safety of horse and buggies, being necessary for people to trade and travel, the speed limit of cars on all roads shall be 15 mph."

Now let's move forward 100 years. We look around and see there ain't a single horse and buggy on a road to be found; everybody is riding around in cars, etc. However, the law mentioned above was NEVER changed; it's still on the books EXACTLY as it was first written.

Do you think that if someone drives their car at 30 mph, that they shouldn't be able to be ticketed?

[–] cajayson8301 14 years ago

Say a law was passed back in "olden days" that said, "The safety of horse and buggies, being necessary for people to trade and travel, the speed limit of cars on all roads shall be 15 mph."

Now let's move forward 100 years. We look around and see there ain't a single horse and buggy on a road to be found; everybody is riding around in cars, etc. However, the law mentioned above was NEVER changed; it's still on the books EXACTLY as it was first written.

As is the Second Amendment "exactly as it was first written", save for minor punctuation and capitalization (the words themselves are as is). Whether we are referencing the 18th Century or now, nothing's been done to alter its language. Now perhaps the REASONS towards its enforcement ought to have shifted in light of newer issues facing the country...the language, however, remains the same.

Also, people in my hometown still travel around on horses every now and then, sometimes even crossing the roadways. So you sure everyone completely arrived at the 21st Century?

Do you think that if someone drives their car at 30 mph, that they shouldn't be able to be ticketed?

Archaic laws do not take precedent over current traffic regulations. What your hypothetical fails to take into account is a law on the books regarding horses and buggies ain't part of a document requiring hefty maneuvering to change. Ever since our founding, that Constitution only has undergone 17 amendments to the original Bill of Rights. The law proposed by you in the above scenario either is ignored 24/7 (rightfully so) or otherwise easier to strike down. Even in my home state of CA, a Constitution changes as fast as a new baby cries out for mommy/daddy...same goes for local government. Not so on an actual federal amendment to the Constitution.

The Second Amendment can't be changed by a flick of the pen. Whatever minute changes it underwent, the bottom line is every word within the text has never left it during any political process, hence to suggest it's simply a "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" statement ignores how the Framers intended the law to be.

NOTHING in the Constitution sits as absolute: not free speech, not to keep and bare arms, et. all. Each measure through a legal challenge can be limited once the Court issues a decision warranting curtailment.

If mothers ruled the world, there would be no god damn wars in the first place-Sally Field

[–] a_little_about_law 14 years ago

Archaic laws do not take precedent over current traffic regulations.

Statutes, age notwithstanding, do trump regulations, but I'm not sure what your point was by saying that.

What your hypothetical fails to take into account is a law on the books regarding horses and buggies ain't part of a document requiring hefty maneuvering to change.

But arguably the Constitution SHOULD require hefty maneuvering to change, shouldn't it? And allowing sentences to be "reinterpreted" goes in the opposite direction. I believe the Constitutions' provisions should be enforced SOLELY as intended by its drafters. All current "interpretation" should be simply trying to figure out what was that intent.

NOTHING in the Constitution sits as absolute: not free speech, not to keep and bare arms, et. all. Each measure through a legal challenge can be limited once the Court issues a decision warranting curtailment.

Do we really want a court to change the will of the people as expressed through the laws passed by representatives they elect?

Back to the Second Amendment: Do you believe the drafters intended to allow the government to be able to take away people's guns?

[–] cajayson8301 14 years ago

Statutes, age notwithstanding, do trump regulations, but I'm not sure what your point was by saying that.

Not when a statute is obsolete to the point of being seen as a law "in name only". My reasons towards stating what I did had to do with speed limit issues, one poised by you, as an entirely separate batch from the discussion here about federal laws.

But arguably the Constitution SHOULD require hefty maneuvering to change, shouldn't it? And allowing sentences to be "reinterpreted" goes in the opposite direction. I believe the Constitutions' provisions should be enforced SOLELY as intended by its drafters. All current "interpretation" should be simply trying to figure out what was that intent.

Absolutely. Any rules discussing changes to all the top laws must be serious and involve a challenge. Despite my wanting the Equal Rights Amendment to enter our Constitution as #28, it must pass the necessary test laid out before the federal government. That goes for any amendment proposed on whatever issue.

What I meant by "reinterpreted" when it comes to the Constitution was applying the language towards current affairs. For example, "Brown v. Board of Education" cited the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause on the topic of segregation. Nowadays, enough laws have been cemented onto the books forbidding us into returning to that era. In the recent federal decision by Judge Walker to overturn CA's ban on gay marriage, the counsel referred back to the 14th Amendment's guidelines but this time pleading that the amendment's clause extended to providing same sex couples a right to marriage, an institution different from Jim Crow's separate but equal system. That's a predicament facing various courts today who hear numerous challenges to gay marriage bans, yet the 14th Amendment in the end was reinterpreted in accordance with that issue. Still, the bottom line is equal protection...how that applies for each legal challenge undergoes its own, unique understanding.

Do we really want a court to change the will of the people as expressed through the laws passed by representatives they elect?

Courts decide on the arguments presented to them, what laws state and in the end render a verdict interpreting the words coinciding with their legal training. You can't enter a federal courthouse ready to present a case asking they strike down a law passed by Congress and then demand the judge rules your way, as what you proposed reflects the people's desires. Try that and don't be surprised if the judge laughs you out the door.

"The will of the people" could be taken either way due to the arbitrary tone undertaken by that statement. Many citizens who harped on the "people" opposing the health care reform legislation passed last year insisted on the primary opposition being to all its contents, yet recent polls suggest a significant number of dissenters feel its protections were a head start but still limited. Therefore, their opposing the bill reflected on a desire to want more out of what the Congress passed and not simply to remove it altogether, hence the original interpretation contradicts the statistics found in a reliable survey meant to be representative of "the people".

Back to the Second Amendment: Do you believe the drafters intended to allow the government to be able to take away people's guns?

Yes they did, that is, if their gun ownership threatened a state's security. The first priority expressed in the amendment is preserving a secure state...the people's response towards that ideal enter into the equation upon the second portion of the amendment.

If mothers ruled the world, there would be no god damn wars in the first place-Sally Field

[–] HeisenbergsLastStand 13 years ago

Yes they did, that is, if their gun ownership threatened a state's security. The first priority expressed in the amendment is preserving a secure state...the people's response towards that ideal enter into the equation upon the second portion of the amendment.

No, they didn't. Now, you're just lying to suit your liberal anti-gun purposes. But, what more would I expect from a Dianne Feinstein intern? For everyone(including yourself) to see, look at the quotes I made a couple of posts above, regarding the Founding Fathers' opinions on firearms. Then, you'll see how full of crap Jason is, I mean cajayson8301. He takes quotes and misconstrues them, and after that, he assumes the Founding Fathers' intent.

