Obama on gun control

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 11:46 am

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?...

Accountable;976711 wrote: I can't see an association between my stance on guns and the question, so I can't answer it.

It's completely relevant...It emphasizes a persons' logic from which establishes competence upon the persons' credibility...

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 11:51 am

Hoss;976736 wrote: I think all of us are unethical at times, but I think the majority of the US is law abiding in most things.

Do you feel the majority of the US is more ethical or less ethical during the time frame you've mentioned?...

All laws are not deemed ethical just because it's written down in books no more than you can prove God exists because there's the bible...There are laws that I find to be unethical...

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 12:03 pm

Hoss;976779 wrote: I have to disagree. I believe the second amendment served its purpose throughout our history so far and will also serve us well into the future. We have those guns to help us preserve what we hold to be true. Could you give me an example of this with exception to the Civil War?...

Hoss;976779 wrote:

If we choose not to use them nor own them then the amendment has worked and that’s fine for everyone. When we need them, we pull them out and use them against those who would take our rights or property from us without due process of law, and then we have legally defended ourselves and our rights.

You tend to think more socially than I do, while I'm willing to help the next guy I’m not really willing to give up my rights in the process. I still feel like I need to defend myself and my family while I’m helping the next guy.

I say leave the second amendment alone.We all understand your stance...The discussion has veered into your, among others, readiness to give that right up for the betterment of society...

Okie · Post by **Okie** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 12:08 pm

hoppy;975152 wrote: To be effective a law has to be enforced. We have more "effective" laws on the books now than you can shake a sitck at. IF they were enforced, that is. And that's the hook in Obama's fishing lure. What would be easiest and cheapest to enforce? All the gun laws we now have, or one law that would totally ban all private owned guns? And that is where Obama is ultimately heading.

I am a Democrat but I love guns. I mean to say I have hunted all my life but now most of my shooting is at a gun range. I do not think anyone really needs AK 47s. But there should be good laws about doing a back ground check on people who want to buy a gun. There are some nutters out there with guns. But even if a sane person buys some guns who is to say a bad man will not break into his house and steal his guns. It has happened to me.

Obama has already said he is not out to take your shotguns or hunting guns away. but he has lived and worked in an environment where shootings are common. In fact I think gunshots are the leading cause of death among young black males. Washington DC has had strict gun laws for thirty years and yet they are the leading city for murder. Why is that. Outlaws do not follow the law. But even with good gun laws, kids will raid grandpas arsenal and steal guns to take to school to get even with the kids or teachers who treated them badly.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 12:16 pm

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. You're speaking upon statement...A statement that has been rendered insufficient by todays' standards...

Hoss;976814 wrote:

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.This is the problem that haunts all of humanity...To think that physical aggression is the key to peace...The emphasis is for people to not have to resort to guns rather the negotiating table...The difference being armament being an act of aggression when all other options have not been exploited...During a state of peace any armament what-so-ever is an act of blatant aggression...(I'm not implying anything rather voicing my logic -- It's essential in creating an unbiased atmosphere.)

"There is nothing as likely to succeed as what the enemy believes you cannot attempt." -- Niccolo Machiavelli

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 1:03 pm

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:

As a joke it is funny, as a comment in a serious discussion on the election and gun control it is insulting.

As a serious question :-

I enter a thread started by Americans to discuss gun control because I am strongly anti gun and I feel I can contribute. I keep to the subject and remain civil despite some rather odious comments from one of the Americans who appears to think I am attacking him personally. In what way am I turning this into another America sucks thread?

I ask on the grounds that I am the only one who failed to take Hoppy's post as a joke and must therefore be the some people referred to.

GunZ · Post by **GunZ** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:10 pm

Bryn Mawr;977367 wrote: 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

I'm afraid young Hoss is right in this discussion, he well knows from listening to his father and his fathers friends, of which I am one that a small band of well trained and armed men with hunting rifles can hold of an army 50 times its size for months. It’s the unconventional tactics that can keep a conventional army at bay, harassed and dysfunctional to buy time to organize a bigger army.

Hoss,

You keep on thinking it thru son, you’ve got the right idea!

