In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
I think you are overestimating the bad guys and underestimating the good guys. As you stated the 99.9% are good, therefore out number the bad, by more than a little. You seem to think that only the bad guys would be armed to the teeth. If the bad guys were to do something as this they would be crushed by the overwhelming numbers of the good guys who would be armed well enough. Your example of Somalia only works in a situation where only the chosen good guys and the chosen bad guys get to be armed. The general population of Somalia does not appear to be allowed to be armed.
My example would be of an America where everyone can be armed if they choose. Since we have agreed that 99.9% are good then I believe that the bad guys would be held in check, knowing that they are outnumbered and possibly outgunned. If they chose to test the good guys then they would be wiped out as an example to others who would agress towards the good guys.
I care enough about people to leave them alone. I do not tell them what is best for them unless they ask. I do not try to take from them what they own, and I do not infringe upon thier lives unless they infringe upon mine.
Now why do we need these restrictions and management you speak of?
Jim,
You keep going on about how it would be, if everyone were armed.
(Let's leave out the big guns....just for a minute, this is more about the "ideals" being discussed)
That same kind of talk, blood in the streets, criminals taking over, etc. went on back in the early 80s. Despite the dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence, the violent crime rate almost CEASED TO EXIST, when a little town in Georgia MADE IT A LAW that requiring each head of household (with a few exceptions added later) to own and maintain a firearm.
The crime rate in 1981, before the law was passed, WAS (4,332 per 100,000)
MUCH MORE than the national average that year of (3,899 per 100,000)
After the law was passed requiring ownership of firearms, the crime rate went down immediately, and leveled off about (2,027 per 100,000) in 2005. WELL BELOW the national average, while the population GREW 6 TIMES what it was before passage of the law.
This town is PROUD of the fact that there were NO MURDERS IN OVER 25 YEARS. It is not like this is a remote little village, it is considered to be a suburb of Atlanta, who has a crime rate (in 2006) of (8,965 per 100,000) almost double the national crime rate of (4479 per 100,000)
Why did the crime rate GO DOWN, and the violent crime rate almost CEASED TO EXIST?
Hmmmmm.........more guns..........less crime?
I am sure you have heard of this town.
All the ANTI-gunners have as well, and HATE the statistics this town produces.
Kennesaw Georgia.
Now, add the big guns back in.
Why would it be any different, than what these FACTS say?
Statistical facts prove that the good guys WON in Georgia.
*********
(Disclaimer, For those who might find a different number from a different site, these crime rates are from a few different sights. May or may not be the same as other sites. I did NOT check all 22,000,000 sites)
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
I think you couldnt be more wrong about that Jim..[:)]
I guess I would ask you then, how do you 'force' people to comply with your 'views' if the VAST majority of 'We the people' do not agree nor support them???
You can only force a people "if" you have a well paid or indoctrinated "force" to do your bidding, in the absence of of such a force people are free..
The forces that be have lead to the perpetual cycle of social entrophy that has lead this country to the brink of a communist police state.. You might be a big fan of such forces, but I'm not.[:)]
I am a big fan of enforced laws, When they make sense. [:)]
when a Murderer under arrest has more rights the the average citizen, something is wrong.
Who Enforces all of that? Highball?
And I can tell you without a doubt, the vast majority of Americans do not and will not support the totally unrestricted RTKABA's!!!
Maybe, But things change.. Conformed masses of idiots will believe whatever someone with a good hairdo and suit tells em too.[:D]
quote:Originally posted by pickenup
Jim,
You keep going on about how it would be, if everyone were armed.
(Let's leave out the big guns....just for a minute, this is more about the "ideals" being discussed)
That same kind of talk, blood in the streets, criminals taking over, etc. went on back in the early 80s. Despite the dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence, the violent crime rate almost CEASED TO EXIST, when a little town in Georgia MADE IT A LAW that requiring each head of household (with a few exceptions added later) to own and maintain a firearm.
The crime rate in 1981, before the law was passed, WAS (4,332 per 100,000)
MUCH MORE than the national average that year of (3,899 per 100,000)
After the law was passed requiring ownership of firearms, the crime rate went down immediately, and leveled off about (2,027 per 100,000) in 2005. WELL BELOW the national average, while the population GREW 6 TIMES what it was before passage of the law.
This town is PROUD of the fact that there were NO MURDERS IN OVER 25 YEARS. It is not like this is a remote little village, it is considered to be a suburb of Atlanta, who has a crime rate (in 2006) of (8,965 per 100,000) almost double the national crime rate of (4479 per 100,000)
Why did the crime rate GO DOWN, and the violent crime rate almost CEASED TO EXIST?
Hmmmmm.........more guns..........less crime?
I am sure you have heard of this town.
All the ANTI-gunners have as well, and HATE the statistics this town produces.
Kennesaw Georgia.
Now, add the big guns back in.
Why would it be any different, than what these FACTS say?
Statistical facts prove that the good guys WON in Georgia.
*********
(Disclaimer, For those who might find a different number from a different site, these crime rates are from a few different sights. May or may not be the same as other sites. I did NOT check all 22,000,000 sites)
Negative my good man, simply put, there are more 'good' people in this world than 'bad' people by a VAST majority. So if EVERONE would except the responsibility to arm themselves and defend themselves crime would be all but non existent. BUT this again is an 'ideal' situation which reality/human nature will not allow to occur.
If you look back in our history a few years you will see I am right about the 'criminal element' taking advantage of the 'unrestricted right' to own the full auto arms. After WWI there were little to know restriction on the 'new' technology of full auto. Did the 'average' citizen run out and get them to protect us from a 'tyrannically government', no they did not. Did the criminal element take advantage of this 'right' to arm themselves and wage war against each other and LEO, yes they did.
Wise men learn from their mistakes, wiser men learn form their mistakes and the mistakes of others, and the wisest men learn from their mistakes, the mistakes of others, and and HISTORY!!![;)]
Most of that criminal element you are talking about stole their machine guns from State military bases or converted sporting arms jim, that boat dont hold much water.[;)]
Alittle research yup.
The crime n general was caused by the folstead act. It was the worst depression this country ever experianced, most people couldnt afford food little on a a Thomson or BAR.
You have a way of bending the facts to fit your argument..
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Negative my good man, simply put, there are more 'good' people in this world than 'bad' people by a VAST majority. So if EVERONE would except the responsibility to arm themselves and defend themselves crime would be all but non existent. BUT this again is an 'ideal' situation which reality/human nature will not allow to occur.
If you look back in our history a few years you will see I am right about the 'criminal element' taking advantage of the 'unrestricted right' to own the full auto arms. After WWI there were little to know restriction on the 'new' technology of full auto. Did the 'average' citizen run out and get them to protect us from a 'tyrannically government', no they did not. Did the criminal element take advantage of this 'right' to arm themselves and wage war against each other and LEO, yes they did.
Wise men learn from their mistakes, wiser men learn form their mistakes and the mistakes of others, and the wisest men learn from their mistakes, the mistakes of others, and and HISTORY!!![;)]
And yet, Jim, your suggestion is to remove and/or reduce the current restrictions the current restrictions on magazine fed full auto arms.
Was Scar-face Al using a belt-fed 1921?
Did Bonny and Clyde use a belt-fed 1918?
Hmmmm.... I guess I better check my history.
The point, obviously, has nothing to do with the specifics of the 1934 weapons law or even your 'realistic' approach to restriction. The point is that sculpting restrictions based upon emotion at any specific point in time allows for modification, strengthening, or loosening, at any time in the future based on any future emotion.
Yes, a broken record I am, but the only Constitutional way for you to get those restrictions you want actually codified into a legitimate and fixed law is to pursue the Constitutional Amendment you protest that you do not want.
