You can just go ahead and blame Pogue Mahone for t

**Buttspray** · November 9th, 2001, 10:26 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by DrDetroit:
Buttspray, you didn't read the study posted by Smackie, did you?

Seattle had a similar rate of burglaries as Vancouver, even though Seattle has a higher rate of gun ownership. Using your philosophy, the fact that Seattle has a higher rate of gun ownership would suggest that burglary should have been lower. But the rates of burglary remain relatively similar.

As well, homicide rates were higher in the city that had a higher rate of gun ownership. Using your philosophy, again, wouldn't it be expected that the city with the higher rate of gun ownership have the lower rate of homicides committed with firearms?? Care to explain??

As well:

Butt: I've brought this up before, but in Kennesaw, GA (suburb of ATL) - it is against the law NOT to have a gun in your home.

I have to ask you to post the ordinance which requires, by law, that residents own and retain a weapon in their homes. Government has no compelling interest to require this. Post the ordinance or at least reference this.

[This message has been edited by DrDetroit (edited November 09, 2001).]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Have you ever tried to get a handgun in Canada, DD? They enforce their laws, unlike America.

In response to your other statement, I NEVER remember you asking me to post anything about the Kennesaw Gun Laws, but here:
http://www.infowars.com/saved%20page...0the%20Web.htm
http://www.mcsm.org/kennesaw.html
http://www.rense.com/general9/gunlaw.htm
http://www.tcrgc.org/kennesaw.asp
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a38a75857671c.htm

If still not convinced about the effectiveness, simply go to Yahoo, type in "Kennesaw Gun Laws" (using exact phrase), and you'll be happy to see and read over 550 more articles like these.

------------------
Happy Easter!

**mvscal** · November 9th, 2001, 11:11 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by DrDetroit:
Using your philosophy, the fact that Seattle has a higher rate of gun ownership would suggest that burglary should have been lower. But the rates of burglary remain relatively similar.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's a meaningless statistic. Burglars tend to strike when you aren't home.

Bottom line, IMO:

I have the right to defend myself. If I want to own a firearm to protect myself, my family and my property, I'm going to do it. If you don't like it, come and get it. We can talk about gun control just as soon as the police can guarantee my safety.

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

**The Vainglorious One** · November 9th, 2001, 11:50 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by DrDetroit:
First, laws serve to restrict certain behaviors/rights... Anyone disagree that government can regulate behaviors/rights, as it already does??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is THE best post I have ever read from you. GREAT legal analysis!

Your argument has fallen on deaf ears as far the USSC goes, but again good stuff that.

Back to the traditional way of thinking...
[i] read U.S. v Miller. (1939)
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen 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."

------------------
No sig.

**Smackie Chan** · November 9th, 2001, 11:59 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by mvscal:
It's a meaningless statistic. Burglars tend to strike when you aren't home. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

It's not a meaningless statistic when gun control opponents blatantly lie in saying that private ownership serves as a deterrent to burglars. This is where the stat becomes of value.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>
Bottom line, IMO:

I have the right to defend myself. If I want to own a firearm to protect myself, my family and my property, I'm going to do it. If you don't like it, come and get it. We can talk about gun control just as soon as the police can guarantee my safety.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Under no circumstances will the police EVER be able to guarantee safety, but through effective legislation and enforcement, they could be put into a position where their effectiveness would be greatly enhanced, to the point where private ownership would be considered an extreme measure, as in Canada.

I'm not so naive that I don't realize that the basic problem here that separates us from the rest of the world's nations is that we've been given the right to bear arms, whereas they never have. It's a lot tougher to miss something you've never had, and it's a lot harder to take something from the people once it's been given to them than it is to keep it from them in the first place. As moth alluded to, the genie is out of the bottle.

Getting back to Canada, TVO and others seem to believe that it's only a matter of time before her citizenry comes under attack by her own government, since private citizens are for the most part unarmed and therefore vulnerable to oppression and governmental abuse. Same with the rest of the world's unarmed democracies, as would the U.S. if we abandoned our handgun policies. TVO goes so far as to say that he can provide historical evidence, which I don't doubt, but he's gonna have to go back a long way to do so, I believe. Since the American and French Revolutions and the establishment of stable democracies based on social contract theory and the rule of law, governments have been tools of the people rather than the other way around, as had been the case in many monarchies and autocracies before. But since the rise in popularity of democracy, coup d' etats tend not to serve the interests of the government or the people, and have become almost extinct in the civilized world. The power rests with the ballot, not the bullet.

Someone please set up the scenario for me where the government would somehow have reason to turn on its citizens, and how it would be any different if citizens were unarmed as opposed to armed? How is this going to occur? What civil servants could take over the government against the will of the people, and how? The President? Congress? Admirals and generals? These people all come from among our ranks, and we put them in power. What would they have to gain by doing so? It would take a conspiracy of astronomical proportions, involving the White House, Congress, and the military, to pull something like this off. Let's say a group a yayhoos decided to take over the Pentagon. So what? Who'd listen to them? Same with the White House. Why would anyone take orders from someone who installed himself undemocratically as president? Help me out here, people. Tell me how you'd carry out an American coup d' etat.

As far as guns go, it's gonna have to be a long, slow process to get Americans to change their attitudes toward the Second Amendment. But we've tackled tough issues like racism as Americans, and know about dealing with issues that take a long time to take effect. Gun control should be among our top priorities if we want America to be a truly great land.

------------------
I moderate with hate

[This message has been edited by Smackie Chan (edited November 09, 2001).]

**warrenton** · November 10th, 2001, 12:06 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by The Vainglorious One:
That was a long MoFo and I only got through the first 3 Paragraphs before I had to respond.

A) Props to you for seeing that Gun Control by the Feds MUST be done by Constitutional Amendment.

B) You do realize that the 14th did NOT incorporate the 2nd so the States can still regulate guns all they want?

C) Guns in the hands of the populace is to protect Us from Them, not Us from Us or Animals and shit. If Nolan Ryan, Dolly Parton, Johnny Cash, and Emmett Smith had been inside the house at Waco, how long do you think it would have taken for a million shotgun totting texas (with a small ?t?) iodiots to surround the place and Run the Feds?

Now back to your War and Peace.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My Gosh and gosh, I'm starting to recongnize you as one of the more ignorant people around here.

Every time you Submit Reply is a mistake.

Oh, and please feel free to visit us stupid hicks down in here in Texas. And I mean that with all the sincerity a dumb hick can muster.

Look buddy, get a fukking clue, stick to your can bong and your box of ho-ho's, and leave the political takes to the grown ups.

You tree fukking morons think that gun control is going to do anything to curb violence?

DC's got the toughest in the country and the fukking mayors blowing the glass monkey while they're running lose in the streets murdering each other.

This is such a worn out and pointless argument I'll just let you major league politicos post your idiocy between bong hits and Frito's.

From the looks of those tour stop photos you could all mix in a jog with a clue.

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

**SexieLexie** · November 10th, 2001, 12:22 AM

I'm just here to say I'm not giving up my handgun anytime soon. Carry on.

------------------
reina sure likes creamed corn!

Oh, and THE Guest likes tuna corn casserole.

**The Vainglorious One** · November 10th, 2001, 12:27 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by warrenton:
My Gosh and gosh, I'm starting to recongnize you as one of the more ignorant people around here.
Please spell all words correctly calling someone ignorant.

Every time you Submit Reply is a mistake.
Because you say so?

Oh, and please feel free to visit us stupid hicks down in here in Texas. And I mean that with all the sincerity a dumb hick can muster.
Was that Smack? Sorry if I am unimpressed.

Look buddy, get a fukking clue, stick to your can bong and your box of ho-ho's, and leave the political takes to the grown ups.
You sure are talking a lot and not saying anything. Is that a grown up thing I am missing?

You tree fukking morons think that gun control is going to do anything to curb violence?
Read first, post never. The post you quoted was pro-texans et al having guns.

DC's got the toughest in the country and the fukking mayors blowing the glass monkey while they're running lose in the streets murdering each other.
But Maryland has lax gun rules and that is where the guns come from. At least use an argument that works if you are going play grown up.

This is such a worn out and pointless argument I'll just let you major league politicos post your idiocy between bong hits and Frito's.
Or you could have just not posted at all.

From the looks of those tour stop photos you could all mix in a jog with a clue.
All the Ad Hominems proves that you have nothing of substance to say.

[/B]<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

------------------
No sig.

[This message has been edited by The Vainglorious One (edited November 09, 2001).]

**Smackie Chan** · November 10th, 2001, 12:29 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by The Vainglorious One:

If Nolan Ryan, Dolly Parton, Johnny Cash, and Emmett Smith had been inside the house at Waco, how long do you think it would have taken for a million shotgun totting texas (with a small ?t?) iodiots to surround the place and Run the Feds?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yeah, I'm sure that when push comes to shove, the Feds are real skeered of a buncha necks toting shotguns and Saturday night specials. Lotta good it's gonna do 'em against airstrikes and armored divisions.

------------------
I moderate with hate

**JiZZyDaKloWn** · November 10th, 2001, 12:31 AM

ok i'll admit i didn't read all of that, but anyway...

The intent of the amendment was to ensure that the government never had more power than the people it represented. Period.

It means (or should mean) that if we want to go out and buy an uzi, rocket launcher, or atomic fucking bomb, we have that RIGHT.

Fuck all of you sheep.

------------------
don't mind me...

**The Vainglorious One** · November 10th, 2001, 12:37 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Smackie Chan:
Lotta good it's gonna do 'em against airstrikes and armored divisions.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If the U.S. Military ever made an Airstrike on its own people (even Texans) then you would see the true power of the 2nd Amendment.

Ya say you want a Revolution...

------------------
No sig.

Thread: You can just go ahead and blame Pogue Mahone for t

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions