Political Crossfire Forums

micfranklin · Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 11:25 pm Post subject:

Kamel wrote: How do you compare a missile to a firearm?

Missiles are bigger and destroy buildings and can kill lots of people. Firearms are smaller, easier to hide, and can't destroy buildings (unless it happens to be a powerful rocket launcher)

Snake · Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:03 am Post subject:

even so, it is an arm, so it is protected my the 2nd amendment. Granted, the writers of the Constitution may not have forseen ICBM's, but think of the deterence. That pesky neighbor that walks his dogs would definately think twice before he lets that little doggie sh*t on your lawn

micfranklin · Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:21 am Post subject:

But missiles are used primarily for destructive uses.

Snake · Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:39 am Post subject:

the Constitution of The United States of America wrote: Amendment II

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.

A missile can be used successfully by a well armed militia to protect this great country of ours from the enemy. A missile can be anything from an ICBM to a heat seaking stinger. If we are invaded by a foriegn nation for the purpose of war, I can't say I would be the only one to find something like that usefull.

lilwolf · Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 14445 Location: idaho

But it is not a gun.

a rocket carrying a warhead of conventional or nuclear explosives; may be ballistic or directed by remote control
projectile: a weapon that is forcibly thrown or projected at a targets but is not self-propelled
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

A missile (British English: "miss"-"isle"; U.S. English: "missl") is, in general, a projectile—that is, something thrown or otherwise propelled. Missiles can range from a rock thrown from a slingshot, through a crossbow or ballista bolt, to a Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) with multiple nuclear warheads. Modern ICBMs, the largest missiles currently deployed, represent the most destructive weapons ever made in human history.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missile

A tube containing a propelling pyrotechnic charge with fins attached to one end. When ignited, the expelling combustion from the tube propels the missile into the air. Some missiles have colored stars, reports or whistles.
www.fireworks.com/safety/glossary.asp
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&defl=en&q=define:missile&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title

An object or weapon that is fired, thrown, dropped, or otherwise projected at a target; a projectile.
A guided missile.
http://www.answers.com/topic/missile

missile
n 1: rocket carrying passengers or instruments or a warhead
2: a weapon that is thrown or projected [syn: projectile]

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913)

Missile \Mis"sile\, a. [L. missils, fr. mittere, missum, to
cause to go, to send, to throw; cf. Lith. mesti to throw: cf.
F. missile. Cf. Admit, Dismiss, Mass the religious
service, Message, Mission.]
Capable of being thrown; adapted for hurling or to be
projected from the hand, or from any instrument or rngine, so
as to strike an object at a distance.

We bend the bow, or wing the missile dart. --Pope.
Missile \Mis"sile\, n. [L. missile.]
A weapon thrown or projected or intended to be projcted, as a
lance, an arrow, or a bullet.
http://dict.die.net/missile/

Missile: (?), a. Capable of being thrown; adapted for hurling or to be projected from the hand, or from any instrument or engine{2}, so as to strike an object at a distance.
We bend the bow, or wing the missile dart. Pope.

Missile: , n. 1. A weapon thrown or projected or intended to be projected, as a lance, an arrow, or a bullet.
2. A rocket-propelled device designed to fly through the air and deliver a warhead of explosive materials to a target.
Numerous types of rocket-propelled missile{2} are now used in modern warfare. Some types with names indicating their range or function are: antiaircraft missile; ballistic missile; cruise missile; antiballistic missile missile; air-to-air missile; air-to-ground missile; guided missile; intercontinental ballistic missile (IBM); intermediate range ballistic missile (IRBM); surface-to-air missile

http://dictionary.laborlawtalk.com/Missile

It is clearly not in the hand gun or the long rifle category. A bullet is but clearly not a missle.
So, the by definition a missle is not a weapon that could be used for self defense, but clearly for defensive or destructive purposes.

