This Week's U.n. Gun Ban Conference Update

[kah]

This is from my NRA newsletter. I find it strange that the newsletter is the only place I am hearing about any of this.

With the "U.N. Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects" wrapping up today, here is a review of the past week's events.

Day Five, Friday, June 30: Non-governmental organizations (NGO's) made statements to the meeting. Mary Leigh Blek of the so-called "Million Mom March" made an emotional anti-gun speech to the delegates. Pro-gun groups also made presentations. Japan made an extensive presentation on gun destruction programs. Other countries continued to push the idea of international regulation of ammunition and additional U.N. meetings until at least 2012.

Day Six, Monday, July 3: Day six of the Conference saw innumerable speeches and very little action. The President of the Conference, Ambassador Kariyawasam, from Sri Lanka, released another draft version of the Conference report. The draft again pushes international regulation of ammunition and again proposes U.N. meetings on small arms up to and including 2012. After substantial pressure from NRA, the Conference did not meet on July 4!

Day Seven, Wednesday, July 5: The issue of U.N. regulation of civilian firearms raised its ugly head again on this day. The move was led by Mexico, Colombia, and, of all countries, Canada. Many observers were chagrined that the Canadian delegation would take such an anti-gun stand since there is a new Conservative government in Toronto. Canadian disarmament bureaucrats seemed to be running the delegation. The U.S. held firm on the issue of civilian firearms. The meeting bogged down with little or no resolution of major issues and temporarily adjourned at 6:00 p.m., with an arrangement to come back at 8:00 p.m., and work into the night.

Day Eight, Thursday, July 6: Diplomats continued to battle over key issues as the Conference entered its next to last day. Delegates again agreed to meet in an 8:00 p.m. evening session, with some saying that if agreement could not be reached, the Conference would be deadlocked. The concept of U.N. regulation of civilian firearms seems to refuse to die, even though the U.S. is adamantly holding the line on the issue. The last hours of the Conference were looked upon as the most dangerous time by NRA's team, which closely followed the evening's events.

Day Nine, Friday, July 7: With the Conference ending today, NRA will continue to closely monitor and report on all developments.

Some NRA Propoganda if you want to read it-

America's gun owners must continue to be vigilant and to take action on this front. For additional information on the U.N.'s attempt to impose its anti-gun will on the U.S. and around the world, please visit www.NRAILA.org, where daily postings tracking the U.N. Conference can be found. Also, please visit www.stopUNgunban.org, or call (800) 672-0636. This site provides valuable information and an opportunity to order Wayne LaPierre's new book The Global War On Your Guns. The book spells out a chilling warning that gun owners in the United States and abroad must heed, and exposes a far-reaching scheme to pass a global ban on civilian ownership of arms--including YOURS!

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

If we simply gave everyone the same weapons, and the same amount of ammo for them, then we all REALLY would be equal now, wouldn't we?

My theory of airline safety isn't that we should be keeping weapons OFF of planes, it is making sure everyone ON the plane has one!

:)

[Scotia]

Gun nuts disguise themselves as patriots. Ninjas, however are fucking cool.

[kah]

The whole point of the second amendment is not to allow us to have guns to hunt or to protect ourselves from criminals. It is there to provide us with the means to revolt if our government becomes corrupt. I don't think that should mean we should be allowed to buy automatic weapons, but I don't want the UN to have the power to take away our 2nd amendment right.

Speaking of the UN- what ever happened with Kofi Annan and the Oil for Food scandal?

[Space Tycoon]

The whole point of the second amendment is not to allow us to have guns to hunt or to protect ourselves from criminals. It is there to provide us with the means to revolt if our government becomes corrupt.

Amen sister. Why do you think Switzerland's maintained both independence and good government for centuries?

Speaking of the UN- what ever happened with Kofi Annan and the Oil for Food scandal? Well, it was probably forgotten after the Cheney and Co. War for Oil scandal. :smirks:


THERE ARE NO MORE GOODGUYS. :ohwell:





.

[Scotia]

The whole point of the second amendment is not to allow us to have guns to hunt or to protect ourselves from criminals. It is there to provide us with the means to revolt if our government becomes corrupt.
So....why are you and the rest of the revolutionaries not currently storming Washington? Better still, how do you folks plan to overcome professionally trained soldiers, marines, police, etc? It's an absurd notion that only weakens the pro gun rally as far as I can see. But it does exemplify how readily the NRA will race to wrap itself in the flag and point an accusing finger at the rest of us. (Well, not me personally. I'm a hoser).

Speaking of the UN- what ever happened with Kofi Annan and the Oil for Food scandal?
Not sure where you're going with this. Sounds a lot like mudslinging for the hell of it. And that's sooooo lowball. :) .

[Space Tycoon]

So....why are you and the rest of the revolutionaries not currently storming Washington? Because initiatory violence goes against the spirit of true libertarians, who advocate violence only in self-defence against tyranny or foreign invasion. US citizens still have legal means of redress available to them. It's not like martial law has been declared--not yet anyway.

Better still, how do you folks plan to overcome professionally trained soldiers, marines, police, etc? Asymmetrical warfare. If it truly does come to war, there are no shortage of examples of how small, armed groups can fight wars of attrition against technologically and numerically superior military forces. The past century offers us plenty of examples, mainly in the third world.

But as I say, I don't think it has come to that point as yet.






.

[tstone]

Thing is, there SHOULD be joint effort in curbing arms sales. BUT there is so much demand, it will be difficult. Kinda like drugs.

But I do believe in self defense and the Second Amendment. And even though I do support the UN, it does creep me out, the idea of an extraterritorial political entity telling me to give up my firearm.

Piss off.

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

What amazes me about the gun debate, is the obviousness of the 2nd Amendment, and the point of it.

It is part of the "We The People" part of the Constitution of the United States. We defend this country by the man, not by the army. The U.S. Army, Navy, et al are the extended arms of "We The People." Without all of us having access to force of arms, you further divide the citizenry from the government. The point is that WE are the government, and as such are responsible for defending the country as much if not more than any force organized by "government."

[Nostromo]

Move to Canada where it is a constitutional right to arm bears. :wink: :) N

[Scotia]

What amazes me about the gun debate, is the obviousness of the 2nd Amendment, and the point of it.

It is part of the "We The People" part of the Constitution of the United States. We defend this country by the man, not by the army. The U.S. Army, Navy, et al are the extended arms of "We The People." Without all of us having access to force of arms, you further divide the citizenry from the government. The point is that WE are the government, and as such are responsible for defending the country as much if not more than any force organized by "government."
Defend the nation by the man? From what exactly and under what pretense?

By your reasoning baring arms is not a privilege or a right, essentially it's a duty? Having several branches of armed forces is not sufficient. National guards, state militia, police services, not enough. A Glock under the bed is what really safe-guards the shores. I not buying it. If you think people are packing these days for the lofty reasons mentioned above then you're fucking crazy. There's nothing chivalrous about it at all.

It's simply fear.

[Kaeos]

If you think people are packing these days for the lofty reasons mentioned above then you're fucking crazy. There's nothing chivalrous about it at all.

It's simply fear.

More than that, it arrogance. it's vanity and it's self righteousness. It was stated very well that the second amendment was created when there was essentially no military in this country as we know it. No national guard, no state and local police.

At that time we needed everyone to be able to bear arms for defense. That condition no longer exists. IT is simply a crutch for gun nuts. A convenient excuse built into our constitution to justify a point of view and promote a society where more people can be killed by bullets. The whole notion that our country will be safer if everyone is armed is just another piece of NRA propoganda. Another excuse to let heavly armed psychos stay that way.

I might add, an constitutional excuse, a peice of the constitution used by gun advocates who would die or likely kill to keep the second ammendment in place. The NRA and those who think like them would revolt if someone tried to mess with the amendment.

Many of these same people are now trying to mess with that same constitution and add more convenient amendements to ban gay marriage and abortion. Arrogant, self righteous vanity.:angry

I grew up in a poor inner city environment. Once controlled primarily by gangs and drug dealers. I can state with surity that having everyone legally able to bear arms invites those who do so ciminally and further invites needless death. It just doesn't work.

[Space Tycoon]

Kaeos;

I'm sorry you grew up in a poor inner city environment. But that doesn't justify your desire to have all of the rest of us forcibly disarmed by the government. The same government, I might add, who (I'm sure you would agree) is moving in a more authoritarian direction every passing year.

There are many people from all walks of life who are responsible enough to handle themselves around firearms. They are hunters, target shooters, collectors, veterans, part-time reservists, and even private citizens' militiamen. You may choose to lump them all together as "gun nuts" if you like; but doing so is, I'm sorry to say, rather ignorant on your part. I think you need to learn more about the culture of responsible gun ownership before you make such assertions.

By the way, I am not as of this time, a gun or rifle owner myself. Merely a sympathizer. If we are going to punish all gun owners for the horrid acts of the minority, then we might as well seriously curtail other personal rights and liberties as well. Such as the right to own and drive cars, the right to operate a boat or airplane, the right to operate power tools, the right to use alcohol and other mind altering chemicals... oh wait... we already tried that. :smirks:

It's the principle of the thing.




.

[Lavoruis]

BITCH ,BITCH ,BITCH! everybody thinks they can change the course
of their life by banning something dangerous as those wacko's million
mom club wants you to believe:rolleyes:
WELL NEWS FLASH: THE SECRET IS OUT! if your meant to go
your meant to go , you can't change fate, destiny etc.
no matter were you go you cannot escape death.

[Space Tycoon]

Umm.... Yeah!..... I think. :dunno:



.

[sickness]

The whole point of the second amendment is not to allow us to have guns to hunt or to protect ourselves from criminals. It is there to provide us with the means to revolt if our government becomes corrupt. I don't think that should mean we should be allowed to buy automatic weapons, but I don't want the UN to have the power to take away our 2nd amendment right.

Speaking of the UN- what ever happened with Kofi Annan and the Oil for Food scandal?
It may have originally been intended to retain a means of revolt for the people should the government become a tyranny but the idea that the 2nd Amendment applies today as it did then flies in the face of the legions of bombers, tanks and howitzers at our military's disposal while, pre gun-bans, the hardware available to the average joe could only be described as a joke in comparison.

[Intelligent_Design]

Defend the nation by the man? From what exactly and under what pretense?

By your reasoning baring arms is not a privilege or a right, essentially it's a duty? Having several branches of armed forces is not sufficient. National guards, state militia, police services, not enough. A Glock under the bed is what really safe-guards the shores. I not buying it. If you think people are packing these days for the lofty reasons mentioned above then you're fucking crazy. There's nothing chivalrous about it at all.

