[luvtolean]

Will anybody who argues about what guns we need explain to me why we need sportbikes? Fast cars? Plasma TV's? Speakers amplified so at half power they'll make your ears bleed? Junk food? Coffee? Hard alcohol? Beer and wine? The internet? Soda....

[figment]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

Will anybody who argues about what guns we need explain to me why we need sportbikes? Fast cars? Plasma TV's? Speakers amplified so at half power they'll make your ears bleed? Junk food? Coffee? Hard alcohol? Beer and wine? The internet? Soda....

with the exception of fast cars, nothing else on your list is used to actively defend or save lives everyday. There is no comparison. The question of needis

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by Zeeman

Are there restrictions on who can own a gun? The motorcycle/gun comparison was brought up earlier, regardless of your viewpoint, you NEED a license to legaly ride a bike. You need to meet a set of criteria proving that you are capable of handling the motorcycle (even if the requirments are way too low). Does nayone intedning to buy a gun need any form of education or training? do they need to pass any tests? Or is it merely a "cooling off" period?

So, as an open minded person, please inform me of the facts.

Z...

In California, you have to take a gun safety test (you are issued a card allowing you to buy a gun). Then you buy the pistol and have to wait for the background check/cool off period. After the check is over you can go pick up your pistol at which point you must demonstrate you know how to operate the various mechanisms on the gun. They also make you "dry fire" the pistol with the magazine out so you know it can fire in this condition.

In California, it is (edit) about as difficult to buy a gun as to get a driver's license, which I find outrageous.

Now, if you want to carry a loaded gun on your person, you have to go through a more extensive level of testing and licensing than this. It is a very serious offense to carry a loaded gun without a permit.

[rocket]

Originally Posted by Baketech

Not asking anyone to apologize for their POV....and there was no condescension in my post....
Just merely pointing out that just as I find CB16's extremist views repugnant, I also find your extremist views repugnant....without bias or malice.

There is is plenty of room for civil disagreement on this issue...

I'm curious now, what part of my POV do you find repugnant?
The fact that the 2nd isn't for hunting?
The fact that we are not Imperialists as charged by some?
The fact that if we were the evil Imperialists we would bring other nations under our subjection(an example of Australia was used if I remember correctly )?
What exactly is it that is repugnant to you in these statements?

[Baketech]

Originally Posted by rocket

I'm curious now, what part of my POV do you find repugnant?
The fact that the 2nd isn't for hunting?
The fact that we are not Imperialists as charged by some?
The fact that if we were the evil Imperialists we would bring other nations under our subjection(an example of Australia was used if I remember correctly )?
What exactly is it that is repugnant to you in these statements?

As a lifetime gun owner, I find it "repugnant" that you cannot articulate a pro-gun posture without resorting to "fear" based argument. Your invective polarizes those with opposing views instead of helping them understand your legitimate desire to own a firearm...

[CBRVFR]

Kyle from South Park; "Well, I learned something today..."
Googled it -

Molon Labe! (mo-lone lah-veh) (Greek Orgin) The two words mean
“Come and get them!” They live on today as the most notable quote in military history. And so began the classic example of courage and valor in its dismissal of overwhelming superiority of numbers, wherein the heart and spirit of brave men overcame insuperable odds. Today, there lies a plaque dedicated to these heroes all at the site. It reads: “Go tell the Spartans, travelers passing by, that here, obedient to their laws we lie.”

(We) have adopted this defiant utterance as a battle cry in our war against oppression because it says so clearly and simply towards those who would take our arms.

Just passing the information along without comment, I'm sure I'm not the only one who uttered the three words, WTF?

[rocket]

Originally Posted by Baketech

As a lifetime gun owner, I find it "repugnant" that you cannot articulate a pro-gun posture without resorting to "fear" based argument. Your invective polarizes those with opposing views instead of helping them understand your legitimate desire to own a firearm...

As usual you didn't answer the question. I agree with the fear based argument part (pure genius on your part BTW) hence the title of the thread...John Kerry Wants to Ban Guns in America!!!! Sort of shouts fear based argument doesn't it?

You on the other hand have made no positive contributions to this thread other than being a hall monitor. What positive points about owning guns have you made?

