Banning assault weapons again.

Cole,

I look forward to your solution to the crime problem.

Cheers

BHR

Originally posted by C0le

And i ask this to all anti-gun people,

1. Why are you so afraid of guns?
2. Have you ever been shot?
3. Have you ever had a gun pointed at your head?
4. Have you ever been a victim of a gun crime?
[edit on 8-4-2005 by C0le]

1. Not in any way scared of them, I found clay pigeon shooting quite fun.

2. No, because thankfully the average Joe cannot own one and firing ranges are strictly controlled. I have never been accidentally shot or shot on purpose.

3. No, because as I said guns are for the most part illegal, so I do not need to worry about that happening.

4. Again, no, because thankfully guns are illegal. Gun crime is a tiny problem here.

Kriz4,

Good reply there.

The pro-gun people feel that those opposed to guns must have a personal hatred for guns.

What they do not realise is that in the 21st century the desire to own a gun is outdated. They are applying 18th century logic to a 21st century problem.

Cheers

BHR

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Kriz4,

Good reply there.

The pro-gun people feel that those opposed to guns must have a personal hatred for guns.

What they do not realise is that in the 21st century the desire to own a gun is outdated. They are applying 18th century logic to a 21st century problem.

Cheers

BHR

ummmm.... So .... Um.... Billl.... If you are are so smart, how come you ain't rich?

The ability to do what I want as I go through life, as long as I'm not hurting you, isn't really 18th century logic. As a matter of fact, 18th century logic, kind of appears to be on the order of a few folks dictating the way it should be for everyone.

Uh..oh... This thread may belong over in the NWO area.

Arrrrggghhhhh.... It just occured to me that you, Bill Hicks, are probably an Illuminati infested Masonic, evil New World Order Disinformation Agent with a top security clearance signed by Dr. Dan Buresch!!!!!


edited for added silliness and taking the Mickey on Bill Hicks....

[edit on 11-4-2005 by sigung86]

What they do not realise is that in the 21st century the desire to own a gun is outdated. They are applying 18th century logic to a 21st century problem.

If thats the case amend the Constitution instead of trying to circumvent it.

Skibum,

I am sure they would if they thought that a proper reasoned debate could be held on the subject.

However, the NRA will not allow that.

So therefore they have to do what they can, however they can.

Cheers

BHR

So do you support the circumvention of all rights as needed, or just the 2nd amendment? After all the government has a long history of trying to circumvent our rights, and if it weren't for these groups like the ACLU, NRA and others we wouldn't have any left.

Its not about the NRA allowing it, if there is truly enough public support for something congress can be pretty much taken out of the loop when amending the constitution. But I guess that other than a small minority of people are okay with how things are going.

[edit on 11/4/05 by Skibum]

Ski,

Are you aware of what is required to alter the US constitution?

Are you further aware that the power the NRA and gun makers hold in the US political system?

Furthermore, I would hardly say that the passing of a law through all the hoops that entails, can be referred to as circumventing anything.

The Constitution provides for "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 is up to your elected officials to define keeping, bearing and arms.

Cheers

BHR

P.S. Where is the well-regulated militia you are supposed to be members of as part of the right to keep arms?



[edit on 11-4-2005 by BillHicksRules]

Are you aware of what is required to alter the US constitution?

Yes and congress does not need to be involved.

It is up to your elected officials to define keeping, bearing and arms.

Wrong it is up to the court to interpret the meaning. And so far they have upheld a persons right to own firearms. If it were up to elected officials, they would be able to pass any law and have it hold up to constitutional scrutiny. I don't know how it is over there but here the constitution supercedes all laws.

Where is the well-regulated militia you are supposed to be members of as part of the right to keep arms?

Two separate parts of the 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

meaning since a well regulated militia is necessary the right of the people ,meaning all people, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, not the right of people in a militia.

[edit on 11/4/05 by Skibum]

Skibum,

So now you are able to tell me what a sentence actually means.

Kinda full of your own importance aint ya.

"This is what it says but this is actually what they meant"

No chance they meant what they said and they said what they meant?

Cheers

BHR

p.s. Congress does need to be involved, see article 5 of YOUR constitution
"
Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. "

That means Congress must be involved in any Amendments to the Constitution.

[edit on 11-4-2005 by BillHicksRules]

If you want to you can read what the writers meant.

The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

-Thomas Jefferson

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson

the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

- George Mason


"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms..."

-Richard Henry Lee




"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."

-Samuel Adams


"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that is good."

-George Washington


I'm pretty sure they wrote what they meant.

It's not my importance, its how the document has been interpreted since the beginning.


Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate. "

Or is the important word there. Congress can start the process or
The states can.
If the states do it congress is not needed.

