Obama on gun control

[K.Snyder]

JAB;976442 wrote: I've read this run-on sentence three times and I still can't make heads or tails out what you're trying to say. Care to break it down for us 'uneducated' folks?


I'm sorry...My punctuation, or lack thereof, is dreadful...For that I do apologize...

I believe it's written as such...

""My point is is that guns serve to kill by their physical nature which means all should amend a piece of legislature, from which serves the best interests of said countries' majority, and the statement so many feel is more important than the preservation of life renders the entire cause not only hypocritical but biased and uneducated...""

"from which serves the best interests of said countries' majority" is in reference to the piece of legislature...Emphasizing that a piece of legislature should never be approached with a closed mind and should always be open for change if the majority from which it helps to govern needs it to be changed by procurement of their well being...

And the second half "and the statement so many feel is more important than the preservation of life renders the entire cause not only hypocritical but biased and uneducated" is my illustration that I'd rather see people willing to keep an open mind in regards to our constitution without allowing the statement of what it is the "right" portrays to dictate future endeavors by association...Meaning we shouldn't allow a "right" to speak for us rather we speak for the "right" with our actions...

It's the only thing that gives prudence to justification.

[K.Snyder]

Hoss;976437 wrote: No Sir. It would depend on what the issue is and whether I truly believed that it would benefit all of society.


I'm speaking in divination...The hypothetical scenario of the outcome being inevitably for the betterment of society...

[Accountable]

Bryn Mawr;976411 wrote: Why is the constitution inviolate? It was written in other times to deal with other circumstances. Where it is no longer applicable, it is correct to take rights that are no longer justifiable away from people who abuse them.


Bryn Mawr;976414 wrote: Do not understand - the government overstep their bounds, you rebel and are shot to hell (sorry, heaven), what has been gained?



As opposed to the immediate gain to the whole of society in a peaceful, gun free, environment.Wow, we may have reached a cultural chasm too wide to close. :-3 Our rights are not to be granted or taken away. They are gifts of the creator. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" You mention taking them away from people who abuse them, but you want them taken from all, regardless of use. These rights are what our forefathers fought and died for in the 1700's. They faced certain defeat, but King George couldn't be arsed to put forth the effort and manpower. These rights are worth dying for, to a great many of us, and surrendering to live without them is unacceptable.



Peace is not merely the absence of war.

[Accountable]

K.Snyder;976432 wrote: Would you or would you not change the constitution for the betterment of it's citizens' majority?...
I would. The Constitution is a document designed to limit federal government powers. It has nothing to do with granting or limiting citizens' rights. I'm all for amending the Constitution as designed.



Whatcha got in mind?

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;976463 wrote: I would. The Constitution is a document designed to limit federal government powers. It has nothing to do with granting or limiting citizens' rights. I'm all for amending the Constitution as designed.



Whatcha got in mind?


I thought this would be a start...My emphasis is more so in moderation and I realize that such exception illustrates a lack of equilibrium but I like to think of it as an added healthcare requirement...Sort of like medicare with a little bang for your buck!!!...K.Snyder;976295 wrote: I can actually see the potential for banning hand guns in accordance to crime percentages...That's to say anyone within a 5 mile radius of a large city would be permitted to own a licensed hand gun whereas the rural areas limiting gun ownership to just hunting weapons...

Assault rifles should always be banned from hunting in my opinion...I know here in Ohio we're not even allowed to use any rifle of any sort...But I do believe everyone should have the right to own a shotgun or rifle for hunting and should be mandated by law to house those guns in a safe...Fines should be enforced with an incremental increase of fines upon every random inspection...


Put it in the form of county permissions...

[K.Snyder]

JAB;976467 wrote: I think you're making this more complicated then is necessary.

By virtue of one making the claim that 'by gum, it's my right and you're not taking it away from me' is merely their way of exercising their personal choice on where they stand on the issue.

Every law on the books, every amendment in the Constitution is open for change at any time. That doesn't mean they should be changed. If this "right" is so abhorrent, then change it. Apparently not enough legislators want to take the risk for spearheading that change.


Without creating a relationship between both motives you have an issue that will never get changed.

