Gun owners take notegreenspun.com : LUSENET : TimeBomb 2000 (Y2000) : One Thread
Yes the garden idea below has some merit. I picked this off of Orlin Gradde's site.
Der Fuhrer's New Plan
Clinton Rushes to Exploit Colorado Shootings
In tragedy, there is political opportunity.
The Clinton Administration may use the tragic school shootings in Colorado to propose sweeping new gun control legislation that could lead to an outright gun ban or require Americans to register every gun they own with the federal government, Capitol Hill Blue has learned.
Within minutes of learning of the shootings that left at least 15 people dead in the Denver suburb of Littleton, the Clinton spin team went into action, generating memos on the best ways for the President to capitalize on the tragedy.
"The President asked for a number of scenarios for the best way to deal with the situation," one White House aide said Tuesday night. "At first he was going to decry the incident and call for new gun bans. Some advised against doing so that quickly, so he backed off and just went with a short statement that said it was too soon to say anything."
Aides say Clinton spent most of Tuesday afternoon monitoring the situation where at least two students at Columbine High School in Littleton went on a shooting and bomb throwing spree before killing themselves.
White House pollsters worked the phones, sampling public opinion, trying to gauge just how far Americans voters would let the administration go.
Hours later, Clinton went before a press conference and hinted that he may use the tragedy for stronger action by the federal government.
"I think after a little time has passed, we need to have a candid assessment about what more we can do to try to prevent these things from happening," Clinton said.
According to White House sources, among the options being prepared for Clinton's consideration:
An outright ban on handguns and an expanded list of "non-sporting" weapons; Mandatory registration of all guns owned by Americans; Laws to make parents criminally responsible when their children use guns to commit a crime; Entering the many lawsuits that cities have filed against gun manufacturers (on the side of the cities); Federal funds to place metal detectors in all American schools; Federal money to place undercover police officers in schools; Federally-mandated school dress codes that would ban gang colors and other "non-appropriate attire;" Banning student shooting teams at schools.
"The President made it very clear he wants to take action on this," said one White House senior aide. "He will not allow this incident to pass without taking action. He feels the public will support whatever course of action he decides to take."
One source said White House spinmeister Sidney J. Blumenthal has urged the President to use the Colorado shootings to divert attention from both the China spying scandal and the Kosovo war that has resulted in mounting criticism of the White House.
Blumenthal reminded the President that his "show of concern" during the Oklahoma City Bombing revived his Presidency just when Clinton's popularity was at its lowest ebb.
"Leave it to Sid to find a bright spot in a public tragedy," says veteran public relations man Samuel Wastell. "I'll bet you there's a poll in the field right now testing the public's support for new gun control legislation."
Gun show owner John Hylton said he isn't surprised to learn the Clinton administration is considering a new gun ban.
"He will use this to curry favor with the gun-control advocates," Hylton said. "But that's not the answer. From what I understand, these kids also used pipe bombs. Pipe bombs are already illegal, but that didn't stop the kids from using them."
Clinton also ordered his staff to see check into a trip to Colorado immediately following the NATO summit in Washington.
"He feels a very public show of support is very important right now," one aide says. "It's a shame the NATO conference might get in the way of this."
Capitol Hill Blue, April 21, 1999
-- Ed (email@example.com), April 22, 1999
Funny. In other democratic countries I've lived, this kind of thing never happens. Why? Because they don't have a gun culture and guns hanging out everywhere. And these countries are perfectly free and have no dictatorships.
The gun nuts conveniently ignore this fact. To them, gun-control equals dictatorship. Sorry, but the facts speak otherwise.
Those kids obviously were gun-worshipers. Just like a lot of people on this board. And they had easy access to guns. Put them all together and you get a massacre.
-- utah (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 22, 1999.
PLEASE feel free to immediately move back to any of those wonderful democratic countries you lived in, soon!!
-- Ray (email@example.com), April 22, 1999.
