4000m 0 #26 December 17, 2009 QuoteThere seems to be some conflicts within your statements. Hmm, I don't think so. Just because I think guns are stupid, doesn't mean automatically that I am against them. I also don't like racism, but don't think that we should block websites that promote facist ideas (as its done in Germany). We still have freedom of speech and I think it should also apply to idiotic speeches. May I quote Voltaire here: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." QuoteThe majority of the population does not get to vote laws in that discriminate against the minority (at least it shouldn't) I totally agree, but the taking away peoples right to bear arms wouldn't be discriminating if it applies to everybody, while it would be discriminating if this applies only to a certain part of the population.Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/4000meter Youtube Favorites: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjnVsp4Epra-PRDETgrF3M04B3X86X1eh Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #27 December 17, 2009 QuoteNormal people who were living normal lives became narrowminded, obedient facists. Guns wouldn't have prevented anything. If someone came to take your children from you, or came to take you to a camp... You don't think the outcome would be different if you were armed vs unarmed? History has shown the people who are armed at least have the chance to fight back and that many times they win. QuoteThis is also the part that really scares me, that it is possible to fill people with hate. Happens all the time. Just look at all the people who can only side with a political party and blame only the other parties for the problems. QuoteI totally agree, but the taking away peoples right to bear arms wouldn't be discriminating if it applies to everybody, while it would be discriminating if this applies only to a certain part of the population. Problem is that gun laws on hurt those that are inclined to follow the law. Criminals are not going to suddenly stop having a gun just because they are illegal."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #28 December 17, 2009 QuoteI even think the whole reference to the 2nd amendment is total BS (a society needs to evolve and always question decisions in the past, therefor a law, >200 years old, cannot be taken for granted just because it has always been there). Um, yes it CAN be taken for granted, because it's part of the Constitution. And until it's removed from the Constitution, it remains in effect. The procedure for change is well specified, and no one has seen fit to try and remove it. Therefore, it still stands as is. You can't just throw out laws because they happen to be old. A lot of old laws are darned good ones, that have stood the test of time. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #29 December 17, 2009 Quote I totally agree, but the taking away peoples right to bear arms wouldn't be discriminating if it applies to everybody, while it would be discriminating if this applies only to a certain part of the population. Your words were: "A governments purpose is not to rule its people, but to implement the will of the citizens. If the majority of the population thinks guns should be banned then ban'em." The majority cannot be allowed to take away rights of minorities. Self defense is one of the key ones, and US history shows that a considerable amount of gun control was driven by racism. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #30 December 17, 2009 Quote I even think the whole reference to the 2nd amendment is total BS (a society needs to evolve and always question decisions in the past, therefor a law, >200 years old, cannot be taken for granted just because it has always been there). So we should be re-thinking the slavery issue again since it's an old law? How about freedom of speech? GREAT logic there, sport. Quote But I simply don't like government restrictions in any kind or any form. A governments purpose is not to rule its people, but to implement the will of the citizens. If the majority of the population thinks guns should be banned then ban'em. If not: Let there be guns You skipped a few steps in the amendment process, there.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #31 December 17, 2009 Quote Quote Why do you guys always have to report your bloody (more or less) incidents? This is all you're looking for? Jeez. How I love my peaceful German life. Did you forget about the 15 people killed last March in Winnenden? http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7936817.stm The whole world can be a dangerious place at times. No, I did not forget. I just did not "offer" this incident with its bloody details for public entertainment and never would do. That's why I asked.....Why do you guys always have to report your bloody (more or less) incidents? And yes! I know the world could be dangerous place. I do read papers and watch the news. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #32 December 17, 2009 QuoteThat's why I asked.....Why do you guys always have to report your bloody (more or less) incidents? Which ones? The ones that the antigunners start and you gleefully post in telling us how dangerous we are, or the ones that the pro-gunners start to counter them, and you tell us how crazy we are for wanting to protect ourselves from criminals?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
4000m 0 #33 December 17, 2009 @kelpdiver Quote Self defense is one of the key ones Sure, but it doesn't necessarily include firearms although I admit they might be handy @mnealtx Quote So we should be re-thinking the slavery issue again since it's an old law? How about freedom of speech? GREAT logic there, sport. Aeeehm, nope, thats not what I said I recommend to re-read my posting. I was saying that we should not accept laws simply because they are in place a long time. That does not mean a law is bad, just because it's old. If you re-read my posting you will see that I consider the freedom of speech as one of the most important laws of them all!Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/4000meter Youtube Favorites: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjnVsp4Epra-PRDETgrF3M04B3X86X1eh Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #34 December 17, 2009 Quote @kelpdiver Quote Self defense is one of the key ones Sure, but it doesn't necessarily include firearms although I admit they might be handy @mnealtx Quote So we should be re-thinking the slavery issue again since it's an old law? How about freedom of speech? GREAT logic there, sport. Aeeehm, nope, thats not what I said I'm sorry - WHO wrote this, then? Quote (a society needs to evolve and always question decisions in the past, therefor a law, >200 years old, cannot be taken for granted just because it has always been there). I don't need to re-read your post again - I quoted it, remember? If we're supposed to be open to reconsidering the 2nd amendment, why not the 1st? Why not slavery laws? Those are 'old laws', as well. Why are THEY to be taken for granted when the 2nd is not?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