Freedom and a submissive populace cannot co-exist.
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Negative my good man, simply put, there are more 'good' people in this world than 'bad' people by a VAST majority. So if EVERONE would except the responsibility to arm themselves and defend themselves crime would be all but non existent. BUT this again is an 'ideal' situation which reality/human nature will not allow to occur.
If you look back in our history a few years you will see I am right about the 'criminal element' taking advantage of the 'unrestricted right' to own the full auto arms. After WWI there were little to know restriction on the 'new' technology of full auto. Did the 'average' citizen run out and get them to protect us from a 'tyrannically government', no they did not. Did the criminal element take advantage of this 'right' to arm themselves and wage war against each other and LEO, yes they did.
Wise men learn from their mistakes, wiser men learn form their mistakes and the mistakes of others, and the wisest men learn from their mistakes, the mistakes of others, and and HISTORY!!![;)]
And yet, Jim, your suggestion is to remove and/or reduce the current restrictions the current restrictions on magazine fed full auto arms.
Was Scar-face Al using a belt-fed 1921?
Did Bonny and Clyde use a belt-fed 1918?
Hmmmm.... I guess I better check my history.
The point, obviously, has nothing to do with the specifics of the 1934 weapons law or even your 'realistic' approach to restriction. The point is that sculpting restrictions based upon emotion at any specific point in time allows for modification, strengthening, or loosening, at any time in the future based on any future emotion.
Yes, a broken record I am, but the only Constitutional way for you to get those restrictions you want actually codified into a legitimate and fixed law is to pursue the Constitutional Amendment you protest that you do not want.
Bonnie and Clyde's weapon of favor was the BAR with a cut down barrel!!![;)]
The restrictions placed on the weapons then were to strict, but the progressives got their way because they 'will not let a good crisis go to waste' (they have not changed over the years)!! With the technology we have now we could do a timely back ground check and sell full auto weapons on the spot. We should totally eliminate ANY type of checks for weapons which fire one round with one pull of the trigger, regardless of the action type.
Jim, the criminal element is going to take advantage of anything they can. If the opportunity arises to get full auto or any other armament, they will. How are these restrictions going to stop them?
It appears that you poo-poo the steps taken by the folks in Kennesaw, GA. They have it right, instead of discouraging responsible gun ownership they are promoting it. Are they not pretty close to the ideal? Looks like they are working towards it.
There will always be nuts, crazies, and criminals who will do bad and people will get hurt. There will always be good upstanding citizens to oppose them and avenge the fallen. The govt. restrictions will not change that, they only handicap the law abiding.
Each time a restriction is removed, the horrible circumstances predicted do not come to pass. Why do you think it would be any different if more restrictions were removed?
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:With the technology we have now we could do a timely back ground check and sell full auto weapons on the spot. We should totally eliminate
Ahh. So your 'conversion' lasted, what, two days ? Now we are back to government controls on full autos..even the magazine fed ones.
You could knock me over with a feather, you could....
Me too...surprise, surprise.
Jim has the courage of his convictions and acts with the force of those convictions behind him.
Problem is, his convictions in the area of Amendment II are flawed.
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
Jim, the criminal element is going to take advantage of anything they can. If the opportunity arises to get full auto or any other armament, they will. How are these restrictions going to stop them?
It appears that you poo-poo the steps taken by the folks in Kennesaw, GA. They have it right, instead of discouraging responsible gun ownership they are promoting it. Are they not pretty close to the ideal? Looks like they are working towards it.
There will always be nuts, crazies, and criminals who will do bad and people will get hurt. There will always be good upstanding citizens to oppose them and avenge the fallen. The govt. restrictions will not change that, they only handicap the law abiding.
Each time a restriction is removed, the horrible circumstances predicted do not come to pass. Why do you think it would be any different if more restrictions were removed?
The Hell of it is, alot of the time authority forces unnessicary laws that create nitches for criminals and revenue where none should exist. Usually in the name of greed.. Far be it from anyone on the doles to complain however.[:D][;)]
This creates violence and victims where there should be none or less.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:With the technology we have now we could do a timely back ground check and sell full auto weapons on the spot. We should totally eliminate
Ahh. So your 'conversion' lasted, what, two days ? Now we are back to government controls on full autos..even the magazine fed ones.
You could knock me over with a feather, you could....
No sir, I am clarifying what I said, Less restrictions, and unlimited supply are what I propose. In other words, full auto should be handled as all the guns are now, and we should go back to pre-1968 on all others. CCW should be unrestrained as far a permits go, with LOCAL laws in place to punish those who abuse the RIGHT.
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
I think you couldnt be more wrong about that Jim..[:)]
I guess I would ask you then, how do you 'force' people to comply with your 'views' if the VAST majority of 'We the people' do not agree nor support them???
And I can tell you without a doubt, the vast majority of Americans do not and will not support the totally unrestricted RTKABA's!!!
No one is telling them they have to own them. Just don't restrict others from owning them. If a person behaves in a responsible manner and does not infringe on the rights of others? Those that do not behave in a responsible manner or cause harm to others can be dealt with harshly.
Jim, your argument appears to hinge on the belief that if I owned some large piece of very destructive artillary I would use it to harass society. The number of people who behave irresponsibly and cause harm to others is small in comparison to those who do not. Unrestricted ownership of weapons would not substantially change this ratio of good to bad behavior.
I guess, as I have said all along, you try to deny reality!!!
I spent 26 years on the street. I have VAST experience with both the good and bad guys in this country. The good guys, of which make up about 99.9% of the population, will not allow their government to give totally unrestricted access to ALL arms to everyone. And they are correct in their 'right' to prevent this. The bad guys will arm themselves to the teeth and go to 'war' with each other and the government. Can you say collateral damage like you see in an war torn country. This is not the same as the prediction made by the anti gunners when the CCW permits are issued. You would allow ALL people the same access to WMD's, the bad guys will take advantage of this and victimize 'We the people' just as they are now in countries like Somalia. You are true 'idealist' just like the progressives in power today. You don't care about people, only your 'ideals'!!![V]
I understand your side Jim, don't believe in it, but I understand it. The people that act and react out of fear have been brainwashed by the government and its poor response in enforcing existing laws that are on the books. You know, like putting away the murderers and taking them out of society. Keeping the rapists and pedophiles locked up. While I believe in capitol punishment for those offenses, I am in the minority. If the "majority of people don't FEEL" like the 2nd Amendment is fine the way it is, then they can live their own life according to the way they FEEL. Restrictions added after the fact are unconstitutional. Period. Punish the folks that need to be punished, not the law abiding citizens.
This thread has been very interesting but also sad, IMO. I'll be ridiculed and hated for posting this I'm sure, but I will stick up for Jim. Even though I like, respect and am in no way against any of the posters that have questioned him. I just don't see Jim as a threat compared to what is really out there. Plain and simple, it is a TOTAL WASTE of time to be-little and fight with somebody with his view point. He is nowhere near an enemy from what I've read here. Take the fight to somebody who needs their mind changed. Find the real enemy!
Again, I am prepared to be attacked over this but I agree with Jim. RIGHT OR WRONG, there will always be people who feel there is wide open interpretation of the Constitution and will use this as leverage to fight with. We all seem to have our own interpretations, even here. Like it or not, it is NOT as concrete as you all think it is. I wish it were much more! But our forefathers couldn't have imagined the abandonment of common sense that would take place in 200 years as life got easy for everybody and media was instant and widespread. They could have NEVER imagined! So yes, I wish they would have given more detail to it. But they didn't, unfortunately.