The Founding Fathers were all about making sure the government knew that the people were in charge. If the government was being attacked by its own people, then it was due to the government being corrupt. If the government/people were being attacked by another country, the people were meant to take arms and fight back.

"Every time there is a bang, the world's a wanker short." -Billy Connolly

[–] nutsberryfarm 12 years ago

clearly the right to bare arms is a divisive issue. tho, who knew tank tops would turn out to be such a controversial garment?

“Can't go wrong with taupe."- Wynn Duffy

[–] HeisenbergsLastStand 13 years ago

PRECISELY what I just wrote about in a reply! People excluding pertinent words from the amendment should such language counter their beliefs. HERE is the CORRECT wording: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Research yourself if in doubt.

Now what was that you said about "it says what it says"?

:facepalm:...Let's start with the first part of the statement:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."

This means: A small military(such as the National Guard), is necessary to make sure that our freedoms in the US, are not in danger.

Here is the second half:

[b]"...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

This means: The people, which means individuals, have a RIGHT to OWN and KEEP FIREARMS, and that this RIGHT shall not be taken away.

Now, let's put the two together, shall we? Here we go:

A small military(such as the National Guard), is necessary to make sure that our freedoms in the US, are not in danger; the people, which means individuals, have a RIGHT to OWN and KEEP FIREARMS, and that this RIGHT shall not be taken away.

What you like to do is take that statement, and say that it ONLY meant a militia, when you are dead wrong. It clearly separated and defined what it meant. You would have to have mental retardation, not to see this.

Now, what was it that you were saying about "research yourself if in doubt"?

"Every time there is a bang, the world's a wanker short." -Billy Connolly

[–] JonahVarque 13 years ago

re statistics about guns in a home being far more likely to be used against a household member than against an intruder.

I would have thought it was fairly obvious, with all the suicides and domestic violence there is. And I also would have thought that if I was running a gun company or a gun lobby, I would work hard to suppress such stats if they exist. But here is a cited source http://www.ncgv.org/facts

WARNING!
Objects under T-shirt are larger than they appear!

[–] Scotty7617 13 years ago

"re statistics about guns in a home being far more likely to be used against a household member than against an intruder"

Yeah, and why do you think that is? Because in a neighborhood with a lot of gun owners there's much less of a chance of there being an intruder in a house. Criminals tend not to like places with loose gun laws where their victims are more likely to be able to defend themselves.

"Evidently, madam, you and I differ greatly in our conception of beauty."

[–] JonahVarque 13 years ago

Well, no, I doubt you could ever find stats that suggest what you're dreaming up.

I have lived in Texas. Most of my neighbors had guns. There were still plenty of break-ins.

In places with a lot of guns, there are still intruders. There are relatively few confrontations because the intruders rarely try to intrude when anyone's around.

Meanwhile, for suicidal gun owners, you're always in the presence of yourself. For domestic violence cases that are gun owners, you're in the presence of your better half a lot of the time. In the cases of gun owners under the influence of drugs and alcohol, there you are, the guns are at hand. All of these cases happen in the millions every day in the USA. Intruders? Maybe a few thousand per day. And probably the likely presence of guns manages to bring this number down from "a few thousand plus a few dozen" to "a few thousand".

When people find themselves in a position of poor judgement skills, better to have a Teddy Bear at hand than a loaded gun, don't you think? Read those stats.

WARNING!
Objects under T-shirt are larger than they appear!

[–] lilkunta3 15 years ago

scotty
These are 40 jokes & sarcasm right?
Bc DC murder rate hasnt decreased.
|
IndiaArieTESTIMONY VOL2:LOVE&POLITICS

[–] jt-hix2112 15 years ago

Yes, I am going to guess that the OP is being slightly sarcastic. But just a little.

SPOILER ALERT: Soylent Green is, in fact, people.

[–] KillerMovieMan 15 years ago

I'm all in favor of gun control...Everyone should get to the range once a month :)

PS.

#41) The Justice System(?) routinely locks criminals away so they can never hurt anyone again.

PPS.

Best post I've seen in years.

[–] martaug7 15 years ago

Have you noticed since you completely demolished most of their arguments, not a single "oh teh evil guns!" minded person has posted. :)

[–] cajayson8301 14 years ago

Have you noticed since you completely demolished most of their arguments, not a single "oh teh evil guns!" minded person has posted. :)

. What's there to "Demolish" once the entire speel's colored in satire and nothing more? Provide a serious, non biased, assessment supporting full access to guns and THEN we shall see about "demolishing" opinions. No sane criminologist would dare invoke the original poster's reasons when publishing pieces explaining the cause and effect attributed to gun control measures.

While you are at it, explain to Congresswoman Giffords and/or her husband your thoughts on loose gun control as essential towards achieving a secure, free state (re: the Second Amendment's objective)

If mothers ruled the world, there would be no god damn wars in the first place-Sally Field

[–] HeisenbergsLastStand 13 years ago

While you are at it, explain to Congresswoman Giffords and/or her husband your thoughts on loose gun control as essential towards achieving a secure, free state (re: the Second Amendment's objective)

That's exactly the type of lowball remark I'd expect from someone who interned for Dianne Feinstein. Using a tragedy to exploit a certain topic, all the while ASSUMING thoughts and opinions that the Giffords family would have. Real classy there, Jason.

As for having to show you a "reason" why someone should have "full access to guns", all I need is the Second Amendment. I don't need your approval, and just because YOU don't agree with something, doesn't mean that it should be limited or taken away. The fact of the matter is, criminals will always have access to guns. You can't disprove that. If you limit or take away guns from LAW ABIDING CITIZENS, criminals still will have access. The law abiding citizen will have to suffer because you feel safer about them not having access, all the while criminals will ALWAYS have access to them. You can't disprove that either. Those last statements are more than enough reason, and if you don't like it, then tough sh!t. As for the "criminologist" comment, you don't have a degree in "Criminology", I do. So, I can see right through your comments.

"Every time there is a bang, the world's a wanker short." -Billy Connolly

[–] d_henderson1810 13 years ago

You say that if the people don't have guns, then the criminals will, and who will protect you?

Well, what do you think the police are for? They should be allowed to carry guns, as it is their job to capture criminals, not yours! They are there to protect society, not for society to protect itself. The military are also given guns, so that they can protect society on an international level.

My point is, don't worry about who will protect you if your guns are taken away. Any fair government will allow the police force and military, and those charged with protecting society from those intenting to harm it. That's their job, not yours.

However, I suspect you are the type who thinks that the police and military are corrupt, so they won't be there to help you when you need it.

You have trust issues!

[–] HeisenbergsLastStand 13 years ago

Well, what do you think the police are for? They should be allowed to carry guns, as it is their job to capture criminals, not yours! They are there to protect society, not for society to protect itself. The military are also given guns, so that they can protect society on an international level.

