Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #26  
ranxer ranxer is offline
Member
ranxer's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: U$
ranxer is probably a spambot
Old May 8th, 2003, 12:28 AM       
maybe you missed my point..
what do you mean "keep in mind this is the law, ergo the government we're talking about here. You cannot force..."??

i agreed we cannot force or enforce a morality.. i'm looking for Other ways to reduce gun violence.. that aside though..

the point i thought you commented "Where ON EARTH do you come up with ideas like that?"
was where i was trying to say that it takes a certain state of barbarism to make possesion of a gun a good thing.

ill argue with the law, ill argue over gun rights issues but i don't have much belief that outlawing guns or restricting rights will fix anything about the violence and i think bowling for columbine has a similar message.. its not about the laws.. its something about our culture that has us in this position where gun ownership can actually show a reduction in crime. of course making anyone especially a company totaly immune to accountability doesnt sound very fair.. these situations where a line of responsibility is arguably crossed need to be examined and argued.. not tossed out unconditionally.

and yepper, ive got an idealistic view but with enough faith in people to continue on a path that looks like its loosing.
__________________
the neo-capitalists believe in privatizing profits and socializing losses
Reply With Quote
  #27  
CaptainBubba CaptainBubba is offline
xXxASPERGERSxXx
CaptainBubba's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
CaptainBubba is probably a spambot
Old May 8th, 2003, 12:47 AM       
I like to bring up the government being an operation of coercion as much as possible because once an idea is popularized everyone wants "to see it put it action". I realize you're just commenting on society, but that is the most dangerous thing to attempt and directly change.

I don't see whats barbaric about defending myself or my loved ones from an armed assailant.

The companies just produce the guns. Guns are not manufactured to be tools of evil. They save more lives than they take*. The sellers of the guns should be held responsible for any mistakes in sale regulation they make. It should have absolutely nothing to do with any crimes committed with the product. That would be placing an expectation of psychic powers on the sellers.

As long as they follow procedure they shouldn't be held any more accountable than they would be for any other sale. Which is nill. If they sell to a seventeen year old who can't speak english and has a felony on record then obviously we have an issue. But that isn't what this case is about.

*1.Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense With a Gun," 86 The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, 1 (Fall 1995):164.
*2.According to the National Safety Council, the total number of gun deaths (by accidents, suicides and homicides) account for less than 40,000 deaths per year. See Accident Facts, published yearly by the National Safety Council, Itasca, Illinois.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old May 8th, 2003, 09:38 AM       
I just want my damn Stinger Missiles but the friggin liberal Justice Department won't get their Jack Boots of my constitutional rights. Why? 'Cause John Ashcroft wants to be able to round me and my militia up and put us in a friggin camp.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
CaptainBubba CaptainBubba is offline
xXxASPERGERSxXx
CaptainBubba's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
CaptainBubba is probably a spambot
Old May 8th, 2003, 11:05 AM       
The Militia Act of 1792 specifically defines arms as military style firearms suitable for use in a militia. Other ballistics are not adressed and therefore your right to own them is not protected by the second amendment. Arms is not a term up for contention, or at least not since 1792.

Though you could just purchase a .50 sniping rifle legally for several thousand dollars cheaper that is equally effective at taking down large and small aircraft.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old May 8th, 2003, 11:11 AM       
"The Militia Act of 1792 specifically defines arms as military style firearms suitable for use in a militia."

Looked at one way, that means I have a right to a front laoding single shot rifle.

Looked at the other, suitable to a militia means to defend myself against invaders or my own government should that need arise, as it did during the revolutionary war. Since my Government is HEAVILY armed, it is suitable for me to have ordinance capable of dealing with them.

If you want something arbitrarily in the middle, you need to draw lines, which is exactly what gun control advocates suggest and what the NRA admits by not pursuing a constitutionl right to bear any and all arms.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
CaptainBubba CaptainBubba is offline
xXxASPERGERSxXx
CaptainBubba's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
CaptainBubba is probably a spambot
Old May 8th, 2003, 11:20 AM       
"And whereas sundry corps of artillery, cavalry and infantry now exist in several of the said states, which by the laws, customs, or usages thereof, have not been incorporated with, or subject to the general regulation of the militia."