[oldfogey]

Originally Posted by ER

We have 30-some-umpteeen thousand gun laws in our country already and they're only affecting those who choose to follow them. They're not making one bit of a difference to those who would theoretically be the target of some of the proposed changes made in this thread because they're not choosing to follow the laws.

Argument 1: Criminals obtain guns, they are criminals.

All that aside, you can't just lock up all the guns in our country anyway. We have too many of them, and we have them for a reason. If we can't keep drugs from getting into the country, how would anyone think we'd keep guns from getting in? It's not going to happen, but giving in to the anti-gunners WILL make the lives of law-abiding citizens more frustrating.

Argument 2: The US has too many guns to eliminate, so making them illegal is pointless.

People that scoff at the notion of a tyrannical Government controlling its people are short-sighted in history. It has happened over and over again in a cyclical fashion for as long as we have been recording historical events for later generations to study. Why would today's world be any different? Just because you live in a country that hasn't directly oppressed its people during your life-time or the lives of your grandparents doesn't mean it will never happen. Those that think otherwise are being naive, and this is part of the point many have tried to make.

Argument 3: Freedom requires the people to be able to defend themselves against governmental tyranny, a fundamental of the US constitution.

ER, forgive the summary, it helped me think about the arguments (as opposed to abuse) in this thread. I suppose from my cultural viewpoint the last is the hardest to accept. There is only one war between democracies (Finland / UK WW2) on record. There are examples of democracy overthrown by military force. Revolutions don't generally require guns, they are popular revolts. I suppose there are plenty of examples of failed popular revolts against tyrannies where might was used to repress.

[Baketech]

Originally Posted by rocket

As usual you didn't answer the question. I agree with the fear based argument part (pure genius on your part BTW) hence the title of the thread...John Kerry Wants to Ban Guns in America!!!! Sort of shouts fear based argument doesn't it?

I answered your question to the best of my ability...your thread title was the perfect example....

Originally Posted by rocket

You on the other hand have made no positive contributions to this thread other than being a hall monitor. What positive points about owning guns have you made?

Spin the argument to a personal attack if you like, but I am free to express my disagreement with your POV....and that is all I have done...without labeling or name calling.

As one who likes to quote amendments, I am sure that you are familiar with which one allows me to do that without being labeled or harassed...

[rocket]

Originally Posted by Baketech

I answered your question to the best of my ability...your thread title was the perfect example....



Spin the argument to a personal attack if you like, but I am free to express my disagreement with your POV....and that is all I have done...without labeling or name calling.

As one who likes to quote amendments, I am sure that you are familiar with which one allows me to do that without being labeled or harassed...

Again , you dodge the question. What positive contributions have you made to this thread? You know exactly when others have not, but when have you?

BTW labelling a POV repugnant and ignorant is within your right but don't get your panties in a bunch when someone takes offense to it. You chose a passive aggresive mode of personal attack. I prefer to be more direct.

[Baketech]

Originally Posted by rocket

Again , you dodge the question. What positive contributions have you made to this thread? You know exactly when others have not, but when have you?

BTW labelling a POV repugnant and ignorant is within your right but don't get your panties in a bunch when someone takes offense to it. You chose a passive aggresive mode of personal attack. I prefer to be more direct.

I don't remember ever claiming to make a positive contribution to this thread...

[rocket]

Originally Posted by Baketech

I don't remember ever claiming to make a positive contribution to this thread...

[ER]

Originally Posted by oldfogey

Argument 1: Criminals obtain guns, they are criminals.

Correct. Criminals are going to be criminals regardless of our strict gun-laws and they're going to use whatever means are necessary to accomplish their goals.

Argument 2: The US has too many guns to eliminate, so making them illegal is pointless.

The point is that it wouldn't be possible to keep guns out of this country without turning into a military state. We can't keep out drugs and everything else that the black-market needs so why would guns be any different? More importantly, we have them for a reason, and that is to essentially make every able-bodied male in this country a member of a general militia to prevent the formation of an oppressive Government.

Argument 3: Freedom requires the people to be able to defend themselves against governmental tyranny, a fundamental of the US constitution.