Those other democracies may have in part solved their school massacre problems through gun bans but they sacraficed they saftey of their childrens freedom and property rights in the process. If the Kosovo citizens had generally been armed and killed the first couple of hundred home evictors and murderers with an ORGANIZED defense you wouldn't be seeing those lines of starving desperate refugees now, and we wouldn't be bombing Belgrade. I might also point out that very few democracies around the world have the ethnic mix and accompanying tensions that we in the United States have. If you take away the threat of private homeowners meeting invaders with armed response every gang-banger and two bit punk in the country will be roving in baseball bat and machette armed groups raping and looting at will. The sheer idiocy of thinking you can collect over 200 million guns from an unwilling populace goes beyond the pale of reasonble thought. I am not and never have been a criminal, but like millions of others I would consider such a law unconstitutional and a violation of my God given rights to defend myself and my family. The government would only succeed in creating millions of new criminals as we in masse refused to obey the law. Like prohibition it would prove an unenforceable tragedy and result in thousands of needless deaths, and possibly all out civil war. Apparently you don't reside in a rural location as I do, a 911 call here will get you a cop in maybe an hour. I guess you could survive that long depending on the location of the stab wounds, gunshot wounds, and blunt object contusions, but I think I'll just keep my gun ,thanks.
-- Nikoli Krushev (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 22, 1999.
No utah, you're a moron. You emoting dipshits make me sick.
These "other countries" you cite are NOT FREE as you assume. No nation on earth has been bequeathed with the inalienable rights and freedoms we have in this nation.
Guns do not cause violence. They are merely a tool. no different than swords in Japan, or baseball bats in Poland. Both have incredibly high homicide rates with these "tools".
The Swiss are required by law to have guns in every home. Every able- bodied person is required to know how to use one - BY LAW. Switzerland does not have the gun violence per-capita that we do here. So the argument of gun availability CAUSING violence is moot.
The availability of parents, responsibility and respect for the law is what is missing. It is a spiritual problem, not an inventory one.
The gun culture is NOT responsible. The root causes of current violence and hatred is lack of parenting skills and a respect for law and decency.
When you have a culture of "me" and selfishness above all else, the respect and regard for life, law and liberty is destroyed.
But you wouldn't understand or comprehend a word I wrote -- you emote...not think.
By the by...statistical bingo does not move me.
You go ahead and rely on others for your freedom.
You will be no different than the Kosovar refugees someday.
-- INVAR (email@example.com), April 22, 1999.
I think that the debate regarding firearms can be summed up by one's ideological viewpoint: Is man's nature good or evil? Those who would say that man's nature is good have reason to think that his institutions of government can be good and free from overt vice or tyranny. Of course, millions have been sacrificed while despots like Hitler and Stalin tried to create a utopia on earth. If we accept that man's nature is evil (a Jewish, Muslim, and Christian view), then we accept that while government is God-ordained, it is subject to tyranny when too powerful. When individuals give up a sense of personal responsibility and morality and convey it to the government, Government's response is to move into areas previously in the realm of the personal responsibility. Government takes it's place as an ultimate authority. Ben Franklin said that those who give up freedom for safety deserve neither.
Please see http://jpfo.org/L-laws.htm for a review on the 56 million people that have been killed as a result of gun control. I'm not saying that our great republic is evil, but it is subject to vice- the framers knew that and wrote the Second Amendment as an insurance policy to guarantee all other ENUMERATED rights. Comparisons to other counties are difficult, Read the "Samurai, the Mountie, and the Cowboy" for an analysis. Also, note that Switzerland REQUIRES that all families own an automatic weapon. They do not have significant crime. Total safety has a price. You may not pay for it, but millions in decades hence could pay in blood. Personal responsibility, people, not more laws.
You'll have to forgive gun owners for not wanting "modest" restrictions. Every gun registration program has, historically, led to confiscation.
Would someone kindly provide a hyperlink for the address I gave above. I cannot get my browser to create one.
-- History Grad (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 22, 1999.
-- Ned (email@example.com), April 22, 1999.
-- PJ Gaenir (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 22, 1999.
POINT OF ORDER!!!! UPON REFERENCING THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTATION IT BECOMES VERY APPARENT TO EVEN THE MOST QUESTIONABLY LITERATE PERSON THAT THE FOUNDERS HAD TWO (2) REASONS FOR THE 2ND AMENDMENT. THE FIRST WAS THE PROTECTION OF THE LAND FROM FOREIGN ADVENTURERS. THE SECOND WAS THE PROTECTION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT (AND THE REST OF THE CONSTITUTION) FROM DOMESTIC ADVENTURERS.
Now, is the use of force treasonous? Depends on whether one is protecting the constitution or trying to overthrow the constitution. can the writings in the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers be considered treasonous?? Sure they can. Is the Declaration of Independence a treasonous document? Now- NO, Then-Yes Is the Preamble to the Constitution treasonous? Now - NO Then - not exactly as it post dates the Articles of Confederation (trick question) At some point treason becomes just what the freedom fighter does.
REMEMBER:::: THE VICTOR WRITES THE HISTORY!!!!!!!
