's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

2nd Amendment wasn't created for hunting(82 posts)

2nd Amendment wasn't created for huntingeschelon
May 8, 2003 8:11 AM
I'm all for keeping guns out of the hands of convicts and crazies...but proponents of outright gun bans are nieve and uninformed. Anti-gun folks constantly shout "we need more anti-gun laws!" Please understand folks, when our forefathers created the 2nd Amendment, they weren't thinking about our rights to be able to go shoot Bambi in the woods or to be able to shoot targets at shooting tournaments for a few dollars prize money. They created it so that our government (domestic or foreign) would think twice about ever taking our freedoms away and destroying democracy and also our right to defend ourselves.

There are those that say that it is because of guns that those kids in Columbine and other schools are killing people. It's the guns and the gun manufacturers that are responsible for people being killed. Last time I checked, guns don't have legs or brains and they can't operate by themselves...guns don't kill people...people kill people.

There are those that say if we get rid of all gun ownership, we wouldn't have nearly the amount of crime and death associated with it...this is probably true. Look at all those folks in Iraq, North Korea, China...yep, those people don't have to worry about getting shot in the streets or homes. Yep, their government really has the people's best interests at heart.

No flames please...just constructive arguments please...and for those who can't argue without getting personal or calling names...don't bother. No Bush debate tactics.
small irony?DougSloan
May 8, 2003 8:23 AM
>"No flames please...just constructive arguments please...and for those who can't argue without getting personal or calling names...don't bother. No Bush debate tactics."
As the only pro-gun liberal in the nation . . .cory
May 8, 2003 8:56 AM
I agree with most of your conclusions, if not with all your logic to arrive at them. I'm a stone unreconstructed Kennedy liberal, but I own guns and have taught both my kids to shoot, just because it seemed like a potentially useful skill and it's fun.
Having said that, though, gun nuts are a weird bunch. The NRA would have been a lot better off if it had ditched Wacko Wayne LaPierre years ago. And I don't know how to explain this: I've written a fairly liberal newspaper column for more than 20 years, but I've never advocated (because I don't support) gun control. Despite that, several times a year I get letters bashing my stand on abortion/welfare/pollution control/whatever, and ALMOST ALWAYS the writers toss in something about my "anti-gun" or "anti-Second Amendment" stance as further evidence of my @sshole status.
It ain't there. I don't believe in it. I've never written about it. But the gun nuts see it anyway.
just you and hunter s thompson i guess (nm)ColnagoFE
May 8, 2003 9:38 AM
Nah, I'm a pro-gun liberal too.OldEdScott
May 9, 2003 5:31 AM
I have lots of long guns. Never know when you might have to shoot a varmit, or put an animal out of its misery. Or -- these days -- put up a touch of light resistance when Dick Cheney sends a pack of his goons to arrest me for being 'anti-American' (i.e. criticizing Big Dick).
May 8, 2003 9:14 AM
It'd be interesting to get data on countries that have massacred its citizens when they were unarmed. Then get data on those to countries that have an armed population. Throw in civilians killing civilians with the armed population and see which style promotes more violence.
There is some compelling evidence that ...Live Steam
May 8, 2003 9:14 AM
states that have conceal and carry laws on the books have lower incidence of crimes against people such as rape and robbery. Fist I must state that I am not a gun owner and never have been - that is unless you count the "Hey kid you'll shoot you're eye out" Crossman BB gun I had as a kid. However I am not sure I am comfortable with the government telling me that I am not allowed to own one if I am law abiding and have never been arrested.

Minnesota is or has just passed their conceal and carry law, and an increasing amount of states are heading that direction. I don't know the statistics but I am sure someone here has one for me - I would venture to guess that most gun related crimes are conducted with illegal, unregistered arms by those with prior records. I would also guess that the percentage of those crimes committed with guns that are registered and owned by a licensed user, is very, very small comparatively.
And there is some that it doesn'ttorquer
May 8, 2003 9:54 AM
Of course, its just that panty-waste liberal FBI providing misleading statistics:

"An analysis conducted by the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence, comparing the latest drop in crime rates among the
states, provides compelling evidence that the gun lobby is wrong: more concealed handguns do not mean less crime. According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reports, from 1996 to 1997 the nation’s overall crime rate dropped 3.2%, from 5086.6 to 4922.7 crimes per 100,000 population. More telling, crime fell faster in states that have strict carrying concealed weapons (CCW) laws or that don’t allow the carrying of concealed weapons at all than in states which have lax CCW laws. This strongly suggests that, contrary to the arguments made by the National Rifle Association and others, states should not make it easier for citizens to carry concealed weapons in order to reduce crime.
In the 29 states that have lax CCW laws (where law enforcement must issue CCW licenses to almost all applicants), the crime rate fell 2.1%, from 5397.0 to 5285.1 crimes per 100,000 population from 1996 to 1997.
During the same time period, in the 21 states and the District of Columbia withstrict carry laws or which don’t allow the carrying of concealed weapons at all, the crime rate fell 4.4%, from 4810.5 to 4599.9 crimes per 100,000 population. The decline in the crime rate of strict licensing and no-carry states was 2.1 times that of states with lax CCW systems, indicating that there are more effective ways to fight crime than to encourage more people to carry guns. The research is particularly
important for Missourians who face an April ballot initiative which would radically liberalize that state’s CCW system.
Furthermore, the rate of violent crime fell even faster in states with strict carry laws – falling 4.9% in restrictive states compared to 3.0% in lax states from 1996 to 1997. While the rate of violent crime is higher in strict CCW states, a look at the violent crime rates over a five-year period provides even more evidence that we don’t need lax gun laws to reduce crime. From 1992 to 1997, the violent crime rate in the strict and no-issue states fell 24.8% while the violent crime rate for the lax states dropped 11.4% (the national average is 19.4%). New York and California -- the two most populous states and ones with strict CCW
licensing laws -- experienced dramatic decreases in violent crime over the five-year period. New York experienced a 38.6% decline and California experienced a 28.7% decline, both without putting more concealed handguns on their streets."
Your source is a little out dated :O)Live Steam
May 8, 2003 12:33 PM
I have yet to do a search, but I am sure I can find something more recent than a study from 1997 - especially one that was conducted under the Clinton Administration :O)
Do you know the difference53T
May 10, 2003 9:15 AM
between the FBI and HCI?
this is such an old sawColnagoFE
May 8, 2003 9:37 AM
guns dont kill people, people tired of hearing that. good luck trying to overthrow our tyrranical government with your guns. i don't think you have a prayer--even with a sherman tank in your backyard.
as long as we are on thisDougSloan
May 8, 2003 10:03 AM
There are about 280 million Americans, right? Let's assume only 50 million are armed and capable of using them. How many military people do we have, and particularly how many would be available and willing to take up arms against the citizenry?

50 million squirrelly handgun wielders are no match. . .czardonic
May 8, 2003 10:11 AM
. . .for a tiny fraction of our military laying down heavy ordinance from 35,000 feet or 10 miles away. The jig is up.
Assuming the military chain of command held...TJeanloz
May 8, 2003 12:36 PM
If a quarter of the country were to decide to take up arms against the government, you've got to figure that the military would have some split in it.
It happened in 1861 (nm)torquer
May 8, 2003 12:43 PM
May 8, 2003 12:51 PM
1st assumption is that you could get 25% of the population armed and ready to fight against the government. seems highly unlikely that if there was an issue that would divide the country this much that it couldn't be resolved through political or diplomatic means.
No it didn'tTJeanloz
May 9, 2003 1:20 PM
A lot of the greatest military strategists around in 1861 went South. Lee, Jackson, Stuart - and a sizeable contingent of fellow West Pointers - were directing the Confederate effort. Their equipment was inferior, but their tactical superiority gave the Union Army some trouble for more than a year. In most ways, the South had the better army - the North just had more and better supplies.
Not going to happen, I hope.Charlie Amerique
May 8, 2003 1:11 PM
Given the Posse Comitatus Act, it would be a major breech of constitutional law to involve military forces for domestic police actions... unless we want to go down the same road as countless other dictatorships.

