|
Post by falgar25 on Mar 10, 2009 6:55:31 GMT -4
robmoore......You hit the nail on the head. When the government gets our guns we will lose the rest of our freedoms. The world is changing, and we will not like what it changes into. Ya know, I'm all for gun ownership, I own a couple myself. For me it's a personal freedom and personal responsibility issue: why should I NOT be allowed to own a gun? However, when I read things like the above and some other gun-related posts on the forum I start to wonder. I get the impression that some of you feel the need to possess weapons to protect you from the Govt. Do you all REALLY envision the day when you are going to take up arms against the US Govt?
|
|
|
Post by pete1 on Mar 10, 2009 7:33:35 GMT -4
falgar25.......If George Washington were alive today I believe he would answer yes..........There is a double standard when it comes to enforcing the law, and the people with the guns are the ones that want to take yours. As I stated in the past, the citizen is armed, and the subject is not.
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Mar 10, 2009 7:54:54 GMT -4
An interesting article I saw about guns.
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated ------------------------------ Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ---- ------------- ------------- Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ------------------------------ Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. ----------------------------- Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. ------------------------------ It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own Government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in: List of 7 items: Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent. Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent. Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)! In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns! While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort, and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it. You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late! The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson. With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'. During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED! The purpose of fighting is to win. There is no possible victory in defense. The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either. The final weapon is the brain. All else is supplemental.
SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN! SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE. SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!
IT'S A NO BRAINER! DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.
|
|
|
Post by einebierbitte on Mar 10, 2009 8:54:06 GMT -4
Perhaps those idiots we elect wouldn't be so quick to jump on the bandwagon called gun control if they would focus more on putting criminals away then afraid voliating their civil rights. I believe once you commit a crime you have no rights.
Also, remember....guns don't kill people, (bullets do0...(sorry bad humor), People kill people. You own a gun then you should be taught how to shoot it, clean it and keep it safe away from children, and your children should be taught gun safety as well....
And your right frank, ciminals don't abide by the law, so if gun control was pushed, they aren't going to turn their guns in....
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on Mar 10, 2009 12:19:30 GMT -4
I'm sorry, all, but the idea of guns being able to take down our government in this day and age is laughable. When the second amendment was written, guns were pretty much the BEST weaponry out there. Today? We've got airplanes, tanks, missiles, rockets...
I happen to agree with the philosophy behind the 2nd amendment, that the citizens of a country should have the power and ability to overthrow a corrupt, inept, etc. government, but to make that philosophy work today would require citizens to have access to extremely powerful weapons. I think most people wouldn't be comfortable knowing their neighbor had a missile or a tank.
|
|
|
Post by RobMoore on Mar 10, 2009 12:48:56 GMT -4
Well, I should mention, in case there was misunderstanding, that I wasn't being serious in the comment I made on the china issue that I think touched this off. While I don't trust the Clintons or China, I don't actually think they have some secret plot to turn our flag completely red. That was a joke. However I think some people are overestimating the ability of a technologically superior power to rule over a populous that is rebellious.
I don't believe we'll see a second revolution in our lifetime, nor do I hope for one, or see a need for one. However, I think that should some unforeseen catalyst spark one, it is private citizens defending their freedoms with personally owned firearms that will win the day. No matter how superior, a government cannot suppress an unwilling populous.
Think of it this way. The drug trade in America: How many people want drugs? Percentage-wise, it is a small portion of the public who either uses or sells/distributes illegal substances. The government has near-limitless resources to fight the war on drugs. Are they winning? Clearly not. Compare the number of illegal drug user to that of gun owners.
I know, bad analogy comparing gun ownership to drug users, but the logic stands. If enough people want something, they will get it, regardless of the law.
Our military is very good at shock and awe, but horrible at occupation. Take that scenario home to the US. Do you really think, should that highly unlikely situation ever occur of a government (be it ours or an invading power) suppressing the freedoms we enjoy, that they will be able to keep us from effectively rebelling? Occupation over a smaller but motivated guerrilla force is a very difficult thing, regardless of technological disparity. It is even worse when you're trying to control your own citizens.