-- chuck, a Night Driver (email@example.com), April 22, 1999.
Clinton, possibly, may not want a world where anarchy and violence rule, as you suggest. There is nothing more dangerous than a gun. There is nothing more dangerous than millions of them. And When TSHTF, you can be sure you will be shooting eachother, and the "enemy" will be paranoia. Why is everyone so paranoid? The problem is heart. There is no heart anymore. What is wrong with one world government? When Britain was the world hegemony, using its gun-boat diplomacy...there was relative peace in the world. Today, with each country demanding its "sovereignty", more innocent people die as a result. The answer lies not in what man can or will do, and it does little good to worry about that country next door. Only God will fix things. Man is certainly and totally incapable, and is on a path heading for disaster. Guns will help him get there.....again, no reliance on the Creator, reliance on self. and disaster as the result.
-- c ya (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 22, 1999.
And the question has not been asked.
Didn't you know this would come? The "government" has been salivating for just such a "justification". Calm down.....You don't have to turn them in...You can lie just like the government. They need a search warrant to come into your house... Be calm...they are doing this for the sheeple who will gladly hand in their .22s. Be calm...it is important for thinking people to learn to be less reactive. If you freak you'll give yourselves away. Get some street smarts, folks.
-- Donna Barthuley (email@example.com), April 22, 1999.
What INVAR said --- me too.
For cya (last response): your statements are idiotic - Cain did't need a gun to kill Abel. As long as humanity exists there will be good and evil. Christ himself said "... a stong man, armed, keeps his house...". And "...if the homeowner knew when the robber was coming, he would not let himself be robbed..." (general but accurate translation).
Your statements are more evidence that the problem is people with no "common sense'", devoid of sound moral or itellectual reasoning.
-- Jon Johnson (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 22, 1999.
Hey, relax! No one said one should not protect themselves. I never would assume people will lay down their weapons. They won't. They will assume the position..."lock and load". The fact, however, is that in chaos, there is no trust. when TSHTF, many neighbors will kill other neighbors. My stand is neutrality and reliance on God. Jesus said..."put your sword back in its place...those who take the sword will perish by the sword." the battle is not yours...but it is certainly God's. He will soon take action. And no gun will save you.
-- bulletproofvestmighthelp (email@example.com), April 22, 1999.
1. the level of animism (i.e. attributing fearful animate properties) to inanimate objects is an aspect of the antigun propagandists which I have never been able to comprehend. All of the antigun posts on this thread exhibit said animism to one degree or another, I only wonder if their authors realize what they've become.
2. Donna is correct. Resistance is possible. Turn in nothing. Register nothing.
3. the correct quote is "they who live by the sword will die by the sword" and it does NOT rule out use of lethal force in defense of self or others. What it *does* rule out is putting more faith in your ability at arms than you have faith in God. So if a person's faith in God is very weak, they probably shouldn't arm themselves as they would be too tempted to violate this prohibition. On the other hand, if a person's faith in God is strong, then there is no problem with arming in defense of self and others.
-- Arlin H. Adams (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 22, 1999.
Kind of interesting that St. Peter was CARRYING a sword to BEGIN with, tho- Does anyone really think that on his way to the Garden of Gethsemene Peter suddenly decided to purchase a weapon, and knew he would want to use it? It's logical to think that he owned a sword for some time. One would think that after a few weeks of Peter carrying a weapon Christ would say "Hey Peter, we don't need that sword, so don't carry it." BTW, there is weapons control in the Old Testament- I don't have the verse off hand, but at one time the Philistines banned blacksmiths from the land occupied by the Jews. A good way of preventing weapons from being made. A precursor to 1938 when Jews were prohibited from carrying firearms.
-- History Grad (email@example.com), April 22, 1999.
oops...Peter grabbed the sword from one of the soldiers. The apostles certainly did NOT carry swords. Read the Bible account for yourself and see.
-- gunskill (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 22, 1999.
Your right! Hey, maybe I should list my name as AMERICAN History Grad.
-- History Grad (email@example.com), April 22, 1999.
Arlin, you are so very right. But I wonder what I will do. You see, I live in a state where registration of firearms is mandatory, and the government already knows what I have. I have already decided that I will not turn in my weapons if they pass a law to that effect, which leaves me the question of how to handle any law enforcement types who decide to show up at my door and attempt to confiscate them. I don't want to die in a firefight, but if the next step after confiscation is a totalitarian system, I think dying is the better choice, and maybe taking some of the brainwashed cops with me as well.
Anyone have any other ideas?
