|
0 members (),
6
guests, and
1
robot. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums59
Topics17,128
Posts314,545
Members6,305
| |
Most Online294
Dec 6th, 2017
|
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 165
stranger
|
stranger
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 165 |
So we must work with the system to change the system? Just like what we did during the American Revolution? Oh wait....
Please explain how Afghanistan is not a comparable example of armed resistance and why is the idea preposterous?
Suppose the system will not respond to our changing it? Suppose the system simply doesn't work anymore?
And why does everyone think that having a gun always assume that it's only about defending yourdelf from some puke with a switchblade and not having our government fear us? Clearly they do, otherwise they would not try and disarm the civilian populace.
I guess the whole American Revolution was preposterous and unworkable. My bad. Ol' Jefferson and crew should have worked with King George to get what they wanted.
The threat of an armed populace is really the only thing that prevents absolutism. You can go on and on about how we have a democratic form of government and how it can't happen here, but really, all that has to be backed up with the threat of shooting the bums out if they get out of control.
"When fascism comes to this country it will be draped in the flag and carrying a cross"-Sinclair Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,841
member
|
|
member
Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,841 |
LOL@Naomi. Sometimes it starts sounding a little...ridiculous.
I have a cousin who has six children. He moved the bunch of them away from town. They stockpile food and God knows what else. The children are terrified of everything. He spends a lot of time talking about guns and helicopters and being ready to fight the government.
"I believe very deeply that compassion is the route not only for the evolution of the full human being, but for the very survival of the human race." —The Dalai Lama
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 15,646
Carpal Tunnel
|
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 15,646 |
Why would this be so hard to believe? Primarily, Allen, because your sources do not support your assertion, that's why. Just a reminder of your claim: I understand AG Holder has argued before the Supreme Court that no one has the right to own firearms Now your sources: "Well, as President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons." Is there any way you could be equating an effort to reinstate the assault weapons ban with arguing before the Supreme Court that no one has the right to own firearms? Because that's sure what it seems like here. You may believe that if you like, but good luck convincing anyone else of it. As for worldnetdaily, well, the source speaks for itself. On this board you may as well cite Walt Disney. Notwithstanding that, the article indicates its source is an editorial opinion written by a gun advocate, not a news source. Show me a news source that quotes AG Holder as saying "no one has the right to own firearms", as you initially claimed to have "understood". Or else, I advise you to reassess your understanding. And why does everyone think that having a gun always assume that it's only about defending yourdelf from some puke with a switchblade and not having our government fear us? Please refer back to the opening comment on the thread, Allen. It's not what "everyone thinks". It's what the thread is about.
Steve Give us the wisdom to teach our children to love,
to respect and be kind to one another,
so that we may grow with peace in mind.
(Native American prayer)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 165
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 165 |
Yeah, I know!! Crazy talk! Our government would never do anything bad to anybody! They are all benevolent angels, dont'cha know they know what's best for everybody? Hopefully, we will never have to fight another revolution. It would be tragic, but I don't want to have the ability to fight taken from me. Sometimes, working within the system won't work. It was tried before. The colonies tried to appeal to King George and parliament, but the system failed them. So they had to fight. I want to be clear, armed resistance should be the LAST resort. But we should have access to that if it comes to it. I think simply the people having the ability to resist is enough. Here is a good blog post regarding the MIAC report: http://delawarelibertarian.blogspot.com/2009/03/that-miac-report-on-militias-background.html
Last edited by Allen Owen; 03/23/09 01:14 AM.
"When fascism comes to this country it will be draped in the flag and carrying a cross"-Sinclair Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 165
stranger
|
|
stranger
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 165 |
I guess what Lou Dobbs reported on didn't phase you at all. Did you read the entire worldnetdaily article? About midway through, it mentions AG Holder opining before the Supreme Court that no-one has a right to own a funtioning firearm.
I suspect no matter what source I refer to, it will be dismissed out of hand. So many people were sick of the GOP and what it did for the last 8 years, that Pres. Obama and crew will be seen as our saviours. Which means we can't be critical. Just like no-one was allowed to be critical of the last crowd of crooks to occupy the white house. Only this time, it's the other side that cries foul. Funny. Too funny.
What do you have against Walt Disney?
"When fascism comes to this country it will be draped in the flag and carrying a cross"-Sinclair Lewis
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
Pooh-Bah
|
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581 |
Carl Rowan, 1981 column (source: Wikiquote) This is the same Carl Rowan who, on 14 June 1988, shot and wounded a young man who was trespassing at his WDC home. The gun was not legally registered, and Rowan changed his story several times about how he had obtained the gun and why it did not need to be registered. He was tried on the charge, but the jury hung and there was no retrial. Interviewed later on a national news show, Rowan defended his anti-gun stance but coceded his hypocrisy. [/quote] Yes, indeed, Ron. He too was a major gun control freak hypocrite who was unable to control his inner fascist (as though any of them can). And, if I recall correctly, Rowen gunned down a white teenager who had been swimming in his pool. Well, okay, he didn't gun him down, he hit him in the wrist, but I thought I would -- oh whimsically -- use some typical gun control freak language.:-) Rowan gained public notoriety on June 14, 1988, when he shot a teenage trespasser, Neil Smith, who was using Rowan's swimming pool in Washington, D.C.. Rowan used an unregistered .22 LR pistol. Critics charged hypocrisy, since Rowan was a strict gun control advocate. In a 1981 column, he advocated "a law that says anyone found in possession of a handgun except a legitimate officer of the law goes to jail—period." In 1985, he called for "A complete and universal federal ban on the sale, manufacture, importation and possession of handguns (except for authorized police and military personnel)." [2] [3]
Immediately after the shooting, Rowan offered several conflicting accounts about where he got the handgun. He first said that he had purchased the gun himself in response to threats on his life (which he later claimed had been made by the Ku Klux Klan). He also initially claimed that the gun had been properly registered. However, when District of Columbia police disclosed that the gun had not been registered, Rowan changed his story, claiming that the gun belonged to his son, who "was an FBI agent and did not have to register it [because it was] properly registered federally." Police officials pointed out that under D.C. law, all guns must be registered locally; failure to do so was punishable by up to a year in prison and a $1,000 fine. Yours, Issodhos P.s. Fun to get back to the threads main focus, wot?;-)
"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010 |
Let me pose a question: What do you think the Founders had in mind when they made the right to keep and bear arms the second amendment after the first? As I remember it, that amendment disusses the need for gun ownership in the context of a well regulated militia. It describes why a well regulated militia is deemed important. And the rationale discussed seems to have something to do with national defense. My read on the bill of rights is that the founders were concerned about the implications of having a large standing army and felt that one way of avoiding those potential problems was to rely upon a well regulated militia. In my reading of the constitution, I find no mention of boot heels nor of tyrants.