As for my opinion.... there are already far, far, FAR to many laws on the books and most do need to be repealed. These people in Washington have nothing else to do but come up with more laws to justify their jobs!
Every state should be shall issue. Full auto should be allowed across the country. In the worst crime filled cities, the head of households should ALL be required to own a firearm to reduce the crime! Maybe in all cities.
I cannot agree that a 5 year old should be allowed to carry a firearm to school. I simply cannot go along with that for the sake of common sense. Kids are nowhere near mentally developed enough to handle that kind of responsibility, thereby possibly putting my kid or themselves at risk. That's why adults make decisions for them in ALL ASPECTS OF THEIR LIFE. I'm not going to stick up for their right to carry just to throw it in the face of the government.
Despite this, for the sake of how vulnerable the schools are, I do believe that all teachers (a.k.a. adults) should be forced to carry and have training so they could stop a massacre at a school. The fact that this hasn't been done already is careless and reckless for what's at stake.
You guys are out of touch with what society has become. We could not have limitless anarchy without paying a price from all the idiots. There can't be no laws. But as Jim said, there should be a fraction of what exists. Which, even if that was the case, we would be in a utopia and wouldn't know what to complain about! (Most of us anyway.)
All this being said, with these viewpoints, there are some who consider ME to be an extremist! Which, I don't feel like I'm asking for much. But, how do you think you guys will go over, arguing with the other side? I'm not trying to appease them. I'm trying to go strictly by common sense.
I see what gun rights that are left hanging by a thread. I realize why people feel so strongly about it and can understand why people have taken a hard line stance. You're welcome to those opinions. If somebody feels that 0.01% worth of laws (compared to the 100% we have now!!!!) would be adequate, I don't view that person as a threat. It may just be sensible. That view still equates to ROLLING BACK almost everything on the books, which would be cause to celebrate.
I don't even believe all felons should be banned from owning firearms!! It should depend on a case by case basis because it's too easy to slap a cheap felony charge on anyone over some stupid other law which restricts people even more.
If I'm seen as a threat to people's beliefs here or an enemy, or a bad American, then there's a real problem that nobody's going to solve. You guys will be labeled extremists and will have no credibility in arguing against the other side. As I said, I'm not trying to appease anyone either. I've been labeled an extremist for my views. I consider myself to be a moderate but that's where we're at in 2010. Call me whatever you want but I know what side I'm on.
I am going to address one canard that trfox fabricated...and continues to try to use a a weapon.
That being '5 year olds' carrying guns to school'.
Nobody here is suggesting that we arm 5 year olds with full auto weapons in their lunch bucket and sending them off to school. I expect we here considered it to be so utterly nonsensical that we just never assumed that ANYONE would be serious about it.
It appears to have taken on a life of its own, however.
The exact age that a child would be armed is UP TO THE PARENTS...and a child taking a weapon to school is up to those parents, and the Principle of said school...NOT THE GOVERNMENT.
The problems you discuss concerning the savages taking over society ? The REASON that is happening is because the bulk of the decent people are DISARMED..and resistance to animal agression is HEAVILY discouraged by 'authorities'.
I suggest that a BETTER path to controlling violence in this culture is to ARM DECENT PEOPLE...and step out of their path as they control the savages among us.
This thread has been very interesting but also sad, IMO. I'll be ridiculed and hated for posting this I'm sure, but I will stick up for Jim. Even though I like, respect and am in no way against any of the posters that have questioned him. I just don't see Jim as a threat compared to what is really out there. Plain and simple, it is a TOTAL WASTE of time to be-little and fight with somebody with his view point. He is nowhere near an enemy from what I've read here. Take the fight to somebody who needs their mind changed. Find the real enemy!
Again, I am prepared to be attacked over this but I agree with Jim. RIGHT OR WRONG, there will always be people who feel there is wide open interpretation of the Constitution and will use this as leverage to fight with. We all seem to have our own interpretations, even here. Like it or not, it is NOT as concrete as you all think it is. I wish it were much more! But our forefathers couldn't have imagined the abandonment of common sense that would take place in 200 years as life got easy for everybody and media was instant and widespread. They could have NEVER imagined! So yes, I wish they would have given more detail to it. But they didn't, unfortunately.
As for my opinion.... there are already far, far, FAR to many laws on the books and most do need to be repealed. These people in Washington have nothing else to do but come up with more laws to justify their jobs!
Every state should be shall issue. Full auto should be allowed across the country. In the worst crime filled cities, the head of households should ALL be required to own a firearm to reduce the crime! Maybe in all cities.
I cannot agree that a 5 year old should be allowed to carry a firearm to school. I simply cannot go along with that for the sake of common sense. Kids are nowhere near mentally developed enough to handle that kind of responsibility, thereby possibly putting my kid or themselves at risk. That's why adults make decisions for them in ALL ASPECTS OF THEIR LIFE. I'm not going to stick up for their right to carry just to throw it in the face of the government.
Despite this, for the sake of how vulnerable the schools are, I do believe that all teachers (a.k.a. adults) should be forced to carry and have training so they could stop a massacre at a school. The fact that this hasn't been done already is careless and reckless for what's at stake.
You guys are out of touch with what society has become. We could not have limitless anarchy without paying a price from all the idiots. There can't be no laws. But as Jim said, there should be a fraction of what exists. Which, even if that was the case, we would be in a utopia and wouldn't know what to complain about! (Most of us anyway.)
All this being said, with these viewpoints, there are some who consider ME to be an extremist! Which, I don't feel like I'm asking for much. But, how do you think you guys will go over, arguing with the other side? I'm not trying to appease them. I'm trying to go strictly by common sense.
I see what gun rights that are left hanging by a thread. I realize why people feel so strongly about it and can understand why people have taken a hard line stance. You're welcome to those opinions. If somebody feels that 0.01% worth of laws (compared to the 100% we have now!!!!) would be adequate, I don't view that person as a threat. It may just be sensible. That view still equates to ROLLING BACK almost everything on the books, which would be cause to celebrate.
I don't even believe all felons should be banned from owning firearms!! It should depend on a case by case basis because it's too easy to slap a cheap felony charge on anyone over some stupid other law which restricts people even more.
If I'm seen as a threat to people's beliefs here or an enemy, or a bad American, then there's a real problem that nobody's going to solve. You guys will be labeled extremists and will have no credibility in arguing against the other side. As I said, I'm not trying to appease anyone either. I've been labeled an extremist for my views. I consider myself to be a moderate but that's where we're at in 2010. Call me whatever you want but I know what side I'm on.
Jack,
Thank you for pointing out the fact that I am not the 'enemy'![;)]
BUT, your suggestion that all heads of household be REQUIRED to own a gun is as unconstitutional as saying all would be REQUIRED to not own a gun!! I agree it is a good idea and it goes back to one of my basic beliefs, "There are more good people out there than bad. Therefore, if ALL people were armed the bad guys would lose!" There would little to no violent crime!
See my signature line![;)] But to require this would be similar to requiring everyone to vote, or as the healthcare BS which requires ALL to buy insurance. This is unconstitutional. Rights are our to exercise if we desire, not requirement to do so.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Where to begin.
I am going to address one canard that trfox fabricated...and continues to try to use a a weapon.
That being '5 year olds' carrying guns to school'.
Nobody here is suggesting that we arm 5 year olds with full auto weapons in their lunch bucket and sending them off to school. I expect we here considered it to be so utterly nonsensical that we just never assumed that ANYONE would be serious about it.
It appears to have taken on a life of its own, however.
The exact age that a child would be armed is UP TO THE PARENTS...and a child taking a weapon to school is up to those parents, and the Principle of said school...NOT THE GOVERNMENT.
