Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (9011 total)
52 online now:
AdminPhat (Phat), AZPaul3, PaulK, Tangle (4 members, 48 visitors)
Newest Member: Burrawang
Upcoming Birthdays: Coragyps
Happy Birthday: DrJones*
Post Volume: Total: 881,649 Year: 13,397/23,288 Month: 327/795 Week: 28/95 Day: 9/19 Hour: 0/2


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Gun Control Again

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control Again
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 105 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(2)
Message 55 of 5179 (684015)
12-15-2012 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by Coragyps
12-14-2012 3:39 PM


After I cry my eyes out over these horrific murdering rampages I yell to whomever is listening, online or off, WHERE ARE ALL OUR UPRIGHT CITIZEN GUN OWNERS TO PROTECT PEOPLE WHEN WE NEED THEM?

A few armed citizens at the sites of these murders could have stopped the rampage cold long before so many had been killed.

It's not that we have too many guns it's that they aren't in service when they are needed, and we certainly DON'T need more gun control. The founders knew what they were doing. When guns are not available to private citizens for self defense and defense in such situations as these shootings, soon the whole population is at the mercy of criminal and government powers, standing armies and so on. The founders knew what they were doing. BUT more of the citizen owners of guns need to be packing them, especially these days.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by Coragyps, posted 12-14-2012 3:39 PM Coragyps has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Theodoric, posted 12-15-2012 12:23 AM Faith has responded
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-15-2012 3:08 AM Faith has responded

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 105 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 57 of 5179 (684020)
12-15-2012 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by Theodoric
12-15-2012 12:23 AM


Second Amendment
Theodoric writes:

You don't know what the fuck the founders wanted. They wanted an organized militia.

You're such a sweet thoughtful considerate guy Theodoric, so kind and patient and gracious toward those who disagree with you.

Shame on you. You take this tragedy as an opportunity to post wing nut talking points. Shame on you.

You think more guns and more untrained, stupid wannabe rambo's is the answer?

The stupidity is astounding.

Many here take this tragedy as an opportunity to advocate gun control, right? That's what this thread is about, right? It always comes up when there is a tragedy like this.

Presumably we all care about bringing these murders to an end, we just differ on the means.

Actually I do know what the founders wanted and it was NOT an organized militia for the very reason that such a body can be used against the people which is the exact opposite of the intent of the amendment. The concept of an armed citizenry goes back to England and possibly other sources long before the second amendment was written, which built on that history. The point was for individual citizens to have the means of self defense.

It was understood to require training.

And I'm sure we could agree on WHAT weapons are suitable for private ownership, that's not the problem here.

The intention was to preserve us from foreign enemies as well as possibly the nation's own standing army which historically easily becomes a threat to the people, but obviously it should be effective for these crazy individual enemies as well.

Here are some quotes from men of the founding era:

James Madison:
http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm

The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation where the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country.

Patrick Henry:
http://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/361839.Patrick_Henry

“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun.”

George Mason,
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/George_Mason

Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British parliament was advised by an artful man, [Sir William Keith] who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people. That it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.

http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/george+mason

Who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country...? I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.

Samuel Adams
http://quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quotes_by/samuel+adams

And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress … to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms…

It is always dangerous to the liberties of the people to have an army stationed among them, over which they have no control ... The Militia is composed of free Citizens. There is therefore no danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.

Alexander Hamilton
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alexander_Hamilton

The militia is a voluntary force not associated or under the control of the States except when called out; a permanent or long standing force would be entirely different in make-up and call.

Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

Richard Henry Lee
--> --> --> -->https://www.facebook.com/unorganizedmilitia/notes

A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms...To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms...The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Henry_Lee

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."[3]

Here's an interesting scholarly article on the concept:
History of the Second Amendment
David E Vandercoy
1994
http://scholar.valpo.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1956...

This study gives the history of the “citizen army” in England, which is the same thing as the “militia” intended by the Second Amendment, that goes back centuries. I’m just going to quote from The Conclusion:

English history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. [sic] Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.

These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says.

The right to self protection, such as against crime, is included in the discussions of the Constitutional framers, as quoted in that article.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : Added the last half of the last paragraph quoted.