This reason is actually the reason why the 2nd Amendement was introduced. Unfortunatly, it's become outdated as a "well armed militia" would be defined as the National Guard and they are, for the most part, a joke.
not exactly truemohair_chair
May 9, 2003 6:38 AM
The law specifically prevents using the Army and Air Force domestically. It does not prevent use of the Navy and Marines. That's a very important distinction. The National Guard may be a joke (your words, not mine), but the Marines sure as hell aren't. Marines were used during the Los Angeles Riots, for instance.
Not quite53T
May 10, 2003 9:23 AM
The national guard has only been defined as the militia in a few regions of teh country by virtue of two or three circuit cout of appeals rulings. The Supreme Court has never said such a thing. Congress has wighed in, in the Posse comiatus act, teh militia is defined as a broad body of the people, not the guard.

By suggesting that the guard is the militia, you are doing one of two things: a) spreading anti gun rights propoganda for your own benifit, or b) spreading anti gun right propoganda because they have you fooled.
As a colonel in the AF once told meamflyer
May 9, 2003 5:42 AM
"You don't win wars from 35 K feet. You win wars by kicking down doors with a M16 in your hands..."
Tell me one nation of oppressed people without guns...eschelon
May 8, 2003 10:25 AM
who have overthrown their tyrannical/oppressive regimes?

Had the Muslim minority not had any guns in Kosovo/slavic regions against the better armed/trained Serbians of Milosivic's regime, the bodycount resulting from the "ethnic cleansing" would have been if the body count isn't high enough...and the true death toll will probably never be known except to the victims and the killers at large.

So long as the population at large is able to defend themselves and at least are provided a means to balance the the power to keep at bay any repressive governments agenda to take away the people's freedom and right to live and prosper...then the small evil few who taint the concept of gun ownership among the masses is a small price to pay for the sake of preserving the freedoms and the future freedoms of us and our children. After all, my father had so many guns in our house as children...but we never ever messed around with his guns nor did we ever tempt fate...he raised us well and to top it off, we all knew where he kept his guns along with the ammo and many times, he didn't worry about having to keep his guns locked or unloaded. It wasn't luck that my brothers and I didn't blow each other's heads off. It was good parenting.
East Germany? (nm)torquer
May 8, 2003 10:32 AM
Most of the Soviet Bloc, for that matter. (nm)czardonic
May 8, 2003 10:42 AM
Wow. I hadn't noticed...Matno
May 8, 2003 4:58 PM
Last time I checked, the people in charge in the former USSR are the same ones who were in charge before the "fall of communism." Maybe a little less outwardly hostile, but the same political party, the same ideology, and even most of the same faces. Just ask anyone who's tried to start a business under their "free market" in Moscow how easy it is. All you have to do is pay 95% of your profits to the Russian mafia and you're set! Most of the former Soviet states retain similar communist regimes and only split off from the SU because their local (well armed) militaries were tired of Moscow's control.

As for East Germany, I think that one was more economically motivated than even Russia. When the entire army realizes that it's better on the other side of the wall, there aren't enough hardliners left to stop them. The amount of money that has been poured into East Germany (from West Germany) since October 1989 is staggering. Having lived in both East and West in the Early 90's, I can say that the difference was amazing. Not just the wealth, but the attitude toward gov't. Now that they are part of the voting for the "whole" country, look who's running Germany. It isn't anyone remotely resembling what we would call "conservatives." But then, Germany was never even close to being a conservative country...
Why am I not surprised?czardonic
May 8, 2003 5:57 PM
I guess you agree that the US had nothing to do with the collapse of the Soviet system since you seem to be saying that it never collapsed in the first place.

You are arguing completely different issues.
History says your answer is incorrect.eschelon
May 8, 2003 10:46 AM
East Germany communist regime did not collapse due to the efforts of the general population collapsed because the Soviet Union communist regime collapsed...or more specifically, the communist system collapsed along with the money and state run industries that ran the country collapsed. And since the East German communist regime was grossly inadequate to run a country no longer life-lined by the Soviet Union, and unable to become a part of the world market economy, it only made sense to re-unite with the other half of the country that was economically doing very well.

By no means was this a "pascifist victory" for the freedom of the people of East Germany. It was simply the resignation of the communist regime of East Germany to work in a new and better system that has shown better performance.
Nonetheless, arms were trumped by non-violent events. (nm)czardonic
May 8, 2003 10:49 AM
True. Time has way of eliminating oppression/evil...eschelon
May 8, 2003 11:00 AM
albeit many many decades (Communist Soviet Union) or Slavery of Jews (Egypt-many hundreds of years)...personally, who wants to wait that long?
but I'm angry nowmohair_chair
May 8, 2003 11:06 AM
Indeed. Who wants to wait that long?