4000m 0 #35 December 17, 2009 Do you know that you a really tough one to argue with? OK, once again. I don't think the 1st amendment or the slavery laws should be dumped, ok? I also don't think that the 2nd amendment should be dumped. I wrote that I don't like guns myself, but I give the US huge credit for allowing it's citizens to own them, unlike most hyperparanoid EU states that don't trust their own inhabitants. I think that reconsidering exiting laws is an important part of an constitutional state. Your founding fathers probably thought the same when they implemented a way to change or dump the amendments. Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/4000meter Youtube Favorites: http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjnVsp4Epra-PRDETgrF3M04B3X86X1eh Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #36 December 17, 2009 Quote Do you know that you a really tough one to argue with? Quote I think that reconsidering exiting laws is an important part of an constitutional state. Your founding fathers probably thought the same when they implemented a way to change or dump the amendments. I agree with the basic idea of this - look at how many stupid laws are still on the books from years past. Constitutional law is, however, a much different animal.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #37 December 17, 2009 Quote @kelpdiver Quote Self defense is one of the key ones Sure, but it doesn't necessarily include firearms although I admit they might be handy There are few other available methods for a minority class to use to protect itself against the mob, esp when law enforcement has been part of the establishment. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #38 December 18, 2009 Quote Why do you guys always have to report your bloody (more or less) incidents? This is all you're looking for? Jeez. How I love my peaceful German life. your welcome. thank your peaceful life to american men and their guns! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,152 #39 December 21, 2009 QuoteNo, but I am glad we have the right to defend ourselves.... Concentration camps would not have done very well if Jew were allowed to be armed. Interesting thesis. I have a question for you, how do you square that away with your countries reasoning for invading Iraq? Iraq was one of the most armed countries in the world, yet according to your country, the regime was so oppresive and violent that the (armed) people needed to be liberated. You seem to imply that the jews would not have faced such heavy losses if they had been armed. Yet in Iraq a similar fate overcame an armed populace and got so bad the US felt the need to intervene. Look forward to reading how you explain this inconsistency. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #40 December 21, 2009 Quote Quote Why do you guys always have to report your bloody (more or less) incidents? This is all you're looking for? Jeez. How I love my peaceful German life. your welcome. thank your peaceful life to american men and their guns! You didn't forget the one or other nation, didn't ya? So c'mon, big boy, tell me how you safed my life .... dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,152 #41 December 21, 2009 QuoteDidn't have to shoot anyone, but stopped a violent attack.... Would the attacker have stopped if a person had started yelling without a gun? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #42 December 21, 2009 QuoteYou seem to imply that the jews would not have faced such heavy losses if they had been armed. Yet in Iraq a similar fate overcame an armed populace and got so bad the US felt the need to intervene. Look forward to reading how you explain this inconsistency. Not inconsistent. The Jews were disarmed by the Govt, and they were rounded up an slaughtered. Do you disagree with any of that? Do you not think that a person who had the ability to fight back would? You think that if you had a gun and you were being lead to your death you would just accept it? Your comparison is flawed. There was not the same level of exterminations in Iraq, and THEY DID fight back."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
marks2065 0 #43 December 21, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Why do you guys always have to report your bloody (more or less) incidents? This is all you're looking for? Jeez. How I love my peaceful German life. your welcome. thank your peaceful life to american men and their guns! You didn't forget the one or other nation, didn't ya? So c'mon, big boy, tell me how you safed my life .... I didn't do anything, the american way of life that includes producing & owning guns to fight and capitalism to become wealthy is what saved europe twice from radical dictatorships that killed millions. so before condeming the US and how we run things maybe europe needs to take a lesson from the US and stop criticizing us and just say thank you. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #44 December 21, 2009 QuoteWould the attacker have stopped if a person had started yelling without a gun? Ask the attacker. The Police seem to think Minto saved a life."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,152 #45 December 21, 2009 Quote didn't do anything, the american way of life that includes producing & owning guns to fight and capitalism to become wealthy is what saved europe twice from radical dictatorships that killed millions. so before condeming the US and how we run things maybe europe needs to take a lesson from the US and stop criticizing us and just say thank you. And right now the communists in China are saving your ass. Without their loans the US would be completely bankrupt and unable to produce anything or fight any war. When was the last time you sent a thank you note to them? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,152 #46 December 21, 2009 QuoteAsk the attacker. The Police seem to think Minto saved a life. You made it about the gun, not the police, so I am asking you. I am not debating Minto saved a life, I am agreeing that he did. I am asking you how to gun features in this. (Since the clear implication in your post is that gun ownership saved a life) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #47 December 21, 2009 Quote You made it about the gun, not the police, so I am asking you. Well, you would have to ask the guy that ran away when the gun was pulled on him.... I can't speak for him. I didn't make it about the gun... I made it about PEOPLE carrying a gun. And it is clear that in this case (per the police, and the victim) it saved a life. QuoteI am not debating Minto saved a life, I am agreeing that he did. I am asking you how to gun features in this. How the gun owner saved a life is obviously clear. If you want what ELSE might have worked... you will have to talk to the attacker that ran off."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christelsabine 1 #48 December 21, 2009 Quote .... I didn't do anything, the american way of life that includes producing & owning guns to fight and capitalism to become wealthy is what saved europe twice from radical dictatorships that killed millions. so before condeming the US and how we run things maybe europe needs to take a lesson from the US and stop criticizing us and just say thank you. No one is condemning the US. It seems you're still living in the past. Do not expect any kind of *Thank you* from me these days. I'm born free and lived wherever I wanted to, that was Northern America and the Far East. Perhaps it's time to say that the US should take lessons from the other side of the pond. The world has changed, dear. If you ever had an eye on recent climate conference, you'd know. Not every problem could be solved with a gun. Of course, my grand-dad still is your biggest fan .... I do understand him. I am, too. dudeist skydiver # 3105 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites