• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * * - 6 votes

Gun right/control poll


  • Please log in to reply
263 replies to this topic

Poll: Forum members' firearm views wanted for USA (87 member(s) have cast votes)

Regarding the Supreme Court's decision in Heller vs Wash DC.

  1. I agree, the 2nd Amendment provides for an individual right (53 votes [60.92%])

    Percentage of vote: 60.92%

  2. Disagree, provides for only a collective right. (2 votes [2.30%])

    Percentage of vote: 2.30%

  3. Disagree, but believe individual jurisdictions may allow personal firearm ownership (3 votes [3.45%])

    Percentage of vote: 3.45%

  4. Gun ownership should be banned. (29 votes [33.33%])

    Percentage of vote: 33.33%

Do you believe one is personally responsible for his own and his family's protection from criminal elements?

  1. Yes (61 votes [70.11%])

    Percentage of vote: 70.11%

  2. No (26 votes [29.89%])

    Percentage of vote: 29.89%

Regarding gun ownership...

  1. Individuals should be allowed guns for use in the home. (12 votes [13.79%])

    Percentage of vote: 13.79%

  2. Guns should be allowed for use inside the home and for concealed carry. (44 votes [50.57%])

    Percentage of vote: 50.57%

  3. Guns should be banned (31 votes [35.63%])

    Percentage of vote: 35.63%

Do you believe gun control laws make for safer communities?

  1. Yes (35 votes [40.23%])

    Percentage of vote: 40.23%

  2. No (52 votes [59.77%])

    Percentage of vote: 59.77%

Do you feel that communities with more liberal guns laws are safer communities because of these laws?

  1. Yes (42 votes [48.28%])

    Percentage of vote: 48.28%

  2. No (45 votes [51.72%])

    Percentage of vote: 51.72%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#61 Shepard

  • Member, Director, Moderator
  • 6,360 posts
  • 932
  • Location:Auburn, AL

Posted 13 November 2008 - 04:30 AM

Swords are the new guns.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms Swords, shall not be infringed."


How I dream of the days when there will be a synthetic chicken in every pot and a lightsaber in every home.

#62 rwac

  • Member
  • 4,764 posts
  • 61
  • Location:Dimension X

Posted 13 November 2008 - 07:30 AM

Swords are the new guns.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms Swords, shall not be infringed."


How I dream of the days when there will be a synthetic chicken in every pot and a lightsaber in every home.


Ah, yes. You'll only be allowed to beat intruders with the rubber chicken, and use the lightsaber to cook.

#63 luv2increase

  • Guest
  • 2,529 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 13 November 2008 - 03:03 PM

As long as the synthetic chicken has equal or greater nutritional value than the chickens in our supermarket today. Atleast a synthetic chicken wouldn't have growth hormones and antibiotics in them :) That is why I always go for Tyson!


As for the swords. They are pretty much illegal to carry throughout the US. Actually, I couldn't find any state whatsoever which allowed them. Of course, you could always legally have them on your premises.


BTW, I do realize that the sword thingy was most likely a joke, but the synthetic chicken could very well become a viable possibility in the up-and-coming future.

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#64 Lazarus Long

  • Life Member, Guardian
  • 8,116 posts
  • 242
  • Location:Northern, Western Hemisphere of Earth, Usually of late, New York

Posted 13 November 2008 - 03:30 PM

Chivalry died the day humanity learned to kill at a distance.

Of course our diet improved immensely. Well at least some will agree all that added protein went to a good cause; larger brains.

Now all we can hope is that everyone will use all that added neural material before it atrophies.

The issue of guns in the US is remarkably like guns in Afghanistan. Don't expect the idea of taking them away to be popular or even practical. There are many reasons to have guns but the idea that they make things safer in the city is a myth, the cities with the strictest gun laws also do have safer streets. NYC for example is a lot safer in per capita terms than Phoenix or Dallas.

Check out the actual per capita death rate per state:
http://www.statemast...ate-per-100-000

Most of the states (not all) with strict gun control laws are near the bottom. However the ones near the top all have the most liberal laws. Dig deeper and it looks even worse when comparing specific cities. The one clear exception is Washington DC that has both some of the stricter laws and the worst rates but DC may be a case study in how to do everything wrong too.

Another myth is that the 2nd Amendment was explicitly to protect the citizens from the government. Only a bad reading of history supports that notion. The right to a gun was for defense of your frontier farm field from vermin and the ability to hunt. The vermin came in multiple forms, mostly four legged but occasionally on 2. The implicit idea of defense was not the explicit threat from government ever, hence the second part (actually the first) of the second amendment, " A well REGULATED militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,.."

Along with the rights of gun ownership came a RESPONSIBILITY to the state for participation in the militia and a well regulated one at that. The Swiss actually do operate in principle more true to this ideal than we do.

Now this matter will require a considerable amount of discussion but a right to ownership is not carte blanche either and regulation may also be a part of such ownership.

Oh and BTW don't everyone start getting partisan on me, I had venison for dinner last week (bow hunted) and I am looking forward to some more and wild turkey too. I own guns and I hunt so this is not a simplistic dichotomy and I wish everyone would take the time to think it all through before jumping on one bandwagon or another.

While they could use a few good shots hunting rats in the city I am afraid most rounds would take out innocent bystanders. Consider how lousy most of them are as shots. People don't *hunt* in the cities except other people. Many also do not have responsible practices with respect to the guns they have. They are lousy shots and the weapons are subject more to theft than proper use when examined statistically.

Having been an expert rated shot in the military I have to laugh at most TV representations of shoot outs, hell even the news. Did you know that when the NYC police shot the unarmed guy after his wedding they fired almost 50 rounds?

They only hit the passengers with a few rounds going through 3 unarmed people, killing one, at a range of about 25 feet. One officer unloaded over 30 high powered rounds alone from multiple clips in about 10 seconds. The rest of the rounds went all over the place and these are guys that get paid to practice. If we had shot like that in my unit we would have been court martialed for wasting government property.

I am unconvinced that guns belong in the cities and I am unconvinced that the right to own is without an obligation of service to the state accompanying it. I certainly would prefer guaranteeing that a few of the yayhoos I have seen on You Tube putting 50 cal handguns in drunken women's hands would have seen a little more discipline inservice before someone gave them a license to possess a beer let alone a high powered hand gun. More than one of the women in those Youtube clips almost ended up shooting herself in an uncontrolled recoil, just like that kid at the Connecticut gun show last week that killed himself the same way.

You want guns?

Then realize it comes with the well regulated disciplined use part.

Hell I am not against hand guns in principle, I am against the irresponsible use of them, treating them like toys.

#65 inawe

  • Guest
  • 653 posts
  • 3

Posted 13 November 2008 - 07:09 PM

Hey Laz. Who told you reason and logic are allowed in discussing the gun issue?
How do special interests manage to have millions of people voting against their own interests? By scaring people and presenting the
opponents in a bad light (swift-boat technique).
In the campaign leading to the recent election the McCain gang was spreading the word that Obama was going to take their guns away.
Whether we want a plenty of guns for everybody or not should be decided on its merits. Not on Scalia getting into the head of the
framers of the second amendment to tell us what they meant.
Even accepting Scalia's reading is not the end of it. The guy who started this thread is convinced (so he told us) that the second amendment
guarantees individual gun ownership. Why did he start this thread and the poll then?
People are reminded that gun ownership is closely related to "patriotism". Funny thing is that the NRA has a history of endorsing
draft dodgers against veterans. Right now the NRA is endorsing the draft dodger Chambliss in Georgia against the Vietnam vet Jim
Martin. Go figure.
The gun issue has to be kept alive to use as a political weapon. This also allows the NRA and the gun industry to profit.
By the way Grover Norquist, who wants to destroy the government with tax-cuts, is a prominent NRA executive.

