|
|
Mech
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 8237
Location: THE 4th REICH USA |
 Mon May 30, 2005 5:11 pm
|
 |
|
I can sum it up in a nutshell.
Criminals want you disarmed
Criminals want you helpless
Criminals want you to cower in fear.
Be it government criminals or street criminals. |
| |
|
|
CDsNuTz
Joined: 16 Jul 2004
Posts: 950
Location: Down the hill a bit |
|
Tue May 31, 2005 2:01 am
|
|
|
Plain and simply MY right to protect my family and myself By any means necessary,Far supersedes anyone elses right to harm me or tell me i cant own a weapon.End of Story. |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Tue May 31, 2005 11:17 am
|
|
|
Not end of story completely....
No Gun Control whatsoever and everyone having a gun is a sign of an insane and paranoid society
The Swedes, Finish, Danes, Norwegians, and Swiss have a more free and progressive society with more gun control than the US has
Protecting a family is one's right, of course, as indicated by the 2nd Amendment
_________________
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood! |
| |
|
|
increase 1776
Joined: 07 Oct 2000
Posts: 3097
Location: Bizzaro World |
|
Tue May 31, 2005 4:02 pm
|
|
|
Don't the Swiss homes all have automatic weapons, as being mandatory?If all homes had AK-47's in them,with the occupants well trained in their use,what would happen.You would have a crime rate like Switzerland.
_________________
"The police are not here to create disorder.
The police are here to preserve disorder." Mayor Richard Daley |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Tue May 31, 2005 4:40 pm
|
|
|
Yeah, Increase, you are correct about the Swiss. For some reason I was thinking of the Swedes, who I already listed.
However, the reason that the Swiss have many times less the per capita gun violence that the USA has is simple.....Europeans are more civilized than Americans.
I get very nervous when I hear people saying "Remove all gun control" here is the USA. This country is basically a punk, wet behind the ears, and it's like giving weapons to a teenager with an agenda.....Columbine, and the dozens of other massive shootings come to mind.
Australia has some strict gun control laws, and the crime rate has dropped since enacting them.
I think that the main problem is the assault rifles.
Below is an article that makes some sense, although I don't agree 100%
CSGV: GUN CULTURE THREATENS DEMOCRACY
Op-Ed Challenges "Guns Equal Freedom" Formula
Gun lobby threatens our very way of life
The price extracted by guns is simply too high
By JOSH HORWITZ
SPECIAL TO THE REVIEW-JOURNAL
When the National Rifle Association's top lobbyist, Wayne LaPierre, addresses the crowd at "FreedomFest 2005" at the Bally's/Paris Resort in Las Vegas today, he will be preaching a message that has served his organization well: guns equal freedom.
As LaPierre puts it, "The Second Amendment is the fulcrum of freedom in our nation, because freedom and the Second Amendment are mutually interdependent. They are the 'chicken and the egg;' neither can exist without the other."
LaPierre can expect a friendly reception from the right wing activists at FreedomFest. Aggressive support for gun rights provokes none of the intramural squabbling that sometimes threatens to divide social conservatives and their libertarian allies in the GOP.
By framing the gun debate as a choice between protecting liberty and the illusion of safety, the gun lobby has painted itself as a defender of basic American values.
Too often, gun control advocates walk into the trap and concede that values like democracy and independence must be sacrificed to fight gun crime.
"At what point will Americans agree that the price exacted by guns -- the gun lobby's 'price of freedom' -- is simply too high?" asks Josh Sugarmann of the Violence Policy Center.
This formulation is not smart politics, because Americans rightly treasure freedom. More importantly, it fails to hold LaPierre and the gun lobby accountable for a philosophy that is at odds with freedom and the institutions that support it.
The most recent example of the tension came last month, when Florida Gov. Jeb Bush signed a bill that allows people to use deadly force -- including guns -- when faced with a violent threat, even when a confrontation could be avoided by simply walking away. The new law goes far beyond self-defense, which was already a well-established right in Florida, to invite vigilantes to substitute their judgment for the judicial system.
