Political Crossfire Forums

[micfranklin]

britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: Some people can be trusted with weapons, some can't, like crazy people. In any given society, it is important for people to be able to defend themselves, 'nuff said.
What, even in the Vatican? Just in case some crazed 79 year old priest thats spent his whole life dedicated to god suddenly decides he's gonna throw a Papel document at you violently?

:roll:

Would you prefer it if he just shot you and you didn't even try to save yourself?

Shot me? With what? The priests in the Vatican don't carry arms. No-one does. There are armed police on the gates, that arn't allowed in. That arn't part of that given society.

You've been getting your information from dodgy sources:

like here! :)

I was just saying that if it were to happen, would you let them shoot you down without even making an attempt to try and defend yourself?

[The Comrade]

LostSoul3412 wrote: "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?"

Have the American people come to the point where people cannot be trusted to defend themselves?

Has our paranoia overpowered our thirst for liberty?

Are we mere children, forbidden from leaving the playpen of government supervision?

It's much more than a matter of right, it's a matter of trust. Can you trust your fellow man? More importantly, can you trust yourself?

defend ourselves from what?

the french? the indians? the second british invasion?


not that think responsile law abiding citizens shouldn't have guns, it's just that there isn't as much to defend against. when the constitution was written and gun laws were made there had been four french and indian wars, a revolution, indian raids, and various other skirmishes. back then you NEEDED guns to stay alive.

now there just aren't that many indians running around scalping people.

[lilwolf]

britboysaid;
'My lords, ladies and gentlemen, is it not the responsibility to aim for a society where it's members need not defend themselves? Is this not 100-fold more desireable than churning out more and more arms, and upping the stakes between criminals and law-abiders time and time again. Or are we really doomed to an eternity of all exercising extreme paranoia against each other? For I know which country I would rather be a part of'. Britters. 2006


Are you sure you do not live in a gingerbread house at the endo f the yellow brick road?

All it takes is one time for a bad guy to harm you and your little utopia has fell in the crapper.

[perdidochas]

The Comrade wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: "Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?"

Have the American people come to the point where people cannot be trusted to defend themselves?

Has our paranoia overpowered our thirst for liberty?

Are we mere children, forbidden from leaving the playpen of government supervision?

It's much more than a matter of right, it's a matter of trust. Can you trust your fellow man? More importantly, can you trust yourself?

defend ourselves from what?

the french? the indians? the second british invasion?

Defense from criminals, and from foreign invaders.


The Comrade wrote: not that think responsile law abiding citizens shouldn't have guns, it's just that there isn't as much to defend against. when the constitution was written and gun laws were made there had been four french and indian wars, a revolution, indian raids, and various other skirmishes. back then you NEEDED guns to stay alive.

Well, I live in hurricane country, and post-hurricane conditions (no phone, electricity, or even cell phone service where I live) are such that guns are a very comforting thing to own. Also, no matter where you live in the U.S., it usually takes 5-10 minutes for a police officer to come after calling 911. I think 5 minutes if someone is breaking into your house is an eternity.


The Comrade wrote: now there just aren't that many indians running around scalping people.

But there are plenty of criminals that are more than willing to victimize.

[britboy]

perdidochas wrote: britboy wrote: perdidochas wrote: britboy wrote: perdidochas wrote: britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: Some people can be trusted with weapons, some can't, like crazy people. In any given society, it is important for people to be able to defend themselves, 'nuff said.
What, even in the Vatican? Just in case some crazed 79 year old priest thats spent his whole life dedicated to god suddenly decides he's gonna throw a Papel document at you violently?

:roll:

Would you prefer it if he just shot you and you didn't even try to save yourself?

Shot me? With what? The priests in the Vatican don't carry arms. No-one does. There are armed police on the gates, that arn't allowed in. That arn't part of that given society.

You've been getting your information from dodgy sources:

like here! :)

The whole Vatican argument is silly. The Vatican is not a society, it is a religious compound that has no children, no real population, etc. It is not a good example of anything.



This is all semantics nowadays. OK, for the last time, I'll play along.

You said about the Vatican:

'It is not a good example of anything'

I believe

'It is! For example it is a good example of a religeous compound that has no children, no real population etc'.

!! I'm sorry we disagree on this one!

