And now, let's take our "Holy Irony, Batman!" moment for John Gilchrist Lodge: If guns weren't around, Hitler wouldn't have been ABLE to conquer and dominate......




Let's have a little less eye-rolling and sarcasm, and a little more civility in our posts. This is how flamewars start, and THAT behavior gets people a time out.......

I'm a big pro-gun advocate, but Metalheadz' post has merit.

If guns are why people are killed then the spoon is the reason Rosie O'Donnell is fat.

BR also speaks wisdom.


I'm honestly of the mindset that ANY gun control law is actually unconstitutional.....

I just get tired of this debate, though I know it will never end. Guns can be used for evil but they do have uses that law abiding citizens would be stopped from doing. The criminals will still have guns and use them for their purposes. I'm not for banning things that can be used in positive ways because some misuse them. It's like Sudafed. In some states it's hard to get or banned because it's used to make meth. Does anyone think meth has lessened because of this? Why not work harder at enforcing the laws already there intended to lessen the misuse of these items?

Science and the green movement is becoming the new despotism. You will capitulate or be cast out.

A couple of points I have to make.

NoahsFaith wrote:

metalheadz, you are missing another point out that original post. Do you believe that guns murder or that people murder? I agree that guns are made primarily to be used to shoot people, but I have no apology for that fact. There are legitimate reasons to shoot people, such as self-defense and defense of country.

I believe that guns make murder more common because resorting to a gun is much easier than being diplomatic, or thinking rationally. E.g. If someone pulls a gun on you and demands that you hand over what money you have on you, it's far better just to hand over the money and let them be on their way. Pulling a gun on them just escalates the tension and brings needless danger to yourself and others. There is one problem with the whole "I need a gun to protect myself/family" mindset, other than being against the teachings of Jesus IMO, is that it usually puts your family at more risk. Take the scenario of a home invasion. Some people believe it's their right to shoot the intruder. The problem is that, statistically, the person shot is a burglar only 1% of the time. It's more common that the home-owner is shot instead, and it's far more common that the person the home-owner shoots is a loved one. I read one case where a man woke up and saw someone in his room so he grabbed his gun and shot the person dead. When he turned on the light he discovered that the "intruder" was actually his wife.

2. I should clarify my position on gun control. I am neither in the "I love guns" or the "I hate guns" camp. I have fired guns several times and one of my favourite sports is paintball. I have no problem with anyone who has a rifle locked away, securely, in a safe, and uses it responsibly. I simply think that there needs to be greater restrictions on guns. I think the use of guns by the army or highly trained police officers is acceptable (even though the police in my country don't carry firearms). I believe it needs to harder to get guns and there needs to be greater restrictions on what guns can be owned. Civilians don't need automatic weapons or assault rifles. There needs to be greater control over who can buy a gun and how they buy it. I was shocked to discover that in some places a license is not required to own or purchase firearms. I've also heard some Americans say that they sleep with a loaded gun by their bed. Is this even legal? It's certainly not legal where I come from. In fact, doing that would break three different gun laws.

3.

John Gilchrist Lodge wrote:

Here's the "Holy irony, Batman!" moment for Metalheadz: if soldiers with those big, bad, eeeeevil mean guns hadn't taken up arms to fight for our freedom (including his), he wouldn't have the right to bloviate on a message board about how eeeeeeeeeeeeevil they are. I submit he (along with us) could very well be living in a dictatorship today under a Nazi regime (started by Hitler), which would not allow such dissent.

I'm fine with guns in the army simply because it's somewhat regulated in the army.

Also see point 4.

4.

exo wrote:

And now, let's take our "Holy Irony, Batman!" moment for John Gilchrist Lodge: If guns weren't around, Hitler wouldn't have been ABLE to conquer and dominate......

Bingo. One of the reasons Hitler gained so much power was because he ordered the murder of anyone was vaguely a threat.

5.

FireStormWarning wrote:

I'm a big pro-gun advocate, but Metalheadz' post has merit.

Thank you, FireStormWarning.

6.

Black Rider wrote:

If guns are why people are killed then the spoon is the reason Rosie O'Donnell is fat.

Urgh... Rosie O'Donnell *shudders*

_________________
"Nonviolence means avoiding not only external physical violence but also internal violence of spirit. You not only refuse to shoot a man, but you refuse to hate him." - Martin Luther King Jr.

Quote:

ultmetal wrote: Both! All wankers are banned! CrissOlivaShreds wrote: This board will be empty.

Hey Metalheadz......I just finished reading all of the posts since last i've been on the thread. Just now finished. I will post to answer you.....later. Sooner than later. However, now, *real life* intrudes and I want to make one other quick post on a thread and then i'm off the CMR for a bit.


I'll answer you in a bit. I'm not saying you'll either like my answer, nor am I saying it will be particularly deep or meaningful.....just.....what it is.

Like it or not like it; agree with it or not agree with it......your prerogatives are your own.

L8R dude. Greg

*BUMP*


Broken
Ukranian
Males
Protest


I am quickly bumping this because I want to make darn sure that the last post of mine is seen by Intrigued1. This post:

"

Quote:

I get the fact that most of you are very upset with the policies of the current president.

I think they suck......suck long and hard.


And you know what dudes and dudettes?? His lousy policies have nothing, NOTHING to do with the color of his skin. I don't freaking care if Sith Lord Obama--Wan's skin is light brown, dark brown, lily white (like mine), red, green, lavender, or blue.......not too dark blue that overpowers the viewer and not too light blue that may be too bright......but, you know, a tasteful blue that is *just right* blue. I DON'T FREAKING CARE WHAT HIS SKIN COLOR IS.

His ideologies, politics, deep historical ignorance, utter naivity regarding......oh many subjects of importance to the POTUS, faulty worldview and the policies that spring from those mental inadequacies......all these things matter. NOT the color of his skin. "


Also, FSW's last post after mine is good, too......IMO. Especially the last sentence of it.

1. A good friend of mine wrote a college thesis awhile back on how hands are actually MORE deadly than guns.

2. I do not see defending my friends and family as being against Christ's teachings.

3. If guns are banned, then other kinds of violence will rise, and the government of the United States will see reason to ban those too. Pretty soon we'll all have our hands cut off because we MIGHT resort to fist-fighting. :/

That's all I've got to say about that.

Noahsfaith said

Quote:

Do you believe that guns murder or that people murder?

That reminds me of a quote from GTA 3 when this redneck comes on the radio and says "guns dont kill people, death kills people". My point? guns may not go out intending on killing someone but they defintetely make it allot easier and cleaner. If a crim went out to kill someone and they had a gun they are more likely to get away with it than if they used a knife, restrictions on guns would make it harder to get high powered weapons which have no use in civilian life.

Noahsfaith also said

Quote:

I agree that guns are made primarily to be used to shoot people, but I have no apology for that fact. There are legitimate reasons to shoot people, such as self-defense and defense of country.

There are other ways to defend yourself than using a gun which wont kill the other person. anyway its more likely the gun used to 'defend' yourself is the one you use to accidently kill a loved one.

This whole debate is pointless and it was GW who I would assume is against gun restrictions who brought it up anyway. im not saying that hunting rifles should be banned, but smgs, semi automatic pistols/revolvers, armour piercing sniper rifles and assault rifles have no useful purpose in civilian life and if crims are getting their hands on these weapons, it should be within the governments power to cut off their supply by banning their sale to anyone other than the police and military.

Since less than 1% of gun crimes involve those weapons, Shadow_Zone, that argument's kind of pointless.

The real point is that "gun control" laws only keep guns out of the hands of law abiding citizens, they do absolutely nothing to keep guns away from criminals. Washington DC has the strictest "gun control" laws in the US, they enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the overall rate in the U.S. rose 12%.

There are other examples of this as well. In England at the turn of the 20th century, guns were as freely available as they are in America. England's Bill of Rights, which was enacted in 1688, very clearly defined gun ownership as an individual right. Over those centuries when guns were freely available, murder rates were steadily declining. After WWI, England began enacting laws restricting the private ownership of firearms. After WWII, these laws became even more restrictive, eventually disarming the law abiding English citizens.