David Kopel, a leading gun rights theorist, acknowledges the potential tension between an expansive right of self defense like the one embodied in the new Florida statute and the rule of law, but dismisses the concern out of hand, arguing that "people's taking the law into their own hands has always been a core principle of the American legal system, and the American attitude toward guns is simply one manifestation of that principle."
This warped conception of popular sovereignty is at the root of the most egregious anti- democratic proposition advanced by the gun lobby: that citizens need to arm themselves to safeguard political liberties against threats by the government.
Kopel has called guns "the tools of political dissent," and LaPierre wrote in 1994 that "the people have a right, must have a right, to take whatever measures necessary, including force, to abolish oppressive government."
As famed legal scholar Roscoe Pound observed, however, "A legal right of the citizen to wage war on the government is something that cannot be admitted. ... [because] bearing arms today is a very different thing from what it was in the days of the embattled farmers who withstood the British in 1775. In the urban industrial society of today a general right to bear arms so as to be able to resist oppression by the Government would mean that gangs could defeat the whole Bill of Rights."
The standoffs at Ruby Ridge and Waco -- often cited as proof that the government can and does abuse its power -- illustrate why armed resistance is a dead end. Randy Weaver and David Koresh may have had good reasons to distrust the government, but they had no right to use private arsenals to keep the police at bay. Our system includes democratic safeguards, such as juries, that do not rely on the private force of arms.
After the Oklahoma City bombing, the gun lobby toned down its rhetoric, casting an armed citizenry as a deterrent to oppression rather than a potential rebel force against a democratic government. "The Second Amendment is America's first freedom because it is the one right that protects all the others," LaPierre says.
This argument sounds reasonable but is no different in substance that what gun rights absolutists were saying before Oklahoma City. If they believe in the right to take up arms to resist government policies they consider oppressive, even when these policies have been adopted by elected officials and subjected to review by an independent judiciary, then they are opposed to constitutional democracy.
When LaPierre talks about guns and freedom, he wraps himself in a flag that the NRA is simultaneously ripping to shreds. Protecting vigilantes from criminal prosecution and urging citizens to stockpile weapons for a showdown with the government are more than just threats to public safety -- they are threats to our democracy and our way of life.
_________________
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood!
Last edited by Swamp Gas on Tue May 31, 2005 4:43 pm; edited 1 time in total |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Tue May 31, 2005 4:41 pm
|
|
|
CSGV PREDICTS NEW NRA PRESIDENT WILL BE "AGGRESSIVE ADVOCATE" FOR MORE GUNS AS BEST ANSWER TO VIOLENCE
WASHINGTON - Coalition to Stop Gun Violence Executive Director Josh Horwitz said today he expects incoming National Rifle Association President Sandra Froman to try to convince Americans they need more guns in more places to protect themselves.
"Sandra Froman has made it clear that she plans to be an aggressive advocate for the idea that the best way to stop crime is to arm as many people as possible," Horwitz said.
"After the Columbine shootings, the gun lobby was on the defensive, but their response to the rampage in Red Lake and other high-profile gun killings this year has been to argue that we would all be safer with guns in schools, churches, and courthouses," he said.
"The NRA apparently has decided that it's better to come out swinging than to admit that the gun culture it has helped create is making America a more dangerous place to live," Horwitz said. "As a strident advocate of the idea that guns are essential to self-defense, Sandra Froman is a natural choice to lead the organization even farther down this path."
After a high school student in Red Lake, Minn., shot nine people to death before turning the gun on himself, Froman suggested that schools should consider arming teachers. "I'm not saying that that means every teacher should have a gun or not, but what I am saying is, we need to look at all the options at what will truly protect the students," she said.
This week, after other NRA officials distanced themselves from the idea that teachers should be armed, Froman appeared to retreat, saying, "The only people that ought to have firearms in the schools are law enforcement and trained security personnel."
While Froman has backtracked on the guns-for-teachers idea, other gun enthusiasts have been less circumspect. In a recent television appearance, John Lott, a well-known gun rights advocate, was asked what could be done to prevent school shootings other than arming teachers. "Short of arming teachers?" Lott asked. "I mean, I think that is one thing we should begin to consider."(March 22, 2005 - Scarborough Country Interview)
Larry Pratt , head of Gun Owners of America, the nation's second largest gun lobbying organization, has for years advocated allowing guns in schools. Last year, he repeated his call for Congress to repeal the Gun Free School Zones Act.
The NRA has been working to pass bills in state legislatures across the country allowing guns into bars, libraries (scroll down to HB 1785) and child day care centers (scroll down to SB743). "It seems that the NRA's agenda has moved well beyond defending the right of law-abiding citizens to own guns to convincing Americans they need to be armed to the teeth to leave their home," Horwitz said.
_________________
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood! |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Tue May 31, 2005 4:54 pm
|
|
|
This is what I mean what happens if "No Gun Control". The Right Wing Nut Jobs want to take away responsibility from negligent and criminal gun dealers. Sooo.......Do we want gun control or do we not want gun control?
Washington, D.C. – During consideration of legislation that would strip away legal rights of gun victims, the House Judiciary Committee in a near party line vote defeated an amendment that would have protected the right of police officers to bring lawsuits against negligent gun sellers.
Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA) offered the amendment. It failed 11-20, with Virginia Congressman Rick Boucher the only Democrat vote with the Republicans.
A growing coalition of law enforcement organizations and individuals have announced opposition to the gun seller protection bill, including the International Brotherhood of Police Officers; Major Cities Chiefs Association; National Black Police Association; Hispanic American Police Command Officers Association; National Latino Peace Officers Association and the Police Foundation.
In June 2004, two former New Jersey police officers, Ken McGuire and Dave Lemongello, shot in the line of duty with a trafficked gun negligently sold by a West Virginia dealer, obtained a $1 million settlement. The dealer had sold the gun, along with 11 other handguns, in a cash sale to a straw buyer for a gun trafficker. After the lawsuit, the dealer, as well as two other area pawnshops, implemented safer practices to prevent sales to traffickers, including a new policy of ending large-volume sales of handguns. These reforms go beyond the requirements of current law and are not imposed by any manufacturers or distributors. If the gun seller protection legislation had passed last year instead of being defeated, the case would have been dismissed and justice for officers Lemongello and McGuire would have been denied.
_________________
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood! |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Tue May 31, 2005 4:56 pm
|
|
|
S.397/H.R.800 Is Dangerous To Our Nation's Health
There are innumerable dangers created by granting the gun industry the special protections provided by S.397/H.R.800. Here are a few:
The bill immunizes gun makers, gun sellers, and gun trade associations from liability under most negligence and other common law principles. Negligence law is the cornerstone of our civil justice system; it essentially requires people and businesses to use reasonable care in their actions to minimize the foreseeable risk that others in society will be injured. An action can be legal (preventing the imposition of criminal liability), but still be negligent (and warrant civil liability). Under current law, a gun dealer may be liable for shootings using guns negligently sold to a trafficker, for example, where the dealer sold 50 or 100 guns to a person who clearly intended to resell them to criminals. Under H.R.800, these dealers would be immunized from liability, despite their negligent conduct. Victims of gun industry misconduct would also be denied remedy under public nuisance law. Only a narrow class of cases - where the conduct is criminal, or the dealer negligently entrusted the gun to the shooter - would be allowed.
The bill protects gun makers who refuse to make their products safer. Guns are already the only consumer product (other than tobacco) exempt from federal safety oversight, so the federal government cannot recall unsafe firearms, or require the implementation of life-saving safety devices in guns. By eliminating liability in virtually all design defect cases, this bill would eliminate any incentive for the gun industry to design guns responsibly.