-- . (.@...), April 22, 1999.
And the "Good Samaritan" had to help a fellow travelers who was "mugged" by thugs more heavily armed than himself.
On average, 7000 times a day, a gun is used to prevent a crime. Over 2..3 MILLLION times a year. Funny, the criminals don't need a waiting period, and they already are prevented from buying weapons legally, so obviously, no criminal can get a gun.
Therefore, obviously, no criminal has a gun. Presto - you're safe, I'm safe, we're all safe.
-- Robert A. Cook, PE (Kennesaw, GA) (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 22, 1999.
1 LOL! St. Peter most certainly did NOT swipe one of the soldier's swords, he and one other disciple were already carrying (see Luke 22:35-38). I've always wondered whether the other disciple who was packing heat that night was Matthew - as an ex-tax collector (equivalent to a modern day mafia enforcer), and a VERY successful one at that - Jesus recruited him out of a booth Matthew had set up on the main highway to shake down passing merchants - he'd certainly have had reason to carry. ah, but I digress.
for folks in commonwealth countries, Asia, and elsewhere: you need to be aware that the stuff I write below would most likely be suppressed where you live. I cannot guarantee that your own governments are not tracking your internet access so caveat lector, eh?
in response to --'s question : believe me my friend when I say I understand that's a tough call. and no, I'm *not* suggesting that you (neccessarily) meet any attempts at confiscation with lethal force. You actually have several options here:
1. The California noncompliance option: when California instituted their ban on "assault weapons" the discovered that over 89 percent of the owners of those weapons refused to turn them in. Even after a few symbolic prosecutions of people who had refused, the refusal rate remained at over 80 percent...at which point the state of California figured out that they would go bankrupt, AND would totally lose control of their prison systems if they prosecuted all of the refusers...so they gave up. Oh, if they catch somebody being blatant about it they still prosecute them, but other than that...nada.
So if you and your friends are feeling brave, but don't want to get into a shoot out with the search and seizure teams, try organizing a massive nonviolent resistance movement. [BTW: the antigun liberals HATE this tactic, because it makes them look so very very bad in the media.]
2. Hide your weapons and ammo - conceal them away from your property and person, and then simply disavow knowledge as to what happened to them - get all of your firearms owning friends to do the same. Because the antigunners have that animist belief in firearms having some inherent influence, the very fact the firearms cannot be acounted for will really grate on them, while you still have all of the advantages of noncompliance AND the ability to retrieve your firearms and ammunition at a later date. Do a web search on caches and survivalism...you should be able to find a lot of interesting data on how to cache firearms.
3. Organize for armed resistance. If you do - be careful, as it's a big bad world out there, and there are a number of different groups who have their own agendas.
If you'd like to find more ideas related to all three of the above options you might try checking out the following web sites:
[note: I have to state that the following are American sites though only some of the participants are Christian - if you follow the links you are likely to meet the same sort of cross section of folks you meet on this board...only some will be a bit less polite...yeah, even less polite than Paul Milne...I mean A LOT LESS.]
two places to start looking:
AlphaSheWolf's links page from the Wolfpack survival network at http://www.fortunecity.com/boozers/oldhouse/500/links.html
and of course the site of the inestimable Frugal Squirrel at http://www.netside.com/~lcoble/index.html
-- Arlin H. Adams (email@example.com), April 23, 1999.
The downside of all the caching, hiding, and disavowing is the restriction of training time and training opps that it entails. Training is the only fun thing about guns, I hate cleaning 'em.
-- Blue Himalayan (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 23, 1999.
Assuming things continue about like they have been, a total ban is highly unlikely -- too blatant a violation of the second ammendment. Expect a continuation of ever-increasing restrictions with a commensurate increase in black market activity. (People will continue to exercise their constitutional rights even as the .gov turns ever more tyrannical).
-- Nathan (email@example.com), April 23, 1999.
Gun worshipers? Obviously, they were also bomb worshipers. And they used propane gas tanks to make them. Let's ban all barbecue gas tanks, Huh, Utah?
-- sue (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 23, 1999.
...interesting to note how may paranoid gun-goofs we have amongst our paranoid GI friends...hmmm, is there a link here?
-- Y2K Pro (email@example.com), April 23, 1999.
Yeah, there's a link here Y2kpro. Whats a Dove like you Doing in a nest full of Hawks? BTW can you fit through doorways with a head that bloated?
-- cyggy (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 23, 1999.
