You can just go ahead and blame Pogue Mahone for t

**JiZZyDaKloWn** · November 10th, 2001, 04:24 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Smackie Chan:
Where do you and others come up with this interpretation of the amendment? ...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I dunno... maybe because every amendment said something about protecting the people from oppressive government?

Or maybe I just have a different idea of what "free" means.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Pogue Mahone:
1. Guns rule.

2. Peacemongers suck.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sad but true. And anyone who says "violence never solved anything" knows nothing. Violence has ultimately solved EVERYTHING throughout history. The pens of the society with the sharpest sword do the writing.

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

[This message has been edited by JiZZyDaKloWn (edited November 10, 2001).]

**Terry in Crapchester** · November 10th, 2001, 04:30 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Buttspray:
Terry -

Simply observe the statistics. They say enough. Thanks.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

That wasn't my question, Buttspray. My question was, how are these laws enforced?

If the police show up at your doorstep to check to see that you own a gun, and they search your entire house to own one, IMHO that search violates the Fourth Amendment. And the incorporation element of the Fourteenth Amendment, to which TVO alluded in an earlier post, encompasses the Fourth but not the Second. In other words, the Fourth Amendment applies to the states (and municipalities) through the Fourteenth Amendment, but the Second Amendment does not.

I choose not to own guns. I have never had any desire to own one, and I also have a precocious three-year-old who undoubtedly would do everything in his power to get his hands on my gun if I did own one. No offense, but I wouldn't want to live someplace that required me to own a gun. I find that at least as invasive to my privacy as forced prohibition of gun ownership.

------------------
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Abu/Apu in SC:
I try to suck.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Abu's IP address is 64.158.241.157

**Owen this too** · November 10th, 2001, 04:58 PM

This thread makes me want to buy a gun.

Why...because it's there.

I'll tell ya what, piepoll...I used to do a lot of hiking when I lived in South of CA. Little did I realize that those fresh droppings on the trail in the San Gabriel wilderness could very well have been moutain lion.

Cheesuss...firking big ass Bear would frequent some dudes outdoor hot tub. When you see that film of that sucker bathing...thats was only 2 blocks from me. I'll never hike up there without at least a .38 again.

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

**Buccaneer** · November 10th, 2001, 05:34 PM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Buccaneer:
For this reason, I echo your opinion that drugs should be legalized...not because I don't think that they serve any purpose or neccesarily represent any kind of freedom, but because they can be better regulated when legal.
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree with you on drugs Smackie. My point is that like handguns, the created purposes of drugs can be argued to be a hazard or an individual benefit...and if you prohibit handguns, you have a more difficult time restricting their use than you do if they are legal...the same as we do currently with illegal drugs.

------------------
truth is a concept conceived by liars

**Smackie Chan** · November 10th, 2001, 05:54 PM

On principle I agree with you, but we make no effort to regulate handguns, and there is no standard. As was pointed out, DC has relatively strict gun laws but big problems with guns because surrounding areas have lax laws. Chicago has the same problem. The laws then become paper tigers and virtually useless. That's why I point to the Constitution. That's where the problem must be addressed.

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

**Terry in Crapchester** · November 11th, 2001, 02:55 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Buttspray:
At about the same time that Kennesaw implemented this law, there was another city (I believe in Illinois or Indiana) that implemented a "no gun" law. Their crime has soared ever since. If anybody knows the name of this place, I'm sure their statistics are available as well. As I've heard, again, Kennesaw's crime rate and the city who forbids guns have gone to extremes in opposite directions....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

If memory serves correctly, that was Morton Grove, Illinois. I haven't heard anything about crime statistics there since that occurred, though. In general, however, crime since that time increased for awhile, then decreased more recently. Perhaps the statistics for Morton Grove reflect a similar trend (and perhaps that applies to Kennesaw as well), or maybe not. I honestly don't know.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>I've got a 5 year old girl. She doesn't even know we have a gun. I'm all for never making a big deal out of gun ownership around the kids. If they don't know about it, then there's no need in trying to find it. My gun is high up in my closet - quickly accessable to me, but well hidden even in the closet.

Fortunately, she has always been a cautious kid, and (knock on a lot of wood!) never gotten into any shit.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Consider yourself very fortunate. That makes your job as a parent much easier.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>If you've got a kid that likes to explore - it's up to you to take precations against he/she getting into shit. I'm not saying what happened with the razor was intentional at all, and I'm sure you're a good parent, but if Jr.'s hell on wheels, you've either got to hide everything or use a little more discipline....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

My son touched the razor once. He won't touch it again. But he'll live to tell about it, which is something we couldn't say for sure if it had been a gun.

You're right about my son being hell on wheels and that making things a little tougher. That said, why make things even more difficult for myself than they have to be? Under these circumstances, if I owned a gun it would be a constant source of worry for me, even if he never got close to finding it. Certainly I'd worry much more about that possibility than I do right now about either me or any member of my family being assaulted in our own home.

On the plus side, my kid seems to have a lot of speed and strength for his age, so if I can harness and channel the fearlessness in the right direction, I might have a future football star on my hands if I'm lucky. forums

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>You're a hell of a lot closer to NYC than I am. And if the terrorists ever get nuclear capabilities while you guys are receiving an easterly wind - you're fucked! NY will get nailed waaaaaaaaay before GA.....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

We're about 350 miles from NYC. And the prevailing winds are usually out of the west, so I'm not too worried, from a strictly personal standpoint, about a nuclear attack on NYC. If it does happen, and the winds happen to be out of the east on that day, I should get enough advance warning to outrun it, at least for the time being. In any event, guns would be powerless against such a scenario.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Jacksonville IS Fla.. South Florida is NOT Florida. South Florida is NYC. New Yorkers move down to South Florida in droves and constantly bitch about how everything is not as good as it is in NYC, yet for some strange reason - they move there....

