|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
Sigh, I don't know what to think
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: Atlas4
These weapons are for a battlefield, not a neighborhood.
I seriously don't know what to think here. Sure, criminals can get these things either way, but it at least feels good to have it in there, that it's that much harder for no-gooders to get them. All the politicians are saying "stop terrorism, we must stop this violence" and yet here we are, with a bill that keeps assault weapons off the store racks, being trashed. It sounds hypocritical. Oh well, when I challenge Zell Miller to one of those duels he's always talking about, I'll be sure to use a tommy gun.
Posted by: IceBreaker
IF that is the will of the People, then I don't see where the problem lies - now of course, those who oppose democracy might object nonetheless, but then again we all endorse democracy - well, here at least - don't we? 
Posted by: Canis Lupus
You can't expect a congress (or a government) largely infested by Republicans to sustain the ban on assault weapons, unfortunately... Most of them uphold the second amendment almost as religiously as they try to erode the first...
Posted by: SKYHN
I thought most assault weapons were illegal already? Like AK47's, etc.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
they're part of the banned weapons from 1994 - which would be unbanned in the next few days 
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/faqs/?page=awb
although I'm sure the NRA can convince us that AK-47s are good for hunting deer 
Posted by: Bishop
If by deer you mean....
Posted by: IceBreaker
 Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Canis Lupus
You can't expect a congress (or a government) largely infested by Republicans to sustain the ban on assault weapons, unfortunately... Most of them uphold the second amendment almost as religiously as they try to erode the first...
|
um...actually, whenever it comes to depriving the citizens of their rights, Bush jr. & Co are oft on the front line...
...and this case is no exception, as Bush actually FAVOURED the ban
Posted by: redwench
well, dont tell me that bush got something right. i might fall over dead.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
well, dont tell me that bush got something right. i might fall over dead.
|
http://www.touslessmileys.com/smileys/PPC/ppc_040.gif then worry not: I'm saying he probably got something wrong - as usual ;-)
Posted by: laborat
(rushes off to place his order for assault rifles before they make it illegal again...)
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
um...actually, whenever it comes to depriving the citizens of their rights, Bush jr. & Co are oft on the front line...
...and this case is no exception, as Bush actually FAVOURED the ban |
Oh really? Sounds like reelection campaign ear-candy to me He said that "he will sign such a bill if the Congress passed it." Of course, since Congress will most likely not even vote on it, I guess that ends his "willingness" to reenact the ban, eh? He may have thought of that beforehand, but again, we can only speculate ...
Of course, he may have been trying to satisfy gunban supporters but still leaving room for him to back out by saying "I'll only sign it if our Republican-led congress passes it" ... still doesn't change the fact that Congress doesn't want the ban on assault weapons reinstated.
In fact, Bush's support for a "ban" is contradictory to his stance on terrorism and homeland security.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Canis Lupus
Of course, he may have been trying to satisfy gunban supporters but still leaving room for him to back out by saying "I'll only sign it if our Republican-led congress passes it" ...
|
hehe - he may be a dumbass, but not his advisers, alas..
Even if the Congress endorsed the bill, they knew the people would disapprove - so like you said, probably "ear candy" too, I surmise. IMO Bush is more likely yearning to sign the Bill against the People's will but then again, the upcoming elections are forcing him to forego his intents - or at least postpone them till...you know when ;-)
Oh, and I don't see how his supporting the ban contradicts his stance on terrorism - on the contrary, since he perceives terrorists as a threat to the STATE. So obviously, gun laws would be one of the building blocks in his homeland security policies: preventing those who oppose the State from acquiring guns...by simply banning these guns outright, even to the detriment of the entire civilian population for whose welfare & security he has shown little concern so far, if I'm not mistaken (...)
For a leader who opposes democracy, nothing is easier to keep in check than an unarmed population. Those are the very reasons that led despots such as Hitler & Stalin to confiscate every firearm owned by private people, remember?
And by the way,
Laborat>
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by laborat
(rushes off to place his order for assault rifles before they make it illegal again...)
|
there is no need for haste - you have time till November at least (...)
Posted by: Ocean
we need our guns to defend ourselves from the government and its patriot act.
Posted by: redwench
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
Even if the Congress endorsed the bill, they knew the people would disapprove
|
huh? people quite overwhelmingly approve of keeping assault weapons illegal. only nuts want every adult wandering around with an ak47. well, nuts and the gun lobby.
Quote:
again, how is keeping something illegal making for an unarmed population? the US has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
huh? people quite overwhelmingly approve of keeping assault weapons illegal. only nuts want every adult wandering around with an ak47. well, nuts and the gun lobby.
|
huh?² who spoke of "wandering around"? I was talking about assault weapon ownership, not necessarily toting these about in public - are you telling me that the majority of people would have these weapons outlawed, without even the right to keep them within the confines of their own dwellings? Even if the law were to require each & every citizen to undergo a background check & extensive training before any purchase? Are the people willing to restrict their own rights? Do they want FEWER rights? I'd call that masochism if you asked me (...)
IF so, IF that is really the will of the people, then how do you explain the sudden swing in the Republicans' stance toward the ban, just weeks before the elections??? speaking of nuts, that question might be a tough nut to crack http://www.touslessmileys.com/smile...ble/inc_087.gif
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
again, how is keeping something illegal making for an unarmed population? the US has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world.
|
Oh but it isn't, at least not by itself. But then again, that's how it begins; the slightest stain on a white cloth is always small - until it spreads ;-) - history has shown us that those leaders who wish to reave the people of their rights tend to proceed step by step, one measure at a time... http://www.fintoys.net/yabb/yabbima...es/devilish.gif
Posted by: BooRadley
I sold my old SKS and I'm looking forward to getting an AK chambered for .223 or an AR-15. They're nice, cheap, reliable (especially the AK) semi-auto rifles with long range and little recoil. Great for target shooting. It's hard to find better. With a couple of 50 round detachable clips, you barely have to reload at all.
I still think GW Bush is an evil psychopath and I hope he's removed from office, but this is the one and only good thing that's come out of this administration. Plus, this way, when he creates new Homeland Special Police to come and take away people suspected of political dissent, unpatriotic or unchristian actions, or not being a Republican, I can go out in style.
Posted by: redwench
rofl. call a camera crew first boo, so we can watch.
fewer rights? currently, americans do not have the right to own those weapons, and havent for decades. which is fortunate. they are called assault weapons for a reason, and its not because theyre useful for defensive purposes.......