#66 sUper GeNius

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 13 November 2008 - 10:55 PM

Hey Laz. Who told you reason and logic are allowed in discussing the gun issue?
How do special interests manage to have millions of people voting against their own interests? By scaring people and presenting the
opponents in a bad light (swift-boat technique).
In the campaign leading to the recent election the McCain gang was spreading the word that Obama was going to take their guns away.
Whether we want a plenty of guns for everybody or not should be decided on its merits. Not on Scalia getting into the head of the
framers of the second amendment to tell us what they meant.
Even accepting Scalia's reading is not the end of it. The guy who started this thread is convinced (so he told us) that the second amendment
guarantees individual gun ownership. Why did he start this thread and the poll then?
People are reminded that gun ownership is closely related to "patriotism". Funny thing is that the NRA has a history of endorsing
draft dodgers against veterans. Right now the NRA is endorsing the draft dodger Chambliss in Georgia against the Vietnam vet Jim
Martin. Go figure.
The gun issue has to be kept alive to use as a political weapon. This also allows the NRA and the gun industry to profit.
By the way Grover Norquist, who wants to destroy the government with tax-cuts, is a prominent NRA executive.



Everything you accuse the pro-gun lobby of doing has its counterpart in the antigun lobby. Look at Washington DC post Heller. They amended their guns law to allow *revolvers* in the home. Bummer that semi-autos account for the vast majority of handgun purchases. And they required guns to be bought in the city, except there aren't any gun dealers in the city yet. But don't worry. That law will be swatted down, either by teh SUpreme Court, or by Congress. As far as the poll, as I said in the OP, I was interested in learning the opinions of forum readers. Many went beyond the radio buttons, elaborating on their choices. I did the same. So what.

As far as guns in cities, there are a number of well done studies that suggest strict gun regulations do nothing to lower crime or murder, and the opposite happens in gun-liberal localities. And these studies haven't been financed by the NRA either. It takes more than rattling off a few sentences and naming a few cities to prove though. How's this, I'll let you do the research, you can find the studies.

I have to say, I think you're just a little bit sore about how this poll is progressing.

As far as Obama, he's on record on a number of issues as being far more liberal than he presents himself now. And that includes many anti-gun laws. He's not the first politician to morph for the general election. Obama got an F rating from the NRA long before he decided to run for president. So very funny though how he stated, just after the Heller decision, that he believed that the Second Amendment does apply to individuals. LOL. I guess he wanted that pro-hillary vote in PA pretty badly.

p.s.

An interesting tidbit. You might want to take a look at the Pennsylvania State Constitution. I believe it's older than that of the US, and it *explicitly* applies the right to own guns to *individuals.*

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 14 November 2008 - 01:02 AM.


#67 inawe

  • Guest
  • 653 posts
  • 3

Posted 14 November 2008 - 12:24 AM

[An interesting tidbit. You might want to take a look at the Pennsylvania State Constitution. I believe it's older than that of the US, and it *explicity* applies the right to own guns to *individuals.*

I started a thread some time ago pointing out that the US, right now, is our country and not the founding fathers. It should be up to us to
decide what to do about guns in our society, as well as other things.
As I also pointed out before, I was for a time in Switzerland where there are automatic guns in almost every house, with no problems.
So I'm far from dogmatic as to gun ownership (or other things, I believe). But the NRA guys ARE dogmatic.
It's clear that in the US many people who shouldn't have them, do have guns. In any society a nut can go on a rampage. In Japan he takes a knife and kills one and wounds a couple.
In the US he goes out with a Glock and kills 30. From what I read all victim relatives always come out in favor of gun control.

Edited by inawe, 14 November 2008 - 12:56 AM.


#68 sUper GeNius

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 14 November 2008 - 01:00 AM

[An interesting tidbit. You might want to take a look at the Pennsylvania State Constitution. I believe it's older than that of the US, and it *explicity* applies the right to own guns to *individuals.*

I started a thread some time ago pointing out that the US, right now, is our country and not the founding fathers. It should be up to us to
decide what to do about guns in our society, as well as other things.
As I also pointed out before, I was for a time in Switzerland where there are automatic guns in almost every house, with no problems.
So I'm far from dogmatic as to gun ownership (or other things, I believe). But the NRA guys ARE dogmatic.
It's clear that in the US many people who shouldn't have them, do have guns. In any society a nut can go in a rampage. In Japan he takes a knife and kills one and wounds a couple.
In the US he goes out with a Glock and kills 30. From what I read all victim relatives always come out in favor of gun control.


You can't simply ignore the constitution when it suits some people, even a majority. As I pointed out before, the Bill of Rights was created just for that reason. Some rights are not subject to a vote of Congress. There's only one way to change the constitution. Can you imagine if we subject these issues to a vote? This year abortion is illegal. Next year it's peachy.