Who is going to draw the lines? Thats right. The gov. I hate sounding repetative but people forget so easily that these things don't happen magically; the government does it. If we allow them to restrict us the restrictions will only grow and grow. The government does not fix things by gaining more power.

Personally, and I know this sounds absolutely looney, I hope some people do keep stinger missles and other assorted heavy ballistic arms. With the recent "Patriot Acts" being passed I really have no doubts that within the next two centuries at least there will need to be a massive overtaking of the governement. Thats how the founding fathers envisioned it and why they didn't limit our possession of arms. :/
Reply With Quote
  #32  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old May 8th, 2003, 11:27 AM       
I do think you're looney, but your response is at least logical and your fear of the Patriot act is a legitimate, consistant stance, espcially as compared to some so called Liberatarians who seem to think it's no big deal.

I truly do believe that the constitution supports my right to own shoulder firing anti aircraft missiles. My take is that's a problem and it points to the parger point; how do we as a society determine the drawing of lines in situations the constitution did not forsee? That's why I favor debate and contest within the adversarial system of law.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
CaptainBubba CaptainBubba is offline
xXxASPERGERSxXx
CaptainBubba's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
CaptainBubba is probably a spambot
Old May 8th, 2003, 12:00 PM       
The only people who need to fear the genral public owning stinger missles are those in the government. Name one crime committed in the U.S by a citizen with a stinger missle.

Do you think that number would change if citizens were allowed to own stinger missles in their home? What do you honestly envision the result of legalizing stinger missle in-home ownership would do?

edit: Wow, I sound crazy. Just thought I'd confirm to everyone I'm aware how insane I sound.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old May 8th, 2003, 12:05 PM       
People shooting stinger missiles at things to make them blow up? Each other, neigbors houses, rival gangs, churches you disagree with, your estranged wifes new boyfriends trailor, any old thing you could point it at? I mean, I know, that's not precisely what they were designed for, but people sure do like to make things blow up.

I mean, if you're right, why the hell is it illegal for me to get my damn garage full of stingers? Just to piss me off?
Reply With Quote
  #35  
VinceZeb VinceZeb is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
VinceZeb is probably a spambot
Old May 8th, 2003, 12:17 PM       
Max, tell me what Libertarians think that the Patriot Act is no big deal?!? My God, libertarian basic thought goes 100% against this act. It IS an act that should not be done. If we get off our PC high horse, we wouldn't need the freakin Patriot Act.

I guess it's not ok to make minorities feel "uncomfortable" but its ok to trash our Consitiution.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old May 8th, 2003, 01:15 PM       
You're such an idiot. When I said 'so called' liberatarians I was talking about YOU and your statements strongly in favor of this administration, plus your statements that you found Janet Reno far more threatening than Ashcroft. I was saying that Captain Bubba (and I have no idea at all if he's Liberatarain or not) strikes more conistently Liberatarin notes than you. I was pointing out that even in a field you cherish, you don't know shit from shinola. The Patriot act should be any serious Liberatarians foremost concern right now. if it's even of interest to you, I've missed that fact here and on your site.

And you took my post to mean the exact opposite.

Why? Because your communication disorder gives you as much difficulty with decoding English as it does Encrypting it.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Vibecrewangel Vibecrewangel is offline
Member
Vibecrewangel's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Vibecrewangel is probably a spambot
Old May 8th, 2003, 01:20 PM        LOL
Vince, I think the "so called" was meant to be you.