[Accountable]

K.Snyder;976472 wrote: I thought this would be a start...My emphasis is more so in moderation and I realize that such exception illustrates a lack of equilibrium but I like to think of it as an added healthcare requirement...Sort of like medicare with a little bang for your buck!!!...



Put it in the form of county permissions...
The US constitution doesn't control county law, and your suggestion in no way limits governmental power.

[K.Snyder]

JAB;976478 wrote: And you're assuming that the issue needs changing. Enforce what is already in place before changing it to something that may not be enforced either.


I've voiced my interest to change the fact that there are and will be 1 gun crime too many by my standard...Nothing more...

And adding legislation to an addendum is never wrong rather those to whom cannot enforce it...Huge difference...

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;976480 wrote: The US constitution doesn't control county law, and your suggestion in no way limits governmental power.


I'm not worried about governmental power in association to the gun laws we have now...The fact is is that The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is not wholeheartedly needed in todays' society...It was needed when it were made not as much so today...Not by far...

I do however believe in it's statement but I do not see that as being higher on my list of priorities I'd like to see enforced explicitly than other concerns of mine...Or rather it's being coveted near to the degree I've seen witnessed when it's eradication helps the well being of the majority...Hypothetically speaking...

[Accountable]

K.Snyder;976496 wrote: I'm not worried about governmental power in association to the gun laws we have now...The fact is is that The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution is not wholeheartedly needed in todays society...It was needed when it were made not as much so today...Not by far...



I do however believe in it's statement but I do not see that as being higher on my list of priorities I'd like to see enforced explicitly...Or rather it's being coveted near to the degree I've seen witnessed when it's eradication helps the well being of the majority...
You seem to be of the mind that the Constitution grants rights, and that rights not spelled out (granted) in the Constitution don't exist. Is that right?

[K.Snyder]

Accountable;976497 wrote: You seem to be of the mind that the Constitution grants rights, and that rights not spelled out (granted) in the Constitution don't exist. Is that right?


Not wholeheartedly...

I do not limit ones' "rights" to any written doctrine specifically...To me they're more about statement than anything...I'm not overly knowledgeable about the constitution and it's amendments but I do know that following anything, anything, religiously is wrong when it's not a direct derivative of moral values...

My emphasis is more so ideology backed with experience while being intuitive enough within consensus to rid the world of tyranny...To hell with borders...Borders illustrates nothing more than the readiness to kill to preserve them nothing more.

Intuition being the primary key to success in it's divination while having ideology serve as endless possibilities associated with prosperity and experience serving as the tracks that keep our practicality on a straight line...

The shortest distance between two points is a straight line...The problem is finding out whether or not guns serve as an obstacle or if they help us proceed on a straight path...

Given the worlds problems I'll leave that up to others to decide...That doesn't mean I'll allow a piece of paper to get in the way of my objective in preserving the lives of the majority.

[K.Snyder]

JAB;976503 wrote: Cannot or won't?


There is no difference between "cannot" and "won't" in this context because the end result being the same...

I'm all for changing that trust me...

[K.Snyder]

A question for all...

I'm going to ask a sincere question and I'd like it to be answered in association with "your" stance on guns and their legality...

Do you feel that the majority of the world is unethical?...

[K.Snyder]

Hoss;976534 wrote: If I miss a question please at least direct me to a particular post number. I’m talking to three different people at one time here; it's getting difficult for me to keep it straight.

[...]

Guns are valuable tools that help keep the big and strong form clubbing you to death and taking whatever they want. I’m big but there is always someone bigger and stronger that can take what they want. Guns are tools that make the little guy have a fighting chance.


[...] Snipped because I don't have any idea what you're talking about really...At no point had my question towards you not been hypothetical...What's left is your not giving me the benefit of the doubt...

I'd asked you K.Snyder;976432 wrote: Would you or would you not change the constitution for the betterment of it's citizens' majority?...from which you'd answered...

Hoss;976437 wrote: No Sir. It would depend on what the issue is and whether I truly believed that it would benefit all of society. It was one post before you're responding to the very same question...Seeing as how it addressed the reply you'd submitted from which I were referencing I'd thought you would see it...My mistake...

