Bowling For Columbine

[The111 0]

Quote

Do you think a group of citizens armed with their guns could stop them?

I think 100,000 citizens armed with spoons could probably take 5 soldiers with an entire arsenal of guns at their disposal. I think they'd also lose a lot of lives in their spoon assault, and many would be scared to try.

I think 100,000 citizens with guns would ANNIHILATE 5 armed soldiers, and be much more confident in doing so.

www.WingsuitPhotos.com

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Or, one would do that be electiing the proper government. The immense powers given to the government have come in place due to laws passed by your current goverment.

The government can be changed by using any of four "boxes": the soap box, the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box.

The soap box is what we're doing right here, discussing things in public, and possibly affecting people's opinions on issues.

This leads to the ballot box, where people vote for issues and representatives which reflect their views.

If bad laws are passed by those representatives, we have the jury box to overturn the bad laws through the legal system.

And as a last resort, if all else fails, the citizenry can resort to the cartridge box to overthrow a government grown tyrannical. That's a last resort, and one that hopefully, we will never have to exercise, if the first three work properly. Nevertheless, it's an option that should be retained.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

IMHO, if a citizen is allowed to carry what the average footsoldier carries, it follows that the citizen is not allowed to carry what the average footsoldier is not carrying.

Quote

True, that may lead in that direction. But even the report posted by JohnRich indicated that the research currently is not sufficient to make any conclusive conclusions.

In this particular case, since there may be other variables at play you cannot simply make that conclusion.

I think you pretty much illustrated the fundamental difference between pro and anti gun people.

You argue that there should be gun restrictions, because we can't prove that they wouldn't help with crime.

We say, gun restrictions don't effect crime, so why enact them?

Personally, I have a problem with any kind of restriction, or rule or law that doesn't have a legitimate purpose behind it, or an actual benefit.

Forget about the constitution for a minute, or why guns are permitted, or why people want to have them. Tell me what possible benefit there would be in imposing more gun control. Than show me the evidence that effect would be achieved. Until then, no need to even discuss these other issues.

Anti gun people are always complaining that the NRA doesn't want to compromise, won't accept any restrictions. It's exactly for this reason. The compromises and restrictions that you want won't have any effect on the problems you're trying to elliminate. So we compromise, there's no effect, you decide you want something us to compromise more so you can the effect that you're never going to get because the problem is being addressed the wrong way.

If you don't want to read my rant above IT COMES DOWN TO THIS:

Gun restrictions and controls do not have any effect on gun crime.

Prove otherwise and I'll consider the constitutional merits of proposed controls that will have a proven effect.

Until then, stop trying to restrict my freedoms for no other benefit other than to make yourself feel good and feel like you made a difference.

Not directed at anyway, just at the anti-gun people in general

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

All foot soldiers do not carry one weapon, and I do not truly know what number is "average". My point is this. I'm asking you to explain, rationally, why you keep focusing on "one weapon." What is the realistic difference between carrying one gun or two? You can only die once.

I agree, I did not come forward with that interpretation of the 2nd Amendmend. PhillyKev a staunch supporter of the right to bear arms did. (I hope I recal that correctly)

I am assuming that the average soldier has the ability to only carry so many weapons at the same time.

I don't know what average would be, nor what the average footsoldier carries as a weapon (again some one else put forward the m16). I would think that the wise men who came up with the interpretation can decide what it is.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

I think 100,000 citizens armed with spoons could probably take 5 soldiers with an entire arsenal of guns at their disposal. I think they'd also lose a lot of lives in their spoon assault, and many would be scared to try.

I think 100,000 citizens with guns would ANNIHILATE 5 armed soldiers, and be much more confident in doing so.

I could not agree with you more. But we were talking about the US Army not 5 soldiers.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I agree completely with you. Someone else posted that the interpretation was made that people had the right to bear arms carried by the average footsoldier. My question was, what does the average footsoldier carry. The answer was an M16. Hence, my question was, would it not be fair to state then that the US citizen has the right to carry an M16 but nothing else, since that is what would follow from that stated interpretation.

So this would be the current ACLU mentality. You have the Bill of Rights, which contains a number of protections for individual civil liberties, which are generally liberally construed. When in doubt, the individual is protected.

But smack near the top we have a state's right protection, which must be narrowly (and grammatically incorrectly) read to limit the established right as tightly as possible.

Does that make sense to anyone else?

BTW, the last SC decision, the Miller one in 1939, did consider your question. Any weapons with a useful military function would be covered, but it was not established if a sawed off shotgun did. This would need to be done in a lower court, but since the defendent had died by then, it never happened. More recent wars have shown the value of a short length shotgun to soldiers.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

I agree, I did not come forward with that interpretation of the 2nd Amendmend. PhillyKev a staunch supporter of the right to bear arms did. (I hope I recal that correctly)

In was in response to someone, I think you, asking what "bear arms" meant. I really have no idea why you keep harping on that subject. I'll make it simpler. The interpretation of the courts in more general terms is, we can have guns. There, can we drop that line now?