The problems you discuss concerning the savages taking over society ? The REASON that is happening is because the bulk of the decent people are DISARMED..and resistance to animal agression is HEAVILY discouraged by 'authorities'.
I suggest that a BETTER path to controlling violence in this culture is to ARM DECENT PEOPLE...and step out of their path as they control the savages among us.
HB,
The principle of the school is a 'government official' who can only act on the authority given him by the governed! I do believe the 'management' of the arms should be accomplished at a local level, BUT as we have seen many local laws violate the rights of the individual, so some federal oversight is a MUST! But we MUST have traditionalists not progressives overseeing this!!!
quote:BUT as we have seen many local laws violate the rights of the individual, so some federal oversight is a MUST!
There you reveal a basic ignorance of the concept of the 'several states'.
That being...if you do not like the laws in YOUR state...vote with your FEET !! An overreaching, federal 'one size fits ALL' government is automatically the death of a Republic.
The federal government was formed to accomplish 18 or 19 tasks...and that was ALL they were authorized to do.
Oh...by the way. If you didn't like the way your school board runs things...you stand a FAR better chance of changing THAT..then at the National level.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
if you do not like the laws in YOUR state...vote with your FEET !!
I agree Highball, but it really makes me angry that there isn't a whole hell of alot that we can actually do to force those anti-constitutional states to follow the Constitution and support a Republic like they know they should and stop following the federal government(short of a Civil War), especially the liberal democrapic ones or mostly thereof, thank GOD for the other States at least we have something to work with. However in turn we are forced to either endure the bs living in the particular state in question in almost "1984" fashion and attempt to vote, even though however there are probably NO qualified candidates. I personally believe that our election system is completely corrupted and has been for a very long time, not to mention we as a people should be entitled to vote on more issues than we get too, so unfortunately, but astoundingly yes, we must vote with our feet...but I would really prefer to kick their * into canada or something along with alot of other liberal trash here.
Sadly, the Beast has forced itself on EVERY state..there is little difference any more between them. Moving gains nothing except a few more days, weeks..perhaps a few years.
Voting has been a joke my entire lifetime...60 years. Decent, Liberty loving folks are VASTLY outnumbered by leeches, government workers, and profiteers.people putting their own selfish needs ahead of the country.
I see NOTHING to indicate that the `people' will have a revival.and suddenly enough will vote `Constitutional candidates' as to make the SLIGHEST difference.
I really, truly, hope I am wrong about that.I really do.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
Sadly, the Beast has forced itself on EVERY state..there is little difference any more between them. Moving gains nothing except a few more days, weeks..perhaps a few years.
Voting has been a joke my entire lifetime...60 years. Decent, Liberty loving folks are VASTLY outnumbered by leeches, government workers, and profiteers.people putting their own selfish needs ahead of the country.
I see NOTHING to indicate that the `people' will have a revival.and suddenly enough will vote `Constitutional candidates' as to make the SLIGHEST difference.
I really, truly, hope I am wrong about that.I really do.
It is very sad indeed and I hope that it doesn't happen, but that a miraculous change occurs somehow where the people of this country invoke their power to change the current situation by any means for all our sakes. We are now at a crossroads of one road that leads to Civil War be it not and the other road leads to change by following the Constitution for our Republic so help us GOD.
quote:Originally posted by Highball
I see NOTHING to indicate that the `people' will have a revival.and suddenly enough will vote `Constitutional candidates' as to make the SLIGHEST difference.
I really, truly, hope I am wrong about that.I really do.
I see the same thing.
I fear you are NOT wrong. [V]
quote:Originally posted by Highball
quote:BUT as we have seen many local laws violate the rights of the individual, so some federal oversight is a MUST!
There you reveal a basic ignorance of the concept of the 'several states'.
That being...if you do not like the laws in YOUR state...vote with your FEET !! An overreaching, federal 'one size fits ALL' government is automatically the death of a Republic.
The federal government was formed to accomplish 18 or 19 tasks...and that was ALL they were authorized to do.
Oh...by the way. If you didn't like the way your school board runs things...you stand a FAR better chance of changing THAT..then at the National level.
Wrong again HB!! If you want to RUN AWAY from the fight so be it. I DO NOT!!! As we have seen MANY times the local law violate the Rights set forth in the BILL OF RIHGTS and thus the Federal Government is REQUIRED to intervene and reinstate those rights. The Feds have not been dong this when it comes to the RTKABA's because the progressives have been in power for the last 100+ years.
So your advise is to just run and hide where the likely hood of confrontation is less? Interesting to say the least from one who is constantly belittling those who you feel are not taking a stand!!!![;)]
No, you are wrong and are not comprehending what Highball and others are talking about especially since you and others like you have a liberal, progressive and un-constitutional interpretation of our Constitutional Rights.
Highball would never run and hide as neither would we and don't see where you got that ridiculous idea. He is simply stating that at some point depending on what state that you happen to reside in there comes a point when one needs to decide on where to fight your battles and what constitutes a waste of time since there is no point in casting your pearls before swine lest they turn and tear you apart. Hence it would be wiser to regroup into a stronger more defendable state to strengthen it and not throw yourself under the beast to simply be devoured by the heathen liberal hordes, basic strategy comes into play here, as there is no point in fighting in a burning house. Obviously rights are being violated however I certainly wouldn't rely on the beast to intervene because a certain state is doing so since you are foolishly inviting the beast to come and help its henchman, not a good prospect.
BTW those that do not take a stand for the Constitution and the Republic should be more than be belittled, more like tarred and feathered and booted out of town with a sign on them that says that they are a traitor to the Constitution and the Republic. There is NO interpretation, there is NO compromise, what don't you collectivist, progressive, liberals understand about this, go join the brady bunch crowd since that is where you belong and stop wasting our time with your liberal barf, you either support us or not, period, your frivolous arguing and petty little insults will not help you and make you look silly and you are wasting everyone's time.
Mr. Wolf,
You need to keep your day job. As funny as your comments are would they do not make any sense, just comical. Once again you have no idea whom you are talking about. You are just making unfounded statements you can not back up with facts. You are on one end of this and Obama and the progressives are on the other. Any one who does not bow down to you you call a progressive or a liberal. It just shows how prejudice and closed mined you are. As I have said MANY times these ridiculous unrealistic attacks serves no purpose except to prove you have no legitimate argument or facts to support your silliness. [V]
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Mr. Wolf,
You need to keep your day job. As funny as your comments are would they do not make any sense, just comical. Once again you have no idea whom you are talking about. You are just making unfounded statements you can not back up with facts. You are on one end of this and Obama and the progressives are on the other. Any one who does not bow down to you you call a progressive or a liberal. It just shows how prejudice and closed mined you are. As I have said MANY times these ridiculous unrealistic attacks serves no purpose except to prove you have no legitimate argument or facts to support your silliness. [V]
You don't know me nor what my "day job" consists of so that statement is completely illogical and without merit as is everything else that you say. Your petty little insults show that you are as ignorant as you are juvenile and hide behind your little computer screen and sling insults.
Apparently you are an illiterate cur that more than likely has more than one username here and serve no other purpose but to spread lies and idiotic nonsense. You are a liberal, progressive, collectivist by your own posts, you might care to read your own posts sometime there windup.
There is NO one end or another, there is only Constitutionalists that do NOT interpret the Constitution as you and your made up supporters and perhaps some other loser liberals do and the liberal trash that are trying to undermine our Constitution and Republic.
The facts have been presented more than enough times and by more than enough individuals to make this a waste of time to have to keep arguing with individuals like you.