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on Mar 10, 2009 15:35:04 GMT -4
Good points, robmoore. I stand corrected.
|
|
|
Post by cheapshotartist on Mar 10, 2009 15:51:40 GMT -4
One thing that always makes me mad is when there is a murder or someone is shot during a crime, the media seems to never report that the person who committed the crime did not legally possess the gun. Usually the gun is stolen and or the person did not have a permit.
I think everyone should have the right to carry a gun as long as they pass a safety course and the person does not have a criminal arrest record.
I also do not think that people who have threatened others in the past and have, peace orders served on them to stay away from others or have been previously jailed should have a gun.
I guess in essence its the not the people who have the gun permits shooting people it's the people without permits, I just wish the media would tell the rest of the story.
|
|
|
Post by pete1 on Mar 10, 2009 18:35:32 GMT -4
einebierbitte.......Which one of your Constitutional Rights do you want to give up? I expect none..........When you take a right from the criminal you also take it from yourself. Kurt Bloodsworth of Cambridge spent 9 years on death row for a crime he did not commit. Over one hundred and thirty men on death row have been set free due to DNA evidence. If these men "criminals" lost their rights they would still be in jail, or would have been exicuted....P.S. No Judge, States Attorney, Policeman, or witness lost a day of freedom for putting these innocent people in jail.
|
|
|
Post by al on Mar 10, 2009 19:02:01 GMT -4
einebierbitte.......Which one of your Constitutional Rights do you want to give up? I expect none..........When you take a right from the criminal you also take it from yourself. Over one hundred and thirty men on death row have been set free due to DNA evidence. P.S. No Judge, States Attorney, Policeman, or witness lost a day of freedom for putting these innocent people in jail. Well, considering that there are 2,500,000 people in US prisons right now - 130 wrongly convicted people makes the system look somewhat efficient. I agree that a wrongly convicted person is horrible - but let's face it - nothing is 100% failproof and 130 out of 2.5 million is pretty d**n good! Considering that we taxpayers pony up about $70,000 to house and feed these people, I have no qualms about stripping their Constitutional Rights - they sure as hell aren't doing anything for us!
|
|
|
Post by bluecrabber on Mar 10, 2009 19:09:56 GMT -4
Good points, robmoore. I stand corrected. Holy Second Amendment Batman!! Funnel, you never cease to surprise me. THere's hope for you yet!! I guess most have guessed I am a strong second amendment supporter. I am one of those dreaded Life Members of the NRA. And, as robmoore so eloquently provided above, the second amendment is not just about hunting.. And, as pointed out above, it does not matter how big the Army is or how devastating the weapons are, an unwilling populace can not be defeated. Think of the former Soviet Union in Afghanistan. They could not wipe out the Mujahideen. The Soviets threw everything at them short of nuclear and could not stop them. (Of course, we did give the Mujahideen shoulder fired stingers).. In this country, there is no way the U.S. Government could wage a successful war against the people. The "Rednecks" on the eastern shore of Maryland alone could hold the armies at bay. Ask Pete, a former Balto cop, what the conventional wisdom is amongst the criminals on the western shore.. "Don't go across the bridge and do any crime, all those rednecks over there have big dogs and guns!" Best regards, BC PS, Embrace the second amendment. It is a unique right you have as a U.S. citizen. Learn all you can about firearms and safety and teach your children too. A child that knows about firearms is much safer than one who is ignorant.
|
|
|
Post by pete1 on Mar 10, 2009 22:38:32 GMT -4
Al.......I'll ask you the same question my Friend. What rights do you and the members of your family want to give up? I expect none......Taking Constitutional Rights from citizens will not straighten out this terrible mess our country is in.......If 2.5 million people in jail is so efficient like you state. Then please explain why the crime keeps getting worse? Could it be the profits from the illegal drug trade that has corrupted the entire system?
|
|
|
Post by einebierbitte on Mar 10, 2009 23:06:31 GMT -4
Pete I have very strong opinions about this....very strong.....but truthfully although tragic it may seem, the numbers of innocent vs the numbers of guilty are just a drop in the bucket and I can live and sleep well with that percentage. Our system is not flawless, and yes sometimes innocent people get caught in the mix of things...but over all those that are in prison deserve to be there, but they don't deserve any rights at all.
