Author Topic: The Suprising History Of Gun Control  (Read 4500 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: The Suprising History Of Gun Control
« Reply #15 on: January 04, 2013, 04:18:41 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23613
  • Tommy Points: -29299
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
Senator Dianne Feinstein,
 
I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime.
 
You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.
 
I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.
 
I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.
 
I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.
 
We, the people, deserve better than you.
 
Respectfully Submitted,
 
Joshua Boston
 
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
 
2004-2012

Could not have said it better.

What exactly did he say? 'I was in the army, so I don't have to follow the law with guns because I was in the army?'

Seems like a bunch of bunk to me. There are reasons for and reasons against, but there is no inherent privilege stating that someone gets to disobey certain laws (and, might I add, registering firearms was an idea that was good enough for the founding fathers, seems like it would be good enough for Corporal Joshua Boston) because they served in the armed forces.

And the whole thing is kind of a mess too. Disarming? Who is talking about disarming anyone?
Basically he said, I own a gun and if you try to restrict my right to own a gun I will disobey the law, attempt to keep my gun even if it is unlawful to do so, and I will disrespect the Constitution that I once swore to defend because I feel I am above the law.

If gun control passes it must be obeyed. Period. End of story.

I'm sure there were people who owned slaves that didn't want to give up their slaves. I'm sure there were people who didn't want blacks or women to vote but had to let them. I' sure there where people who didn't want blacks to ride their bus or drink from their water fountain or eat at their restaurant or go to their schools or join their golf clubs or tennis clubs but they had to let those things happen because it was the law.

If gun control passes, gun owners have to obey the law and give up the guns. Its no different. NO ONE IS ABOVE THE LAW AND OWNING A GUN DOESN'T GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO BREAK THE LAW EVEN IF IT GIVES YOU THE POWER TO THREATEN TO NOT OBEY THE LAW.

For some people, this issue is one of civil rights, and disobeying the law is civil disobedience.

That's not my particular stance.  I'm queasy about the government monitoring more and more of our lives, but also understand why gun registration makes a lot of sense.  However, for some, they see this as a huge issue of personal integrity that they're willing to go to jail for.  So long as nobody resorts to violence, I guess to each their own. 


D. Cousins / I. Mahinmi / P. Antic
D. West / R. Anderson / C. Copeland
L. Deng / K. Singler / D. Rudez
A. Iguodala / V. Carter / B. Gordon / C.J. Wilcox
K. Irving / S. Livingston / S. Blake

Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012

Re: The Suprising History Of Gun Control
« Reply #16 on: January 04, 2013, 04:27:28 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Paul Pierce
  • ***************************
  • Posts: 27074
  • Tommy Points: 2030
I don't trust angry people with guns during a time of civil disobedience where they are disobeying turning over their guns. Pure logic dictates bad things will happen.

And I don't see ownership of an inanimate object as being a civil right. That's kind of stretching things, like a whole lot.

If drugs are against the law I don't see an argument for it being a civil right to have them getting anyone off on a possessions charge.

If certain guns or certain ammo are outlawed, possession is against the law and calls for prosecution. Trying to get off on a civil rights claim is laughable.

Re: The Suprising History Of Gun Control
« Reply #17 on: January 04, 2013, 04:38:30 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • Dave Cowens
  • ***********************
  • Posts: 23613
  • Tommy Points: -29299
  • 33,333 posts and counting . . .
I don't trust angry people with guns during a time of civil disobedience where they are disobeying turning over their guns. Pure logic dictates bad things will happen.

And I don't see ownership of an inanimate object as being a civil right. That's kind of stretching things, like a whole lot.

If drugs are against the law I don't see an argument for it being a civil right to have them getting anyone off on a possessions charge.

If certain guns or certain ammo are outlawed, possession is against the law and calls for prosecution. Trying to get off on a civil rights claim is laughable.

As I understand it, most people practicing civil disobedience don't necessarily use it as a legal defense.  Rather, they'd just rather go to jail than suffer what they see as a civil rights abuse.

All of us probably have breaking points where we'd say "screw it, I'm going to jail".  For some who are highly invested in the Second Amendment, gun registration is their bridge too far.


