TEMPLAR67 wrote:Well i pray to God that that day never comes, i fear that it will spell the end of freedom in this country, governments love an unarmed citizen
I did not say that the government will immediately turn "evil"But if they can take away that right what else would they be able to take away.Yes, the moment Americans give their guns away, the government will transform into its corporeal form and kill them. And the government would like nothing more than to do that. Because the government is evil.
There are well over 200 million guns in this country from 22s to 50cals and bolt action to full auto, the right to bear arms is the best defense against govt opression. when hitler took power in germany one of the first things he did was take away their guns( no i am not making a comparison to this govt and hitler). And no crap the brits arent commin back, they couldnt if they wanted to.A posse of good ol' boys with handguns, shot guns and a few rifles is not a threat to a modern government.
The right to bear arms is not a defense against government oppression. This is not the frontier.
PS - The British aren't coming back.
You do realize that the Constitution doesn't guarantee the freedom of anybody to have a gun, but the freedom of people to bear guns for use as state militias?TEMPLAR67 wrote:I did not say that the government will immediately turn "evil"But if they can take away that right what else would they be able to take away.
The right to bear arms is based upon its use in militias. And that has been the state and federal court view, as well, since the 1930s."A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
I don't know where you're getting your information from, but I'd find a new source if I was you. Anyone who tells you the Britain has a higher violent crime rate than the US needs to put the crack pipe down. Violent crime has risen somewhat in recent years, mainly due to young kids imitating the gang culture of the US inner cities, but is still way below US standards. As for trying to tie in any increase in crime in the UK to 'law abiding citizens having their guns taken away', that really is ridiculous. Private ownership of guns has been illegal for decades in this country, certainly for the length of my lifetime. There were exceptions, being a member of a shooting club, with the proviso that the guns had to be kept under lock and key in the clubhouse; that was changed after Dunblain.TEMPLAR67 wrote:Its may be true that guns make it easier for someone to kill another person, but you are completely wrong in the argument that more guns = higher crime just look at Great Britain and you'll know what i mean, they actually have a higher violent crime rate than the US :speech: now that the law abiding citizens have had their guns taken away. If you believe that if a gun control law is enacted that criminals will just hand over their guns then you are very naive.
Ahh yes, because no other country in this world have governments without armed citizens.TEMPLAR67 wrote:Well i pray to God that that day never comes, i fear that it will spell the end of freedom in this country, governments love an unarmed citizen
And even if violent crime has risen to a so high level in the UK that it surpases the US I would really like to see the fatality numbers as well from crime or criminal influence. And by what mean these people died, meaning gun or "sword".galraen wrote:I don't know where you're getting your information from, but I'd find a new source if I was you. Anyone who tells you the Britain has a higher violent crime rate than the US needs to put the crack pipe down. Violent crime has risen somewhat in recent years, mainly due to young kids imitating the gang culture of the US inner cities, but is still way below US standards. As for trying to tie in any increase in crime in the UK to 'law abiding citizens having their guns taken away', that really is ridiculous. Private ownership of guns has been illegal for decades in this country, certainly for the length of my lifetime. There were exceptions, being a member of a shooting club, with the proviso that the guns had to be kept under lock and key in the clubhouse; that was changed after Dunblain.
<snip>.
and where do civilian militias come from again, oh yeah, the peopleThe right to bear arms is based upon its use in militias. And that has been the state and federal court view, as well, since the 1930s.
so, what your saying is that it is Americas fault that GB has violent crime:laugh:, thats a good one.Violent crime has risen somewhat in recent years, mainly due to young kids imitating the gang culture of the US inner cities, but is still way below US standards.
thats crime per capita not the actual #s.higher crime just look at Great Britain and you'll know what i mean, they actually have a higher violent crime rate than the US
Lets assume you were going to rob a house, is it possible you might think twice about doing it if you knew the owner could have a gun.As for trying to tie in any increase in crime in the UK to 'law abiding citizens having their guns taken away', that really is ridiculous. Private ownership of guns has been illegal for decades in this country, certainly for the length of my lifetime.