Anyway thats the last semantics I do for a while .. we've had basically 'the word freedom doesn't actually mean freedom' and 'the Vatican is not a good example of anything'. Enough already.


I love the way you dodge the main issue. You contended that nobody in the Vatican was armed. I showed you this was wrong. Then you go off on the semantics of the Vatican being an example. Well, the Vatican is unique. It is a good example of nothing else. Name anything else in the world that is liek the Vatican: 1) It is a country with police officers, etc. 2) it is mainly inhabited by celibate men (and a few celibate women); and 3) there are no natives of the Vatican.

Also, freedom is the freedom to choose. It does not imply freedom from natural consequences. That is impossible. Anything you chose to do has responsibilities associated with it. Sometimes the responsibility is minor, sometimes major. Freedom doesn't mean that you can willy nilly do anything. Freedom doesn't mean that I can interfere with other people's freedom. Most of the "lost" freedom due to guns, is the responsibility that gun owners have to not interfere with other's freedoms. Again, using the example, my freedom to swing my fist around ends just before your nose. The only "freedom" gun owners lose is the freedom to injure others (which I would argue is not freedom at all).

Okay, so what you're saying is if someone chooses to bring something into their lives (like guns or cars) which gives them a load more restraints in their life, that does not affect their freedom at all. Okay dokey .. Right....

Because I can give up the gun or take it back up when I want to. That's freedom. The ability to choose. You advocate no choice in the matter.

britboy wrote:
If someone chooses to bring a child into this world that does not affect their freedom to get a good night's sleep then?

Their ability to sleep, not their freedom. I have kids. If I take a sleeping pill, I could have gotten a full night's sleep even when they were babies (I'm a light sleeper). I never lost that freedom. Heck, there were several times I did that (my wife took care of the kids (I did the same for her at other times)). You are again mistaking natural consequences/responsibility as a lack of freedom. Freedom has to do with choices.


britboy wrote: If someone chooses to get their partner to tie him up that does not affect their freedom to move around? If someone chooses to buy a gun that does not affect their freedom to avoid learning how to use it? If someone chooses to boycott Macdonalds that does not affect their freedom to go and have a Bigmac? Of course it does. Their freedom has been affected. Obvious.

You have freedom confused. Freedom is an ability to choose. If I choose to get my partner to tie me up, I have lost no freedom. I have lost the ability to move, but that was my choice. If I CHOSE to boycott McDonald's, I have lost no freedom. Why? I CHOSE to do so. Freedom is about choices not lack of restraints (except government restraints).



britboy wrote: Sorry, if you remember back this was the argument about whether having a gun affected your freedoms AT ALL or not. You and Sixgun stated it did not affect any part of your freedom whatsoever in any way. Of course it does.

Not with a real definition of freedom.


britboy wrote: You know it, I know it, anyone reading this thread knows it, it was a badly thought out OP by Sixgun and I don't know why you're madly squirming around trying to defend it -- it just makes you seem totally unprepared to compromise no matter how obvious a statement is. I feel if Sixgun posted 'We all actually live on the moon' would you reply 'I agree, some Brazilian tribes call Earth 'T'Moone' which sounds like the moon a bit so Sixgun is absolutely right?'

Actually, I have disagreed with pro-gunners, and I have agreed with anti-gunners. The difference here is a matter of definition. I think the freedom=lack of restraint to be an immature, lacking definition of freedom.

britboy wrote: Naah -- you're just backing him up because he's pro-gun and we both know it. Commendable I guess, until obvious logic gets thrown out of the window!!

Read what you are saying. You are saying that you are more free in England than I am in America because you can't own a gun and I can. How much more illogical can you get?

Well we'll (again) agree to disagree.

I guess you think the following sentences are wrong

1) 'Since I had a kid, it has restricted my freedom'

2) 'Since I climbed into this cupboard, it has restricted my freedom'.

3) 'Since I tied this bloody great weight to my foot, it has restricted my freedom'.


You think the above sentences are simply incorrect. That the above people's freedoms haven't been dented one tiny little bit. OK. we're at a dead-end then. Next thread!!