Damn proud of you boy.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:17 pm

Bryn Mawr;976581 wrote: Last time I recall a few hundred religious zealots holding off the Feds it was at Waco - what was your reference?
Radical muslims.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:23 pm

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;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!"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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Also among these unalienable Rights are those acknowledged in our Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to our constitution. One of those is our right, endowed by our Creator, to keep and bear arms. I would no sooner give up that right than I would my rights of free speech, to worship as I please, or to assemble with people of like minds.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:34 pm

Bryn Mawr;977367 wrote: 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. Agreed. However, our rights are not given by the government, they are acknowledged as our birthright. We are born with them; we shall die with them. I wish it could be so in your country.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:35 pm

K.Snyder;977385 wrote: It's completely relevant...It emphasizes a persons' logic from which establishes competence upon the persons' credibility...
Guns are neither ethical or unethical, so asking and ethics question in the context of guns is not relevant.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:40 pm

fuzzy butt;977896 wrote: god Told You??????:-3:-2

You can ridicule or you can accept a cultural difference. Your choice. You have that right.

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:28 pm

Accountable;977893 wrote: Guns are neither ethical or unethical, so asking and ethics question in the context of guns is not relevant.

Bring it to a vote...

We'll even debate it...

A debate in how a persons viewpoint of the world(Or at least environment from which guns being existent is prevalent) is completely relevant in establishing 1) A persons' logic in feeling the need to carry a gun from which determines said persons' logic pertaining to the amendment and 2) A persons true intent once having a gun

K.Snyder · Post by **K.Snyder** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:30 pm

Accountable;977893 wrote: Guns are neither ethical or unethical, so asking and ethics question in the context of guns is not relevant.

Besides what appears to not be relevant does not mean relevancy is not achieved from said question by virtue of angles...

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 11:17 pm

Accountable;977888 wrote: "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, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Also among these unalienable Rights are those acknowledged in our Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to our constitution. One of those is our right, endowed by our Creator, to keep and bear arms. I would no sooner give up that right than I would my rights of free speech, to worship as I please, or to assemble with people of like minds.

It is this concept that, because the men who wrote the constitution said that the rights they were giving the people through the constitution were from the Creator, those rights are in fact God given that I cannot understand. Those words came from man - not God. The rights were discussed over a pint or two of beer - they did not appear carved in stone tablets from the top of a mountain.

God's will needs more than a pretty phrase or two to make it so.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Mon Sep 08, 2008 11:27 pm

Accountable;977892 wrote: Agreed. However, our rights are not given by the government, they are acknowledged as our birthright. We are born with them; we shall die with them. I wish it could be so in your country.

The rights were given by the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 after much discussion and ratified by the states by 1789 after much further discussion - from man by man. To say that as they are now they ever will be is to lock your country into the eighteenth century.

I cannot even begin to comprehend - you are making gods of your lawyers.

abbey · Post by **abbey** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 12:35 am

I thought the joke was pretty funny. :-2

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:10 am

K.Snyder;977989 wrote: Bring it to a vote...

We'll even debate it...

A debate in how a persons viewpoint of the world(Or at least environment from which guns being existent is prevalent) is completely relevant in establishing 1) A persons' logic in feeling the need to carry a gun from which determines said persons' logic pertaining to the amendment and 2) A persons true intent once having a gun
The right to have something is completely separate from a person's need to have it. The right to do something is separate from a person's intent to do it.

I neither own a gun nor do I intend to use one, but in no way means I'm willing to give up my right to either in case my situation changes.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:26 am

Bryn Mawr;978013 wrote: It is this concept that, because the men who wrote the constitution said that the rights they were giving the people through the constitution were from the Creator, those rights are in fact God given that I cannot understand. Those words came from man - not God. The rights were discussed over a pint or two of beer - they did not appear carved in stone tablets from the top of a mountain.

God's will needs more than a pretty phrase or two to make it so.

Bryn Mawr;978017 wrote: The rights were given by the Philadelphia Convention in 1787 after much discussion and ratified by the states by 1789 after much further discussion - from man by man. To say that as they are now they ever will be is to lock your country into the eighteenth century.

I cannot even begin to comprehend - you are making gods of your lawyers.
'kay.

Bryn, you see is as you see it. That doesn't impact our friendship in the slightest, at least for me. Arnold and I used to go round and round on this point. It was fun but we never got anywhere, either.

SlipStream · Post by **SlipStream** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:27 am

not having seen every post in this section I hope you guys understand my point when I say whoever gets to run the US needs to do something to control who's allowed to carry guns!

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:30 am

SlipStream;978082 wrote: not having seen every post in this section I hope you guys understand my point when I say whoever gets to run the US needs to do something to control who's allowed to carry guns!
Who's allowed is under control. It's the criminals who aren't.

SlipStream · Post by **SlipStream** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:44 am

Accountable;978083 wrote: Who's allowed is under control. It's the criminals who aren't.

yeah, that's worldwide but if almost everyone's armed then shootout between the good & bad could and I'm sure do happen more often....

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:54 am

SlipStream;978085 wrote: yeah, that's worldwide but if almost everyone's armed then shootout between the good & bad could and I'm sure do happen more often....
Yup. If we were an island nation the size of Alabama, and had a culture of allowing gov't to make the rules, we'd probably be more closely aligned with England's culture. We're not. It's not a bad thing, just different. I liked my time living in Swindon, Reading, and Newbury, but it wasn't home. The place was nice enough, but too different from my culture. Not bad, just different.

SlipStream · Post by **SlipStream** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:01 am

Accountable;978093 wrote: Yup. If we were an island nation the size of Alabama, and had a culture of allowing gov't to make the rules, we'd probably be more closely aligned with England's culture. We're not. It's not a bad thing, just different. I liked my time living in Swindon, Reading, and Newbury, but it wasn't home. The place was nice enough, but too different from my culture. Not bad, just different.

don't get me wrong Accountable, I just hate all the killings and crap that's going on.

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 7:43 am

Bryn Mawr;977457 wrote: As a joke it is funny, as a comment in a serious discussion on the election and gun control it is insulting.

As a serious question :-

I enter a thread started by Americans to discuss gun control because I am strongly anti gun and I feel I can contribute. I keep to the subject and remain civil despite some rather odious comments from one of the Americans who appears to think I am attacking him personally. In what way am I turning this into another America sucks thread?

I ask on the grounds that I am the only one who failed to take Hoppy's post as a joke and must therefore be the some people referred to.

Bryn Mawr;975004 wrote: And that is about the level of intelegence you would expect from the gun lobby - that of a child mistaking example for cause.

this wasn't meant as a serious thread and speaking of insulting.....

I guess it's hard to understand why people from other countries get so passionate about things that don't concern them.

sunny104 · Post by **sunny104** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 8:04 am

Bryn Mawr;975695 wrote: Any evidence to back that up?

By Bob Unruh

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

When sexual assaults started rising in Orlando, Fla., in 1986, police officers noticed women were arming themselves, so they launched a firearms safety course for them. Over the next 12 months, sexual assaults plummeted by 88 percent, burglaries fell by 25 percent and not one of the 2,500 women who took the course fired a gun in a confrontation.

And that, says a new brief submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court by police officers and prosecutors in a controversial gun-ban dispute, is why gun ownership is important and should be available to individuals in the United States.

Post by **Bryn Mawr** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 9:36 am

Accountable;978081 wrote: 'kay.

Bryn, you see is as you see it. That doesn't impact our friendship in the slightest, at least for me. Arnold and I used to go round and round on this point. It was fun but we never got anywhere, either.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not disputing your right to hold your view - I'm just trying to understand it, that's all.

Certainly not an issue to loose sleep over, never mind loose a friend over.

RedGlitter · Post by **RedGlitter** » Tue Sep 09, 2008 10:52 am

My Aunt Geneva, a born and bred Okie farmwife and African missionary among other things, has a copy of the Second Amendment taped to her kitchen door.

She made the cover of the Daily Oklahoman some years back when she held at riflepoint, two punkasses who were in the process of stealing her tractor. When she told them to "shut up and get off the tractor" they attempted to rush her and she said "I will shoot you." She lived along a little-used highway across from a wheatfield and was pretty much isolated from anyone. She held them straight until someone stopped and called the cops.

Shortly after that, someone opened up the front door to her house one night and put their foot inside. She said "I have a gun and I will use it." They opted to close the door and leave.

My aunt was in her seventies when this happened and I would hate to think what could have happened had she not had the right to own a gun.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 11:42 am

Happy to shake your hand too, jester.

BTS · Post by **BTS** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 11:49 am

hoppy;976196 wrote: MAYBE THIS WILL HELP.

Britain, Australia top U.S.

in violent crime

Rates Down Under increase despite strict gun-control measures....

......

..........

Countrywide, homicides are up 3.2 percent.

Assaults are up 8.6 percent.

Amazingly, armed robberies have climbed nearly 45 percent.

In the Australian state of Victoria, gun homicides have climbed 300 percent.

In the 25 years before the gun bans, crime in Australia had been dropping steadily.

There has been a reported "dramatic increase" in home burglaries and assaults on the elderly.

hoppy........there you go again muddling up the thread with FACTS......

Put this in your bong and puff it.

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million ‘educated’ people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

hoppy · Post by **hoppy** » Sat Nov 29, 2008 12:03 pm

You'll never convince the euros. They are too used to being controlled by being told how "civilized" they are. The government will protect us, provide for our every need andall that BS. And we now have a president who will force that on us.