Are you joking, or are you just a bit daft?!? You're right, police are supposed to catch criminals, but in order to catch many criminals, those criminals have to commit a criminal act. You know, a violent crime such as murder and/or assault. What about numerous times every year where criminals break into a person's house, while that person is in it? What if that person has a family? What about various muggings, where the mugger has no reason to keep you alive, especially if you can ID him? What about rapes? What are the police supposed to do, have Captain Kirk tell Scotty to beam the police to your location, within a matter of seconds? Are you really this stupid?!? Contrary to popular belief, even if SOMEHOW you were able to call 911, prior to being robbed, raped, assaulted, or murdered...it takes AT LEAST a good 6-8 minutes (many times 15-20, in my experience), for the police to arrive. Regardless of what you may think, there are more citizens, than there are police. I have the RIGHT to be able to defend MYSELF, my family, or to defend someone else I see in trouble. I don't need a document, or really even need to explain this, for that matter. But, I LOVE tearing apart arguments that have more holes than Swiss cheese.

My point is, don't worry about who will protect you if your guns are taken away. Any fair government will allow the police force and military, and those charged with protecting society from those intenting to harm it. That's their job, not yours.

You...don't have a point. You live in an imaginary world consisted of rainbows & b1owjobs. Nothing bad ever happens, because if anything bad ever happened, the police, with the help of Capt. Kirk/Scotty, Col. O'Neill/Daniel Jackson, Marty McFly/Doc...would be beamed, teleported through the Stargate, or go back to the future, in order to stop crime......as it happens. The police or military CAN'T stop crime AS IT HAPPENS. The victims have to hope that they're alive or unharmed by the time the police get there. You have this convoluted perception that the police/government/military...rule over the people. That is quite sad, that this is what is being indoctrinated into people nowadays.

However, I suspect you are the type who thinks that the police and military are corrupt, so they won't be there to help you when you need it.

Since I have a Bachelor of Science in Criminal Justice, as well as a Bachelor of General Studies, with an emphasis in Psychology, as well as having interned in the past with my local police Crime Lab, I DO have experience in the Criminal Justice field, unlike you. Regardless of how well meaning you intend to be as a police officer, you are taught/indoctrinated, that "civilians" (police psychologically adopt a MILITARY term, to further make themselves a more militaristic style of policing) are to be fearful of police, that police hold the power of law/they know everything about the law...you don't, try to intimidate you into letting them search your trunk/house(without a search warrant or probable cause). Many police departments don't dress like "police officers" anymore. They dress in SWAT-like clothing/gear. If you question them, many will get in your face for even questioning them. Clearly, you're too ignorant of local or federal law enforcement training. They TEACH you to intimidate "civilians" into submission (even if it is questioning or something else), because it makes your job easier. To them, a public that is fearful of police, is a submissive & safe public. This is ALL taught even at a local or state level agency. Don't be so stupid.

You have trust issues!

At least I am thinking like a smart, rational human being. I can't say the same about you. You can't cure someone who has been indoctrinated their whole life into believing that you submit to the government/police/military, and you sure as hell can't cure stupid. You, sadly suffer from both.

They are there to protect society, not for society to protect itself.

This quote of yours DESERVES to be on an EPIC FAIL list. First of all, INDIVIDUALS as a whole, are a society. Every single individual has the potential to defend himself/herself, or to defend their family or someone they see in danger. The police have become so popular, because there are WAY TOO MANY cowards out there, like you, who wouldn't do jack-sh!t if a criminal tried to kill you or kill or rape your wife or kids. Now that I think about it, I HOPE that you have someone try to break into your home or car and try to either kill you, and/or kill or rape your wife and/or kids. That way, you'll be able to see past these foolish ideals that you have in your head.

"Every time there is a bang, the world's a wanker short." -Billy Connolly

[–] nxgn_not_not 15 years ago

#420

only lock up the non-violent
they make better inmates
keep the Rape-ists & axe-mur-der-ers out there so they can keep the peeps cowering in the homes
paying taxes

Servadoo 122112 Kansas1918 Mooch

[–] NoGuff 15 years ago

Excellent post. This should be sent to every anti-2nd Amendment nutjob in country.

"Careful, man, there's a beverage here!" - The Dude

[–] toots81 15 years ago

Dumb yanks. You'll never learn. Every shooting that happens over there proves that the second amendment is ridiculous. Why on earth does your average joe NEED a gun?

[–] NoGuff 15 years ago

Dumb yanks. You'll never learn. Every shooting that happens over there proves that the second amendment is ridiculous. Why on earth does your average joe NEED a gun?

Dumb Limeys, you gave away your gun rights (not that you had them in the first place). I mean, how stupid was that?

Anyway, there are many reasons we need guns, my Liberal friend. One is to protect ourselves from those who wish to break into our homes and steal from us. Another is to protect ourselves from our government. Another is to protect ourselves from YOUR government.

But regardless of all the reasons we need guns and all the ways you'll say I'm wrong, there's one good reason why I should own a gun; it's my God-given right, one which is written in stone as clearly, definitely, and specifically as the foundation of my government.

Not that you'll ever understand that. You're Liberal programming gets in the way of independent thought.

"Careful, man, there's a beverage here!" - The Dude

[–] hoboboxerjoe 15 years ago

Getting really sick of this garbage from both you hard-lining right-wingers and the far-left bat outta hell nut jobs. Both extremists on both sides that generalize the other group are fools to an equal degree. Yeah someone could say "well you just generalized all the extremists!" Yeah, so?

It's a statistical fact that the majority of people don't know very much other than the "first thing" about most political parties. You concentrate on that one thing, you look like an ass.

"Oh you liberals you are all brainwashed and you hate America, and you hate guns, and you are taking our family values away with your rampant homosexuality! Waaa wass"

"No, you conservatives just want to take our personal rights away, let big buisness run everything, and the blood of the innocent is the toll we the people pay! You bigots and your anti-anti-gun-ness and your anti-homosexuality! Blah blah blah"

Y'know what, why don't all you fools just sit down, and just start chewing on a 300lb wheel of cheese together.

PS: Yeah, I own a gun, a Kimber 1911 :)
Oh and I support gay marriage too. This *beep* isn't as black and white as what I'm seeing being "debated."

[–] cajayson8301 14 years ago

Getting really sick of this garbage from both you hard-lining right-wingers and the far-left bat outta hell nut jobs. Both extremists on both sides that generalize the other group are fools to an equal degree. Yeah someone could say "well you just generalized all the extremists!" Yeah, so?

It's a statistical fact that the majority of people don't know very much other than the "first thing" about most political parties. You concentrate on that one thing, you look like an ass.

"Oh you liberals you are all brainwashed and you hate America, and you hate guns, and you are taking our family values away with your rampant homosexuality! Waaa wass"

"No, you conservatives just want to take our personal rights away, let big buisness run everything, and the blood of the innocent is the toll we the people pay! You bigots and your anti-anti-gun-ness and your anti-homosexuality! Blah blah blah"

Y'know what, why don't all you fools just sit down, and just start chewing on a 300lb wheel of cheese together.

Got fed up with that holier than thou, pompous ass somehow insinuating all liberals reside in a 1984 universe mimicking the exact same party line. No, some on the left do support a person's second amendment rights just like a select bunch right wingers oppose efforts banning institutions like gay marriage (take my twin brother. He's a registered Republican who checked off the "No" box on CA's Prop 8 two years ago).

If mothers ruled the world, there would be no god damn wars in the first place-Sally Field

[–] filip54 15 years ago

" One is to protect ourselves from those who wish to break into our homes and steal from us." - How about just buying a solid lock and better door?"

"Another is to protect ourselves from our government." - Yeah, that's going to work...

"Another is to protect ourselves from YOUR government." - I can already see those British ships breaking the horizon.

"it's my God-given right, one which is written in stone as clearly, definitely, and specifically as the foundation of my government." - I'm sure God had a lot to do with it, he is a of course a total gun-nut like yourself.

Basically, from all the stated above, the main reason for having guns is because some people felt you should have guns some couple hundred years ago. Brilliant argument. No, really.

[–] NoGuff 15 years ago

"How about just buying a solid lock and better door?"

--So you're assuming there's no lock and maybe just hanging beads instead of a door? That's one of the lamest "suggestions" I've ever heard. You're stupid.

"Yeah, that's going to work... "

--Whether or not you think it will work, that's part of the 2nd Amendment's intention. You're stupid.

"I can already see those British ships breaking the horizon."

--Well, it has worked TWICE before, you stupid moron. And according to a WWII Japanese General it was one of the primary reasons Japan didn't invade our mainland, because there would be "a gun behind every blade of grass." You're stupid.

"I'm sure God had a lot to do with it, he is a of course a total gun-nut like yourself."

--Well, if you've read anything written by our Founders on this subject you'd realize that's what they believed. This nation was founded by Divine providence, and our fundamental rights are not given to us by other men, or government, but by God. In other words, in case you can't understand, our rights come first before our government's desires. And by the way, it's "arms," not simply "guns."

"Basically, from all the stated above, the main reason for having guns is because some people felt you should have guns some couple hundred years ago. Brilliant argument. No, really."

--They felt we should be able to protect ourselves with whatever was at our disposal, and that we should not be banned from owning and using firearms in our defense, our nation's defense, or in our citizens defense. And they believed it wasn't just a temporary thing. If you believe it was, then you probably think freedom of speech was only of temporary concern. After all, our government is much more stable and capable today, so why do we need free speech anymore? Right?

You believe we don't need arms because the police protect us, right? Or maybe its just that we should not be cheap and instead splurge on a good door and a good lock. Yes, that will keep the bad guys out, right? That's what a lot of people think who want to take away our rights under the Bill of Rights (quite noble of you all, to be honest). But here's something you should know, that is, if it actually matters to you:

Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981) is a U.S. Court of Appeals case in which three rape victims sued the District of Columbia because of negligence on the part of the police. Two of three female roommates were upstairs when they heard men break in and attack the third. After repeated calls to the police over half an hour, the roommate's screams stopped, and they assumed the police had arrived. They went downstairs and were held captive, raped, robbed, beaten, and forced to commit sexual acts upon one another and to submit to the attackers' sexual demands for 14 hours. The police had lost track of the repeated calls for assistance. DC's highest court ruled that the police do not have a legal responsibility to provide personal protection to individuals, and absolved the police and the city of any liability.

So how do you feel about that? I'm sure you just love that ruling because it promotes the idea of allowing American citizens to become victimized by others, instead of allowing them to defend themselves. Hooray for freedom!!! Right?

But no, don't take my word for anything, I'm just "a total gun-nut" like "my God." Maybe you'll put more weight into the words of others (that is, if it matters to you at all).

There exists a law, not written down anywhere, but inborn in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading; a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right.
-Marcus Tullius Cicero

Both the Oligarch and Tyrant mistrust the People, and therefore deprive them of arms.
-Aristotle

One of the ordinary modes by which tyrants accomplish their purpose without resistance is by disarming the People and making it an offense to keep arms.
-Aristotle

Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.
-President Thomas Jefferson

The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it.
-President Thomas Jefferson

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
-President Thomas Jefferson

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.
-President George Washington

When any nation mistrusts it's citizens with guns, it is sending a clear message. It no longer trusts its citizens because such a government
has evil plans.
-President George Washington

And if you believe these were just crazy men living in trees 200+ years ago and what they say has no bearing on us today, try these out:

That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there.
-George Orwell

If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you, it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun.
-The Dalai Lama

I would rather have India resort to arms in order to defend her honor than that she should in a cowardly manner become or remain a helpless witness to her own dishonor.
-Mohandas Gandhi

Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.
-Mohandas Gandhi

I do believe that where there is a choice only between cowardice and violence, I would advise violence.
-Mohandas Gandhi

How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: What would things have been like if every police operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive? If during periods of mass arrests people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever was at hand? The organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and, notwithstanding all of Stalin’s thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt.
-Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Vote only for politicians who trust the People to own all types of firearms, and who have a strong pro-Second Amendment voting record. Anti-gun ownership politicians are very dangerous to a free society. Liberty and freedom can only be preserved by an armed citizenry. I see creeping in America, just as in Germany, a drip at a time; a law here, a law there, all supposedly passed to protect the public. Soon you have total enslavement. Too many Americans have forgotten that tyranny often masquerades as doing good. This is the technique the Liberal politicians/Liberal media alliance are using to enslave America.

(Regarding American gun control advocates) Their ignorance is pitiful -- their lives have been too easy. Had they experienced Dachau, they would have a better idea of how precious freedom is. These Leftists should leave America. These Sarah Brady types must be educated to understand that because we have an armed citizenry, that a dictatorship has not yet happened in America. These anti-gun fools are more dangerous to Liberty than street criminals or foreign spies.
-Theodore Haas, Survivor of the concentration camp in Dachau

But how about the other side? You'll probably agree with those who agree with you, that we don't need the 2nd Amendment and armed citizens:

We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society.
-Secretary of State (then Senator) Hillary Clinton

Society's needs come before the individual's needs.
-Chancellor Adolph Hitler

Hmmmm.... Funny how those are so similar. Or how about these:

The National Guard fulfills the Militia in the 2nd Amendment. Citizens no longer need to protect the states or themselves.
-Senator Diane Feinstein

Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA. Ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State.
-Heinrich Himmler, head of the Nazi SS

But no, YOU are correct, citizens protecting themselves is merely an outdated notion belonging more to the days of cavemen than of enlightened men. Nevermind.