It's simply fear.

You maybe right. But I remember that Pakistan was the most heavly armed populus on the face of the earth. Their government forced them to disarm before Our invasion of Afganistan. Why is that? We have the most powerful army of the earth. Were we that afraid of "A Glock under the bed" :smirk:

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

Defend the nation by the man? From what exactly and under what pretense?

By your reasoning baring arms is not a privilege or a right, essentially it's a duty? Having several branches of armed forces is not sufficient. National guards, state militia, police services, not enough. A Glock under the bed is what really safe-guards the shores. I not buying it. If you think people are packing these days for the lofty reasons mentioned above then you're fucking crazy. There's nothing chivalrous about it at all.

It's simply fear.

Yes, fear of losing our freedom because we no longer have any means of defending it for ourselves. You OBVIOUSLY do not understand that every single person in this country is responsible for making this country function properly. Each person has as much responsibility for themselves as the government has for them. That means you DO NOT TAKE AWAY SOMETHING FROM PEOPLE THAT YOU ALLOW OTHERS, GOVERNMENT AGENCY OR OTHERWISE, TO HAVE.

Taking things from people is simply robbing them of a piece of their personal freedom. If you just can't understand that, then you are the one who applies to your epithetic reference above.

[Scotia]

Yes, fear of losing our freedom because we no longer have any means of defending it for ourselves. You OBVIOUSLY do not understand that every single person in this country is responsible for making this country function properly. Each person has as much responsibility for themselves as the government has for them. That means you DO NOT TAKE AWAY SOMETHING FROM PEOPLE THAT YOU ALLOW OTHERS, GOVERNMENT AGENCY OR OTHERWISE, TO HAVE.

Taking things from people is simply robbing them of a piece of their personal freedom. If you just can't understand that, then you are the one who applies to your epithetic reference above.

Again, nobody is arming themselves for the reasons you’re presenting here. A majority of people on this continent, at least those of sound mind, do not fear their government the way you do. Nor do they fathom the notion of rebellion with the most well equipped military the world has ever seen. People want guns because they are scared. Scared of their neighbour, their coworker, their ex. Not the men in black. Not for the glamorous, yet artificial reasons you keep repeating. But whatever. Keep fighting the good fight and keep wrapping your fear in pretty paper of red, white and blue.

Just so you know, all caps are kind of a Wednesday thing.

[Space Tycoon]

A majority of people on this continent, at least those of sound mind, do not fear their government the way you do.

And they don't have reason to be afraid? 2600+ of America's young men and women killed in war based on government lies, in which leaders from both major parties share blame? Hundreds of billions of dollars of their hard-earned taxes wasted? Rampant, institutional corruption?

I can't help but think that is because "a majority of people on this continent" are woefully uninformed, apathetic, or they have let their fear of terrorism and crime overcome any reservations about government abuses.




.

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

Again, nobody is arming themselves for the reasons you’re presenting here. A majority of people on this continent, at least those of sound mind, do not fear their government the way you do. Nor do they fathom the notion of rebellion with the most well equipped military the world has ever seen. People want guns because they are scared. Scared of their neighbour, their coworker, their ex. Not the men in black. Not for the glamorous, yet artificial reasons you keep repeating. But whatever. Keep fighting the good fight and keep wrapping your fear in pretty paper of red, white and blue.

Just so you know, all caps are kind of a Wednesday thing.

I wasn't the one who mentioned needing guns to overthrow the government if necessary. My point is that the USA is not just another country, it is a country founded on the principals that each individual is part of that government. We the People means exactly that.

The government is and was organized in order to serve the needs of the people in general. The right to bear arms contributes to the concepts of freedom and liberty, in that our government trusts its citizenry to be responsible, and indeed we all expect each other to behave responsibly.

Having a gun means a person has some level of protection, some level mind you, for themselves should their home be invaded by criminals, or whatever.

We can't expect people to have advanced weaponry in their home, such as missiles, tanks, etc., but a hand gun or rifle affords them a minimal level of security. Minimal level.

Freedom isn't something given out to people, it is earned by those willing to stand up for it, and in some cases die for it as witnessed by history.

America stands for freedom above all else. Sometimes that freedom has to be fought for, and our founding fathers realized that by including the 2nd amendment in the Constitution.

I can't put it any more plainly than that. Saying that citizens do not have the right to bear arms is just another step towards taking away freedom. Think about it, you are advocating TAKING SOMETHING AWAY. That is the opposite of what freedom means. Freedom means trusting your population, showing you don't trust them is the worst mistake we could ever make.

[kah]

Ditto Kirk and ST. I also grew up in a poor, dangerous neighboorhood, and my dad slept with a gun next to the bed. We were robbed multiple times, and almost robbed once when my mom was home. (My dad, sis, and I came home as they were about the break in the front after robbing us weeks before on Christmas.) Someone tried to break in our back door while my sis and I looked at the stars from our darkened kitchen. Turning on the light scared him away, but what if we were sleeping?

I personally don't own a gun anymore, but I am still a member of the NRA. I fully believe that we have to be able to protect ourselves from the government should the occasion arise. I'm not worried about the military and its fancy weapons- it's roughly 220 million citizens over 18 versus about 1.5 million active military personnel. I think the odds are in our favor.

