HomeFactopediaBrainoffsRankingsCommunityLog In
You know 0 facts





Sun 16 Dec 12 #1 
jmaxg
Contributor


There is nothing much to be said. It is what it is. A tragedy precluded by a travesty.

America is not alone in her grief of course.

Australia has their own incident when back in 28 April, 1996, 35 unknowing tourists had their lives wiped out by some bored semi-rich trust account living a-hole called Martin Bryant in what has come to be known as the "Port Arthur Massacre".

That includes this terrible story, that a young 7 year old girl, separated from her father, hid in a grove of trees while Bryant marauded heading toward the cafeteria where most of the victims where killed. But Bryant noticed her, turned to her and literally chased her. She tried to hide behind a rock, but Bryant found her. Bryant dispatched her immediately with one of his weapons.

Is this story, in any way at all, meant to compare with the death of 20 young ones and their teachers? Of course not! But here is what we did in Australia after it happened:

"Port Arthur massacre remains one of the deadliest shootings worldwide committed by a single person. Gun control laws in Australia, which had been relatively lenient before the massacre, were reviewed and tightened significantly after the incident."

Ref: Wikipedia Reference on the Port Arthur Massacre

Before I summarise, I would just like to take this point to remind ALL of us to think about teachers.

Teachers, as we have just seen in this situation, are our last defense. Some of these teachers in Sandy Hook did over and above what they are paid to do. But, as a teacher, you have only one choice. Well, two actually, but most of us would like to think we could act as the teachers at Sandy Hook Elementary School did.

The point is, you go to work expecting to teach kids. Not hide them in a hole and then commit to doing anything you can to turn a madman away.....or stand in front of them defiantly.

Just give that a thought.

In summary, NOTHING could have stopped this.

But can steps be taken to make it more difficult? Yes....yes, they can.

Get Rid Of The Guns

(GROTG)


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Sun 16 Dec 12 #2 
Proofreader
Member

An unspeakably horrible crime....we all weep for those innocent lives lost...and for all the survivors, and the people who had to go into the school after the massacre, and the whole devastated town...I've always worried about a terrorist attack on a school because schools are so vulnerable...well it was an AMERICAN terrorist monster. How many more of these tragedies will have to occur before, for one thing, assault rifles are outlawed? And how about better mental health facilities and way more emphasis and education about symptoms of mental breakdowns? SOMETHING has to be done.


Knows 72613 facts
like | send message


Sun 16 Dec 12 #3 
jmaxg
Contributor

America's record on mental health is appalling. That is a matter of record.

What is also appalling in the construction that had taken place after the act, that was signed into law by President George W. Bush, that MADE IT LAW that all states that hold records that show people should not hold weapons, should present those records into an instantly recallable database.

Unfortunately, even though that law is in place, there is no limit on the amount of time for states to update that database. And, according to the states (all 50), there are basements full of years and years of applications for guns.

That is just one example of the dysfunction that is the United States of America.

Ok, fine, here it goes......Mr. President? Give me three months and a full staff, I will have everyone of those basements mapped ready for inclusion.

Within a further six months, given the budget, I will have those records IN the database. And have an interface ready for all states and gun sellers.

I guarantee it.

No Matter......take my word.....it's not gonna happen.

It's called US politics.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Sun 16 Dec 12 #4 
sally906
Contributor

Jmax - 3 years ago Wayne and I went to Port Arthur. Was very atmospheric. There is the whole convict thing - and then the massacre on top of it.

There are signs up everywhere asking people NOT to talk to staff about that day, because a lot of the staff were there that day.

My close friend's brother was the first police officer on the scene and he has since been pensioned off. He was unable to cope mentally with what he saw that day. He struggled on for a few years with a desk job, but had to leave. Another victim!

I look at my two young grandsons who are both starting school next year and I actually fear for them. No country can be complacent - we may have strict gun laws here but that doesn't mean there isn't a very lucrative black market going on. Still laws are here to protect and make it harder. It is not as easy as saying tighten up gun laws in the US. Every state has different laws and within states different counties can have different laws. Reform would be a nightmare and political suicide for all who did it. I would love to see it happen - but it most probably won't.

Interesting statistic - since Columbine there has been 61 mass shootings in the USA - 31 of these took place in schools!


Knows 27358 facts
like | send message


Sun 16 Dec 12 #5 
sally906
Contributor

More stats:

In 2009 there were 18 gun related homicides in the UK - in the same year in the USA there were 9,146!

Translated into per head of population the gun related homicides in the USA was a bit over 100x that of the UK


Knows 27358 facts
like | send message


Wed 19 Dec 12 #6 
jmaxg
Contributor

Thanks for that Sally.

After Sandy Hook, there is indeed a movement toward gun control.

The current legislation proposed by Senator Diane Feinstein (democrat) favoured by the President is as follows:

That all semi-automatic weapons be banned from sale as at the effective date of the legislation.

Notice that does NOT mean a handing back of every weapon out there, just to stop them from a given point.

Well, I have problems with such legislation. Point one, that does NOT get rid of semi-automatic weapons.

Britain after Dunblane and Australia after Port Arthur did something.

What this US legislation suggests is that you stop selling from this point. It doesn't attempt to get rid of what's out there.

What's more, if the gun whackos get a hint that the legislation will pass, they will simply buy up every weapon that is already out there. Every gun store will get cleaned out. Believe me. It's just that simple. They will sell their cars, mortgage their houses, whatever it takes, they will get the guns before the effective date. All it will do is ADD to the amount of semi automatic weapons at large by maybe a hundred fold.......maybe even a thousand fold.

And once the guns are out there, as far as I know, no restrictions are in place from that point. Private sale, gift, inheritance, whatever....semi automatic weapons can still change hands. And no reference to gun shows or the handling of antiques.

I refuse to commend Senator Feinstein for this proposed legislation. It's weak and non effective. If the President takes it up, then he is as weak as the legislation itself.

You simply have to re-instate the legislative ban on semi-automatic weapons that was in place before it expired. That means ALL semi-automatic weapons.....even the one's currently owned.

Banning them from a certain point wont work. These weapons have a longer effective life than humans do. These things will remain effective after three or four generations have passed.

Get Rid Of The Guns

(GROTG)


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Wed 19 Dec 12 #7 
Ajax
Contributor

Agreed.


Knows 20770 facts
like | send message


Thu 20 Dec 12 #8 
kevg
The Grumpinator

"They shall grow not old, as we that are left grow old: Age shall not weary them, nor the years condemn. At the going down of the sun and in the morning We will remember them."


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Thu 20 Dec 12 #9 
Proofreader
Member

Yes we will. And all the innocents who die every day worldwide. It is heart-breaking,
and the number of murders in the U.S. every year is beyond shameful. I am really hoping for some changes now re: attack rifles, mental health treatment, violence in the culture....people are outraged, and maybe they will push legislators to DO SOMETHING...I hope so.


Knows 72613 facts
like | send message


Fri 21 Dec 12 #10 
jmaxg
Contributor

Vice President Joe Biden has now been tasked by the President to handle a committee and give him options by the end of January 2013.

The VP will be seeking advice from all leading law enforcement officers across the country. Joe's a good egg and is not a friend of gun nuts. I am sure he'll offer some relevant choices.

Anything has to be more practical than Senator Feinstein's.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Fri 21 Dec 12 #11 
jmaxg
Contributor

And thanks kev........perfectly appropriate.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Sun 23 Dec 12 #12 
southshoregirl

I hope you know that Senators Dianne Feinstein and Harry Reid both have carry permits and do pack heat. I am absolutely devastated when I hear about horror scenes like Sandy Hook. The thought of young innocents being slain by a freak is almost too much to bear. I am angry about it. But I do not support the abolishment of the 2nd Amendment. If one teacher, just one, had a gun and knew how to use it, or a cafeteria lady or a janitor, maybe that monster Lanza could have been stopped before he killed so many.

jmaxg and all, you will never see guns removed from everyone in this country and if the citizens turn them in then only the criminals will have guns because they just get illegal weapons and hey use them. There is very strict mental health standards in place in NYS when applying for a pistol permit. If you have ever seen a psychiatrist even once you will be denied. I don't know the rules for other states but don't you see???? It doesn't matter. Guns don't kill people.....criminals (or, if you wish, the mentally ill occasionally) kill people. I am glad Lanza is dead. He deserved a worse fate, like a tortured death but death is as far as we go anyway.

There are slightly fewer deaths in the US by gun per capita than in the UK where guns are banned.


like | send message


Sun 23 Dec 12 #13 
JMK
Editor

Not sure where you got that statistic from. All the stats I have seen put the US far higher.


Knows 47627 facts
like | send message


Sun 23 Dec 12 #14 
kevg
The Grumpinator

That last line was nonsense SSG, last figures I've got are 10 per 100,000 in USA and 0.25 in UK ??


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Sun 23 Dec 12 #15 
Ajax
Contributor

I can't think of the kid as a freak. To me he sounds like a kid with a painful, problematic life who did a bad thing right at the end. That's why society has gone to shit. Not because of the last hour of his life, but the first 20 years. And because he's American, he is armed up the wazoo, as is his right, whereas anywhere else in the world he would just kill himself and people would feel sorry for him.

America, take a good hard look at yourself. If you see what the rest of the world sees you'll be nighty embarrassed at the very least.


Knows 20770 facts
like | send message


Sun 23 Dec 12 #16 
southshoregirl

Ajax, to me anyone who goes into a school and shoots innocent school children or anyone else for that manner is a "freak". It may be an odd use of the word but not all people who have mental problems or who had difficult childhoods end up doing what he did.

Society HAS gone to shit because the movies, video games, cartoons, etc which kids watch these days all have violence and murders in them. I think I heard a statistic that by the time a kid is 18 over here they will have witnessed 18.000 murders on TV. You have to believe that that had something to do with this mess.

Let's get the guns into the hands of stable, responsible people and you will not have the problem and let's get this gangsta garbage off TV. It is sickening. How about kids start to read books again? They might just stop shooting people.

I am embarassed, Ajax, that these people exist and commit these atrocities but I am not deluded enough to believe that they will disappear with stronger laws against guns. There are already laws in place which prohoibit semi-automatic and automatic guns in the US so if they are being used they have been obtained illegally and are owned illegally.

The rest of the world can see us as they please. With the journalism we have in our country I wonder how we are really portrayed.

Lanza was a troubled, yet very smart kid. His mother hid his emotional problems from his father. Why? Maybe he needed to be hospitalized and she couldn't bear the thought? I am just guessing but there was no real treatment plan in place for him despite all the safety nets in place. They were also quite wealthy with the mother receiving a 6 figure alimony. Lanza should have been in treatment, Inhouse treatment. They could have afforded it. It is just a horrible mess.

Lastly, Ajax. all Americans are not armed up the wazoo! Hardly! I do't know the ownership number but there are plently of people with shotguns for hunting, just as I am certain that Mainland Australian ranchers and farmers, are armed. And there are a group, much smaller who have pistol permits, but not CARRY permits, which means they can keep a pistol in their home unloaded and locked up and used at a shooting range, and then there is a group which does have actual legal carry permits because they are in a dangerous , high risk profession or somthing like that. I don't have a problem with that. The danger comes mainly from people, such as Lanza, who had no business using a gun because of his prior mental health issues.

Ajax, they are sometime people who ust cannot be helped. Their life path is going to be bad for what ever reason. Maybe Lanza was one of those people? I think he had a mother who meant well but messed his upbringing up entirely and he had a father who didn;t really care about him. It doesn't change the terrible outcome.

