GUNS again!

[idb]

Guest Post on Gun Ownership in Western Australia ? Jeffrey Sachs

Odd, I had a license in a couple of weeks and, after an initial inspection I've never seen them again...that was about 20 years ago.
Why have I been missing out on unannounced home inspections?
I could be a danger to the community...I'm writing to my member of parliament!!!!

So what you're saying is that your government doesn't inspect homes of gun owners? Are you saying this isn't true?

Well, I can only offer anecdotal evidence...much like the writer in your link I suppose.

 

[Mertex]

IMO bigreb's argument is extremist and self defeating. It is the equivalent of arguing that until there is no crime, laws are a failure.

blow it out your ass shit stain.

Sounds like logic embarrasses this poster.

I think it leaves him speechless - other than the few insults he's learned over time by repeating them over and over!

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Odd, I had a license in a couple of weeks and, after an initial inspection I've never seen them again...that was about 20 years ago.
Why have I been missing out on unannounced home inspections?
I could be a danger to the community...I'm writing to my member of parliament!!!!

So what you're saying is that your government doesn't inspect homes of gun owners? Are you saying this isn't true?

Well, I can only offer anecdotal evidence...much like the writer in your link I suppose.

Now that's good spinning there almost didn't notice since you live in New Zealand and the other person lives in Australia
So I guess you being a New Zealander would not fall under the home inspection laws of Australia

 

[buckeye45_73]

and Hitler...don't forget Hitler!!!!

He already knows he's a nazi.

Well he should, he invented Nazis.

actually Anton Drexler started it...but lets not quibble on historical details!

 

[saved]

While I hope that the 2nd amendment does not suffer further degradation I don’t think that is going to happen. The blame for what has already happened lies mainly at the feet of those who claim to be 2nd amendment rights people (conservatives) rather then those who seek to dismantle it.

If you look at the 2nd amendment as given and as practiced in early America there are not exclusions or limitations. Early Americans could own any weapon they could afford and who could own it was not limited to age, mind set, or past lifestyle. As time went on the real reason for having the 2nd amendment was lost in the understanding of the people. Men and women had fought and died for their country as well as all the freedoms we had under the constitution and who would of thought that the country they fought for would seek to dismantle that constitution they so dearly loved. The problem was that the schools stopped teaching the truth about the constitution and especially the 2nd amendment and its real purpose making it seem like the right was more of a privilege so people could hunt and protect their homes instead of the real purpose for the amendment which was to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government should it arise.

Also as time progressed people began to think there would never be a threat from the government against our freedoms so they began to allow certain exclusions to the right. As people began to hear promises of safety if we make certain exclusions to the 2nd amendment many pro gun people actually jumped on board so the limitations began to accelerate. It was sort of like as long as I am not limited I have no problem that someone else is limited. The problem is that they failed to realize that you cannot sell another's right without effecting your own. As time passed more and more limits were being placed even by so called conservative legislators and Presidents. Although the 1993’s Brady Bill was signed by President Clinton what most people forget is that President Reagan threw his support behind it as well as the 1994’s Assault Weapons Ban after he left office and because so many respected Reagan many 2nd amendment people jumped on board and the stripping away really took hold.

Now all of a sudden those people who sold other’s right fear of losing theirs. While there is no doubt that such is the agenda of some to totally ban guns the need is not there because when enough laws are enacted to limit who has the right to bear arms even though there is no outright exclusion it makes the 2nd amendment useless for what it was intended and that was to take up arms against the government if it became tyrannical. The thing is that we are very quickly approaching that place. Now that an alarm is being levied it is most likely too little too late. So while the claim is that liberals are responsible for what is taking place the truth is that so called gun advocates hold the greater responsibility for allowing us to be where we are today and where we will be in the future. The sad thing is that once a freedom or right is lost its restoration is near impossible and in this case I believe totally impossible.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vn7bkncf1_E&list=UUwGGHSKfd1Wo6yADuaoaYVw&index=10]You Can't Ban Evil - YouTube[/ame]

 

[bigrebnc1775]

While I hope that the 2nd amendment does not suffer further degradation I don’t think that is going to happen. The blame for what has already happened lies mainly at the feet of those who claim to be 2nd amendment rights people (conservatives) rather then those who seek to dismantle it. .............

While I hope that the 2nd amendment does not suffer further degradation I don’t think that is going to happen. The blame for what has already happened lies mainly at the feet of those who claim to be 2nd amendment rights people (conservatives) rather then those who seek to dismantle it.

This is as much as I could read XXXXXXX

 

[TemplarKormac]

While I hope that the 2nd amendment does not suffer further degradation I don’t think that is going to happen. The blame for what has already happened lies mainly at the feet of those who claim to be 2nd amendment rights people (conservatives) rather then those who seek to dismantle it.

