MitchSchaft
New Member
Muahahaha :medieval:
Another school shooting
- Thread starter Leslie
- Start date
Rotten Rob
New Member
Mitch,
You challenged me to make an argument for banning guns. Sorry, but as a gun owner, that ain't my schtick. (That should have been obvious once you discovered that I hang around gun sites that you also frequent.) If you want to fight such bans - more power to you. You won't find me in your way. I have a feeling you won't find many "banners" to bash, though - they are extremists, and a minority.
HOWEVER... If you plan to debate on gun control measures, and the logic behind them - you and I may indeed lock horns. I should warn you, do not take confidence in the fact that I was not born in the United States. If time spent living 'IN' the U.S. is your measure of how well a person understands freedom, liberties and rights - then I'd wager I am more qualified than you. I've spent more time living in these states than anyone referring to me as 'dude.'
Trust me, daddy-o, the U.S. doesn't have a monopoly on freedom - and sometimes, being denied certain rights can teach you an awful lot about them.
Don't apologize for being a newbie to the firearms debate - you have to start somewhere. And being new certainly doesn't mean you are new to thinking, or new to having valid opinions. Conversely, being an old hand at this debate is no guarantee that you are any good at it - just look at jimpeel.
To the Canadian advance expeditionary force that will be first in enemy territory, I give this advice Bring Beer! )
To jimpeel You are still citing extremely inaccurate sources, when you point to the U.N. Demographics. First off, those same homocide studies have been updated, as of Feb., 2002 - I suggest you get the latest release (don't worry - your position isn't harmed too much by the latest figures). Second, once you have the latest & greatest from the U.N. studies - toss them in the trash. They are still flawed beyond repair.
A few queries for you, Mr. Peel...
1 - In your own words, please explain why there is a '0' stat listed for Egypt on that accurate, scientific chart you posted? (Warning, don't parrot the NRA lobbyist person you quoted along with that chart, or it will turn around and bite you.)
2 - Exactly how many assisted euthanasias are included as 'homocide' for both U.S. and Mexico statistics?
3 - What is the source the U.N. studies team used for obtaining it's homocide numbers for Mexico in your posted chart, and how was that source later changed in subsequent studies? [Clue reviewing the hospital admission records from 6 major cities, and the police records from a mere 18 cities - then "extrapolating" from that data for a whole country, is pretty shoddy.]
Finally - what point was that chart supposed to support? If it was simply "more death in Mexico than in U.S.," fine. If that chart was to support any contentions regarding guns, self defense or the effectiveness of laws - please explain how?
- RR
You challenged me to make an argument for banning guns. Sorry, but as a gun owner, that ain't my schtick. (That should have been obvious once you discovered that I hang around gun sites that you also frequent.) If you want to fight such bans - more power to you. You won't find me in your way. I have a feeling you won't find many "banners" to bash, though - they are extremists, and a minority.
HOWEVER... If you plan to debate on gun control measures, and the logic behind them - you and I may indeed lock horns. I should warn you, do not take confidence in the fact that I was not born in the United States. If time spent living 'IN' the U.S. is your measure of how well a person understands freedom, liberties and rights - then I'd wager I am more qualified than you. I've spent more time living in these states than anyone referring to me as 'dude.'
Trust me, daddy-o, the U.S. doesn't have a monopoly on freedom - and sometimes, being denied certain rights can teach you an awful lot about them.Don't apologize for being a newbie to the firearms debate - you have to start somewhere. And being new certainly doesn't mean you are new to thinking, or new to having valid opinions. Conversely, being an old hand at this debate is no guarantee that you are any good at it - just look at jimpeel.
To the Canadian advance expeditionary force that will be first in enemy territory, I give this advice Bring Beer! )
To jimpeel You are still citing extremely inaccurate sources, when you point to the U.N. Demographics. First off, those same homocide studies have been updated, as of Feb., 2002 - I suggest you get the latest release (don't worry - your position isn't harmed too much by the latest figures). Second, once you have the latest & greatest from the U.N. studies - toss them in the trash. They are still flawed beyond repair.
A few queries for you, Mr. Peel...
1 - In your own words, please explain why there is a '0' stat listed for Egypt on that accurate, scientific chart you posted? (Warning, don't parrot the NRA lobbyist person you quoted along with that chart, or it will turn around and bite you.)
2 - Exactly how many assisted euthanasias are included as 'homocide' for both U.S. and Mexico statistics?