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
rofl. call a camera crew first boo, so we can watch.
fewer rights? currently, americans do not have the right to own those weapons, and havent for decades. which is fortunate. they are called assault weapons for a reason, and its not because theyre useful for defensive purposes.......
|
oh? well in that case, since defense is just about the only thing that justifies killing, I suppose there would be no problem in doing away with these weapons completely, right? - yes, I mean completely: let no one be allowed to use them, not even the authorities. In the light of what's been said, this shouldn't be a problem, especially not for the State, should it?
Posted by: AltronHGX
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BooRadley
Plus, this way, when he creates new Homeland Special Police to come and take away people suspected of political dissent, unpatriotic or unchristian actions, or not being a Republican, I can go out in style.
|
It's been a long, long time since I laughed alloud like that at a post here intended to do that
Perhaps this new bill is in relation to that hostage situation in Russia ..
Posted by: redwench
sigh. they are weapons of war, and that is where their use/storage is appropriate. i dont think my neighbors should be allowed to own a working tank, or bazooka either. that doesnt mean the military shouldnt have them (although at times, thats questionable....).
Posted by: Bishop
just give everyone a bfg and that's the end of it.
most of you losers would end up fragging yourself and the herd will be culled by it's own violition
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
sigh. they are weapons of war, and that is where their use/storage is appropriate. i dont think my neighbors should be allowed to own a working tank, or bazooka either. that doesnt mean the military shouldnt have them (although at times, thats questionable....).
|
ah but that is irrelevant - they are "weapons of war"...because the Law deems them such; it is a legal status, nothing more - thus we're going round in circles, for what we're discussing here is akin to arguing whether or not these weapons should be assigned that status in the first place;
and IMO they shouldn't, so that citizens would be allowed to detain them in their own homes - IF that is the will of the People, of course. Which it likely is ;-) remember the saying: an englishman's house is his castle ? and yet, 'tis sad to see that this proverb no longer holds sway even in its own birthplace.. *snicker*
As for civilians not being allowed to own tanks & bazookas...surely, but you're forgetting one thing: the Swiss (yes, they're back : D) do not have the right to own these either - well at least I'm sure about the tanks - but they damn well have the right, if not the obligation, to keep an assault rifle at home. Every citizen aged between 18 & 55 is bound to that obligation, that makes for quite an alarming amount of privately owned firepower doesn't it? YET strangely enough, I've never heard about a some mad swiss gunman's rampage ending in a mass bloodshed!?! yes, that's a point I brought up aeons ago in a similar debate, but as no one was able to refute it, I guess the argument still holds
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
I've never heard about a some mad swiss gunman's rampage ending in a mass bloodshed!?! yes, that's a point I brought up aeons ago in a similar debate, but as no one was able to refute it, I guess the argument still holds |
or maybe you ignored anyone who tried to refute it
Anyway, we're not Swiss, and we don't have the mentality of the Swiss. You're talking about Americans, whose majority would rat out their neighbors on the first sight of trouble. People who would sue McDonalds for their obesity, or Walmart for slipping and falling at their doorstep. Or people who can be suckered into the paranoia of terrorism and sacrifice their liberty for a sense of security.
Drug laws would not have been in effect if Americans didn't abuse it in the first place. Cancer warnings on cigarettes would not have been there if Americans didn't think smoking causes cancer. Gunban laws would not have been in place if there was no precedent for it.
Different mentalities require different measures, and as much as I can concede that the United States is the most powerful nation in the world, it is unfortunately not the most disciplined...
Posted by: redwench
no, only the swiss citizenry in the reserve, or whatever they call it, have that right. why? because they are in the armed forces.
assault rifles were designed and built for the use of armies. according to you, if the people want to have them personally, they should. well, tanks were designed and built for the use of armies. along with hand grenades, mines, anti-aircraft guns, and tomahawk missiles. as cute as it may be to ramble on about "the will of the people", rational societies dont run solely on that. they also have practical limits. in this case, the limit is at automatic weapons. i suppose they could put it up to tanks, and have everything smaller legal. id like to put antipersonnel mines around my property myself.
out of curiosity, what on earth do you think a normal citizen would do with an ak47? they are inappropriate for defense, particularly compared to handguns and shotguns, and are unwieldly and dangerous.
Posted by: Bishop
I fully support the capability of each and every citizen to privately own a bfg.
hey here's an idea how about society with no guns
Posted by: IceBreaker
Redwench> if the purpose of an assault rifle - for example, the type used by law enforcement - is not defense, then what would be its purpose, pray tell?
And no, with proper training required by law (and which I advocate, as I said before), these guns would no longer be "unwieldly"
Besides, why do you harp on the AK47? Kalashnikovs are Russian-made. Isn't the M16 deemed safer?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
no, only the swiss citizenry in the reserve, or whatever they call it, have that right. why? because they are in the armed forces
|
yes, the swiss citizenry in the reserve - in other words, practically the ENTIRE swiss citizenry ;-) And no, they are not considered part of the armed forces - they are ordinary citizens. Or think of the entire country as a giant reserve, if you prefer. Apparently this system has no equivalent in other countries..
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
as cute as it may be to ramble on about "the will of the people", rational societies dont run solely on that.
|
Be VERY careful when saying that - for that's the sort of thinking that can and has almost always led to dangerous excesses;
I once recall the spanish president José Maria himself stating "a true statesman does not listen to his people". Ouch. A throwback to the days of Franco, more like. So much for the will of the People. Such a statement can only be of evil portent for the future of democracy in Spain if you ask me..
Must the authorities keep an eye on their adult citizens in the same way that parents watch over their kids? If most grownups cannot be considered mature enough to handle the responsibility of keeping an assault weapon at home (although I doubt it, but perhaps I'm being too optimistic?), well true, it is regrettable...
Here's an interesting quote I found - from no one other than Thomas Jefferson himself (one of the Founding Fathers of the US, if I'm correct ;-) ):
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too
much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
So there you have it - ochlocracy over tyranny. A point to ponder ;-)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Canis Lupus
or maybe you ignored anyone who tried to refute it
|
http://www.touslessmileys.com/smileys/PPC/ppc_040.gif No I didn't. Yes they tried. And no they didn't
Yes, I think Redwench also came up with the 'mentality' argument. But is that relevant? Isn't that tantamount to saying that one People actually has a more civilized mentality than another? In other words, can one population of a given country be considered SUPERIOR to the population of another given country?! I don't think so. At least, I hope not...