The stats about the US vUK shooting deaths came from a NY Times article I read about a month ago.


like | send message


Sun 23 Dec 12 #17 
kevg
The Grumpinator

I hate to keep doing this but I am in entire agreement with Ajax. NY Times ?? Time to change your reading material Badger, I highly recommend The Daily Telegraph, online if need be.


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Sun 23 Dec 12 #18 
JMK
Editor

Is that the same NY times that said this:

"America has the highest gun homicide rate, the highest number of guns per capita and the highest rate of deaths due to assault. In fact, America has more homicides by gun than all of the other high-income O.E.C.D. countries combined."

NY Times 1

And this:

"The simple truth is that more guns equal more death.
An analysis this year from the Violence Policy Center found that “states with low gun ownership rates and strong gun laws have the lowest rates of gun death.” The report continued, “by contrast, states with weak gun laws and higher rates of gun ownership had far higher rates of firearm-related death.” According to the analysis, Massachusetts, Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut had the lowest per capita gun death rates. Each of those states had “strong gun laws and low gun ownership rates. On the other hand, “ranking first in the nation for gun death was Louisiana, followed by Wyoming, Alabama, Montana, and Mississippi.” Those states had “weak gun laws and higher rates of gun ownership.”"


NY Times 2


Knows 47627 facts
like | send message


Mon 24 Dec 12 #19 
jmaxg
Contributor

This discussion is so sad and anyone that thinks they can convince the general public. the world public or the American public, that more guns are the answer is living in a delusional world made only of their own construction.

Since the NRA President's press conference rantings on Friday, and his subsequent appearance on Sunday political talk shows, the NRA ratings are plummeting quicker than any political group in history.

NRA members are sending back their cards.

Congressional members have declared they will refuse NRA reelection checks.

Could it be the end for what has really been a "paper tiger" all along? I hope so.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Mon 24 Dec 12 #20 
jmaxg
Contributor

Common sense is what is required here.

Two other countries applied common sense and it got dramatic results.

So the whole world waits and watches. The solution is right there in front of you.

And given that NRA space on a national talk show is NOT the way to go, simply because they keep spouting their ugly, gun whoring point of view, then they are no longer qualified to talk on national political talk shows because they are now a PROVEN source of irrationality........they have morphed into Bill O'Reilly.

Should they wish to talk, then they have to do better than that. In the interim, the people of America are rejecting them.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Mon 24 Dec 12 #21 
Ajax
Contributor

That's a pretty compelling argument ssg. I see where I was wrong in my thinking.

Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

Get rid of the people!


Knows 20770 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Mon 24 Dec 12 #22 
southshoregirl

People will always kill others whether guns are legal or not. The goverment can ban ALL guns and there will still be a huge number of weapons floating around. Nobody will turn their weapons in if they are sociopaths. Think about it. Who will be left with the weapons then? And then what will happen? People are returning their NRA membership cards? Where did you read that? I think you have been brainwashed! The trend in the last week since the Connecticut shootings has been for people to buy as many guns as they can before any new laws bannung them are passed. These people have no people have no intention of turning them in, either. They feel a need for self defense.


like | send message
1 person likes this post


Thu 3 Jan 13 #23 
jmaxg
Contributor

I take it that something was posted before it was corrected.

Well, at least if I post something I wait till management takes it down.

Here's the thing........there is nothing any of us can say that will make Charlton Heston clones release guns from their "cold, dead hands".

So, I say, let's go with the Chris Rock method........each bullet now costs $1,000.

And heavily taxed!

If we can't get rid of the guns (GROG), tax the bullets. Makes sense to me.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Thu 10 Jan 13 #24 
Honey Badger
Member

It makes no sense to me. To each his own in this country, jmaxg. The Second Amendment should not be ignored as a viable freedom because some people are out of control. The city with the highest gunshot death rate, Chicago, is also the one with the very strictest gun laws. Need I say more? I'm joining the NRA today.


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Fri 11 Jan 13 #25 
Ajax
Contributor

You're all bonkers. I just watched the clip of Alex Jones speaking at Piers Morgan, and he is a caricature of how we see gun wielding Americans.

Wanted to have someone deported for having an opinion. Indeed!


Knows 20770 facts
like | send message


Fri 11 Jan 13 #26 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

As usual, Badger, I'm not sure where you get your data.

According to the CDC (2006-2007 data), the City of Chicago had a firearms homicide rate of 11.6 deaths per 100,000 residents.

New Orleans had 62.1, Buffalo NY 16.5, Richmond VA 23.1, Memphis 18.4, Jacksonville 13.2, Milwaukee 13.5, Newark 25.4, Philadelphia 20.0, Houston 12.9, Miami 23.7, Washington D.C. 19.0, Atlanta 17.2, Detroit 35.9, Oakland 26.6, St. Louis 24.1, Baltimore 29.7, Pittsburgh 12.5, Cincinnati 15.9, Cleveland 17.4, Kansas City 14.5, Las Vegas 13.5, Indianapolis 12.6.

Of the 62 cities listed, Chicago came in 23rd.

If you extend how you're looking at things to the metropolitan areas rather than strict city limits then the Chicago/Naperville/Joliet area moves up to 18th. The New Orleans area is still way ahead with 4 times the rate of Chicago.

Louisiana, incidentally, has one of the most lax approaches to gun control. You don't need a permit to purchase or own firearms (long guns or hand gun) and guns do not have to be registered. There's no assault weapon law in Louisiana either.


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message


Fri 11 Jan 13 #27 
Honey Badger
Member

That is just wrong or not current information.

 

****Stu, the CDC recorded 432 shooting deaths in the city of Chicago last year.  I will double check since i was listening to a tape when the number was quoted on TV.




Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Fri 11 Jan 13 #28 
Honey Badger
Member

I don't think any assault weapons are legal anywhere in the US. Will check but am on the run.


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Fri 11 Jan 13 #29 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

Even taking six years into account, I still think I'm going to take what you've claimed about Chicago with a massive pinch of salt.


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message


Sat 12 Jan 13 #30 
jmaxg
Contributor

The "Bushmaster" applied at Sandy Hook is also known as the AR-15.

It is classified as an assault weapon because it is "semi-automatic". The definition of "semi-automatic" is that of a weapon that will fire every time the trigger is pulled without the need for re-cocking or re-chambering. Yes, many hand guns are classed as "semi-automatic" or assault weapons.

It is not "fully automatic" because multiple rounds cannot be fired if the trigger remains depressed as with the classic M-60 machine gun or other automatic weapons going back in time, like the Bren Gun.

(the original machine gun, the Gatling Gun, or it's current version, the Minigun, are not being considered in this case as they send rounds through different barrels in order to achieve their firing rate. AR-15s or their bigger cousin, the AR-16, the M-60 or the Bren Gun send rounds through the same barrel.......a BIG difference)

The AR-15 is unlike it's cousin, the AR-16, only in that it is not "fully automatic". It has been designed to shoot one round at a time and not multiple rounds if the trigger remains depressed.

Both weapons fire a 5.56 NATO round.

The 5.56 NATO round - specifically designed as a "damaging" bullet, so much so that surgeons during the Vietnam conflict pleading with the American originators to discontinue it's use.

The 5.56 NATO round is unique because of it's "tumbling" quality. Rather than a 7.62 NATO round which is designed to blow off a limb, the 5.56 NATO round is designed to hit human flesh and "tumble", literally flipping end over end, ripping and tearing as it goes, in order to cause maximum damage internally.

The 5.56 NATO round is currently available to all Americans as is the weapon that fires it.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Sat 12 Jan 13 #31 
jmaxg
Contributor

HUNTING

My oldest brother took me out hunting with a firearm.

The target was rabbits, something the English introduced and we are still dealing with in Oz.

We used a .22 Remington greaseless and, quite frankly, my big brother was amazed at how good I was.

He told me "Hit 'em in the head. If you hit 'em in the chest, it frays the meat and then there is too much metal because of the bullet particles."

(actually, he said it differently than that but you get the point)

The result was, my big brother and me had more rabbit dinners than anyone should have to endure......the meat is kinda dry just in case you are interested.

That was our .22 and our specific agenda........less bunnies is good bunnies.

In America they hunt too. But I get the impression that they make my brother's advice look simple or idiotic. I don't like that.

My brother said "Hit them in the head" with his .22.

America says "blow them to hell in whatever way possible".

That is the difference between them and us, and now and then.

Some of us knew how to hunt.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Sat 12 Jan 13 #32 
Honey Badger
Member

According to witnesses the Bushmaster was never removed from the trunk of the car. There is much disinformation circulating about about that incident. Any gun can be dangerous in an attack where only one person has a gun. Why did only one person suffer an injury and the rest were killed? That is a bit odd, is it not? Oh, I am so sick of this gun business. People are allowed to oen certain firearms here and that should be the end of it. I am going to check on the Chicago statistics, keeping in mind that statistics can be manipulaed in many ways. You can still own a .22, jmaxg. It is your right. And don't be so cocksure that Americans son't know how to shoot. My father was a damned good marksman.


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Sat 12 Jan 13 #33 
Ajax
Contributor

Not every gun can take out 40 school kids in 3 minutes.


Knows 20770 facts
like | send message


Sun 13 Jan 13 #34 
Honey Badger
Member

532 people murdered in Chicago so far in 2013, Stu. That is very high and I doubt it is 23rd.

Ajax, he didn't use an assault rifle. What have I said before? THINGS ARE SELDOM WHAT THEY SEEM (skim milk masquerades as cream....from from Gilbert and Sullivan's Patience) .

WHY wouldn't there have been more injured, Ajax? Please tell me that. Could he have had an acomplice?


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Sun 13 Jan 13 #35 
Honey Badger
Member

For the record, I am not for people owning assault rifles but then the cops and government shouldn't have them either. Level the playing field except in cases such as the Connecticut case. That calls for a SWAT team......but it was over so fast! The mother knew the kid was screwed up mentally and yet she did nothing to let his father know. That is messed up. It is all a mess. I just need a shotgun and my machete and my dogs for self defense. I'm not about to go out their shooting at anyone. Absolutely nobody cold get me angry enough to kill them unless they attacked me. Only illegally owned assault guns will be out there and they WILL be out there as well and every other weapon. More people were killed with hammers in the US last year that guns. Ban hammers!


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Sun 13 Jan 13 #36 
Ajax
Contributor

There is poor logic in giving guns to only people who don't suffer from mental illness. That is because anyone in their lifetime could suffer from mental illness. Every human is therefore a potential harm to others.

I am going to call bullshit on that hammers statistic. If you have more people being killed by hammers in the US than guns, your society is well and truly farnarked.


Knows 20770 facts
like | send message


Sun 13 Jan 13 #37 
JMK
Editor

Firstly the stat HB refers to is for hammers, clubs and other blunt objects, not just hammers. Secondly the guns used for this comparison were only rifles, not all guns so it should say that the number of homicides using a blunt object is higher than the number of deaths using a rifle. Most likely because blunt objects are easier to come by, especially on the spur of the moment. The total homicides using all types of guns is much higher.

Thirdly - it is pretty hard to kill numerous people in a short space of time using a blunt object. Using a semi-automatic weapon on the other hand it is much easier.

On another point:

'I am not for people owning assault rifles but then the cops and government shouldn't have them either. Level the playing field except in cases such as the Connecticut case."