"Careful, man, there's a beverage here!" - The Dude

[–] lynsey_poushay 14 years ago

""Yeah, that's going to work... "

--Whether or not you think it will work, that's part of the 2nd Amendment's intention. You're stupid"

So your government amended their own constitution to allow you to bear arms to protect yourselves from them, the people who are giving you the right to bear arms. Something here is not making sense.

""I'm sure God had a lot to do with it, he is a of course a total gun-nut like yourself."

--Well, if you've read anything written by our Founders on this subject you'd realize that's what they believed. This nation was founded by Divine providence, and our fundamental rights are not given to us by other men, or government, but by God. In other words, in case you can't understand, our rights come first before our government's desires. And by the way, it's "arms," not simply "guns." "

So by God-given you really mean government-given-on-behave-of-God, a governemnt you feel the need to protect yourself from. Because who better to determine the will of God other than a bunch of politicians. Didn't your government decide to separate church and state?

[–] NoGuff 14 years ago

Please explain how you came to the conclusion that you have a God-given right to own a gun.

You're kidding, right? If you don't know this you're probably not an American. Given that, I'll give you the short answer. It is, as explained by the Founders, one of the "unalienable rights" granted us by the Creator, as referred to in the Declaration of Independence, and spelled out in the initial Bill of Rights.

So your government amended their own constitution to allow you to bear arms to protect yourselves from them, the people who are giving you the right to bear arms. Something here is not making sense.

So you hate the idea of this right, so you try to intentionally distort the truth so that you can claim to not understand it. Typical Liberal. And since you're not an American and cannot fathom what these rights are, I'll again explain it.

The Amendments were not afterthoughts, things they tacked on because they forgot about them. And the government does not grant these rights, nor any rights. They reside with the People, as granted by God.

So you're right, it doesn't make sense, if described in the ignorant and distrorted way you did.

So by God-given you really mean government-given-on-behave-of-God, a governemnt you feel the need to protect yourself from. Because who better to determine the will of God other than a bunch of politicians. Didn't your government decide to separate church and state?

Ummm.... no. And I think you mean "behalf" not "behave."

They were not simply "a bunch of politicians," many were not politicians at all, and most were statesmen rather than politicians, a concept lost in these times. And isn't it strange to you that at that point in time and in that one place there gathered one of the most significant grouping of the greatest minds of the past several centuries? Not Divine providence?

And once again, I must explain to a foreigner: There's a difference between "freedom of religion" and "freedom from religion." Our government wasn't designed to be devoid of religion or opposed to religion, it was designed to not create an official State religion by the federal government, like the European nations had. In fact, after our Constitution was ratified, Church services were regularly held every Sunday in the Capitol, and several states had official state religions, including Massachusettes.

And finally, you've twice mentioned, with disdain or sarcasm, "a government you feel the need to protect yourself from." Obviously you know nothing at all of history.

China, 1958-1970s, genocide by the Chinese government against the Chinese and Tibetan people, and political dissidents. Estimated 78 million dead.

USSR, 1932-1932, genocide by the Soviet government against the people of Ukraine, and political dissidents. Estimated 23 million dead.

Germany, 1939-1945, genocide by the government against a multitude of peoples/nations, most notably people of the Jewish faith, and political dissidents. Estimated 23 million dead worldwide.

Japan, 1941-1944, genocide against a multitude of peoples/nations, most notably the people of China. Estimated 5 million dead worldwide.

Turkey, 1915-1922, genocide by the government against Armenians, Greeks, and Assyrians. Estimated 2.5 million dead.

Cambodia, 1975-1979, genocide by the government against political dissidents and the Cambodian people in general. Estimated 1.7 millions dead (some estimates as high as 2.5 million).

Then there's the genocide against the people by the governments of North Korea, Ethiopia, Iraq, Angola, Uganda, Liberia, Sierra Leone, etc., etc.

So please, don't try to give me any BS about why citizens don't need to protect themselves from their governments or other governments. Because you're 100% wrong, and you have nothing in your Talking Point arsenal that can make you right.

You know, I used to be just like you, a know-it-all Liberal who actually knew nothing, and I accepted the programming from the Democraps and Liberals and the news media, and I said all the same things you say. Then I woke up and started thinking for myself. Only then did I find the truth. And no, it didn't happen overnight. It was difficult, and other Liberals condemned me for no longer toeing the Liberal agenda. Because your Elitist Liberal masters who are feeding you this programming don't want you to think for yourself and know the truth because then they lose control and lose their power.

So I suggest you do some research on the Second Amendment and what the Founders meant by it. I am right on this because the truth is right. There's no denying it.

"Careful, man, there's a beverage here!" - The Dude

[–] nutsberryfarm 14 years ago

the thing about gun control & banning handguns is that i don't think such a law could be plausibly enforced. the amount of manpower & cost it would take to round up & get every gun is unfeasible. much like there could be a law stating that everyone must wear deodorant from the hours of 9 am to 5 pm. nice idea. tho, it would be impossible to enforce. also when you start making laws that can't be plausibly enforced you undermine the credibility of the law itself.

Yo, bartender, Jobu needs a refill.

[–] NoGuff 14 years ago

the thing about gun control & banning handguns is that i don't think such a law could be plausibly enforced. the amount of manpower & cost it would take to round up & get every gun is unfeasible. much like there could be a law stating that everyone must wear deodorant from the hours of 9 am to 5 pm. nice idea. tho, it would be impossible to enforce. also when you start making laws that can't be plausibly enforced you undermine the credibility of the law itself.

That's a point worth noting and I thank you for making it, but its not about the issue of whether firearm ownership should be banned or not. Its about the logistics of carrying out one of the choices.

Note that both the UK and Australia enacted firearm bans and mandated the People turn them in. And they did. At least the law-abiding citizenry did. Those, of course, are the only ones who will abide by firearm laws, and therefore are the only ones affected by them, and wrongly. As a society we should want our law-abiding citizenry to have the means of defense, not take that away from them. It then leaves only the criminal elements and the government with the weapons.

I think Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini enacted firearm bans in their countries, just before their governments started killing everyone. So did the USSR under Lenin.

But, to Leftists, I'm still totally wrong on this issue, of course.

Note also the concept of "incrementalism" on the part of the gun-control Left. Or as Cass Sunstein puts it, "nudging." Like in California, you take away this gun from the people's right to own, you take away that cosmetic feature of some guns making them illegal, then you enact this ordinance and that law that make it illegal to use or carry the gun in certain places or in certain ways. Then you ban another type of gun, another feature, prevent people from using or having them as part of their daily routine, etc., etc., until one day you find that you're not allowed to have any gun you would want, or a type of weapon you'd want, and you can't make any use of the gun for its intended purpose in the first place. That's nudging. A little here, a little there, so no one notices or goes ballistic about anything because its just a little change. "Just give us this and we won't ask for more," until the next time. Then POOF! They're all gone.