Utah, as someone who comes from a country where gun ownership is severely restricted, I can tell you that's not the reason for fewer murders. The character of the people is what counts, and Brits (generally speaking) are not as violent as Americans. Neither are Canadians. There was a famous study about 15 years ago comparing Vancouver and Seattle, cities right next door to each other, where demographics are essentially the same--the only variable being Canadian vs. American culture. The murder and violent crime rates were found to be much, much higher in Seattle.
While I would never advocate relatively unrestricted gun ownership in the UK, I insist on it here.
Maybe you should be asking how come this sort of crime is virtually always committed by young white males who are "different." Have you noticed too that almost all mass murderers are white males? What's going on here?
-- Old Git (email@example.com), April 23, 1999.
Just chiming in here. US history is one of conquest, colonization, frontiers and alot of wars. We are somewhat violent as you can see by our sport football (not soccer). Just about everything we do is competative in nature rather than cooperative (winning is 'everything'???). Gun bearing figures prominently in our Constitution. Some parts of the country are more prone to gun ownership (and abuse) than others. There is a gun subculture here.
All that said its our country and we do as seems fit here. This is a continuing debate that will never (IMHO) be resolved. BC will try to pass legislation but it will be so watered down by the time it makes it through (is it ever does) that it will be meaningless. One of the good things about the USA is that BC can't just pass a law by himself. That must come from the Congress to him. Oh, he can try to ram something through but there are enough votes to quash most things that are like that. The Executive branch can not unilaterally disarm America without significant support from the legislature. And then if it ever did come to that it would instantly go to the Supreme Court.
-- David (C.D@I.N), April 23, 1999.
Utah, What a dumb fuck you are. I hate you stinkin'liberals. Leave this country now. You are not wnted here. As to getting guns without having to register them, the guy across the street is an avid collector and hunter, as well as a hater of big government. If I should need to "bypass" the registration process when purchasing a gun, I'll just pay him cash for one of his weapons, no questions asked.
-- rick (Ifirstname.lastname@example.org), April 23, 1999.
oh man I know what you mean! But hey - it's like any other tool, you clean off a hoe after you're done weeding the garden, you clean the glop out of a firearm after you're done shooting...
none the less, I freely admit that cleaning is my least favorite part of the shooting day.
-- Arlin H. Adams (email@example.com), April 23, 1999.
so long as we teach our bastard hate filled children that it's ok to tease,ridicule,and pound kids at school who are wierd,different,stand offish,fat,like goth rock don't jack off to football or whatever we will have those 2 or 3 kids that finaly get fed up at the bullsh*t they put with while the status quo teachers turn their backs,deciding to take some of the bastards with them,the world is no poorer,if the parents live long enough,they'll get over it,and maybe have some more mean bastard status qoe children.it's all p.r. spin to move the sheeple.Franklin was right...people that give up freedom and liberty deserve neither,we'll happily let ourselves be assraped under the cattle cry"think of the children"!!fie on them
-- zoobie (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 23, 1999.
Oh dear.. I don't like guns.. I'm an animist(or something).. this is intended to be a constructive post; If anyone wants to called a wishy-washy liberal etc etc etc then please don't bother.
I come from the UK, not many people own firearms here... which is nice. I don't feel the need to arm myself because I know that the vast majority of people around don't possess the ability to kill me from a safe distance.
I'm tired of the mantra: guns don't kill people, people do. Firearms give people a killing capacity that most other weapons don't offer. Introduce a firearm to any household, and the probability of a fatal accident multiplies by several fold. A lunatic with a firearm is a much more dangerous possibility than a lunatic with a knife.
If I ever were to move to the US, the first thing I would do is learn how to use firearms. This is a pity, but in a country with almost as many firearms as people I just wouldn't feel safe if I couldn't defend myself from other people with firearms. People can point to the recent shootings in Colorado and shout all they want, but the cat is (sadly) out of the bag. Its the equivalent of the Arms Race, but on a domestic individual scale: he has a gun, she has a gun, they pose a threat, therefore I too must have a gun.
I don't do know what the US can do about this problem; I'm not sure anything can be done. The whole situation is desperately sad; I'm just glad that ownership of firearms has never reached critical levels in my country. This isn't a nationalistic boast(patriotism stinks), but its the truth.
There was a massacre in this country 2 years ago, and the infant gun lobby in the Uk resisted any changes to current laws. My message to the NRA etc is this: for rational reasons or not, people are afraid of who you are, what you do, and your persistent refusal to even empathise with their position. If you were understand public concern, and adopt voluntary measures to make sure your weapons were not readily available for abuse(lock em up or whatever), then perhaps they wouldn't hate you so much...