ER, forgive the summary, it helped me think about the arguments (as opposed to abuse) in this thread. I suppose from my cultural viewpoint the last is the hardest to accept. There is only one war between democracies (Finland / UK WW2) on record. There are examples of democracy overthrown by military force. Revolutions don't generally require guns, they are popular revolts.

It's my belief that the authors of our Constitution kept in mind what it took to win their freedoms from the English when they drafted the 2nd Amendment. It wasn't simply a popular revolt but rather it was a hard-fought war.

While we're having this discussion, I think an important thing to do is to define what exactly freedom is. To some, it's not having an elected king. To others, it's knowing that the Government will be there to FREE you of any personal responsibilities whatsoever. I think to our founding Fathers, freedom was having a country in which you could explore the endless possibilities of making a good life for yourself without hinderance from a Government bent on taxing you to death. Hence, the Constitution's guidlines for laying out a very limited, Federal Government with the responsibilities of providing for the general welfare of the people (including a national defense) and that's about it.

I suppose there are plenty of examples of failed popular revolts against tyrannies where might was used to repress.

Exactly. Speak softly and carry a big stick comes to mind.

[Baketech]

All this talk has given me the urge to go to the range, I can only shoot low energy stuff out back...

[luvtolean]

Hehe. I have some of those Aguila .22 shells that are basically primer only. Quieter than a cap gun.

I'm too scared of the law to shoot even those in my yard though.

[Baketech]

I am in the county, so technically I can shoot what I want....but I have neighbors, so I try to respectful....

I'm packing and heading out the door...see you on the 300yd box...

[oldfogey]

Originally Posted by ER

It's my belief that the authors of our Constitution kept in mind what it took to win their freedoms from the English when they drafted the 2nd Amendment. It wasn't simply a popular revolt but rather it was a hard-fought war.

I was classifying the American Revolution as an anti-colonial war, thinking of Revolution as being within a state. The UK could hardly be classified as a democracy at the time, nor the US at the time of the war.

Clearly, the 2nd Amendment is framed in the context of that anti-colonial war with the UK as the tyrannical government.

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by oldfogey

I was classifying the American Revolution as an anti-colonial war, thinking of Revolution as being within a state. The UK could hardly be classified as a democracy at the time, nor the US at the time of the war.

Clearly, the 2nd Amendment is framed in the context of that anti-colonial war with the UK as the tyrannical government.

That is all true, but I think it's only part of the story. But the framers were very clever men and scholars of history. They knew UK colonialism was nothing new, and neither was oppression of a people. They did not trust the government they were creating and went to extraordinary efforts for checks and balances.

From their own experiences, they knew when things got real bad, only armed insurrection can solve the problem. And they sought to preserve that right in what they created.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it...

[ER]

Originally Posted by oldfogey

Clearly, the 2nd Amendment is framed in the context of that anti-colonial war with the UK as the tyrannical government.

The UK was the tyrannical government over the people in the US, who wanted their freedom. When our Government grows from an elected body into a tyrannical one, who will rise up and fight them? See my point? In a true Republic, we'll simply vote out the officials we feel are abusing their power. But when the Government is no longer kept on an elected basis but rather politicians appoint themselves into position and then exert an oppressive rule over the people, they will have to do so over a population that is armed and able to rise up if needed.

Think all of this is dreamed up? Look at all the prepared litigation to contest the outcome of our current election? Worst-case, we might be undecided by next January with the election results tied up in court. How much longer will it be until one party learns how to keep themselves in power indefinitely?

My beliefs are that NO Government will remain free forever because of the inherent greed and lust for power to which those who seek the powerful positions succumb. Furthermore, it will only last until the greed of the people exceed their desire for freedom, then they will look to vote themselves the best possible Government, regardless of the direction it takes the country (hence free health-care, income redistribution, etc). Going further than that, I feel that our country enjoys the freedoms that it does as a blessing from God through the population's faith, and as we turn our backs on Him, we'll lose those blessings. But, that's for the religion-forum.

[luvtolean]

OT: I think the framers of the Constitution would willingly bear the yoke of "tyranny" from the UK government of the time, compared to our own now!