No man bows to me nor would I ever allow them too and if you have ever read the Holy Scriptures then you would know that man will only bow to God not man. And no, not closed minded just closed to people like yourself and anyone else that twists the truth around to suite the will of the beast and themselves. Your perception of the facts are ridiculous, you are so arrogant you are a legend in your own mind that proceeds to play the victim when others don't agree with you trying to invoke the sympathy other sheeple and then in turn offer them the garbage of your master the federal government.
Go back to your brady bunch and take the other servants of the federal government with you.
Comments
My example would be of an America where everyone can be armed if they choose. Since we have agreed that 99.9% are good then I believe that the bad guys would be held in check, knowing that they are outnumbered and possibly outgunned. If they chose to test the good guys then they would be wiped out as an example to others who would agress towards the good guys.
I care enough about people to leave them alone. I do not tell them what is best for them unless they ask. I do not try to take from them what they own, and I do not infringe upon thier lives unless they infringe upon mine.
Now why do we need these restrictions and management you speak of?
Now why do we need these restrictions and management you speak of?
Because for some strange, hoplophobic reason, it helps those who are ferfraid of everything, sleep.
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
Now why do we need these restrictions and management you speak of?
Because for some strange, hoplophobic reason, it helps those who are ferfraid of everything, sleep.
That would appear to be the case.
How ya doing out there Jeff?
quote:Originally posted by jpwolf
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
Now why do we need these restrictions and management you speak of?
Because for some strange, hoplophobic reason, it helps those who are ferfraid of everything, sleep.
That would appear to be the case.
How ya doing out there Jeff?
Been better. You'll get an earful when I get back.
You keep going on about how it would be, if everyone were armed.
(Let's leave out the big guns....just for a minute, this is more about the "ideals" being discussed)
That same kind of talk, blood in the streets, criminals taking over, etc. went on back in the early 80s. Despite the dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence, the violent crime rate almost CEASED TO EXIST, when a little town in Georgia MADE IT A LAW that requiring each head of household (with a few exceptions added later) to own and maintain a firearm.
The crime rate in 1981, before the law was passed, WAS (4,332 per 100,000)
MUCH MORE than the national average that year of (3,899 per 100,000)
After the law was passed requiring ownership of firearms, the crime rate went down immediately, and leveled off about (2,027 per 100,000) in 2005. WELL BELOW the national average, while the population GREW 6 TIMES what it was before passage of the law.
This town is PROUD of the fact that there were NO MURDERS IN OVER 25 YEARS. It is not like this is a remote little village, it is considered to be a suburb of Atlanta, who has a crime rate (in 2006) of (8,965 per 100,000) almost double the national crime rate of (4479 per 100,000)
Why did the crime rate GO DOWN, and the violent crime rate almost CEASED TO EXIST?
Hmmmmm.........more guns..........less crime?
I am sure you have heard of this town.
All the ANTI-gunners have as well, and HATE the statistics this town produces.
Kennesaw Georgia.
Now, add the big guns back in.
Why would it be any different, than what these FACTS say?
Statistical facts prove that the good guys WON in Georgia.
*********
(Disclaimer, For those who might find a different number from a different site, these crime rates are from a few different sights. May or may not be the same as other sites. I did NOT check all 22,000,000 sites)
quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
I think you couldnt be more wrong about that Jim..[:)]
I guess I would ask you then, how do you 'force' people to comply with your 'views' if the VAST majority of 'We the people' do not agree nor support them???
You can only force a people "if" you have a well paid or indoctrinated "force" to do your bidding, in the absence of of such a force people are free..
The forces that be have lead to the perpetual cycle of social entrophy that has lead this country to the brink of a communist police state.. You might be a big fan of such forces, but I'm not.[:)]
I am a big fan of enforced laws, When they make sense. [:)]
when a Murderer under arrest has more rights the the average citizen, something is wrong.
Who Enforces all of that? Highball?
And I can tell you without a doubt, the vast majority of Americans do not and will not support the totally unrestricted RTKABA's!!!
Maybe, But things change.. Conformed masses of idiots will believe whatever someone with a good hairdo and suit tells em too.[:D]
Jim,
You keep going on about how it would be, if everyone were armed.
(Let's leave out the big guns....just for a minute, this is more about the "ideals" being discussed)
That same kind of talk, blood in the streets, criminals taking over, etc. went on back in the early 80s. Despite the dire predictions of "Wild West" showdowns and increased violence, the violent crime rate almost CEASED TO EXIST, when a little town in Georgia MADE IT A LAW that requiring each head of household (with a few exceptions added later) to own and maintain a firearm.
The crime rate in 1981, before the law was passed, WAS (4,332 per 100,000)
MUCH MORE than the national average that year of (3,899 per 100,000)
After the law was passed requiring ownership of firearms, the crime rate went down immediately, and leveled off about (2,027 per 100,000) in 2005. WELL BELOW the national average, while the population GREW 6 TIMES what it was before passage of the law.
This town is PROUD of the fact that there were NO MURDERS IN OVER 25 YEARS. It is not like this is a remote little village, it is considered to be a suburb of Atlanta, who has a crime rate (in 2006) of (8,965 per 100,000) almost double the national crime rate of (4479 per 100,000)
Why did the crime rate GO DOWN, and the violent crime rate almost CEASED TO EXIST?
Hmmmmm.........more guns..........less crime?
I am sure you have heard of this town.
All the ANTI-gunners have as well, and HATE the statistics this town produces.
Kennesaw Georgia.
Now, add the big guns back in.
Why would it be any different, than what these FACTS say?
Statistical facts prove that the good guys WON in Georgia.
*********
(Disclaimer, For those who might find a different number from a different site, these crime rates are from a few different sights. May or may not be the same as other sites. I did NOT check all 22,000,000 sites)
Negative my good man, simply put, there are more 'good' people in this world than 'bad' people by a VAST majority. So if EVERONE would except the responsibility to arm themselves and defend themselves crime would be all but non existent. BUT this again is an 'ideal' situation which reality/human nature will not allow to occur.
If you look back in our history a few years you will see I am right about the 'criminal element' taking advantage of the 'unrestricted right' to own the full auto arms. After WWI there were little to know restriction on the 'new' technology of full auto. Did the 'average' citizen run out and get them to protect us from a 'tyrannically government', no they did not. Did the criminal element take advantage of this 'right' to arm themselves and wage war against each other and LEO, yes they did.
Wise men learn from their mistakes, wiser men learn form their mistakes and the mistakes of others, and the wisest men learn from their mistakes, the mistakes of others, and and HISTORY!!![;)]
Alittle research yup.
The crime n general was caused by the folstead act. It was the worst depression this country ever experianced, most people couldnt afford food little on a a Thomson or BAR.
You have a way of bending the facts to fit your argument..
Negative my good man, simply put, there are more 'good' people in this world than 'bad' people by a VAST majority. So if EVERONE would except the responsibility to arm themselves and defend themselves crime would be all but non existent. BUT this again is an 'ideal' situation which reality/human nature will not allow to occur.
If you look back in our history a few years you will see I am right about the 'criminal element' taking advantage of the 'unrestricted right' to own the full auto arms. After WWI there were little to know restriction on the 'new' technology of full auto. Did the 'average' citizen run out and get them to protect us from a 'tyrannically government', no they did not. Did the criminal element take advantage of this 'right' to arm themselves and wage war against each other and LEO, yes they did.
Wise men learn from their mistakes, wiser men learn form their mistakes and the mistakes of others, and the wisest men learn from their mistakes, the mistakes of others, and and HISTORY!!![;)]
And yet, Jim, your suggestion is to remove and/or reduce the current restrictions the current restrictions on magazine fed full auto arms.
Was Scar-face Al using a belt-fed 1921?
Did Bonny and Clyde use a belt-fed 1918?
Hmmmm.... I guess I better check my history.
The point, obviously, has nothing to do with the specifics of the 1934 weapons law or even your 'realistic' approach to restriction. The point is that sculpting restrictions based upon emotion at any specific point in time allows for modification, strengthening, or loosening, at any time in the future based on any future emotion.
Yes, a broken record I am, but the only Constitutional way for you to get those restrictions you want actually codified into a legitimate and fixed law is to pursue the Constitutional Amendment you protest that you do not want.
Brad Steele
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
Negative my good man, simply put, there are more 'good' people in this world than 'bad' people by a VAST majority. So if EVERONE would except the responsibility to arm themselves and defend themselves crime would be all but non existent. BUT this again is an 'ideal' situation which reality/human nature will not allow to occur.
If you look back in our history a few years you will see I am right about the 'criminal element' taking advantage of the 'unrestricted right' to own the full auto arms. After WWI there were little to know restriction on the 'new' technology of full auto. Did the 'average' citizen run out and get them to protect us from a 'tyrannically government', no they did not. Did the criminal element take advantage of this 'right' to arm themselves and wage war against each other and LEO, yes they did.
Wise men learn from their mistakes, wiser men learn form their mistakes and the mistakes of others, and the wisest men learn from their mistakes, the mistakes of others, and and HISTORY!!![;)]
And yet, Jim, your suggestion is to remove and/or reduce the current restrictions the current restrictions on magazine fed full auto arms.
Was Scar-face Al using a belt-fed 1921?
Did Bonny and Clyde use a belt-fed 1918?
Hmmmm.... I guess I better check my history.
The point, obviously, has nothing to do with the specifics of the 1934 weapons law or even your 'realistic' approach to restriction. The point is that sculpting restrictions based upon emotion at any specific point in time allows for modification, strengthening, or loosening, at any time in the future based on any future emotion.
Yes, a broken record I am, but the only Constitutional way for you to get those restrictions you want actually codified into a legitimate and fixed law is to pursue the Constitutional Amendment you protest that you do not want.
Bonnie and Clyde's weapon of favor was the BAR with a cut down barrel!!![;)]
The restrictions placed on the weapons then were to strict, but the progressives got their way because they 'will not let a good crisis go to waste' (they have not changed over the years)!! With the technology we have now we could do a timely back ground check and sell full auto weapons on the spot. We should totally eliminate ANY type of checks for weapons which fire one round with one pull of the trigger, regardless of the action type.
Ahh. So your 'conversion' lasted, what, two days ? Now we are back to government controls on full autos..even the magazine fed ones.
You could knock me over with a feather, you could....
It appears that you poo-poo the steps taken by the folks in Kennesaw, GA. They have it right, instead of discouraging responsible gun ownership they are promoting it. Are they not pretty close to the ideal? Looks like they are working towards it.
There will always be nuts, crazies, and criminals who will do bad and people will get hurt. There will always be good upstanding citizens to oppose them and avenge the fallen. The govt. restrictions will not change that, they only handicap the law abiding.
Each time a restriction is removed, the horrible circumstances predicted do not come to pass. Why do you think it would be any different if more restrictions were removed?
quote:With the technology we have now we could do a timely back ground check and sell full auto weapons on the spot. We should totally eliminate
Ahh. So your 'conversion' lasted, what, two days ? Now we are back to government controls on full autos..even the magazine fed ones.
You could knock me over with a feather, you could....
Me too...surprise, surprise.
Jim has the courage of his convictions and acts with the force of those convictions behind him.
Problem is, his convictions in the area of Amendment II are flawed.
Jim, the criminal element is going to take advantage of anything they can. If the opportunity arises to get full auto or any other armament, they will. How are these restrictions going to stop them?
It appears that you poo-poo the steps taken by the folks in Kennesaw, GA. They have it right, instead of discouraging responsible gun ownership they are promoting it. Are they not pretty close to the ideal? Looks like they are working towards it.
There will always be nuts, crazies, and criminals who will do bad and people will get hurt. There will always be good upstanding citizens to oppose them and avenge the fallen. The govt. restrictions will not change that, they only handicap the law abiding.
Each time a restriction is removed, the horrible circumstances predicted do not come to pass. Why do you think it would be any different if more restrictions were removed?
The Hell of it is, alot of the time authority forces unnessicary laws that create nitches for criminals and revenue where none should exist. Usually in the name of greed.. Far be it from anyone on the doles to complain however.[:D][;)]
This creates violence and victims where there should be none or less.
quote:With the technology we have now we could do a timely back ground check and sell full auto weapons on the spot. We should totally eliminate
Ahh. So your 'conversion' lasted, what, two days ? Now we are back to government controls on full autos..even the magazine fed ones.
You could knock me over with a feather, you could....
No sir, I am clarifying what I said, Less restrictions, and unlimited supply are what I propose. In other words, full auto should be handled as all the guns are now, and we should go back to pre-1968 on all others. CCW should be unrestrained as far a permits go, with LOCAL laws in place to punish those who abuse the RIGHT.
quote:Originally posted by buffalobo
quote:Originally posted by Jim Rau
quote:Originally posted by quickmajik
I think you couldnt be more wrong about that Jim..[:)]
I guess I would ask you then, how do you 'force' people to comply with your 'views' if the VAST majority of 'We the people' do not agree nor support them???
And I can tell you without a doubt, the vast majority of Americans do not and will not support the totally unrestricted RTKABA's!!!
No one is telling them they have to own them. Just don't restrict others from owning them. If a person behaves in a responsible manner and does not infringe on the rights of others? Those that do not behave in a responsible manner or cause harm to others can be dealt with harshly.
Jim, your argument appears to hinge on the belief that if I owned some large piece of very destructive artillary I would use it to harass society. The number of people who behave irresponsibly and cause harm to others is small in comparison to those who do not. Unrestricted ownership of weapons would not substantially change this ratio of good to bad behavior.
I guess, as I have said all along, you try to deny reality!!!
I spent 26 years on the street. I have VAST experience with both the good and bad guys in this country. The good guys, of which make up about 99.9% of the population, will not allow their government to give totally unrestricted access to ALL arms to everyone. And they are correct in their 'right' to prevent this. The bad guys will arm themselves to the teeth and go to 'war' with each other and the government. Can you say collateral damage like you see in an war torn country. This is not the same as the prediction made by the anti gunners when the CCW permits are issued. You would allow ALL people the same access to WMD's, the bad guys will take advantage of this and victimize 'We the people' just as they are now in countries like Somalia. You are true 'idealist' just like the progressives in power today. You don't care about people, only your 'ideals'!!![V]
I understand your side Jim, don't believe in it, but I understand it. The people that act and react out of fear have been brainwashed by the government and its poor response in enforcing existing laws that are on the books. You know, like putting away the murderers and taking them out of society. Keeping the rapists and pedophiles locked up. While I believe in capitol punishment for those offenses, I am in the minority. If the "majority of people don't FEEL" like the 2nd Amendment is fine the way it is, then they can live their own life according to the way they FEEL. Restrictions added after the fact are unconstitutional. Period. Punish the folks that need to be punished, not the law abiding citizens.
Again, I am prepared to be attacked over this but I agree with Jim. RIGHT OR WRONG, there will always be people who feel there is wide open interpretation of the Constitution and will use this as leverage to fight with. We all seem to have our own interpretations, even here. Like it or not, it is NOT as concrete as you all think it is. I wish it were much more! But our forefathers couldn't have imagined the abandonment of common sense that would take place in 200 years as life got easy for everybody and media was instant and widespread. They could have NEVER imagined! So yes, I wish they would have given more detail to it. But they didn't, unfortunately.