3 - What is the source the U.N. studies team used for obtaining it's homocide numbers for Mexico in your posted chart, and how was that source later changed in subsequent studies? [Clue reviewing the hospital admission records from 6 major cities, and the police records from a mere 18 cities - then "extrapolating" from that data for a whole country, is pretty shoddy.]
Finally - what point was that chart supposed to support? If it was simply "more death in Mexico than in U.S.," fine. If that chart was to support any contentions regarding guns, self defense or the effectiveness of laws - please explain how?
- RR
Freedom in the US: you can't seel drugs, you can't clone people, you must pay taxes.......
Complete freedom should guarantee you to be able to do whatever you want, so you're actually under control, is the same as in other countries, i don't see why you just can't live without guns.
It would be great that some murdered kid at a school could come here and tell us his opinion about the subject.
Complete freedom should guarantee you to be able to do whatever you want, so you're actually under control, is the same as in other countries, i don't see why you just can't live without guns.
It would be great that some murdered kid at a school could come here and tell us his opinion about the subject.
MitchSchaft
New Member
Good, I hate arguing
. How long have you lived in the US? I'm all of 23-years-old. But, I'm curious as to how you feel on the subject since you're a gun owner yourself. Or were you just arguing against me because you dont' like seeing people argue against the ban. That's the only way I can think of to arguing against these folks. Got any better ideas?That group may be a minority and extremist, but take a look at California, New York, Chicago and other similar states. Guns are practically banned there. And if a minority group can play such a large role against my 2ndA, then I'd hate to see them if they were the majority.
Give a maniac a weapon and by all means he will use it.
It doesn't matter what kind, i can tell you, give him a bomb, and he will use it, give him a gun, and he will use it, give him a knife and he will use it, give him a stone....and he will use it too.
There will always be insane people, but what really matters are the ways they can use to kill.
It doesn't matter what kind, i can tell you, give him a bomb, and he will use it, give him a gun, and he will use it, give him a knife and he will use it, give him a stone....and he will use it too.
There will always be insane people, but what really matters are the ways they can use to kill.
MitchSchaft
New Member
No kidding
Not only is it a hobby like this computer I'm sitting at, but it's a means of self-defense to keep the crazy fuckers who use them for the wrong reasons at bay. I like to hunt as well. Can't hunt birds/rabbits with rocks. (not me anyway). Target shooting, clays, trap, skeet, paper targets. If people didn't hurt other people on purpose, then I wouldn't need 'em for selfdefense. Just for fun.
As far as freedoms are concerned, read our bill of rights. Then compare the freedoms that it guarantees to other countries. I'm not talking about piddly things like doing drugs or whatever. People do those anyway. (which makes them criminals ?( ) Our Constitution guarantees us certain rights. There will always be some left winged liberal
D) to come along and try to misinterpret what is written in our Constitution and take away those freedoms. Might not seem like a big deal until those freedoms are taken away. Which is what is happening slowly, daybyday over here.
MitchSchaft
New Member
That's how I view it also. The only difference is I also believe that guns are here to stay. People know the concept of guns and how to make them, so they will not go away. The only way to counter that is to fight fire with fire.
Rotten Rob
New Member
Mitch,
You stated, "And it's not my fault that nobody there exercised their right to bare arms."
I have a question for you. In your opinion, does every person alive on earth have a "right to bare arms?"
The situation to which you referred was in Australia, I believe? I don't know what the specifics are regarding that situation. Maybe they were prohibited from having arms in that area? Were the unfortunates in that situation allowed to wear bullet-proof vests and body armor? Have any idea why they weren't all doing so?
I noticed you mentioning the 2nd Amendment in previous posts. You do understand that the 2nd Amendment only PROHIBITS things, and doesn't GRANT things, right? It certainly doesn't grant a right. However, it refers to a right to bear arms, as if such a right seems to already exist - for some reason. Do you have any idea where that "right" came from? Any opinions on that?
[If you sense that I'm leading you down an already well-worn path, you are correct. I just want to make sure you don't already have a bunch of crap stuffed in your head as you venture forth into this debate...]
RR
You stated, "And it's not my fault that nobody there exercised their right to bare arms."
I have a question for you. In your opinion, does every person alive on earth have a "right to bare arms?"
The situation to which you referred was in Australia, I believe? I don't know what the specifics are regarding that situation. Maybe they were prohibited from having arms in that area? Were the unfortunates in that situation allowed to wear bullet-proof vests and body armor? Have any idea why they weren't all doing so?
I noticed you mentioning the 2nd Amendment in previous posts. You do understand that the 2nd Amendment only PROHIBITS things, and doesn't GRANT things, right? It certainly doesn't grant a right. However, it refers to a right to bear arms, as if such a right seems to already exist - for some reason. Do you have any idea where that "right" came from? Any opinions on that?
[If you sense that I'm leading you down an already well-worn path, you are correct. I just want to make sure you don't already have a bunch of crap stuffed in your head as you venture forth into this debate...]
RR
Rotten Rob
New Member
Uh oh
Just an observation here. I just read "There will always be some left winged liberal() to come along and try to misinterpret what is written in our Constitution and take away those freedoms."
That raises a ton of red flags. I know it's hard, but try to resist the urge to toss around stereotypical misnomers like "Liberal; Socialist; Leftist; Democrat; Panzies; Clintonistas; Soccer-Momish; bleeding-heart; etc." It doesn't strengthen any point you are trying to make - and it DOES alienate some people. That's not a good thing.
People hate to be pigeon-holed into certain catagories. And all of the above labels aren't absolute. I know several democratic, liberal soccer moms that shoot at my club, and they would hate to lose their guns. Try not to alienate. Just educate, instead.
Of course, you don't have to listen to me - and I don't mean to come off as a preacher. But I wish to keep my guns, so I'm working in my self-interest. Think about the advice I give.
The PEOPLE that work toward solutions to gun crime ... and gun accidents ... and gun suicides ... are just people. They aren't possessed by demons. They aren't part of a plot to subjugate humanity to their whims. They aren't whispering behind closed doors, while they devise new and ominous ways to piss us gun owners off. They are just people, and they are just struggling to find and implement solutions.
Try to remember that. Educate them; try to set them straight; try to expose them to truths if they seem misled. Discuss with them their motives and thoughts, instead of attack them - or belittle them. Trust me, you'll serve the interests of gun owners much more effectively that way. Take it from this gun owner. I'm also one of "them."
- RR
Oh, in answer to your question... I've easily spent more than 50 years total in this country. Now a question for you. Are you aware that the "Founding Fathers" had severe opposition when they proposed the Constitution? Are you aware the first 10 Articles (Bill of Rights) were NOT unanimously approved...and took several years of pushing and palm-greasing just to get the 3/4 approval needed to pass? It took more than a CENTURY to get all states to ratify them. Ask jimpeel if it's just concidence that the first 10 Amendments weren't really ratified by ALL states until 1939 - the very same year a final decision was made in supreme court about the 2nd Amendment refering ONLY to arms for the militias.
Just an observation here. I just read "There will always be some left winged liberal() to come along and try to misinterpret what is written in our Constitution and take away those freedoms."
That raises a ton of red flags. I know it's hard, but try to resist the urge to toss around stereotypical misnomers like "Liberal; Socialist; Leftist; Democrat; Panzies; Clintonistas; Soccer-Momish; bleeding-heart; etc." It doesn't strengthen any point you are trying to make - and it DOES alienate some people. That's not a good thing.
People hate to be pigeon-holed into certain catagories. And all of the above labels aren't absolute. I know several democratic, liberal soccer moms that shoot at my club, and they would hate to lose their guns. Try not to alienate. Just educate, instead.
Of course, you don't have to listen to me - and I don't mean to come off as a preacher. But I wish to keep my guns, so I'm working in my self-interest. Think about the advice I give.
The PEOPLE that work toward solutions to gun crime ... and gun accidents ... and gun suicides ... are just people. They aren't possessed by demons. They aren't part of a plot to subjugate humanity to their whims. They aren't whispering behind closed doors, while they devise new and ominous ways to piss us gun owners off. They are just people, and they are just struggling to find and implement solutions.
Try to remember that. Educate them; try to set them straight; try to expose them to truths if they seem misled. Discuss with them their motives and thoughts, instead of attack them - or belittle them. Trust me, you'll serve the interests of gun owners much more effectively that way. Take it from this gun owner. I'm also one of "them."