But as guns were taken away from private citizens, gun vilence and the murder rate began to rise. Over a three year period near the end of the 19th century, there were 59 deaths from handguns. 19 of those deaths were accidents, 35 were suicides and only three were homicides, an average of one a year. Now, England has not yet surpassed America in terms of murder rates, but they do have more robberies and burgleries. In 1954, there were only a dozen armed robberies in London, but by the 1990's there were over a hundred times more. Murder rates from firearms are also going up in England and have been for decades, while in the US murder rates are declining, due in part to concealed carry laws.

Florida enacted a right to carry law in 1987. "Gun control" advocates predicted violence and mayhem, but between 1987 and 1996, the homicide rate went down 36%, while nationally there was a .4% decline over the same time period. Firearm homicides went down 37% in Florida, but rose 15% nationally and handgun homicide rates went down 41% in Florida and rose 24% nationally. When the law was passed, Dade County started tracking arrest records for people with concealed carry permits. The program was abandoned in 1992 because there was not enough data to justify keeping track of it, only 4 crimes in those five years, with none of the crimes resulting in an injury. Nationally, there was only one permit holder who has ever shot another human being as of 1998. They were not charged because it was ruled self defense. No permit holder has ever shot a police officer, but there have been multiple instances where a permit holder used their gun to defend a police officer in danger.

Finally, there is the myth of the "assault rifle". The only difference between an assault rifle and a hunting rifle is the appearance. The bullets and calibers used are often identical, but an assault rifle has features like a folding stock, threaded barrel for a flash supressor, bayonet holder, etc... On what grounds do we justify banning a gun because it looks different? Are more crimes committed with assault rifles?

Hardly. Assault rifles were involved in less than one percent of firearms homicides when the ban was enacted in 1994 and it remained the same after it was in place and after it was lifted. The assault weapons ban had no effect whatsoever.

I totally understand the arguements behind "gun control"....and I empathize with those that feel that way. But all it takes is some SIMPLE logical analysis to see that the arguements DO NOT hold up to scrutiny.

Quote:

it should be within the governments power to cut off their supply by banning their sale to anyone other than the police and military.

I take GREAT issue with this, simply because of the naivete involved in the process. It absolutely REQUIRES that those in power have an honest consideration for those they govern. Historically, this is NOT how humanity plays out. Heck, this isn't how it's playing out NOW.....and it sure as heck isn't how it played out for my country prior to 1776.

the USA has its 2nd ammendment SPECIFICALLY to keep firearms in the hands of it's citizens, should the need arise again for the citizenry to take up arms against those governing it. THAT was the primary reason. The founders of the USA had an understanding of the nature of man that it seems few people in this day and age posess....

_________________
Obama is no more the Anti-Christ than George Bush is Sauron, sending his armies into Iraq searching for the One Ring.....

Dwarven gravitational theory states that enough ale will make anything fall down.

Madness does not always howl. Sometimes, it is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying, "Hey, is there room in your head for one more?"

The founding fathers understood that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and that when any group or individual gets that power, it is to the detriment of the people they govern.

When the government fears the people there is liberty; when the people fear the government there is tyranny.- Thomas Jefferson


"The natural progress of things
is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground. This is so
because those who gain positions of power tend always to extend the
bounds of it. Power must always be constrained or limited else it will
increase to the level that it will be despotic." - Thomas Jefferson

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people
always possess arms..." - Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Member of the First
U.S. Senate.

"...to disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them..." - George Mason

"Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every
other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an
American ...the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of
either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it
will ever remain, in the hands of the people." - Tench Coxe, 20 Feb
1788;

History dictates that taking away the ability of the people to defend themselves allows for government to reign supreme. Government unchecked leads to dictatorships. I for one believe the right to bear arms is something every patriotic American should take seriously! When we lay down our right to defend ourselves and our families then we may as well put on the mantle of serf and slave away for our "lord" with no hope of ever being truly FREE!

Barack Obama is officially the absolute dumbest person to ever occupy the White House.

I KNOW we have an Official Obama Discussion thread. I changed it to that intentionally so that we could limit the number of political threads and keep the board at a sanity level that most non-political folks are comfortable with. I understand your weariness with political topics, I really do. I am weary of the BS (Barbara Streisand) myself.

But this deserves it's own topic. Each and every one of you, American or not, politicallt concious or not, NEEDS to know about the latest action by B. Hussein Obama. It not only illustrates how egotistical, arrogant, conceited and selfish Obama is, it is also an indicator of the absolute utter STUPIDITY of the man. I kid you not.

Apparently, Barack Obama thought that he would create a good photo op for himself by taking one of the many 747's he has at his presidential disposal and buzzing the Statue of Liberty, accompanied by a US military fighter jet. He did this in secret (like a 747 buzzing the Statue of Liberty could be kept a secret).

Let's set aside the waste of jet fuel in a time of recession and the "carbon footprint" this created. Those issues are there, but minor IMO.

Why on earth would Barack Obama not stop to "think" that taking a fully loaded 747 and a military jet might... just might possibly, be misunderstood by a New York City populace for whom 9/11 is much more than a distant memory? What was he thinking?

Answer... he wasn't.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124084127590859371.html

I've been personally staying as far away from this as possible.


REGARDLESS of whether or not he "knew" what was going on as far as publicity staff and phot ops....it is his BUSINESS to KNOW what his staff is doing, and it sure seems to me that, as President (and Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces), he'd sure as heck be needing to sign off on orders that invovled Air Force One being airborne......

Suffice it to say that the stances and reasoning FOR those stances that he voiced back in primary season were a STRONG indicator that the man does NOT think things thru to their conclusion.....

From the post by TallT:

Quote:

Barack Obama is officially the absolute dumbest person to ever occupy the White House.

Bingo.

Quote:

It not only illustrates how egotistical, arrogant, conceited and selfish Obama is, it is also an indicator of the absolute utter STUPIDITY of the man. I kid you not.

Bingo.



From the post by Exo:

Quote:

REGARDLESS of whether or not he "knew" what was going on as far as publicity staff and phot ops....it is his BUSINESS to KNOW what his staff is doing, and it sure seems to me that, as President (and Commander in Chief of the US Armed Forces), he'd sure as heck be needing to sign off on orders that invovled Air Force One being airborne

Bingo. And......he does need to sign off.



Hey....... ......this is a wonderful opportunity for me to repost something I said from yesterday :

Quote:

Quote: I get the fact that most of you are very upset with the policies of the current president. I think they suck......suck long and hard. And you know what dudes and dudettes?? His lousy policies have nothing, NOTHING to do with the color of his skin. I don't freaking care if Sith Lord Obama--Wan's skin is light brown, dark brown, lily white (like mine), red, green, lavender, or blue.......not too dark blue that overpowers the viewer and not too light blue that may be too bright......but, you know, a tasteful blue that is *just right* blue. I DON'T FREAKING CARE WHAT HIS SKIN COLOR IS. His ideologies, politics, deep historical ignorance, utter naivity regarding......oh many subjects of importance to the POTUS, faulty worldview and the policies that spring from those mental inadequacies......all these things matter. NOT the color of his skin.

This part I emphasize in bold face:

Quote:

His ideologies, politics, deep historical ignorance, utter naivity regarding......oh many subjects of importance to the POTUS, faulty worldview and the policies that spring from those mental inadequacies......all these things matter.

I love Sith Lord Obama--Wan.

Nothing like a POTUS as far to the left, left of Leftist, left as can be imagined.


And he lies so well.

_________________
"The 'farce' is strong with Sith Lord Obama-Wan." words of Scourge.

"Uh....You can believe me....Uh....because I never lie, and....Uh....Uh....I am always right." words of Sith Lord Obama-Wan.

Daddy likes it all, the DraíodóirDé likes it all