Certain people and aspects of the NRA are dogmatic. But that is true of just about any group. Anti-abortion, pro-life. Anti-gun. Are you aware of the anti-gun organizations in tis country?

Here's a silly dogmatic anti-gun law for you. If you get caught carrying just *one* hollow point bullet in New Jersey, it's a 4th class felony. I'm in PA. My license doesn't work in NJ. That's okay. But if just one hollowpoint falls out of my gunbag coming from the range, and I get stopped by the police on my way down to the beach (and the cop sees it,) I can get one year in prison, and one additional year for EACH hollowpoint. If I accidentally leave a box in there, I could go away for life! Stupid law. The hysterical anti-gun citizenry (whipped up by the anti-gun lobby) think the bullets are "cop killers." In fact, hollowpoints make using a firearm in public *safer* as they are much less likely to actually pass through the bad guy's body and hit an innocent bystander. Cops are required to wear vests now. Hollowpoints are LESS likely to penetrate a vest than a jacketed or round nose bullet.

I remember the hysteria when Glock first came out with their polymer gun, (still metal barrel of course.) The anti-gun lobby was in a frenzy, whipping up anti-gun sentiment, telling everyone the guns couldn't be detected by airport x-ray scanners. LOL. Of course, anyone with a half an idea would have known that the barrel is clearly visible. Or that Glock makes the polymer in such a way, (an additive) that it IS detected by x-rays.

How many lives do you think were saved by the so-called assault weapons ban of the CLinton years? Virtually zip.

Please, don't tell me about dogmatic. The anti-gunners have been trying to chip away for years at gun owner's rights. Fortunately the tide has been going against them. I think there are now 31 right-to-carry states. The anti-gunners usually say they are simply in favor of "sensible" gun laws. In reality, many of their supporters, (but not all) are actually after a complete ban. They just know it can't happen in one fell swoop.

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 14 November 2008 - 01:04 AM.


#69 Moonbeam

  • Guest
  • 174 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Under a cat.

Posted 14 November 2008 - 02:43 AM

What if you can protect yourself from deadly force without using deadly force. Isn't that the more ethical choice?


No, if they live, they can sue you.

#70 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 14 November 2008 - 04:20 AM

What if you can protect yourself from deadly force without using deadly force. Isn't that the more ethical choice?

No, if they live, they can sue you.

Sue you for what? Not killing them? Or are you proposing that if you find a 15 year old kid in your house looking for money for beer and pot that the appropriate punishment is putting him in a wheelchair for the rest of his life? I'm just wonderin'.

#71 sUper GeNius

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 14 November 2008 - 01:03 PM

What if you can protect yourself from deadly force without using deadly force. Isn't that the more ethical choice?

No, if they live, they can sue you.

Sue you for what? Not killing them? Or are you proposing that if you find a 15 year old kid in your house looking for money for beer and pot that the appropriate punishment is putting him in a wheelchair for the rest of his life? I'm just wonderin'.


He's stating an ironic fact when it comes to defending oneself. A person who defends oneself (with or without a firearm) often finds himself the target of a lawsuit, one that if lost, can bankrupt. I think he was alluding in his post that in that case, there is one less witness.

#72 inawe

  • Guest
  • 653 posts
  • 3

Posted 14 November 2008 - 06:15 PM

"All men are created equal". When first written it was not supposed to include black people. Now we interpret it in a much different way.
A little later they came out with: "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".
Which can be interpreted in different ways. If the Supreme court says it means that we can only bear arms when part of a militia, NRA members
will have a fit. They'll complain that the court is trying to rewrite the constitution. If on the other hand the court decides anybody can have any arm they want,
that will make them very happy.
What did they mean by "militia"? In section 8 of the Constitution we find:
"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections
and repel invasions".
Then what they meant by militia was something like today's arms forces, more probably the National Guard.
Today the National Guard has tanks. If an individual can posses the same arms, can I get myself a tank?

If I were the mayor of a city with low crimes and murders I wouldn't have any problem with the citizens having all guns they want.
If on the other hand, crimes and murders were rampant, I would look for solutions, including gun control.

Now, this discussion can go on forever, regardless of reason, logic or common sense. Why? Because the NRA will try to preserve it's
importance in influencing elections. Arm dealers are after higher profits. Some guys need to carry a gun to feel more like a man.