D. Cousins / I. Mahinmi / P. Antic
D. West / R. Anderson / C. Copeland
L. Deng / K. Singler / D. Rudez
A. Iguodala / V. Carter / B. Gordon / C.J. Wilcox
K. Irving / S. Livingston / S. Blake

Once a CrotoNat, always a CrotoNat.  CelticsBlog Draft Champions, 2009 & 2012

Re: The Suprising History Of Gun Control
« Reply #18 on: January 04, 2013, 04:45:09 PM »

Offline nickagneta

  • Paul Pierce
  • ***************************
  • Posts: 27074
  • Tommy Points: 2030
I don't trust angry people with guns during a time of civil disobedience where they are disobeying turning over their guns. Pure logic dictates bad things will happen.

And I don't see ownership of an inanimate object as being a civil right. That's kind of stretching things, like a whole lot.

If drugs are against the law I don't see an argument for it being a civil right to have them getting anyone off on a possessions charge.

If certain guns or certain ammo are outlawed, possession is against the law and calls for prosecution. Trying to get off on a civil rights claim is laughable.

As I understand it, most people practicing civil disobedience don't necessarily use it as a legal defense.  Rather, they'd just rather go to jail than suffer what they see as a civil rights abuse.

All of us probably have breaking points where we'd say "screw it, I'm going to jail".  For some who are highly invested in the Second Amendment, gun registration is their bridge too far.
Well, then I guess they will not only lose their guns but then have a record and have to pay a fine, forfeit their buy back money and claim they have a record whenever they go for employment. Good luck with that. All so you can own something that's sole purpose is to kill things.

Re: The Suprising History Of Gun Control
« Reply #19 on: January 06, 2013, 01:46:57 AM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Paul Silas
  • ******
  • Posts: 6773
  • Tommy Points: 649
Luckily enough, guns aren't being outlawed...like ever.

Re: The Suprising History Of Gun Control
« Reply #20 on: January 06, 2013, 06:48:14 AM »

Offline Kuberski1

  • Avery Bradley
  • Posts: 298
  • Tommy Points: 26
I have lived in various countries in Asia for close to 25 years now.  Gun ownership and use in the US is without a doubt a complex, controversial issue...but it sure is nice to live in places where innocent people rarely get shot or have guns pulled on them.  I have never met anyone during my time here who owns a gun, or would want to...the US really stands alone on this one (yes, of course there are plenty of problems in these countries which the US doesn't have...).

Re: The Suprising History Of Gun Control
« Reply #21 on: January 06, 2013, 09:00:34 AM »

Offline Celtics4ever

  • Don Nelson
  • ********
  • Posts: 8007
  • Tommy Points: 468
Gun control works elsewhere it would not work here, we have too wannabee cowboys in the USA.  The funny thing is everyone thinks they can be macho and use a gun to protect themselves.   It is much harder to kill a man than one thinks, even when your being shot at, just ask a veteran.  Some guys don't have it in them but every thinks they can and most guys discharge some rounds down range.

http://jonathanturley.org/2011/01/10/gao-u-s-has-fired-250000-rounds-for-every-insurgent-killed/

http://www.lewrockwell.com/higgs/higgs62.html

Hard to believe and costly but the plain honest truth is that although most guns think they are up to the challenge of combat, most are not, whether they have a gun or not.  Guys either spray fire and hope they hit the enemy or do not aim to kill.  Read Face of Battle by Keegan it to puts this forth.

In all my travels in the military I thought Germany had the safest streets.   But seeing a polizai ( policeman) with an MP-5 submachine guns doing his rounds is a great deterrent.  Other countries greatly restrict what you can buy.  They rarely have situations where the police is out gunned.   Here it happens all the time because gun laws are lax.


Will gun control work here, my bet is no.   Even with the tragedy of Sandy Hook.   Too many insecure machos and cowboy mentailty mean that their will never be a complete ban.  We also have yahoos who think they could resist the government and tyranny.   I think hunting is a legit use of guns.   I think self defense is as well but the problem is an AR-15 is not for self defense that is an offensive weapon.

Re: The Suprising History Of Gun Control
« Reply #22 on: January 06, 2013, 09:25:15 AM »

Offline Mr Green

  • Avery Bradley
  • Posts: 285
  • Tommy Points: 28
Senator Dianne Feinstein,
 
I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime.
 
You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.
 
I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.
 
I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.
 
I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.
 
We, the people, deserve better than you.
 
Respectfully Submitted,
 
Joshua Boston
 
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
 
2004-2012

lol

Re: The Suprising History Of Gun Control
« Reply #23 on: January 06, 2013, 10:54:06 AM »

Offline hwangjini_1

  • Bailey Howell
  • ***
  • Posts: 3946
  • Tommy Points: 426
  • bammokja
Senator Dianne Feinstein,
 
I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime.
 
You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.
 
I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.
 
I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.
 
I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.
 
We, the people, deserve better than you.
 
Respectfully Submitted,
 
Joshua Boston
 
Cpl, United States Marine Corps
 
2004-2012

Could not have said it better.

What exactly did he say? 'I was in the army, so I don't have to follow the law with guns because I was in the army?'

Seems like a bunch of bunk to me. There are reasons for and reasons against, but there is no inherent privilege stating that someone gets to disobey certain laws (and, might I add, registering firearms was an idea that was good enough for the founding fathers, seems like it would be good enough for Corporal Joshua Boston) because they served in the armed forces.

And the whole thing is kind of a mess too. Disarming? Who is talking about disarming anyone?

agreed. this letter is little more than an emotional assertion predicated upon pre-existing preferences and myths. i see no deeper intellectual reflection upon larger issues or context. it shows nothing from the article that started this thread, such an appreciate for how our stands are part of a larger flow of events that often contradicted what we assume to be true.

i too was in the military service, yet i disagree with the use of pre-existing and unexamined emotional preferences as the basis for policies that all people in a society have to live with.

to be honest, being in the military does not automatically bestow people with the wisdom to set policy for the greater good. quite the opposite, while in the military we are told to follow orders, not ponder philosophical questions. 

life is just not this simple, as the article shows us.

I believe Gandhi is the only person who knew about real democracy — not democracy as the right to go and buy what you want, but democracy as the responsibility to be accountable to everyone around you. Democracy begins with freedom from hunger, freedom from unemployment, freedom from fear, and freedom from hatred.
- Vandana Shiva

Re: The Suprising History Of Gun Control
« Reply #24 on: January 08, 2013, 12:51:30 AM »

Offline wayupnorth

  • Brad Stevens
  • Posts: 210
  • Tommy Points: 27
I don't trust angry people with guns during a time of civil disobedience where they are disobeying turning over their guns. Pure logic dictates bad things will happen.

And I don't see ownership of an inanimate object as being a civil right. That's kind of stretching things, like a whole lot.

If drugs are against the law I don't see an argument for it being a civil right to have them getting anyone off on a possessions charge.

If certain guns or certain ammo are outlawed, possession is against the law and calls for prosecution. Trying to get off on a civil rights claim is laughable.

As I understand it, most people practicing civil disobedience don't necessarily use it as a legal defense.  Rather, they'd just rather go to jail than suffer what they see as a civil rights abuse.

All of us probably have breaking points where we'd say "screw it, I'm going to jail".  For some who are highly invested in the Second Amendment, gun registration is their bridge too far.
Well, then I guess they will not only lose their guns but then have a record and have to pay a fine, forfeit their buy back money and claim they have a record whenever they go for employment. Good luck with that. All so you can own something that's sole purpose is to kill things.

Have you ever owned a firearm? If you have not, then how can you tell me what it's sole purpose is? I have several guns that have never killed anything, yet they get use.

Your perception of guns does not equal reality. Here in North Dakota, we might very well have more guns than people. I would guess that well over half (pretty safe guess too)of the households here have multiple firearms, many those scary assault kind. I do not feel unsafe walking the streets unarmed. As many guns as we have, we have extremely low amount of violent crimes. Yes, we have a much smaller population, but it makes me question whether more guns really does mean more violence.

I use my second amendment right quite frequesntly it scares me/makes me sad, that so many who choose not to exercise it, want to prohibit me from doing that.

Do I have to pay to have armed security? Why does Justin Bieber get armed guards, but my family is not allowed?

Re: The Suprising History Of Gun Control
« Reply #25 on: January 08, 2013, 01:19:00 AM »

Offline action781

  • Bailey Howell
  • ***
  • Posts: 3684
  • Tommy Points: 273
I don't trust angry people with guns during a time of civil disobedience where they are disobeying turning over their guns. Pure logic dictates bad things will happen.

And I don't see ownership of an inanimate object as being a civil right. That's kind of stretching things, like a whole lot.

If drugs are against the law I don't see an argument for it being a civil right to have them getting anyone off on a possessions charge.

If certain guns or certain ammo are outlawed, possession is against the law and calls for prosecution. Trying to get off on a civil rights claim is laughable.

As I understand it, most people practicing civil disobedience don't necessarily use it as a legal defense.  Rather, they'd just rather go to jail than suffer what they see as a civil rights abuse.