Edited by Faith, : add bolding


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Theodoric, posted 12-15-2012 12:23 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by vimesey, posted 12-15-2012 2:45 AM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 77 by Theodoric, posted 12-15-2012 8:38 AM Faith has responded
 Message 100 by shadow71, posted 12-15-2012 4:44 PM Faith has responded

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 105 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 61 of 5179 (684025)
12-15-2012 3:34 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by Dr Adequate
12-15-2012 3:08 AM


Yeah, remarkable, isn't it? There are over 300 million civilian firearms in the USA, so out of all the nations on Earth American citizens should be the most securely protected against being shot. Why doesn't it work out like that? It's a mystery.

Do you have the answer to this mystery?

Seems to me it has to be that people don't CARRY their guns because we're used to feeling safe.

{AbE: OR because there are laws against it, such as apparently was the case around this school, as crashfrog pointed out}

And these murders do seem to occur in gun controlled areas, such as that theater where a shooting occurred not long ago, in a totally gun free area. Just a couple of armed people in the audience might have stopped that murder spree in its tracks.

And this horrible shooting today at the school somebody here pointed out is an area where people are generally underarmed compared to the rest of the nation.

Here we have this right, which was really regarded as a duty in earlier days, to be armed for our own protection and the protection of our neighbors, and we aren't using it.

Seen this video about an armed 71 year old man who stopped an armed robbery at an internet cafe in Florida last summer?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBYSau64LOc

Edited by Faith, : To add statement about laws against carrying guns

Edited by Faith, : change phrase to "gun free"


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-15-2012 3:08 AM Dr Adequate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-15-2012 10:55 AM Faith has responded
 Message 86 by NoNukes, posted 12-15-2012 11:02 AM Faith has not yet responded

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 105 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 63 of 5179 (684028)
12-15-2012 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by crashfrog
12-14-2012 7:04 PM


They were away from the school, where gun control laws said they had to be. Under Connecticut law it's illegal to carry a gun near a school.

I'm not trying to say that more guns would have made the situation better, I'm just answering your question. Where were all the people who could have used their legal guns to stop this guy? They were exactly where you said you they had to be - far away from the school.

Thank you for that information. I'd argue that if we were better educated about these things, and the people who possess guns were informed and trained and expected to carry them in more ordinary situations than people now think necessary, that it COULD have definitely made the situation better. it could have stopped this murder spree cold. Yes it could have.

I mean, all of you who think this tragedy justifies more strict gun control need to grapple with the fact that this tragedy happened in the state with the second-strictest gun control laws in America; the state with the fourth-lowest rate of gun ownership; the state with no "shall-issue" concealed-carry law; the state where assault rifles are banned.

Yes, exactly.


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by crashfrog, posted 12-14-2012 7:04 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by crashfrog, posted 12-15-2012 10:27 AM Faith has responded

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 105 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 64 of 5179 (684029)
12-15-2012 3:57 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by Tangle
12-15-2012 3:44 AM


True, but if others involved with the school, parents or teachers or whatever, were known to be armed and ready to defend the place, it is possible this guy wouldn't have risked it at all, but if he did he might have been stopped before he was able to kill anybody.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Tangle, posted 12-15-2012 3:44 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Tangle, posted 12-15-2012 4:32 AM Faith has responded

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 105 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


(1)
Message 68 of 5179 (684035)
12-15-2012 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Tangle
12-15-2012 4:37 AM


I had to read this twice to be sure I understood what you were saying.

You're talking about the armed defense of childrens' schools. Think about what that says about your society.

It says no more than this thread is about, that is unfortunately by now becoming almost a typical occurrence, that these crazy people are so often committing mass murders and that we need a way to bring this craziness to a stop.

Which is what an armed citizenry SHOULD be good for.

Gun control is NOT going to stop this. Again, consider the fact that these murders have most recently occurred where gun control is the strictest.

It's common sense to provide for such protections when there is a threat to the public safety for whatever reason.

Go read that list of quotes I posted from the founders. The whole point of an armed citizenry is protection against threats to the people, and this stuff we've been seeing so much of is a form of terrorism it seems to me.


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Tangle, posted 12-15-2012 4:37 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Tangle, posted 12-15-2012 5:03 AM Faith has not yet responded

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 105 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 71 of 5179 (684038)
12-15-2012 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Tangle
12-15-2012 4:32 AM


This is a criminally insane idea.

I hope you understand that you are calling all those venerable men of our founding generation I quoted earlier on this subject "criminally insane." You might benefit from rereading those quotes if you read them at all, and that article I also posted there. Here's the link:

http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&m=684020

Do you actually think that arming your entire society will reduce deaths by guns,

The founders most definitely did. ALL the citizens are even considered to have the DUTY to be armed and trained to deal with threats to the nation. Since just about everybody WAS armed in those days and used to using their weapons, that may explain why they may not have had criminal actions at the forefront of their concerns as we do today, but surely the same logic applies.

I mean really? How is it that the rest of the civilised world manages without this need for gun ownership and has a lower incident of shootings?

I think that may be just a bit of an exaggeration there. But mostly it's that you just haven't yet had the kind of threat that you won't be able to deal with when it does happen. When it does happen you won't be prepared, you'll be sitting ducks.

Hitler was able to make use of the strict gun laws in Germany, which he strengthened, to victimize the Jews, and all the more so in Eastern Europe.

You might ponder this article:http://www.straightdope.com/.../did-hitler-ban-gun-ownership

The guy is quite credible since he starts out debunking a common claim that Hitler "first took away guns so he could victimize the people," but then he has to recognize that Hitler WAS able to take advantage of the strict gun laws already in existence, which deprived the Jews of any effective way to defend themselves. He ends up minimizing the effect of the gun restrictions but I wouldn't myself. I'd say if you are a vulnerable and hated minority the more guns you can get your hands on the safer you may be.

Hitler didn't need to impose gun control because gun laws were already in effect (ironically, those original laws were in part designed to disarm the Nazis). Gun control helped the Nazis keep weapons out of the hands of their enemies, but as Cramer notes, it wasn't a major factor in Hitler's success.

That said, and a bit tangential to this question (but I'd hate to leave something out AGAIN), Cramer says the Nazis did benefit significantly from gun control in Eastern Europe in terms of "the inability of their victims to fight back." He cites The Holocaust, a book by Leni Yahil (translated by Ina Friedman and Haya Galai, Oxford University Press, 1990), which has a chapter discussing armed resistance by Jews, including rebellions with just a few firearms and a lot of courage. In addition, he talks about Israel Guttman's book, Resistance: The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, which discusses the difficulty the Jews faced in obtaining weapons.

Cramer believes that "if the population of Eastern Europe were as well armed as the average American, the Nazis would have lost much of their military capacity attempting to implement the Holocaust." I'm not sure I'd go that far, but it's certainly difficult to have an uprising without weapons.

Well, I'd go that far.

Tangle writes:

The maniac knows that he is going out to kill people, has planned it, is usually armed to the teeth and quite prepared kill. Your armed teachers and passers by have no idea it's going to happen, have limited capability to stop it even if armed and are likely to cause even more damage in the process of trying.

Limited, yes, but not totally incapable. It only takes a few seconds to recognize the threat and a few more seconds to do something to try to take the guy down. The more people in a position to take him down the better in my humble opinion.

How could there be worse damage than killing over 20 school children?

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : to add link


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Tangle, posted 12-15-2012 4:32 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Tangle, posted 12-15-2012 6:35 AM Faith has not yet responded

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 105 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 72 of 5179 (684039)
12-15-2012 5:33 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Kairyu
12-15-2012 4:48 AM


Re: guns versus mentality
I always am noting the parallel between reading the bible literally, and trying to figure out what the founders wanted with everything. The constitution is brought up as a unchanging pillar of justice again and again.

The Constitution provides MEANS for changing it, it's NOT regarded as an "unchanging pillar of justice" for that reason, but it IS considered to have been an incredibly wise document that we would be crazy to disregard. But that is what is happening these days, thanks to the kind of thinking you are exhibiting here, which is an excuse to "reinterpret" it without regard to its original intent, or ignore it completely according to the whims of the current Supreme Court. That is a recipe for destruction of the nation if there ever was one and we're well down that path already.