Hoss;976534 wrote:

Guns are valuable tools that help keep the big and strong form clubbing you to death and taking whatever they want. I’m big but there is always someone bigger and stronger that can take what they want. Guns are tools that make the little guy have a fighting chance.
Followed by K.Snyder;976432 wrote: Would you or would you not change the constitution for the betterment of it's citizens' majority?...
Hoss;976437 wrote: No Sir. It would depend on what the issue is and whether I truly believed that it would benefit all of society.
From which I'd said this...

K.Snyder;976451 wrote: I'm speaking in divination...The hypothetical scenario of the outcome being inevitably for the betterment of society... From which ultimately you haven't responded...When we cross reference it's hard for me to know what it is you're talking about giving credence to this...K.Snyder wrote: [...] Snipped because I don't have any idea what you're talking about really...At no point had my question towards you not been hypothetical...What's left is your not giving me the benefit of the doubt......:yh_bigsmi...

[K.Snyder]

Hoss;976549 wrote: LOL! Good Lord! :wah:

Ok let me try to follow that up.

I don’t see how me giving up my right to keep and bear arms fundamentally makes the US safer, I don't believe it does. Since we cannot take all the guns away, and disarm our government at the same time. Tyranny can then return to the physically strong, controlling the physically weak.

That’s what I refuse to compromise on. If you disarm me the only people that are safer is the criminal with a gun.

It's not in the best interest of the majority for me to disarm. So I would not under any circumstance give up my right to keep and bear arms. If the US did start punishing criminals to such an extent that they don’t repeat crimes and the next generation thought the punishment was intense enough to quit crime, then I would feel safer, and care less about bearing my arsenal.

I believe the constitutional right to keep and bear arms has kept individuals in the government from trying to seize power. And I believe that the right to keep and bear arms has made my family safer. I know I’m not illegally using a firearm, so why should I have my right taken away? Just because you think it will better the majority? If I believed that I may try it. But I don’t see that as a reality. Look at what Hoppy posted a ways back on violent crimes in the US versus Great Britain and Australia. Unarming citizens causes an increase in violent crimes. It doesn’t decrease it.



And thank you for getting us going again!:)


Well Hoss you keep forgetting that our entire conversation from my question of reference were based entirely on hypothetical scenarios from which I was speaking in divination...

But these excerpts give me a problem...

"It's not in the best interest of the majority for me to disarm." I'm asking you if it were would you lay down your arms...

"I believe the constitutional right to keep and bear arms has kept individuals in the government from trying to seize power." -- I can't get around this...I can't fathom how anyone could think that individuals with arms would deter a government from forcing said persons away from their rights as human beings in todays' society with todays' technology...

People should have rights upon circumstances from which if "Rights" were not granted circumstantially then they act to impose a lack of rights for the minority...

[K.Snyder]

Hoss;976557 wrote: I’m not good at hypothetical.

'If' in this scenario is too great of an 'if' for me to honestly answer. That’s why I said I may yield my right and choose not to keep guns under certain conditions but I won't give up my right to keep them. Things can always change. But in case it does change back to conditions that I need them I’m not giving up my rights to them.

Point two, individuals who may have thought form time to time that they could garner enough support to do an end around would be discouraged when they understood that we have a well armed citizenry.

And on your third point I haven’t got a clue what you mean.


The emphasis was that your right to bear arms being relinquished being the direct result of the well being of those individuals being discussed...

"individuals who may have thought form time to time that they could garner enough support to do an end around would be discouraged when they understood that we have a well armed citizenry." I couldn't disagree more...All of the weaponry the United States of America has at it's disposal and how you feel a few pistols and a shotgun will deter Apaches and tanks is really not sensible...

It brings me to my point that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution isn't/wasn't really about the right to keep a few muzzle loaders and a 9 milly rather it was a point to stress the importance of human beings having the right to govern thyself which preserves not only moral virtue but a much more stable economy by virtue of free trade...

Which brings me to "Point two" :wah:...in that the second amendment to the United States Constitution was more prevalent during the era in which it were formed and it's lack of prominence is growing ever so more obvious the more the United States army equips with newer weapon technology...