-- Matthew (email@example.com), April 23, 1999.
Zoobie, would that be fie on the kids, the sheeple, or the spin- meisters ? Or all of the above ?
-- Blue Himalayan (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 23, 1999.
Matthew, you make some interesting points. My problem with the statement "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is that taken to its limit (which it will be), it implies that we need much more serious controls on PEOPLE ! This will include psychological and genetic testing of children for violence potential (shades of Nixon!), electronic monitoring, drug therapy, a level of police state that'll make yer head spin. So, I don't think gunners should use this phrase anymore.
-- Blue Himalayan (email@example.com), April 23, 1999.
Had to comment on this one.
I personally do not own a gun. However, it is my protected RIGHT to own one if I choose. I don't care what the gun control advocates say, NO ONE has the right to keep me from owning a firearm if I want one or take away my firearm if I have one. Unless, we decide to not honor the Constitution. Then it won't matter anymore.
-- Sharon (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 23, 1999.
It is really irritating when folks from Europe try to paint a picture of life in the US like being in a foxhole. Matthew from the UK is sure he would have to tote firearms if he ever moved to the US. No doubt he pictures us all running to our cars through a hail of bullets every day. My work causes me to travel to a small European nation often. Which nation by the way has hardly enough population to make a decent US city. I have friends there but I think there perception is warped by the differences in our size. They hear a report of violence on the news and then imagine all of use carrying two or three weapons around shooting bad guys and two or three bystanders just for good measure. I don't know for certain but I expect a significant minority of Americans haven't seen a firearm first hand. A majority have never fired one and a greater majority have never been within earshot of a weapon being fired.
The real problem is personal responsibilty. Rather than blame people for their actions we seek to place the blame elsewhere. Blame guns. Should we blame cars for vehicle caused death. Maybe if we outlawed pipes no one would make pipe bombs.
No doubt guns are readily suited for causing injury and death. And certainly they should be treated carefully and responsibly. But the people who don't do so should be punished for their actions. The rest should be trained to treat guns responsibly. Just like we teach people to use there cars responsibly and punish those who do not.
-- Dfray (email@example.com), April 23, 1999.
I have lived in the United States all of my life. I have visited the largest most violent cities this country has to offer (New York, Boston, Chicago, Los Angeles, Washington D.C., Detroit, etc.), but the only place that I have ever been in a hostile line of fire is Switzerland. So from my personal experience I would have to say that European countries are a far more dangerous place to be than the gun toting United States.
-- Never (Sniff@Gift.Fish), April 23, 1999.
>Unless, we decide to not honor the Constitution. Then it won't matter anymore.
Actually, that's when owning a gun will matter the most...
-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), April 23, 1999.
Of course, who in their right mind would WANT to live in any society where guns are used, much less required. Unfortunately, the realities of the world and mankind require a more pragmatic approach, and the folks who wrote the US Constitution were nothing if not pragmatic.
People have been killing other people for a long time. It's a defining characteristic of our species. In most cases, it's all too unfortunate, but it's been the pattern for a few million years. Guns simply make it a bit easier and less personal, but so do crossbows, poison darts, and hidden pits with sharp sticks in them. As unfortunate as these facts are, the greater problem is not that people kill people, but that an out-of-control government kills people. And THAT'S the entire point of the second amendment.
If there were never the possibility of another coercive government arising on this planet, then the need for guns in order to maintain some semblance of a free society would disappear. However, that possibility clearly does not exist and, at the rate things are currently progressing, it never will exist.
Vis-a-vis the 2nd amendment, guns, per se, are not really the issue. The second amendment safeguards the right to own and bear "arms". The whole intent of this language is that the people would be able to counter a coercive standing government army, should the need arise. This means that the people have the right to bear armaments comparable to those of the standing army. If the standing army has guns, the people's right to bear guns shall not be infringed. If the standing army deigns to use potato peelers in its coercive actions, then the people's right to own and bear potato peelers shall not be infringed. If the standing army begins to using medium range molecular disrupters, then the people's right to own and bear medium range molecular disrupters shall not be infringed.
America's foundations were sound. The destruction of the these foundations through relentless media brainwashing and arrogant, unresponsive federal power will not serve the people well. It's easy enough to sit back here or in another country that has gained the fruits of freedom and liberty on America's back and then criticize American citizens who are responsibly attempting to maintain and exercise their rights for the benefit of themselves, their families, all of America, and, hopefully, the world at large.