The bill radically alters existing law. Under existing product liability law in most states, manufacturers must include feasible safety devices that would prevent injuries caused when their products are foreseeably misused, regardless of whether the uses are "intended" by the manufacturer, or if the product did not "fail" or "improperly" function. Manufacturers cannot put their heads in the sand and ignore how their products are actually used to injure people in the real world. Thus, cars must be made "crashworthy," even though they are not "intended" to be crashed. Cigarette lighters must be childproofed, even though children are not "intended" to use them. Under this bill, however, gun manufacturers face no liability for failing to implement safety devices that would prevent common, foreseeable injuries, so long as the gun was not "used as intended" whenever children or juveniles injure themselves or others with a gun.
The exceptions swallow the rule. Proponents of the bill may suggest that it protects most product liability claims, but that is incorrect. The bill would bar all products claims against gun makers where the gun was foreseeably misused or used in an "unintended" way whenever a child or juvenile obtains a gun or when an adult "unlawfully" uses or obtains a gun. For example, numerous children and adults are shot when guns are dropped, when users mistakenly think a pistol is unloaded, or when a child obtains a gun. It is feasible to prevent these shootings by implementing simple, known safety devices. But since these uses are not "intended," gun makers would be immunized from civil liability despite failing to make their products safer. Unlike the makers of any other product, gun manufacturers would be allowed to put their head in the sand, and profit from unreasonably dangerous products.
_________________
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood! |
| |
|
|
increase 1776
Joined: 07 Oct 2000
Posts: 3097
Location: Bizzaro World |
|
Tue May 31, 2005 6:32 pm
|
|
|
The Swiss people are gun educated. I agree, that in this country we are still wet behind the ears.Each individual must be given gun education year after year,starting at a very young age.The Swiss policy should be initiated in this country,for numerous reasons.As far as giving the gun store owners and the gun makers a free pass on liability,that is BS.The city of Chicago wants to go right at the manufacters if someone in Chicago is wounded or killed by say ,a Strom Ruger hand gun.That is Bulls...! If the gun has a problem and malfunctions and it results in an injury,thats one thing.The courts would decide that on an individual basis.But to sue Ruger,Colt,or Smith&Wesson,and hold them responsible for the death of someone, because of sick uneducated person ,is absurd.Educate,educate,educate.I'm not talking about the Rockefeller school of $#@#! either.Real education,with real facts,not the complete utter nonsense they call,the american school system.If the education system goes on the same way for another twenty years or so,the Nazi's won't need Diebold machines anymore,the people will welcome morons like Dubya,with open arms.
_________________
"The police are not here to create disorder.
The police are here to preserve disorder." Mayor Richard Daley |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Tue May 31, 2005 9:30 pm
|
|
|
This is what I've been saying in this thread. There was mention of doing away with gun control completely, and that is frightening. Too many people, with short fuses and low IQ is a bad combination in this country. It would start looking like Dodge City circa 1880.
_________________
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood!
Last edited by Swamp Gas on Wed Jun 01, 2005 1:18 am; edited 1 time in total |
| |
|
|
CDsNuTz
Joined: 16 Jul 2004
Posts: 950
Location: Down the hill a bit |
|
Wed Jun 01, 2005 1:14 am
|
|
|
So is it gun control or gun laws??When i hear gun control i hear i want your guns,We already have gun laws they just need to be enforced more stictly. |
| |
|
|
Swamp Gas
Joined: 06 Jun 2001
Posts: 4254
Location: On a Hill in the Lowlands |
|
Wed Jun 01, 2005 1:25 am
|
|
|
Gun Laws enforced, and not that stupid HR 800/S 397 that I mentioned before.
_________________
Heard it from a pilot who spoke real gooooood! |
| |
|
|
KNOW-THIS
Joined: 14 Jul 2003
Posts: 3694
|
|
Wed Jun 01, 2005 2:20 am
|
|
|
Swamp is right, if we expect to live in a civilized society set apart from other out of control rogue nations we need to set an example by setting and enforcing certain regulations.
_________________
"You find me offensive? I find you offensive, for finding me offensive" |
| |
|
|
 
|
|
 Goto page Previous
1, 2
All times are GMT. The time now is Sat May 26, 2012 4:44 pm
|
|
|
|
|
Login
