GUNS must GO

[AllieBaba]

There's always a gun thread going on. It's fun to visit about once every six months.

 

[johnrocks]

America is a gun culture. The gun related crime is a result of too many restrictions regarding gun use, not the opposite.

I think the gun control freaks and those who want drugs LEGALIZED should get a room together.

My guess is that if any of the drug running criminals found out where that room was, they'd bust in the door and shoot 'em up. Their primary focus would be the drug morons, but they'd know the gun control morons wouldn't be armed, so it wouldn't matter.

Gun control doesn't work, I oppose it however drug control doesn't either unless you call the 30 billion we spend each year fighting it, the drug pushers on the border at war and being able to buy a bag of weed quicker than you can go into a Wal Mart Superstore to get a box of detergent a success.

 

[Yukon]

Can't fight drugs so legalize it, cant fight crime so why have laws? Just make everyone exercise their 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms and laws wont be necessary?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Can't fight drugs so legalize it, cant fight crime so why have laws? Just make everyone exercise their 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms and laws wont be necessary?

Laws dictating what people can and can't do to their own bodies goes against the idea of liberty.

 

[Yukon]

Laws dictating what people can and can't do to their own bodies goes against the idea of liberty.

...out of the mouths of babes, right-wing Conservatives, and of idiots !

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Laws dictating what people can and can't do to their own bodies goes against the idea of liberty.

...out of the mouths of babes, right-wing Conservatives, and of idiots !

I'm not a right wing conservative, and an idiot would be a person who cannot discuss something intelligently so they simply insult others.

 

[johnrocks]

Can't fight drugs so legalize it, cant fight crime so why have laws? Just make everyone exercise their 2nd Amendment Right to bear arms and laws wont be necessary?

Punish the crime ,such as murder, reckless driving from being drugged up, not the act of owning a gun or doing drugs in the privacy of your home, it's called personal responsibility. Take the good that you love more than anything and think about it being banned, would you still partake in it and be a criminal simply because you didn't want to give that good up or would you succumb to the law? A lot would bow to the law however a lot of folks wouldn't. For me, it would be chocolate, for you it might be cereal but the point is, there would be lawbreakers and an underground market created because of the banning of that good. I'd buy an illegal gun for example if they were outlawed, millions buy drugs illegally.

 

[johnrocks]

Laws dictating what people can and can't do to their own bodies goes against the idea of liberty.

...out of the mouths of babes, right-wing Conservatives, and of idiots !

I'm not a right wing conservative, and an idiot would be a person who cannot discuss something intelligently so they simply insult others.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Brain,

Your quotes come from a differnet time. They mean nothing in todays world. That's one of the problems we face - people living in the past thinking that what worked then works now. Pathetic.............

Today's world includes the Romanians who took up arms against their dictator in 1990 and fought off the last vestiges tyranny. Take off the rose colored glasses and start seeing the world for what it is.

You are responsible for your liberty, if you don't own up to your responsibility, rest assured, no one will secure your liberty for you. Instead, they will eventually subjugate you. Just ask the Venezuelans.

 

[BrianH]

Brain,

Your quotes come from a differnet time. They mean nothing in todays world. That's one of the problems we face - people living in the past thinking that what worked then works now. Pathetic.............

First off, they're not "my quotes". They're quotes from leaders of men who I'd gladly take to heart quicker than your little quote about blind people.

What's pathetic, is your extreme lack of intelligence and failure to understand the quotes of the American founding fathers. These were warnings my friend. A few of MANY. Men such as Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, and Benjamin Franklin were warning the people of what would eventually come, and what people should do to prevent such tyranny. And if you noticed, they were right. We ARE experiencing things that these men warned about. What you fail to realize dumbass, is that there are countries (STILL) on this earth who experience what the colonists experienced back in that "time." Liberties are still crushed to this day in many parts of the world. And in many cases, these are countries that don't allow their population to own firearms and/or protect themselves.

Look up Thomas Jefferson's quotes about private banking and tell me whether or not it pertains to the present.

You've been proven wrong at every turn in this thread and you still attempt to cling to your anti-gun fanaticism by posting retarded quotes from yourself, and trying to convince other people they don't know what they're talking about.

Banning guns, or even requiring registration would be unconstitutional....simple as that.

IT would violate the 2nd Amendment by infringing upon an individuals' right to bear arms.
It would violate the 10th Amendment by unconstitutionally granting a power to the federal government.......(such powers of which the 10th Amendment addresses).