But if according to you it's merely a question of mentality, well in that case: shouldn't other countries FOLLOW THE EXAMPLE set by the swiss? ; )
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Canis Lupus
Gunban laws would not have been in place if there was no precedent for it.
|
Wrong - and the UK is a pretty good example of it. In fact, exceptionally draconian gun control has only compounded the problem
And as a sidenote, although slightly offtopic:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Canis Lupus
[...] People who would sue McDonalds for their obesity, or Walmart for slipping and falling at their doorstep.
|
The grounds that lead to the complaints may have been preposterous, but in such David vs. Goliath cases, do not expect me to feel any pity for Goliath. To multinational behemoths such as McDonalds & Walmart, even 10 million dollars would be less than a triffle - akin to an ordinary citizen having to pay a fraction of a penny in damages, more like - and I think they could sustain much more of a beating than that and still keep ticking, besides their businesses are still prospering despite the lawsuits
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
Here's an interesting quote I found - from no one other than Thomas Jefferson himself (one of the Founding Fathers of the US, if I'm correct ;-) ):
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too
much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
So there you have it - ochlocracy over tyranny. A point to ponder |
And why does this have to only apply to gun control? What about Homeland Security? To quote that at this point in time is hypocrisy at its best...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
No I didn't. Yes they tried. And no they didn't |
That's coz you ignore it and disregard it, saying it's "irrelevant" ... but that's circular reasoning, so let's continue with the other points...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
Yes, I think Redwench also came up with the 'mentality' argument. But is that relevant? Isn't that tantamount to saying that one People actually has a more civilized mentality than another? In other words, can one population of a given country be considered SUPERIOR to the population of another given country?! I don't think so. At least, I hope not...
|
Why not? The United States has that mentality, otherwise we wouldn't be piping that we're the most powerful nation in the world and the seat of world democracy. You can hope not, but that doesn't make it untrue. Ask any American if there's any nation superior to the US and the answers might surprise you ... then again, most of us consider a British accent superior, or that any islamic nation is inferior to our brand of democracy, but I digress...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
But if according to you it's merely a question of mentality, well in that case: shouldn't other countries FOLLOW THE EXAMPLE set by the swiss? ; )
|
And have Americans adopt the mentality of allegedly inferior nations? Good luck As for other countries adopting the ways of the Swiss, who's to say some aren't doing essentially the same thing? But of course, most are adopting the ways of more superior nations, like say, the US or the UK...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
Wrong! and the UK is a pretty good example of it. In fact, exceptionally draconian gun control has only compounded the problem |
But the UK isn't the country with the most deaths caused by firearms, is it?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
To multinational behemoths such as these, even 10 million dollars would be less than a triffle - akin to an ordinary citizen having to pay a fraction of a penny in damages, more like - and I think their businesses are still prospering despite the lawsuits |
Which is the mentality of every American who wants to sue these companies, and every jury that allows them. "Yeah, let the simple folk get the money, these companies can afford them anyway!?" But you forget that these companies' insurance increases, and this expenditure is passed onto the price of their goods. Of course, those who sue don't care about what others will have to pay in the future, as long as they get their money. Then again, that's off topic, so let's not delve there
Posted by: Bishop
the criminals have high powered guns, the cops have high powered guns.
nobody else needs them.
Posted by: Bishop
and before you go blathering off about self defense, the idea there is to use only as much force as neccesary to survive.
'uh.. yeah, hi officer. this guy came at me with a knife so I emptied a clip into him. there's not much left, but.... yeah'
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Canis Lupus
And why does this have to only apply to gun control? What about Homeland Security? To quote that at this point in time is hypocrisy at its best...
|
? Clarify - I don't see how quoting T.J. is "hypocrisy". Homeland Security & Patriot Act pave the way to a neo-fascist regime - and I think there are enough people to denounce it (unlike violations to the right to bear arms). Patriot Act, for example, violates people's most basic rights, inc. even the right of free speech in some cases (1st amendment of your Constitution if I'm not mistaken). But wouldn't respecting the 1st Amendment whilst violating the 2nd (or respecting the 2nd whilst violating the 1st) be a contradiction of some sort? 1st amendment grants people rights. 2nd amendment grants them even more right, plus the means to perhaps secure the rights mentionned in the 1st amendment. What good would the 1st amendment be without the 2nd? What is a Right without Power? I call it impotence...
You may find it most interesting to see that in almost every fascist regime that resorted to similar measures as the Homeland Security act, for those leaders such as Hitler, Stalin (yes, he WAS a fascist, and not a communist ;-) ), Pol Pot, Mao Tse-Tung, etc...one of their first acts was to confiscate each & every privately owned firearm
=> Why, pray tell? Was it for the welfare & security of the people, perhaps? http://www.touslessmileys.com/smile...ble/inc_087.gif
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Canis Lupus
But the UK isn't the country with the most deaths caused by firearms, is it? |
In PERCENTAGE? Before the 1997 ban, certainly not. But after the gun laws, I wouldn't be so sure...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Canis Lupus
Which is the mentality of every American who wants to sue these companies, and every jury that allows them. "Yeah, let the simple folk get the money, these companies can afford them anyway!?"
|
And yet, proponents of plutocracy, such as the Republicans - and their sycophants - usually tend to uphold quite the OPPOSITE point of view: let the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. I don' t know about you, but I that is not the type of mentality I would eagerly condone...
EDIT:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Canis Lupus
Americans adopt the mentality of allegedly inferior nations? Good luck |
not overnight, obviously - but with time, why not?
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
and before you go blathering off about self defense, the idea there is to use only as much force as neccesary to survive.
'uh.. yeah, hi officer. this guy came at me with a knife so I emptied a clip into him. there's not much left, but.... yeah'
|
yes...you might want to say this to the New York officers who fired 43 rounds at citizen Amadou Diallo because he had threatened them...with his wallet (he did not survive, by the way...). At that time, New York was already under the aegis of Mussolini's - I mean, Giuliani's - zero-tolerance policy - how's that for "necessary force"? (...)
Posted by: Bishop
quoting pop news doesn't win arguments for you.
furthermore, if there's going to be a revolution in this country, it ain't gonna happen through guns, bub.
It might start that way (and if it does, it will have nothing to do with any rights or rules allowing or disallowing firearms) but the finish will require something a bit more persuasive.