You misunderstand my point. The whole reason for the constitutional right to bear arms was its use in state militias. There was no right offered to bear arms aside from that, and this is the interpretation accepted by the Supreme Court since the 1930s. So if you don't belong to a state militia, you have no constitutional right to bear arms. The ability to do so is not constitutionally guaranteed, in other words.TEMPLAR67 wrote:and where do civilian militias come from again, oh yeah, the people
First off i do not appreciate personal attacks, and to "counter" fables comment im not 100% sure about state militias, if they are what is now called the national guard or what.Hmm - you start to come off more as a troll then somebody wanting to discuss/debate.
thats my response to fable.A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
I didn't say that it was America's fault, but the fault of gullible kids who think it's cool to immitate others.TEMPLAR67 wrote: so, what your saying is that it is Americas fault that GB has violent crime:laugh:, thats a good one.
thats crime per capita not the actual #s.
and if you want ridiculous, heres ridiculous for ya.BBC News | UK | Council's barbed wire ban
Thank you Xandax, that is exactly what I meant.Xandax wrote:But there is the factor when you have easy and fast access to weapons, compared to if you have to start looking around for it. It makes it harder to act deadly in "spur of the moment".
Now in this case of course, it was premeditated and not spur of the moment, however those other cases exists as well, and if the only weapon you can find within a few minutes is a big kitchen knife - there is less chance of fatality then if you can find a number of handguns.
That was not Xandax attacking you. He was making a statement as a moderator, warning you about your behavior, which is close to getting you another infraction, for the way you are responding to some people, here. I agree with him that some of your attacks have veered pretty closely to national defamation, so kindly watch your language.TEMPLAR67 wrote:First off i do not appreciate personal attacks...
Apparently, you didn't read what I wrote. Let me repeat part of it:Apparently i do b/c im bearing about 20 of them
This has nothing to do with your ability to have arms. It has to do with any constitutional guarantee--which doesn't exist. Once again, that's the Supreme Court's own interpretation of it that has stood repeatedly to tests over the years since the matter first came before the Court in the 1930s, when it was ruled that the matter was in the hands of the individual states.The ability to do so is not constitutionally guaranteed, in other words.
There was not a thing wrong with my behavior(i do believe this is speak your mind), the only reason i could see you giving me an infraction for what i said is b/c you dont agree w itThat was not Xandax attacking you. He was making a statement as a moderator, warning you about your behavior, which is close to getting you another infraction, for the way you are responding to some people, here. Not me, which is why I am in turn responding to you
.
I believe the 2nd amendment comes in 2 partsThis has nothing to do with your ability to have arms. It has to do with any constitutional guarantee--which doesn't exist.
apparently it does exist (its in red in case your having trouble finding it fable).A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
and i just remember it from an article in an NRA mag a while back.yes, i am a member of the NRAThe last part is a sure sign of desperation, digging back 6 years to come up with that story, man you must have a lot of spare time on your hands.
Anybody here can tell you that I have a long record of giving out infractions to people I like, regardless of liking them, and even of banning friends on occasion. I have also stood up for people I patently didn't like, when they were being flamed.TEMPLAR67 wrote:There was not a thing wrong with my behavior, the only reason i could see you giving me an infraction for what i said is b/c you dont agree w it
This is one sentence: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It has been interpreted as such since its signing.I believe the 2nd amendment comes in 2 parts
I can see you aren't going to respond to politeness, and you haven't apparently learned for my previous PMs to you.apparently it does exist (its in red in case your having trouble finding it).
You can be re a member of the Mormon Tabernacle Choir; it doesn't affect this conversation. I've had friends who were lifelong NRA members, and friends who protested in favor of complete gun bans. This again has nothing to do with the point that there is no constitutional guarantee of a right for individuals to bear arms, and that the top court in the nation has said as much for over 60 years. You can own 50 guns, if your state approves this, and if the guns fit the various requirements within that state for ownership. But constitutional rights to do so...? They're not there.and i just remember it from an article in an NRA mag a while back.yes, i am a member of the NRA
That doesn't surprise me at all, I figured you must be getting your false information from some dubious source. I'll forgo stating my opinion of Charlton Heston and his loony toon friends, I'd end up using so many expletives I'd get banned.TEMPLAR67 wrote:yes, i am a member of the NRA
[/QUOTE] I can't see any reason to take a gun into a school. The problem is that in most US schools, at least, there aren't guards to frisk and remove weapons beforehand. In any case, on a university campus, this is much more difficult to accomplish. Some students live off campus. Others live on, but in the typical campus, it's easy enough to step aside, and there's no rule that says you can't.Fiberfar wrote:Tell you what I think. Guns should never be allowed into schools (or any other place for that matter). I'd not like to be around if someone was pulling out a gun and suddenly ten others would do the same to stop that person. They'd likely end up shooting everyone around them with guns. (my thoughts, and rants I suppose).
"Guns don't kill people. People kill people."
Yeah well the guns certainly isn't bringing people back from the dead.
