Gun banning and fast and furious...

[JohnEdward]

This reminds me of Bush declaring victory over Iraq. Or Saddam Hussein declaring victory over America.

Hey that is a Republican thing, and a dictator thing - see the relationship?

 

[Josh Oakley]

Hey that is a Republican thing, and a dictator thing - see the relationship?

Dude, that was tongue-in-cheek, referencing the similar nature of you acting like you won the debate, and the other two people I mentioned doing the same thing.Recasting it as some comparison between republicans and dictators just isn't gonna work. Especially since I am critical of BOTH the Republican and Democratic Parties.

 

[JohnEdward]

You express a rational common sense opinion and you're burned at the stake by mob with pitch forks and torches.

 

[elder999]

You express a rational common sense opinion and you're burned at the stake by mob with pitch forks and torches.

Neither rational, nor common sense. Not even well expressed.

And I haven't burned you at the stake, we hardly constitute a mob, and the metaphorical pitchforks and torches are nowhere to be seen-I mean, you're still posting, right? :lfao:

If it's reasoned discourse you're looking for, you could answer the question about my Ruger, back in post #115.....

 

[Josh Oakley]

You express a rational common sense opinion and you're burned at the stake by mob with pitch forks and torches.

An appeal to common sense is a fallacy. It is inforinformed and not inherently rational.

 

[JohnEdward]

Neither rational, nor common sense. Not even well expressed.

And I haven't burned you at the stake, we hardly constitute a mob, and the metaphorical pitchforks and torches are nowhere to be seen-I mean, you're still posting, right? :lfao:

If it's reasoned discourse you're looking for, you could answer the question about my Ruger, back in post #115.....

You're absolutely, right. I am still posting....hmmmmm. I hate burnt stake, it's all dry and charred, not appetizing. Though mob is defined as ordinary people. I borrowed that imagery anyway, don't blame me. I would have went with, you express some common sense and they crucify you. But some people only relate crucifixion to Christ. I was thinking more along the lines of martyrdom. To answer your question, no. Been to that rodeo, came out like a champ.

 

[JohnEdward]

Well, I suppose that Daniel Boone, was exploring "the Old West," when he forged the trail through the Cumberland Gap to Kentucky, back in 1767-Kentucky was, after all, west of the colonies, but I don't think that's what you meant. Oddly enough, Boone was equipped with and famous for his use of a gun-from then and through the Revolutionary War.

Oh, and among the many things I have done, one of them was teach high school history

I am really glad all your arguments are so weak and easily rebutted.

Oh,we edited. Ok.



The martyrs of the Alamo were traitorous rebels against the government of Mexico: they'd sworn allegiance to the government, and converted to Catholicism, becoming Mexican citizens. History is written by the winners-not the Mexicans, and not the Indians, from whom all the land from the Atlantic to the Pacific was stolen.

How this relates to my answer to Jenna's question I will never know. You don't make scarecrows for a living would ya, or is just a hobby?

I wouldn't be going around down here in Texas spreading that blaspheme. There are folk down here who take their Texas history very seriously. We have a whole lotta streets and towns, statues all over the place, named and in honor of those men you slander. Some people would get very emotional about hearing what you said - so they don't read how is that my fault- kind a like a wounded bear. Me, I believe everyone has a right to their opinion, even if it is wrong.

My friend let me leave you with these words from Sam Houston, "I am aware that in presenting myself as the advocate of the indians and their rights, I shall stand very much alone."


Seriously, my friend apart from that you know nothing of Tejas history. Well maybe the slavery part, but not the other history.

 

[JohnEdward]

Boys, I had a good time. It's time for this Rodeo to end. I am sorry y'all going home a little sore, but not worse for wear. Y'all put up a good fight and I respect that. TF, it still stings doesn't it. You just get some more rest and you will be good as new in no time. !Amigos, Calladita te ves más bonita! :lol:

 

[elder999]

I wouldn't be going around down here in Texas spreading that blaspheme. There are folk down here who take their Texas history very seriously. We have a whole lotta streets and towns, statues all over the place, named and in honor of those men you slander. Some people would get very emotional about hearing what you said - so they don't read how is that my fault- kind a like a wounded bear. Me, I believe everyone has a right to their opinion, even if it is wrong.