If only Moses had an Uzi, God wouldn't have had to part the Red Sea.
I know, but the East Germans only had to wait it out...eschelon
May 8, 2003 11:18 AM
for about 80 years after World War 2 to finally have the Capitalist freedom the rest of the world seems to enjoy these days!

But as far as Moses goes...well what can you really say about all that? Well at least we have Matza!
80 years after WWIImoneyman
May 8, 2003 11:27 AM
would mean it was 2005.

While much of the world DOES enjoy the multitudinous benefits of capitalism, there are plenty of places in the world where tyranny - economic and political - is still the system in place.

Huh? 80 years after WWIIThe Walrus
May 8, 2003 3:40 PM
would mean it was
i 2025.
Did you and Bill Bennett study math at the same school?
May 9, 2003 6:53 AM
My calculator wasn't working. Listen to what I meant, not what I said. My bad, thanks for the correction.

People who don't want to be killed in a futile rebellion? (nm)czardonic
May 8, 2003 11:10 AM
I guess its a choice of die fighting oppressionm or die...eschelon
May 8, 2003 11:21 AM
in the safety of accepted oppression...........apathy.
Didn't some live through it? (nm)eyebob
May 8, 2003 11:35 AM
Maybe a couple. But I am sure that if give the choice. . .czardonic
May 8, 2003 4:01 PM
. . .they'd trade freedom today for death in the pursuit of freedom through violence yesterday.
Thank you, Dr. Historytorquer
May 8, 2003 12:00 PM
for returning us to the shining path of correct thinking. (Insert emoticon for sarcasm here.)

I tried to answer the question: "Tell me one nation of oppressed people without guns..." who have overthrown their tyrannical/oppressive regimes?

Why doesn't East Germany (as well as the other former Eastern European satellites) qualify? Because the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of its own decrepitude? The fact remains that "regime change" was accomplished without violence.

Even if you maintain that the Germans depended upon the collapse of the Soviet Union, again this was accomplished without Soviet citizens taking up arms.

The Communist leadership, in all those states, lost the will to counter the ire of their disgruntled citizens with state violence. The changes in the SU may have been top down (i.e. imposed by Gorbachov), but in the case of the DDR the popular will overwhelmed the Stalinists in power. We can go on all day debating the ultimate causes of the decline and collapse of these states, but an armed citizenry was certainly not a factor.

Regarding another posting in this thread, IMHO "stick to black powder and we'll all be fine" from mohair_chair below (or above) is one of the best contributions to forum I have had the pleasure of reading. (And not just because he is coming down on the same side of this debate as mine, although I guess that helps.) I will save it and refer to it as a model of both passion and reason, a rare combination hereabouts. Job well done!
The armed citizenry was the deciding factormoneyman
May 8, 2003 12:19 PM
But it was the armed citizenry of the US, albeit those citizens were politicians and soldiers. The reason for the collapse of the Soviet Union was because of the miltary and financial strength of the US. The Reds couldn't match the amount spent on defense without bankrupting themselves, which they did. The DDR followed suit, not because of the will of the people, because that had been broken long ago. It was the collpase of the Soviet system that knocked the Berlin Wall down.

"The Communist leadership, in all those states, lost the will to counter the ire of their disgruntled citizens with state violence." I don't know what history books you've been reading, but I think you should get rid of them, becaue that is patently false. The Communist countries have never given a second thought to the violent repression of their own people, all for the good of the Revolution. To believe otherwise is fantasy.

Well, that's one well-worn and self-congradulatory take.czardonic
May 8, 2003 12:31 PM
Strangely, it's proponents seem to be the same crowd bent on spending U.S. tax dollars hand over fist on defense spending.
Why, thank you!moneyman
May 8, 2003 12:34 PM
Just because it's true doesn't mean that YOU have to believe it. It's never stopped you before.

I think you've got a double negative in there somewhere.czardonic
May 8, 2003 12:56 PM
And I didn't say that I didn't believe it, now did I?

I guess you couldn't resist cribbing from the notes Karl Rove scribbles on Bush's forearm after all.
Tell me what bookstorquer
May 8, 2003 1:11 PM
support your own cherished fantasies.

As I recall (don't need history books for this, I lived through it) it was flesh-and-blood Germans that knocked down the Berlin wall, not some abstract "collapse of the Soviet system."

Whatever contribution Reagan's military build-up may have made to the economic implosion of the Soviet Union, the West was caught by suprise by the events in the DDR. The Federal Republic, in fact, while paying lip service to eventual reunification, persued a policy aimed at stabilizing the DDR.

It was only when the Ossies started fleeing in huge numbers through the opened borders via Hungary to the West did the Eastern regime realize that the policy of shooting its own people could not be sustained. The old-line Stalinists were replaced by "moderates", who were in turn ousted in a popular electoral process.

You can give all the credit you want to the armed citizenry of the US for this, but it was the Germans, after bleeding and dieing for 40 years, who did the dirty work. Without guns.
Tell me what booksmoneyman
May 8, 2003 1:58 PM
The first time the "Ossies" started fleeing en masse through open borders, the Communists built the wall. Then they shot those brave/foolhardy enough to try to get over/under/through the wall. Why did they stop this practice? Because of a sudden resurgence of humanitarianism? Hardly. They stopped because the Soviet Union was collapsing, draining the lifeblood from the DDR dictators hold on the country.

Why would the old-line Stalinists allow a "real" vote? One reason. They had US Army forces stationed next to their borders with weapons they, the Stalinists, couldn't match. And that is the only reason the West Germans remained "West" for forty years as well. If it wasn't for the US guns, Deutschland would have been reunited as the Socialist Republic of Germany.

Try reading the history as written by those observing events from outside. When one is in the middle of it and claims not to need the books, one's vision becomes tunnel-like. Think forest/trees.

books, schmooks (long and tedious, sorry)torquer
May 9, 2003 8:38 AM
When I read the first paragraph of your post, moneyman, I don't find any "facts" on which we disagree.

As to your next paragraph, if you re-read my prior post, I never stated that it was the old liners who allowed a vote, real or not. The communist hierarchy tried to reinvent itself (much as Gorbachov tried in Russia), and the less doctrinaire followers tried (in vain, as it turned out) to establish their legitamacy via elections.

Now, whatever "facts" may remain in dispute, this debate is going rather far afield from the original issue of Americans' supposed right to bear arms; even if I were to allow your claim that "US guns" secured freedom for East Germans, it realy is a stretch to use B-1 bombers and Trident submarines in the arguement for greater public access to assault weapons, Uzis and armor-piercing ammo.

Your are correct to point out my claim not to need books was intemperate, but what is this forum for if not intemperance. I came across an interesting concept of history this morning: in contrast to claims that history is a finite object that can be objectively evaluated, this particular writer claimed that is more like a climate. Now the climates I have experienced include their share of foggy days, and I accept that. The only ones that are unrelievedly bright and clear belong to the arid regions of dogmatism.

A final thought: the original question was about unarmed populations throwing off tyrany; additional examples that subsequently came to mind are South Africa (not a pure unarmed struggle, but the apartheid regime fell due to external political and economic pressure, not military), and that Mother of all peacefull change, Gandhi's leadership of the Indian struggle for independence from the British empire. (The struggle of African-Americans to throw off their own political burdens could be added to this list). I know that these may be imperfect examples and since I don't have the emotional stake in these additions, I will let any responses go unchallenged. I need to go see what the reaction was to my Saddam/UFO posting.
May 9, 2003 9:18 AM
It did get rather far afield, and I never meant to insinuate that 2nd amendment rights freed the masses living under Communist tyranny.

History is anything but finite, as I have argued several times before. "Facts" are rarely facts, but rather opinions generated by one's experiences. While your experiences in Germany, assuming you were there at the time the wall came down, are certainly valuable and valid, they are YOUR experiences. History tends to be a compilation of experiences making up an overview of the story, subject to the interpretations of the author. First-person interviews are a vital part of writing history, but they must be taken in context.

In each of your examples, there was plenty of violence on boths sides. They may have been largely peaceful, but there are disturbingly large amounts of violence practiced by the oppressors and the oppressed.

No challenge to your response. Saddam in a UFO? Where?