My guess is, the summer heat got up your ass. Yes - the summers here DO suck. They suck REALLY bad! However, the other 3 seasons usually more than make up for it...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The summers AND the ubiquitous cockroaches that are as big as mice!! I will admit that the spring and autumn down there are very nice, about like summer here. I never did quite get into your winters, though. Granted, I didn't have to contend with boatloads of snow, but it seemed like winters were 60 degrees in the day and 20 degrees at night. I never quite got the hang of how to dress for that weather, and consequently, I was always sick in the winter. I'm old enough to have learned never to say never. But short of the Jags offering me their GM position or something along that line, I don't see myself going back down there on a permanent basis.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Your son will NOT get a hold of your gun if you take proper safety measures. I understand where you are coming from on this, but again, you can't tell me that you can't find a well-hidden place to keep your gun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Taking proper precautions can reduce the chances of my son getting hold of a gun, but there's never any guarantees against it. As I said before, in any event I'd worry far more about that happening than I do about being attacked in my own home, so why add unnecessarily to these worries?

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>To apply the gun vs. the items you brought up:

Door lock vs. Gun - Will the robber be more intimidated by the lock or gun?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

But the issue isn't intimidation, it's deterrence. A gun is useless if I'm not home (and even a potential liability if said burglar happens to find it). A burglar's biggest enemy is the clock, and while no door lock is failproof, it might give the burglar enough resistance to cause him to leave on his own.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Dog vs. Gun - Burglar's gun shoots and kills the dog. Gun wins.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Of course, that assumes the burglar is armed in the first place. But even if he is, the dog is a little more effective in conjunction with the lock. The dog may hear the burglar attempting to break in and begin barking. This causes the burglar to think that either the residents or the neighbors, or possibly both, may have been alerted to his presence, and therefore, may cause the burglar to abort.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Gun vs. baseball bat - You gonna try hitting a guy with a gun? Gun wins.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Again, this assumes that the burglar is armed. It also assumes that the burglar will see you in time to shoot. Of course, everyone has a blind spot, and if you can make use of that, a baseball bat can beat a gun. Even if you have a gun, that's no guarantee of your safety against an armed burglar.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Terry - probably 90% of the crooks are going to have a gun while they are in the act. It's simply a measure of protecting your ass.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Maybe 90% of burglars will be armed. I honestly don't know either way. But as I said before, being armed against an armed burglar is certainly no guarantee of your own safety.

I'm not so sure that carrying a firearm is the wisest thing for a would-be burglar. What if it discharges accidentally or goes off in a struggle? Last time I checked, the penalties for murder tend to be much more severe than the penalties for burglary.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Again - if this country would simply enforce the laws it already has, there would be far less crime. But, most of the crooks know that they'll get a pat on their back, good food, and be out of jail in a couple of years just to do it all over again. This would relate to the problems within your profession, but that's another story altogether now, isn't it? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

One of the things this area is pioneering is use of Drug Treatment Courts. I have heard of studies that as many as 70% of people who have a run-in with the criminal justice system have a substance abuse problem. I have to think that the number is even higher among repeat offenders. In light of this, it makes sense to encourage drug rehabilitation among offenders, even if it is necessary to offer a carrot such as a reduced sentence or even dismissal of charges altogether in order to accomplish this.

And it seems common sense to me that these general tendencies would be similar, or if anything, even greater among burglaries. Most burglars seek cash, credit cards or other items of property which they can quickly turn into cash -- jewelry, TV's, VCR's/DVD players, computers, and yes, even guns. To me this would tend to indicate that the overwhelming majority of these people probably are looking to feed a drug habit.

[/B][/QUOTE]

------------------
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by Abu/Apu in SC:
I try to suck.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Abu's IP address is 128.110.56.165

**Smackie Chan** · November 11th, 2001, 04:49 AM

Buccaneer -- I don't dispute the dangers of recreational drug use, just as I don't dispute the dangers of drinking. Some people become violent and dangerous when drunk, but that isn't sufficient reason to reintroduce prohibition.

You argue that drugs can't be regulated. What are you talking about? They already are when they're legal drugs. The FDA, AMA, and pharmacies regulate their manufacture, access, and availability. The purity of drugs are known and are subject to stringent tolerances. In England, if you prove through blood/urine testing to a specially licensed physician that you are addicted to heroin or cocaine, and advise the doctor that you have no intention of quitting, you get a prescription for pure, pharmaceutical heroin or cocaine, along with needles and syringes, if needed. They also offer cigarettes dipped in solutions of these drugs for those who prefer to smoke rather than inject. Basically, the addiction is treated no differently than insulin-dependent diabetes; the "patient" requires the drug to function normally. Unintentional ODs drop to almost zero, other medical problems caused by substances street drugs are cut with, including pulverized concrete, are eliminated, the addict is under the care of a medical doctor rather than a street pusher, the criminal element is removed, meaning street gangs aren't funding their operations through black market sales, and the government reaps tax benefits. Jails are unburdened from having to house inmates convicted of simple possession, leaving room for the violent criminals who now operate under the revolving door policy primarily due to overpopulation of prisons. The issue is dealt with from a social and medical perspective rather than from a criminal aspect. But you still think the way with which drug use is currently dealt is better?

And just dealing with marijuana, a simple plant mind you that requires no processing prior to usage and is 100% non-toxic, physically non-addictive, and not prone to induce violent behavior -- why is this illegal, but handguns, which are manufactured solely for the purpose of taking human life, can be easily accessed by school children? This will never cease to mystify me.

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

[This message has been edited by Smackie Chan (edited November 10, 2001).]

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

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions