Guns.

[Morgan_Corbesant]

well, i said it once, and ill say it again. if you ban weapons here in the U.S., then the only ones with them will be criminals. drugs are illegal here, so are alot of weapons, and explosives. well, there are ALL KINDS of criminals with all of the above mentioned illegal items. so if you get rid of guns, then good, upstanding citizens who EARNED the right to carry a gun for personal defense, and the right to defend not only themselves, but loved ones or any other inocent, are left out in the cold. the criminals would own the country, simply because there would be nobody who had a gun, so robberies would run rampant. i said it before, put a sign in your window saying "gun free home" and see if you arent robbed (this is in America remember). i agree that some guns should not be allowed. of course, i am a member of the military, and am 110% responsible for my own actions. i earned my rights, i serve my country. guys like me made this country free, and allowed all of the constitutional "rights" that everyone wants to call "given", yet they use these rights for the wrong reasons. i agree with the statement earlier about if you get rid of the second ammendment, then just do away with the constitution. because if you get rid of one, you may as well get rid of them all. if i lose my EARNED RIGHT to defend myself, my family, and the others in need, then i will just end up with an Australian accent, or some other accent, because i wont live in a country that is no longer free. i love America to death, because of what she is, and what she stands for. take that away, and you take away what America is.........FREEDOM!!!! (sorry about my spelling, we should get a spell checker in here, heh)

[ 05-26-2002, 12:14 PM: Message edited by: Morgan_Corbesant ]

[Grojlach]

But Morgan, how do you explain that in Europe, in which firearms *are* banned or very restricted, we don't have the entire "criminals own the country!" doom scenario you're giving us here at all? Aren't you a wee bit overreacting? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 05-26-2002, 12:57 PM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

[Morgan_Corbesant]

maybe you are right, maybe i went overboard with my exageration, but crime runs rampant as it is here. if we have absolutely NO way to defend ourselves, then it will only get worse. Europe doesnt have the crime that America does. yes, we are free, but that doesnt make us safe. if you take away our guns, then you take away our security. its that simple. America has been a country for over 200 years, and we have always had guns. if you take that away, then America is no longer America, just as if you took away freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. its a right, a given right, and an earned one. guns DONT kill people, its the people wielding them. lets say that guns WERE outlawed, and we'll go as far as to say that criminals dont have them either. then they will use knives, bats, rocks, sticks, or their bare hands. criminals will continue to plague our country until we enact stricter and harsher punishments. to hell with prison, all that does is give them three hots and a cot, and runs billions of dollars a year. i say if you rape, murder, torture, etc, you die. plain and simple, if you are convicted, you go straight from the courthouse to your deathbed, dont waste time, with which they will use to appeal, and end up getting out to kill, rape, maim, torture, etc. again. if someone steals, cut off their damn thumbs, im sure it wont happen again. am i strict? yes. am i fair? yes.will it happen? i seriously doubt it. taking away a weapon does nothing. PEOPLE commit crimes. true, guns make it easier, but they make it easier for me to DEFEND myself too. so i have NO weapon at all, because im a liberal democrat who thinks it wrong. suddenly, some guy comes at me with a knife, and i either lose my sense of well being, or pull a .40 calibre pistol out, put it in his mouth, and make him kiss the ground, hands behind his back, and i make a citizens arrest. (i know, its extreme, but im proving a point) the fact is, that people always act out against those they presume to be weak. if we have no way of defense, we are all weak. the police cant be everywhere at once. in the time it takes that police officer to respond to the call,that criminal can already pull the club, knife, gun, etc., kill me, and get away. we can what if this until we are blue in the face. i see where you are all coming from though. no guns equals no gun related crimes. well, you are WRONG!!! in california, it is illegal to own a fully automatic weapon, unless you have a class 3 firearms license, and all guns you buy go through the ATF, and a complete and thourough background check is conducted. yet, there are criminals that have AK47's, Mac-10's, TEC-9's, and in some instances, MP5's (my personal favorite). they have these guns, ILLEGALY, and they would if guns were completely banned. of course then they would only need pistols, and not machineguns, sub-machineguns, rifles, etc. if i were to take a fully loaded m16 with me to the middle ages of Europe, and start shooting at armored knights, im sure i can change the whole course of the battle. its the same if you outlaw guns here. sure, we'll have knives, but like Hitler in WW2, he had better guns, and the like, and he conqoured the majority of europe. same problem, different scenario. if guns are outlawed, i will take all of mine, and live in the mountains somewhere, all alone (well, ill take my wife too perhaps)and let someone take them from me then. i dont remember who said it, but there is a famous quote, and it reads as follows, "they can have my gun, when the pry it from my cold dead finger", or something to that effect. i feel the same way. i earned my right, i served my country, i WILL own a way to protect myself. again, sorry for the spelling all.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Mouse: quote: Originally posted by Yorick: Paranoia.