Gun Control is a must!jaybird
May 8, 2003 9:46 AM
Of course my idea of gun control is hitting what you are aiming at...
stick to black powder and we'll all be finemohair_chair
May 8, 2003 10:17 AM
What a pathetic argument to say "Look at all those folks in Iraq, North Korea, China...yep, those people don't have to worry about getting shot in the streets or homes. Yep, their government really has the people's best interests at heart."

There's a saying in the world of debate that if you have to bring up Hitler in your argument, you've already lost. That's basically what you're doing.

Lots of other countries have very restrictive gun laws, such as Great Britain. Why don't you throw the UK in your list with Iran, North Korea, and China? Perhaps because it it isn't hyperbolic and defeats your premise?

Yes, guns don't kill people, people kill people. But less people would be killing other people if it wasn't so easy to do with guns. You know that's true. Everyone knows it's true. Most murders in this country are crimes of passion, meaning they aren't premeditated, and easy access to guns has a lot to do with it. As Homer Simpson once said, when told of the waiting period for guns, "But I'm angry NOW!"

I am not anti-gun. I don't own any and never will, but I've shot all kinds of weapons. I'm just tired of hearing all the ridiculous rhetoric that comes from that side of the fence.
Talk about hyperbole...lumping GB with the Axis of Evileschelon
May 8, 2003 10:35 AM
is not the same. I wouldn't go so far as to juxtapose N Korea and the others with Hitler or Stalin.

There is no argument when you consider that a states that enforces no gun ownership have lower gun fatalities...therefore the likelihood of you or someone else getting killed by gunshot is lower. But by taking guns away, you are not stopping the propensity of people wanting to murder other people. People will always want to kill other people for any reason. My argument for pro-gun ownership is not about crime's about preserving the rights of the citzenry to prevent government abuses. I certainly hope that you or anyone else out there actually think that our government is our friend that we don't have to keep checking up on.
the myth of tyrannymohair_chair
May 8, 2003 10:47 AM
The rhetoric I love the most is about fighting government abuses. That is always a hoot. Let's all join the New Sons of Liberty and throw some tea in the harbor.

In case you haven't noticed, it's not 1776 anymore.

The government is your friend, whether you like it or not. The umbrella of protection it provides you on so many levels is what allows you to fantasize about it abusing you. Maybe all our kids should pack heat to protect against parental abuse. You know, abuse such as mom sending you to your room without dinner. It's the same idea, isn't it?
Talk about hyperbole...lumping GB with the Axis of EvilJon Billheimer
May 8, 2003 10:51 AM
First of all, look at the American homicide rate, particularly involving guns and compare it to most other countries. The numbers are telling and obvious. Second, the whole issue is probably so far out of control that it'll never get fixed. America is a society supersaturated with guns and America is reaping the obvious consequences.

Third, the founding fathers' interest in an armed populace as a counterweight to tyranny is now rather outdated. Government power is so overwhelming and oppressive as to be totally irresistable. Violent overthrow of the American government under ANY circumstances is not even a fantasy. So that argument these days is totally irrelevant, but unfortunately still lingers as part of the American political/historical mythology. The NRA and gun manufacturers of course take full advantage of it to keep on selling guns and making money. Whether or not someone likes guns, likes to shoot Bambi or whatever, I would think that the motivation behind the gun lobby arguments are patently obvious.

Americans will keep on buying, owning, and using guns. Accidents will co ntinue to happen; murders and injuries by gun-wielding people will go on and on. The question is, realistically, how to mitigate the damage. And personally I don't have a clue and I don't think anyone else really does either. There's a passage from the Bible that says that we sow in the wind and reap in the whirlwind. We are reaping in the whirlwind for sure.
" Most murders in this country are crimes of passion"Live Steam
May 8, 2003 12:27 PM
Please show a source for this claim. Also one cannot be protected very well from a crime of passion. That is an unknown entity. The crimes that are of concern for the vast majority of the population are street crimes. These are the crimes that involve unregistered handguns. I just feel that someone bent on committing a crime will do so and more than likely commit that crime while carrying a gun. Criminals will always have access to guns. The law abiding citizen will be disadvantaged if guns are outlawed.
Most homicides are commited with guns. . .czardonic
May 8, 2003 12:41 PM
. . .but (my conjecture) a minority of people, even murderers, have the werewithall to kill someone by other means.