I also believe that taking guns away from law-abiding citizens is absolutely, horrifyingly dangerous. Are hunters gun-nuts as well? Most of the ones I know, and I know a lot being in Wisconsin, will kill 2 or 3 deer a season and fill their freezer for 6 months. They often teach hunter safety classes to the teenagers and adults new to hunting. They care about protecting the environment and its creatures, not just to keep their sport alive, but because they care about the natural order of things. We had an outbreak of CWD (http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/es/science/publications/ss1022_2006.htm) here a few years ago, and fear of eating diseased animals lowered the number of deer killed during the season. As a result, car crashes with deer rose exponentially and the herd became overgrown. An overgrown herd will destroy farmers' crops looking for food, and most will starve because there will simply not be enough. The DNR (http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/wildlife/whealth/issues/deerhealth.htm) in Wisconsin works very closely with the hunters to help keep the herd healthy.

A few nuts should not determine the status of the whole. Of course, I'm sure we've had "this" conversation before when we were talking about the crooked cops near me...

[kah]

Not sure where you're going with this. Sounds a lot like mudslinging for the hell of it. And that's sooooo lowball. :) .


I was just curious. He was all over the news for months, then suddenly he wasn't. I never heard if anything was resolved or if the whole issue was swept under the rug.

[Space Tycoon]

"Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

The bigger the governing institution, the greater are the chances for abuse of power. That is why I increasingly put my hope in lower, smaller levels of government--municipal, provincial, state, local etc.

The UN is something that served a purpose after WWII, but I question it's necessity today. We have moved from a bipolar to a unipolar world, and we now may be headed for a multipolar world. Continental and Civilizational blocs are the future, not one-world government.




.

[kah]

Thing is, there SHOULD be joint effort in curbing arms sales. BUT there is so much demand, it will be difficult. Kinda like drugs.

But I do believe in self defense and the Second Amendment. And even though I do support the UN, it does creep me out, the idea of an extraterritorial political entity telling me to give up my firearm.

Piss off.


I don't have any problem with the UN being mediators. When they start making laws for the rest of the world, however, that is when they've crossed the line. I have no desire to see one government for the whole world.

[Al-Dog]

I don't have any problem with the UN being mediators. When they start making laws for the rest of the world, however, that is when they've crossed the line. I have no desire to see one government for the whole world.

Exactly, What I find most disturbing is the UN trying to impose bans and create laws that affect the internal operation of a country.

Besides, a ban would only affect the law abiding citizen, the criminal or terrorist who want an illegal gun will still be able to get as many as they need.

[Bokchoi Cowboy]

Someone raised the question on how armed citizens could possibly take on the government's well trained military and police forces in a revolt.


This is how it can be done:



Arm all the "good 'ol boys" like this:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v432/webdev/untitled.jpg



and then tell them only the following facts about the government and it's forces :

1. The season opened today.

2. There is no limit.

3. They taste just like chicken.

4. They don 't like beer, pickups, country music or Jesus.

5. They are directly responsible for the death of Dale Earnhardt.



I expect the revolution would be over in a matter of days.

*

[Space Tycoon]

YEEEEEEE--HAAAAA!!!!!


We goin' bring down the gummint Martha!


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v707/kevinsager/Rednecks.jpg


That'll learn 'em to drag their feet on High-Definition television!






.

[Scotia]

And they don't have reason to be afraid? 2600+ of America's young men and women killed in war based on government lies, in which leaders from both major parties share blame? Hundreds of billions of dollars of their hard-earned taxes wasted? Rampant, institutional corruption?

I can't help but think that is because "a majority of people on this continent" are woefully uninformed, apathetic, or they have let their fear of terrorism and crime overcome any reservations about government abuses.
.
You do realize that the people you're talking about, the apathetic, those woefully uninformed about the war and how the government was/is selling it...they're Republicans, they voted for Bush. Twice. And they overwhelmingly own the guns.

War hawks and the gun lobby are well acquainted.

[Scotia]

We can't expect people to have advanced weaponry in their home, such as missiles, tanks, etc., but a hand gun or rifle affords them a minimal level of security. Minimal level.
Why not? Seriously. Why not tanks and rockets? Hell, why not fighter jets and battleships? No where does the second amendment limit the type of weapons you decide to carry. Arming yourself with a pistol or rifle is your interpretation only. Would your neighbour's freedom be curtailed if you took his Harrier away?

My point is that the USA is not just another country, it is a country founded on the principals that each individual is part of that government. We the People means exactly that...

Freedom isn't something given out to people, it is earned by those willing to stand up for it, and in some cases die for it as witnessed by history.

America stands for freedom above all else. Sometimes that freedom has to be fought for, and our founding fathers realized that by including the 2nd amendment in the Constitution.
More inspirational words yet they ring hollow. Freedom involves more than gun toting. I mean think about it. Where exactly are homosexuals permitted to marry? Where can I buy and smoke government sanctioned marijuana? A tit on TV fails to cause a shitstorm and legal proceedings where again? There are many countries that cherrish and exemplify freedom, Kirk. Americans haven't yet cornered the market.

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

Why not? Seriously. Why not tanks and rockets? Hell, why not fighter jets and battleships? No where does the second amendment limit the type of weapons you decide to carry. Arming yourself with a pistol or rifle is your interpretation only. Would your neighbour's freedom be curtailed if you took his Harrier away?


More inspirational words yet they ring hollow. Freedom involves more than gun toting. I mean think about it. Where exactly are homosexuals permitted to marry? Where can I buy and smoke government sanctioned marijuana? A tit on TV fails to cause a shitstorm and legal proceedings where again? There are many countries that cherrish and exemplify freedom, Kirk. Americans haven't yet cornered the market.

Ok, so why deal with reality, at all? Yeah, my neighbor is going to have jets, etc. The remarks regarding neighbors are irrelevant and have nothing to do with what I said, and are not valid as arguments.

As for your references to homosexual marriages and pot, a tit on TV, etc., those have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject or message of my post.

What I believe you are referring to with your post is the idea that people who believe in private gun ownership also are opposed to homosexual marriages, opposed to legalizing pot, etc., and are thus hypocrites.

I don't own a gun, and wouldn't own one simply because they are dangerous and I don't want to have the responsibility that comes with owning one. I am also in favor of homosexual marriages, and legalizing pot.

However, I do have common sense and an appreciation for logic. There are less obvious reasons our founding fathers included the 2nd amendment in our constitution, at least I think so. For example: I think it was a good idea to have that amendment included not because of any reasons they could think of, but for the reasons they COULDN'T think of.

I can think of many reasons why an armed citizenry is a good idea. The only reasons I can think of for disarming a citizenry are bad.

If you, or anyone, can give me actual logical, rational, and reasonable arguments why it is better private gun ownership should be outlawed, I'll listen. I will not accept as valid arguments references to other countries and their experiences, as I am discussing this with only the U.S. and our society as considerations. Why should AMERICANS give up the right to bear arms?

[Scotia]

I personally don't own a gun anymore...
Why not?

I fully believe that we have to be able to protect ourselves from the government should the occasion arise. I'm not worried about the military and its fancy weapons- it's roughly 220 million citizens over 18 versus about 1.5 million active military personnel. I think the odds are in our favor.
Ummm, the odds are most definitely not in your favour. Those "fancy" weapons can take out entire towns from many hundred kms. Guerrillas sporting pistols and long barrels? Come on, if the government wanted an indiscrimate slaughter then that's what would occur.

I posed the question before but never got an answer. What circumstances would inspire you to take arms against the government? I am really curious about that.

[Jakester]

See, guns (and airplanes and missiles and tanks, etc) are so...impersonal. They make it so easy to kill someone. Point-and-click...er...shoot. Now, if you had to kill someone with a sword, I think it'd be a lot harder and there'd be less people getting murdured. So, ban guns and make everyone in the world go back to swords. What? Iran won't comply? Well, we can just nuke the fuckers, then.

Oh, and Scotia, remember that ninjas are the real ultimate power! (http://www.realultimatepower.net)

[kah]

INTERNATIONAL GUN BANNERS DEALT BLOW--FOR NOW!
The "U.N. Conference to Review Progress Made in the Implementation of the Programme of Action to Prevent and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms and Light Weapons in All Its Aspects" ended last Friday in deadlock with no formal conclusions or recommendations. In the final analysis, the complexity of the issue and the concerns of hunters, sport shooters and firearm owners worldwide prevailed. No recommendations on ammunition, civilian possession or future U.N. meetings, or for that matter, any other subjects, were adopted. The failure of this five-year program to impact the legitimate firearm industry, and the Second Amendment rights of U.S. citizens was total. Anti-gun Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and liberal governments served notice they would not give up and would present all of their issues to the U.N. General Assembly this fall.

Thanks should be given to NRA Board members Bob Barr, David Keene, and Jim Gilmore for their crucial participation in this significant victory.

I don't own a gun anymore because I sold my rifle when I stopped hunting. I've never used a handgun, and don't feel the need to own one where I live. I know that I should have one, but feeding and diapering my kid has priority over buying a gun.

Do you really believe that our sons and daughters and fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters in the military are going to blow the shit out of the towns their families are in? Does the United States military turn people into mindless drones who only do what they're told and have no independent thoughts? If there was a revolution, and the government told a soldier to blow up the town his wife and baby son were sitting in, you think he'd do it?


I honestly don't know what it would take for me to take up arms against my government. I shouldn't ever need to.

[Space Tycoon]

You do realize that the people you're talking about, the apathetic, those woefully uninformed about the war and how the government was/is selling it...they're Republicans, they voted for Bush. Twice. And they overwhelmingly own the guns.

War hawks and the gun lobby are well acquainted. They may be absolutely wrong about foreign policy, but that is because they have been misled. I still choose to side with the right to bear and keep arms for self defense.

[Space Tycoon]

Does the United States military turn people into mindless drones who only do what they're told and have no independent thoughts?

No, that's the media's job. :smirks:

[Scotia]

Ok, so why deal with reality, at all? Yeah, my neighbor is going to have jets, etc. The remarks regarding neighbors are irrelevant and have nothing to do with what I said, and are not valid as arguments.Reality? You've been talking in abstracts from the outset here, Kirk. Why stop now. And think about it, your fellow citizens are your neighbours. The rights of which you've been trumping for three or four pages now. Kinda makes it relevant for the discussion, I would think.