Already, largely due to the limitations on our constitutional rights, America appears to have slipped beyond the control of its people. Each day, the actions of our government are less and less aligned with the will of the people. With the abrogation of each individual domestic right, expect to see the US become more and more uncontrollable and dangerous, domestically and internationally.
If we do not halt and reverse this trend soon, America will become indistinguishable from Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, or something even worse but with a decidedly nasty technological bent. Sadly, the media and our government will never present the facts and ramifications of what they are demanding. Turn off the TV. Think this through. Help us fight the good fight. Help us retain the control of our country. For the benefit of all, help us retain the full power of the second amendment and all our constitutional rights.
-- Nathan (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 23, 1999.
I'll propose that the problem is us - our failure to teach respect and personal responsiblity, not guns. I'll respectfully submit that there at least few members of this forum who remember bringing/having guns in school without so much as anyone raising an eyebrow. I'll submit that there are some who brought their small bore rifles and shotguns to school and placed them in the closet/locker with their coats - so they could go hunting right after school. They may even be some college bound/ivy league types didn't go hunting but brought their guns to school for the rifle team. Is is my imagination or can I remember a time not that long ago (I'm not that old), walking into Boston's Logan airport suitcase in one hand and target rifle in the other? It didn't phase anyone, it could have been a guitar.
Utah, consider if you will that the problem is us. We have failed miserably to teach our children respect for themselves, respect for others, and respect for life. Our lawsuit happy society by fails to teach personal responsibility - its always someone elses problem. Guns aren't the problem, we are my friend - we have failed to teach the children. We have failed to give admirable example.
Its quite sad. The parent whose child is never wrong, the neighbor who didn't correct the child because 'its not my business', the relative who didn't intervene 'to keep peace in the family'. If the blood of these children is on my hands it would be because of those reasons, not because I own guns.
-- john hebert (email@example.com), April 23, 1999.
today i will take down my american flag and replace it with the Gadsdon Flag
you know the one i am talking about
"Dont Tread On ME"
-- Ron (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 23, 1999.
And if just ONE other person at that school HAD a gun with them/on them, perhaps the two gunmen could have been stopped long before they slaughtered 13 others.....
Guns are tools. What they are used for depends soley on the motivations of the humans who use them. No more, no less.
-- anita (email@example.com), April 23, 1999.
For all you Christianity-averse types on this forum, I apologize beforehand for this post.
History Grad (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote: "Kind of interesting that St. Peter was CARRYING a sword to BEGIN with, tho- Does anyone really think that on his way to the Garden of Gethsemene Peter suddenly decided to purchase a weapon, and knew he would want to use it? It's logical to think that he owned a sword for some time. One would think that after a few weeks of Peter carrying a weapon Christ would say "Hey Peter, we don't need that sword, so don't carry it."
Then Arlin wrote: "St. Peter most certainly did NOT swipe one of the soldier's swords, he and one other disciple were already carrying (see Luke 22:35-38)."
Guys, you need to do a little background study in Roman history and also look at the Scriptures more closely.
Firstly, the Romans who ruled Judea at the time of Christ did not allow the Jews to be armed. Judea was a conquered territory. It was illegal and would likely have brought execution to any Jew who traveled carrying a sword openly.
Secondly, the two swords used by the disciples that night were acquired from the place in which they had gathered.
LUKE 22:38 So they said, "Lord, look, HERE [Gr. hode] are two swords." And He said to them, "It is enough." (NKJV)
The Greek word "hode" literally means "in this place." The swords were in the room they had rented for the Passover, and Christ told them to take them out with them when they left. Why did he do this?
ISAIAH 53:12 Therefore I will divide Him a portion with the great, and He shall divide the spoil with the strong, because He poured out His soul unto death, and HE WAS NUMBERED WITH THE TRANSGRESSORS, and He bore the sin of many, and made intercession for the transgressors. (NKJV) [see also Luke 22:37]
Christ told two of his disciples to take the swords from the room with them because it was necessary for them to APPEAR to be a band of thugs in order to fulfill this prophecy in Isaiah 53.
-- Nabi Davidson (email@example.com), April 23, 1999.
Actually there WAS an armed deputy in the school when the shootings started. He returned fire and then RAN to get more help...
-- TECH32 (TECH32@NOMAIL.COM), April 23, 1999.