Any jerk can pull the trigger from a safe distance. Engaging someone hand to hand, or even with a knife (second most common weapon used in homicides) is a whole different ball of wax.

Just ask yourself which situation you would rather find yourself in should someone attack you.
I'd rather have a gun.moneyman
May 8, 2003 12:52 PM
to defend myself against your hypothetical attackers. Wouldn't you?

I don't feel the need to protect myself against hypotheses (nm)czardonic
May 8, 2003 1:17 PM
It can't happen here...moneyman
May 8, 2003 2:01 PM
Just keep thinking that way.

Your guns protect you from government opression.czardonic
May 8, 2003 2:29 PM
Just keep thinking that way.
Hey Ceasar,53T
May 10, 2003 9:27 AM
Exactly why didn't Gemany march on Switzerland? (deleted text: )
And your point is?Live Steam
May 8, 2003 12:53 PM
Criminals will always have access to guns. Why should law abiding citizens be deprived should they feel the need to own a gun for protection. If you are talking about a crime of passion - I'll bet that there are an awful lot of people killed with kitchen steak knives each year too. Should they be outlawed too?
Criminals will indeed always have guns. <i>Yours!</i>czardonic
May 8, 2003 1:10 PM
"Yours" reffering collectively to the law abiding (but common sense impervious) gun-owning public. Between 1987-1992 (good, solid, non-Clinton years) an average of 83,000 people a year used guns to defend themselves. During the same time, they put an average of 341,000 guns into the hand of criminals by buying them and leaving them unprotected from theft. Nice work. (

How about this? You can own a handgun but only if you can demonstrate that you are dexterous enough in its use to cut a steak with it. You can own a hand-grenade or Stinger missle too if you can prove the same legitimate, non-violent use.
why bother?mohair_chair
May 8, 2003 1:45 PM
I'd take the trouble to look it up, but you'd probably claim it was a Clinton-era study and discount it, as you did with torquer above.
What's a "Bush debate tactic?" (nm)eyebob
May 8, 2003 11:04 AM
May 8, 2003 11:15 AM
I've many debates on television and have seen numerous examples of how candidates/incumbents try to get personal with each other, name calling, belittling, trying to piss off the other guy...all behavior that I find in bad taste. The whole debate becomes less in substance and more in the direction of psychological warefare...something that never gets anything important done...finding the truth, determining the facts by collectively and constructively weighing differing viewpoints of all people.

I didn't watch all of the debates between Gore and Bush, but what really stood out from what I saw was that Bush was doing the psychological warefare thing on Gore. It just wasn't very professional looking...I mean the nation's future as well as the people's lives were at stake here. Not pro dem or rep here...just good government.
Darn rightmoneyman
May 8, 2003 11:24 AM
"the nation's future as well as the people's lives were at stake here."

Good thing Gore lost, else we'd all be in trouble.

I know...eschelon
May 8, 2003 11:30 AM
Gore is a pussy. We already know about I won't spend time on his faults.
Give him enough rope, and he'll hang himself.eyebob
May 8, 2003 11:40 AM
No offense but didn't you request no name calling? What's "Gore is a pussy?" then? Just a question. Some jumped on me when I called a few of our elected officials "whacko" the other day.....

Tolerance is a two way street.

I guess I should clarify myself...eschelon
May 8, 2003 11:55 AM
I thought my request for no name calling was obvious, but I guess not. I apologize. Please don't Dixie Chicks me.

My request was for fellow posters including myself...not political figureheads or celebrities, or whatever. I don't think I have to apologize for my personal opinion of Gore...I don't think he frequent
That's good - you're learning!moneyman
May 8, 2003 12:23 PM
But the quote is "Tolerance is NOT a one-way street."

Explanation (more please)eyebob
May 8, 2003 11:43 AM
What psychological warfare thing exactly did he do? Perhaps my memory is fading....

Explanation (more please)eschelon
May 8, 2003 12:00 PM
My memory based on the limited amount of debate viewing I saw clearly showed Bush calling Gore's economic numbers/stats "fuzzy math"...which simply is a cowardly way of simply calling Gore a lier. Gore may have been lieing...Bush may have been lieing...who knows, certainly the majority of the American poblic doesn't.

Political debates in America are simply not about's just about making the other guy look bad...reminds me of high school elections..."vote for me because I'm popular."
Bush and psychological warfare?DougSloan
May 8, 2003 12:15 PM
Sounds like you may be giving Bush too much credit, according to most of his assailants.

May 8, 2003 12:21 PM
Bush was merely steering the debate into safe and familiar territory, anti-intellectualism and meaningless platitude.
Constructive argument...moneyman
May 8, 2003 11:20 AM
I'll give up my guns when I receive a guarantee from the governing bodies that criminals no longer have weapons, or when I can be guaranteed armed police protection 24 hours a day. Until then, I have a responsibilty to my family and a right to protect my property. I own several guns, I am well equipped to handle them, and would use them without hesitation if the events called for that kind of action.

We already have gun laws...eschelon
May 8, 2003 11:28 AM
and year after year, the politicians and the anti-gun lobby groups call for more laws and more laws against guns...yet we still have gun-related crimes. The laws and the government's attempts to keep us safe from the criminals who get the GUNS ILLEGALLY don't work to keep us all safe.

JeeseOPeetes, drunk drivers and drunk driving related deaths and injuries (permanent and non-permanent) cause more needless deaths and suffering than illegal guns ever do. And yet, the pure negligent act of driving drunk and killing/maiming people in the process is considered and "accident."
re: 2nd Amendment wasn't created for huntingpurplepaul
May 8, 2003 2:12 PM
I'll tell ya, when I visit my cousin out on his farm in the middle of nowhere, and he brings out his guns so we can shoot cans off of twigs, and he says, "what's wrong with my having guns" I have to admit that it seems unjust to deny him the priviledge. But when I come back to NYC, and people are willing to beat the sh!t out of each other for things like not driving through a red light fast enough, I shudder to think what would happen if even just the most "respectable" citizens had guns.
re: 2nd Amendment wasn't created for huntingMatno
May 8, 2003 5:03 PM
People who can't control themselves and give in to road rage do not count as "respectable citizens," they are criminals and can go to prison for a long time for something like beating someone up at a traffic light.

I'll bet they'd be a lot more hesitant to start something if they knew the other person might be carrying a gun. As it is, since only criminals carry guns here in NYC, they don't have to worry about getting hurt themselves. All police can do is catch criminals after the fact. Armed citizens can prevent them from becoming criminals in the first place.
Boy, you said it!mohair_chair
May 9, 2003 12:26 PM
All police can do is catch criminals after the fact. Armed citizens can prevent them from becoming criminals in the first place.

Ain't that the truth. If I see a guy and I think he's going to do something criminal, I'm going to shoot him dead. After all, it's my responsibility as an armed citizen to prevent him from becoming a criminal.

We need to be more proactive. Currently, an ordinary citizen only becomes a criminal after committing a crime. That's just too late, in my opinion. We need to start stamping out crime before it happens by locking up and shooting down people who we believe are considering committing crimes. Crime would come to halt.

(sarcasm intended)
Boy, you said it!Jon Billheimer
May 10, 2003 7:21 AM
SO TRUE!!!!!! It's your civic duty, and a direct parallel to pre-emptive attacks on those nasty rogue countries who might become a threat to America. Attacking THEM is one's patriotic duty. After all America and Americans are a PEACELOVING people according to George Strangelove Bush. This all fits and it's so RIGHT!! (pun IS intended)
Fine have your guns, just be responsible for them.Sintesi
May 9, 2003 5:43 AM
If someone takes your unsecured firearm and kills or harms someone with it then you should be held criminally liable. When these kids take guns and kill people the parents should be in jail. If anyone gets your unsecured firearm and kills someone you should go to jail for gross negligence. If someone sells a gun to someone without a background check regarding criminality or insanity (I don't care if it is private owner to private owner) he should face a fine, and imprisonment should that person use the gun in a crime.

A higher standard of responsibility should go with owning guns since their sole design and function is to kill. This is where are gun laws are lacking.
Uh-oh...common sense alert. ;-) nmsn69
May 11, 2003 1:41 PM
I have a great command of the obvious. : ) nmSintesi
May 11, 2003 7:24 PM