Anyway, need I remind you that one of your earlier entries in this thread went something like this, "What amazes me about the gun debate, is the obviousness of the 2nd Amendment, and the point of it." Well, I just demonstrated to you that there is nothing at all obvious about it. My example of the fighter jet, although imaginative, does drive home that point. Substitute jet with bazooka, grenade launcher, laser gun, whatever. The idea behind it is that the 2nd Amendment is ambiguous and therefore open to interpretation. Why not acknowledge that? Labeling my remarks invalid reeks of avoidance. I mean, you went with the idea of "personal freedom" and ran with it. Post after post went on about "we the people" and "right to bear" etc. I posed a legitimate question about your neighbour's arsenal and whether you're willing to curtail it.

So...why not indulge me. Are you willing to limit your fellow citizen's freedom when it comes to his choice of "hardware"? If so, then good sense would suggest that what you practice and what you preach are in conflict.

As for your references to homosexual marriages and pot, a tit on TV, etc., those have nothing whatsoever to do with the subject or message of my post....What I believe you are referring to with your post is the idea that people who believe in private gun ownership also are opposed to homosexual marriages, opposed to legalizing pot, etc., and are thus hypocrites.Hardly. You went on about how America is "all about freedom". I simply pointed out that a lot of ground has to be covered before a description like that becomes applicable. The only hypocrites I see are the ones who like to twist and molest the constitution to advance their own views.

I don't own a gun, and wouldn't own one simply because they are dangerous and I don't want to have the responsibility that comes with owning one.I don't want to demean you here but in another thread you made it known that you have a felony conviction. Whether or not you think firearms are dangerous; the state has made it illegal for you to own one.

[Scotia]

There are less obvious reasons our founding fathers included the 2nd amendment in our constitution, at least I think so. For example: I think it was a good idea to have that amendment included not because of any reasons they could think of, but for the reasons they COULDN'T think of. You've lost me here? Honestly, what were the founding fathers not thinking of...when they thought of...the second Amendment?


I can think of many reasons why an armed citizenry is a good idea. The only reasons I can think of for disarming a citizenry are bad.

If you, or anyone, can give me actual logical, rational, and reasonable arguments why it is better private gun ownership should be outlawed, I'll listen. I will not accept as valid arguments references to other countries and their experiences, as I am discussing this with only the U.S. and our society as considerations. Why should AMERICANS give up the right to bear arms?
See, the thing about the second amendment and personal rights is that it's enigmatic and outdated. Nice words, but rhetorical in essence. There's also no directive concerning the killing power of firearms mentioned so ambiguity is rampant. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, the gun lobby hasn't got a legal leg to stand on. Those who rush to wave the bill of rights around are doing so erroneously.

Also, I think the whole self-defense thing is a bit ridiculous and ineffectual. As humans, we will undeniable make mistakes. There is just way too much room for abuse and accidents to justify the right to bear in this day and age.

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

Reality? You've been talking in abstracts from the outset here, Kirk. Why stop now. And think about it, your fellow citizens are your neighbours. The rights of which you've been trumping for three or four pages now. Kinda makes it relevant for the discussion, I would think.

Anyway, need I remind you that one of your earlier entries in this thread went something like this, "What amazes me about the gun debate, is the obviousness of the 2nd Amendment, and the point of it." Well, I just demonstrated to you that there is nothing at all obvious about it. My example of the fighter jet, although imaginative, does drive home that point. Substitute jet with bazooka, grenade launcher, laser gun, whatever. The idea behind it is that the 2nd Amendment is ambiguous and therefore open to interpretation. Why not acknowledge that? Labeling my remarks invalid reeks of avoidance. I mean, you went with the idea of "personal freedom" and ran with it. Post after post went on about "we the people" and "right to bear" etc. I posed a legitimate question about your neighbour's arsenal and whether you're willing to curtail it.

So...why not indulge me. Are you willing to limit your fellow citizen's freedom when it comes to his choice of "hardware"? If so, then good sense would suggest that what you practice and what you preach are in conflict.

Please explain to me, why the question of "limiting my neighbor's hardward" has ANY RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER to my explanation of why it is a bad idea to take guns away from citizens? Hmm? I don't see any logical connection between your question and my rationale. However, to humor you (since you seem to need that), no, I have no issue with what "hardware" my neighbor has. I should also point out that owning the weapons you describe is ILLEGAL here, so your whole point is just not a valid one.

Also, you claim the 2nd amendment is "ambiquous." Well, I would wager that a lot of people, in fact most people, would disagree. We think it is perfectly clear. Provide a supporting argument that backs up that statement.

Hardly. You went on about how America is "all about freedom". I simply pointed out that a lot of ground has to be covered before a description like that becomes applicable. The only hypocrites I see are the ones who like to twist and molest the constitution to advance their own views.

More declarative statements without supporting facts. Please, you have no support for those statements. They are opinion, only, and as such are simply invalid as having any factual basis.

See, the thing about the second amendment and personal rights is that it's enigmatic and outdated. Nice words, but rhetorical in essence. There's also no directive concerning the killing power of firearms mentioned so ambiguity is rampant. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned, the gun lobby hasn't got a legal leg to stand on. Those who rush to wave the bill of rights around are doing so erroneously.

Prove this. Actually, I'll quote the freaking thing here since it is so mysterious to you:

"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."

And this is vague, how? Seems pretty clear to me. It says it, right there: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


Also, I think the whole self-defense thing is a bit ridiculous and ineffectual. As humans, we will undeniable make mistakes. There is just way too much room for abuse and accidents to justify the right to bear in this day and age.