"There are essentially two ways spelled out in the Constitution for how it can be amended. One has never been used.

The first method is for a bill to pass both halves of the legislature, by a two-thirds majority in each. Once the bill has passed both houses, it goes on to the states. This is the route taken by all current amendments. Because of some long outstanding amendments, such as the 27th, Congress will normally put a time limit (typically seven years) for the bill to be approved as an amendment (for example, see the 21st and 22nd).

The second method prescribed is for a Constitutional Convention to be called by two-thirds of the legislatures of the States, and for that Convention to propose one or more amendments. These amendments are then sent to the states to be approved by three-fourths of the legislatures or conventions. This route has never been taken, and there is discussion in political science circles about just how such a convention would be convened, and what kind of changes it would bring about.

Regardless of which of the two proposal routes is taken, the amendment must be approved by three-fourths of states. The amendment as passed may specify whether the bill must be passed by the state legislatures or by a state convention."
www.usconstitution.net...


So in a nutshell, congress is NOT needed.


[edit on 11/4/05 by Skibum]

[edit on 11/4/05 by Skibum]

Ski,

So what you are saying is that only amendments on the Constitution were raised by Congress?

Yet Congress does not need to be involved.

Ok I will grant you that it need not be involved if you will grant me that in the 200+ year history of your nation an amendment has never been passed without it.

Cheers

BHR

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
Ski,

So what you are saying is that only amendments on the Constitution were raised by Congress?

Yet Congress does not need to be involved.

Ok I will grant you that it need not be involved if you will grant me that in the 200+ year history of your nation an amendment has never been passed without it.

Cheers

BHR

Exactly, The amendments we have, have been started by Congress. However if it were important enough to the citizens, the states could amend the Constitution without Congress. I suppose the reason the states have never had to do it is because if enough pressure is put on congress they do it themselves. If an issue were so important and congress fails to act, the states have the option to act themselves.

Okay I will grant you that. No problem.


[edit on 11/4/05 by Skibum]

it is important for them, the government/secret societies to ban assault weapons, so they can issue in martial law. I saw a quote earlier from Thomas Jefferson saying something about freemen. as long as you have to work, for what I don't know, you aren't free. money is their main way of control. I used to think schools and education, but that's not the case, if you look at this site alone. (notice I said you) but money will soon lose its power. that's why they are scaring people now. they are constantly practicing martial law with kidnappings, shootings and urban warfare. this time next year, our liberties will be stripped completely. I might need to post the Patroit Act 2, as a reminder. because once they act out their next 9.11, on a much greater scale, they will lock the country down.

Thomas Jefferson saying something about freemen. as long as you have to work, for what I don't know, you aren't free. money is their main way of control.

Nobody said we were absolutely free to do anything we wanted. We still have to live within the constraints of a society. Unless you choose to buy yourself an island an live like a hermit for the rest of your life.

Once you get enough people together rules will eventually be laid down in one form or another. Bartering will happen, unless you can do everything for yourself. Money is just more convenient for trading.

I don't see the control part you claim, you are free not to work, but just like if there was no money you would still have to pay the consequences.
If there were no money and you chose not to work you would still have nowhere to live since you didn't build a house, you would still starve since you didn't plant or harvest your crops, you would still freeze in the winter since you didn't collect enough firewood to last through the winter etc. etc. etc.

Originally posted by Skibum

Thomas Jefferson saying something about freemen. as long as you have to work, for what I don't know, you aren't free. money is their main way of control.

Nobody said we were absolutely free to do anything we wanted. We still have to live within the constraints of a society. Unless you choose to buy yourself an island an live like a hermit for the rest of your life.

Once you get enough people together rules will eventually be laid down in one form or another. Bartering will happen, unless you can do everything for yourself. Money is just more convenient for trading.

I don't see the control part you claim, you are free not to work, but just like if there was no money you would still have to pay the consequences.
If there were no money and you chose not to work you would still have nowhere to live since you didn't build a house, you would still starve since you didn't plant or harvest your crops, you would still freeze in the winter since you didn't collect enough firewood to last through the winter etc. etc. etc.

all the things you just named, as far as consequences, is the exact control I am speaking of. in order to have those things you named, you need money and they know that. did I forget to mention that they also came up with philosophy? so with that said, who controls the money? not the U.S. government.

Originally posted by Skibum
If you want to you can read what the writers meant.

The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

-Thomas Jefferson

I wonder how he would explain Iraq under Saddam Hussein then. They had one of the the most heavily armed civillian populations in the world, and a very tyrannical gov't. The same could be said for some Latin American, African, and South East Asian countries.

[edit on 11-4-2005 by Hajduk]

Originally posted by Hajduk

Originally posted by Skibum
If you want to you can read what the writers meant.