- RR
Oh, in answer to your question... I've easily spent more than 50 years total in this country. Now a question for you. Are you aware that the "Founding Fathers" had severe opposition when they proposed the Constitution? Are you aware the first 10 Articles (Bill of Rights) were NOT unanimously approved...and took several years of pushing and palm-greasing just to get the 3/4 approval needed to pass? It took more than a CENTURY to get all states to ratify them. Ask jimpeel if it's just concidence that the first 10 Amendments weren't really ratified by ALL states until 1939 - the very same year a final decision was made in supreme court about the 2nd Amendment refering ONLY to arms for the militias.
MitchSchaft
New Member
He said that guns weren't illegal at the time in Australia. If they were allowed to carry them, they should have been carrying.
According their laws of their land not everyone does. But ours says we do. But, I don't know how much you're into the Bible, but I'm a big believer in Jesus, so my true answer would be yes.
I'm a little confused as to what you mean by that. It clearly states we have the right to bare arms. Nothing more nothing less. It doesn't prohibit anything. I can't help that lawmakers don't see it that way. Then again, I believe our right came straight from the Bible.
According their laws of their land not everyone does. But ours says we do. But, I don't know how much you're into the Bible, but I'm a big believer in Jesus, so my true answer would be yes.
I'm a little confused as to what you mean by that. It clearly states we have the right to bare arms. Nothing more nothing less. It doesn't prohibit anything. I can't help that lawmakers don't see it that way. Then again, I believe our right came straight from the Bible.
MitchSchaft
New Member
Hey, it's fun
People call me a gun nut, but I'm not a nut, so I know what you mean
.I wouldn't doubt that
.
MitchSchaft
New Member
Like you said, they're just people, too. I happen to believe their final decision is wrong.
That's what I try to do. Which is why I posted the statistics. Made sence to me. You have any pointers? I'm a little confused as to your stand on the subject.
It's pretty obvious. He has no point. He is one of those strange beings that thinks complete peace is attainable.
I would like to add my view. Complete peace is complete stillness, which is death.... the same as getting shot to death by someone who has a head on their shoulders.
MitchSchaft
New Member
He's confusing the hell outta me, but I guess he knew that.
Rotten Rob
New Member
Glok,
Care to explain how you came to that cornball conclusion about complete peace? Or perhaps you were referring to a different poster.
Mitch,
As I said ---> "Try to remember that. Educate them; try to set them straight; try to expose them to truths if they seem misled. Discuss with them their motives and thoughts, instead of attack them - or belittle them. Trust me, you'll serve the interests of gun owners much more effectively that way."
As for the "rights" thing, the 2nd Amendment states "...shall not be infringed." It's saying something "shall not" be done. It's a prohibition. Who is being prohibited from doing what? Think about it. I've looked for the word "Grant" in there, and I can't find it. If I've missed it, please point it out for me.
As for the right to firearms being granted in the bible - PLEASE DO TELL! If this is true, I'd have a whole new clip of ammo at my disposal - pardon the pun. Any passages you can give would be appreciated. Oh, I'd also need to know which bible - since these days, there are about a dozen completely conflicting versions floating around.
Best to you,
- RR
Care to explain how you came to that cornball conclusion about complete peace? Or perhaps you were referring to a different poster.
Mitch,
As I said ---> "Try to remember that. Educate them; try to set them straight; try to expose them to truths if they seem misled. Discuss with them their motives and thoughts, instead of attack them - or belittle them. Trust me, you'll serve the interests of gun owners much more effectively that way."
As for the "rights" thing, the 2nd Amendment states "...shall not be infringed." It's saying something "shall not" be done. It's a prohibition. Who is being prohibited from doing what? Think about it. I've looked for the word "Grant" in there, and I can't find it. If I've missed it, please point it out for me.
As for the right to firearms being granted in the bible - PLEASE DO TELL! If this is true, I'd have a whole new clip of ammo at my disposal - pardon the pun. Any passages you can give would be appreciated. Oh, I'd also need to know which bible - since these days, there are about a dozen completely conflicting versions floating around.
Best to you,
- RR
MitchSchaft
New Member
Well, the Bible doesn't say anything about firearms per say. I guess I should've mentioned I was talking about selfdefense/deadly force. Which you could bring firearms into that equation in this day and age. KJV by the
way. If you don't know what KJV is, then don't bother asking me anymore Bible questions. And don't ask me to look the passages up for you because that's a whole nother story.
Is that supposed to be a joke, man? Because it's a very bad one. It says you "shall not" take my guns away, sir. That is prohibitive of the government to take my guns away. It does not prohibit me in any way. Your statement really confuses me. Shall not be infringed says nobody in this country shall take my right to bear arms.
