Political Crossfire Forums

[kelvin90703]

mitsi_mirage wrote: UZI4U wrote: Yukon wrote: You're dead wrong my friend. It's what I and millions of others want - controls up to and including bannishing handguns from the general population. People are sick and tired of living in an armed encampment, afraid to go out at night in case some wacked out screwball decides to exercise his 2nd Amendment rights and blow them away. We are sick and tired of sending our children to school in case they may be shot. No KELVIN, it's not about me. It's about everyone.
Law abiding gun owners, like me, and 75 million others in the US are NOT the ones out shooting up gas stations. The people who get their guns ILLEGALLY are the ones that commit violent crimes.

In the 1950's, kids carried shotguns to school, to go hunting aftarwards. How many school shooting were there back then? NONE! NOT ONE AT ALL!


That is so true. There is something that is called the UNDERGROUND BLACK MARKET. This is the #1 reason why guns shouldn't be restricted to citizens like you and me! We have the right to defend ourselves from these people who illegally purchase guns, and are not supposed to even have in their possession. What would happen if one of these felons decided to go "human hunting" on bright sunny afternoon? How many citizens would be able to defend ourselves, besides the help of harsh language and our butter knives? Any one of us who spoted someone in a killing spree could save someone's life; if we had a gun. But if we didn't, how long would it take an officer to get to the scene of the crime? WHAT IF the officer got wounded of this person? Then everyone had to wait for the next officer to show up.

The moral of all this is that a citizen can prevent all this happening from happening. How? Because having the right to protect ourselves, also meaning we have the right to protect others from eminent danger as well.

I suspect the anti gunners don't care about your post. Please see Gun control kills 2 people and link on first page.

Never mind that I have not been under suspicion, tried, or convicted of any crime worthy of removing my rights. Yet my rights are to be removed with no trial, no jurry, no legal counsel, and no Miranda. Sorry anti-gunners, afraid of your kids getting shot? It is not me, then why are you blaming me? Such a legal tactic and doctrine is called "Market Share Liability". It is considered unethical by many legal scholars.

And..

Just like Yukon's tax plan? It is trying to circumvent democracy. As an example of blantant disregard for democracy, Elisa Barnes is quoted as saying:

"You don't need a legislative majority to file a lawsuit," proclaims Elisa Barnes" - http://walterolson.com/articles/wsjsmwes.html

When there is a definate guilty party and some one else is made to bear the responsbility is considered unethical and violates several legal tenets of personal responsibility. Simply put: "You did not do it, but your gonna be punished anyhow".

[Deigo99]

Somthing i dont think people who are against guns realize is that anything can be a weapon. Just because i can take the dear rifle i use for recreation, and go on a killing spree doesnt mean you need to take it away. I can just as easily take my 3,000lb car an go run over small children are you going to take that away too?

[Lucky Luke]

kelvin90703 wrote: I admit, this is not a statistically important event. Nor do I have any more statistical proof that gun control kills more people:

http://www.chron.com/content/chronicle/nation/guns/part2/gunside1.html

Without a doubt 2 people are dead from gun control. So are others in this massacre. The point? It is just as statistically important as a school shooting. Yet gun control is being based on such statistically unimportant events and used to support a stupid public policy. School shootings and Luby are both great tragedy, both very emotional events. Good and effective propaganda appeals to emotions, not to reason. It is the emotions and propaganda that have been used to institute the public policy of gun control.

What emotion are you on about Kelvin90703? In this gun control forum, anti gun control posters are using emotion every day to justify their love for their guns.

Here is how they do it:



I'll give you the facts, America has an insane murder rate and 70% of it is with firearms.
:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

Deigo99 wrote: Somthing i dont think people who are against guns realize is that anything can be a weapon. Just because i can take the dear rifle i use for recreation, and go on a killing spree doesnt mean you need to take it away. I can just as easily take my 3,000lb car an go run over small children are you going to take that away too?

No.

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

kelvin90703 wrote: UZI4U wrote: Yukon wrote: You're dead wrong my friend. It's what I and millions of others want - controls up to and including bannishing handguns from the general population. People are sick and tired of living in an armed encampment, afraid to go out at night in case some wacked out screwball decides to exercise his 2nd Amendment rights and blow them away. We are sick and tired of sending our children to school in case they may be shot. No KELVIN, it's not about me. It's about everyone.
Law abiding gun owners, like me, and 75 million others in the US are NOT the ones out shooting up gas stations. The people who get their guns ILLEGALLY are the ones that commit violent crimes.

In the 1950's, kids carried shotguns to school, to go hunting aftarwards. How many school shooting were there back then? NONE! NOT ONE AT ALL!

Who is gun control trying to save? How about the white males?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/03/national/main576422.shtml

Please click on the "Guns in America" hypertex. Then "Who is at risk"

All the deaths COMBINED for all ages, race, and gender; do not add up to the deaths of white men who commit sucide. So then? Wouldn't a more effective social control to firearm death should be a nation wide mental health program? School shootings? I recall a lot of troubled teens and mental illness in adults who were perps in those crimes. Gun control certainly is ineffective in as a cure for depression, paranoia, and anger.

Guns are a cure for depression, paranoia, and anger, that we know.

:-D
:-D

[Lucky Luke]

kelvin90703 wrote: Dutchguy wrote: Quote: The civil right to own a gun in the USA is not debatable. It is a fact.

Yes, it is a fact. Yes, it most certainly is also debatable. Being a piece of legislation, that particular right can be scrapped if so desired. As to the how and when, we've been over this before and I'm not going to again. But even if there is NO how and when, the fact still remains that even without ANY proof any piece of legislation can be scrapped if the majority of the people feel this is desirable...

The process to amend the Constitution is not what I take issue with. It is how do you propose to convince the citiznery to give up the right to bear arms?

1) From anti-gun leadership who enjoy protection from sub-machine guns?
2) From anti-gun leadership who are in jail for attempted murder with a gun?
3) From NOT one single cause and effect ever proven in any country by any study?
4) With 33/34 states currently handing out concealed weapons permits?
5) Please see thread: "A little math"

Good luck.

Gun control is legal, easy and straight forward:

Quote: Emerson is also noteworthy because, in upholding this statute, the Fifth Circuit undertook a scholarly and comprehensive review of the pertinent legal materials and specifically affirmed that the Second Amendment "protects the right of individuals, including those not then actually a member of any militia or engaged in active military service or training, to privately possess and bear their own firearms . . . . " The Court's opinion also makes the important point that the existence of this individual right does not mean that reasonable restrictions cannot be imposed to prevent unfit persons from possessing firearms or to restrict possession of firearms particularly suited to criminal misuse. In my view, the Emerson opinion, and the balance it strikes, generally reflect the correct understanding of the Second Amendment.
http://149.101.1.32/ag/readingroom/emerson.htm

:-D
:-D

[usa-1]

kelvin90703 wrote: "gun control is being based on such statistically unimportant events and used to support a stupid public policy. ......both very emotional events. Good and effective propaganda appeals to emotions, not to reason. It is the emotions and propaganda that have been used to institute the public policy of gun control."

I shortened the author up for focus. He is correct. Many laws are made by taking an insignificant thingy and then blwoing it out of porportion with emotionalism, not a logical approach of solution finding.

People holding guns were never much of a problem until Brady and the media got emotional.

[Lucky Luke]

usa-1 wrote: kelvin90703 wrote: "gun control is being based on such statistically unimportant events and used to support a stupid public policy. ......both very emotional events. Good and effective propaganda appeals to emotions, not to reason. It is the emotions and propaganda that have been used to institute the public policy of gun control."

I shortened the author up for focus. He is correct. Many laws are made by taking an insignificant thingy and then blwoing it out of porportion with emotionalism, not a logical approach of solution finding.

People holding guns were never much of a problem until Brady and the media got emotional.

5,000 to 8,000 American lives lost a year, every year, year after year are may be insignificant thingies to you but you should understand that what is insignificant for most people is your love for your guns.

:-D
:-D