Yorick, if that is your response to Earthdog's post, then you are in breach of the ToS. It's not just insulting to answer in such a dismissive one word manner, it's tantamount to flamebaiting. If you wish to participate in this thread, please refrain from such posts in future.

As for the rest of you, what I've said above applies equally to you all. Keep this debate on-topic and refrain from overt or covert personal attacks. I (and the other GD mods) have been close to shutting this topic several times, but have allowed it to carry on. However, if it descends into childish namecalling, action will be taken.

You have been warned.[/QUOTE]Sorry Mouse, there was nothing more I had to say. I wasn't aware it was a ToS breach. I could have said the same thing in more words but didn;t feel the need.

The views presented - the 'big brother' bit to be precise - were of a paranoid nature. That meaning, being fearful of a bleak future without substancial proof it will be so, and relying on pure speculation.

I don't respect that line of thinking, and certainly won't bother responding at length to it.

Perhaps I should have said nothing at all.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Morgan_Corbesant: maybe you are right, maybe i went overboard with my exageration, but crime runs rampant as it is here. if we have absolutely NO way to defend ourselves, then it will only get worse. Europe doesnt have the crime that America does. yes, we are free, but that doesnt make us safe. if you take away our guns, then you take away our security. its that simple. America has been a country for over 200 years, and we have always had guns. if you take that away, then America is no longer America, just as if you took away freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc. its a right, a given right, and an earned one. guns DONT kill people, its the people wielding them. lets say that guns WERE outlawed, and we'll go as far as to say that criminals dont have them either. then they will use knives, bats, rocks, sticks, or their bare hands. criminals will continue to plague our country until we enact stricter and harsher punishments. to hell with prison, all that does is give them three hots and a cot, and runs billions of dollars a year. i say if you rape, murder, torture, etc, you die. plain and simple, if you are convicted, you go straight from the courthouse to your deathbed, dont waste time, with which they will use to appeal, and end up getting out to kill, rape, maim, torture, etc. again. if someone steals, cut off their damn thumbs, im sure it wont happen again. am i strict? yes. am i fair? yes.will it happen? i seriously doubt it. taking away a weapon does nothing. PEOPLE commit crimes. true, guns make it easier, but they make it easier for me to DEFEND myself too. so i have NO weapon at all, because im a liberal democrat who thinks it wrong. suddenly, some guy comes at me with a knife, and i either lose my sense of well being, or pull a .40 calibre pistol out, put it in his mouth, and make him kiss the ground, hands behind his back, and i make a citizens arrest. (i know, its extreme, but im proving a point) the fact is, that people always act out against those they presume to be weak. if we have no way of defense, we are all weak. the police cant be everywhere at once. in the time it takes that police officer to respond to the call,that criminal can already pull the club, knife, gun, etc., kill me, and get away. we can what if this until we are blue in the face. i see where you are all coming from though. no guns equals no gun related crimes. well, you are WRONG!!! in california, it is illegal to own a fully automatic weapon, unless you have a class 3 firearms license, and all guns you buy go through the ATF, and a complete and thourough background check is conducted. yet, there are criminals that have AK47's, Mac-10's, TEC-9's, and in some instances, MP5's (my personal favorite). they have these guns, ILLEGALY, and they would if guns were completely banned. of course then they would only need pistols, and not machineguns, sub-machineguns, rifles, etc. if i were to take a fully loaded m16 with me to the middle ages of Europe, and start shooting at armored knights, im sure i can change the whole course of the battle. its the same if you outlaw guns here. sure, we'll have knives, but like Hitler in WW2, he had better guns, and the like, and he conqoured the majority of europe. same problem, different scenario. if guns are outlawed, i will take all of mine, and live in the mountains somewhere, all alone (well, ill take my wife too perhaps)and let someone take them from me then. i dont remember who said it, but there is a famous quote, and it reads as follows, "they can have my gun, when the pry it from my cold dead finger", or something to that effect. i feel the same way. i earned my right, i served my country, i WILL own a way to protect myself. again, sorry for the spelling all.

Morgan, I have not read your posts because you have not given any paragraph breaks. It makes very difficult reading.

So, I don't know what you're saying outside of what Groljach is responding to.

Groljach, for what it's worth, I agree with you. Totally.