"It's not a lie if you believe it." -- George Costanza
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves. --Bertrand Russel
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
Pooh-Bah
|
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581 |
On the other hand, it would be entirely possible (and rather easy) to have an excise tax of say $1000 per bullet for pistol rounds. There could be a tax exemption for any bullet purchased and then fired at a firing range, so legitimate users could become proficient. Yes, but do you really want to support a return to racist Jim Crow legislation, Pondering_it_all? Yours, Issodhos
"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581
Pooh-Bah
|
|
OP
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 12,581 |
So the assumption I make is that every time a crime is successfully foiled by a firearm, it becomes a news item, just as every time a rocket is fired from the Occupied Territories into Israel, we hear about it, or every time a nativity scene is prohibited on public property. Faulty logic, stereoman. As I posted earlier, "So its opinion, then. A few problems here, stereoman. With your first opinion, it does not seem to take into account those times when the mere presence of a firearm deters a "bad guy", the type of thing that would not beome "national news", and surely happens more often than any actual use of a firearm - i mean based on mathematical probability. As to the hundreds of folks you say are assaulted everyday, are these hundreds of folks armed? Are most of them armed? Or are most of them actually without a firearm? That would be important to note if it is to support your argument. I think a professor from Maryland University name of John Lott may have done a study on guns in society and their defensive usage. If I find a link to his work I'll post it.:-)" Yours, Issodhos
"When all has been said that can be said, and all has been done that can be done, there will be poetry";-) -- Issodhos
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010
Pooh-Bah
|
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Dec 2005
Posts: 12,010 |
I think a professor from Maryland University name of John Lott may have done a study on guns in society and their defensive usage. If I find a link to his work I'll post it.:-)"
Yours,
Issodhos Iss... follows is the link you reference, along with a discussion of the reliability of Mr. Lott [/quote] We know of course that a person with an inherent bias can easily manipulate data... either consciously or not. So it would be interesting to see some confirmational studies. I am not aware of any. Beyond that, there is at least some point in trying to find other markers for the person to evaluate his reliability. So.... a rather long wikipedia article reports that there is controversy as to whether he did the study at all Disputed survey
In the course of a dispute with Otis Dudley Duncan in 1999-2000, Lott claimed to have undertaken a national survey of 2,424 respondents in 1997, the results of which were the source for claims he had made beginning in 1997. However, in 2000 Lott was unable to produce the data, or any records showing that the survey had been undertaken. He said a hard drive crash had destroyed his data set, the original tally sheets had been abandoned with other personal property in his move from Chicago to Yale, and he could not recall the names of any of the students who he said had worked on it. Following extensive publicity, David Gross, a Minnesota gun activist and former NRA board member came forward to say that he had been interviewed for a gun survey, and he thought that he was interviewed in the spring of 1997, probably by people working for Lott. [4] Critics alleged that the survey had never taken place,[44] but Lott defends the surveys existence and accuracy.[45] More over, it was later discovered that Lott created a false identity and used that identity to post favorable reviews of his book saying that he was his "favorite professor" As part of the dispute surrounding the missing survey, some critics suggested that Lott had created and used "Mary Rosh" as a fake persona to defend his own works on Usenet and elsewhere. After investigative work by blogger Julian Sanchez, Lott admitted to use of the Rosh persona.[44] Sanchez also pointed out that Lott, posing as Rosh, not only praised his own academic writing, but also called himself "the best professor I ever had".
Some commentators accused Lott of transgressing normal practice, noting that he praised himself while posing as one of his former students,[46][47] and that "Rosh" was used to post a favorable review of More Guns, Less Crime on Amazon.com. Lott has claimed that the "Rosh" review was written by his son and wife.[47]
"I probably shouldn't have done it -- I know I shouldn't have done it -- but it's hard to think of any big advantage I got except to be able to comment fictitiously," Lott told the Washington Post in 2003 Further, it not an article Lott wrote in spring 2008 claiming that reports of a recession were primarily driven by hysterical media bias. link And here is a rather long article in Mother Jones that covers review of Lott's work link Some of the points made in the article include that--- Lott's research relies on extremely complicated statistical analysis... that is inherently difficult to check... and which analysis can easily be through off be any minor oversight. And, in fact when one broadens the time range of statistics. then the proposed relationships entirely disappear. And, there appears to be yet additional evidence that Lott selectively manipulates his analysis in order to maintain his conclusion in the face of errors that have been identified in his original work. Over all, based upon my reading, there is not strong evidence to prove that absence or presence of gun laws have a clear impact on gun related crime. Although it also stands to reason that if one essentially eliminates public gun ownership... criminals could not use guns to committ crimes. But, of course, our national situation would make it near impossible to remove enough guns to guarantee this result.
"It's not a lie if you believe it." -- George Costanza
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves. --Bertrand Russel
|
|
|
|
|