As for my opinion.... there are already far, far, FAR to many laws on the books and most do need to be repealed. These people in Washington have nothing else to do but come up with more laws to justify their jobs!
Every state should be shall issue. Full auto should be allowed across the country. In the worst crime filled cities, the head of households should ALL be required to own a firearm to reduce the crime! Maybe in all cities.
I cannot agree that a 5 year old should be allowed to carry a firearm to school. I simply cannot go along with that for the sake of common sense. Kids are nowhere near mentally developed enough to handle that kind of responsibility, thereby possibly putting my kid or themselves at risk. That's why adults make decisions for them in ALL ASPECTS OF THEIR LIFE. I'm not going to stick up for their right to carry just to throw it in the face of the government.
Despite this, for the sake of how vulnerable the schools are, I do believe that all teachers (a.k.a. adults) should be forced to carry and have training so they could stop a massacre at a school. The fact that this hasn't been done already is careless and reckless for what's at stake.
You guys are out of touch with what society has become. We could not have limitless anarchy without paying a price from all the idiots. There can't be no laws. But as Jim said, there should be a fraction of what exists. Which, even if that was the case, we would be in a utopia and wouldn't know what to complain about! (Most of us anyway.)
All this being said, with these viewpoints, there are some who consider ME to be an extremist! Which, I don't feel like I'm asking for much. But, how do you think you guys will go over, arguing with the other side? I'm not trying to appease them. I'm trying to go strictly by common sense.
I see what gun rights that are left hanging by a thread. I realize why people feel so strongly about it and can understand why people have taken a hard line stance. You're welcome to those opinions. If somebody feels that 0.01% worth of laws (compared to the 100% we have now!!!!) would be adequate, I don't view that person as a threat. It may just be sensible. That view still equates to ROLLING BACK almost everything on the books, which would be cause to celebrate.
I don't even believe all felons should be banned from owning firearms!! It should depend on a case by case basis because it's too easy to slap a cheap felony charge on anyone over some stupid other law which restricts people even more.
If I'm seen as a threat to people's beliefs here or an enemy, or a bad American, then there's a real problem that nobody's going to solve. You guys will be labeled extremists and will have no credibility in arguing against the other side. As I said, I'm not trying to appease anyone either. I've been labeled an extremist for my views. I consider myself to be a moderate but that's where we're at in 2010. Call me whatever you want but I know what side I'm on.
I am going to address one canard that trfox fabricated...and continues to try to use a a weapon.
That being '5 year olds' carrying guns to school'.
Nobody here is suggesting that we arm 5 year olds with full auto weapons in their lunch bucket and sending them off to school. I expect we here considered it to be so utterly nonsensical that we just never assumed that ANYONE would be serious about it.
It appears to have taken on a life of its own, however.
The exact age that a child would be armed is UP TO THE PARENTS...and a child taking a weapon to school is up to those parents, and the Principle of said school...NOT THE GOVERNMENT.
The problems you discuss concerning the savages taking over society ? The REASON that is happening is because the bulk of the decent people are DISARMED..and resistance to animal agression is HEAVILY discouraged by 'authorities'.
I suggest that a BETTER path to controlling violence in this culture is to ARM DECENT PEOPLE...and step out of their path as they control the savages among us.
This thread has been very interesting but also sad, IMO. I'll be ridiculed and hated for posting this I'm sure, but I will stick up for Jim. Even though I like, respect and am in no way against any of the posters that have questioned him. I just don't see Jim as a threat compared to what is really out there. Plain and simple, it is a TOTAL WASTE of time to be-little and fight with somebody with his view point. He is nowhere near an enemy from what I've read here. Take the fight to somebody who needs their mind changed. Find the real enemy!
Again, I am prepared to be attacked over this but I agree with Jim. RIGHT OR WRONG, there will always be people who feel there is wide open interpretation of the Constitution and will use this as leverage to fight with. We all seem to have our own interpretations, even here. Like it or not, it is NOT as concrete as you all think it is. I wish it were much more! But our forefathers couldn't have imagined the abandonment of common sense that would take place in 200 years as life got easy for everybody and media was instant and widespread. They could have NEVER imagined! So yes, I wish they would have given more detail to it. But they didn't, unfortunately.
As for my opinion.... there are already far, far, FAR to many laws on the books and most do need to be repealed. These people in Washington have nothing else to do but come up with more laws to justify their jobs!
Every state should be shall issue. Full auto should be allowed across the country. In the worst crime filled cities, the head of households should ALL be required to own a firearm to reduce the crime! Maybe in all cities.
I cannot agree that a 5 year old should be allowed to carry a firearm to school. I simply cannot go along with that for the sake of common sense. Kids are nowhere near mentally developed enough to handle that kind of responsibility, thereby possibly putting my kid or themselves at risk. That's why adults make decisions for them in ALL ASPECTS OF THEIR LIFE. I'm not going to stick up for their right to carry just to throw it in the face of the government.
Despite this, for the sake of how vulnerable the schools are, I do believe that all teachers (a.k.a. adults) should be forced to carry and have training so they could stop a massacre at a school. The fact that this hasn't been done already is careless and reckless for what's at stake.
You guys are out of touch with what society has become. We could not have limitless anarchy without paying a price from all the idiots. There can't be no laws. But as Jim said, there should be a fraction of what exists. Which, even if that was the case, we would be in a utopia and wouldn't know what to complain about! (Most of us anyway.)
All this being said, with these viewpoints, there are some who consider ME to be an extremist! Which, I don't feel like I'm asking for much. But, how do you think you guys will go over, arguing with the other side? I'm not trying to appease them. I'm trying to go strictly by common sense.
I see what gun rights that are left hanging by a thread. I realize why people feel so strongly about it and can understand why people have taken a hard line stance. You're welcome to those opinions. If somebody feels that 0.01% worth of laws (compared to the 100% we have now!!!!) would be adequate, I don't view that person as a threat. It may just be sensible. That view still equates to ROLLING BACK almost everything on the books, which would be cause to celebrate.
I don't even believe all felons should be banned from owning firearms!! It should depend on a case by case basis because it's too easy to slap a cheap felony charge on anyone over some stupid other law which restricts people even more.
If I'm seen as a threat to people's beliefs here or an enemy, or a bad American, then there's a real problem that nobody's going to solve. You guys will be labeled extremists and will have no credibility in arguing against the other side. As I said, I'm not trying to appease anyone either. I've been labeled an extremist for my views. I consider myself to be a moderate but that's where we're at in 2010. Call me whatever you want but I know what side I'm on.
Jack,
Thank you for pointing out the fact that I am not the 'enemy'![;)]
BUT, your suggestion that all heads of household be REQUIRED to own a gun is as unconstitutional as saying all would be REQUIRED to not own a gun!! I agree it is a good idea and it goes back to one of my basic beliefs, "There are more good people out there than bad. Therefore, if ALL people were armed the bad guys would lose!" There would little to no violent crime!
See my signature line![;)] But to require this would be similar to requiring everyone to vote, or as the healthcare BS which requires ALL to buy insurance. This is unconstitutional. Rights are our to exercise if we desire, not requirement to do so.
Where to begin.
I am going to address one canard that trfox fabricated...and continues to try to use a a weapon.
That being '5 year olds' carrying guns to school'.
Nobody here is suggesting that we arm 5 year olds with full auto weapons in their lunch bucket and sending them off to school. I expect we here considered it to be so utterly nonsensical that we just never assumed that ANYONE would be serious about it.
It appears to have taken on a life of its own, however.
The exact age that a child would be armed is UP TO THE PARENTS...and a child taking a weapon to school is up to those parents, and the Principle of said school...NOT THE GOVERNMENT.
The problems you discuss concerning the savages taking over society ? The REASON that is happening is because the bulk of the decent people are DISARMED..and resistance to animal agression is HEAVILY discouraged by 'authorities'.
I suggest that a BETTER path to controlling violence in this culture is to ARM DECENT PEOPLE...and step out of their path as they control the savages among us.
HB,
The principle of the school is a 'government official' who can only act on the authority given him by the governed! I do believe the 'management' of the arms should be accomplished at a local level, BUT as we have seen many local laws violate the rights of the individual, so some federal oversight is a MUST! But we MUST have traditionalists not progressives overseeing this!!!
There you reveal a basic ignorance of the concept of the 'several states'.
That being...if you do not like the laws in YOUR state...vote with your FEET !! An overreaching, federal 'one size fits ALL' government is automatically the death of a Republic.
The federal government was formed to accomplish 18 or 19 tasks...and that was ALL they were authorized to do.
Oh...by the way. If you didn't like the way your school board runs things...you stand a FAR better chance of changing THAT..then at the National level.
if you do not like the laws in YOUR state...vote with your FEET !!
I agree Highball, but it really makes me angry that there isn't a whole hell of alot that we can actually do to force those anti-constitutional states to follow the Constitution and support a Republic like they know they should and stop following the federal government(short of a Civil War), especially the liberal democrapic ones or mostly thereof, thank GOD for the other States at least we have something to work with. However in turn we are forced to either endure the bs living in the particular state in question in almost "1984" fashion and attempt to vote, even though however there are probably NO qualified candidates. I personally believe that our election system is completely corrupted and has been for a very long time, not to mention we as a people should be entitled to vote on more issues than we get too, so unfortunately, but astoundingly yes, we must vote with our feet...but I would really prefer to kick their * into canada or something along with alot of other liberal trash here.
Voting has been a joke my entire lifetime...60 years. Decent, Liberty loving folks are VASTLY outnumbered by leeches, government workers, and profiteers.people putting their own selfish needs ahead of the country.
I see NOTHING to indicate that the `people' will have a revival.and suddenly enough will vote `Constitutional candidates' as to make the SLIGHEST difference.
I really, truly, hope I am wrong about that.I really do.
Sadly, the Beast has forced itself on EVERY state..there is little difference any more between them. Moving gains nothing except a few more days, weeks..perhaps a few years.
Voting has been a joke my entire lifetime...60 years. Decent, Liberty loving folks are VASTLY outnumbered by leeches, government workers, and profiteers.people putting their own selfish needs ahead of the country.
I see NOTHING to indicate that the `people' will have a revival.and suddenly enough will vote `Constitutional candidates' as to make the SLIGHEST difference.
I really, truly, hope I am wrong about that.I really do.
It is very sad indeed and I hope that it doesn't happen, but that a miraculous change occurs somehow where the people of this country invoke their power to change the current situation by any means for all our sakes. We are now at a crossroads of one road that leads to Civil War be it not and the other road leads to change by following the Constitution for our Republic so help us GOD.
I see NOTHING to indicate that the `people' will have a revival.and suddenly enough will vote `Constitutional candidates' as to make the SLIGHEST difference.
I really, truly, hope I am wrong about that.I really do.
I see the same thing.
I fear you are NOT wrong. [V]
quote:BUT as we have seen many local laws violate the rights of the individual, so some federal oversight is a MUST!
There you reveal a basic ignorance of the concept of the 'several states'.
That being...if you do not like the laws in YOUR state...vote with your FEET !! An overreaching, federal 'one size fits ALL' government is automatically the death of a Republic.
The federal government was formed to accomplish 18 or 19 tasks...and that was ALL they were authorized to do.
Oh...by the way. If you didn't like the way your school board runs things...you stand a FAR better chance of changing THAT..then at the National level.
Wrong again HB!! If you want to RUN AWAY from the fight so be it. I DO NOT!!! As we have seen MANY times the local law violate the Rights set forth in the BILL OF RIHGTS and thus the Federal Government is REQUIRED to intervene and reinstate those rights. The Feds have not been dong this when it comes to the RTKABA's because the progressives have been in power for the last 100+ years.
So your advise is to just run and hide where the likely hood of confrontation is less? Interesting to say the least from one who is constantly belittling those who you feel are not taking a stand!!!![;)]
Highball would never run and hide as neither would we and don't see where you got that ridiculous idea. He is simply stating that at some point depending on what state that you happen to reside in there comes a point when one needs to decide on where to fight your battles and what constitutes a waste of time since there is no point in casting your pearls before swine lest they turn and tear you apart. Hence it would be wiser to regroup into a stronger more defendable state to strengthen it and not throw yourself under the beast to simply be devoured by the heathen liberal hordes, basic strategy comes into play here, as there is no point in fighting in a burning house. Obviously rights are being violated however I certainly wouldn't rely on the beast to intervene because a certain state is doing so since you are foolishly inviting the beast to come and help its henchman, not a good prospect.
BTW those that do not take a stand for the Constitution and the Republic should be more than be belittled, more like tarred and feathered and booted out of town with a sign on them that says that they are a traitor to the Constitution and the Republic. There is NO interpretation, there is NO compromise, what don't you collectivist, progressive, liberals understand about this, go join the brady bunch crowd since that is where you belong and stop wasting our time with your liberal barf, you either support us or not, period, your frivolous arguing and petty little insults will not help you and make you look silly and you are wasting everyone's time.
You need to keep your day job. As funny as your comments are would they do not make any sense, just comical. Once again you have no idea whom you are talking about. You are just making unfounded statements you can not back up with facts. You are on one end of this and Obama and the progressives are on the other. Any one who does not bow down to you you call a progressive or a liberal. It just shows how prejudice and closed mined you are. As I have said MANY times these ridiculous unrealistic attacks serves no purpose except to prove you have no legitimate argument or facts to support your silliness. [V]
Mr. Wolf,
You need to keep your day job. As funny as your comments are would they do not make any sense, just comical. Once again you have no idea whom you are talking about. You are just making unfounded statements you can not back up with facts. You are on one end of this and Obama and the progressives are on the other. Any one who does not bow down to you you call a progressive or a liberal. It just shows how prejudice and closed mined you are. As I have said MANY times these ridiculous unrealistic attacks serves no purpose except to prove you have no legitimate argument or facts to support your silliness. [V]
You don't know me nor what my "day job" consists of so that statement is completely illogical and without merit as is everything else that you say. Your petty little insults show that you are as ignorant as you are juvenile and hide behind your little computer screen and sling insults.
Apparently you are an illiterate cur that more than likely has more than one username here and serve no other purpose but to spread lies and idiotic nonsense. You are a liberal, progressive, collectivist by your own posts, you might care to read your own posts sometime there windup.
There is NO one end or another, there is only Constitutionalists that do NOT interpret the Constitution as you and your made up supporters and perhaps some other loser liberals do and the liberal trash that are trying to undermine our Constitution and Republic.
The facts have been presented more than enough times and by more than enough individuals to make this a waste of time to have to keep arguing with individuals like you.
No man bows to me nor would I ever allow them too and if you have ever read the Holy Scriptures then you would know that man will only bow to God not man. And no, not closed minded just closed to people like yourself and anyone else that twists the truth around to suite the will of the beast and themselves. Your perception of the facts are ridiculous, you are so arrogant you are a legend in your own mind that proceeds to play the victim when others don't agree with you trying to invoke the sympathy other sheeple and then in turn offer them the garbage of your master the federal government.
Go back to your brady bunch and take the other servants of the federal government with you.
Just name calling.