If you look at the 2nd amendment as given and as practiced in early America there are not exclusions or limitations. Early Americans could own any weapon they could afford and who could own it was not limited to age, mind set, or past lifestyle. As time went on the real reason for having the 2nd amendment was lost in the understanding of the people. Men and women had fought and died for their country as well as all the freedoms we had under the constitution and who would of thought that the country they fought for would seek to dismantle that constitution they so dearly loved. The problem was that the schools stopped teaching the truth about the constitution and especially the 2nd amendment and its real purpose making it seem like the right was more of a privilege so people could hunt and protect their homes instead of the real purpose for the amendment which was to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government should it arise.

Also as time progressed people began to think there would never be a threat from the government against our freedoms so they began to allow certain exclusions to the right. As people began to hear promises of safety if we make certain exclusions to the 2nd amendment many pro gun people actually jumped on board so the limitations began to accelerate. It was sort of like as long as I am not limited I have no problem that someone else is limited. The problem is that they failed to realize that you cannot sell another's right without effecting your own. As time passed more and more limits were being placed even by so called conservative legislators and Presidents. Although the 1993’s Brady Bill was signed by President Clinton what most people forget is that President Reagan threw his support behind it as well as the 1994’s Assault Weapons Ban after he left office and because so many respected Reagan many 2nd amendment people jumped on board and the stripping away really took hold.

Now all of a sudden those people who sold other’s right fear of losing theirs. While there is no doubt that such is the agenda of some to totally ban guns the need is not there because when enough laws are enacted to limit who has the right to bear arms even though there is no outright exclusion it makes the 2nd amendment useless for what it was intended and that was to take up arms against the government if it became tyrannical. The thing is that we are very quickly approaching that place. Now that an alarm is being levied it is most likely too little too late. So while the claim is that liberals are responsible for what is taking place the truth is that so called gun advocates hold the greater responsibility for allowing us to be where we are today and where we will be in the future. The sad thing is that once a freedom or right is lost its restoration is near impossible and in this case I believe totally impossible.

Exactly how are we responsible for it's destruction again? It's real purpose has always been the same, the rights of the people to bear arms for the defense of home and family from governments foreign and domestic shall not be infringed. It is indeed a right, not a privilege. It has never been suggested that it was a "privilege." And the last time I checked, our government has always posed a threat to our freedom.

In your video, the woman completely contradicts herself by saying, "the Second Amendment wasn't about hunting, it was about freedom." Uhh, so how is it not about hunting again? I mean you have the freedom to hunt, that's the whole idea of the right to bear arms, you can hunt, practice, and defend yourself and your family. This whole notion that the Second Amendment applies to one set of actions and not the other is ludicrous.

I support reasonable gun regulation, but not to the extent where it bans assault weapons or deprives huntsmen of their livelihood.

 

[idb]

so what you're saying is that your government doesn't inspect homes of gun owners? Are you saying this isn't true?

well, i can only offer anecdotal evidence...much like the writer in your link i suppose.

now that's good spinning there almost didn't notice since you live in new zealand and the other person lives in australia
so i guess you being a new zealander would not fall under the home inspection laws of australia

busted!!!!

 

[idb]

He already knows he's a nazi.

Well he should, he invented Nazis.

actually Anton Drexler started it...but lets not quibble on historical details!

Well, you say Saverin, I say Zuckerberg.

Hitler made the Nazis famous.

 

[tubig]

I personally don't have any problem with the "right" per se, although I think it is obsolete and unnecessary. What I do have a problem with is public possession of handguns. Packing a hidden weapon in public has nothing to do with the logic behind the 2nd Amendment. It is destructive of and a menace to society.

 

[tubig]

Bigreb and others in here bemoaning checks and registration because of the idea that it will lead to confiscation are fooling themselves.... if they really wanted them, they'd have them....one way or another.

IMO anybody who thinks his and his friends personally owned weapons have a ghost of a chance of defeating the US military are delusional. That notion is the day dream of children. Rational adults give up on that way of thinking somewhere between their 15th and 25th birthdays. Its always a fun bullshit topic around a campfire, but people who pack weapons thinking that they are going to war with established authorities should not be allowed to own guns. IMO, of course.

 

[tubig]

... t is extreme to be anti gun, it is extreme to support the same issue the KKK would support

It is not extreme to own multiple guns, hunt, shoot, and honestly believe that America needs better gun control and fewer guns on the streets.

 

[Steelplate]

... t is extreme to be anti gun, it is extreme to support the same issue the KKK would support

It is not extreme to own multiple guns, hunt, shoot, and honestly believe that America needs better gun control and fewer guns on the streets.

Not in bigreb's eyes.

 

[tubig]

While there is no doubt that such is the agenda of some to totally ban guns the need is not there because when enough laws are enacted to limit who has the right to bear arms even though there is no outright exclusion it makes the 2nd amendment useless for what it was intended and that was to take up arms against the government if it became tyrannical.

The notion that the early US government enacted the Second Amendment to permit its citizens to rebel against it is absurd. At the time Americans had just turfed out a monarchy. All Europe was run by monarchies except France. The only reason they were allowed to get away with it was that Europeans were too busy fighting each other. In the meantime America was afraid of being invaded so it passed the Second Amendment to enable it to field an army as fast as possible to defend itself. The national government also wanted to prevent state governments from disarming the militias that the feds needed to rely on. The late 18th Century US Government was afraid for its existence. There was no way on earth it was arming its citizens to attack itself. That notion is an NRA spin that started as a joke, and lo and behold people were actually dumb enough to buy it.

 

[Steelplate]

While there is no doubt that such is the agenda of some to totally ban guns the need is not there because when enough laws are enacted to limit who has the right to bear arms even though there is no outright exclusion it makes the 2nd amendment useless for what it was intended and that was to take up arms against the government if it became tyrannical.

The notion that the early US government enacted the Second Amendment to permit its citizens to rebel against it is absurd. At the time Americans had just turfed out a monarchy. All Europe was run by monarchies except France. The only reason they were allowed to get away with it was that Europeans were too busy fighting each other. In the meantime America was afraid of being invaded so it passed the Second Amendment to enable it to field an army as fast as possible to defend itself. The national government also wanted to prevent state governments from disarming the militias that the feds needed to rely on. The late 18th Century US Government was afraid for its existence. There was no way on earth it was arming its citizens to attack itself. That notion is an NRA spin that started as a joke, and lo and behold people were actually dumb enough to buy it.

And on top of that, there were three militia acts....the first by George Washington himself....that further explained the 2nd Amendment.... the last one being in 1903, which created the National Guard, attempting to get rid of private and State militias...because they were being used as private armies by states....do you know the main way they were being used? By strike busting people who were getting paid shit wages and living in squalor while the robber barons of the day were getting insanely rich off the sweat of the poor.

Sounds kind of familiar.

 

[tubig]

... t is extreme to be anti gun, it is extreme to support the same issue the KKK would support

It is not extreme to own multiple guns, hunt, shoot, and honestly believe that America needs better gun control and fewer guns on the streets.

Not in bigreb's eyes.

I suspect br's name celebrates "big rebel North Carolina 1775". It probably says everything a poster needs to know about br's gun posts.

 

[tubig]

... t is extreme to be anti gun, it is extreme to support the same issue the KKK would support

It is not extreme to own multiple guns, hunt, shoot, and honestly believe that America needs better gun control and fewer guns on the streets.

Not in bigreb's eyes.

If his sig line means "Big Rebel North Carolina 1775" it probably says everything we need to know about his gun politics.

 

[RoadVirus]

What I do have a problem with is public possession of handguns. Packing a hidden weapon in public has nothing to do with the logic behind the 2nd Amendment. It is destructive of and a menace to society.

So you support a ban on public carry.

Okay. Let's lay out this scenario for you:

A guy with a butcher knife is going on a rampage in a shopping mall. Many people have guns, but because they are banned from carrying them around town, they don't have them and can't stop the guy. As a result of this knife-welding maniac, many people die and many more are injured before the cops (or a Barney Fife Rent-A-Cop) puts him down. But 1 bullet from 1 person carrying a weapon in that mall could've stopped him and saved several people's lives.

So answer this: In this scenario, who was more destructive and a menace to society? The knife-welding psycho or the gun owners?

 

[Steelplate]

What I do have a problem with is public possession of handguns. Packing a hidden weapon in public has nothing to do with the logic behind the 2nd Amendment. It is destructive of and a menace to society.

So you support a ban on public carry.

Okay. Let's lay out this scenario for you:

A guy with a butcher knife is going on a rampage in a shopping mall. Many people have guns, but because they are banned from carrying them around town, they don't have them and can't stop the guy. As a result of this knife-welding maniac, many people die and many more are injured before the cops (or a Barney Fife Rent-A-Cop) puts him down. But 1 bullet from 1 person carrying a weapon in that mall could've stopped him and saved several people's lives.

So answer this: In this scenario, who was more destructive and a menace to society? The knife-welding psycho or the gun owners?

Another scenario....man with a concealed weapon goes to a bar and has a few too many...man gets belligerent and picks a fight...two men take it outside and the man carrying is getting his ass beat because he's fucked up....man pulls gun and kills his opponent.

Which scenario is more likely...yours or mine?

 

[Mertex]

What I do have a problem with is public possession of handguns. Packing a hidden weapon in public has nothing to do with the logic behind the 2nd Amendment. It is destructive of and a menace to society.

So you support a ban on public carry.

Okay. Let's lay out this scenario for you:

A guy with a butcher knife is going on a rampage in a shopping mall. Many people have guns, but because they are banned from carrying them around town, they don't have them and can't stop the guy. As a result of this knife-welding maniac, many people die and many more are injured before the cops (or a Barney Fife Rent-A-Cop) puts him down. But 1 bullet from 1 person carrying a weapon in that mall could've stopped him and saved several people's lives.

So answer this: In this scenario, who was more destructive and a menace to society? The knife-welding psycho or the gun owners?

A guy with a butcher knife can probably be overcome by several people much quicker than someone with a gun. If your hypothetical man has an assault weapon, I seriously doubt that someone with a regular gun will be able to get close enough to shoot him without being shot first. And, if someone with an assault weapon tries to take him out, they'll probably shoot innocent people too.