 

[BrianH]

Brain,

Your quotes come from a differnet time. They mean nothing in todays world. That's one of the problems we face - people living in the past thinking that what worked then works now. Pathetic.............

Today's world includes the Romanians who took up arms against their dictator in 1990 and fought off the last vestiges tyranny. Take off the rose colored glasses and start seeing the world for what it is.

You are responsible for your liberty, if you don't own up to your responsibility, rest assured, no one will secure your liberty for you. Instead, they will eventually subjugate you. Just ask the Venezuelans.

Exactly......

Also Yukon, I find it humorous that you've chosen a screen-name that (for me at least) describes a territory that contains some of the best hunting areas on the North American continent.

 

[Father Time]

Brain,

Your quotes come from a differnet time. They mean nothing in todays world. That's one of the problems we face - people living in the past thinking that what worked then works now. Pathetic.............

Today's world includes the Romanians who took up arms against their dictator in 1990 and fought off the last vestiges tyranny. Take off the rose colored glasses and start seeing the world for what it is.

You are responsible for your liberty, if you don't own up to your responsibility, rest assured, no one will secure your liberty for you. Instead, they will eventually subjugate you. Just ask the Venezuelans.

Not that I don't believe you but could you provide a source, I ask because I need to prove that guns can be useful for another forum.

 

[Bern80]

Brain,

Your quotes come from a differnet time. They mean nothing in todays world. That's one of the problems we face - people living in the past thinking that what worked then works now. Pathetic.............

Today's world includes the Romanians who took up arms against their dictator in 1990 and fought off the last vestiges tyranny. Take off the rose colored glasses and start seeing the world for what it is.

You are responsible for your liberty, if you don't own up to your responsibility, rest assured, no one will secure your liberty for you. Instead, they will eventually subjugate you. Just ask the Venezuelans.

Not that I don't believe you but could you provide a source, I ask because I need to prove that guns can be useful for another forum.

Not sure if I'm on the right path here, but why would you need a link to something to show guns are useful? They are useful to me in providing food. Or they are useful in defending my life. I don't think anyone can deny that they are useful in those instances.

But really I wouldn't even entertain someone by trying to make a case for that argument. It's the equivalent of the argument that guns should be banned because there is no need for them. Usefullness is not something you should need to show. Need or usefuleness is irrelevant. If it were the things I should be able to deprive you of due to your lack of 'need' for them extends a ways beyond just guns.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Brain,

Your quotes come from a differnet time. They mean nothing in todays world. That's one of the problems we face - people living in the past thinking that what worked then works now. Pathetic.............

Today's world includes the Romanians who took up arms against their dictator in 1990 and fought off the last vestiges tyranny. Take off the rose colored glasses and start seeing the world for what it is.

You are responsible for your liberty, if you don't own up to your responsibility, rest assured, no one will secure your liberty for you. Instead, they will eventually subjugate you. Just ask the Venezuelans.

Not that I don't believe you but could you provide a source, I ask because I need to prove that guns can be useful for another forum.

Hmmm.....well, it's not too difficult to look up the Romanian revolution, but Here you are.

If you read the article it will detail the various points where arms were used. As I recall as it occurred, there was some speculation that the revolt might fail because of a lack of arms by the people and the initially it appeared that the Army was with the government. Eventually, the Army splintered and people got arms (probably from the Army) and part of the Army sided with the people.

In Venezuela, in case you just missed it, the people have voted to have dictator Chavez, essentially, for life. How has Uncle Hugo responded? Over the weekend he sent troops to the farms to force farmers to increase rice production. Bet they wish they could shoot back.

 

[Yukon]

"...they're not "my quotes". They're quotes from leaders of men who I'd gladly take to heart..."

The men you quote are dead, they died a few hundred years ago (some were in fact traitors to the British Crown). What they said hundreds of years ago has no relevance whatsoever in today's world. Stop quoting silly things from the past. Wake up because it's 2009 my son.

 

[KittenKoder]

Yukon ... the past teaches us lessons ... without learning from it we are doomed to repeat it. Without the past we would not even exist. Nothing is ever made irrelevant if it is based on wisdom, so even today those words mean the same, we know they do because we see examples of people who ignore them all the time.

 

[Tech_Esq]

"...they're not "my quotes". They're quotes from leaders of men who I'd gladly take to heart..."

The men you quote are dead, they died a few hundred years ago (some were in fact traitors to the British Crown). What they said hundreds of years ago has no relevance whatsoever in today's world. Stop quoting silly things from the past. Wake up because it's 2009 my son.

