Ashcroft turns 2ND AMENDMENT on its head, argues for personal right to bear arms

[2 ton hoss]

Huh? I live in a city. Not too many trees around here.

I SAID, GO LIVE IN THE NORTH WOODS. CANADA. ABOVE THE 55TH PARALLEL.

BTW: I have no problem with freedom. I'm just saying--what's the big deal with deaths from guns? I mean, sure it sucks but life goes on. I'm not getting on some debate. Just saying a very generalized statement.

DEATHS FROM GUNS ARE GENERALLY CAUSED BY EASILY PREVENTABLE SITUATIONS: PEOPLE BEING CRIMINAL DIPSHITS, OR PEOPLE HAVING ACCIDENTS. BOTH OF WHICH ARE FOLLIES OF HUMAN NATURE. BASICALLY YOU HAVE TO WEIGH THE FACTS - HOW MANY LIVES ARE WORTH A CERTAIN FREEDOM? WOULD I SUPPORT MY RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IF I KNEW THAT STATISTICALLY, 30,000 PEOPLE WOULD DIE FROM GUN-RELATED INJURIES NEXT YEAR? YEP. HOW ABOUT IT 30,000,000 PEOPLE WOULD DIE? NO, I WOULD PUSH FOR A FEDERAL CRACKDOWN. OR MORE LIKELY MOVE TO THE NORTH WOODS.

A lot of easily irritated people on this damn board.

IF YOU DON'T WANT TO DEBATE, WHY POST IN THIS THREAD WITH SUCH A CLAIM (LIKE YOU MADE EARLIER)?

 

[smallmovesal]

um, hoss we don't all run around in the bush with our skins and furs up here...

have you even been here?

the land is occupied btw... watch out for the park rangers or land owners wondering wtf you're doing shooting shit and humping w/o a permit.

ok feel free to hump...

 

[Boach]

IF YOU DON'T WANT TO DEBATE, WHY POST IN THIS THREAD WITH SUCH A CLAIM (LIKE YOU MADE EARLIER)?

Why not?

 

[Boach]

BASICALLY YOU HAVE TO WEIGH THE FACTS - HOW MANY LIVES ARE WORTH A CERTAIN FREEDOM? WOULD I SUPPORT MY RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IF I KNEW THAT STATISTICALLY, 30,000 PEOPLE WOULD DIE FROM GUN-RELATED INJURIES NEXT YEAR? YEP. HOW ABOUT IT 30,000,000 PEOPLE WOULD DIE? NO, I WOULD PUSH FOR A FEDERAL CRACKDOWN. OR MORE LIKELY MOVE TO THE NORTH WOODS.

Well, duh!

 

[FLASHMAN1]

Debates on the adoption of the 2nd Amendment do not show that the framers were concerned with an individual right to bear arms, only the need to preserve the militia as an alternative to a standing army...the text and surrounding circumstances of the 2nd amendment is what we should be concerned with when seeking out the intent fo the founders.

As for your contention that the Ashcroft position will not change current laws, many legal commentators disagree. Again, the high court would have to analzye all gun control legislation against a tougher constitutional standard which, in turn, makes it harder to regulate guns.

Ryan, please tell me, by your definition, what is/was the militia back then and now??? it is THE PEOPLE, EVERY CITIZEN, in the even of an invasion, we should form a ready militia to defend our soil.... god ryan, get your head out of your ass...

 

[FLASHMAN1]

by the way....

at least as many people die in car accidents every year... are we to ban the private ownership of motor vehicles next???? jackass!!!!

 

[FLASHMAN1]

Re: Re: Re: Ashcroft turns 2ND AMENDMENT on its head, argues for personal right to bear arms

Why are you so concerned with accidental deaths when I'm concerned with intentional violent crime (often carried out via guns)? please take note of the most severe risk stemming from guns.

As for the NRA---sure, they save lives. LOL! That's why they've fought for years against such wise legislation as the Brady Bill and laws such as those seeking to close the gun show loophole. The NRA has aided and abetted wrongdoers by implicitly pursuing legislation that does nothing but benefit their wrongful desires and threaten our nation's health.

By the way again dipshit...... If you're concerned with the "intentional violent crimes" commited by people with guns, think about this.... Have all of Clinton's bullshit gun control laws stopped gun related crimes??? NO!!!! do you know why???? Because all gun control does is stand in the way of law-abiding citizens buying firearms. People using firearms to commit crimes don't go into bob's gun shop and wait the 15 days to buy one, they buy them off the street. and all the gun control in the world is NOT going to stop the criminal element from having weapons. The best we can do as Americans to protect ourselves and our families is for us to be armed also.

One more thing Ryan.... Let someone in your family be the victim of a violent crime, and we'll see how you feel about your rights to protect yourself.....

 

[musclebrains]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Ashcroft turns 2ND AMENDMENT on its head, argues for personal right to bear arms

By the way again dipshit...... If you're concerned with the "intentional violent crimes" commited by people with guns, think about this.... Have all of Clinton's bullshit gun control laws stopped gun related crimes??? NO!!!! do you know why???? Because all gun control does is stand in the way of law-abiding citizens buying firearms. People using firearms to commit crimes don't go into bob's gun shop and wait the 15 days to buy one, they buy them off the street. and all the gun control in the world is NOT going to stop the criminal element from having weapons. The best we can do as Americans to protect ourselves and our families is for us to be armed also.

One more thing Ryan.... Let someone in your family be the victim of a violent crime, and we'll see how you feel about your rights to protect yourself.....

Actually, you just gave a great argument for more control -- not less. Instead of making people wait 15 days, make them prove they have any good reason to own one. Outlaw handguns altogether.

In any case, you wouldn't expect to see gun control laws have any effect on crime for years. No doubt, determined criminals and nutcases would develop a black-market trade. And there's no way to stop such people, period. On the other hand, I think more aggressive gun control would help diminish domestic violence and suicide. Suicide continues to be the leading cause of gun death.

 

[musclebrains]

God speaks...

Of course, there's always the Biblical defense:

"What Does the Bible Say About Gun Control?

by Larry Pratt
Executive Vice-President
Gun Owners Foundation
www.gunowners.org
Jan. 1995

The underlying argument for gun control seems to be that the availability of guns causes crime. By extension, the availability of any weapon would have to be viewed as a cause of crime. What does the Bible say about such a view?

Perhaps we should start at the beginning, or at least very close to the beginning -- in Genesis 4. In this chapter we read about the first murder. Cain had offered an unacceptable sacrifice, and Cain was upset that God insisted that he do the right thing. In other words, Cain was peeved that he could not do his own thing.

Cain decided to kill his brother rather than get right with God. There were no guns available, although there may well have been a knife. Whether it was a knife or a rock, the Bible does not say.

The point is, the evil in Cain's heart was the cause of the murder, not the availability of the murder weapon.

God's response was not to ban rocks or knives, or whatever, but to banish the murderer. Later (see Genesis 9:5-6) God instituted capital punishment, but said not a word about banning weapons.

Did Christ Teach Pacifism?

Many people, Christians included, assume that Christ taught pacifism. They cite ...."

From: http://www.ktc.com/personal/sirdavid/others.html#pratt

 

[BackDoc]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Ashcroft turns 2ND AMENDMENT on its head, argues for personal right to bear arm

Instead of making people wait 15 days, make them prove they have any good reason to own one. Outlaw handguns altogether...In any case, you wouldn't expect to see gun control laws have any effect on crime for years...Suicide continues to be the leading cause of gun death.

Why should any have to prove anything?? Prove they MIGHT be attacked or confronted in their home? Prove that they will sleep better at night knowing the odds are at least equalled? Prove they are at risk for a RANDOM home invasion?
A HOUSE WITHOUT A GUN IS A CRIMINAL'S PRAYER AND DREAM. I don't like it any more than anyone else. Some people on this thread must believe that they can debate like with a common criminal instead of applying the principles of high velocity physics.

I disagree. Crime stats should fall immediately by the logic used by gun control advocates. Simply put, if you take guns from those who abide by the law they are at increased risk for violence resulting in their catastrophic death.

As to suicide, a person should feel free enough to live their life to the fullest. They should also be able to determine when they can end it. If we legally allow a person to sign a "Do Not Resuscitate" in regards to their medical treatment by personnel, then where is the rationale in determining that, 'others may kill you, including medical staff and criminals, but you can not kill yourself.'

FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO FEEL COMPETENT LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO OWN GUNS, PLACE THE BURDEN OF PROOF! SHOW HOW MANY LICENSED CCW PERMIT OWNERS HAVE COMMITTED VIOLENT CRIMES.