"Careful, man, there's a beverage here!" - The Dude

[–] dpcoronado 14 years ago

Great stuff those last few posts.

The original post about the list, I love it! Including all the sarcasm. =)

To the one poster who said the founders of our nation are just "some people" is like saying Jesus was only just a crazy man from the podunk town of Nazareth. Leave it to people with an already apalling lack of arguments to oversimplify whatever arguments they do have, and oversimplify them even more, till your statement boils down to a bratty, whiny version of "Mine, mine, because I say so."

I sometimes look tiredly at the right to freedom of speech for allowing such unchecked, half-assed arguments from you emotional, kumbaya, gun-grabby types, but I still respect that freedom--I just don't have to like it. So you WILL respect my right to KEEP and BEAR ARMS. Deal with it. And I wouldn't give you the corn out of my sheeyit if you were dying from a 10-day hunger protest about "Waaaah Waaaah...You have Guns!" =( =(

Fair enough?

[–] NoGuff 14 years ago

Thanks a lot. As you may know, its a constant struggle to keep these Neo-Communists from taking away our freedoms, the right to keep & bear arms being one of those they're going after most. We can't let them get away with any of their lies they spread through propaganda and talking points.

Please visit me on my YouTube Channel at youtube.com/user/noguff where I have two videos on this subject that people on both sides should see.

Thanks a lot, and keep up the good work of protecting our rights and raising awareness of them, and exposing those who would take them away.

-NG

"Careful, man, there's a beverage here!" - The Dude

[–] filip54 12 years ago

"How about just buying a solid lock and better door?"

--So you're assuming there's no lock and maybe just hanging beads instead of a door? That's one of the lamest "suggestions" I've ever heard. You're stupid.

I have a fear of people breaking into my house. My solution: Get a solid door and a good lock, get to know my neighbourhood. Your: Buy a gun and feel scared. So no, you're stupid.

"Yeah, that's going to work... "

--Whether or not you think it will work, that's part of the 2nd Amendment's intention. You're stupid.

That's not an valid answer since it avoids any form of critical thinking about the subject and just hides behind a set of words printed on paper. So no, you're stupid.

"I can already see those British ships breaking the horizon."

--Well, it has worked TWICE before, you stupid moron. And according to a WWII Japanese General it was one of the primary reasons Japan didn't invade our mainland, because there would be "a gun behind every blade of grass." You're stupid.

"according to a WWII Japanese General..." Obviously this defeats any kind of objection anyone could ever have on the subject. So case closed. Oh, and many things have worked once, twice or even ten times before in the history of mankind, yet for some reason, these things have also changed over time for reasons such as adapability, reasonable thinking and such. You know, like sun worship, human sacrifice, thinking the earth was flat, changing medieval thinking constitutional laws in many countries in the world. So no, you're stupid.

"I'm sure God had a lot to do with it, he is a of course a total gun-nut like yourself."

--Well, if you've read anything written by our Founders on this subject you'd realize that's what they believed. This nation was founded by Divine providence, and our fundamental rights are not given to us by other men, or government, but by God. In other words, in case you can't understand, our rights come first before our government's desires. And by the way, it's "arms," not simply "guns."

Not interested in what someone sometime somewhere once thought. Look in the mirror, think for yourself. Good luck. Stupid. And by the way, "arms" is something that begins at the shoulders and ends at the hands, problem solved about your constitution.

"Basically, from all the stated above, the main reason for having guns is because some people felt you should have guns some couple hundred years ago. Brilliant argument. No, really."

--They felt we should be able to protect ourselves with whatever was at our disposal, and that we should not be banned from owning and using firearms in our defense, our nation's defense, or in our citizens defense. And they believed it wasn't just a temporary thing. If you believe it was, then you probably think freedom of speech was only of temporary concern. After all, our government is much more stable and capable today, so why do we need free speech anymore? Right?

They thought that a long time ago. In times when it could be argued that it made sense, especially with the British Empire threat. They could not make a rational descision about the future however, because one can, apart from theoretical ideas, such as freedom of speech, right to life and such, which should still be critically reviewed over time as things change all the time and these things might mean something else in different times. For example, right to life today for many like yourself seem to mean right for me to take your life as soon as my feeble mind believes my life is threatened.

Good luck, stupid.

[–] NoGuff 12 years ago

"I have a fear of people breaking into my house. My solution: Get a solid door and a good lock, get to know my neighbourhood. Your: Buy a gun and feel scared. So no, you're stupid."

--Again, and I don't know why you never read my actual response, you're assuming there is no lock already on the door, and that one doesn't already know his neighbors, both of which are a given. So no, you're the stupid one, because you can't debate with valid points, only invalid ones. And where did I write "and feel scared?" I don't see it.

"That's not an valid answer since it avoids any form of critical thinking about the subject and just hides behind a set of words printed on paper. So no, you're stupid."

--No, it means his point is moot since it's ALREADY my right. So no, you're the stupid one because your wrong-headed ideology gets in the way of critical thinking.

"like sun worship, human sacrifice, thinking the earth was flat"

--When did those things ever work? I must have missed that. What are you, a 7 year old? Are you for real?

"Not interested in what someone sometime somewhere once thought."

--Wow, so you don't want to know what the men who wrote probably the most important and significant legal document in the history of mankind thought and intended for the points made in that document? That's really intelligent and educated of you. No wonder you suck at anything involving cognitive abilities.

"And by the way, "arms" is something that begins at the shoulders and ends at the hands"

--WOW! You're the dumbest person to post on this topic. I can't even begin to describe how stupid you are, it is truly beyond my language skills.

"They thought that a long time ago."

--So your answer is yes, the rights guaranteed in the Bill of Rights were meant to be just temporary. Thank you for your educated and thoughtful answer.

"right to life today for many like yourself seem to mean right for me to take your life as soon as my feeble mind believes my life is threatened"

--You mean as in the "right to life & liberty?" Then yes, you do have the right to defend yourself. That's the whole point, nimrod. Please go look up the word "defend." Maybe you'll start learning something. Damn, you're stupid.

"Careful, man, there's a beverage here!" - The Dude

[–] lynsey_poushay 14 years ago

Please explain how you came to the conclusion that you have a God-given right to own a gun.

[–] cajayson8301 14 years ago

Please explain how you came to the conclusion that you have a God-given right to own a gun.

He can't...all those creative spins were handed to him by some poorly educated NRA follower who refutes the "A Well REGULATED (the key word) militia, being necessary to the SECURITY (capitalized for emphasis) of a free State..." clause. In fact, a gentleman I know of visited a museum of theirs (whatever possessed him to do this, I'll never understand) and noticed a plaque of the amendment's text. Just one small problem: they eliminated the above clause. Once inquiring to why they limited the provision's text, he departed the museum after attendants refused to issue him an answer to what is a reasonable question.

