 |
Things are becoming more bizairre. In a new twist on safe storage a man carries his gun in his prosthesis. He wouldn't have been caught if it wasn't that he was in hospital for another amputation, perhaps if the job got botched he could settle his accounts immediately
Gun find in fake leg places hospital in lockdown
What ? One would think your gun laws would prevent the illegal carrying of a gun loaded with illegal bullets .
Hi Tom,Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I guess there will always be people who are prepared to run the risk and break the law.
Tut
You could say this fellow shot himself in the foot
Tom I though you of all people would know laws don't prevent illegal actions, they just give the police and politicians something to do
Then lets hope he has a leg to stand on after its all over!!Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Sorry left the sarcasm font off... corrected
It's all right Tom we read between the lines, you saw my response of course. We have good laws, Tom, and responsible people respond positively, however outlaws do what outlaws do no matter where they are, but when they are caught there are laws they can be charged under.
Our laws are for the benefit of the people, not the corporations, who in this place, are non persons
So in other words you agree with this...
if guns are outlawed then only outlaws will have guns.
It's a simplistic argument for simplistic people.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
And yet there is a whole lot of truth to it.
Look Tom outlaws don't need guns to murder people they can use bollard postsQuote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Comanchero bikie boss convicted of airport murder of Hells Angels member | Herald Sun
So that agrument doesn't wash as a reason why guns should be available. You see we are not brainwashed by the NRA
I hear the sale of Louisville sluggers is booming in China. The people have no other means of defending themselves and the bats have a nice ping sound when they connect with skull.
Baseball bat is a hit as a defensive weapon in China - Los Angeles Times
You cannot deprive people of their basic right to self defense. You may think you are making your population safer by banning guns ,but you are not..
The Chinese do a nice line in machettees Tom
Hi Tom.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Well, we actually are.
You can compare the stats any way you like but it is obvious which country is the safest in those terms.
Tut
Tut is right Tom deaths from guns halved in Australia after we destroyed 700,000 weapons. Australia has one fifth the rate of deaths from firearms than is the rate in the US, so Tom I suggest you stick that in your NRA and smoke itQuote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
Tom, my suggestion is that we change the subject.
Tut
Tell me how you laws prevented this guy from carrying a gun into a hospital ?Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hi Tom,
They didn't
Tut
Exactly... now it's time to change the subject.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Hi Tom,
For once I am lost for words. Yes, it is time to change the subject.
Tut
Guns don't kill people... criminals do.
I've owned guns my entire life and not once in all that time has one gotten up and ever threatened me.
Another tired argument from the right side of town.
I have seen enough missuse of guns in my lifetime to know just having them around the house is dangerous and basically unnecessary.
Don't be a pawn in the NRA game
Unlike you guys... we have a basic constitutional right to own them.
They aren't dangerous. And they are quite necessary.
#1 because its your right to protect your property and family from criminals by any means necessary.
#2 A well armed public... isn't going to stand for any idiot and his flunkies declaring themselves president for life.
Disarming the public was one of the first actions taken by Adolf Hitler.
Sad, smoothy, that you haven't developed beyond a frontier mentality. Are them injuns massing in them there hills? Perhaps the United States will invade its own territory again to oust those democrats
You have to understand our Constitution and bill of rights and what it means to us to understand what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
The right to own guns and self defense is one of our most basic right as American Citizens.
One that can't be simple taken away to suit anyone's agenda or beliefs without calling into question every other right we have. And without that one... there is nothing left to stop any group from taking ALL the rest away in an instant.
And its not about Indians... its about drug dealers, drug addicts, thieves, rapists, murderers and those who don't follow the law.
Cops are rarely there to protect anyone from it happening... they always show up when its already too late.
We are legally and morally entitled to self defense... in many cases right up to and including killing the attacker in certain situations. Like inside your home.
The only Governments that fear an armed populous... are governments that would be quick to take advantage of an unarmed one.
We don't count on our leaders ALLOWING us to have certain rights... subject to their whims... as is common in most countries.
We have OUR rights enumerated and our leaders CAN'T take them away on a whim... its not their place to determine what they are.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Of course not. They have to be attached to a hand (usually)
Exactly... and watch most news storys about how a certain kind of gun killed someone...Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
I've yet to see a gun become animated and even cross the room much less kill anyone.