A ballistic missile

Blinky · Joined: 18 Mar 2006 Posts: 2569

lilwolf wrote:
Nope not all blinky, My wording said exactly what was needed said. You do however have a tendancy to let your mouth overide your common sense and logic.... Not a personal attack but a blunt fact.
I figure with your sarcasm being more blatant tonight than usual, I figure you are indeed having a bad day. So, go have a cup of tea and cool your jets for awhile. Perhaps a night off for you and a good rest and you will not be so arrogant in your choice of words. \/

I disagree. I regret nothing I have posted here so I don't think I've allowed my mouth to overide common sense and logic. In fact, I think its logical to expect that people who spend the better part of their day pontificating on freedom, the right to bear arms etc. to follow suit when it comes to missiles and not infringe of the personal liberty of those wishing to own them. Sadly, this is all too often not the case, at least on these forums.
And no, I'm not having a bad day. I'm having a great one - went out last night, yet woke with no hangover, cycled 30km, went for a swim at the beach, just finished lunch, and have the rest of the aftrenoon and evening to do whatever I like. I don't agree that my choice of words was arrogant at all - if anything, your post was distinctly lacking respect.
And while we're on the subject, your post was not clear. Read it again. It sounds like something Green would write, or OneZero if he were still around.

lilwolf · Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 14445 Location: idaho

Blinky wrote: lilwolf wrote:
Nope not all blinky, My wording said exactly what was needed said. You do however have a tendancy to let your mouth overide your common sense and logic.... Not a personal attack but a blunt fact.
I figure with your sarcasm being more blatant tonight than usual, I figure you are indeed having a bad day. So, go have a cup of tea and cool your jets for awhile. Perhaps a night off for you and a good rest and you will not be so arrogant in your choice of words. \/

I disagree. I regret nothing I have posted here so I don't think I've allowed my mouth to overide common sense and logic. In fact, I think its logical to expect that people who spend the better part of their day pontificating on freedom, the right to bear arms etc. to follow suit when it comes to missiles and not infringe of the personal liberty of those wishing to own them. Sadly, this is all too often not the case, at least on these forums.
And no, I'm not having a bad day. I'm having a great one - went out last night, yet woke with no hangover, cycled 30km, went for a swim at the beach, just finished lunch, and have the rest of the aftrenoon and evening to do whatever I like. I don't agree that my choice of words was arrogant at all - if anything, your post was distinctly lacking respect.
And while we're on the subject, your post was not clear. Read it again. It sounds like something Green would write, or OneZero if he were still around.

Nothing to re read blinky... This is what I was referring to with the sarcasm that was there:

This is just another storm youre weathering, right lilwolf? You'll come out Ok, right?
Chin up lads. Nothing to see here, just more more kids killing kids with guns.

That is why I said what I did. That's all. See the sarcasm in it? You don't need to do things like that... it belittles you. :-D

infirmaryblues · Joined: 12 Oct 2006 Posts: 29 Location: Illinois

We are getting off topic here -

Think about this:

If guns were totally removed from this equation, what would be the case?

School shooting = pissed off kid+gun with which to issue his "justice"

With this in mind, know the two are complementary; most likely the shooting wouldn't occur without either.

However- is any other weapon excluded from this scenario? Guns are just the most available, efficient tool (I hate to use this word..)in expressing/releasing anger+hatred for a kid. If there weren't guns, what would it be?
The issue comes down to whether or not weapons in the hands of civilians /citizens should be legal-this is what the debate is. You can replace gun with knife, knife with club, club with a rock to throw, etc

Snake · Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:40 pm Post subject:

You know, even if guns were illegalized, there would still be the guns on the black market. Easy to get too. Making them illegal for civilians only makes it a 'gangstas paradise' because without armed citizens, the criminals can do as they please. You think a cop is really going to drop what he's doing for a 'shot's fired' call?

infirmaryblues · Joined: 12 Oct 2006 Posts: 29 Location: Illinois

Kamel wrote: You know, even if guns were illegalized, there would still be the guns on the black market. Easy to get too. Making them illegal for civilians only makes it a 'gangstas paradise' because without armed citizens, the criminals can do as they please. You think a cop is really going to drop what he's doing for a 'shot's fired' call?