EDIT: Dang it Max......your post went before mine. Ah well.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old May 8th, 2003, 01:26 PM       
That's all right. At least it shows what I meant was perfectly clear.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Anonymous Anonymous is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Anonymous is probably a spambot
Old May 8th, 2003, 02:08 PM       
I previously thought guns should be legal. I do suffer from general paranoia and am especially distrustful of the government. After a discussion we had on here before I started to rethink things. Then I went to London on vacation and that's when I changed my opinion. It was because I felt no fear there.
It would take a very long time for america to become a gunless culture like that, even after passing a law banning guns.
Even though I have changed my mind now to be in favor of banning guns, I do not feel completely comfortable with it. This is because I have serious problems with demonizing an inanimate object. Though you could say- it is a weapon and therefore by its own definition demonizes itself..
There is really no other reason to own a gun than to hurt or kill. To have one for 'safety' would not be an issue if guns were banned. And as burbank has said, if the goverment turned on us in that manner, a gun isn't going to save us anyway.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
The_Rorschach The_Rorschach is offline
Mocker
The_Rorschach's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WestPac
The_Rorschach is probably a spambot
Old May 8th, 2003, 03:55 PM       
"I don't see whats barbaric about defending myself or my loved ones from an armed assailant. "


You are an idiot.

"I previously thought guns should be legal. I do suffer from general paranoia and am especially distrustful of the government."

And so are you.

Bubba, I'm going to get on your back first, because you are cutting and pasting your arguments from elsewhere and have no idea what you are talking about.

" `In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined `militia of the United States' to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a (military-style) firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. . . . "

Sound familiar? It sould, considering it comes from http://web4.integraonline.com/~bbroa..._Rebuttal.html

Now lets take a look at that. In the real Militia Act of 1792, passed May 8, 1792, they deem the militia is NOT open to everyone. It was Kennedy who made the term all inclusive, it was written originally in sentence two of part 1 "(t)hat each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States" was to be included. Little different isn't it?

Nor does it say ANYWHERE military grade equipment. Point of fact, it says "a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball."

Go grab your black powder rifle Bubbe, and retreat back to General Blabber. I'm afraid this topic has become your Little Big Horn.

As for you Doopa, if you don't trust the Fed Gov, you should be supporting your local chapter of the NRA, because our Second Ammendment right was written by Madison, and inspired by Jefferson, for the sole reason of supplying the citizens of this country the means by which to impliment the most final check and balance of power- The right to revolution, that any corrupt incarnation of the US might be overthrown with extreme prejudice.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
CaptainBubba CaptainBubba is offline
xXxASPERGERSxXx
CaptainBubba's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
CaptainBubba is probably a spambot
Old May 8th, 2003, 05:45 PM       
Ror: Why did you quote me if you didn't plan at all on bringing it into your little rebuttle? Why does wishing to defend myself and my family make me an idiot? You are very eager to quote people and insult them and honestly you could've done a much better job.

I've quoted twice if I recall correctly, most certainly not "copying and pasting" my whole argument. The Militia Act refers to the standard military firearms at the time. I was indirectly paraphrasing though. If I was directly quoting I would have added a [military style] before the firearms. Oh, and I've never been to that site before but its very nice. I already posted my source. Feel free to check it out in one of my previous posts.

Doopa: London has always had a low crime rate. MUCH LOWER back when guns were legal. And please, Ror forgive me, but I find I must cite from my source again. You are twice as likely to be burglarized in Britain that in the U.S. and 1.4 times as likely to be robbed in England and Wales, and also more likely to be mugged.

"To have one for 'safety' would not be an issue if guns were banned"

Becuase criminals would go "Oh, well if owning this gun is illegal I guess I can't use it for my crimes now. Shit on a shingle... Time to get a job at Mickey Ds." When the catapult is outlawed only the outlaws will have catapults (famous Latin quote). How do you propose disarming all of those criminals? This is a common fallacy of logic that people seem to fall into so I don't really look down on you for it, I just get mad the people don't think further into it.

"as burbank has said, if the goverment turned on us in that manner, a gun isn't going to save us anyway"

You're right. A gun won't do shit. Several million citizen owned guns will do quite a bit.


[/u]
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Anonymous Anonymous is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Anonymous is probably a spambot
Old May 8th, 2003, 06:00 PM       
ror your responses are often too overly hostile so that they come off as being vacuous comments. Yes I am distrustful of the government, but I explained why... regardless of that... i do not support gun ownership. I don't see how people with handguns are going to take over the government.
as I see it, the situation is lose/lose. I easily understand opinions on either side of the argument. What it really comes down to is a matter of what you think is worse.

Yes it is a possibility the government might seriously turn on us Hopefully we can prevent such a situation by being mindful of who we put into office and what laws are passed. But also... it not only its own citizens, but the world our government is being watched by. Hopefully things will stay in check, yet still, as I said it's a possibility.
But, nut jobs walking around out on the streets with guns are shooting people every day. That is a reality.


bubba - i'd rather be mugged than dead.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old May 8th, 2003, 06:06 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Rorschach
As for you Doopa, if you don't trust the Fed Gov, you should be supporting your local chapter of the NRA, because our Second Ammendment right was written by Madison, and inspired by Jefferson, for the sole reason of supplying the citizens of this country the means by which to impliment the most final check and balance of power- The right to revolution, that any corrupt incarnation of the US might be overthrown with extreme prejudice.
Uh, so you're saying we should revolt against the government by joining a group that is one of its largest contributors in campaign donations...? I think I'm more supportive of militias than I am the NRA. The "community service" they provide is incredibly overstated, and seems to be only reactionary. In other words, a kid accidently shoots himself with his Dad's hand gun, and then the NRA are apologetic. Why don't they stop lining the wallets of our politicians, and start reaching out to more communities, more cities, and do educational work before something happens.....?
Reply With Quote
  #44  
The_Rorschach The_Rorschach is offline
Mocker
The_Rorschach's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: WestPac
The_Rorschach is probably a spambot
Old May 8th, 2003, 06:34 PM       
"Ror: Why did you quote me if you didn't plan at all on bringing it into your little rebuttle?"

I'm sorry, I credited you with some intellegence, I see my error now. I expected you to read what I was saying to Doopa as well. Protecting your family does not necessitate ownership of firearms. Your interpretation of the Second Ammendment is selfish, ill concieved and barbaric. Yes, barbaric, for any solution which sees violence as an acceptable answer to any problem can be nothing else.


"You are very eager to quote people and insult them and honestly you could've done a much better job."

An insult is a demeaning or hurtful reproach which is generally expressed in an extreme view of reality. Like, "you are a cocksucker." What I did was comment on your character based upon the views you expressed.

". . . most certainly not "copying and pasting" my whole argument."

I was trying to be nice. In actually, what you did was lie, thieve and decieve by taking someone else's intellectual property and try to represent it as your own original thought. The only reason I even recognized it, was because I'd read those comments by the original author previously and remembered thinking he had never read the original law. Apparantly, neither have you.

"The Militia Act refers to the standard military firearms at the time."

That is a matter of opinion.

"I was indirectly paraphrasing though."

Paraphrasing requires that you summarize what you have read, not steal three sentence and post them in their entirety.

"If I was directly quoting I would have added a [military style] before the firearms."

That would not be a strong enough case to keep you from being charged guilty of copy right infringement were this a court of law and not a message board.

"Oh, and I've never been to that site before but its very nice."

Extraordinary considering you managed to quote the passage VERBATIM.

"I already posted my source. Feel free to check it out in one of my previous posts."

Oh really? You:

"In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined 'militia of the United States' to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a [military-style] firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment."

http://web4.integraonline.com/~bbroa..._Rebuttal.html :
" `In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined `militia of the United States' to include almost every free adult male in the United States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a (military-style) firearm and a minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment. . . . "

Now I just looked at the post I took your quote from, and I don't see any sources cited.

=-=-=-=-=-

"ror your responses are often too overly hostile so that they come off as being vacuous comments."

Noone here is worth the time it would take to work up a strong sense of frustration, let alone hostility. You have think way too much of yourself. From what I've read of your posts, you are a twit, and I mean that as nicely as possible. You hold simplistic, provincial, self-centered views. Your speciality is pipe-dreaming, not politics, and I understand that so generally I leave you alone.

"I don't see how people with handguns are going to take over the government."

Thats because you have tunnel vision. Less sophisticated weaponry than what the US citizens currently have access to managed to thwart the Soviet Army twenty years ago. Plus, you are further more assuming that should situations become dire enough that revolution truly occours, that the Armed Services will support the Government.