Thanks for your time I appreciate it.

:yh_bigsmi...

[K.Snyder]

Hoss;976543 wrote: I honestly don't understand your question. But I if I did, I cannot answer for the world, I only know the US.


Very well...Do you feel the majority of the US is unethical?...

[Bryn Mawr]

Hoss;976427 wrote: The US constitution does not cover the world.

If we need to change it there is process, until its changed it is the law of the land where I live.


I am trying to raise the possibility that it needs to change. All I get from both you and Acc is that it is inviolate - end of discussion. Can we not discuss why it is considered to be so fundamental a right that it is non-negotiable?

[Bryn Mawr]

Accountable;976445 wrote: Are you referring to a battle? I'm talking about a war.


Last time I recall a few hundred religious zealots holding off the Feds it was at Waco - what was your reference?

[Bryn Mawr]

Accountable;976444 wrote: It's not a belief, it's a right. While I agree I should be expected to use discretion in exercising my right, I cannot imagine any scenario at all that justifies losing them. Got an example? Speech, perhaps. When would you be willing to cede your right to speak as you wish? Worship?





I think we both changed that time.


Can you tell me why you believe that the right to keep and bear arms is so fundamental that its existence is beyond discussion?

[Bryn Mawr]

Accountable;976456 wrote: Wow, we may have reached a cultural chasm too wide to close. :-3 Our rights are not to be granted or taken away. They are gifts of the creator. "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights" You mention taking them away from people who abuse them, but you want them taken from all, regardless of use. These rights are what our forefathers fought and died for in the 1700's. They faced certain defeat, but King George couldn't be arsed to put forth the effort and manpower. These rights are worth dying for, to a great many of us, and surrendering to live without them is unacceptable.



Peace is not merely the absence of war.


So the right to keep and bear arms is God given? Can you quote chapter and verse on that? It was given by the men who drafted the constitution to cover the conditions that prevailed at the time - you are not a weak colony fighting an overbearing king any more, you are the world superpower with guns available to you that James Madison could not have conceived.

As you say - a cultural chasm of enormous proportions!

[hoppy]

Bryn Mawr;976585 wrote: So the right to keep and bear arms is God given? Can you quote chapter and verse on that? It was given by the men who drafted the constitution to cover the conditions that prevailed at the time - you are not a weak colony fighting an overbearing king any more, you are the world superpower with guns available to you that James Madison could not have conceived.

As you say - a cultural chasm of enormous proportions!


And you are a free? man. Free to stay in safe olde England. The majority of Americans like things fine just as they are here, except for all the wimp-a$$ed liberals we have.

[shelbell]

Bryn Mawr;975698 wrote: Funilly enough, there are police in every city and town in America whose job it is to deal with the gangs, drug dealers and convicts and who are armed and trained to do it.

Whilst you cannot arrest a criminal for carrying a gun but have to wait until he's used it or is in the act of using it then the job of the police is far more difficult than it should be and the life of the law abiding citizen is thereby endangered.


So if an armed drug addict breaks into my house I should call the police and wait 10-15-20 minutes for them to get here? This would be more of an endangerment (we'd probably be dead) than if we have a way to protect ourselves. And no, I don't even own a gun.

And here, criminals can be arrested for just carrying a gun. No one with a felony conviction is allowed to get a permit or carry a gun what-so-ever. Even an every day good person can be arrested for carrying a gun if they don't have the proper permits.

[scholle-kid]

“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.

~ Thomas Jefferson

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

http://www.ontheissues.org/Gun_Control.htm



11 quotes of



Barack Obama on Gun Control



Ok for states & cities to determine local gun laws. (Apr 2008)

FactCheck: Yes, Obama endorsed Illinois handgun ban. (Apr 2008)

Respect 2nd Amendment, but local gun bans ok. (Feb 2008)

Provide some common-sense enforcement on gun licensing. (Jan 2008)

2000: cosponsored bill to limit purchases to 1 gun per month. (Oct 2007)

Concealed carry OK for retired police officers. (Aug 2007)

Stop unscrupulous gun dealers dumping guns in cities. (Jul 2007)

Keep guns out of inner cities--but also problem of morality. (Oct 2006)

Bush erred in failing to renew assault weapons ban. (Oct 2004)

Ban semi-automatics, and more possession restrictions. (Jul 1998)

Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers. (Jul 2005)

[Accountable]

K.Snyder;976512 wrote: A question for all...