The settlers of Texas swore an oath to Mexico, converted to Catholicism, and became Mexican citizens-that's fact, not slander.:

Mexico imposed two conditions on land ownership: settlers had to become Mexican citizens and they had to convert to Roman Catholicism. By l830 there were l6,000 Americans in Texas. At that time, Americans formed a 4-to-1 majority in the northern section of Coahuila y Tejas, but people Hispanic heritage formed a majority in the state as a whole.

That they became Texans in the Republic of Texas had more to do with Santa Anna-his ineptitude as well as his dicatorship-than the controls rightfully exercised by the government of Mexico that preceded his dictatorship.

In any case, they were traitorous citizens of Mexico, much as the Founding fathers were traitorous citizens of England. Deal with it. :lfao:

Seriously, my friend you know nothing of Tejas history.

A bit more than you do, apparently....:lfao:


Oh, and that Houston quote? Cute-it's from when he lived with the Cherokee, before going to Tejas....though he did advocate peace with the Comanches.....

As for makers of scarecrows, it is you who has deftly avoided adressing the original topic of this thread, or even answering my simple question, posed in post #115.

 

[David43515]

If it is a dilettantish question please forgive me and but can I ask my American friends, why do you need a firearm (or the ability to legally procure one)?

Again, if this is a stupid question, I beg your forgiveness. I live in London. There is a lot of crime here like anywhere. There is also a lot of armed crime, drug crime, gang crime etc etc. I might like to own a pistol and but it is not legal here.

My question is how would the citizens of the USA be worse off if firearms were rationed on a stricter licensed basis (farmers and herdsmen and those with a more "genuine" need etc.) rather than being available to all? Thank you. Jenna

Fair question Jenna. For my part it just comes to a question of practicality. A firearm is the most practical meathod available for one person to protect their life or property from another bent on taking it. A friend once told me he carried a pistol because he couldn`t carry a policeman. The US is a very spacious area compared with most of Europe, even in big cities it can be several minutes from the time someone is able to call the police and the time they are able to arrive.

My wife is small even by Japanese standards. My mother is 81 yrs old and has arthritis and two artificial knees. And yet either of them would be able to hold 2-3 large men at bay with a firearm. As long as some distance is maintained, the take away the advantages of strength and size.I think that`s why statistics show that the largest growing group of first time gunowners in the US is over 60. (Granted we`re an aging society, but still I think it`s pertinent.) And as a culture we`ve always been taught that society respected the individual`s right to protect himself (and his duty to protect others). We`ve also always been taught that all of our other freedoms were insured by that right. If we limited the right of otherwise upright and law abiding people to own the most effective tools to protect themselves, I think most of us would feel that all our other freedoms were suddenly in a much more precarious position. Just my two cents.

 

[JohnEdward]

Ingnore

 

[JohnEdward]

The settlers of Texas swore an oath to Mexico, converted to Catholicism, and became Mexican citizens-that's fact, not slander.:



That they became Texans in the Republic of Texas had more to do with Santa Anna-his ineptitude as well as his dicatorship-than the controls rightfully exercised by the government of Mexico that preceded his dictatorship.

In any case, they were traitorous citizens of Mexico, much as the Founding fathers were traitorous citizens of England. Deal with it. :lfao:



A bit more than you do, apparently....:lfao:


Oh, and that Houston quote? Cute-it's from when he lived with the Cherokee, before going to Tejas....though he did advocate peace with the Comanches.....

As for makers of scarecrows, it is you who has deftly avoided adressing the original topic of this thread, or even answering my simple question, posed in post #115.

So ya want this cowboy to ride one more bull of yours, well here it goes, one more time. Let me ask you a question, do ya? Do ya feel luck punk do ya? Ok so it wasn't the old west that started our love of guns, it was Dirty Harry.

Ya gotta stop going to wikipedia and pulling off of it, that is just wrong. Don't argue with me about Texas history, argue with Texas it is one big assed state.

I didn't avoid the OT, that is what got this party started in here. See it is like this, "When a naked man is chasing a woman through an alley with a butcher knife and a hard-on, I figure he isn't out collecting for the Red Cross." -Dirty Harry



I was honest and told you I didn't want to answer your question. But now, to answer your question in the immortal words of old Clint Eastwood said that reflects my feeling about this thread too, "I have strong feelings about gun control. If there's a gun around, I want to be controlling it."