Criminals are not afraid to go back to prison either, and why not...they probably live better than they would as free men.
But that's a whole nother post, and although I derail and hijack threads constantly, let's just let this discussion go for another day....
|
|
|
Post by al on Mar 10, 2009 23:59:53 GMT -4
Pete: This country has established laws that we are to abide by and it offer rights that go along with that package. If I decide to kill someone and go to prison, I would expect to have my rights revoked because I didn't keep up my end of the deal. But actually, I would be entitled to free food, free medical care, free college, free room & board, etc. And you'd be paying for it.
To answer another part of your question - yep, many people in charge of this system are on the take - not any better than the people that they are dealing with. Illegal aliens, drug traffic, smuggling, etc. all add up to more problems - it's easier and bigger money than working.
But I must concur with eine - this is not the thread for this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by dej on Mar 11, 2009 0:38:07 GMT -4
But actually, I would be entitled to free food, free medical care, free college, free room & board, etc. And you'd be paying for it. To answer another part of your question - yep, many people in charge of this system are on the take - not any better than the people that they are dealing with. Al, as someone with a family member locked up in the state system, I'd have to say you are mostly right right. But while we are paying for all these "free" things, it doesn't mean the prisoners are getting them. I'm not sure what the state does with the money for college courses or any type of education, but other than GED, it doesn't seem to get to any prisoners. I've paid out of pocket for all my son's education beyond the GED, in addition to the tax dollars I've paid. Unlike the state, I'd prefer that my son have a chance at employment when he finally gets out The "medical care" they receive is also lacking. They may not let you die (or they may), but they don't really care. As for people in charge on the take, there's no doubt of that. The prison regulates which companies prisoners can order things from with the few cents an hour that they get from working, or with the money that family provides. These fly by night companies take money & orders, then close up or disappear. The prison's response is that they can't do anything, it's up to the prisoner to get his money back from the company these same officials mandated the prisoners use. Can't help but wonder how much the companies paid off to get on the list of "approved vendors".
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Mar 11, 2009 3:07:46 GMT -4
This really frightens me. "Acceptable losses" are unfortunate, but hey, it happens, right? But I suspect the loss would not be so acceptable if it was a relative. I suspect you (or anyone else) would not be able to sleep well knowing that your son or daughter was in prison for a crime they did not commit.
We are often quick to be OK with bad things when they happen to other people. We really need to think about how we would feel if the same bad things affected us personally.
|
|
|
Post by pete1 on Mar 11, 2009 3:14:26 GMT -4
Al.......Our country was established due to the tyranny levied on our for fathers by the King of England. Every right we have was paid for in full with the blood and courage of those who went before. Liberty = Freedom and Justice = Same rules and penalties for everyone. The country is going down the tubes because of condoned corruption from the White House down to the dog catcher. Those elected officials who swore on the Bible to uphold the Constitution lack the courage to do so.
dej....Right on......The movie Shawshank Redemption hits the nail on the head.
P.S. The good people in Government need to stand up and be counted before it's too late.
|
|
|
Post by falgar25 on Mar 11, 2009 3:58:27 GMT -4
re: A LITTLE GUN HISTORY
I've seen similar lists before. My thought: Correlation is not proof of causation. The first seven statements seem to be intended to prove that if a Govt. takes away guns, the next step is mass extermination. Has there been mass extermination in Australia? I believe there are similar gun laws in Britain, has there been mass extermination there?
Govt. in the hands of extremists and despots has more to do with mass exterminations than whether the citizens are armed.
|
|
|
Post by einebierbitte on Mar 11, 2009 11:46:55 GMT -4
Point taken falgar..... But again, no one really knows how they would react until faced with that decision....
Today, I know exactly why I feel the way that I do, and it's purely justified in my mind... But again...not the right thread.
But back to the gun laws!!!
|
|
|
Post by bchevy on Mar 11, 2009 18:05:40 GMT -4
My gun hasn't killed anyone, what are they worried about?
|
|
|
Post by funnel101 on Mar 11, 2009 21:12:19 GMT -4
That's a pretty dangerous logic you have going there, bchevy. Hypothetical example: Iran's nukes haven't killed anyone, what are we worried about?
Just pointing out the implied "yet".
|
|
|
Post by Frank on Mar 11, 2009 23:38:59 GMT -4
That's a pretty dangerous logic you have going there, bchevy. Hypothetical example: Iran's nukes haven't killed anyone, what are we worried about? Just pointing out the implied "yet". My car hasn't killed anyone, but it is more likely than one of my guns. Why not take that away?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2009 9:32:32 GMT -4
robmoore......You hit the nail on the head. When the government gets our guns we will lose the rest of our freedoms. The world is changing, and we will not like what it changes into. Ya know, I'm all for gun ownership, I own a couple myself. For me it's a personal freedom and personal responsibility issue: why should I NOT be allowed to own a gun? However, when I read things like the above and some other gun-related posts on the forum I start to wonder. I get the impression that some of you feel the need to possess weapons to protect you from the Govt. Do you all REALLY envision the day when you are going to take up arms against the US Govt? It would be hard to believe in our current times that armed resistance to the federal government would happen. People probably thought that prior to the civil war, but it happened. Lessons in history just seem to repeat over and over. Look at the struggles and strive that continue around the world over the same issues and beliefs. Though I would hope to believe it couldn't happen here, you just don't know. The current climate of political divisions on the issues really seems to be boiling up. You would think that we could pull together for the good of the country and solve things for long term benefit. Other things beside the politics that could lead to taking arms against one brothers is the simmering issues with the shortage of water supplies, food production and oil or it could be easily over just being able to afford it. I was stationed in Washington state for a while in the 90's. The areas of eastern Washington, northeren Idaho and western Montana, some parts of Utah are full of people who want to secede from the Union. I remember one county in particular that had it on a ballot for voters to decide whether to secede. There were also a lot of news stories concerning citizens refusing to pay taxes, mortgages, etc. to an unjust government or something like that. There were armed confrontations and killings that took place among citizens and authorities. There are also the other stories like the Ruby Ridge incident, Waco, TX, the FLDS(sp) Mormons, and Ayrian Nation groups. In the news today: (CNN) – Actor Chuck Norris has his eyes on the presidency, but not the White House. Norris wrote that he would be interested in becoming the president of Texas, if the state were ever to secede from the Union. “I may run for president of Texas,” Norris wrote Monday in a column posted at WorldNetDaily. “That need may be a reality sooner than we think. If not me, someone someday may again be running for president of the Lone Star state, if the state of the union continues to turn into the enemy of the state.” The actor claimed “thousands of cell groups will be united around the country in solidarity over the concerns for our nation” and said that if states decide to secede from the union, that Texas would lead the way. “Anyone who has been around Texas for any length of time knows exactly what we'd do if the going got rough in America,” Norris wrote. “Let there be no doubt about that.” Norris was a strong supporter of Mike Huckabee’s presidential bid, and he helped to draw attention to the former Arkansas governor’s campaign. I couldn't get this to spell check?, sorry for any mis-spellings.
|
|
|
Post by linda712 on Mar 12, 2009 13:07:06 GMT -4
Those certainly are serious thoughts to ponder, mj......excellent, balanced presentation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2009 18:06:49 GMT -4
Hey, just to make it clear.....I'm not for seceding or even agreeing with some peoples actions and motives for armed internal conflict. We definitely don't need anarchy and chaos, it wouldn't end well for us.
I like the little catch phrase I think is from AARP "United we stand, divided we fail or fall or something like that". You get the drift of it.
|
|