[Sir Heinrich Godfrie IV]

Morgan Corbesant: i dont remember who said it, but there is a famous quote, and it reads as follows, "they can have my gun, when the pry it from my cold dead finger", or something to that effect.

I'm not sure if you are being sarcastic or not, but I'll tell you anyways.

That was said by a man known as....Moses. A.k.a. the great Charlton Heston.

And I want to mention that I enjoyed reading your posts, even if you forgot to add paragraph breaks

[Ar-Cunin]

Since nobody else have done this, I have decided to post this - straight from the horses mouth - as it were. Please read it - I just read this ENTIRE thread - it 'only' around an hour

BTW: I support the banning of firearms

--------------------------------------

BEARING ARMS

__________

SECOND AMENDMENT

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.

My comment: end of amendment - and on with official commentary.

In spite of extensive recent discussion and much legislative
action with respect to regulation of the purchase, possession, and
transportation of firearms, as well as proposals to substantially
curtail ownership of firearms, there is no definitive resolution by the
courts of just what right the Second Amendment protects. The opposing
theories, perhaps oversimplified, are an ``individual rights'' thesis
whereby individuals are protected in ownership, possession, and
transportation, and a ``states' rights'' thesis whereby it is said the
purpose of the clause is to protect the States in their authority to
maintain formal, organized militia units.\1\ Whatever the Amendment may
mean, it is a bar only to federal action, not extending to state\2\ or
private\3\ restraints. The Supreme Court has given effect to the
dependent clause of the Amendment in the only case in which it has
tested a congressional enactment against the constitutional prohibition,
seeming to affirm individual protection but only in the context of the
maintenance of a militia or other such public force.

\1\A sampling of the diverse literature in which the same
historical, linguistic, and case law background is the basis for
strikingly different conclusions is: Staff of Subcom. on the
Constitution, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 97th Congress, 2d
Sess., The Right to Keep and Bear Arms (Comm. Print 1982); Don B. Kates,
Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment
(1984); Gun Control and the Constitution: Sources and Explorations on
the Second Amendment (Robert J. Cottrol, ed. 1993); Stephen P. Halbrook,
That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right (1984);
Symposium, Gun Control, 49 Law & Contemp. Probs. 1 (1986); Sanford
Levinson, The Embarrassing Second Amendment, 99 Yale L.J. 637 (1989).
\2\Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252, 265 (1886). See also
Miller v. Texas, 153 U.S. 535 (1894); Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S.
275, 281-282 (1897). The non-application of the Second Amendment to the
States is good law today. Quilici v. Village of Morton Grove, 695 F. 2d
261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 863 (1983).
\3\United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In United States v. Miller,\4\ the Court sustained a statute
requiring registration under the National Firearms Act of sawed-off

[[Page 1194]]
shotguns. After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution
dealing with the militia, the Court observed that ``[w]ith obvious
purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness
of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment
were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view.''\5\ The
significance of the militia, the Court continued, was that it was
composed of ``civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.'' It was upon
this force that the States could rely for defense and securing of the
laws, on a force that ``comprised all males physically capable of acting
in concert for the common defense,'' who, ``when called for service
. . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of
the kind in common use at the time.''\6\ Therefore, ``[i]n the absence
of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a `shotgun
having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this time has some
reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-
regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees
the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not
within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary
military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common
defense.''\7\

\4\307 U.S. 174 (1939). The defendants had been released on the
basis of the trial court determination that prosecution would violate
the Second Amendment and no briefs or other appearances were filed on
their behalf; the Court acted on the basis of the Government's
representations.
\5\Id. at 178.
\6\Id. at 179.
\7\Id. at 178. In Cases v. United States, 131 F. 2d 916, 922
(1st Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 770 (1943), the court, upholding
a similar provision of the Federal Firearms Act, said: ``Apparently,
then, under the Second Amendment, the federal government can limit the
keeping and bearing of arms by a single individual as well as by a group
of individuals, but it cannot prohibit the possession or use of any
weapon which has any reasonable relationship to the preservation or
efficiency of a well-regulated militia.'' See Lewis v. United States,
445 U.S. 55, 65 n.8 (1980) (dictum: Miller holds that the ``Second
Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not
have `some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of
a well regulated militia''').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Since this decision, Congress has placed greater limitations on
the receipt, possession, and transportation of firearms,\8\ and
proposals for national registration or prohibition of firearms
altogether have been made.\9\ At what point regulation or prohibition of
what classes of firearms would conflict with the Amendment, if at all,
the Miller case does little more than cast a faint degree of
illumination toward an answer.

\8\Enacted measures include the Gun Control Act of 1968. 82
Stat. 226, 18 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 921-928. The Supreme Court's dealings
with these laws have all arisen in the context of prosecutions of
persons purchasing or obtaining firearms in violation of a provisions
against such conduct by convicted felons. Lewis v. United States, 445
U.S. 55 (1980); Barrett v. United States, 423 U.S. 212 (1976);
Scarborough v. United States, 431 U.S. 563 (1977); United States v.
Bass, 404 U.S. 336 (1971).
\9\E.g., National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws,
Working Papers 1031-1058 (1970), and Final Report 246-247 (1971).

This document is sponsored by the United States Senate on the United States Government Printing Office web site.

Fortunatly for US citizens, citizens of Denmark do not get to decide our laws [img]smile.gif[/img] It was to partly to escape the types of government that exist in europe our ancestors left those countries and formed a more perfect union, a nation that grew greater and stronger than any that had come before. Guns are part of our culture and our civil rights, end of discussion, untill the majority of US citizens decide otherwise. (Our government does not tell us what they want, we tell them what we want. It is called a representative republic)

Nothing left to be said.

[ 05-26-2002, 08:53 PM: Message edited by: MagiK ]

[Attalus]

Lol, I wanted to say that the last time that I was in England, I stayed with a wonderful guy in Shropshire, and he had an entire room in his house filled with trophies and guns that had been owned by his father, his grandfather, and I don't know what all. If you got poking around in there, you probably would have found a Brown Bess. It was called, no surprise, the Gun Room. In fact, when Galadria and I arrived, his lovely wife said that "He is in the Gun Room." when we asked about him. So, Europeans are armed, just the upper classes.

[Earthdog]

Originally posted by MagiK: Fortunatly for US citizens, citizens of Denmark do not get to decide our laws [img]smile.gif[/img] It was to partly to escape the types of government that exist in europe our ancestors left those countries and formed a more perfect union, a nation that grew greater and stronger than any that had come before. Guns are part of our culture and our civil rights, end of discussion, untill the majority of US citizens decide otherwise. (Our government does not tell us what they want, we tell them what we want. It is called a representative republic) Nothing left to be said.

I agree with most all of this, except the part in parenthasis. Our Congress does do what it wants when it wants. Bills are put forward for consideration by Congressman. I cant recall Public outcry being the cause of Congress banning certain guns being owned by the general public. If im wrong tell me who the non-Government employee was that said "They shouldn't be able to own these kinds of weapons" That was definitely Congress that came up with that idea.

Morgan has made some very valuable points. I concur that if someone takes our guns away you take away our personal security. Gun dont kill people by themselves. They need a person to weild them.

I was discussing this with a friend yesterday and he tried to tell me that guns are dangerous. I disagree. People are dangerous. If someone wants you dead, youll be dead. He asked if a coffee cup or a pencil were as dangerous as an M-16??? I said equally as dangerous.. He asked how did I figure that???

My response was let someone stab you in the neck 42 times with a pencil and tell me how safe it is. The only difference is the RANGE at which you die. And I just have to think that being stabbed repeatedly with a pencil is MUCH more painful than being shot. I have a pretty good knowldge of what it feels like to be shot because I've BEEN shot. How many other people that post here can say that? Im STILL against gun laws.

Its funny to me in a weird sort of way, that in light of my previous paragraph that people who commit serial multicide generally dont use guns. They use pencils, knives, poisons, cars, or even an article of the victims own clothing. In Australia there have only been 2 or 3 serial killers that have actually used guns in any of their murders. Stabbing seems to be the favourite method, with poison running a close second. How are they going to keep people from getting knives or rat poison?

Take the guns away from the law abiding citizens and the only people that have guns are the criminals. Thats a fact. Why do liquor stores still get held up in Australia?? Because the Criminals didnt turn their guns in like everyone else did. THEIR CRIMINALS DUHHHHH.

How many guns were owned by the general public in France when Hitler invaded??? Would I be correct in saying "Not many"??? I know this is what some people consider cold war paranoia but the reason the USA will never be invaded is because too many guns owned by the public would make invasion very difficult. Anywhere there is a farm, ranch, or just a good ole redneck the invaders will have more than just the military to worry about. Not so in France, Bosnia, Slovakia, Holland, ect.

I pray to God there is never another Hitler. Europe is easy pickins. Not so in the USA. And for one simple reason, Guns.

[ 05-27-2002, 02:49 AM: Message edited by: Earthdog ]