[Lucky Luke]

jimmyz wrote: britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: Some people can be trusted with weapons, some can't, like crazy people. In any given society, it is important for people to be able to defend themselves, 'nuff said.
What, even in the Vatican? Just in case some crazed 79 year old priest thats spent his whole life dedicated to god suddenly decides he's gonna throw a Papel document at you violently?

:roll:

Would you prefer it if he just shot you and you didn't even try to save yourself?

Shot me? With what? The priests in the Vatican don't carry arms. No-one does. There are armed police on the gates, that arn't allowed in. That arn't part of that given society.

You've been getting your information from dodgy sources:

like here! :)

The bungling Turkish assassin Aga had a gun "at the Vatican".Would I have received my sainthood if I pulled my .45 and shot that scum down before he pumped a couple shots into John Paul II?

My point is that you are safe some places some of the time.But you are never safe everywhere all of the time.

I love the opening you gave me mentioning the Vatican and gun control.I waited a very long time for one of your type to bring it there.

John Paul II certainly did not agree with you on what should be done with Agca, why not following this pope example instead of preaching hatred Jimmyz?



Now another story from the Vatican :

Quote:
Murder

The guards' worst moment came in 1998 when the new commander, Alois Estermann, and his wife were found dead in their apartment.

The man who killed the couple, and later himself, was a disgruntled young corporal annoyed at being overlooked for a medal.

In 1981, as a young captain, Estermann had tried to protect John Paul from a Turkish would-be assassin. When the shots rang out he jumped into the pope's vehicle to shield his body but the pope had already been seriously wounded.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4630898.stm

The new Swiss commander who armed with his gun could not stop the pope getting shot died with his wife in the Vatican killed by the same weapon that was supposed to protect the pope, the irony!

Is the Vatican safer with guns Jimmyz, really?
:-D
:-D

[jimmyz]

Lucky Luke wrote: jimmyz wrote: britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: britboy wrote: micfranklin wrote: Some people can be trusted with weapons, some can't, like crazy people. In any given society, it is important for people to be able to defend themselves, 'nuff said.
What, even in the Vatican? Just in case some crazed 79 year old priest thats spent his whole life dedicated to god suddenly decides he's gonna throw a Papel document at you violently?

:roll:

Would you prefer it if he just shot you and you didn't even try to save yourself?

Shot me? With what? The priests in the Vatican don't carry arms. No-one does. There are armed police on the gates, that arn't allowed in. That arn't part of that given society.

You've been getting your information from dodgy sources:

like here! :)

The bungling Turkish assassin Aga had a gun "at the Vatican".Would I have received my sainthood if I pulled my .45 and shot that scum down before he pumped a couple shots into John Paul II?

My point is that you are safe some places some of the time.But you are never safe everywhere all of the time.

I love the opening you gave me mentioning the Vatican and gun control.I waited a very long time for one of your type to bring it there.

John Paul II certainly did not agree with you on what should be done with Agca, why not following this pope example instead of preaching hatred Jimmyz?



Now another story from the Vatican :

Quote:
Murder

The guards' worst moment came in 1998 when the new commander, Alois Estermann, and his wife were found dead in their apartment.

The man who killed the couple, and later himself, was a disgruntled young corporal annoyed at being overlooked for a medal.

In 1981, as a young captain, Estermann had tried to protect John Paul from a Turkish would-be assassin. When the shots rang out he jumped into the pope's vehicle to shield his body but the pope had already been seriously wounded. The new Swiss commander who armed with his gun could not stop the pope getting shot died with his wife in the Vatican killed by the same weapon that was supposed to protect the pope, the irony!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4630898.stm

You made this part up didnt you. Quote: The new Swiss commander who armed with his gun

Everything I have read says the guns are kept in a lock-up near the main gate and that the "Swiss guard are sometimes armed with handguns sometimes during outside Papal trips"(see page 2 my link) but that while on duty carry their pikes and tear gas only.

Granted Alois and his wife were off duty in their private quarters when shot in their apartment doorway by the murderer.

Where does it say Alois was armed? NOWHERE right.

Link - http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C07EFDC1631F936A35756C0A96E958260

You got nothing but supposition Brit boy-O and you are a liar.Nowhere in one half hour of research has there been any mention that the murdered Alois Esterman or his wife were armed.

Only the criminal had a weapon thus proving my point and making "Swiss" cheese of yours.(pun intended) :lol:

[Lucky Luke]

jimmyz wrote:

You made this part up didnt you. Quote: The new Swiss commander who armed with his gun

Everything I have read says the guns are kept in a lock-up near the main gate and that the "Swiss guard are sometimes armed with handguns sometimes during outside Papal trips"(see page 2 my link) but that while on duty carry their pikes and tear gas only.

Granted Alois and his wife were off duty in their private quarters when shot in their apartment doorway by the murderer.

Where does it say Alois was armed? NOWHERE right.

Link - http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C07EFDC1631F936A35756C0A96E958260

You got nothing but supposition Brit boy-O and you are a liar.Nowhere in one half hour of research has there been any mention that the murdered Alois Esterman or his wife were armed.

Only the criminal had a weapon thus proving my point and making "Swiss" cheese of yours.(pun intended) :lol:

They were killed by one of his guns as he was the new commander Jimmyz. Those guns that are supposed to protect the pope did not but one of them was used to kill the commander, his wife and the guard. Can you see the irony?

Follow the link and read the story.

:-D
:-D

[jimmyz]

Lucky Luke wrote: jimmyz wrote:

You made this part up didnt you. Quote: The new Swiss commander who armed with his gun

Everything I have read says the guns are kept in a lock-up near the main gate and that the "Swiss guard are sometimes armed with handguns sometimes during outside Papal trips"(see page 2 my link) but that while on duty carry their pikes and tear gas only.

Granted Alois and his wife were off duty in their private quarters when shot in their apartment doorway by the murderer.

Where does it say Alois was armed? NOWHERE right.

Link - http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9C07EFDC1631F936A35756C0A96E958260

You got nothing but supposition Brit boy-O and you are a liar.Nowhere in one half hour of research has there been any mention that the murdered Alois Esterman or his wife were armed.

Only the criminal had a weapon thus proving my point and making "Swiss" cheese of yours.(pun intended) :lol:

They were killed by one of his guns as he was the new commander Jimmyz. Those guns that are supposed to protect the pope did not but one of them was used to kill the commander, his wife and the guard. Can you see the irony?

Follow the link and read the story.

:-D
:-D

They were killed by the man who pulled the trigger.He could have just as well been drowned in the Christening bowl or been speared by a pike.

But if the new commander had his "service weapon" at hand during the shooting he may have prevented his and his wife's murder,No?

A criminal bent on murder will commit the act with WHATEVER weapon he/she chooses.

The absence of guns in society will NEVER prevent all types of murders.But the presence of a gun in the hands of a law abiding citizen MAY prevent them.

We will have to agree to disagree.I hope one day the right to own firearms easily may be one day attained by you.The mystery and loss you feel at being denied the security one feels in possessing and using firearms for self-defense,hunting,and recreation is truly pleasurable and satisfying.

[Lucky Luke]

jimmyz wrote:

They were killed by the man who pulled the trigger.He could have just as well been drowned in the Christening bowl or been speared by a pike.

But if the new commander had his "service weapon" at hand during the shooting he may have prevented his and his wife's murder,No?

A criminal bent on murder will commit the act with WHATEVER weapon he/she chooses.

The absence of guns in society will NEVER prevent all types of murders.But the presence of a gun in the hands of a law abiding citizen MAY prevent them.

We will have to agree to disagree.I hope one day the right to own firearms easily may be one day attained by you.The mystery and loss you feel at being denied the security one feels in possessing and using firearms for self-defense,hunting,and recreation is truly pleasurable and satisfying.

They were not killed by any man who pulled any trigger, they were killed by Vice Cpl. Cedrich Tornay, in the commander's apartment in the Guards' barracks with a service revolver.

You are missing the point, the commander of the Pope's Swiss Guards should have been in one of the safer places on earth in his apartment in the Guards' barracks and yet he was murdered along with his wife, murdered by one of his own. Your theory that if you surround yourself with guns you'll be safer for it is denied by this story Jimmyz.

We have every right to own a firearm for hunting Jimmyz, there are many gun lovers in Britain and yet we have very tough gun control laws. As for pleasure I understand the commander chose to relax with his wife in his own home away from guns, always the right choice Jimmyz.

:-D
:-D