I'm going to ask a sincere question and I'd like it to be answered in association with "your" stance on guns and their legality...



Do you feel that the majority of the world is unethical?...
I can't see an association between my stance on guns and the question, so I can't answer it.

[hoppy]

Bryn Mawr;976582 wrote: Can you tell me why you believe that the right to keep and bear arms is so fundamental that its existence is beyond discussion?


Bryn Mawr, is it ok if I call you Beemer? B M sounds so--juvenile. I'm going to call you beemer anyway, just because you are so obnoxious and stuffy.

So beemer, MY government still believes in and trusts it's honest citizens to own guns. Yours--You know the answer. It was said the people there wanted to be free of guns. See? You people don't even trust each other. A country of nervous old ladies.

[hoppy]

Hoss;976820 wrote: LOL! Sir Hoppy! Lets be nice here, I like that Bryn Mawr guy, he makes me think. He's not American but he's a brother from across the pond!

I am fascinated by being here and meeting people from other countries even if we disagree.


Suk up to anybody you want. He ain't my "brother from across the pond". When someone slaps me in the face, they get a fist in theirs. I know, thats so American of me.

[hoppy]

Hoss;976860 wrote: I was just being civil. The English and Americans are from the same stock. I wasn't ‘sucking up’; I was just finding common ground to start a conversation from.

That’ll teach me not to try to correct my elders.


Sorry Hoss. I was a bit out of line, as usual.

I've been on lots of these boards. I learned English and Germans are the most difficult to get along with, as far as I'm concerned. You said English and Americans are from the same stock. Only if you are part English. I'm half German. My fighting half. The other half is Czech. That side is more docile, but I don't seem to share much of their blood.

My X-wife is Irish. We had 5 kids. 3 boys and 2 gals. Get the picture? Fighting German, fighting Irish, you get supercharged kids. One daughter is as sweet and gentle as you could find. People think she's adopted. The other is a "stand back or get hit" type. One son did 3 years in the big house. One son did 23 years in the army. That's how combative he is. The other did 8 years army.

During WW1 4 of my German uncles fought other Germans in europe. Possibly some of our kin who chose not to migrate to America. 2 came home with life long disabilities from wounds.

Maybe my background makes me this way. But, I love my country and in my mind, it can do no wrong. I'll fight anyone who begs to differ.

[sunny104]

that was a dang funny joke Hoppy, too bad some people couldn't take it in the spirit it was intended and instead chose to turn this into another 'America sucks' thread. :rolleyes:

[hoppy]

sunny104;976915 wrote: that was a dang funny joke Hoppy, too bad some people couldn't take it in the spirit it was intended and instead chose to turn this into another 'America sucks' thread. :rolleyes:


Thank you sunny. It was just a email joke I got that day and thought humorous. We can thank beemer for starting this war. Thank you beemer. You still suk.

[scholle-kid]

Bryn Mawr;975719 wrote: Thank you for the best laugh I've had in ages - absolute rubbish but a good laugh.



In the UK we have banned the ownership of all handguns - not because the government insisted on it as we rolled over but because the people insisted on it and the government rolled over.



As a result of banning the ownership of handguns we are a safer country and I, for one, am thankful for it.





http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-vict ... gun-crime/




Britain has the highest rate of burglary in the European Union and is also nearly top of the league for assaults and hate crime, according to a recent survey.

The EU crime and safety survey names the UK as a "high crime country" and says the risk of becoming a victim of the 10 most common crimes is, with the exception of Ireland, the highest across the European Union.

London also emerges as the "crime capital of Europe" with the likelihood of becoming a victim - mostly of a range of petty crimes - said to be higher than all other EU capitals and even higher than cities such as Istanbul and New York







.http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/200 ... dprobation

[hoppy]

sunny104;976915 wrote: that was a dang funny joke Hoppy, too bad some people couldn't take it in the spirit it was intended and instead chose to turn this into another 'America sucks' thread. :rolleyes:


It's the last time I'll ever post another joke without an explanation of the whole thing in the beginning, for the benefit of beemer and like company.