There are so many things wrong with these remarks, I am almost furious. It is obvious to me that your understanding of the difference between right and wrong is not the same as mine.

And then there is this:
Quote:
I don't own a gun, and wouldn't own one simply because they are dangerous and I don't want to have the responsibility that comes with owning one.
I don't want to demean you here but in another thread you made it known that you have a felony conviction. Whether or not you think firearms are dangerous; the state has made it illegal for you to own one.

I've never owned a gun, never wanted to own one, and wouldn't own one. Your reference to my felony conviction does not support any of your arguments, as it has nothing to do with my feelings about owning guns.

[Corporal_Hicks]

I don't own a gun.

I am extremely fond of the idea that I can own one if I want, though.

I probably will, some day.

As of right now, the baseball bat I keep conveniently underneath my bed is enough to make me feel secure.



Please, you all-knowing liberals, please don't take my baseball bat away from me!

[Scotia]

Lol, there's no need to be furious. I'm actually enjoying the back and forth. But I must admit. You are sexy when you get all frothy at the mouth.


Please explain to me, why the question of "limiting my neighbor's hardward" has ANY RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER to my explanation of why it is a bad idea to take guns away from citizens? I don't see any logical connection between your question and my rationale.
Because it's the same thing. "Limiting" and "removing" are interchangeable terms in this circumstance. Both involve an invasion of personal freedom, according to your logic. If I'm removing weapons from your home I'm limiting the number of ways that you can kill me. Get it?

Remember, you said, "Taking things from people is simply robbing them of a piece of their personal freedom." Thus, if buddy down the street is not allowed to own weapon X, then his freedom, that guaranteed to him by the 2nd amendment (at least you think it is) is being infringed.

Read it slow if you have to. I've got time.

However, to humor you (since you seem to need that), no, I have no issue with what "hardware" my neighbor has. I should also point out that owning the weapons you describe is ILLEGAL here, so your whole point is just not a valid one.Ahhh, but we're a couple of conceptual guys aren't we. A hundred years ago weapon X may have been a musket or a cannon ball. The killing machine of tomorrow is anyone's guess. At one time assault rifles being available to the public would have been unheard of. Now it's common place. It's not a huge mental leap to see where technology can take us.

Also, you claim the 2nd amendment is "ambiquous." Well, I would wager that a lot of people, in fact most people, would disagree. We think it is perfectly clear. Provide a supporting argument that backs up that statement.That's rich. You're declaring the gun debate dead. I guess somebody should tell the NRA and maybe they'll stop throwing all that money around. You know, since there is hardly anybody left to influence or peddle. The continued existance of the National Rifle Association and other like minded special interest groups implies that there are differing opinions out there concerning the 2nd amendment. The Smurfy situation you're describing just doesn't exist.

More declarative statements without supporting facts. Please, you have no support for those statements. They are opinion, only, and as such are simply invalid as having any factual basis.Lol, because you don't like what I have to say doesn't make it any less credible, Kirk. You brought up all this wonderful sounding rhetoric about America being this bastion of freedom. I comment and demonstrate to you that it's simply not as rosy as you say it is, and what do I get? "I'm taking my ball and going on home!".

Beautiful. Just beautiful.

[Scotia]

"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."

And this is vague, how? Seems pretty clear to me. It says it, right there: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."Its intended meaning is what's in question. The above is one sentence, abbreviated by a comma, not a period. The distinction is noteworthy, given the context in which the document was written. Some argue that it condones an individual's right to bear exclusively in service of a well regulated state militia. You know, back in the day when every able bodied male was required to serve, bring his own horse, haul his own gear, provide his own gun. It's widely understood that the states had deep misgivings regarding the central governement and thus made sure to include a clause in the bill of rights protecting them from federal excessiveness.

And that is where the waters become muddy. I (and I'm not completely alone on this) believe that the amendment has out lived its usefullness. There is no longer a citizens militia which of course eliminates the need for citizens to carry arms.

Ta Da!

[kah]

I don't own a gun.

I am extremely fond of the idea that I can own one if I want, though.

I probably will, some day.

As of right now, the baseball bat I keep conveniently underneath my bed is enough to make me feel secure.



Please, you all-knowing liberals, please don't take my baseball bat away from me!

A baton would be more effective. Just sayin'...

[Space Tycoon]

PHASERS!!


http://homepage.mac.com/m5comp/trekbits/trekpics/kspistolscan.jpg




.

[kah]

"Phasers set to stun!"

[Space Tycoon]

Phasers set for stunning... :eyebrow:



http://www.trekconnection.com/pictures/Voyager/pictures/seven/seven_of_nine_04.jpg

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

Lol, there's no need to be furious. I'm actually enjoying the back and forth. But I must admit. You are sexy when you get all frothy at the mouth.


Because it's the same thing. "Limiting" and "removing" are interchangeable terms in this circumstance. Both involve an invasion of personal freedom, according to your logic. If I'm removing weapons from your home I'm limiting the number of ways that you can kill me. Get it?

Remember, you said, "Taking things from people is simply robbing them of a piece of their personal freedom." Thus, if buddy down the street is not allowed to own weapon X, then his freedom, that guaranteed to him by the 2nd amendment (at least you think it is) is being infringed.

Read it slow if you have to. I've got time.