"I'm interested in the fact that the less secure a man is, the more likely he is to have extreme prejudice. -Clint Eastwood. Boy was he proven right! :lol:

 

[elder999]

Ya gotta stop going to wikipedia and pulling off of it, that is just wrong. Don't argue with me about Texas history, argue with Texas it is one big assed state.

Not pulling off of wikipedia. Direct linked to a reference in my post. Know my Texas history pretty well, actually-sorry that you're wrong, but you are.

Actually, you demonstrate pretty well how the whole Remember the Alamo mythos got us mired in Vietnam....:lol:

II was honest and told you I didn't want to answer your question. To answer your question in the immortal words of old Clint Eastwood said that reflects my feeling about this thread too, "I have strong feelings about gun control. If there's a gun around, I want to be controlling it." "I'm interested in the fact that the less secure a man is, the more likely he is to have extreme prejudice. -Clint Eastwood. Boy was he proven right!

So, what you're saying is that you're insecure because mine is bigger than yours? That is extremely prejudiced! Good night! :lfao:

 

[JohnEdward]

Actually, you demonstrate pretty well how the whole Remember the Alamo mythos got us mired in Vietnam....:lol:

Yea....I get it, it is that Abet and Costello, whose on first routine. :lol: Funny. You got brownies with me.

 

[Jenna]

Well, there are many more eloquent defenders of the right to keep and bear arms, but I will add my two cents. The main reason that we need a firearm or any weapons that appear in the future, is personal protection, from other citizens who may have criminal intent, and from the government who might try to impose itself on us outside of the constitutional provisions. Also, long term, we protect the right for ourselves, now, and for future Americans who aren't born yet. As I said in an earlier post on this thread, the right to keep weapons is a building block of a free people. Look around the world and find all the countries that have committed mass murder against their citizens or the citizen's of other countries, and you will see people who were prevented from having their own weapons. That is at the heart of the argument for keeping and bearing weapons, whatever their nature may be, now and in the future, personal protection.

Yes I understand what you and others have intimated regarding the revolutionary aspect of firearm ownership. I think, considering the age of the constitution, that is oddly modern and relevant for today, using, exactly as you have alluded to, the Middle East and North African nations whose governments have attempted to forceably suppress the citizens in their right to express political choices freely.

Can I ask though please, if we consider just that one aspect of why it is right to be able to arm oneself, do you think there is a real, clear need in the modern, free USA to be able to defend against your own political / military powers-that-be? I think to me, America I would regard as the paradigm for democracy and then I am wondering why is there any need to protect against the American government / powers-that-be? How come that is a valid need? I am not making a statement, only asking your opinion as I do not know enough about the situation.

 

[David43515]

Actually I think that in the last 15 years or so, more people on both sides of the aisle would argue that the government has been adding more and more powers to what they beleive they have a right to do. Clinton wanted to have people who live in federal housing give up their rights to refuse warrantless searches. Bush pushed through the Patriot act which didn`t really give law enforcement any "new" powers, but it removed alot of the safegaurds that made it difficult to abuse those powers. Obama basically nationalized the auto industry and has said that my health care suddenly falls under "interstate commerce". And during Hurricane Katrina the Army/ National Guard went around confiscating firearms from homeowners who hadn`t done anything (despite previous supreme court cases where this was declared illegal even during martial law). I trust individuals that make up my government, but I also have enough experiance with human nature that I don`t trust people when they gather in to groups where they can`t be heald individually accountable for their actions.

 

[Josh Oakley]

Yes I understand what you and others have intimated regarding the revolutionary aspect of firearm ownership. I think, considering the age of the constitution, that is oddly modern and relevant for today, using, exactly as you have alluded to, the Middle East and North African nations whose governments have attempted to forceably suppress the citizens in their right to express political choices freely.

Can I ask though please, if we consider just that one aspect of why it is right to be able to arm oneself, do you think there is a real, clear need in the modern, free USA to be able to defend against your own political / military powers-that-be? I think to me, America I would regard as the paradigm for democracy and then I am wondering why is there any need to protect against the American government / powers-that-be? How come that is a valid need? I am not making a statement, only asking your opinion as I do not know enough about the situation.

It is primarily an understanding that at some point, powerful organizations such as governments become more about consolidating power than anything else. And it doesn't happen over night. It happens incrementally, slowly, easily. Should the American government become so oppressive that we the people are oppressed more than we can bare (even in a paradigm of democracy, this can happen. And America's not actually a pure democracy, but a representative democracy-- a democratic republic) then we have some power to rise up, shuck them off, and start again. By divesting ourself of the access to weapons, we make it all the more likely that any resistance would be futile. THe only ones able to fight back would be those with the guns. Namely, criminals. We see this type of revolution in certain parts of South America.

Now of course, ideally, these issues are solved before they become that serious, in the public forum. But if we don't notice the changes until it is too late to prevent them (and again, this can happen slowly, gradually, and naturally), then the only way to vote may be the bullet. This is not anything Americans want, but it is what some of us prepare for.

It's very akin to martial arts because, well, it IS martial. All of us on all these forums train to some degree, and for the most art we want to be able to defend ourselves. But most of us will also go out of our way to make sure situations do not become so bad that we have to fight. This is the same with a gun. We keep, bear, and train with arms hoping (for the majority of us) that we will never have to use them, but prepared to if necessary.

 

[JohnEdward]

It seems many of us are of two mindsets, we fear government power as Josh points out, (though corporate power is what we should fear), or we fear those who who are in fear of and don't trust the government or its power (specifically one party). Some people feel if they arm themselves and the right to do they will be ready for the day government takes over, stripping them of all their freedoms and rights. Some people see those people becoming a self-fulling Prophesy, that they are what they fear. Those who fear government power as Josh pointed out, see their counter parts as weak, unstable, out of touch sheep - per se. I don't know the origin of these views. I don't understand the fears of either side. Both sides equally argue and justify their rational. Each side has those who go to extremes.

I once made a comment in the political forum, I still stand by, referring to a political candidate. I am uncomfortable with extremist. I am uncomfortable with people who are not flexible, who don't see a bigger picture, who don't keep things in perspective. People who white knuckle their views as the only ones being right. Who don't see alternatives or possibilities.


Diplomacy.

 

[ballen0351]

Can I ask though please, if we consider just that one aspect of why it is right to be able to arm oneself, do you think there is a real, clear need in the modern, free USA to be able to defend against your own political / military powers-that-be? I think to me, America I would regard as the paradigm for democracy and then I am wondering why is there any need to protect against the American government / powers-that-be? How come that is a valid need? I am not making a statement, only asking your opinion as I do not know enough about the situation.

I kinda have a different take on this. I believe the inital reason it was placed in the Constitution was to keep the Govt in Check. However the reason I believe we need to keep the 2nd amendment in tact and I will alway fight for the right to keep guns in the hands of citizens is more now for personal protection against crime. I think people need to be able to defend themselves and familys. Im a police officer and Ill be the first to tell you if the crap hits the fan and your becoming a victim your on your own. Uness Im standing right next to you I wont even know about the crime until its already happened. By the time I get there its to late. Im not saying I wont try my hardest to get to you to try to help but, Even the newest high tech alarm systems wont help you. Alot of people dont know how alarms work. Once your alarm is triggered the system sends a signial to a main answering center which can be anywhere in the world. Then an operator much figure out what the alarm is and figure out who they need to call. Then you got to hope they call the correct department. If you happen to live in a city that is a common name say Cambridge, theres a Cambridge Mass, Cambridge Maryland, Cambridge Ohio, Cambridge Minnesota you got to hope they call the right city. Ive set alarms off in houses before and its taken over 30 min for the alarm to call my dispatcher and tell them the alarm went off. Now you have to hope the police are not to busy to answer the call. Ive started shifts before with 20+ calls holding because there were not enough officers to answer them. So by the time we get to you it could be over an Hour from the time the alarm goes off to the time a cop knocks on your door. So now if the US was to ban guns only the good people would turn them in and it would in effect create a feeding frenzy for crminals because they know nobody can defend themselves. Its far too late in our history to try to take guns away. There are just too many guns out there now. So Im all for evening the playing field. Im more in favor of easing rules on concealed carry and open carry laws.

 

[billc]

Keep in mind as well, what we have now as far as government goes doesn't mean it will always be like that. We can't give up that right today, and just assume it won't be needed 100 years from now. That would be irresponsible on our part.