I'm not saying illegalizing guns- I'm saying no guns on earth, PERIOD.
What would the earth be like then?

micfranklin · Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 2:54 pm Post subject:

infirmaryblues wrote: Kamel wrote: You know, even if guns were illegalized, there would still be the guns on the black market. Easy to get too. Making them illegal for civilians only makes it a 'gangstas paradise' because without armed citizens, the criminals can do as they please. You think a cop is really going to drop what he's doing for a 'shot's fired' call?

I'm not saying illegalizing guns- I'm saying no guns on earth, PERIOD.
What would the earth be like then?

We would be fighting with sticks and stones, then :?

infirmaryblues · Joined: 12 Oct 2006 Posts: 29 Location: Illinois

Yes, exactly my point. You remove guns, a void is created and thus filled. You don't want guns? Substitute blades. No blades? Substitute sticks. No sticks? Lather, rinse, repeat.

Weapons will always exist- at what measure should they? THIS is the question! Forget the bashing! It's pointless! Let discuss the topic!

lilwolf · Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 14445 Location: idaho

infirmaryblues wrote: Kamel wrote: You know, even if guns were illegalized, there would still be the guns on the black market. Easy to get too. Making them illegal for civilians only makes it a 'gangstas paradise' because without armed citizens, the criminals can do as they please. You think a cop is really going to drop what he's doing for a 'shot's fired' call?

I'm not saying illegalizing guns- I'm saying no guns on earth, PERIOD.
What would the earth be like then?

You illusion of no guns on earth is exactly that....the castle at the end of the yellow brick road. This is not going to happen so there is little or nothing to debate here.
With out guns there would be another weapon of choice to kill each other with and someone would start all over and make another version of a gun. Fruitless argument and debate.

leftneckredwing · Joined: 13 Nov 2004 Posts: 32350 Location: North America

infirmaryblues wrote: Kamel wrote: You know, even if guns were illegalized, there would still be the guns on the black market. Easy to get too. Making them illegal for civilians only makes it a 'gangstas paradise' because without armed citizens, the criminals can do as they please. You think a cop is really going to drop what he's doing for a 'shot's fired' call?

I'm not saying illegalizing guns- I'm saying no guns on earth, PERIOD.
What would the earth be like then?

Bigger people would kill smaller people. I take it hands and clubs would not be forbidden.

Snake · Posted: Sun Oct 15, 2006 7:48 pm Post subject:

infirmaryblues wrote:

I'm not saying illegalizing guns- I'm saying no guns on earth, PERIOD.
What would the earth be like then?

The world would be a little more like this:

The Newb · Joined: 06 Oct 2006 Posts: 2668

Kamel wrote: infirmaryblues wrote:

I'm not saying illegalizing guns- I'm saying no guns on earth, PERIOD.
What would the earth be like then?

The world would be a little more like this:

its just a flesh wound :lol:

britboy · Joined: 02 Jun 2006 Posts: 3571 Location: London

micfranklin wrote: Oh jeez, we got another one....

http://www.foxbaltimore.com/template/inews_wire/wires.regional.md/38bc0347-www.foxbaltimore.com.shtml

Quote: BALTIMORE (AP) -- Police are investigating a shooting outside a west Baltimore high school this afternoon.

It happened just after 5 p-m outside Frederick Douglass High School.

Officer Troy Harris says police received a call about a gunshot at the school. He says officers chased a possible suspect to Mondawmin Mall nearby, but lost him.

Harris says about 15 minutes later, officers were called to the 1900 block of Payson Street, which is less than a mile from the school, for a 14-year-old boy who was shot twice in the back. He says the boy was at the school at the time of the shooting.

The boy was taken to Shock Trauma, but Harris did not have details on his condition.

Once again, we have another school shooting, and again this one is close to home for me. I'm glad no one was killed, but with this adding on to the long list of school-related shootings, I wonder what the hell is going on. Is there some reason all of this is happening within a few days of each other, or is someone behind it all?

Thoughts? Opinions?

Which country did this happen in?

Still, one big, darn, darn unlucky patch the US is going through. 7000 times unlucky per year.