[mnischalke 0]

Quote

I thought I had, but I'll be happy to do it now.

IMHO, if a citizen is allowed to carry what the average footsoldier carries, it follows that the citizen is not allowed to carry what the average footsoldier is not carrying.

I like the way you think. I know of a dozen identical custom Kimber .45s which went off to the latest conflict with Gen. Tommy Frank's team. I also know of a huge assortment of firearms in 9mm, .45 ACP, .357 Sig and .40 S&W (to name a few) made by (insert name of any modern firearms manufacturer), which have gone to Iraq in the holsters of US military personel. The Beretta M9 is not the only pistol in Southwest Asia right now.

Likewise, the M16 is not the only rifle over there. There are lots of belt-fed automatic FN M240s, FN M249s and Rock Island M60s, for example. There are Thompson 1927A-1s, Ingram M10s and HK MP5s of all configurations. There are Galils, and even a whole bunch of Barrett M82A-1 and M95 rifles chambered in .50 BMG. There are shotguns from HK, Benelli, Berretta, Remington and others.

Edit: Shit, I almost forgot to add in all the M14 and AR-10 rifles that are being fielded over there right now.

Frankly, I would be both happy and proud to own a collection of all of the above.

Point is, you name it, it's being used by US troops. I've even heard of Stens being used by SF.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

When people are scared about guns, they want to ban guns. Keep the people scared about guns, and they keep banning guns. (The Sarah Brady philosophy)

Quote

Pople buy guns 'cause their affraid. There afraid they have to defend themselves so they buy guns to do it.

Not all guns are owned for self defense - many are for sporting purposes.

For self-defense guns, I would call it "concern" rather than "fear".

People also buy fire extinguishers for their house, because they "fear" a house fire. They also wear seatbelts while driving because they "fear" a traffic accident.

All of these are perfectly acceptable, legal and wise behaviors. I don't see the problem.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Do you really believe that? Do you really believe the US army would not invade New York because citizens have guns? Do you really think that would deter them if that was their stated objective?

They invaded a country which they were convinced had Weapons of Mass Destruction and you think citizens with weapons would stop them?

And consider the trouble we are having in Iraq right now, where (I believe) a majority are happy to see us, and arms ownership is limited. Then try occupying any city in Texas.

The US army is very effective at fighting wars, but occupation is a very difficult mission. It could never succeed in the US so long as the people are armed; they could only win by 'destroying the city in order to save it.'

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Why should firearms be excluded from that?

They're not. Most people are in favor of *some* gun laws. But we have 20,000 gun laws on the books now, and the large majority of them accomplish nothing. So if anything, I'm for rolling back many of those that exist now, rather than piling on even more worthless laws.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

You argue that there should be gun restrictions, because we can't prove that they wouldn't help with crime.

No, I argue that with the arguments brought forward in this thread, the constituional right to bear arms could be construed as no longer valid. Since the reasoning behind it is no longer valid.

Quote

We say, gun restrictions don't effect crime, so why enact them?

And I say that no one seems to be able to come up with scientific proof that that statement is valid. I personally believe that the posisbility of reducing deaths from firearms is more important than some one's right to carry them. Specially since that reasoning behind that right is no longer valid. That is my personal opinion, obviously yours is different and we are both entitled to one.

Quote

Tell me what possible benefit there would be in imposing more gun control. Than show me the evidence that effect would be achieved. Until then, no need to even discuss these other issues.

As stated above, that is where you and I are different.

Quote

Until then, stop trying to restrict my freedoms for no other benefit other than to make yourself feel good and feel like you made a difference.

Whatever I do or say, it is not going to restrict any of your freedoms. I can't vote in the US, nor do I have any law making powers in the US (or anywhere else for that matter)

I do enjoy the argument however.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Do you object to people using guns for target shooting?

Quote

I know I don't, but that doesn't take away from teh fcat that target shooting has originally een practice for shooting at human beings. The aim to kill practice.

It doesn't matter what someone's *original* purpose was. What counts is how they are used now. And that is for sport and lawful self defense. You can't ban those just because of some other intent that started out hundreds of years ago.

The internet was originally intended to be a military-only network. Does that mean that we shouldn't be allowed to talk to each other now using it?

Of course not. Things evolve. Guns have evolved into many sporting functions, and that should not be ignored because of some past "original intent".

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

If you would make it illegal to make a gun, obviously those commercials would not be there anymore and much of that knowledge will eventually be lost.

No, you would just drive the industry underground, just like the manufacture of illegal drugs.

It's not that hard to make a gun. They're doing it in many third-world countries with blacksmith furnaces and tools. You don't need modern metal-working machines to do it. They can be made with things as simple as common plumbing pipe and hardware accessories.

No gun ban has ever prevented criminals from getting guns.

England banned handguns and semi-auto long guns in 1996, and confiscated them from their citizens in 1997. A funny thing happened with their gun crime statistics at that point - they went up! And they have continued to go up every year since. Despite the fact that the guns were confiscated.

What this proves is that gun bans only affect the law abiding. Criminals will always get what they want anyway.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

And consider the trouble we are having in Iraq right now, where (I believe) a majority are happy to see us, and arms ownership is limited. Then try occupying any city in Texas.

Actually arms ownership was rampant in Iraq since there were no restrictions in place and arms were readily available. Funny enough, it is the Americans who are banning Iraqi's from owning guns. Isn't that ironic?

Quote

The US army is very effective at fighting wars, but occupation is a very difficult mission. It could never succeed in the US so long as the people are armed; they could only win by 'destroying the city in order to save it.'

People were/are heavily armed in Iraq, maybe even more so than in the US. Those stats would be next to impossible to find or verify I would think. But does this mean that you are implying that the US will not win the War in Iraq?

Anyways, I have to get home. I'll try and pick this back up tomorrow.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

45 of the 50 states in America now have concealed handgun carry laws

Quote

That still doesn't prove it makes it a better place to live either.

It doesn't make it worse either. It makes it more free - people who qualify can avail themselves of a self-defense option that they didn't previously have. That's a good thing.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

And what about guns? Are they predominantly used for purposes other than killing or threatening death? It is true that one could use a gun for target practice, but what is the purpose of target practice? To make one better at killing or threatening death.

You've opened up your wording slightly - you've now acknowledged that guns might be use merely for threatening death instead of killing. That's a significant difference. I would add "preventing death" to the list. Good guy lives, bad guy runs. Or in Reagan's favorite words, peace through strength.

Have you ever tried target practice? It is far more difficult to hit a target than most nonshooters think, and at the elite level it is just insane. Targets the size of a dime at 50m. It is a sport. But one with very limited practical application. You wouldn't use a $2000 .22 target pistol to rob the 7-11.

Let's not forget that the sport of skydiving evolved out of a military tactic too - the ability to insert troops by air. Are we all just practicing to engage the Canadians and Mexicans?

[mnischalke 0]

Quote

Funny enough, it is the Americans who are banning Iraqi's from owning guns. Isn't that ironic?

I am sorry who? The Americans? or the UN?

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

It doesn't matter what someone's *original* purpose was. What counts is how they are used now. And that is for sport and lawful self defense. You can't ban those just because of some other intent that started out hundreds of years ago.

A joint has been proven to provide medical benefits for people suffering from certain medical conditions. Would you approve legalizing it? You can't ban medical use, just because other people use it for a different purpose.

Funny what happens when you use some arguments in different scenarios.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

I am sorry who? The Americans? or the UN?

The Americans

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

Let's not forget that the sport of skydiving evolved out of a military tactic too - the ability to insert troops by air. Are we all just practicing to engage the Canadians and Mexicans?

Nope, but the french kicked your (and our) ass, so maybe they are preparing to invade the US.

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

People were/are heavily armed in Iraq, maybe even more so than in the US. Those stats would be next to impossible to find or verify I would think. But does this mean that you are implying that the US will not win the War in Iraq?

Quote

We won the war to get rid of Saddam. But so long as a significant minority in Iraq don't want us there, we will not succeed in our current mission. There are more of them then there are of us, and we can't identify who they are. This is no different from Vietnam. If the Iraqis don't soon show an interest in taking care of this themselves, I think we should get our people out of there.

• Quote

Share this post

---

Link to post

Share on other sites

[mnischalke 0]

Quote

Let's not forget that the sport of skydiving evolved out of a military tactic too - the ability to insert troops by air. Are we all just practicing to engage the Canadians and Mexicans?

Shhhhhhh! damn it! This was supposed to be top secret training! Now that the cat's out of the bag, turning points gives us something to do between the Hi exit and Lo opening. It's also a good avoidance measure in case any ornery Canadians take pot shots into the air with the few illegal firearms they have laying around.

mike

Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

We won the war to get rid of Saddam. But so long as a significant minority in Iraq don't want us there, we will not succeed in our current mission. There are more of them then there are of us, and we can't identify who they are. This is no different from Vietnam. If the Iraqis don't soon show an interest in taking care of this themselves, I think we should get our people out of there.

Well, that is a whole different discussion. I do find it sad that many americans feel the same way. They had no trouble going in and stirring the pot, but I really hope the Americans continue with the responsibilty they took on when they invaded Iraq and not leave until a stable, viable government is in place.

[SkyDekker 1,122]

Quote

Shhhhhhh! damn it! This was supposed to be top secret training! Now that the cat's out of the bag, turning points gives us something to do between the Hi exit and Lo opening. It's also a good avoidance measure in case any ornery Canadians take pot shots into the air with the few illegal firearms they have laying around.
mike

ROFLMAO