All of us probably have breaking points where we'd say "screw it, I'm going to jail".  For some who are highly invested in the Second Amendment, gun registration is their bridge too far.
Well, then I guess they will not only lose their guns but then have a record and have to pay a fine, forfeit their buy back money and claim they have a record whenever they go for employment. Good luck with that. All so you can own something that's sole purpose is to kill things.

Have you ever owned a firearm? If you have not, then how can you tell me what it's sole purpose is? I have several guns that have never killed anything, yet they get use.

Your perception of guns does not equal reality. Here in North Dakota, we might very well have more guns than people. I would guess that well over half (pretty safe guess too)of the households here have multiple firearms, many those scary assault kind. I do not feel unsafe walking the streets unarmed. As many guns as we have, we have extremely low amount of violent crimes. Yes, we have a much smaller population, but it makes me question whether more guns really does mean more violence.
What "use" does your gun get if it's not being used to kill things?  Couldn't a bebe gun serve that same use if your guns are NOT being used to kill things?  I can imagine what your response to this is.... to which I hope you reconsider whether or not you're using your guns to kill things.

I understand life is a certain way in North Dakota, but in cities, guns are mostly used to kill things other human beings.  That is what many people perceive to be their only use.



I use my second amendment right quite frequesntly it scares me/makes me sad, that so many who choose not to exercise it, want to prohibit me from doing that.
You serve in citizen militias frequently?
.................to the
Assistant ^ General Manager for the Pawnee Pacers

Tony Parker, Courtney Lee, Rudy Gay, Zach Randolph, Marc Gasol
Jeff Teague, Paul George, Trevor Ariza, Chuck Hayes, Channing Frye
Kemba Walker, Andres Nocioni, Jason Collins

Re: The Suprising History Of Gun Control
« Reply #26 on: January 08, 2013, 01:27:38 AM »

Offline wayupnorth

  • Brad Stevens
  • Posts: 210
  • Tommy Points: 27
I don't trust angry people with guns during a time of civil disobedience where they are disobeying turning over their guns. Pure logic dictates bad things will happen.

And I don't see ownership of an inanimate object as being a civil right. That's kind of stretching things, like a whole lot.

If drugs are against the law I don't see an argument for it being a civil right to have them getting anyone off on a possessions charge.

If certain guns or certain ammo are outlawed, possession is against the law and calls for prosecution. Trying to get off on a civil rights claim is laughable.

As I understand it, most people practicing civil disobedience don't necessarily use it as a legal defense.  Rather, they'd just rather go to jail than suffer what they see as a civil rights abuse.

All of us probably have breaking points where we'd say "screw it, I'm going to jail".  For some who are highly invested in the Second Amendment, gun registration is their bridge too far.
Well, then I guess they will not only lose their guns but then have a record and have to pay a fine, forfeit their buy back money and claim they have a record whenever they go for employment. Good luck with that. All so you can own something that's sole purpose is to kill things.

Have you ever owned a firearm? If you have not, then how can you tell me what it's sole purpose is? I have several guns that have never killed anything, yet they get use.

Your perception of guns does not equal reality. Here in North Dakota, we might very well have more guns than people. I would guess that well over half (pretty safe guess too)of the households here have multiple firearms, many those scary assault kind. I do not feel unsafe walking the streets unarmed. As many guns as we have, we have extremely low amount of violent crimes. Yes, we have a much smaller population, but it makes me question whether more guns really does mean more violence.
What "use" does your gun get if it's not being used to kill things?  Couldn't a bebe gun serve that same use if your guns are NOT being used to kill things?  I can imagine what your response to this is.... to which I hope you reconsider whether or not you're using your guns to kill things.

I understand life is a certain way in North Dakota, but in cities, guns are mostly used to kill things other human beings.  That is what many people perceive to be their only use.


I use my second amendment right quite frequesntly it scares me/makes me sad, that so many who choose not to exercise it, want to prohibit me from doing that.
You serve in citizen militias frequently?

1# I very much enjoy target shooting. You could argue it is just "training to kill things", but I certainly do not see it that way. It is very enjoyable. And when I do kill things, it isn't humans, it is deer, which me and my family proceed to turn into a years worth of sausage which saves us A LOT of money, as well as avoiding all the artificial growth hormones and what have you in much mass produced meat. If you have ever shot a BB gun you would understand why it is not a very good time target shooting, also, it is a lot harder to kill a deer with (There I go killing things, like a savage again.)
2# I would if I felt there were any that served the interest of protecting North Dakota. It may have started out with the idea of the national guard, but most of the guardsmen end up in Kosovo and other places, which I don't feel does much to protect my home state. Due to the lack of official militias, I choose to be a member of my own "well-regulated militia" that includes me and my loved ones. (EDIT: Though after reading this, we do not do military exercises or train, I am just using the term to show that I feel that my immediate family is as worthy of efficient protection, as is any of my country men.)

Yes I would join a militia if the opportunity presented itself.

Also, have you ever owned a firearm yourself?
« Last Edit: January 08, 2013, 01:52:43 AM by wayupnorth »

Re: The Suprising History Of Gun Control
« Reply #27 on: January 08, 2013, 01:38:57 PM »

Offline action781

  • Bailey Howell
  • ***
  • Posts: 3684
  • Tommy Points: 273
I also have shot BB guns and I do find it kind of fun.  I have gone target shooting before and I agree it is enjoyable and more fun than BB guns.  I'm sure shooting things with missiles would be even more enjoyable too...

The point here is that while enjoyment is great, there's a certain cutoff where increasing personal enjoyment also crosses into the border of increasing murders.  If these weapons are not used to kill things (like deer) then we shouldn't need them.  If you want to kill deer, that's fine and I understand there are many good reasons to do so, but I just don't see why we need weapons out there capable of killing things if that's not their intention of use.  Guns' purpose are to kill.  If not and you own/use a gun for not killing, then why not do everyone a favor and use something that doesn't kill?  Or hell, why not shoot for the stars and demand that you can fire missiles for personal enjoyment?  A difference, sure, but the point still is the same.

As for #2, your statement makes me think you've read the 2nd amendment, but I don't think you understand the 2nd amendment.  Or you're just trying to play with words to make it seem like you're following it when you know you're not.

I do not own a firearm.  When I become a home owner, I likely will.  The purpose of that would be for personal protection (not related to the second amendment) or I suppose for protection of our freedom if it really came down to it.  You can see, the purpose would be to kill.  If I wanted something with the specific plan not to kill with it, that something would not be a gun.  Because I think that's unneccessary and dangerous.
.................to the
Assistant ^ General Manager for the Pawnee Pacers

Tony Parker, Courtney Lee, Rudy Gay, Zach Randolph, Marc Gasol
Jeff Teague, Paul George, Trevor Ariza, Chuck Hayes, Channing Frye
Kemba Walker, Andres Nocioni, Jason Collins

Re: The Suprising History Of Gun Control
« Reply #28 on: January 08, 2013, 01:58:29 PM »

Offline angryguy77

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • ****
  • Posts: 4005
  • Tommy Points: 352
I'd think the woman who just stopped a home invasion recently with her handgun would disagree with some of you here. I wonder what the criminal who broke into her home would have done with her, and her kids had she not had an equalizer....


 


Re: The Suprising History Of Gun Control
« Reply #29 on: January 08, 2013, 02:02:09 PM »

Offline angryguy77

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • ****
  • Posts: 4005
  • Tommy Points: 352
I also have shot BB guns and I do find it kind of fun.  I have gone target shooting before and I agree it is enjoyable and more fun than BB guns.  I'm sure shooting things with missiles would be even more enjoyable too...

The point here is that while enjoyment is great, there's a certain cutoff where increasing personal enjoyment also crosses into the border of increasing murders.  If these weapons are not used to kill things (like deer) then we shouldn't need them.  If you want to kill deer, that's fine and I understand there are many good reasons to do so, but I just don't see why we need weapons out there capable of killing things if that's not their intention of use.  Guns' purpose are to kill.  If not and you own/use a gun for not killing, then why not do everyone a favor and use something that doesn't kill?  Or hell, why not shoot for the stars and demand that you can fire missiles for personal enjoyment?  A difference, sure, but the point still is the same.

As for #2, your statement makes me think you've read the 2nd amendment, but I don't think you understand the 2nd amendment.  Or you're just trying to play with words to make it seem like you're following it when you know you're not.

I do not own a firearm.  When I become a home owner, I likely will.  The purpose of that would be for personal protection (not related to the second amendment) or I suppose for protection of our freedom if it really came down to it.  You can see, the purpose would be to kill.  If I wanted something with the specific plan not to kill with it, that something would not be a gun.  Because I think that's unneccessary and dangerous.

You might want to read up on what constituted a militia according the founders. A little reading of history will show you that militia to them was not what you are being told by the anti-gun zealots.

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsBlog Forums.