**** -- what they need to do is arm more people. Give the teachers guns, the canteen staff, the principle. Replace 'Chemistry' classes with 'How to shoot people with assault rifles for defense' classes - that'd sure teach those criminal bad guys a lesson eh? :roll:

If you didn't laugh you'd cry.

lilwolf · Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 14445 Location: idaho

Iwould be fine with arming all legal and law aiding citizens.

britboy · Joined: 02 Jun 2006 Posts: 3571 Location: London

lilwolf wrote: Iwould be fine with arming all legal and law aiding citizens.
I believe that all criminals, before they were criminals, were legal and law abiding citizens.

You'd give all of the gang-bangers that hadn't quite joined the 'crips' yet a gun?

You'd give all the completely broken down, alchoholic fathers a gun each?

All the people suffering from depression and having suicidal thoughts? The people with a huge grief against their employer? The fighting couple who the police have to caution every night for screaming at each other 'if I had a gun I'd kill you'. You'd hand one out to them?

The people who have been in court 5 times for murder but the lack of evidence and technical points have seen them walk away time and time again -- here, have a handgun.

The wife who has just found her cheating husband in the hotel room -- and upon being discovered he simply laughed at her. She's stormed straight into your gun-shop, demanding a weapon. What are you going to recommend? A Glock or a assault rifle?

The girl who claims she was raped (no evidence, guy is screaming his innocence), and she is stating as fact she's gonna use her gun to blow his brains out ... you'd hand one over to her?

Really?

lilwolf · Joined: 15 Jun 2006 Posts: 14445 Location: idaho

In response to your statement britboy:

BTW your words are highlighted for clarification okay:

I believe that all criminals, before they were criminals, were legal and law abiding citizens.

True they are or were.

You'd give all of the gang-bangers that hadn't quite joined the 'crips' yet a gun?

If they are of age and have broken no laws they are to be afforoded the same rights as law abiding citizens. If they break the law well they are not law abiding citizens any longer...right?

You'd give all the completely broken down, alchoholic fathers a gun each?

As long as they have no broken the law they are still eligable and since being an alcoholic is not yet a felony they are afforded the same legal rights as any other law abiding citizen.

All the people suffering from depression and having suicidal thoughts? The people with a huge grief against their employer? The fighting couple who the police have to caution every night for screaming at each other 'if I had a gun I'd kill you'. You'd hand one out to them?

There is no method short of being hospitalized and having on record that you are mentally ill, can you then assume that because they are mentally ill and have lied on the application they are inneligable. Not easy to distinguish when or whether a person is a nut case or not. The fighting couple you mention have apparently not committed any felonies, unless there has been actual spousal abuse or something along that line. If that has happened then the potential buyer is no longer a law abiding person now is he?
Screaming out words about killing someone with a gun does not warrant you being labeled as a danger legally because no felong has been committed as yet. That cannot even be determined that intent is there other than words which will only damn you if something were to happen.

The people who have been in court 5 times for murder but the lack of evidence and technical points have seen them walk away time and time again -- here, have a handgun.

If the person has been in court 5 times for murder and they have been found not guilty, they still have the same legal rights as any other law abiding person and that cannot be changed. The person has been aquitted and therefore there is no legal standing to refuse sale or possession of a gun.

The wife who has just found her cheating husband in the hotel room -- and upon being discovered he simply laughed at her. She's stormed straight into your gun-shop, demanding a weapon. What are you going to recommend? A Glock or a assault rifle?

Again no crime or felony has been committed and thanks to the waiting period (cooling off time) the potential felony may well be avoided. Adultery is a felony in some states and the fact that he not she might be guilty of a felony is irrelevant in a court now days.
She can still legally purchase a gun and the law says she has committed no felony and as such can do so.

The girl who claims she was raped (no evidence, guy is screaming his innocence), and she is stating as fact she's gonna use her gun to blow his brains out ... you'd hand one over to her?

Again if the person is of legal age and meets all required criteria there is nothing that can be done to prevent her from buying a gun. Intent has been expressed and that is only words in a court of law and again no felony has happened that would bar the potential buyer from purchasing a gun.

Now granted I may not like the idea that the people used in your example are going to get a gun but the law says that if there is no felony then they are okay to buy as long as all criteria is met within existing laws that govern such purchases.