This is not rational.

All I can do is groan. It's YOUR position that's not rational.

A few rights like freedom of speech are no-brainers for the western world, and slowly increasing globally. But a lot of things are related to the sentiments of the time.
\

Are you in a position to make that decision? Are you expert in Constitutional law? But the most important answer to you is IN THAT CASE LET IT BE CHANGED ACCORDING TO THE LAWS GIVEN FOR CHANGING IT. I certainly wouldn't want YOU in charge of making those decisions.

I don't believe equal gender rights, or a ban on owing a slave were included.

THOSE WERE CHANGED ACCORDING TO THE LAW i'M REFERRING TO, IT WAS DONE IN AN ORDERLY AND LAWFUL FASHION, NOT THROUGH THE WHIMS OF A politically motivated Supreme Court.

It's important in history, and there's genuine reason to celebrate it. But the founders are long gone. Laws should be made by the current living generation.

IN AN ORDERLY AND LAWFUL WAY, not by a politically motivated Supreme Court.

A good constitution has a few barriers in place to prevent direct abuse. We go with needing a 2/3 majority that needs to be passed again 2/3 after the next election. But aside from that, most of the laws are neutral core rights. Some of them frequently clash. But most importantly, we focus or discussion mosty on the present age. You may take note of the founders, but why not make up your own path?

Well, we do, for better or worse. But there's a reason to be cautious about this, because the ways those founders were wise was in their knowledge of history and the tendency to tyranny of kihgs and governemtns. They understood history in a way this generation has utterly lost. I'm sure you've heard that line about being condemned to repeat it? I'd rather not, thanks.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Kairyu, posted 12-15-2012 4:48 AM Kairyu has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by xongsmith, posted 12-16-2012 11:42 AM Faith has not yet responded

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 105 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 102 of 5179 (684101)
12-15-2012 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Percy
12-15-2012 8:22 AM


Re: The Reality
This is not about "gun nuts," I'm no gun nut, this is about a right and even a duty that is meant for the protection of the country. It hasn't always been used properly but now it's being threatened, and it will be a sad day when it's taken away from us.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Percy, posted 12-15-2012 8:22 AM Percy has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Percy, posted 12-16-2012 8:43 AM Faith has not yet responded

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 105 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 104 of 5179 (684103)
12-15-2012 6:08 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Theodoric
12-15-2012 8:38 AM


Re: Second Amendment
Actually I do know what the founders wanted and it was NOT an organized militia for the very reason that such a body can be used against the people which is the exact opposite of the intent of the amendment

You obviously haven't read the Constitution.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Yes, the PEOPLE, not an army run by the state, the PEOPLE. "Well regulated" implies you don't arm people with a history of violence or mental disorder, and they need some organization and training, but if you read all those quotes I gave and especially the article at the end you should be able to see through even your own misunderstandings about this issue.

And seem to be unable to understand the vast majority of the quotes you posted.

I must admit they look quite easy to understand on the face of them, but I'm sure you could correct me if I'm wrong. They intended to protect the individual citizen's right to keep and bear arms, and that IS in the amendment -- the right of the PEOPLE -- it's you who seem to have trouble reading it, and the "militia" refers to this armed citizenry, not to an organized army, which, again, would contradict the whole spirit of the amendment.

Did you bother to read the article I posted a link to, about the history of the concept of a citizen army?

You are a right wing freak that no amount of reality will intrude upon your fantasy world.

Thank you, I'm sure you're an intelligent thoughtful person too.

Your revisionist view of history, unquestioning belief in radical interpretations of a iron age text and hate for other people, and the people like you will destroy this country.

Got all those nasty accusatory PC words in there, didn't you, to poison the well against anything I might say, and as usual those who call the right "haters" are overflowing with that particular emotion, like a venomous drip from your every pore. And it's your view that's revisionist. "Unquestioning?" I've spent a lot of time thinking about this issue and have been through quite a few different views of it as a matter of fact, not that you care about such facts.

But what I've said so far is very reasonable and it's your view of this particular issue that's destroying the country. To call the Constitution an "iron age text" is to have bought the propaganda that WILL kill this country. You probably don't even have a clue where you've been getting this propaganda you've swallowed.


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Theodoric, posted 12-15-2012 8:38 AM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 127 by NoNukes, posted 12-16-2012 12:34 AM Faith has responded
 Message 184 by Theodoric, posted 12-16-2012 8:06 PM Faith has not yet responded

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 105 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 105 of 5179 (684104)
12-15-2012 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by RAZD
12-15-2012 9:15 AM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard
Hello RAZD,
Did you read any of the quotes in my post, or that article at the end? The National Guard is not what the founders had in mind.

http://www.evcforum.net/dm.php?control=msg&m=684020

Of course it's very hard to tell what matters to people here. Do they care what the Amendment says at all? If they do then I believe the quotes I've given show what the founding generation had in mind for it and it was not a standing army of any sort. The article I linked there discusses the history of the concept in a way that ought to make that quite clear.

Or is the Constitution just an antiquated meaningless document that we should throw out? Which is it. Some even say both, so irrational are people on this topic.


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2012 9:15 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by RAZD, posted 12-16-2012 9:10 AM Faith has responded
 Message 186 by Theodoric, posted 12-16-2012 8:11 PM Faith has not yet responded
 Message 197 by RAZD, posted 12-16-2012 9:45 PM Faith has not yet responded

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 105 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 106 of 5179 (684105)
12-15-2012 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by crashfrog
12-15-2012 10:27 AM


I'm not talking about "posting armed amateurs at a million schools" crash. Good grief. I'm not talking about "posting" anyone anywhere, I'm talking about the citizens of this country having and using and carrying the guns we're SUPPOSED to have, and it seems to me that these days we should be carrying them most of the time. Not I since I don't own one but those who do.

Also, the quotes I gave back there wherever talk about the necessity of training. Citizen gun owners would still be amateurs, but not quite as amateur as your phrase implies.


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by crashfrog, posted 12-15-2012 10:27 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 105 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 107 of 5179 (684106)
12-15-2012 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Dr Adequate
12-15-2012 10:55 AM


You know, I bet even in the golden days of the Founding Fathers primary school teachers didn't take their muskets into class to defend against potential school shootings.

I'm sure you're right. They didn't need to. Though perhaps they did when the British were expected to invade. However, we may be coming to the point where it wouldn't be a bad idea for us. If just one in a hundred HONEST PEACELOVING TRAINED citizens carried a gun and knew how to use it, it could make a difference.

AbE. Yes, I think that after so many school shootings and mall shootings and so on it might be a good idea for at least a few teachers in every school to possess guns and the training to use them, and some shopkeepers and office personnel and people anywhere for that matter. With proper safety precautions and all that. Yes, I think that could act as a deterrent and as a defense.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Dr Adequate, posted 12-15-2012 10:55 AM Dr Adequate has not yet responded

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 105 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 109 of 5179 (684108)
12-15-2012 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by shadow71
12-15-2012 4:44 PM


Re: Second Amendment
Using this logic, shouldn't all americans have the "right" to own and possess the type weapons the army possesses.
For example, tanks, rocket launchers, missles, fighter jets, nuclear weapons?
How else can we defend ourselves against the government army, navy, air force and coast guard?

No, I think the average citizen will have to make do with ordinary hand guns and rifles, and I wouldn't underestimate the deterrent and protective power of those.


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by shadow71, posted 12-15-2012 4:44 PM shadow71 has acknowledged this reply

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 105 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 116 of 5179 (684116)
12-15-2012 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 112 by hooah212002
12-15-2012 6:44 PM


Certain liberals of EvC will rue the day that they make a creationist seem reasonable.

This is really funny and SO telling. Anyone in good standing at EvC better not agree with ***a creationist*** better keep it to themselves if they do agree no matter how reasonable the creationist. It just can't happen at EvC, that's the RULE. So much for all those affirmations of objectivity and rationality.


He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by hooah212002, posted 12-15-2012 6:44 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by hooah212002, posted 12-15-2012 7:44 PM Faith has responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020