Remember, the agenda driven cut out anything not in accordance with their views. Even in light of Congresswoman Giffords' shooting, fools like NoGuff (should be named "NoBrain") adhere to the naive belief of safety being dependent upon any average Joe, whether that be a kid or former convict or schizophrenic, possessing one luxury handed to them by the Messiah. Yea, nice "argument" even if done in straight myths

If mothers ruled the world, there would be no god damn wars in the first place-Sally Field

[–] HeisenbergsLastStand 13 years ago

He can't...all those creative spins were handed to him by some poorly educated NRA follower who refutes the "A Well REGULATED (the key word) militia, being necessary to the SECURITY (capitalized for emphasis) of a free State..." clause. In fact, a gentleman I know of visited a museum of theirs (whatever possessed him to do this, I'll never understand) and noticed a plaque of the amendment's text. Just one small problem: they eliminated the above clause. Once inquiring to why they limited the provision's text, he departed the museum after attendants refused to issue him an answer to what is a reasonable question.

Cool story Jason...I mean bro. It's funny how on IMDB, anyone can make any story up, just to suit their purpose. I went to the same NRA museum, and they have that question asked ALL OF THE TIME, and they answer and explain it GLADLY. Also, just because YOU don't get why someone visits an NRA museum doesn't mean anything. It's like me thinking that anyone who sits down and watches "All My Children", or any other soap opera, is a lonely, delusional woman or a lonely, perverted man who is detached completely from the world.

I like how YOU spin the 2nd Amendment to YOUR purpose. What about "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", do you not understand? It clearly talks about a needed militia, and that people have the right to own firearms. What about that is hard for you to get?

Remember, the agenda driven cut out anything not in accordance with their views. Even in light of Congresswoman Giffords' shooting, fools like NoGuff (should be named "NoBrain") adhere to the naive belief of safety being dependent upon any average Joe, whether that be a kid or former convict or schizophrenic, possessing one luxury handed to them by the Messiah. Yea, nice "argument" even if done in straight myths []

Aren't you a hypocrite? You say that "the agenda driven cut out anything not in accordance with their views", yet you do the same. You BLATANTLY ignore the full text of the 2nd Amendment, and then you disagree with the 2nd Amendment and its supporters, because you don't share the same beliefs. At the time that the Constitution was drafted, many of the Founding Fathers were religious or agnostic. They put an emphasis on God for a reason though, so you can quit with making fun of someone's "freedom of religion". He wasn't forcing his beliefs on you, yet you forced your beliefs on him. Whatever happened to "freedom of religion"? Also, in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't even matter if it is "God's law", or the law of man. I am a human being with free will. If I want to buy a gun, it is my right. If I want to target practice, hunt, collect, defend myself or my property, it is my right. I don't need your approval. I am not hurting anyone else, unless they choose to do me harm first.

People like you make me sick. You all believe that one should never defend themselves, even when an intruder is in your home. Typical liberals like you think that "Oh, I should just call the cops and wait!"...when it takes cops at least a good 8-15 minutes to get to a residence that has called the cops. Two of my favorite sayings are: "I carry a gun, because a cop is too heavy", and "When seconds count, cops are minutes away". That right there rings true, especially if you've ever been mugged, had a home invasion, or been attacked. Any person who speaks as you do, is ignorant, and all I can do is beat down your "logic", with pure common sense. Other than that, I simply pity you. Any person who speaks as you do, is the typical tree hugging liberal. Before you call me a "right wing looney", I am a libertarian. I believe that my business is my business, and that if you don't like what I do (as long as it is legal), then stick your head where the sun don't shine. But, when someone TWISTS an Amendment of the Constitution...because they don't happen to agree with the principle, therefore they need to misconstrue the Amendment, it gets under my craw.

Also, if someone is trying to rape, murder, assault, etc... another human being, you bet your a$$ that I'll try my darnedest to protect an innocent human being, even if lethal means are necessary. Not because I think that I'm some bad a$$, but because it's the right thing to do, and I would want someone to do the same for me. You, on the other hand, would either grab at the attacker, and thus get a weapon pointed in your face and possibly shot or stabbed at (and you'd probably turn into a surrender monkey), or you'd simply stand there and call the cops. That's what a coward is.

By the way, maybe they should name you JASON "Feisty", because you look like a loony liberal that tries to act tough or knowledgeable, but in the end, you're just a hot bag of air with no real substance.

"Every time there is a bang, the world's a wanker short." -Billy Connolly

[–] cajayson8301 14 years ago

Anyway, there are many reasons we need guns, my Liberal friend

How hilarious that you automatically assume every gun control proponent classifies him or herself as a liberal. Point out where in that message the poster revealed his/her political affiliation.

One is to protect ourselves from those who wish to break into our homes and steal from us.

Something gun control won't deny you should all regulations be followed AS DICTATED BY THE SECOND AMENDMENT (re: "Well regulated militia...").

Another is to protect ourselves from our government. Another is to protect ourselves from YOUR government.

Paranoid much? . Buddy, take it from a gentleman with two internships under his belt. This federal govt. (as I worked for members of the U.S. Congress) ain't breathing down your neck regarding your gun rights. All my co workers and fellow interns had far more pressing matters on our plate than to worry over the closed minded beliefs espoused on your end at one of many message forums. Get a grip.

it's my God-given right, one which is written in stone as clearly, definitely, and specifically as the foundation of my government.

Once again, the Constitution does not once utter the phrase, "God given". Don't worry, as you are hardly alone. Many insist the term, "democracy", is scattered throughout the provisions as well (hint: it is not). Terms like "fundamental" or "inalienable" contrast from your messed up belief that the almighty one personally handed you liberties permitting a choice between a rifle or a revolver. READ the actual text and do such here in this thread. It's not as if my replies here come absent the full, original text.

You're Liberal programming gets in the way of independent thought.

Learn proper spelling ("Your Liberal") before asking others to think critically, NoBrain.

If mothers ruled the world, there would be no god damn wars in the first place-Sally Field

[–] NoGuff 14 years ago

You're a hardcore dedicated Liberal, why would you be so against being called one? Oh, sorry, I know why. It's because you know you're wrong, you just don't have the conviction to admit it. Troll.

"Careful, man, there's a beverage here!" - The Dude

[–] HeisenbergsLastStand 13 years ago

How hilarious that you automatically assume every gun control proponent classifies him or herself as a liberal. Point out where in that message the poster revealed his/her political affiliation.

Well, you're an anti-gun liberal. Someone who interned for Dianne Feinstein, and spends time on IMDB misconstruing the 2nd Amendment and going at it with pro-gun people, is a anti-gun liberal in my book.