Never mind the fact that they throw around "Assult Weapon" when its NOT in most cases...
Assult weapons are fully automatic or selective fire... and those are considered Class III firearms and take a special license.
Registered Cass III firearms are rarely ever invovled in crimes. 99.99+% that are, are just semi-automatic or bolt action.
Okay so remove these from the population, you are hung up on your constitution but you forget to read all of it, the gun provision is about militia in days when there was little or no standing army, not vigilante action. They had good reason for holding weapons in those days which are no longer an issue. You have just proven the argument to make these weapons hard to get.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
That's not how its read in the context of the period it was written.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
And its not subject to random interpretation.
Militia isn't Military, Armies existed back then and are not part of that or it would have said ARMY.
Its armed individuals... and that's how its ALWAYS been interpreted as since the day it was signed. Because that's what it says, and that's what was intended.
Any lunatic party that tries to take it away will be met with an armed revolt of the people. Not maybe... they certainly Will.
Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Hi smoothy,
I don't know anything about guns.
My comment was in relation to your misplaced modifier. I thought you might have seen the funny side of saying that, one(gun) has never goten up and threatened you.
I wasn't alluding to anything else.
Tut
Ok... my mistake then... I missed that entirely. :o Had my iron in too many fires so to speak.Quote:
Originally Posted by TUT317
Getting into the context of the american revolution and that is where the constitution sprang from, the revolution was basically fought by militia on one side until the rebels were able to put together an army, so obviously those who wrote the constitution thought militia important and didn't want to exclude the possibility that these forces would be available in what was still an uncertain world. Today militia have little purpose in your country, their descendants, the citizen soldier, have been incorporated in the army as your national guard.Quote:
Originally Posted by smoothy
Given the revolutionary rationale ,an armed citizenry is consistent with their distrust of governments ;especially central one with strong executive authority.
Part of the reason of course was the right of people to protect themselves and their property . But they also meant for "the people" to protect themselves against the government . A militia that is an arm of the government defeats that purpose . So no , the national guard would not be consistent with their idea of militia.
I didn't say it was consistent, Tom, what I said was that the need for militia has passed, it has been superceded by a more convenient method.
I have no doubt the use of the executive order is troubling in your situation. That arises out of the failure of eighteenth century ideas to provide a government that can actually make a decision, but the personal holding of arms should not be seen as a remedy to that
Fortunately by far the largest need is to protect oneself ;family and property. Normally the policing authority shows up after the need for protection has passed. A free person has the right to self defense .
Indeed Tom and clubs and knives do equally well, a gun in hand of many is an invitation for a perpretrator to arm themselves and get in first. Sadly, few people see preservation of their own life ahead of their possessions.
I live in a society where gun ownership is neither an issue or popular. Sure there is violence here, but it is rare to hear of murder or injury which didn't involve criminals on both sides, whereas in your society death by gunshot is many times the rate it is here. Now either you have more criminals per head of population, a distinct possibility, or the reasons given for gun ownership are falacious
Hi Clete,Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
The answer to this question is very clear, Americans have the highest individual to gun ratio in the developed world. Something like for every 100 people almost 90 own a gun of some description.
The bottom line is that the statistics reflects this ratio. End of story
Tut
That period has never passed. Not even for us. As long as you have one extremist group that's willing to take by force what someone has worked to earn to give to someone who didn't but is in their favor... that threat would still exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by paraclete
The personal holding of arms is a means of last resort for a government that gets so far out of control, they decide the constitution is just a piece of paper and THEY will decide what you can or can't do. And that THEY will decide what will be in any constitution THEY decide to impose on the people.
Its not a stretch because its happened too many times in too many places...
HUGO CHAVEZ is a contemporary example of such a thing.
Chavez was elected by popular vote, however much you hate his politics you must remember that. In any case Venezuela is not the United States and the scenario you speak of is fantasy. If things get that out of hand militia will not save you
Yes and Hitler was voted in too. Chavez has dismantled the democratic institutions .
The scenario is quite real. One person one vote one time is a template well established by start up tyrannies.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:01 PM. |