Posted by: IceBreaker
"quoting pop news?" Not really - what I mentionned really DID happen, unbelievable as it seems http://www.touslessmileys.com/smile...ble/inc_076.gif Furthermore, these 4 officers were acquitted. t'was a sad day for democracy...
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
? Clarify - I don't see how quoting T.J. is "hypocrisy". Homeland Security & Patriot Act pave the way to a neo-fascist regime - and I think there are enough people to denounce it. They violate people's most basic right, inc. even the right of free speech in some cases (1st amendment of your Constitution if I'm not mistaken). But wouldn't respecting the 1st Amendment whilst violating the 2nd (or respecting the 2nd whilst violating the 1st) be a contradiction of some sort? 1st amendment grants people rights. 2nd amendments grants them even more right, plus the means to perhaps secure the rights mentionned in the 1st amendment. What good would the 1st amendment be without the2nd? What is a Right without Power? I call it impotence...
You may find it most interesting to see that in almost every fascist regime that resorted to similar measures as the Homeland Security act, for those leaders such as Hitler, Stalin (yes, he WAS a fascist, and not a communist ;-) ), Pol Pot, Mao Tse-Tung, etc...one of their first acts was to confiscate each & every privately owned firearm
=> Why, pray tell? Was it for the welfare & security of the people, perhaps? http://www.touslessmileys.com/smile...ble/inc_087.gif
|
It is hypocrisy to be quoted at this point in time because it tries to say that "all encompassing freedom with possibility for anarchy is better than a little freedom" in a time when civil rights are being violated by the Patriot Act. The very proponents of this same act are the ones that cry foul about their "freedom" to bear arms being questioned and controlled. It is hypocrisy because it is being used in a topic that makes it unjustifyingly magnanimous, especially when some of those who want the ban lifted do not really want these guns for self defense... that one still makes me laugh...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
In PERCENTAGE? Before the 1997 ban, certainly not. But after the gun laws, I wouldn't be so sure...
|
yeah, percentage, as in for every 100,000 people, what's the percentage of gun deaths? I look forward to the statistic if you can provide one... I am sure UK will be much lower compared to the US, even by percentage...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
And yet, proponents of plutocracy, such as the Republicans - and their sycophants - usually tend to uphold quite the OPPOSITE point of view: let the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. I don' t know about you, but I that is not the type of mentality I would eagerly condone...
|
Again, you're giving unrelated issues here... people who eat their face out and then sue McDonald's were not the victims of "the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer" (consult my signature for details) ... neither are those who sue only to get money, instead of actually pursuing to reprimand or punish the companies of their deeds (how can you punish a company by merely asking for money, when you yourself said they are willing to pay it off with no disadvantage to them?). There are legitimate lawsuits, and there are money-hording lawsuits. Which mentality are you referring to here?
Again, my only gripe is regarding assault weapons. I don't object to handguns, shotguns, or anything designed for personal self-preservation... But I don't really see the underlying rationale of ASSAULT WEAPONS being a part of civilian SELF DEFENSE, unless you live in Guantanamo Bay overlooking 400 Cubans willing to shoot your head off, as Jack Nicholson would say...
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Assault weapons being used for self defense is almost an oxymoron...
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Canis Lupus
It is hypocrisy to be quoted at this point in time because it tries to say that "all encompassing freedom with possibility for anarchy is better than a little freedom" in a time when civil rights are being violated by the Patriot Act. The very proponents of this same act are the ones that cry foul about their "freedom" to bear arms being questioned and controlled.
|
yes, and like I said these people are contradicting themselves - the 1st & 2nd amendment go hand in hand, and upholding one while violating the other simply makes no sense...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Canis Lupus
yeah, percentage, as in for every 100,000 people, what's the percentage of gun deaths? I look forward to the statistic if you can provide one... I am sure UK will be much lower compared to the US, even by percentage...
|
as in every 100 people ;-) Anyways even if the percentage is lower (which it probably is, though I said I wouldn't be so sure about it), the rise in that percentage is probably another matter. In the US, on the other hand, I suppose gun-related crimes have always been at a constant (high) level, or at least could not have risen as sharply as it did in the UK after the ban..
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Canis Lupus
Again, you're giving unrelated issues here... people who eat their face out and then sue McDonald's were not the victims of "the rich getting richer, the poor getting poorer" (consult my signature for details) ... neither are those who sue only to get money, instead of actually pursuing to reprimand or punish the companies of their deeds (how can you punish a company by merely asking for money, when you yourself said they are willing to pay it off with no disadvantage to them?). There are legitimate lawsuits, and there are money-hording lawsuits. Which mentality are you referring to here?
|
I already said, in the examples you cited there was hardly a ground for litigation (not for such amounts of money, anyways) but take the example of a couple who got stuck in company's malfunctioning lift for 3 days. They sued the company for a million or more, I think. THAT is a legitimate lawsuit.
By the way, the couple survived thanks to canned food which they luckily had with them - as for drinking, since they had no water, well...let's just say they had to resort to more...makeshift methods (...)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Canis Lupus
But I don't really see the underlying rationale of ASSAULT WEAPONS being a part of civilian SELF DEFENSE, unless you live in Guantanamo Bay overlooking 400 Cubans willing to shoot your head off, as Jack Nicholson would say...
|
owning these weapons is not what matters - it is the RIGHT to own them that does. And while most don't live in Guantanamo bay, some may feel just about as threatened living in "sensitive" districts - and I don't know about Jack Nicholson (doesn't he live in a Beverly Hills-like neighbourhood, more like?) but believe me, when it comes to sensitive districts I know what I'm talking about
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Canis Lupus
Assault weapons being used for self defense is almost an oxymoron...
|
in that case, even 'weapon' being used for 'defense' is - almost - an oxymoron. The last time I checked, a weapon is - by definition - meant to inflict harm, even kill.
Now of course should devices such as stun-phasers, or like those seen in Minority Report, be invented some day, I guess the rules will change...
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
take the example of a couple who got stuck in company's malfunctioning lift for 3 days. They sued the company for a million or more, I think. THAT is a legitimate lawsuit.
|
which wasn't the point I made that you quoted in the last post As I said, there are legitimate lawsuits, and there are money-hording lawsuits, but juries always tend to sympathize with the "little people" because the big companies can "afford it", regardless of who was in the wrong.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
owning these weapons is not what matters - it is the RIGHT to own them that does.
|
See, that's so ridiculously redundant... those two things are so intertwined that you cannot separate one from the other. Do I object to people's RIGHTS to OWNING handguns and shotguns for self defense? No. Do I object to people's RIGHTS to OWNING assault weapons for self defense? Yes. Do I object to people's RIGHTS to OWNING landmines, bazookas and rocket launchers in their homes for self defense? Well, that's just a silly example... but regardless, yes...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
And while most don't live in Guantanamo bay, some may feel just about as threatened living in "sensitive" districts - and I don't know about Jack Nicholson (doesn't he live in a Beverly Hills-like neighbourhood, more like?) but believe me, when it comes to sensitive districts I know what I'm talking about |
It was a quote from "A Few Good Men" ... ever watched it? Pardon me for providing a little hollywood flavor to the discussion...
Posted by: Bishop
pop news isn't 'false' news, it's useless filler used as a buffer.
also, grow up. Times have changed. Back when the law was created, guns were almost by default a requirement for the average citizen.
As the average citizen changes, the laws that apply to them should also change.
Ratio-wise, the people screaming about the gun laws are a tiny, tiny minority, when compared to the people who have actually been required to use them in self defense.
And if you start to spew some idiocy about taking on the government... as I said before, guns won't get you anywhere, so there's really no case there either.
Posted by: laborat
If I may intrude upon this debate...
At this point in my life, looking at the political scene, the economic scene, even the apocalyptic scene unfolding in the middle east...I can damn well make up (personal) reasons for wanting an assault rifle. Since I am a loner, mostly, except for close family members and friends, I don't know if I fit the profile of a mass american mentality of whatever stripe.
Whether that person choice through personal observation includes typical american mentality I don't know. What I do know is that the world outside my home has/is become a dangerous place. I didn't make it that way but I will prepare myself for the worst case scenario in any event. I'm stockpiling stuff (canned goods, water, whatever), buying a whole house generator, and if the opportunity arises, an assault rifle.
So what do I see outside my window? I see at least two generations of sociopaths growing into adulthood, who ignore education for faddish rebellion, who flaunt the law, who kill at random to become a member of a gang, who rape to become an adult in the eyes of their psycho peers, all egged on by a fascist in democratic clothing government who depend on their mass ignorance to continue to govern.
I see abuse everywhere in children who pass it on to the next generation or await their turn to...
I see parents who prefer drink and drugs over parenting who demand that government be their baby sitter for kids who cross the line, who demand money for being unable to earn it on their own.
These same people can't wait for summer riots so they can loot and pillage. They shoplift at will and rob until they get caught then demand moneys for rehabilitation so they can learn skills like locksmithing and gunsmithing. I keep thinking one of the reasons our soldiers are fighting wars overseas in countrys we don't even have legitimate reasons to be there, is because they would get their butts kicked even worse in any of the major cities in the states if they tried to instill martial law.
America is sick, seriously ill, unfixable in my view, and what is scary to me is that if something major should happen like a terrorist nuke, the same people we try to keep locked up or contained will be running things on a local level like warlords in china or africa.
The liberals and intellectuals have abandoned all sense of personal safety or concepts of personal defense, prefering to let the legal system protect them. Well I have some bad news, that won't happen. If rome falls the barbarians take over. Guess who they always take out first.
I will take an assault rifle over a book of laws or trusting my government will protect me every time in such a situation. that's my opinion and I'm sticking to it. Most of you should quit jawing about gun control and start learning how to load your own gun powder into your bullets. Self sufficiency among the citizenry is what made this country great. They hunted for their own food, planted their own crops, wove their own clothing, built their own homesteads.
Laws or controls will never solve the problems we now face, we need action...drastic action...solutions, any solutions (even if they are wrong) to change what has happen to america and the way things are going, in the vacuum of the government we now have, a hitler or ghengis khan is closer to America's future than most think.
It can't happen here? yeah right.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
in that case, even 'weapon' being used for 'defense' is - almost - an oxymoron. The last time I checked, a weapon is - by definition - meant to inflict harm, even kill.
|
Actually:
weapon = An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword
(sorry, it might not be an oxymoron if it's already part of its description...)
assault = A violent physical or verbal attack
(now, that would be a pretty blatant contradiction, right?)
but let's not argue semantics, shall we? And I apologize for trying to imply one
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bishop
And if you start to spew some idiocy about taking on the government... as I said before, guns won't get you anywhere, so there's really no case there either.
|
utter rubbish - who spoke of a revolution? if the people are satisfied with their government, so be it - we'll know in november ;-)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Bishop
pop news isn't 'false' news, it's useless filler used as a buffer.
|
an innocent - and unarmed - citizen shot to death by 4 officers - "useless filler"? You're the one who spoke of using necessary force, just a few posts ago...
...but maybe you will make an exception in this case, and find some way of condoning their act? and try to demonstrate that the use of lethal force was somehow justified?
or will the bishop grant these officers penance by sole virtue of their status?
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by laborat
At this point in my life, looking at the political scene, the economic scene, even the apocalyptic scene unfolding in the middle east...I can damn well make up (personal) reasons for wanting an assault rifle. Since I am a loner, mostly, except for close family members and friends, I don't know if I fit the profile of a mass american mentality of whatever stripe.
Whether that person choice through personal observation includes typical american mentality I don't know. What I do know is that the world outside my home has/is become a dangerous place. I didn't make it that way but I will prepare myself for the worst case scenario in any event. I'm stockpiling stuff (canned goods, water, whatever), buying a whole house generator, and if the opportunity arises, an assault rifle.
|
I guess that may be what most Americans feel right now... I try not to submit to hopelessness and extreme measures, but it seems whatever I may think is irrelevant.
Nevertheless, I politely withdraw from this discussion, and pursue my own naivete... maybe this is all just another stupid stage in American history
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Canis Lupus
Actually:
weapon = An instrument of attack or defense in combat, as a gun, missile, or sword
(sorry, it might not be an oxymoron if it's already part of its description...)
assault = A violent physical or verbal attack
(now, that would be a pretty blatant contradiction, right?)
but let's not argue semantics, shall we? And I apologize for trying to imply one |
actually:
"weapon = thing designed or used or usable as intrument for inflicting bodily harm, e.g gun, bomb, rifle, sword, ..."
oh yes, and the source: OXFORD dictionary. Now of course, if you can better that... http://www.touslessmileys.com/smile...ble/inc_087.gif
Nevertheless, apologies accepted http://www.touslessmileys.com/smile...nt/cont_007.gif
Posted by: redwench
assault rifles are for the purpose of.....get this......assault. law enforcement personnel do not go around armed with m16s or anything close to it. they have hand guns and shotguns for defensive purposes. the assault weapons belong to the swat teams, and no, they arent for defense.
they are inaccurate, prone to misfirings and jammings, heavy, and extremely expensive. not at all suited for household defense, regardless of all the training you give someone. well suited for the vast carnage and indiscriminate killings of an army however.
and yes, virgil, a member of a reserve that can be called up at any time is a member of the armed forces.
Quote:
|
Be VERY careful when saying that - for that's the sort of thinking that can and has almost always led to dangerous excesses
|
funny, the "will of the people" followed blindly will result in the same thing. the good old US (and most of europe) has a majority of christians. they want prayer in school, religious teachings in public school, and the ten commandments in courtrooms. and amendments about flag burning and gay marriage. guess what? they aren't getting them. why? because politicians and the courts are NOT bowing to the "will of the people". and fortunately for blacks, jews, muslims, and women they have ignored the "will of the people" before when it appears wise to do so.
owning a firearm is a right, at least in this country of which we are speaking. owning the firearm of your choice is nowhere in the constitution. and its unlikely they meant it that way, as a cannon in every home would have had disasterous consequences. now, if they change it to allow the weapon of choice, i want a howitzer and anti-personnel mines.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
the assault weapons belong to the swat teams, and no, they arent for defense.
|
Aha! now THAT's interesting. A non-military force allowed to use these weapons for purposes other than defense, even in times of peace. And you don't see anything wrong with that?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
they are inaccurate, prone to misfirings and jammings, heavy, and extremely expensive. not at all suited for household defense, regardless of all the training you give someone.
|
in other words, not the type of weapon one would recommend in a critical situation where colateral damage is a risk, such as a hostage situation. And YET the SWAT...hmm, it gets even more interesting... Still see no problem with that?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
and yes, virgil, a member of a reserve that can be called up at any time is a member of the armed forces.
|
a question of semantics, more like - well then, why not make every able-bodied citizen within the 18-50 age bracket a part of the army, since even you seem to admit that the system works well in Switzerland?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
funny, the "will of the people" followed blindly will result in the same thing. the good old US (and most of europe) has a majority of christians. they want prayer in school, religious teachings in public school, and the ten commandments in courtrooms. and amendments about flag burning and gay marriage. guess what? they aren't getting them. why? because politicians and the courts are NOT bowing to the "will of the people". and fortunately for blacks, jews, muslims, and women they have ignored the "will of the people" before when it appears wise to do so.
|
except that in the case of ochlocracy (an "extreme" variant of democracy, but which worked rather well in ancient Greece before the spartans took over), in such a case it would be the PEOPLE who'd be bringing about their own downfall, hastening their demise on their OWN volition. Get my point? If that is also their will, then so be it - they deserve it. But let it be they who decide, not some all powerful monarch.
Also, religion - and its excesses - is one thing, especially when the "will of the people" is but the will of a small fraction of the population. But self-defense is another matter - a basic right older than mankind itself - bear that in mind
Posted by: redwench
swat teams use sniper rifles with hostages. the assault weapons come out for other stuff  and they are essentially military, they are trained for assault, not peace keeping.
the people that think all decisions must agree with the will of the people are those that consider themselves in the majority. theres a reason for laws regarding discrimination, for example.
we dont make every able bodied person from 18-50 be a member of the reserve because not only is it unnecessary, it would be prohibitively expensive. countries with small populations do that kind of stuff, because thats the only way to get enough bodies in the military. that it works for switzerland, norway, and israel does not imply it would work for the US or china. i mean, really, what would you do with 150 million people to keep trained, armed, clothed, and PAID? the logistics boggle the mind.
Posted by: trekpsycho
Wow, what a hot topic! Well I'm gonna put my two cents worth in.
Let's see assualt rifle ban.....well, first off, did the ban stop the use of assualt rifles in crime? Is there some assurance that if the ban were continued/reinstated that criminals won't be able to get their hands on one anyway? Or will it be like many of the gun laws that criminals ignore (they are lawbreakers after all) already. The problem that I have with this type of legislation is that generally speaking, the ones who are the most affected by them are the honest, law abiding people who wouldn't use such a weapon in a criminal way in the first place.
After all, more crimes are committed with hand guns than assault weapons. So why not take away the handguns? That would reduce crime right? While we're at it, let's do away with shotguns and deer rifles because they're much easier to get than a handgun so let's make sure that they won't be used by criminals. Where do you draw the line? I'm sorry, but even though I do not and problably will not ever own an assualt rifle, I resent the government deciding that I am not responsible enough to own one.
I do own a 9mm semi automatic handgun though. AND I have two 15 round magazines for it (bought before the ban). And I have no intention of shooting it out with the police or committing any other crimes. If I should ever decide to buy an assault rifle, I will (if they're legal) and will not commit any crimes with it either.
Posted by: TheeMon
just to fuel the fire a bit more
i can get most any of them guns + hundreds of others you wouldnt want me to have...
Posted by: IceBreaker
no, swat teams are a special branch of the law enforcement - they exercise their duties during times of peace & have nothing to do with the army. So unless we're talking about some kind of martial law, what use would the SWAT have for military weapons in a democratic country if it isn't defense, pray tell?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
the assault weapons come out for other stuff |
clarify
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
the people that think all decisions must agree with the will of the people are those that consider themselves in the majority.
|
Really? I call them democrats (notice the lower-case 'd' ;-) ) - more befitting a term, don't you think?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
we dont make every able bodied person from 18-50 be a member of the reserve because not only is it unnecessary, it would be prohibitively expensive. countries with small populations do that kind of stuff, because thats the only way to get enough bodies in the military. that it works for switzerland, norway, and israel does not imply it would work for the US or china. i mean, really, what would you do with 150 million people to keep trained, armed, clothed, and PAID? the logistics boggle the mind.
|
swiss citizens keep their military garb & weaponry at home, but who said they were PAID? They surely get paid a small wage during the 4 month military service they are required to perform, and probably during the 8 periods of 20 days each that follow. But outside their military service, that would imply that being a swiss citizenship per se would ensure a regular wage - that sort of system would bring any economy to a crawl, no matter how small the country,
Posted by: IceBreaker
oh, and
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by trekpsycho
After all, more crimes are committed with hand guns than assault weapons. So why not take away the handguns? That would reduce crime right? .
|
heh, precisely after all, handguns are easily concealed, which is more than one can say about assault weapons.
nb. that avatar of yours: any way you could get me the '1701D' version? 