Tech 32, the fact that the guard came out of that building unscathed while 13 people were killed and 20 or so wounded is damning evidence of just how our society as a whole has changed. If this had happened even 15 years ago that guard would have either killed the attackers or been numbered among the victims with an empty pistol in his hand. You could probably overlook this and say well he just paniced, but the arriving officers allowed the wounded victims to lie in their and in some cases bleed to death for FOUR hours, even though there was no further gunfire for the last three. I thought those scenes of the billy bad ass ATF agents running like deer from the Branch Davidians were a fluke, but now I realize that we are recruiting a whole new personality type as police officers. The type commonly known as schoolyard bullies, who beat the crap out of the smaller kids, and show their true cowardice when faced with an equal opponent.
-- Nikoli Krushev (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 23, 1999.
Sorry Dfray.. I don't have an image of the US being a place where people dodge bullets all day, but I do find the existence of 200 or so million firearms a bit unnerving.
My main point was this: most of the people on this thread who insist on their right to own firearms usually do so for reasons of self- defence. There seems to be a collective paranoia: people just don't feel safe unless they own a firearm. I never suggested my fear was a rational one; its just hard to make the intellectual leap from a country where gun use is extremely rare to one where it is relatively common. It would take me a while to get used to it. I do have a phobia about guns... fair enough.
-- Matthew (email@example.com), April 24, 1999.
"Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." (Ben Franklin)
In my opinion, the greatest single failure of American education is that students come away unable to distinguish between a symbol and the thing the symbol stands for." (Paul Lutus)
It is better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one's mouth and remove all doubt." (Abraham Lincoln)
"If you believe everything you read, you better not read." (Japanese proverb)
-- zoobie (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 24, 1999.
One of the good things about the USA is that BC can't just pass a law by himself. That must come from the Congress to him. Oh, he can try to ram something through but there are enough votes to quash most things that are like that.
Sounds nice on paper, doesn't it? You haven't read the executive orders signed by the president, on his way to becoming a dictator, the last two years. Some of these items went before the house and went nowhere. No problem. He just wrote it into law himself.
It's only paper. Until it's enforced.
Actually, the executive orders are what turned me from being passive and unconcerned into being a little bit paranoid about the government and its Y2K plans, myself.
The astounding nature of them -- essentially saying that with a word from the President, everything in the whole country -- public and private utilities, private businesses, everything -- is now in the hands of FEMA, which doesn't even have the good grace to be military so we could at least say the members are Americans, and FEMA answers directly to the President. Nothing in there about congress, about rights of ownership, anything. And the number of these types of Orders written and signed in the last few years is enough to make anybody wonder why on earth all this came up and what is expected in the future that they would consider all this necessary. That they are EO's has meaning, since if they were reasonable, for the most part, they'd have gone through the house and senate instead of just being written into law without discussion or permission.
PJ in TX
-- PJ Gaenir (email@example.com), April 24, 1999.
Well, just got back from my weekly hour at the pistol range. Just got new glasses yesterday, so things looked a little different and my patterns weren't quite as small. Better luck next week. But point-and- shoot and rapid-fire went very well, so not a total loss. Only worked on three calibers this week, and the .45 is a bit tiring on the wrists. I always save the .22 auto for dessert [g]. And as always, my wife outshot me badly. Damn, she's good! But she's been doing this a long time, and competetion shooting is her hobby.
Self-defense? Hope to God we never need that. But if there is a better way to relax and relieve tension than slinging lead downrange, we've never found it.
-- Flint (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 24, 1999.
Wow, look at all these posts. Gun topics always strike nerves. But I'll have my say anyway. Utah, those kids were probably weren't anymore gun nuts than I am. But they did have serious problems, and guns just happened to be the best weapon at the moment. I know all kinds of gun nuts, that don't go around killing people.
Having said that, at my house we aren't giving up our guns, and that's that! Guns and swearing are about the only two freedoms we have left, and both are in jeopardy.
-- gilda (email@example.com), April 24, 1999.
I know what it says, and I also know that there was the first century equivalent of 'sword control' in place...neither the use of "here are" in that verse (since it does NOT indicate discovery, and since the Passover had to occur in a Kosher facility - therefore it was a Jewish home anyway), nor the concept of weapons control in anyway negates the obvious: that two of them were carrying. Remember that Jesus often associated with armed revolutionaries: Simon the Zealot for one, and then there was that guy who was from the assassin sect known as the Iscarioti...
-- Arlin H. Adams (firstname.lastname@example.org), April 24, 1999.
whoops, almost forgot one point:
the swords had nothing to do with the Isaiah reference which relates to events occurring around the shuffling of jurisdictions between Pilate, Herod, Pilate again, and the choice of Barrabas to be pardoned instead of Jesus...
-- Arlin H. Adams (email@example.com), April 24, 1999.