Ahhh, but we're a couple of conceptual guys aren't we. A hundred years ago weapon X may have been a musket or a cannon ball. The killing machine of tomorrow is anyone's guess. At one time assault rifles being available to the public would have been unheard of. Now it's common place. It's not a huge mental leap to see where technology can take us.

That's rich. You're declaring the gun debate dead. I guess somebody should tell the NRA and maybe they'll stop throwing all that money around. You know, since there is hardly anybody left to influence or peddle. The continued existance of the National Rifle Association and other like minded special interest groups implies that there are differing opinions out there concerning the 2nd amendment. The Smurfy situation you're describing just doesn't exist.

Lol, because you don't like what I have to say doesn't make it any less credible, Kirk. You brought up all this wonderful sounding rhetoric about America being this bastion of freedom. I comment and demonstrate to you that it's simply not as rosy as you say it is, and what do I get? "I'm taking my ball and going on home!".

Beautiful. Just beautiful.

So, you believe the right to own guns should be taken away from Americans?

[Scotia]

So, you believe the right to own guns should be taken away from Americans?
Technically speaking, American civilians never had the right to own guns. That's my interpretation. But, I get what you're saying.

Hands guns and assault weapons should be banned. Hunting rifles, target shooters and sporting pistols are acceptable.

[Corporal_Hicks]

A baton would be more effective. Just sayin'...

But a baton is a weapon and weapons are bad and stuff.

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

Technically speaking, American civilians never had the right to own guns. That's my interpretation. But, I get what you're saying.

Hands guns and assault weapons should be banned. Hunting rifles, target shooters and sporting pistols are acceptable.

The 2nd amendment specifies that citizens have the right to bear arms. Technically speaking, we have ALWAYS had that right. I recommend that you read the history of the U.S. Constitution at the official website. It discusses how the amendments came about. There were specific reasons the amendment is worded as it is, as it is a result of a comprise between the people who wrote it. They wanted it understood that citizens would have to act as the government's "army" as necessary, because at the time the U.S. really didn't have any truly functional military, thus the first sentence about militias.

However, the functional interpretation works so that each state has the right to make their own laws regarding gun ownership.

[Scotia]

The 2nd amendment specifies that citizens have the right to bear arms. Technically speaking, we have ALWAYS had that right. I recommend that you read the history of the U.S. Constitution at the official website. It discusses how the amendments came about. There were specific reasons the amendment is worded as it is, as it is a result of a comprise between the people who wrote it. They wanted it understood that citizens would have to act as the government's "army" as necessary, because at the time the U.S. really didn't have any truly functional military, thus the first sentence about militias.

However, the functional interpretation works so that each state has the right to make their own laws regarding gun ownership.
Interpretation is everything.

For example: My interpretation of your latest entry indicates to me that you either missed or ignored the part where I said, "Some argue that it condones an individual's right to bear exclusively in service of a well regulated state militia."

Gunning up in protection of the state. Since that responsibility has been adopted by the regular armed forces and the national guard (the modern day militia, if you will) an armed citizenry is extraneous and redundant.

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

Interpretation is everything.

For example: My interpretation of your latest entry indicates to me that you either missed or ignored the part where I said, "Some argue that it condones an individual's right to bear exclusively in service of a well regulated state militia."

Gunning up in protection of the state. Since that responsibility has been adopted by the regular armed forces and the national guard (the modern day militia, if you will) an armed citizenry is extraneous and redundant.

That is what the website I mentioned says as well. That it was never the intent of the founding fathers that "everyone has the right to bear arms." They meant that they needed citizens to be able to act as "army" if necessary. And your point about the modern day regular armed forces, etc., is pertinent.

I was not aware of this until your argument forced me into actually researching all of this. I was somewhat surprised by what I found.

[omicron]

an armed citizenry is extraneous and redundant.

I don't agree with this. It's been decided by the courts and police departments that they aren't neccessarily supposed to STOP criminal activity, but to investigate and capture the criminals. Therefore I think it's not only a right but a logical choice to be armed, at least at home.

I don't own a gun, but now that I am a homeowner, I've seriously considered purchasing one for defense. I live 2 blocks from the police station, but I don't feel I can depend on them to protect me and mine if a couple of 6'4" 250lb thugs kick in my door. Should I just be expected to cower in fear because might makes right? No.

Now, do I think people should have fully automatic M2 .50 caliber machinegun nests setup in their front yard? Of course not. Should people have enough small arms to rival a small 3rd world nation's army? No. Should people be walking down the street strapped with pistols and shotguns like it's the Old West? No. But should a responsible person be able to own a handgun or rifle to protect and defend his property, family, and own life. DEFINITELY.

my 2 cents. :dunno:

Omi

[Asonokirk V 2.0]

I think we might want to consider the following:

My feelings are that those who believe private gun ownership is bad, and would prefer to rid society of them, are not paying enough attention to history.

It is simply too late, now, to believe that restricting private ownership of firearms will have a positive outcome or effect. It is analogous to the M.A.D. concept. If both or all sides have the same ability to destroy the other, a stand-off situation ensues and it becomes less likely one side can achieve "victory" by attacking. This inhibits all sides, and the continued existence of everyone becomes the more likely outcome.

While a statistical analysis seems to indicate that places with less restrictions on gun ownership have a lower incident of violent crimes, those statistics are distorted by other factors.

I've always been one who considers that, in most cases, it is better to err on the side of caution. Taking guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens is kind of like disarming only one side in the M.A.D. analogy.