Really! So you think we should take assault rifles away from the cops and the army if we ban the general public from owning them? This is just too ridiculous for words.

In New Zealand our police are not routinely armed. They do now have tasers and in certain cases can carry firearms in their vehicles and we do have Armed Defender units who can be called out if there is a need. We have relatively strict gun control laws and a much lower rate of gun ownership than the US, with the majority of them used for shooting deer, rabbits or other pests. I don't know anyone who owns a gun for personal protection. We have a low rate of homicides using firearms - 0.17 per 1000 population compared to 3.7 per thousand for the US.


Knows 47627 facts
like | send message


Sun 13 Jan 13 #38 
Honey Badger
Member

Give police tasers, that is fine. It stops thugs in their tracks and our police do carry them. My concern, JMK, is that our Second Amendment was written expressly to garantee that the citizens would be able to form militias to fight against a tyrannical government. That is a fact, although I know someone who will want to give away that right. My point is that if a well-formed militia is going to be confronted by police and government forces who have sophisticated weapons it is only fair that the PEOPLE have the same things. That is how it is HERE. It is not the way it is anywhere else in the world and no comparisons can be made. It is not anything anyone needs to worry about since you are all happy with where you live.

The United States of America has a Constitution and a Bill of Rights. Until it is destroyed it will be followed and the right to bear arms is in there and it will stay. The states can regulate the types of weapons, and believe me, they do. The problem is NOT with law-abiding citizens. It is with the lawbreakers who steal weapons or trade for them with gangs or get them in a hundred different ways.

It is wonderful that New Zealand is able to have unarmed policemen, JMK. I don't know if you know what it is like here. If the police were not armed there would be devastation in the cities and even higher crime rates in the suburbs. It is sad. I wish we had such a pastoral country too but we just don't.


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Sun 13 Jan 13 #39 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

The government has tanks, heavy artillery, helicopter gunships and fighter-bombers.

Should these be available to the public?


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message


Mon 14 Jan 13 #40 
Honey Badger
Member

Yes, if a majority of the people feel they are necessary to squash a tyrannical government. It is not a likely scenario. I do have a Drone in an invisible building in the marsh in my backyard. I will use it if I need it.

Seriously, what would the UK population do if the Queen and all of Parliament and the Prime minister were slaughtered and a rogue group tried to take over? Even if you don't like these people if the populace was unarmed you would all be pretty much up the proverbial creek. I think it is all very silly to think you will never have a problem with guns, Doc. You can bet that there are elements of your population that are armed and they will use them when they want to against all of you very gentle people. And if they don't have guns they will have something else. There is always something better coming out, isn't there?


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Mon 14 Jan 13 #41 
kevg
The Grumpinator

If Queen, Parliament and Prime Minister were slaughtered I'd be out with the crowds celebrating.


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Mon 14 Jan 13 #42 
Ajax
Contributor

Your second amendment sucks. And it's only an amendment. It's not a real thing. :D


Knows 20770 facts
like | send message


Mon 14 Jan 13 #43 
sally906
Contributor

Hmmm

So if I lived in America and my next door neighbour got a .22 rifle - I could go and get a semi automatic gun just in case I need to protect myself from him. Oh but then he gets nervous so he goes out and gets a fully automatic gun - for the same reason its his right to bear arms and protect himself and that madwoman next door has got herself a semi!!! OH MY GOD thinks I when I see what he's got - I'll get myself a tank so I can be protected from him firing his fully automatic while I shell him in return - hey stop winging, I have the right - 2nd amendment says so - so shut up!!! OH Oh - he's gone and got a rocket launcher - gosh you can get anything on the black market these days. But I feel unsafe how can I protect myself? 2nd amendment says I can bear arms, or is that bare arms - whatever!!!

I know the ultimate weapon - I'll get me a dirty bomb - fits in a suitcase - no-one knows what it is but if that neighbour takes one step towards his rocket launcher to water his prize roses that are growing next to it - BAAAM!!! He and a couple of thousand other people have gone!!!

But that's ok officer - I have the right to bear my bare arms and I felt threatened and wasn't go to ask questions because if I did I am sure he would have got me first.

And that folks is how the end of the world Armageddon started - its all about rights you know - and being too pigheaded to understand that there is a point when it has all gone much further than it was intended :)


Knows 27358 facts
like | send message


Mon 14 Jan 13 #44 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

There's no need to get a dirty bomb, Sal. If you follow Badger's thinking then you can get hold of a proper nuke.

I mean, as long as a majority of the people feel they're necessary...


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message


Tue 15 Jan 13 #45 
Honey Badger
Member

Now, now....You are all getting carried away with this. I am going to say this. NO, you can't have a dirty bomb. You cannot have a fully automatic weapon, a tank, a grenade launche a semi-automatic , etc, etc, and you must go through the proper evaluation to determine if you qualify to own a gun LEGALLY. This is the problem, damned furiners. The Second Amendment is VERY real and does count, and it was put in there to prevent a tyranical goverment from crushing the people. That is it in a nutshell. The problem here is that there ar , I believe, 280million guns and there are roughly 340,million citizens. That's a high ratio. There are too many illegally held guns and thea is were the trouble starts so the main issue is not to get rid of the guns but to make sure that only well qualified people get them and use them for responsible reasons.

PS: Kevin, you are full of buckshot.(sp?) Ajax, come on over and scrub my pots! :D


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Wed 16 Jan 13 #46 
jmaxg
Contributor

It was bloody not! The Second Amendment was put in place to prevent a pissed off King George III and his troops from coming back back and having another go as well as remaining on guard relative to attempts from other EXTERNAL sources.

The key point of the Second Amendment is the "well organized militia" that it states and that all gun owners, and particularly gun sellers, ignore.

I suggest you re-read the Second Amendment. You are supposed to belong to that "well organized militia" in order to have that gun.......that's the bloody point!

EVERYBODY tries to reword and reinterpret that. But it says what it says. The implications of a "well organized militia" is therefore the platform.

So, what is a "militia"? Well, in 1792 (May 8th), Congress passed a definition of "militia" and that definition is:

"[E]ach and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia...[and] every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear, so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise, or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack."

That definition has not changed since being passed.

So let's do a stocktake, shall we? To all Second Amendment enthusiasts, relative to compliance with the Second Amendment, do you currently possess and store the following (assuming you are MALE ONLY and between the age of 18 and 45):

Musket or Firelock x 1
Bayonet and Belt x 1
Spare Flints x 2
Knapsack, Pouch and Box x 1
Cartridges suitable to bore of Musket or Firelock x 24
Suitable bore balls x 20
Powder (gun) x 1/4 pound

(admittedly, the above does not specify the need for the initial 'flint' prior to the 'spares' or the need for 'wadding')

Ok, so that should tie the Second Amendment completely up! You combine that definition in with the Second Amendment and you should get:

ALL males aged between 18 and 45
The above inventory
NO FEMALES ARE ALLOWED TO POSSESS WEAPONS AT ALL

And THAT'S IT! No authority for ANY other weapons, no authority for weird and wild ammunition, and (I'm sorry ladies) no females may possess a firearm of any kind....if you are not defined as part of a militia, you are out!

Now, did I get that wrong or what?

I know, sounds ridiculous doesn't it? But the point is this as far as the United States is concerned......

Whatever your reason is for maintaining your right to own ridiculously inappropriate and dangerous firearms, STOP pointing to the Second Amendment as your authority!

Own up to it and admit it's a state thing, a personal and an extremely small penis thing, not a federal thing. As far as the entire United States is concerned, the Second Amendment is an ancient artifact which holds no relevance.......as it currently stands.

Oh......and the Badger is wrong. He broke into Sandy Hook Elementary using the Bushmaster AR-15 and applied that weapon thereafter up to the point where the gutless cretin killed himself. He used a handgun for that.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Wed 16 Jan 13 #47 
sally906
Contributor

So what you're saying is that if the Sandy Hook killer's mother (and I don't mean disrespect to her as she was a victim too) had obeyed the 2nd amendment she would not have been able to own the firearm that he shot everyone with?

So sad.

Someone at work said there was another shooting today - haven't heard it myself - St Louis?


Knows 27358 facts
like | send message


Wed 16 Jan 13 #48 
Honey Badger
Member

Damn it, jmaxg, you take yourself to ne a constitutional expert or something. I wish you would cut it out. No matter what you write or think the interpretation that you state is so ridiculous I scarcely care to respond to it. Try reading the Federalist Papers and Thomas Jeffetson and some othe founding fathers. They didn't know what sort of weapons would be around NOW! But you are constantly grinding this topic and the fact of the matter is that the Second Amendment was put in place specifically to allow the citizenry to repel not just King George III but any tyrant who might try to usurp power in the USA and that is exactly why there are currently MANY MILITIAS in this country, jmaxg, and they are ready to move. I think you ought to expand your reading about the anger in this country right now and realize what is happening before you keep spouting off about the Second Amendment. You need some perspective and this had nothing to do with the tragedy at Sandy Hook or any of the other school shootings.

NO FEMALES can't have guns????? What about the policewomen, detectives, guards, TSA workers, Secret Service people. and on and on? It is a different world. What do you want is to do? Trash the constitution? Then I call you a traitor and not suitable to be a citizen of this country. Besides, why do you want to live here anyway when you find so many flaws? I think you'd better drop this issue. The Second Amendment isn't going anywhere. There many be a civil war over it, and I fully expect that, but in the end the "rogue" Americans, who believe in the Constitution instead of "Executive Orders" will prevail.

If the violence on TV, in the movies, on video games, etc would stop being such a big part of the lives of kids growing up today it would help decrease this violent behavior a great deal. Also the extensive news coverage of these incidents just fuel up the fire for other unstable people to go and do the same thing. These incidents should be mentioned but not made into a circus. They are terrible event but the over coverage of them is not helping. That is all I am going to say. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are here for the good of the citizens. When the governments start to confiscate guns in any country get read for a take over by a really bad regime. It happened in Russia, Germany, China and once the citizens had NO ARMS they were helpless in defending themselves. Millions of people were killed in the 20 th cebtury. You know that is true, don't you? I surely hope you do because the governmental slaughter which is coming will be shocking. I do believe we are headed that way. I am typing in the dark and I am sure this is full of typos but I am sure you are used to that by now. Sitting up early in the morning so my face doesn't swell up. jmaxg, PLEASE, read more current events about the happening in this country. They are not changes for the better.

Prove to "Badger" he used the Bushmaster. I say he did NOT! And I am not alone in my information about this.

jmax. I send you links on facebook and you ignore them. You erase them. I try to engage you in reasonable talk and you will have none of it. How do I ever get through to you? I have called you and you don't answer and don't return my calls. How am I ever supposed to communicate with you as you once asked me to do? I have tried but I will not waste my time any longer. I guess you just have a view and will never change. Fine. I am sick of hearing your crap.


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Wed 16 Jan 13 #49 
Ajax
Contributor

Who defines "tyrant"?


Knows 20770 facts
like | send message


Thu 17 Jan 13 #50 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

A rogue group that tries to take over, maybe?


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message


Thu 17 Jan 13 #51 
Honey Badger
Member

I would say that Hitler , Mao Tse Tung and Stalin were tyrants. I think Polpot was tyrannical. I think that Saddam Hussein and Castro and for starters. Want me to go on? Did I get any of those wrong? What I mean is did I list anyone you don't think is or was a tyrant? There are plenty more. I just don't want to get carried away here.