The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

-Thomas Jefferson

I wonder how he would explain Iraq under Saddam Hussein then. They had one of the the most heavily armed civillian populations in the world, and a very tyrranical gov't. The same could be said for some Latin American, African, and South East Asian countries.

They may have been heavily armed but without an organized resistance it would be futile. Saddam did not allow political dissent and anyone suspect was wisked away. They can be as heavily armed as possible, but if there is noone willing to use them then it does not matter.

Ski,

Originally posted by Skibum
[
They may have been heavily armed but without an organized resistance it would be futile. Saddam did not allow political dissent and anyone suspect was wisked away. They can be as heavily armed as possible, but if there is noone willing to use them then it does not matter.

I think you will find that the FBI and ATF do a similar job in the US.

Do you think that the government would sit blithely by whilst a resistance movement got its act together.

I can understand the reasoning behind the Amendment when it was written, I just do not see the likelihood of the citizenry of the US being able to retake the country were it to come to that.

Do you see it as fighting off an invasion from outside or an internal issue?

Cheers

BHR

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
The pro-gun people feel that those opposed to guns must have a personal hatred for guns.

Not true. And even if it was, It really wouldn’t make a difference. Whatever your personal reasons for being "anti-gun" are, they are really of no import. What it comes down to is that you see no reason to own a gun. Hey, more power to you. As I have said before, you respect my decision and I will respect yours.

What I don’t understand is your decision to take guns away from those who own them legally. The only motive I can see for this is fear, either of what will happen to you or others as the result of criminal ownership and use of a gun. This is nothing but a personal opinion that has been perpetuated by fear into an agenda. Now, the obvious solution to this problem would be for you to get a gun as well and level the playing field, but you are obviously anti-gun so this is not an option. So what do you suggest? Making guns illegal for your fellow citizens to own in hopes that this will dissuade the attacker or make it more difficult for him to procure weapons?

This, to me, is flawed thinking. If given the choice of a population to assault as a criminal, I would be much more enthusiastic about fleecing a population where the chance of being confronted with a gun is virtually nil, in contrast to the one where it is a significant possibility.

Which brings us to the issue of the supply of "illegal guns". As another poster pointed out, this is somewhat of a misnomer as the guns themselves aren’t illegal, but possession is depending on your status in the community (felon, citizen, LEO, military, etc.). Thinking that even a significant portion of the guns that are provided to people who aren’t allowed to be in possession of them are guns that have been stolen from legitimate gun owners is an extreme overestimate in my opinion. What you have to realize is that most manufacturer’s primary sales aren’t to the civilian market. As I alluded to in my previous post, Colt, HK, FN Herstal, Beretta, and Glock would probably keep on rolling weapons off the assembly line if civilian gun ownership was illegal in every country on the globe. While they might see a dent, they sell primarily to the military and police units of the world and as such have no impetus to close their doors. Russia was prepared to supply Venezuela with 100,000 AK47s. How many of these do you think will end up on the streets of Mexico and the US? These weapons, being fully automatic and manufactured after 1986, would be illegal for anyone here to own with our current gun laws, let alone an all out gun-ban.

I think I can see where some of you are going though. You would like to see guns removed from the face of the earth. Unfortunately, information is somewhat of a Pandora’s Box, and once the knowledge has been released upon the world in that capacity the only way to be sure it is removed would be complete annihilation of everyone and everything on the planet. But that kind of defeats the purpose, doesn’t it? As another poster pointed out, "The genie won't go back into the bottle".

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
The difference between cars and guns is that guns are designed to kill whereas cars are not. In fact, every year cars are designed to higher and higher safety standards in the quest NOT to kill people.

The reason cars are brought to higher and higher standards of safety is that they are unsafe to begin with. I would argue that the mechanical safeties that are in place on guns are much more effective at stopping the machine from accidentally doing something that those in place on most vehicles.

I also take issue with your statement that guns are designed with the sole intent of killing. I don’t know where you live, but I can understand in our contemporary "TV culture" how this stereotype has emerged. Yes, weapons do exist for the purpose of hunting and self defense. But how many thousands of guns are used everyday for simple target shooting, and are retired without ever harming anyone or anything other that a piece of paper?

Originally posted by BillHicksRules
I was hoping to have a serious discussion with those of you on here but since you have all answered "we want a gun cos we want a gun" or "I want a gun for the same reason I want a fancy car or jewellry", I can see I came to the wrong place.

So what is a good enough reason? I venture to guess that there isn’t one in your mind, because I mentioned three separate reasons that you chose not to include in your generalization of the pro-gun arguments presented thus far. In any case, I would like to hear what qualifies as a valid reason in your mind.

EDIT -- Some clarification.

[edit on 4/12/05 by para]