#73 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 14 November 2008 - 06:20 PM

Some guys need to carry a gun to feel more like a man.


What about women?

#74 inawe

  • Guest
  • 653 posts
  • 3

Posted 14 November 2008 - 06:22 PM



#75 sUper GeNius

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 14 November 2008 - 08:48 PM

"All men are created equal". When first written it was not supposed to include black people. Now we interpret it in a much different way.
A little later they came out with: "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".
Which can be interpreted in different ways. If the Supreme court says it means that we can only bear arms when part of a militia, NRA members
will have a fit. They'll complain that the court is trying to rewrite the constitution. If on the other hand the court decides anybody can have any arm they want,
that will make them very happy.
What did they mean by "militia"? In section 8 of the Constitution we find:
"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections
and repel invasions".
Then what they meant by militia was something like today's arms forces, more probably the National Guard.
Today the National Guard has tanks. If an individual can posses the same arms, can I get myself a tank?

If I were the mayor of a city with low crimes and murders I wouldn't have any problem with the citizens having all guns they want.
If on the other hand, crimes and murders were rampant, I would look for solutions, including gun control.

Now, this discussion can go on forever, regardless of reason, logic or common sense. Why? Because the NRA will try to preserve it's
importance in influencing elections. Arm dealers are after higher profits. Some guys need to carry a gun to feel more like a man.


Despite the fact that you feel the need to insult, I will not reciprocate. I will say though, your knowledge of American history and the US Constitution is woefully lacking. Regarding blacks, the constitution was not "interpreted," it was an *amendment* that gave them their freedom. You're in in bit over your head here me thinks. I don't think I'll take the time to read more of your posts, let alone respond to them. Goodbye!

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 14 November 2008 - 08:50 PM.


#76 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 15 November 2008 - 05:41 AM

Chivalry died the day humanity learned to kill at a distance.

Of course our diet improved immensely. Well at least some will agree all that added protein went to a good cause; larger brains.

Now all we can hope is that everyone will use all that added neural material before it atrophies.

The issue of guns in the US is remarkably like guns in Afghanistan. Don't expect the idea of taking them away to be popular or even practical. There are many reasons to have guns but the idea that they make things safer in the city is a myth, the cities with the strictest gun laws also do have safer streets. NYC for example is a lot safer in per capita terms than Phoenix or Dallas.

Check out the actual per capita death rate per state:
http://www.statemast...ate-per-100-000

Most of the states (not all) with strict gun control laws are near the bottom. However the ones near the top all have the most liberal laws. Dig deeper and it looks even worse when comparing specific cities. The one clear exception is Washington DC that has both some of the stricter laws and the worst rates but DC may be a case study in how to do everything wrong too.


I think this comparison is misleading and pretty much meaningless. A better comparison would be looking at the murder rate of a city like Dallas before and after having a law enacted like the concealed carry law. I'm pretty sure here in Dallas, and all of Texas the murder rate went down after enactment, and has stayed that way. I think the same thing happened in other states too. That's why they do it.

#77 Brainbox

  • Member
  • 2,860 posts
  • 743
  • Location:Netherlands
  • NO

Posted 15 November 2008 - 12:25 PM

So, if restricting the use of guns causes decrease of murder rate, then guns do have their use, right? :)

#78 Moonbeam

  • Guest
  • 174 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Under a cat.

Posted 15 November 2008 - 02:23 PM

Sue you for what? Not killing them?


Yes.

Or are you proposing that if you find a 15 year old kid in your house looking for money for beer and pot that the appropriate punishment is putting him in a wheelchair for the rest of his life? I'm just wonderin'.


No, of course not. I wouldn't shoot somebody that was not a physical threat to me (or somebody else) over material things.

#79 bacopa

  • Validating/Suspended
  • 2,223 posts
  • 159
  • Location:Boston

Posted 15 November 2008 - 02:34 PM

guns should be banned period. We don't live in a world where we need them anymore. Wake up people this is not the 17hundreds!

#80 luv2increase

  • Guest
  • 2,529 posts
  • 37
  • Location:Ohio

Posted 15 November 2008 - 06:22 PM

guns should be banned period. We don't live in a world where we need them anymore. Wake up people this is not the 17hundreds!