Something gun control won't deny you should all regulations be followed AS DICTATED BY THE SECOND AMENDMENT (re: "Well regulated militia...").

If you're going to use the 2nd Amendment, then at least use it in its entirety. It is: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

As I said before, the first part addresses the need for a militia. The second SPECIFIES that the people have a right to keep and bear arms, and that it shall not be infringed. What is so hard to understand about that? If it was about merely a militia, it would have made it clear that: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the "MILITIA" to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." But, since it didn't, the word "people" was used for a reason.

Paranoid much? [] . Buddy, take it from a gentleman with two internships under his belt. This federal govt. (as I worked for members of the U.S. Congress) ain't breathing down your neck regarding your gun rights. All my co workers and fellow interns had far more pressing matters on our plate than to worry over the closed minded beliefs espoused on your end at one of many message forums. Get a grip.

Then, you're spitting on and mocking the Founding Fathers. Ones, such as Thomas Jefferson felt that you needed to protect yourself from a tyrannical government, if one came into play. As far as the Founding Fathers' and historical figures' opinion on firearms and freedom, here it is:

-"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason

-"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …"
Richard Henry Lee

-"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson

-"… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms"
Philadelphia Federal Gazette

-"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams

-"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington

-"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

-"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee

-"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry

-"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry

-"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson

-"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson

-"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton

-"The greatest danger to American freedom is a government that ignores the Constitution."
Thomas Jefferson

-"There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters. "
Noah Webster

-"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion."
Edmund Burke

-"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
Thomas Jefferson

-"They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Ben Franklin

"Every time there is a bang, the world's a wanker short." -Billy Connolly

[–] HeisenbergsLastStand 13 years ago

By the way, Jason/cajayson8301:

Here are a couple of quotes from anti-gun people, including one of your favorites:

-"Our main agenda is to have all guns banned. We must use whatever means possible. It doesn't matter if you have to distort the facts or even lie. Our task of creating a socialist America can only succeed when those who would resist us have been totally disarmed."
Sara Brady

-"If you wish the sympathy of the broad masses, you must tell them the crudest and most stupid things."
"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!"
Adolph Hitler

Jason, I think that your new name should be "NoBrain", since it shows quite easily.

"Every time there is a bang, the world's a wanker short." -Billy Connolly

[–] Scotty7617 15 years ago

"Every shooting that happens over there proves that the second amendment is ridiculous."

Ridiculous? What do you call the case of Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer who got sentenced to life in prison for shooting two robbers who broke into his home and got sued by one of them?

Every shooting that happens over here proves that GUN CONTROL is ridiculous, seeing as the places in the states with the strictest gun laws, ie Chicago and DC, always seem to have the highest violent crime rates.

Also, note how the places where massacres occur, like Columbine high School, Westroads Mall, and Virginia Tech all were "Gun Free Zones." Didn't the shooters understand that they weren't allowed to bring guns there? Maybe a bigger sign would have reminded them. Maybe then they would have seen it and said "Oh, shoot, a gun free zone. Looks like I can't go on my massacre today."

"Why on earth does your average joe NEED a gun?"

Oh, I don't know. Maybe because the average CRIMINAL has a gun, and can always get one, legal or not.

"The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. Oh, and starvation, we might all starve."

[–] southpaw734 15 years ago

"34. Police officers have some special Jedi-like mastery over hand guns that private citizens can never hope to obtain.

37. "Assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people. The police need assault weapons. You do not."

Best two.

Also, the 2nd admendment doesn't require you to have a gun. It is all about choice.

[–] cajayson8301 14 years ago

This should be sent to every anti-2nd Amendment nutjob in country.

More like give The Onion something for one day's worth of publishing. A Criminal Justice Professor the OP is NOT .

Or perhaps let Congresswoman Giffords' family see these "reasons"...make them feel better to know her "God" given right to possess a firearm (your word, not mine. No such word as "God" anywhere in our Constitution, including the Second Amendment. Find another BS excuse, NoBrain) would have prevented her injuries.

If mothers ruled the world, there would be no god damn wars in the first place-Sally Field

[–] HeisenbergsLastStand 13 years ago

More like give The Onion something for one day's worth of publishing. A Criminal Justice Professor the OP is NOT [] .

...And neither are you. You've spent your entire time as an intern for anti-gun liberals, and with your degree in Political Science. You're out of your element.

Or perhaps let Congresswoman Giffords' family see these "reasons"...make them feel better to know her "God" given right to possess a firearm (your word, not mine. No such word as "God" anywhere in our Constitution, including the Second Amendment. Find another BS excuse, NoBrain) would have prevented her injuries.

Another lowball remark, at the expense of Giffords' family. By the way, you know she's a gun owner, right? Maybe do your research next time. It's a tragedy, but you don't simply ruin something for every gun owner because of an incident, or incidents.

"Every time there is a bang, the world's a wanker short." -Billy Connolly

[–] Andy4444 15 years ago

Awesome post, Scotty!

The best is that after reading it, the drone from across the Pond ignores all 40 points and repeats the anti-gun nonsense like a parrot.

The fact that some people insist on ignoring reason and working to teake away your freedom for your own good is reason enough to arm yourself.

[–] lynsey_poushay 14 years ago

Yes, guns are great for defending yourself against words...

Seriously people could you please stop equating gun control and banning private citizens from owning guns. Not being able to make that distinction is not helping your case.

Why on Earth does the Average Joe need access to a semi-automatic weapon? You are really pushing the limits of the 2nd amendment you like to throw out so much.

[–] FAnconia 14 years ago

Not much need, just outlaw primers!

[–] gabby_bm 14 years ago

Always remember that rights exist as part of the construct of man- the right to speak, the right to defend one's self and the right to ownership.

Government does not grant rights. Government oppresses them. Sometimes for the benefit of society, and often not.

Aye. The haggis is in the fire for sure.

[–] cajayson8301 14 years ago

The Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates, which have been declining since 1991.

Poor point...criminologists cite various factors once describing the crime decline trend. Measures establishing rules on firearm possession simply are one such policy initiative at their disposal.

Besides which, even during decline does legislating crime control continue so as to encourage that continual drop.

A majority of the population supports gun control, just like a majority of the population supported owning slaves.

Here's an apple for your orange

If mothers ruled the world, there would be no god damn wars in the first place-Sally Field

[–] TaylorArmstrongsLips 12 years ago

I think if Americans want to kill each other, let 'em!

Your society is incredibly violent and built upon human misery, the American dream hasn't existed since the 1950s, you have the worst pockets of absolute poverty and misery in the developed world and on basic indicators such as life expectancy and infant mortality rate, your country is a dreadful failure. And its economy is about to be overtaken by China!

So I say, give everyone guns! Their society is already the most violent and crime riddled in the Western world, their murder rate is absolutely horrific.

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]