Posted by: trekpsycho
Quote:
|
nb. that avatar of yours: any way you could get me the '1701D' version? :bounce:
|
I see what I can do
You a Trekkie too?
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by trekpsycho
I see what I can do
You a Trekkie too? |
Affirmative http://www.touslessmileys.com/smile...nt/cont_007.gif
Posted by: redwench
people keep thinking that the arguement for gun control is to keep guns out of the hands of serious criminals. its not. if someone wants to rob a bank, theyll get their hands on a gun, legal or not. the difficulty is greatly increased if the weapon is illegal, but theyll manage. the point of banning, or restricting, guns is to reduce casual gun crime and accidents. dont really need to go into the accidents, which involve both children and adults, and are fairly prevalent. johnny and bobby are much more likely to go out and rob someone with a gun if one is lying around than if they have to actually go acquire one. and a lot more likely to get into a fatal arguement with their girlfriends. hell, we cant even get properly trained military to keep from killing each other in accidents and friendly fire, and you want a drunk 42 year old man in the middle of a divorce to be able to have a gat lying around?
Quote:
|
They surely get paid a small wage during the 4 month military service they are required to perform, and probably during the 8 periods of 20 days each that follow.
|
small? it has to be a living wage. so, aside from emergency callups, they get paid for a year over whatever period. and then theres the 30 years of whatever readiness training they have, since according to you, every person in switzerland between 18-50 is in this. so, add on 3 weeks a year for 30 years, which is about another 2 years. so 3 years pay for every citizen, plus equipment and clothing. current population is 300 million, thats 900 million years of pay, albeit over 50 years. average of 18.5 million per year. yes, id call that a budget breaker......
Posted by: BooRadley
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
rofl. call a camera crew first boo, so we can watch.
fewer rights? currently, americans do not have the right to own those weapons, and havent for decades. which is fortunate. they are called assault weapons for a reason, and its not because theyre useful for defensive purposes.......
|
Those have been legal since they were invented. Not the military version, but the civilian versinos that were banned ten years ago. They're not actually assault weapons, either. There's no significant difference between them and any other semi-automatic carbine except the recoil is powered by expanding gasses rather than directly by the force of the blast. There were no military weapons banned during the Clinton Administration. Just the rifles I named and others like them. They were legal before then, and they'll be legal again on Monday, and I'm going to go shopping soon. Either a Mini-14 or and AK chambered for .223 rounds.
They were banned because they're ugly and scare suburban soccer moms. Those rifles I mentioned are good for target shooting, maybe small game hunting, and nothing else, including a military assault.
The single noted exception being the AK, which can be converted to controlled fully automatic by anyone with a Demmel mototool and a desire to spend the rest of his life in a federal prison.
The "assault" weapons ban was political bullshit on par with the "preemptive non-aggression" in Iraq.
Posted by: BooRadley
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
sigh. they are weapons of war,
.
|
No, they aren't. They're civilian versions. They're single-shot semi-automatics, just like every other single-shot semi-automatic.
Posted by: laborat
While everyone has been talking about the law, lapses in the law, and legislation creating law by our government, my original point for looking closely at assault rifles (and yes they did have civilian versions because there was a market among collectors and gun clubs), was the very real possibility of the breakdown of our system of government into chaos and anarchy.
I realize it makes me sound alarmist and so what really? No one knows what is going to happen in the future, good or bad things. but it wouldn't take much to take us out. One friggen generatior going down blacked out the whole east coast. Terrorist nukes that the Home Security folks scare us with are a viable worst case scenario. What happens then? Will the same people who argue for gun control feel the same way under mob rule or martial law as opposed to established law?
My suspicions of government taking guns of any stripe or caliber away from the people, through whatever reason, means that we then have an unarmed population who can never exercise the right that Thomas Jefferson says we have which is to rise up and replace a tyranny should it occur.
The right to bear arms was put in the constitution (in my view) to prevent foreign takeover of our system of government. Don't forget that a lot of folks wanted Washington to be King. With Clinton/Gore taking money from the Chinese, and Bush/Cheney with their Osama Ben Laden/Halburton money connections, it makes you wonder exactly what country or group we work for.
All of our big corporations have moved their operations overseas to evade our taxes and yet they spend billions on influence within our congress, our administrative branch, and the pentagon. Who is kidding who? get your self a gun and keep it handy. if you are worried about your kids, lock it up in a gun rack or take them to a firing range and teach them gun safety. They got 8 year old terrorists with assault rifles in Iraq and americans are worried their kids are gonna shoot themselves by accident. What's wrong with that picture?
Posted by: trekpsycho
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench:
people keep thinking that the arguement for gun control is to keep guns out of the hands of serious criminals. its not. if someone wants to rob a bank, theyll get their hands on a gun, legal or not. the difficulty is greatly increased if the weapon is illegal, but theyll manage. the point of banning, or restricting, guns is to reduce casual gun crime and accidents.
|
So we should ban all weapons then? I mean after all, what could it hurt? Our government is perfectly able to keep us safe from the criminals that you mentioned, right? There won't ever be an ocasion (civil disorder, invasion by an enemy, etc.) that we would need to protect ourselves, right?
And the difficulty in criminals getting their hands on a gun is not that greatly increased because they are illegal. The way that most criminals get they're weapons is illegal to start with, whether it is a handgun or assualt rifle.
Take for example the Columbine massacre. One of the killers used a shotgun and pistol and the other had a shotgun and a carbine. Both of the shotguns were sawed off (which makes them illegal) and the pistol was specifically named as illegal under the assult weapons ban and the carbine was also banned. Not only that, neither one of them was over 21 so it was illegal for them to have the pistol and carbine anyway. But that didn't stop them from getting them. They didn't even have that hard of a time getting them.
Quote:
Originally posted by redwench:
johnny and bobby are much more likely to go out and rob someone with a gun if one is lying around than if they have to actually go acquire one. and a lot more likely to get into a fatal arguement with their girlfriends. hell, we cant even get properly trained military to keep from killing each other in accidents and friendly fire, and you want a drunk 42 year old man in the middle of a divorce to be able to have a gat lying around?
|
What? You don't think Johnny and Bobby or the drunk husband won't pick up a knife, baseball bat, or any of the other myraid household items that can be used as weapons and use them as such if they decide to go off the wall? Think about it, if all guns are out of honest people's hands, the crooks won't have a thing to worry about. Would you argue with someone with a knife that wants to rob you? I mean, get real, there is no such thing as a dangerous weapon, just dangerous people. You can kill someone with an ink pen, an ice pick, hell, even a telephone. I know this has been so overused, but it is true: guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Posted by: IceBreaker
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by laborat
My suspicions of government taking guns of any stripe or caliber away from the people, through whatever reason, means that we then have an unarmed population who can never exercise the right that Thomas Jefferson says we have which is to rise up and replace a tyranny should it occur.
|
Precisely - but don't bother, for that's what I've been telling them all along - it just doesn't seem to get through http://www.touslessmileys.com/smileys/PPC/ppc_012.gif
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by trekpsycho
Take for example the Columbine massacre. One of the killers used a shotgun and pistol and the other had a shotgun and a carbine. Both of the shotguns were sawed off (which makes them illegal) and the pistol was specifically named as illegal under the assult weapons ban and the carbine was also banned. Not only that, neither one of them was over 21 so it was illegal for them to have the pistol and carbine anyway. But that didn't stop them from getting them. They didn't even have that hard of a time getting them.
|
all the more so than the father of one of them was in the armed forces (the US Air Force if I'm not mistaken). In such cases, when the parents keep their weapons of duty at home, their kids will find it all the easier to get their hands on them. I'd like to know what proponents of the assault gun ban would have to say about that (...)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
small? it has to be a living wage. so, aside from emergency callups, they get paid for a year over whatever period. and then theres the 30 years of whatever readiness training they have, since according to you, every person in switzerland between 18-50 is in this. so, add on 3 weeks a year for 30 years, which is about another 2 years. so 3 years pay for every citizen, plus equipment and clothing. current population is 300 million, thats 900 million years of pay, albeit over 50 years. average of 18.5 million per year. yes, id call that a budget breaker......
|
Notwithstanding the fact that these figures are largely exagerated (it's not over 50 years, and although the population is about 300 million, only those citizens within the 18-55 bracket must be taken into account ;-) ) you're basing them on the mistaken belief that
1) it has to be a "living wage" - which is WRONG! Over here for example during my military service (which was just before euro bills & coins made their appearance) 2nd class privates would get the equivalent of about 75 euros/month (about 80$). The "pay" we got as non-commissioned officers was of course higher, but way less than what you'd call a "living wage" nonetheless.
Oh, and in Switzerland it's exactly 2 swiss francs a day during military service => 60 Swiss francs a month, say about 45$ !
2) it's 3 years military service, when IN FACT, like I said, it's 4 months basic military training followed by 8 training courses of 20 days each before the age of 42, and to crown it all a further 13 days training before the age of 50 (yes, I forgot this last detail - if it makes a difference  ) - so in all, it's even less than the 10 months I had to serve. And finally:
3) they get paid outside military service, which is FALSE. Swiss citizens are part of the reserve army BECAUSE IT IS THEIR DUTY as citizens. It's a sine qua non for swiss citizenship, period.
So better recheck those figures ;-)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
people keep thinking that the arguement for gun control is to keep guns out of the hands of serious criminals. its not. [...] the point of banning, or restricting, guns is to reduce casual gun crime and accidents.
|
Hear, hear! what do you know - turns out my suspicions are confirmed, then: gun laws meant to - allegedly - protect law-abiding citizens from themselves, whilst doing nothing to protect these same citizens from the real danger;
lock up the fowl, but let in the fox (...)
Posted by: Bishop
It isn't that it isn't getting through, it's that, as I've stated numerous times, when it's time to rise above, guns will have nothing to do with it.
Posted by: Atlas4
Quote:
The right to bear arms was put in the constitution (in my view) to prevent foreign takeover of our system of government. Don't forget that a lot of folks wanted Washington to be King. With Clinton/Gore taking money from the Chinese, and Bush/Cheney with their Osama Ben Laden/Halburton money connections, it makes you wonder exactly what country or group we work for.
|
The right to bear arms and all points in between was for back in the day, Britain didn't just leave peacefully. In the first 40 years of our country, Britain (and France) were constant threats, always on the brink of war. The right to bear arms means for you to own a gun for when the general comes up and says "guess what? you're joining the militia." That way the government does not have to spend all kinds of moneys on mass production. Also, back in the day, they didn't have weapons such as the AK-47, capable of raining a large amount of lead on someone's body. Although there are civilian versions, these guns were not designed to hunt, or target practice, or anything like that. These guns were designed to KILL, MAIM, or otherwise HURT another fellow human being. If one can get on a government shit list for protesting, I think they should have a shit list for those who buy these things, yet the F.B.I nor any other agency keeps permanent records these days of WHO buys what. So all a terrorist has to do is wait a month, and we completely forget that the terrorist owns a gun. This MUST have been what Cheney meant by terrorists will attack soon.
Posted by: redwench
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by IceBreaker
Notwithstanding the fact that these figures are largely exagerated (it's not over 50 years, and although the population is about 300 million, only those citizens within the 18-55 bracket must be taken into account ;-) ) you're basing them on the mistaken belief that
So better recheck those figures ;-)
|
this aint switzerland bubba. our reserves require 2 weeks plus another 24 days a year. [thats slightly over 5 weeks a year, or 150+ weeks/3 years, over 30 years] although the military is poorly paid, it does pay a "living wage", not 2 francs or the equivalent. and if you would read what i typed, my estimates were based on every person serving for a period of 30 years during their lifetime. slightly less than the 37 years youre quoting. the average was taken over 50 years, not the total. pay was for time served only, not otherwise.
Quote:
Hear, hear! what do you know - turns out my suspicions are confirmed, then: gun laws meant to - allegedly - protect law-abiding citizens from themselves, whilst doing nothing to protect these same citizens from the real danger;
lock up the fowl, but let in the fox (...)
|
the real danger is the accidental and impulse crime shootings. i have no idea what youre refering to about protecting people from themselves, but by far the most gun deaths are domestic and accidental. i realize you europeans think of the US as the OK corral, but there arent a lot of home invasions, which would be about the only thing an assault rifle would be good for.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Trekpsycho | | |