Yes, "wake up people"; there are no more criminals, murderers, home intruders, gangs, wild animals in the wilderness or desert, etc...

People shouldn't have the leisure right of hunting or target practice anymore either. They should spend their time doing something else. If someone breaks in your house, rapes your children, murders your wife, and castrates you, that is destiny so be it, right?


Guns are needed more than they were in the 1700s. What gives you the right to tell people what they need to do for leisure. What gives you the right to stop animal population control which saves human lives? What gives you the right to take away that which was given to us by our forefathers via the Constitution? What gives you the right to tell me that I'm not allowed to protect my family? What gives you the right to not allow me to carry a concealed weapon and use it if someone's life is in danger? What gives you the right to take away guns for those of us whom have no criminal history and are innately good and wouldn't misuse weapons in any way but only for the betterment of society?????

Edited by luv2increase, 15 November 2008 - 06:27 PM.


#81 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 15 November 2008 - 11:08 PM

Sue you for what? Not killing them?

Yes.

Or are you proposing that if you find a 15 year old kid in your house looking for money for beer and pot that the appropriate punishment is putting him in a wheelchair for the rest of his life? I'm just wonderin'.

No, of course not. I wouldn't shoot somebody that was not a physical threat to me (or somebody else) over material things.

Isn't it legal to shoot someone in self defense? Cops do it all the time... Seems like the only time a lawsuit would be applicable would be if you shot someone who obviously wasn't a threat.

#82 Moonbeam

  • Guest
  • 174 posts
  • 0
  • Location:Under a cat.

Posted 15 November 2008 - 11:22 PM

Isn't it legal to shoot someone in self defense? Cops do it all the time... Seems like the only time a lawsuit would be applicable would be if you shot someone who obviously wasn't a threat.


How the law "seems" like it should work is not always how it does, obviously.

#83 inawe

  • Guest
  • 653 posts
  • 3

Posted 15 November 2008 - 11:39 PM

So, if restricting the use of guns causes decrease of murder rate, then guns do have their use, right? :)

Murder rate in the US is the highest in the industrialized world. 4.3 per 100,000, as compared to, let's say, Netherlands 1.1. Non-Americans
must be wondering why we don't do anything to solve the problem. How can we Americans explain how big an obstacle the NRA is?
NRA stands for National Rifle Association. They operate in ways similar to religions. They manage to convince lots of people that:
1) A person cannot be a real American if s/he doesn't have guns. Even more, guns are an essential part of the personality of Americans.
2) The more enthusiastic the support for the NRA, the better American a person is.
3) Have to be on guard because anti-Americans are planning to take guns away from real Americans.
4) If guns are taken away it will be an unimaginable tragedy.

The NRA grades politicians (and may be others) according to how enthusiastic their support for NRA is. Like school grades, A+,
A,...F.. In many parts of the US no politician with a bad NRA grade can win an election. Grades are based on a politician past behavior
and a Usually Republicans get a much better grade than Democrats.

In the 1994 election the NRA is often credited with defeating Congressmen Jack Brooks and Tom Foley (the first Speaker of the House
to lose reelection since 1860). Bill Clinton wrote:
“ The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen.
Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight
against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after
the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the
twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage and could rightly claim to have made Gingrich the House Speaker.

So in a certain sense the NRA is responsible for the current world economic crisis. The NRA was instrumental in electing a Republican
majority to congress. These Republicans passed laws that gave birth to unregulated instruments like CDO and CDS. These instruments
make it almost impossible to untangle the financial knots.

#84 sUper GeNius

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 16 November 2008 - 12:21 AM

Sue you for what? Not killing them?

Yes.

Or are you proposing that if you find a 15 year old kid in your house looking for money for beer and pot that the appropriate punishment is putting him in a wheelchair for the rest of his life? I'm just wonderin'.

No, of course not. I wouldn't shoot somebody that was not a physical threat to me (or somebody else) over material things.

Isn't it legal to shoot someone in self defense? Cops do it all the time... Seems like the only time a lawsuit would be applicable would be if you shot someone who obviously wasn't a threat.