Don't make fun of me, Stu. It is very insulting.


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Thu 17 Jan 13 #52 
Honey Badger
Member

Ajax, a tyrant is easy to spot. He takes over total control and kills plenty of resistors while doing so. You know that. If someone comes to your neighborhood and starts to menace it in the name of South Africa's "new Strong man" (fiction here, of course, what will you do?


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Thu 17 Jan 13 #53 
kevg
The Grumpinator

doubt Ajax would be bothered, she lives in Australia


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Thu 17 Jan 13 #54 
sally906
Contributor

As all the good people do :)


Knows 27358 facts
like | send message


Thu 17 Jan 13 #55 
Ajax
Contributor

I don't know that Mao would be a tyrant per se. A bit dim and ignorant was his main problem.

His wife on the other hand...


Knows 20770 facts
like | send message


Thu 17 Jan 13 #56 
USS Palladin
Contributor

I think Chris Rock has the answer.

The second amendment does apply mainly to militia which were/are supposed to be under the control of the states to make sure our Federal government doesn't become tyrannical. States rights activists stand up now.

The part about the militia above is interesting. Certainly one could infer that only those in enrolled in the militia should have the guns, and maybe so but it also states that citizens need to supply their own weapons thus implying a citizens right to bear arms since he needs to own one to be in the militia.

When it comes to the Constitution I am always amazed as to how some people always want a strict reading saying it isn't a flexible document while others say it implies a lot of things just based on the rights given. Privacy is implied but not a given, choice is strongly implied but not written either, yet when it comes to guns we are always talking about flintlocks and such but the writers could have never imagined the strides made in modern guns. I guess the document is flexible in choice and privacy it has to be flexible in regards to guns too.

Why is it in the old west in the cow towns at the end of the trail they could make you hand in your hand gun to ensure the peace but now local municipalities can no longer have this regulation in place? You turned in your gun in Dodge City in the late 19th century but Chicago and Washington D. C. can't legally ban them now? Hmmm.....

We all are horrified by the aspects of these terrible mass shootings yet we don't seem to jump up and down about the number of lives taken every day by violence done either by criminals or through passion or just by mistake. Yet when we have one of these terrible shootings all of sudden we are going to punish the vast number of law abiding citizens who own guns because of the few and we don't get around to the real culprit for death which is handguns.

And in the Colorado and Sandy Hook shootings is this really a matter of gun control or a mental health issue? When Charles Whitman committed those atrocious shootings from the University of Texas tower back in the 60's he had sought out help but had been denied. He knew something was not right with him and he had never had violent thoughts before. It was later found out on autopsy that he had a brain tumor which caused him to become a violent mass murderer. While I do want better regulations and I do think we need better regulations I am just convinced that will not end it at all. Unless you change an assault rifle to fire from semi automatic to automatic than all it is is just another rifle designed to propel a high powered projectile down the range. It is more lethal because it doesn't have a wood stock? No, and the fact that it has a bayonet bolt really doesn't make it that much different from a high powered hunting rifle. The magazines are different but even if they aren't very big, you can get pretty proficient at changing out even a regular one with some practice.

I learned that last assault weapon ban did nothing statistically to lower the violent crime rate in the U.S., but I will support the ban nevertheless though I am afraid it won't change a thing as handguns are really the problem here, not assault weapons.

I just don't think gun control will ever work and it won't be for lack of trying but with the advent of 3-D printing you soon will be able to make a gun at home. Don't laugh, it has already been done and been on the internet and been forced to be taken down. I also saw a picture the other day of an AR-15 that had been converted to a nail gun, that is right, it shoots nails, big thick ones with accuracy two hundred yards down range. May or may not kill you but you get the point.

As to banning weapons, I recall the Pope banned the crossbow during the Middle Ages but that didn't stop armies from using it. Couldn't blame the continued usage on video games either. :-)

Some interesting books on the subject:
Craig Whitney was on the radio yesterday and actually made some compelling points for the Second Amendment.
His book is: "Living with Guns: A Liberal's Case for the Second Amendment"

" Ricochet: Confessions of a Gun Lobbyist" by Richard Feldman could be an interesting read. He was a lobbyist for the NRA and reveals its secret, dirty tricks. They may not actually be a gun owners best friend and I will admit to some confirmation bias here as I agree with him on the mental health issue.

"Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America" by Adam Winkler would be a good one too. I have listened to him several times.

I own guns, I enjoy them, I like them and I keep them safe. I doubt I will give them up unless they amend the Constitution. So I think Chris Rock has the answer, I may have the right to own one but the government can control what I put in it, they already control alcohol and tobacco and at least part of the drug trade in Washington State, shouldn't be much of a stretch. :-)


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Thu 17 Jan 13 #57 
Ajax
Contributor

Oh that 3D printed gun. That's great! Problem is that once you fire it it melts.

I would love to go clay shooting. Just saying.

And bring back the musket.


Knows 20770 facts
like | send message


Thu 17 Jan 13 #58 
Ajax
Contributor

Our former Prime Minister, John Howard, (one that we didn't misplace) talking about gun control in Australia.


Knows 20770 facts
like | send message


Thu 17 Jan 13 #59 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

I always wonder what people blamed murder on before video games and films came along. The number of deaths in Hamlet, perhaps?


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message


Thu 17 Jan 13 #60 
Ajax
Contributor

I love killing things on the Playstation. In real life I can't even kill a spider.


Knows 20770 facts
like | send message


Thu 17 Jan 13 #61 
sally906
Contributor

I don't mind killing things in computer games as long as no one gets hurt and there is no blood. Hate blood. Love black pudding. Hate blood


Knows 27358 facts
like | send message


Thu 17 Jan 13 #62 
Honey Badger
Member

Great post Palladin. To the point and very American. Thanks for being clear about things that needed to be clarified. Australia, the UK and other countries can do as they wish but they cannot take away our rights and should stop bashing us for having them. In the UK last year, where hand guns are illegal, there were 59 murders with handguns, so what's the deal? Oh, so simple. Criminals use guns much more for nefarious resons than the average law-abiding citizen. End of story. There will always be guns in America. Gov. Rick Perry made a perfect statement about the Sandy Hook horror yesterday. I do not know how to transfer that post here but maybe someone does. It sums up the problem perfectly. He said, in a nutshell, that the guns didn't kill those poor children, Lanza's trigger finger did. It is far moer eloquent than that but it is true. People kill people, not guns.

This has all degraded into a silly discussion so I choose to leave. When you are comparing killing real children to literary characters and video game hits this has really slid into the mud. As far as I am concerned it has now become stupid and insulting to those killed and the American Bill of Rights is being fluffed off as a piece of nothing. This discussion has run out of usefulness for me. It is not a serious discussion any longer so have fun. I exit......... not laughing.


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Thu 17 Jan 13 #63 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

Quite right. There's no comparison or connection between killing literary characters and video game characters and real life. I couldn't agree more.

Anyhow, as the question was asked - what is the deal? You're more or less right about the 59 murders in the UK last year using handguns (I've also seen the figure 58 but let's not split hairs). That compares with 12,966 in the US in 2010.

Of course, the US has a larger population, so you have to adjust. If the UK had the same population as USA and the same firearm homicide rate, there would have been 290 gun deaths in the UK. According to your figures, Chicago alone had had almost twice as many gun deaths as that in the first two weeks of this year alone.

Governor Perry is right, of course, and you only have to look at the lower gun death rates in other countries with a right to bear arms to know that lax gun laws don't turn your population into homicidal maniacs. There's more to it than that and even if gun laws were tightened up across the US there'd still be a problem just as there is in the UK. Hopefully, though, it'd be a much, much smaller problem - just as it is in the UK.

From an outsider's perspective, America has a problem with guns. Guns might not be the cause of the problem but they certainly make the symptoms a hell of a lot worse.

If you're able to suggest something that'd fix the underlying problem then I'd say you've earned the right to be a gun advocate. If you're saying that tens of thousands of deaths every year is just an acceptable price to pay for the constitution then I'm glad you're leaving and I'm not laughing either.


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message


Thu 17 Jan 13 #64 
USS Palladin
Contributor

Actually the 3-D gun was made of kevlar and probably wouldn't melt. Also lighter and stronger too.

It is pretty obvious we have a problem with guns and it always revolves around the guns themselves or the people who use them.

I think I am with the President in regards to the background checks. Which means the banning of private gun sales which is ok by me.

If the Feds can set up large data bases for health and such surely they can set up a national clearing house in regards to guns I mean really, we track terrorists all over the world.

Yes the problem is and always will be that people kill people, they always have and I suspect they always will, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't start to restrict access to the means by which they carry out these heinous acts. We will never prevent gun violence but we can lower the incidence of it the states and the Federal government both have to have a hand in this.


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Thu 17 Jan 13 #65 
Proofreader
Member

We jump through many hoops to own a car and to be tested to earn a driver's license....gun registration and sales should be even more regulated. When you sell a car privately, you must do the paperwork to transfer ownership....so this should certainly apply to all gun sales, I'd say. We need to approach this problem of violence from all sides, and I think that is what the President is trying to do...The NRA is not helping, by the way.


Knows 72613 facts
like | send message


Thu 17 Jan 13 #66 
USS Palladin
Contributor

Driving a car isn't a right but owning a gun is. So they don't test you to see if you know civics before you vote because it is a right. I am not saying that what you suggest is wrong I am just pointing out the difference between having a right guaranteed by the Constitution and having a privilege (driving a car). Seems like government can regulate a privilege but can't regulate a right too much or it becomes unconstitutional. You would think you would have a right to get married but it is a privilege and you have to pay for a license.

And out of all the amendments to the Constitution that one that most strongly suggests states rights (control) is the second amendment. It specifically allows states to have militia that are beyond Federal Control, thus making this whole mess even messier.

I guess we do have a national data base for guns and gun control but I don't know if it is mandated that states use it or not.

And rights can be regulated to a degree, you just can't vote whenever you want, and their are rules to follow, etc, etc, just like freedom of speech doesn't allow you to say anything, anywhere that you want so I am sure somebody out there is clever enough to figure out a way to regulate this without trampling on second amendment rights but darned if I know how.


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Thu 17 Jan 13 #67 
Honey Badger
Member

I will say just one more thing before leaving this entirely, and Pall, you spoke very eloquently and sensibly about the whole thing. I would like to see a breakdown of how many gun deaths are caused by legally owned guns by the gun owner and how many gun deaths are caused by stolen guns such as the Sandy Hook incident where Lanza took his mother's arsenal. That is where the trouble with places like Chicago begin. The strict gun laws there are most likely ignored by people who have illegally gotten guns. Do you think for one minute, that I would get an illegal gun in New York State and risk arrest and conviction? Of course not! But many people would get guns illegally and they do and they use them. That sort of illegal activity is rampant and there are many states which have lax gun laws. I don't even fault them. If I lived in a border state I would definitely have some guns and know how to use them for self protection. Many people do and their states give them that right. Those people do not go out shooting kids in school or people in theatres. They defend themselves and their families. You would do it, too, if you knew the choice was to be killed yourself.


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Thu 17 Jan 13 #68 
Honey Badger
Member

Proofie, people jump through hoops to legally own a pistol in NYS, too. It is a very detailed and quirky process and not everyone who applies gets one and even fewer get concealed carry permits. It is very tough to get a legal pistol in our state.


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Fri 18 Jan 13 #69 
jmaxg
Contributor

Of course he spoke eloquently! He always does! USS Palladin has a proven record of being one of the most informed and considered posters in the history of Factacular.com!

And believe me, we have had more than our fair share of considered and informed posters.

And it's great to see that you agree with him Honey Badger. Now, if only that would make up for all the times when you didn't agree with him and you mauled him online. Quite frankly, your endorsement seems like millimeters away from being maligned, distorted, bashed, insulted and destroyed. The old "With friends like that..." comment comes to mind.

I, myself, welcome USS Palladin back and hope it's more than just his two bob's worth on this issue. I know Skippuh and it's probably just this issue but still, I hope he can make time again to endure us.

As for this issue, the above was interesting reading, but here's the thing....

The current President of United States AGREES with Honey Badger and USS Palladin to the extent that the Second Amendment is sacrosanct when it comes to being the authority for ANY American owning a weapon. He always has.

But that doesn't mean I have to agree with his interpretation of the Second Amendment. And I guess that's my point.

But if I have to, I will acknowledge the right to protect one's property and acquiring firepower to do so.

So, USS Palladin mentioned the comedian Chris Rock's approach to gun control......let them have the weapons, but the bullets will cost $1,000 a piece.

He was joking when he said that. But then later, Chris Rock said something else and he wasn't joking....

Chris Rock suggests, that if we need firearms to protect our property, then how about only those that own property get to buy guns?

And yes, he meant land and a house. To buy a gun, you need to own a house (property) to be protected. Otherwise? You are shit outta luck.

Interesting concept. Not practical, just interesting.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Fri 18 Jan 13 #70 
USS Palladin
Contributor

Thanks for the kind words Jmax.

But I actually agree with Chris, make the damn ammo so expensive you can't afford to shoot. Seems to work with gasoline and the price of oil. It goes up and folks drive less.
If you are a hunter and using a shot gun you can always reload and if you are a rifle hunter, show your hunting license and you will be allowed to buy enough rounds to shoot for as many tags as you have or better yet go bow hunting, now that is HUNTING!!!! After hunting bring the unused rounds back for refund and a return of your deposit, yeah I just thought of that. :-)

As for pistols, you seriously don't need a thousand rounds to defend yourself, you would limited to the number of rounds a law enforcement officer typically carries for each weapon you own.

If you are a serious hobby shooter, meaning you like to practice and compete against others in target competition, you would be licensed and could buy ammo as you need but with stiff penalties for re sale.


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Fri 18 Jan 13 #71 
Honey Badger
Member

Yes, I think Pall is eloquent. I often have my opinions leaning closest to his point of view. I do not always agree with him and I actually do not agree with putting a prohibitive price on ammunition. I don't think people need to stockpile ammo but they are doing it. Damned sure they are. So I will only say I am glad that Pall is back and his usually sensible and well thought out discourses are welcome. I fear that the attack on the Second Amendment is not so benign as to be merely an attempt to protect the innocent but we will wait to see.

Meanwhile, there is a lot of ammo out there for conventional weapons, there are a lot of unregistered automatic and semi-automatics, and a tremendous stockpile of ammunition. They need to go. They have been illegal for a long time anyway.

I think bow hunting is a fine way for hunters to hone their skills. We have a bow-hunting season here in NY on LI for deer. There should be a regular season but the deer are too cute for lawmakers to pass a regular hunting season HERE for them. They are out of countrol, too.

I grew up in a house where there were always shotguns around and they were used for bird hunting and my father participated in many field trials with his hunting dogs. Great care was taken to keep them away from us but we were allowed to fire them out in the field occasionally. It was not a thrill for me. There was never a threat to anyone by him owning these guns and using them and that is true of most gun owners. I agree that people owning guns for no good reason should confine their shooting to a shooting range where they could buy reasonable priced ammo for use in the facility. That makes sense to me.

The public does have a Second Amendment and I do not want to see it priced out of existence because a minority of people think it is wrong. I say leave it alone and be very, very careful in issueing permits and have frequent checks of gun permit owners.


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Fri 18 Jan 13 #72 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

Permits?

So you're in favour of permits?


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message


Fri 18 Jan 13 #73 
Honey Badger
Member

Yes, I am in favor of permits for pistols, particularly concealed carry pistols. I am not in favor of permits for long guns. I am definitely in favor of hunting permits to control the indiscriminate slaughter of any species. I frequently report the sounds of hunters' shotgun fire before and after daylight. I am actually a very lawful person. Play fair....especially with the animals.


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Sun 20 Jan 13 #74 
Ajax
Contributor

I have a few more questions.

1) Why is this 2nd Ammendment set in stone? Why can't it be updated to suit the times?

2) Why is the right to keep and bear arms treated as a basic human right when patently it is not?

3) Why are school children considered expendable in preserving this "right"?

4) Is every gun owner in the country trained to be part of this militia and prepared to go to war? If not, why not?


Knows 20770 facts
like | send message


Mon 21 Jan 13 #75 
Honey Badger
Member

Ajax, I am happy to answer your questions but it is too late for me to answer the four completely now. I think you should let an AMERICAN BORN PERSON answer, so I will have time to answer tomorrow.

The Second Amendment is set in stone as much as any other of the amendments.

It is a human right HERE.

Schoolchildren are not expendable at any cost. The sickbastards who kill them should be prevented from killing them.

Not all citizens are considered stable enough to possess firearms and thus would NOT be part of the militia.

That is a five minute answer, Ajax. I promise you better tomorrow. It has been a trying day.


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Mon 21 Jan 13 #76 
USS Palladin
Contributor

I wouldn't consider the second amendment a human right but it is civil right in the U.S.
Could be altered by by revising the Constitution via Amendment which is a long and drawn out process.
For the most part gun owners in this country are law abiding and take ownership and the responsibility of guns seriously but we do have a culture of the gun, having won our independence via the use of weapons, manifested our destiny through the use of guns, won one civil war, two world wars and a bunch of other conflicts using guns, so we are an armed culture.
School children are not expendable, but neither are the thousands that die each year from gun violence. These deaths just don't get the media attention that maybe they should.
In the end I think we keep the guns because people left Europe to settle here for a number of reasons the chief one being to get away from government. I am sure there are a lot of other reasons other people can cite but with that sort of streak of independence at the core of our existence as a nation I think the right to bear arms was put in there to assure the states in the new union that the Federal Government would never become too powerful or as tyrannical as the English.
While the Federal government can do much here, the Amendment specifically states that the states are in control of the militia and by extension then they have the right to make their own gun control laws.


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Mon 21 Jan 13 #77 
jmaxg
Contributor

I am amazed that people have respectfully made way for me.

Maybe it's because I have stated that Port Arthur still haunts me and I have also spent these ten years in America. Whatever, I will take Ajax's questions on.

1. The 2nd Amendment is set in stone because it is part of the "Bill of Rights", a set of amendments to the original Constitution of the United States presented by my favourite "founding father", James Madison, amongst others. These "rights" were ratified by the US Congress on December 15, 1791.

The "Bill of Rights" (amendments 1 to 27) cannot be altered in any way except they can be added to. It is feasible that a 28th amendment could be added to define gun ownership in America. It depends on political will.

2. The right to "keep and bear arms" is extracted from the full text of the 2nd Amendment which is this:

"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."

As you can see, the amendment does not even constitute a correct sentence. But, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has upheld the part of that statement relative to "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" in many judgements. The current President of the United States agrees with those judgements and he is a constitutional scholar.

Again, I state, that does not mean I have to agree with either SCOTUS or POTUS.

To truncate "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." seems like a personal call to me. It's done on purpose to suit themselves, whoever "themselves" are. Whatever, I don't agree.

3. Ordinarily, 20 eight and seven year old kids and their teachers, and there principal and assistant should not be considered "expendable". But the United States interpretation of the system is what it is. In effect, it is the most dangerous western based sociological system on the face of the Planet Earth. And I sure wished I had appreciated that before moving here.

4. NO! They are not! Obviously you have read the 2nd Amendment. Every state has a "National Guard" and I would have thought that satisfied compliance with the 2nd Amendment. They have their own secured weaponry, their own bullets and the State Governor's authority to exist. The "well organised militia"

How that went from the 2nd Amendment to every idiot possible handling semi-automatic weapons? All I can think of is a lack of political will......or just plain cowardice.....whatever. Means the same thing to me.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Mon 21 Jan 13 #78 
sally906
Contributor

Read some interesting stats today 200,000 more Americans have died from gunfire as civilians since 1968 than have died in US wars since 1776

See the whole report here:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/jan/18/mark-shields/pbs-commentator-mark-shields-says-more-killed-guns/


To be fair it is not just homicide deaths for the civilians, includes suicide and accidents as well.


Knows 27358 facts
like | send message


Mon 21 Jan 13 #79 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

Barring the historical elements, is there any constitutional difference between the Bill of Rights and subsequent amendments to the constitution?

I'm just curious with regards to jmaxg's comment that the Bill of Rights (which I'm sure he meant to say was amendments 1 to 10 not 1 to 27) cannot be altered in any way. They can still be repealed by a subsequent amendment, right?

The 18th amendment (prohibition) hasn't been altered but was repealed by the 21st. Surely, the same thing is legally possible (even if politically impossible at present) for the 2nd?


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message


Mon 21 Jan 13 #80 
Ajax
Contributor

"Schoolchildren are not expendable at any cost. The sickbastards who kill them should be prevented from killing them."

Firstly, no amount of dead school children has altered gun laws yet, so logically there must be an acceptable amount of carnage to keep the peace.

Secondly, as I've said before, any one of us could be one of those "sick bastards" because you don't know if your future holds mental illness or alzheimers or anything else to alter your mind. So if you want your so-called sick bastards to stop shooting people you need to start looking after them properly and stop giving them access to guns. Saying that it is naughty hasn't worked so far.


Knows 20770 facts
like | send message


Mon 21 Jan 13 #81 
USS Palladin
Contributor

The Bill of Rights is commonly referred to the first 10 amendments.
I am not sure they can be "repealed" through amendment but Stu is right you can amend the Constitution so I guess we could change the second amendment to something that gave the Federal Government more control.
Probably should do something like that but it will never happen since the spirit of the Amendment is to give the states this power.

I noticed this is Costa Rica and in other countries that have very strict gun laws. Why do the police still feel the need to carry weapons on duty if the citizenry cannot possess firearms? Not saying all the police carry all the time but even in these societies some must get through.

Maybe we have all the guns because we still have "posse comitatus" so law enforcement can't call on the military to back them up and an armed citizenry is required.

Now that we have national health care, perhaps we will see an improvement in our handling of the mentally ill but I think the real change will come about when we change doctor and attorney privilege to the extent that they can report patients and clients to authorities if they show the tendency to commit violence and of course get them in the database of those that can't have guns. Doesn't mean they won't get a hold of them anyway, but it is a step.


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Mon 21 Jan 13 #82 
Honey Badger
Member

I can see I will have to construct a well thought out, well prepared piece on this topic. I am really CHEEZED OFF by jmaxg's ceaseless attack on private citizens owning firearms. You have set me upon a task and I will enjoy it. I am sick to death of all the rubbish posted in this post. I'll be back soon. I have been unwell (no kidding) but I am lucid and I am going to give you a dose of Wabzy you won't soon forget. Hang on, Ajax. I am going to do some GOOD research on this, not spewing gut feelings.

From what I have heard, Pall, there is going to be virtually NO mental health benefits in the ACA and that comes form two physicians who are not related to me. It should be fun, especially since we have two of them in high places. *snort* and *lol*


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Tue 22 Jan 13 #83 
Honey Badger
Member

Killed children will not change the Second Amendment, Ajax. More kids are probably killed crossing the street or in car accidents but I will get into that in my "essay"

The National Guard IS NOT a well formed militia, Ajax. It is something else.


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Tue 22 Jan 13 #84 
Honey Badger
Member

Jmaxg, where can I find a copy of Obama's scholastic record and why was he asked to turn in his law license? If he is a Constitutional Scholar I am the Venus de Milo. Seriously, where are his academic records?


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Tue 22 Jan 13 #85 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

Godwin's Law states that as an internet discussion grows longer, the probability of someone drawing a comparison to Hitler or the Nazi's approaches 1.

Factenstein's Law states that as a conversation on Factacular grows longer, the probability of wabzy/southshoregirl/Honey Badger promising to post something fascinating, thought provoking or conclusive in the future which she doesn't have time for just now approaches 1.


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message
6 people like this post


Tue 22 Jan 13 #86 
USS Palladin
Contributor

The National Guard isn't a well formed militia????

This should be interesting.


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Wed 23 Jan 13 #87 
Honey Badger
Member

Stop being BULLIES. Pall you are wrong. Stu, stop BULLYING ME NOW. There could be consequences for both of you for bullying

The National Guard, PALL, is a State run army, not a freely formed group of citizens who get together in their communities and practice with their weapons so they can thwart a tyrant if needed, the very reason the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights. During the Revolutionary War these colonists were known as the Minutemen. They could pick up their arms at a moments notice and resist Government tyrants. This is what I want to clarify to Americans and teach to non-Americans who just don't know this. It will be posted here shortly.


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Wed 23 Jan 13 #88 
Honey Badger
Member

By the way, non-Americans just don't understand the freedoms which militias can secure for them. I suggest they read some American history and see what a truly free nation is like.


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Wed 23 Jan 13 #89 
JMK
Editor

Sorry but that just makes me laugh. You are telling me that I need to read American history to see what a truly free nation is like? I just need to look around me. I suggest instead of reading American history, people try visiting countries like New Zealand and Australia that scored highly on the recent list of countries that have a good rating for personal freedoms now. here


Knows 47627 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Wed 23 Jan 13 #90 
Ajax
Contributor

One of the freedoms I enjoy is sending my daughter to school without wondering if she'll be shot today.

I see this argument a lot. That guns are the price you pay for freedom.

Anyway, I didn't mean to start a war. I asked questions that I wanted to know the answers to because I find the whole thing really hard to wrap my head around.

JMK, I had always suspected that NZ was super awesome in something other than Rugby. In fact, we considered moving there at one point.


Knows 20770 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Wed 23 Jan 13 #91 
USS Palladin
Contributor

Ask a legit questions and get accused of bullying???

Well at least you tamed down the first post you had written on that subject in this forum before you wisely deleted it. Yeah...I saw it.

So I am tired of this and I want to suffer your consequences, because in reality you are the bully, always have been and I suspect always will be. So please, please do what you must and lets just see where those chips fall. I'm ok with it as long as you are ok with the consequences too. Rational discussion with you has always been difficult and now is just about impossible.

Time for High Noon? :-)


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Wed 23 Jan 13 #92 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

Woah there - nobody is calling anyone out, ok?

I take bullying seriously and I don't like it. However, there's a difference between holding an unpopular or unsupported opinion (and therefore having a number of people disagreeing with you) and being bullied.

Honey Badger has commonly espoused opinions which aren't held by a majority of contributors to these discussions so sets herself against the odds. I'm absolutely fine with that - she's got every right to her opinion. The majority, of course, have every right to theirs too.

In coming up with Factenstein's Law, I wasn't bullying Honey Badger (at least, that wasn't my intent). My intention was to laugh at yet another occasion when she was promising to post something which, doubtless, she'll never follow through on. There are four occasions in this thread alone where it's happened.

Yes, I'm making fun of her habitual use (and breakage) of promises. I'd hope most people wouldn't consider a one-off remark about such a thing as bullying.

I don't really want to be making fun of Honey Badger. What I really want is for her to stop making promises she doesn't keep. Frankly, I'm fed up of reading them.


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Wed 23 Jan 13 #93 
Honey Badger
Member

JMK, I would be glad to learn more about the history of New Zeaalnd but I am not about to make a move riight now. I think we all can stand learning about other countries and how they work. Ajax seems to like your nation quite a lot. I am sure I would too. I just happen to have been bprn the but the expatriation rate for US citizens if seven times greater now than it was several years ago. I am sure some are moving to your counrty.

I know some Australian history , though not nearly enoughI I will make a point of learn much more history about NZ and OZ. I so know much more about European and Asian history, ancient history. I love it. I have to get to your nations. Point well taken, JMK.


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Wed 23 Jan 13 #94 
Honey Badger
Member

Pall and Stu: I don't care what you think about the fact that you saw my post which I wrote in anger last night. It doesn't matter to me what the hell you think. I am fed up with bullies and you ARE bullies and it takes great effort for me to hold back from talking to either of you. Why should you take such nasty stances against me just becase we differ in out opinions frequently?

I am working on the promised post about the militias and the Second Amendment. I know I have got to get this one done and posted. I just want you to realize I am a person with feelings and not a shooting target. I am also injured.

I have been collecting information on the "well formed militias" and I happened to come upon some quotes which Margaret Sanger made.... I will post them, too, but not in the same post.

I will no longer tolerate nastiness from anyone. I try to be light heart and funny on here and that is how I think things are best. I am afraid I will have to go to the Count with this problem if the snide remarks continue. I done want anyone booted; I want to be treated with a degree of decency and friendship.


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Wed 23 Jan 13 #95 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

How is it nasty to point out that you consistently make promises that you don't keep?

If you want me not to point that out then either just stop making promises or start keeping them. I'd prefer the first option personally.


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Wed 23 Jan 13 #96 
USS Palladin
Contributor

First things first: Sorry Stu.
Barb:
Please go the Count, lets get this resolved. Seems like the best thing to do.

As this seems to be what you want/need just be prepared to live with the consequences. I know I can.

Good luck.


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Thu 24 Jan 13 #97 
jmaxg
Contributor

Of course you guys are right and I apologise to Ajax that I didn't point out.....

The original "Bill of Rights" was Amendments 1 to 10 of the original articles of the United States Constitution.

That "Bill of Rights" has now grown to 27 amendments so guys? Please forgive Ajax if she picks on you for being pedantic.

The point being, there is a US Constitution, 27 Amendments to that Constitution and yes, a proven history of changes to that list of Amendments.

But I am a student of politics and a guy called "John Howard".

Even when the entire country wants something to happen, one man can diffuse the public will. I got to hand it to Prime Minister Howard on that level. It was devious, but inspired.

Pardon my rant....ahem.....no, Ajax......ordinarily an Amendment to the US Constitution can't be changed. Added to or superceded? Now that is a an appropriate question.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Thu 24 Jan 13 #98 
Honey Badger
Member

It not NASTY, Pall , to not follow through. You immediately want trouble. Well. The last time I checked the UK and the USA were both free to say what they wanted and If i fail to come throught on something then it is a crime on my part. It is not the end of the world. You guys really are BULLIES. Pall, why do you want me to go to the Count so eagerly? Are you that nuts? I am not looking for trouble. YOU are. AND the National Guard is NOT what the militias are. It is late. I am in pain. I am definitely going to write you boys a very clear page on this just as soon as I am able to do so. I am not copping out. I am recuperating and I simply have been collecting information. You'll be seeing it soon.

Now stop this asinine "High Noon" garbage and let my ribs heal and let my cuts heal. You are acting very nasty. Maybe I will have to inform the Count, BB and SL, maybe I won't. In the meantime think about why you have a need to always be so nasty to me after all of the time has past and I have been very good. I have not behaved badly and I won't. I expect the same from you.

By the way, there is some new info on the Sandy Hook Tragedy which can out late tonight. I have ot had a chance to read it. If it is good info I will share it. If not, I will not. One thing you need to know is the severity of Connecticut's gun laws. Mama Lanza got them anyway, didn't she. Death count in Chcago continues to climb. These are largely committed with illegal handguns. I have the count on my facebook wall.

Pray tell, oh perfect one.....what are the consequences? Me being booted off because I haven't done my homework to your satidfactuon? Grow up and be nice. You might even feel good about it.

Ajax, I will definitely write this for YOU, because you deserve it and really want to know. We are not going to discuss DROTG because that is just not part of our laws. There are other solutions. Take to you tomorrow after I see the surgeon.


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Thu 24 Jan 13 #99 
Ajax
Contributor

Thanks HB. Just be clear, I want to know why EVERY gun owner is not part of this militia. You mentioned before you intended to purchase a firearm and join the NRA. Does this mean that you are prepared to go to war if need be?

Do we have any members from Switzerland? That would be a good comparison.


Knows 20770 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Thu 24 Jan 13 #100 
USS Palladin
Contributor

Same old same old Barb.

It is not nasty to ask a question and look forward to your response.
I put no deadline on it, you could have said I am wrong about that, what you did do was write back as to why you felt it wasn't a militia, to which you may note, I have not responded at all.

You are the one that wants to go the Count because you feel you are bullied. I think that is borderline ludicrous and definitely laughable but I am tired of voicing some sort of objection to something you write or even questioning what you say and you running off saying you will post something later or claim that I (we) are attacking you. It is just asinine.

I suppose you threatening to go the Count is just another one of the above examples where you say you will do or post something and never carry it out but I am not going to let you get away with this this time.

Look, I am giving you first shot, take your grievance there, I am willing to suffer the consequences but what you are afraid of is that he actually might see who the true bully is....

So let us know what you decide to do, because if you don't go, I will or else stop this behavior that ruins free exchange on these forums. You are free to express opinions that differ from the rest of us, we are free to differ with those opinions especially if you are quoting "facts" to back up that opinion. That is the essence of debate of which we have substantial evidence throughout these forums that you are unable to do with a degree of civility that most of the rest of us seem to have.

Or you can apologize to me and others for these uncivil moments and pledge to try to contain yourself in the future.

Ajax: we don't have mandatory conscription in this country like they do in Switzerland so no not everybody that owns a gun is prepared to go to war. I think an essential thing to understand in American History is the fact that the folks that fought for independence, a lot of them were frontiersman, skilled in handling weapons and crack shots. You had to be if you were going to feed your family. They had ready availability to weapons and such. The Battle of Lexington and Concord was essentially over the British attempt to take over an armory the Minuteman had started there in case things came to a conflict. Even before Mao said it, every government has realized that all power is essentially derived from the barrel of a gun (weapons). The British said we couldn't have arms, the war started and since we could not have won that war without those skilled frontier marksman I think that has become enshrined in our psyche that all of us should be able to grab a gun and defend ourselves, property and freedom against the tyrant. That was all a pretty recent memory for the Founding Fathers so in part I think that is why we have the Second Amendment.


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Thu 24 Jan 13 #101 
Ajax
Contributor

Thank you. Interesting dynamic. Like rebellious teenagers. :)


Knows 20770 facts
like | send message


Thu 24 Jan 13 #102 
USS Palladin
Contributor

Yeah....with guns, not sure that is a good thing. :-)


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Thu 24 Jan 13 #103 
Ajax
Contributor

No. It doesn't look safe from an outsider's perspective. I can't think of another country prepared to pay such a high price for perceived benefit. In the developed world particularly.