Britain lost. Get over it. Even if you are still a subject of the crown. Ahhh yes....subjugated, just as I mentioned.

You sir are a fool of the first order and your every utterance proves the point.

 

[BrianH]

"...they're not "my quotes". They're quotes from leaders of men who I'd gladly take to heart..."

The men you quote are dead, they died a few hundred years ago (some were in fact traitors to the British Crown). What they said hundreds of years ago has no relevance whatsoever in today's world. Stop quoting silly things from the past. Wake up because it's 2009 my son.

1st. Amazing!! You know about one of the two things that are certain in life!!!
These men were supremely more intelligent than you or me and, in fact, treated this nation like it is failed to be treated today. Many of the problems that we have, as a nation, stem directly from disregarding what these men said...NOT from gun-ownership or lack-there-of.

2nd. The guy you quoted is brain-dead and about 3 times retarded.

Get over the fact that you're wrong. You have nothing left to do but discredit peoples' sources and attempt (emphasis on ATTEMPT) to belittle people and their obviously more logical opinions.

I guess since it's 2009, we'll go ahead and ignore history and do the same stupid shit we've done in the past. Hell, I mean, we had some good times in the past right? The problem with your retarded logic, is that we (obviously not you) learn from past events. And even beyond the individual; the government learns from past events. For example: the government learned that prohibiting the sale of alcohol, they created new problems.

I'll rehash for you since you've blatantly disregarded anything I've said regarding the unconstitutionality of banning firearms in the United STates.

1. The right to bear arms is the 2nd Right granted in the Bill of Rights in the United States Constitution. (No different that the rights garaunteed in the other 9 Amendments.)

2. The 2nd Amendment states: "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."
(This means that ANY attempt to restrict gun-ownership is an infringement upon an individual's right to bear arms; and is thus, unconstitutional.)

3. Even IF it was constitutional to ban or regulate firearms, the power to do so would not lie with the federal government.
10th Amendment of the United States Constitution states: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
(This means, that because the United States Constitution does not grant the power to control firearms to the federal government, then the power to control firearms goes to the states and/or people "respectively." Even so, this fails to be the issue because it is unconsitutional to infringe upon the right to bear arms to begin with)

4. As far as your "guns kill lots of people" crap, that logic is thrown under the bus when you compare gun deaths to automobiles or any other thing that kills large numbers of people.

5. Your logic assumes that if guns were banned, there'd be less crime; however, your logic fails to address historical factuality. People have killed one another for CENTURIES without the use of firearms. And in fact, I can think of FAR WORSE death machines that were invented for the purpose or killing before the firearm made its debut. The fact is, people will find something to kill each other with. It's amazing how many prisoners die in prison from home-made (and smuggled) weapons. Also, studies show that places with higher gun-control have more crime.

6. Banning guns will not stop criminals from obtaining firearms. They obtain them legally now, and they will obtain them legally then. What makes you think that, all of a sudden, our criminals will start abiding by the law?? Banning guns will simply disarm the public and make them more vulnerable to the criminals with the guns.

Get over it....you're argument has been dismantled.

 

[Tech_Esq]

Brian, although I'm sympathetic to your 10th amendment argument, the current law of the law as pronounced by the USSC is that the tenth amendment is a "truism" and not enforceable.

The last time the 10th Amendment had teeth was Hammer v. Dagenhart. This case was overruled by USSC in United States v. Darby Lumber Company. And that is only one evil thing that case did. The sooner Darby gets overruled the better off we would all be.

Just so you know.

 

[BrianH]

Brian, although I'm sympathetic to your 10th amendment argument, the current law of the law as pronounced by the USSC is that the tenth amendment is a "truism" and not enforceable.

The last time the 10th Amendment had teeth was Hammer v. Dagenhart. This case was overruled by USSC in United States v. Darby Lumber Company. And that is only one evil thing that case did. The sooner Darby gets overruled the better off we would all be.

Just so you know.

I appreciate it. I had an argument about that with someone before. The USSC doesn't always make decisions I agree with. I think the USSC has failed to realize the "real" meaning of the 10th Amendment; among others. I know my opinion doesn't amount to a hill of beans when compared to the USSC decision, but it's still my opinion none-the-less. The USSC first destroyed the 10th Amendment after the civil war regarding the right to secession. It's not suprising the decision was made by the side that won the war.

The reason I continue to use the 10th Amendment, is because I believe that many of our amendments and constitution have been figuratively stomped on. It makes me mad when retarded decisions are made out of something that is obviously clear-cut.

Anyway, thanks for the info.