guns

[bbsam]

Yes, but Nelson Mandela is not in charge over here. Until then we'll maintain a defense manor as we see fit as long as its legal to do so.

what's your point? Neither Ghandi nor MLK were in charge over here either. If you can't follow the logic of the conversation, feel free to remain silent. Nobody said anything was going to be different here. Only that the way we do things is not the only way situations have been addressed. You are correct that things will remain the same until we see fit to change them. That may include banning things that you and the NRA hold dear.

 

[bbsam]

I believe its south Africa where you can get your car fitted with an anti-car jacking device as shown here.

South African Car Flamethrower - YouTube

That country is also home to an anti-rape device for women since rapes are so prevalent in that society that some women feel its necessary in order to prevent and stop a rape. While this device is ingenious in how it works it requires that the rape victim to be raped for it to work. A bullet in the chest works much faster and doesn't require this.

Carrying a gun is anything but intellectually lazy. Its a 24 hour responsibility to know where your gun is, who has access to it, where you can legally carry it, and most importantly to avoid using it up until the point your life is endangered. This is why some people simply choose not to own a gun because these responsibilities seem too great. To say gun ownership is "intellectually lazy" only highlights your ignorance on the topic altogether.

Really brett?! I posted about gun owner's responsibility to alway know where the weapons were and to make certain they could not and would not be stolen and the place erupted with people wanting to run from that responsibility. Yet here you are saying the exact same thing. That is either incredibly disingenuous or it is the epitome of intellectual laziness.

 

[texan]

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

 

[bbsam]

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

How'd that work out on Ruby Ridge?

 

[bbsam]

Although, to your point texan, that really wasn't a last resort.

 

[Catatonic]

How'd that work out on Ruby Ridge?

Due to Ruby Ridge, the National government has backed off the aggressive and proactive seizure and attack on individuals that do not represent a threat to society.

 

[brett636]

Really brett?! I posted about gun owner's responsibility to alway know where the weapons were and to make certain they could not and would not be stolen and the place erupted with people wanting to run from that responsibility. Yet here you are saying the exact same thing. That is either incredibly disingenuous or it is the epitome of intellectual laziness.

Nobody was running from that responsibility, they just don't want the government getting into the slippery slope of mandating what is safe ownership and what isn't. The same solution doesn't work for every person as someone with small children needs to take different precautions with their firearms than someone who doesn't. Getting the government involved doesn't make the situation better, it only makes potential felons out of people who otherwise committed no crime. If anyone is being "intellectually lazy" it would be you with your historically ineffective ideas in regards to mentally ill people who get access to weapons.

 

[bbsam]

Nobody was running from that responsibility, they just don't want the government getting into the slippery slope of mandating what is safe ownership and what isn't. The same solution doesn't work for every person as someone with small children needs to take different precautions with their firearms than someone who doesn't. Getting the government involved doesn't make the situation better, it only makes potential felons out of people who otherwise committed no crime. If anyone is being "intellectually lazy" it would be you with your historically ineffective ideas in regards to mentally ill people who get access to weapons.

My ideas having to do with mentally ill people getting weapons has never been tried and therefore cannot be called "historically ineffective". Only someone being intellectually lazy would have missed that point.

 

[bbsam]

Due to Ruby Ridge, the National government has backed off the aggressive and proactive seizure and attack on individuals that do not represent a threat to society.

Maybe. I bet Wk disagrees.

 

[texan]

Although, to your point texan, that really wasn't a last resort.

I am not a McVeigh and what he did was terrible.

So I will not post and lead one to believe I applaud or defend either side on Ruby and Waco.

Just reinforcing / posting the framers comments and thoughts on guns.

Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined or determined
to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assassins; they serve to
encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

 

[moreluck]

Obama LIES AGAIN - I Will NOT Take Your Guns Away - CNS News - YouTube

 

[brett636]

My ideas having to do with mentally ill people getting weapons has never been tried and therefore cannot be called "historically ineffective". Only someone being intellectually lazy would have missed that point.

Sure they can. Every idea you have alluded to on here includes limiting the rights of the public at large access to guns whether they are out and about or at home along with limiting the amount of ammunition their guns can hold and what types of guns they should be able to own in the first place. All these ideas have been tried and have failed. Eventually they lead to total confiscation, and then things can really get messy.

 

[bbsam]

I am not a McVeigh and what he did was terrible.

So I will not post and lead one to believe I applaud or defend either side on Ruby and Waco.

Just reinforcing / posting the framers comments and thoughts on guns.

Thomas Jefferson: "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined or determined
to commit crimes. Such laws only make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assassins; they serve to
encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."

Nothing, I repeat nothing here suggests that society cannot insist upon responsible ownership of weapons.

 

[bbsam]

Sure they can. Every idea you have alluded to on here includes limiting the rights of the public at large access to guns whether they are out and about or at home along with limiting the amount of ammunition their guns can hold and what types of guns they should be able to own in the first place. All these ideas have been tried and have failed. Eventually they lead to total confiscation, and then things can really get messy.

Go back and read through the thread.

 

[soberups]

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

How'd that work out on Ruby Ridge?

Not well at all. Agents of our federal government murdered an unarmed woman holding a baby, and her 14 year old son who was shot in the back.

I dont agree with Randy Weavers white seperatist views, but the fact of the matter is that he was an innocent man who was minding his own business when his wife and son were murdered by agents of our government.

 

[texan]

Just before Christmas, the local newspaper in New York’s tony Westchester and Rockland Counties decided
to respond to the horrific shootings in nearby Newton, Conn., with its own version of insanity.
The Journal News published an interactive “gun map” showing the names and addresses of thousands
of local residents who have handgun permits. The article’s headline read, “The Gun Owner Next
Door: What YouDon’t Know about the Weapons in Your Neighborhood.”

The newspaper was so inundated with complaints that shortly after Christmas it took extra security
precautions and hired security guards — who were armed — to patrol its
Rockland County headquarters.

The Journal News chose not to share with its readers the information that it had hired
armed security guards. That revelation came from a competing newspaper, the
Rockland County Times, which concluded that the Journal News conducts itself
according to the double standard: “Guns are good for the goose but not for the gander.”
Guns for Me but Not for Thee - John Fund - National Review Online

 

[bbsam]

Not well at all. Agents of our federal government murdered an unarmed woman holding a baby, and her 14 year old son who was shot in the back.

I dont agree with Randy Weavers white seperatist views, but the fact of the matter is that he was an innocent man who was minding his own business when his wife and son were murdered by agents of our government.

and I don't agree with the federal agents but that was a battle that could have been won in court. Simply put, whether there on trumped up charges or not, you can't fire on federal agents.

 

[over9five]

and I don't agree with the federal agents but that was a battle that could have been won in court. Simply put, whether there on trumped up charges or not, you can't fire on federal agents.

I thought some things were worth dying for? What would your forefathers think of your switch in beliefs today????

 

[soberups]

Not well at all. Agents of our federal government murdered an unarmed woman holding a baby, and her 14 year old son who was shot in the back.

I dont agree with Randy Weavers white seperatist views, but the fact of the matter is that he was an innocent man who was minding his own business when his wife and son were murdered by agents of our government.

and I don't agree with the federal agents but that was a battle that could have been won in court. Simply put, whether there on trumped up charges or not, you can't fire on federal agents.

Yes you can, if they are unlawfully on your property and they shoot at you first. Kevin Harris, the friend of Weaver's who shot and killed the federal marshal, was acquittedon the grounds of self defense. Randy Weaver was ultimately acquitted of all charges except for failure to appear in court. Lon Horiuchi, the FBI sniper who murdered an unarmed Vicky Harris, was indicted on first degree murdre charges by a Boundary County grand jury, but the case was dismissed on the basis of sovereign immunity.

 

[bbsam]

That suggests they had a warrant. How then are they there unlawfully?