Knows 20770 facts
like | send message


Thu 24 Jan 13 #104 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

Whenever the Constitution is discussed, the Founding Fathers (inevitably) are mentioned. Changes to the Constitution are often thought of in terms of whether they're what the Founding Fathers intended.

It struck me last night that there's an assumption in there that the Founding Fathers were a unit - that they all felt the same way about everything. This, obviously wasn't the case.

Why obviously? Well, even if you just take the signatories of the constitution that's 40 men. When have you ever known 40 men to agree on anything? Add in other delegates who didn't get around to signing and you're up to 53 (and perhaps you could question whether there was a reason those additional 13 didn't sign). There were 3 further delegates who actively refused to sign - so clearly there was dissent.

If you take a broader view of the Founding Fathers (e.g. include the signatories to the Declaration of Independence or the Continental Congress or people such as Thomas Paine or luminaries such as Jameses Madison and Monroe) then you add in more men and the idea that they all had the same vision for the country gets more far fetched. Inevitably, compromises must have been made as they tend to be in any political arena.

So, why are the compromised views of a disparate bunch of men held so sacrosanct?

Washington's views on militia are particularly interesting (check out his correspondence from the time of the French War if you have a few days free). Basically, he thought they were more of a threat than an aid and thought that, unchecked, they could lead to the ruin of the nation.

Later, in writing to James Madison in 1785, he was quick to state that "it behoves us to provide good militia laws and to look well to the execution of them". Another letter to Madison in 1787, states "The militia ought certainly to be placed, in some form or other, under the authority which is entrusted with the general protection and defence".

All of which left me with two thoughts:
1. That, to me, sounds awfully like the National Guard.
2. Ooh look, Washington uses the British English spelling of defence.

Anyhow, just mulling away here about the dangers of thinking of the will of the Founding Fathers as a coherent political mind rather than a group of individuals who reached a consensus (with generally good results, I might add).


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message


Thu 24 Jan 13 #105 
USS Palladin
Contributor

Totally agree Doc.
These days it seems they are looked upon as saints when it just wasn't true at all.
They differed drastically on the vision for the country.
There were lots of compromises made to forge a Constitution one of which sowed the seeds for the Civil War decades later. Sure wished they had solved the slavery thing back then but like all political processes there has to be some give and take. For immediate union and ratification they held their noses and approved slavery.
Good point about the National Guard. :-)


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Thu 24 Jan 13 #106 
Ajax
Contributor

And their views on gay marriage?


Knows 20770 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Thu 24 Jan 13 #107 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

Alexander Hamilton was for it. Washington against. Franklin thought it should be left up to the states.

(Source: my imagination)


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Thu 24 Jan 13 #108 
Ajax
Contributor

And was there any mention of a pig a month and two comely lasses of virtue true?


Knows 20770 facts
like | send message


Thu 24 Jan 13 #109 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

Only providing that ducks wear long pants.


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Thu 24 Jan 13 #110 
USS Palladin
Contributor

I would have thought Franklin and Jefferson would be strong for it taking into account how they lived their personal lives.
Adams would be against it as would be Washington no telling about "Light Horse" Henry Lee, the nickname implies that he probably would have been.....


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Thu 24 Jan 13 #111 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

Ahh, it's all about denial, Pall.


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Thu 24 Jan 13 #112 
Proofreader
Member

You are all very clever, and your posts are a combination of erudite and hilarious. I'd like to see a discussion of militias....in my mind they can be radical and dangerous..Wiki lists more than 80 of them in the US. The militias I'm talking about are private organizations that in some cases stockpile weapons and ammunition for some perceived threat. They have no connection to any government as far as I know.
VERY different from the National Guard!!!


Knows 72613 facts
like | send message


Thu 24 Jan 13 #113 
kevg
The Grumpinator

Just as well I've started a separate thread entitled "armed militias" then innit.


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Sun 27 Jan 13 #114 
jmaxg
Contributor

I agree with Doc and Pall and what I think I inferred above.

The National Guard applicable in each of the 50 states seems applicable to me as far as the 2nd Amendment goes.

That means of course that, by default, no one else has the authority to hold a weapon privately even at the state level.

But, as we know, the "right of people to keep and bear arms" bit has been truncated and backed by not only the Supreme Court of the United States, but the President of the United States. That doesn't help matters, of course.

But it doesn't state we don't have the right to argue about what weapons constitute the "right of people to keep and bear arms".


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Sun 27 Jan 13 #115 
JMK
Editor

So how many gun owners in the US if asked why they own a gun would say "So I can be part of a militia to defend myself from a tyrannical government if the need arises"?


Knows 47627 facts
like | send message


Sun 27 Jan 13 #116 
jmaxg
Contributor

Well, all of them if you listen to Fox News.

That of course, is not true. I, myself, living here in Michigan would have no problem owning a single shot, accurate weapon if (remember, I said IF) I wished to hunt. Of course, as I spoke above, the rationale being semi-automatic weapons are not good to hunt with as they tend to destroy meat and make a carcass hard to process as opposed to a well delivered single shot.

As much as I would like to, I actually don't feel it is appropriate for a household to hold a pistol in a house in preparation for a house invasion that may never happen.

But if they faced the open hole of a 308 single shot and I noticed the blood drain from their face from reality and fear? Yeah, I can live with that.

I actually think the number is quite low relative to what you said in #115.

We have nutjob deejays that suggest this stuff, and take it back the next day. We have others that don't but just get themselves written on a short list by perfectly lucid government departments who have every reason to do so.

But the American people themselves? I like to think that they think they have the ability to hunt with a single shot weapon.

Not as efficient as a semi-automatic weapon but just as accurate and gives the hunted a "sporting chance".

I'd like to think Americans are about fairness.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Sun 27 Jan 13 #117 
USS Palladin
Contributor

I really don't mind that folks hunt with a semi automatic though bolt would be more sporting I grant you that.
I have hunted birds because I have to eat what I shoot and I don't necessarily like game that much. I think if I were to take up larger game hunting than it would be with the bow. Although if you look at some of the newer bows available out there now it hardly seems fair to the prey.
I would rather see hunters have multiple shots available to kill the animal than badly wound it with just one and not have the courage or fortitude to track it down and finish it off which does happen.
Some single shots have the same ballistics of semi automatics so while one shot may not spoil the meat modern bullets do horrendous damage no matter what type of gun they are fired on.
You would be better off with a shot gun for home defense than a bullet. Bullets pass through wall and can injure somebody in the next room while a shotgun is just as deadly as the pistol but less hazardous to the surrounding people should it be necessary to defend yourself.
Finally, while the most horrendous crimes that get reported in the media seem to be done with assault weapons the vast majority of gun violence in this country is done with handguns. While I am not against an assault weapon ban it is handguns that are the problem. While they are at it they could take the time to make sure that body armor and other military type protection, bullets, etc, etc are fully under Federal Control.
In closing some food for thought.
A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.
---George Washington's First Annual Message to Congress

Seems to imply that you have a weapon, you are in a militia.


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Wed 30 Jan 13 #118 
jmaxg
Contributor

Which is why, with all due respect to the Supreme Court of the United States and the President of the United States, a constitutional scholar, I think their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is incorrect as it pertains to the right of every citizen to own a weapon.

I think the reference to a "well organized militia" is valid and we already have that. It is called the National Guard. Albeit, the title is a little misleading.

There is a National Guard in each state and the Commander-In-Chief of each of those National Guard formations is the Governor of the respective state.

That seems to constitute the fulfillment of the 2nd Amendment to me.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Fri 1 Feb 13 #119 
jmaxg
Contributor

The Gun Control Hearings of the US Senate are turning out to be interesting.

The NRA's president Lapierre seemed to get himself into more hot water as he explained his opposition to background checks before gun ownership.

As he stated that criminals don't comply with background checks, one of the senators retorted with "isn't that the bloody point?"

It must be noted here that Lapierre and the NRA have done everything they can with respect to NOT ALLOWING current laws on gun restriction to be carried out. Chosen members of Congress have put forward "riders" (additions to existing bills) that are specifically intended to undermine the authority of the Department of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (ATF). The ATF has not had a confirmed director in six years.

But the best testimony was from Gayle Trotter of the Independent Women's Forum. Literally, an anti-abortion league. (keep that in mind)

When relating an actual story of a women that protected herself and her kids from people breaking in, it was explained to her that the woman did so using weapons not on trial here.......a shotgun and a handgun........nothing like assault or semi-automatic weapons (although a handgun can be considered a semi-automatic weapon).

Her response was surreal and she almost chastised senators for denying her right to choose.

Wait......we can allow your right to choose a bigger gun, just not allow your right to not have a baby?

This argument is becoming insane.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Fri 1 Feb 13 #120 
Honey Badger
Member

Jeez, you are crazy! I have to write that thing. Leave you for a few days and you run roughshod over the 2nd Amendment. I will work on it over the weekend. NOW, the National Guard is a State Army! IT IS NOT A MILITIA, of which we speak. 80 militias? That is a crazy number. I think there are many more and they are NOT dangerous. They are there to ensure thata dictator or tyrant does not tack over. I WILL PROVE THIS TO YOU! I am not speaking about bozos who glom onto illegal guns which they barely know how to use. THEY are dangerous, not a well organized militia. People, it is all so clear and, I fear, it will become very much more clear, in the near future. Relax and wait. I will try to get this spelled out for you this weekend and if I don't it will follow shortly. I will write it because I cannot let your misinformation stand as the truth .


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Fri 1 Feb 13 #121 
Honey Badger
Member

JMK, I believe there are about 250-300 million guns owned by citizens in the USA. Owning a gun does not automatically place you in a militia. To be in a militia you must be a part of a group which meets regularly and practices for the contingency of there being a need for them. They are legal and widespread. Militias have never caused trouble and have no intention to do anything but protect the rights of the citizens of the USA in an extreme case.


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Fri 1 Feb 13 #122 
JMK
Editor

But if the intention of the 2nd amendment is that citizens can arm themselves to defend themselves against a tyrannical government, why would you allow those who have no intention of ever being part of such a militia own guns on the grounds of that amendment?


Knows 47627 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Fri 1 Feb 13 #123 
Honey Badger
Member

jmaxg, in this country people have diverse views. If Gayle Trotter is anti abortion it is her right to be so and to speak out on that. I am not speaking for myself, just for people's FIRST amendment rights. Remember them? If she or someone else had a legal and registered gun they did nothing wrong, did they? Who are you to say that they want a bigger gun? Did she say that or are YOU saying that they said that? I want to know fact from fiction.

LaPierre did not sound stupid to me. He made sense and he made a sane argument in my opinion. He can move onto my block anytime he likes.

You are not the Constitutional arbiter here, jmaxg. It is fine to express your opinion but I assure you that your opinion is not the law. Opinions are fine but the facts are important and the Constitutional must rule.


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Fri 1 Feb 13 #124 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

This thread is starting to make Factenstein's Law look like a statement of the obvious.

You're hamming it up now, right Badger? You can't possibly be still making promises and expecting them to be believed, can you?


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message


Fri 1 Feb 13 #125 
Ajax
Contributor

My point exactly, JMK. Written better.


Knows 20770 facts
like | send message


Sat 2 Feb 13 #126 
jmaxg
Contributor

A report surfaced recently about membership in the National Rifle Association (NRA)...

To join or to rejoin the NRA costs $US 35 per year.

To maintain a membership in the NRA costs the NRA itself over $US 100 per year.

So, wait, based on that report, the NRA should be losing $US 65 per member, right?

But they aren't. They have limitless lobbyists and that costs money. I think we all know where it comes from......weapons manufacturers.

The point here is that membership in the NRA is nothing more than a front and little to do with the overall member's agenda.

Honeybadger? Keep sniffing your ultra-conservative pixie-dust but the fact is, that way of thinking is falling out of favour and fast.

And little by little, most of America is seeing the Fox News Network as an alternative to Comedy Central.


Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


Sat 2 Feb 13 #127 
USS Palladin
Contributor

I look forward to your responses HB.

I actually enjoyed the following link in regards to the Bill of Rights. Learned a few things myself.
This link is for the Second Amendment.

Time Magazine Your Bill of Rights Second Amendment

Use the links on the this page to check out the other amendments.


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Sat 2 Feb 13 #128 
Honey Badger
Member

What promise did I make, Doc? I'm not hamming it up. There is a First Amendement: Freedom of Speech. People can say what they want as long as they aren't threatening, etc.

Then there is the Second Amendment. LaPierre may have sounded stupid to someone but 250,000 people joined the NRA in one month. Did I? No. I don't have any guns. Would you want someone like ME to have a gun? LOL LOL No, even I don't want one.

I will check Pall's Time (Liberal till I puke)Magazine Bill of rRghts Second Amendment now. This should be fun.


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Sat 2 Feb 13 #129 
Honey Badger
Member

Pall. I take back what I said about Time Magazine. That was an excellent explanation of the Amendments. Very well done. I think that the Tenth Admendment will become a very important forcr in our country during the coming years. What do you think, Pall?


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Sat 2 Feb 13 #130 
Honey Badger
Member

Pixie-dust? Don't know it. I am merely a strict Constitutionalist and the National Guards are state armies NOT the "well organized militias". Why don't people question jmaxg? He blathers on and on and I suspect that this time it is because I sent him a little clip on the Second Amendment and militias to his Facebook wall. lol I know you hate that, jmaxg but every once in a while something so perfect for you to read comes up and I send it to you. No harm in reading something which shows the side you HATE, is there? Keep an open mind. Hey, enjoy your own pixie-dust , whatever it may be, and chill out. lol LOL


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Sat 2 Feb 13 #131 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

What promise did you make? Well...

11 Jan: I don't think any assault weapons are legal anywhere in the US. Will check but am on the run.

21 Jan: That is a five minute answer, Ajax. I promise you better tomorrow.

21 Jan: I am going to do some GOOD research on this, not spewing gut feelings.

23 Jan: This is what I want to clarify to Americans and teach to non-Americans who just don't know this. It will be posted here shortly.

23 Jan: I have been collecting information on the "well formed militias" and I happened to come upon some quotes which Margaret Sanger made.... I will post them, too, but not in the same post.

24 Jan: I am definitely going to write you boys a very clear page on this just as soon as I am able to do so. I am not copping out. I am recuperating and I simply have been collecting information. You'll be seeing it soon.

24 Jan: Ajax, I will definitely write this for YOU, because you deserve it and really want to know.

1 Feb: I will try to get this spelled out for you this weekend and if I don't it will follow shortly. I will write it because I cannot let your misinformation stand as the truth.

The only thing you've said you'll do which it appears that you've actually done is checking out the Time magazine articles.


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Sat 2 Feb 13 #132 
kevg
The Grumpinator

Character assassination in progress ??


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Sun 3 Feb 13 #133 
Honey Badger
Member

Good news! I have the Margaret Sanger info and it is right on my toolbar. No, I don't know why it is there. Do I know how these things happen? Last Monday my computer had six baby peacocks. They are doing well. Seriously, I tried to save it and I did but it got saved to the tool bar so how do I get it onto HERE and a simple to connect to link?

I am glad for the list, Stu. It may take me a bit of time but I will be very glad to get those loose ends tied up.


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Sun 3 Feb 13 #134 
Honey Badger
Member

Kev, I AM held to a higher standard, aren't I? I don't really mind but other people say what ever and they go on and on and I am called on the carpet about every statement. But if I weren't certain about what I say I wouldn't have said them. For example, eveyone said Margaret Sanger was NOT a eugenisist and she was a monster! *sigh*


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Sun 3 Feb 13 #135 
USS Palladin
Contributor

Character assasination???...lordy, lordy, that is hilarious.

Look at post #128, HB degrades it before she has even had time too look at it. Classic, classic running off the mouth before the brain is engaged. Wait...wait, she looks at it and in post #129 says it might be ok, in fact she approves.

The only person here that is character assassinating is HB herself.

And yes the First Amendment does protect freedom of speech as long as it is not threatening but honestly you aren't beyond threatening.

Finally as Stu points out in post #131 you have said you would back up your statements numerous times yet failed to do so.

Barb lets be honest here, feel free to express your opinion, I have never objected to that, but if you want to put yourself out there on the edge of ludicrous expect what you get unless you come forth with evidence to back your opinion. If you don't want too, fine but don't accuse us of holding you to a higher standard or expect us to take your opinions seriously if you can't or won't state some facts to back you up. In the end the only person really assassinating you is the person you see reflected in your own mirror.

While I always suspected Factenstein's Law was true, post #131 is pretty good proof of the theorem. In light of your long history in these forums of doing exactly what Stu has said in the above post, it would appear you would have your work ahead of you.

I understand with computer problems and health problems answering right away may not be feasible or possible, but it isn't impossible. Take your time, formulate a response that is beyond knee jerk, you might be surprised at what it might get you.


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Sun 3 Feb 13 #136 
Ajax
Contributor

Ding ding. Come on. We came to see a fight, not a dance.


Knows 20770 facts
like | send message


Sun 3 Feb 13 #137 
kevg
The Grumpinator

starting to look like bullying to me, I know she's not everybody's cup of tea but this getting a bit much.
Has nobody noticed how few posts there are in other topics, even the lack of other topics ?? A new member joined a couple of weeks ago and mentioned that she was so pleased that we didn't seem to bully unpopular members, haven't seen the lass post lately !!!
Come on the lot of you grow up and stop this nonsense.


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message
2 people like this post


Sun 3 Feb 13 #138 
USS Palladin
Contributor

From her perspective I am sure it feels that way and from those of us on the other side of any question posed in these forums, it can feel the same way should she choose to answer and if you should take a different opinion.

And yes, she can claim she is bullied and that excuses her from her promises to respond, I am actually ok with that although I would prefer that she just state she isn't going to respond rather than leave us all wondering.

It is easy to feel picked on when you can't back up what you say or make promises you don't or won't keep but that is your fault and being a verbal bully when somebody, anybody calls you on your statement, well too me that just isn't right either.

And here is the real deal, it is a discussion, it doesn't have to be made personal which she tends to do, I feel very strongly that she is entitled to any opinion that she puts forth, right or wrong but an attack on her opinion is not necessarily a personal indictment of her and maybe that is where the growing up needs to be


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Sun 3 Feb 13 #139 
kevg
The Grumpinator

I think you'll notice it wasn't HB that posted that, it was me. The forums used to be full of nutcases having a laugh not people ganging up 3-1, especially when it's a subject we have no control over. If I'm getting bored of it imagine how the milder Factacularians feel !! I'm as happy to scream abuse as anyone (possibly more) but this is getting very very boring, if you want to continue do it by pm and open a thread we are interested in.


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Sun 3 Feb 13 #140 
USS Palladin
Contributor

Well said kev, nobody is forced to come to the forums and even participate if they don't want to and as far as I can see there is always a link in every forum to unsubscribe. :-)


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message


Sun 3 Feb 13 #141 
Honey Badger
Member

Every damned thing can be backed up by reading the Second Amendment, looking up "well regulated militia", The Natiomal Guard which is NOT the same thing as a militia, and the remarks from Margaret Sanger which l will post today. I am not trying to butt heads with any one. I am a strict Constitutionalist and the Constitution is the backbone of the United States of America and it should be viewed as such. I know words and don't throw them around unless I understand what they mean.

I will not talk issues about the USA unless the American Constitution forms the basis of the discussion.


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Sun 3 Feb 13 #142 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

All I'm asking is that HB stop telling us what she's planning to do. It's just pointless. It doesn't help the conversation along, it's not interesting and she never follows through.

Anyhow, having made that request, let's move along.


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message


Sun 3 Feb 13 #143 
Honey Badger
Member

http://blackquillandink.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/margaret-sanger-quotes.pdf

Open this and you can see the remarks that Margaret Sanger made. She was the founder of Planned Parenthood and her remarks, which are all notated as to where they came from. She was clearly a eugenisist. Whatever the policies of Planned Parent hood are today I don't know because I don't care. I do not believe that are the benevolent group they are portrayed to be but I do not have current proof. I URGE YOU TO READ THIS.

I am done defending the laundry list you made, Stu. I already told people where to find the information you wanted about the Second Amendment , the National Guard and the "well regulated militias". I am done with it. If Ajax needs explnarion , she is my friend and I will talk to her in private.


Knows 4428 facts
like | send message


Sun 3 Feb 13 #144 
kevg
The Grumpinator

stfu you daft old bat !!


Knows 40110 facts
like | send message


Sun 3 Feb 13 #145 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

If you're happy with not following through then that's your call but it just justifies my scepticism whenever you make these promises.


Knows 34637 facts
like | send message
2 people like this post


Mon 4 Feb 13 #146 
USS Palladin
Contributor

Well I think eugenics was in a different post.....

Back to guns and gun control, etc, etc.

Interesting article today in the New York Times about how the AR-15 became the most popular gun in America.

NYT: Why the AR-15 is most wanted gun in America


Knows 46364 facts
like | send message
1 person likes this post


Mon 4 Feb 13 #147 
Ajax
Contributor

Interesting. And no closer to convincing me you're not all barmy. :)


Knows 20770 facts
like | send message
2 people like this post


Mon 4 Mar 13 #148 
Doctor Factenstein
Evil Genius

I've just shifted a truckload of comments from here to the Margaret Sanger thread as they weren't relevant here (but are there).

If I've introduced any non sequiturs then I apologise. Also, to anyone who referenced a post by its number on here, sorry - I've just screwed that up.




Knows 34637 facts
like | send message


Mon 4 Mar 13 #149 
Ajax
Contributor

 

Oh look at that.I still stand by my last comment.

 

 

 




Knows 20770 facts
like | send message


Wed 6 Mar 13 #150 
jmaxg
Contributor

Chief? USS Palladin?  That article made me throw up a little in my mouth.

Just to make it clear, the AR-15, just like the M-16 Armalite shoots a 5.56mm round.

That round is distinct from the normal 7.62mm rimless NATO round.  Why?

Because the 7.62mm round, after being shot, even though huge, just goes on it's path.  It may flatten, but that's it.  Still enough to kill because it's so big, but it may just blow off a llimb because it can do that quite easily.

5.56mm rounds?  Like those used in the AR-15 and it's automatic version, the M-16?

They are designed to tumble end over end through flesh......to cause maximum damage is the shortest possible period of time.

That round was not meant to kill squirrels or chipmunks, badgers or Bigfoot.....

That round is designed to kill us........you and me.




Knows 33692 facts
like | send message


This topic is now closed.






   About - Terms - Privacy Log In