"I easily understand opinions on either side of the argument. What it really comes down to is a matter of what you think is worse."

If that is true, than you really don't understand at all.

=-=-=-=-=-=-

"Uh, so you're saying we should revolt against the government by joining a group that is one of its largest contributors in campaign donations...?"

Kev, things have no decaryed so far that working within the system is yet an impossibility. The NRA are only a pressure group, defending the Second Ammendment right, and though they do so badlyy, and offer every reason but the one which accounts for its very existence, they at least try. I'm not a card carrying member, but I do support some of their views. Certainly that the Second Ammendment should not be infringed upon.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
CaptainBubba CaptainBubba is offline
xXxASPERGERSxXx
CaptainBubba's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
CaptainBubba is probably a spambot
Old May 8th, 2003, 07:29 PM       
You aren't very good at searching thorugh my posts apparently. Its the link "go look it up" on the first page. The page you've found most likely got that information from the same source that I did. I am not plagarizing. I cited my source. Give it up.

Hypothetical question: Someone breaks into your home and is armed with a pistol. What do you do to defned youself by "non-violent" means?
Reply With Quote
  #46  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old May 8th, 2003, 07:44 PM       
You pull out the M-16 with the grenade launcher and laser scope that's entitled to you in the Bill of Rights, and you blow that S.O.B. to kindom come (while probably taking out the neighbors across the street, but hey, it's their fault for building their house in front of my grenade launcher).

I'm obviously being sarcastic, but for a reason. The hypothetical "guy breaking into your house while everyones home and asleep" story does happen, but I think it has been stretched a bit by the pro-gun crowd.

How about this hypothetical: It's dark out, and a young boy loses his puppy. He happens to see his puppy roaming in your back yard, and you, being afraid of small children with flash lights, grab your gun and scream "DIE THUG! TAKE YOUR "BLING BLING" ELSEWHERE!"

You shoot the kid, the puppy stays lost, and now the guy across the street gets no sleep before work the next day, because the sirens are too loud.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
punkgrrrlie10 punkgrrrlie10 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
punkgrrrlie10 is probably a spambot
Old May 8th, 2003, 07:55 PM       
Quote:
You are twice as likely to be burglarized in Britain that in the U.S. and 1.4 times as likely to be robbed in England and Wales, and also more likely to be mugged.
and yet more than likely tol be murdered in the U.S. than in any other civilized country country and some not so civilized.

and for the love of pete: the 2nd amendment does not apply to states people.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
CaptainBubba CaptainBubba is offline
xXxASPERGERSxXx
CaptainBubba's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
CaptainBubba is probably a spambot
Old May 8th, 2003, 08:06 PM       
Statistics Kevin, statistics. The facts are right before you. Accidents like the ones you are describing are vastly outnumbered compared to ones simmilar to my example.

You are more likely to be murdered in Britain now than you were when guns were legal there. Your deduction is based on faulty logic. "America has less gun restrictions than other countries and more murder, therefore less gun laws= more murder." Truly you can only compare cases where the variables are accounted for. In order to get accurate information it must be the same genral local with and without guns that we compare.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Anonymous Anonymous is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Anonymous is probably a spambot
Old May 8th, 2003, 08:10 PM       
Quote:
You have think way too much of yourself.
I have to say, that is a truly hilarious statement to make in reference to me

Quote:
you are further more assuming that should situations become dire enough that revolution truly occours, that the Armed Services will support the Government.
if they didn't, why would joe guy down the block need a gun? Assuming the armed services wouldn't support the government only seems to lessen the possible need for a violent overthrow from the citizens
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Pub Lover Pub Lover is offline
Näyttelijäbotti!
Pub Lover's Avatar
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Mogadishu, Texas
Pub Lover is probably pretty okPub Lover is probably pretty okPub Lover is probably pretty okPub Lover is probably pretty okPub Lover is probably pretty ok
Old May 8th, 2003, 08:31 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainBubba
You are more likely to be murdered in Britain now than you were when guns were legal there.
When were guns legal in Britain?
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Boogie
No YouTube embeds in your sigs, poindexter.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:58 AM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.