I could see you arguing about what their definition of what a well regulated milia is, but you seriously need to explain to me what you mean by your statement about the "shall not" deal. ?( . If it's because you didn't grow up in America and don't understand what shall not means, that's fine. But you should tell me that then. Your statement scares the hell outta me
Grant? The Bill of Rights is one big (understood) GRANT. Where are you coming from, man?
way. If you don't know what KJV is, then don't bother asking me anymore Bible questions
. And don't ask me to look the passages up for you because that's a whole nother story. Is that supposed to be a joke, man? Because it's a very bad one
. It says you "shall not" take my guns away, sir. That is prohibitive of the government to take my guns away. It does not prohibit me in any way. Your statement really confuses me. Shall not be infringed says nobody in this country shall take my right to bear arms.I could see you arguing about what their definition of what a well regulated milia is, but you seriously need to explain to me what you mean by your statement about the "shall not" deal. ?( . If it's because you didn't grow up in America and don't understand what shall not means, that's fine. But you should tell me that then. Your statement scares the hell outta me
Grant? The Bill of Rights is one big (understood) GRANT. Where are you coming from, man?
No, I was not referring to a different poster.
What do you think complete peace is?? How can it be anything but the final rest, the end of days, or the end of humanity and life. Don't even bother to argue that we can attain complete peace in life when ALL of the animals kill every day just to stay alive. Us with our guns are nothing. We cannot even make a dent in the incredible violence that is life.
You care about guns? WHO CARES!!! Guns will not make a dent in the suffering that is Life.
MitchSchaft
New Member
Life sucks!
Rotten Rob
New Member
Glok -
Sorry if I'm just not following you - but it's hard for me to wax philosophic with you when I'm not partaking of the same drugs This whole 'total peace is impossible' musing sounds neeto and all - but I never mentioned the word 'peace.' Nor did I imply it. See why I thought you were speaking to someone else?
Mitch -
Since you seem to understand that concept, I'd like to re-ask the same question that you appear to have missed:
You have demonstrated that you understand the 2nd Amendment is a prohibition. Good.
Since you quoted the 2nd Amendment, you can read for yourself that it refers to some already existing right to keep and bear arms. I just want to know your opinions on where that right may have come from - if you have any.
And don't be so defensive about my questioning you. You said you wanted to participate in such debates - I'm just watching out for my interests as a gun owner. We already have enough crack-pot pro-gun "debaters" out there doing more harm to our rights than good. Sorry if I come off as a little harsh.
- RR
Since you seem to have skipped right by my question, I'll ask it again: How did you come to this cornball conclusion? What, exactly, is it that I think - and what leads you to believe this?
I assume then, that you agree there is no reason to ban them?
Sorry if I'm just not following you - but it's hard for me to wax philosophic with you when I'm not partaking of the same drugs
This whole 'total peace is impossible' musing sounds neeto and all - but I never mentioned the word 'peace.' Nor did I imply it. See why I thought you were speaking to someone else?Mitch -
Well, at least that narrows it down to one of the few King James versions.
I wouldn't ask you to look up something that didn't exist - that would be a cruel practical joke
Bingo! You DO understand! I was beginning to have my doubts for a moment. The 2nd Amendment does indeed prohibit the federal government from disarming you. Why would the authors want to restrict the "government" in this way? Having just broken free of an oppressive government at great cost (Britain), they were taking steps to prevent this new government from gaining that same power.
Since you seem to understand that concept, I'd like to re-ask the same question that you appear to have missed:
Do you have any idea where that "right to keep and bear arms" came from? I'm referring to the one mentioned in the 2nd Amendment.
I thought we already covered this. I've spent over 50 years "growing up" in America. Compared to um... how many years for you, again? I have a perfect understanding of the words "shall not," as they are used in Article II of the Constitutional Amendments, as proposed by Congress and ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, persuant to the 5th Article of the original Constitution. I was questioning YOUR understanding
You have demonstrated that you understand the 2nd Amendment is a prohibition. Good.
Since you quoted the 2nd Amendment, you can read for yourself that it refers to some already existing right to keep and bear arms. I just want to know your opinions on where that right may have come from - if you have any.
And don't be so defensive about my questioning you. You said you wanted to participate in such debates - I'm just watching out for my interests as a gun owner. We already have enough crack-pot pro-gun "debaters" out there doing more harm to our rights than good. Sorry if I come off as a little harsh.
- RR