[Bryn Mawr]

shelbell;976644 wrote: So if an armed drug addict breaks into my house I should call the police and wait 10-15-20 minutes for them to get here? This would be more of an endangerment (we'd probably be dead) than if we have a way to protect ourselves. And no, I don't even own a gun.

And here, criminals can be arrested for just carrying a gun. No one with a felony conviction is allowed to get a permit or carry a gun what-so-ever. Even an every day good person can be arrested for carrying a gun if they don't have the proper permits.


Over here you can count the number of times an armed drug addict breaks into a strangers house and kills them on the fingers of one thumb. How often does an American get murdered by someone carrying a licensed firearm?

Also, arrest on sight is not going to happen unless the felon is personally known to the policeman who sees him carrying. Over here, it's automatic as is the resultant jail sentence.

[Bryn Mawr]

hoppy;976813 wrote: Bryn Mawr, is it ok if I call you Beemer? B M sounds so--juvenile. I'm going to call you beemer anyway, just because you are so obnoxious and stuffy.

So beemer, MY government still believes in and trusts it's honest citizens to own guns. Yours--You know the answer. It was said the people there wanted to be free of guns. See? You people don't even trust each other. A country of nervous old ladies.


Bryn will do - a Beemer is a German car and I doubt you consider me to be that upmarket.

Trust does not come into it - try need. In a civilised country no honest citizen needs to carry a gun so we, the people, see the carrying of a gun as a sign of criminality.

[YZGI]

Bryn Mawr;977293 wrote: Over here you can count the number of times an armed drug addict breaks into a strangers house and kills them on the fingers of one thumb. How often does an American get murdered by someone carrying a licensed firearm?

Very rarely, most murders are from unlicensed carriers using illegal guns.

Also, arrest on sight is not going to happen unless the felon is personally known to the policeman who sees him carrying. Over here, it's automatic as is the resultant jail sentence.


I think there is a little misconception happening here. Anyone seen by police on the streets in any city or neighborhood in America would immediately be questioned on the spot and if they are not licensed to carry they would be arrested on the spot. The problem is most conceal their illegal firearms for use in criminal activity.

[Bryn Mawr]

Hoss;976814 wrote: Yes Sir, I’m willing to discuss that. Fire away, no spinning disc guns though! :-3

I think its one of the foundation stones of our constitution, its one of the only real and tangible things that our citizenry has to serve as a fundamental reminder that we are the government.

Keeping guns serves several purposes in my heart; the first is that I am independent from the government. I can hunt, and care for my own family on meat I kill. The second is that I can defend myself from those who are stronger. Third I can defend myself from those who are non law abiding. And finally if anyone in my government decides to take matters into his own hands and try to independently take power in a coup de’tat, I am not dependent on the government to stop him but have the right and the capabilities to stop him myself.

The right itself, regardless of which one it is, is also a fundamental reason not to take it away, a right taken away will never be given back.


The fundamental reminder that the people are the government comes from exercising control over the actions of the government and getting rid of those who do not carry out the collective wishes of the people.

Thanks for giving your reasons, it makes it far easier to understand than just citing a fundamental, God given right. The first I can appreciate although it would hardly be practical here. The second I would disagree with - in any arms race (an inevitable consequence I think) you will always come out second best. The third is much akin to the second - armed defence invites armed attack and a professional criminal will pack more firepower than the majority of honest citizens can muster. The fourth is more of the same in spades - any realistic coup-d'etat involves a section of the armed forces any no citizen or combination of citizens is going to outgun the army, you do better to keep the majority of the armed forces on side and rely on them to do your fighting for you.

A right, any right given to the people, should only remain a right for as long as it is to the advantage of the people. When circumstances change and it is no longer to the advantage of the honest citizen then the people themselves should revoke that right.

It is for each society to determine when that should be - we have done so, America, obviously, is not yet ready to do so. So be it :-6