There are lots of issues. One big one is the bad guy must be an *immediate* threat AND a deadly threat. For example, if you have an opportunity to run away, you are expected to. Another issue. Modifications made to the gun. Some owners like to modify the gun to give it a lighter trigger pull, which improves accuracy. Improving accuracy is obviously a good thing, but a DA, or a defense attorney can make the case to a jury that if you modified the gun, you're some kind of "gun nut" just looking for trouble. It's alot easier to defend yourself in your home own. Many states have enacted "homestead" laws which gives the owner the benefit of the doubt if a bad guy breaks into your home. Basically no questions asked. Bottom line, many NRA self-defense course's curriculums include understanding the legal issues involved in self-defense. They can be quite daunting.

Many laws have been changing in favor of gun owners over the last ten years though. Alot has to with the fact that roughly half of all families in the United States own a firearm.

Edited by FuLL meMbeR, 16 November 2008 - 12:30 AM.


#85 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 16 November 2008 - 04:40 AM

Americans usually get guns at an early age.

Posted Image

#86 eternaltraveler

  • Guest, Guardian
  • 6,471 posts
  • 155
  • Location:Silicon Valley, CA

Posted 16 November 2008 - 04:46 AM

Murder rate in the US is the highest in the industrialized world. 4.3 per 100,000, as compared to, let's say, Netherlands 1.1


these kinds of comparisons border on meaningless. By insinuating that the US has a higher murder rate in comparison to the Netherlands precisely because it has less restricted access to handguns you make at least 3 different fallacious arguments at once.

You assume the populations have similar demographics (they do not).

you assume a country of comparable size to New Hampshire is comparable to the US as a whole (New Hampshire also has a comparable murder rater at 1.4, and has some of the most liberal gun laws).

And of course you assume it is because of our gun laws that the US has a higher murder rate, and not because of any other number of factors.

This was one sentence of one post.

Edited by elrond, 16 November 2008 - 04:48 AM.


#87 sUper GeNius

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 16 November 2008 - 06:04 AM

Americans usually get guns at an early age.

Posted Image


Come on, be realistic here. Most anti-gunners wouldn't consider that a picture of an American. That's simply a lump of tissue, (albeit with a completely unique genetic code, go figure.) that is to excised at will or whim.

#88 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 16 November 2008 - 06:15 AM

Americans usually get guns at an early age.

Posted Image


Come on, be realistic here. Most anti-gunners wouldn't consider that a picture of an American. That's simply a lump of tissue, (albeit with a completely unique genetic code, go figure.) that is to excised at will or whim.

Hey, I was just wondering, after threads on global warming and guns, when we would get to... BaBy KiLlInG!!! After that, could we have a thread on Flag Burning? Then another one on whether Communism or Capitalism is better. And another one about outlawing smoking in public places. Maybe then we'll do the right thing and take the Politics and Law forum off the Active Topics list permanently.

#89 biknut

  • Guest
  • 1,892 posts
  • -2
  • Location:Dallas Texas

Posted 16 November 2008 - 06:37 AM

Hey, I was just wondering, after threads on global warming and guns, when we would get to... BaBy KiLlInG!!! After that, could we have a thread on Flag Burning? Then another one on whether Communism or Capitalism is better. And another one about outlawing smoking in public places. Maybe then we'll do the right thing and take the Politics and Law forum off the Active Topics list permanently.


I think we've already covered all that.

#90 sUper GeNius

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 16 November 2008 - 03:16 PM

Americans usually get guns at an early age.

Posted Image


Come on, be realistic here. Most anti-gunners wouldn't consider that a picture of an American. That's simply a lump of tissue, (albeit with a completely unique genetic code, go figure.) that is to excised at will or whim.

Hey, I was just wondering, after threads on global warming and guns, when we would get to... BaBy KiLlInG!!! After that, could we have a thread on Flag Burning? Then another one on whether Communism or Capitalism is better. And another one about outlawing smoking in public places. Maybe then we'll do the right thing and take the Politics and Law forum off the Active Topics list permanently.


I think the forum should stay, but I'd like to see the quality of the conversation improve, (George Carlin routines, images of babies with guns.) The topics you mentioned, global warming, guns, smoking, abortion, these all really do belong IMO on what some might call a"futurist" site like this. We all have visions what our utopian society would look like.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users