Bowling for Columbine [Archive] - Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums

MuzzleBlast

10-22-2002, 11:32 AM

Okay, first off I am not going to tell everyone to not see this movie. Having not seen it myself, that would be like all those religoids that picketed screenings of The Last Temptation of Christ having not actually seen the movie they were protesting. What I will do is throw some numbers at you, to put the premise of Bowling for Columbine in perspective.
According to the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control (http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10.html) , in a given year there are in the neighborhood of 15,000 murders in the US committed with firearms. That is an incredibly high number compared to countries in the rest of the world, and each one of those murders represents a human tragedy. But I want to add some perspective to this. In JoBlo's interview of Michael Moore, Moore said he suspected that Charleton Heston has racist opinions, because Heston said something to the effect that a big reason for our huge homicide numbers was our ethnic diversity. I am going to underscore this point: If you do a little analysis with the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm), you will find that black males, which make up around 7% of the US population, are implicated in very nearly 50% of reported violent crimes.
Don't react emotionally. THINK. This is not a racist statement, it is a statistical one. If you don't believe me, run the numbers yourself. Having this part of the population with this large a proportion of violent crimes skews the statistics for the US as a whole.
Also, if you do a bit more digging, you find that most of these murders take place in large urban areas, which have very stringent gun control laws. Washington D.C. and New York City, to cite two examples, have near-total bans on firearms. Apparently, these murderers are not aware that they are in gun-free zones.
For that matter, those two fine young men in the Columbine massacre were in a gun-free zone, established under federal law, and were in possession of firearms that they were prohibited from possessing by federal law because of their age. Apparently, making something illegal has very little effect on the actions of CRIMINALS.
Another thing to consider: Depending on whom you ask, anywhere from 200,000 to over two million crimes in a given year are PREVENTED by the use of firearms. I say "depending on whom you ask," because the real number is impossible to quantify, given the fact that in the vast, vast majority of cases of defensive use of firearms, the gun isn't fired, and the incident isn't reported. That 200,000 figure was arrived at by one of the anti-gun groups, and the 2 million figure was arrived at by one of the pro-gun groups. But if you take the smaller figure, and assume (just for the sake of this argument) that in only 10% of those cases was the person actually in mortal danger, you still arrive at the inescapable fact that GUNS IN CIVILIAN HANDS PREVENT MORE MURDERS THAN THEY COMMIT.

James Logan

10-22-2002, 02:17 PM

I saw BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE. Great flick.

And no, ethnic diversity doesn't create violence in the USA. It's the unfairness between blacks and whites, between hispanics and whites, that makes that people from ethnic minorites are socially more driven to use violence. It's not because they're black -- it's because society is fucked up.

And guns prevent more murders than they commit? Bullshit. The USA's got a HIGH violent criminality rate compared to other developped countries. And that's because American people have the right to bear arms, and because culturally they're kinda impulsive, which makes them more capable of using a firearm to kill.

JoBlo

10-22-2002, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by MuzzleBlast
If you do a little analysis with the FBI's Uniform Crime Reports (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm), you will find that black males, which make up around 7% of the US population, are implicated in very nearly 50% of reported violent crimes. Don't react emotionally. THINK. This is not a racist statement, it is a statistical one. If you don't believe me, run the numbers yourself.

I will run those numbers as soon as you run the numbers about the % of black families living in poverty in the U.S., on welfare or living in the projects. Then, I would ask that we look at the number of social programs that are available to these people in those situations and in the jails and then ask you to run those numbers vs the number of social programs available in the more "upper-class" neighbourhoods.

The point?

The point is that looking at a statistic like that WITHOUT the bigger picture is very dangerous. It incites people to say "Yeah, they people be bad, yo!", when really I would be interested to see what the percentages would be if say, 75% of all Greek-Americans were living in poverty or something, and the greater percentage of the black population was living as the upper-crust.

If there's one thing that BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE taught me (which I kind of already knew, but it re-confirmed it), is that you should NEVER just judge a book solely by its cover. It's easy to look a stat and deduce what you want from it (and as a Marketing Major, I can tell you that one of the simplest things to do in marketing is to make statistics "work" for you...trust me, it's one of the things that companies use the most!), but it's even more important to discover the CAUSE and SYMPTOMS of these statistics and try to figure out a way to combat them.

I recommend that you see the movie because I think you will definitely enjoy it (whether you like it or not.....does that make sense?).

Seriously though....EVERYONE SEE THIS MOVIE!!!!

electriclite

10-22-2002, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by James Logan
And no, ethnic diversity doesn't create violence in the USA. It's the unfairness between blacks and whites, between hispanics and whites, that makes that people from ethnic minorites are socially more driven to use violence. It's not because they're black -- it's because society is fucked up.

Something which Moore alluded to in "The Big One". Your statistics would change really quick if there was a job on every corner of a highly populated minority area instead of a liquor store. And btw, out of that 50% of crimes committed by AFrican Americans, what percentage of that is black on black crime?

What always bugged me about Columbine was how it became the prominent figurehead of violence in america's schools. Kids were getting shot up in school almost a decade before in the inner city, I didn't hear any commotion about that. Oh wait, that because the kids weren't white! My bad.

And like Joblo stated, what kind of facilities or programs do we have to help steer minority children away from a future life of crime in violence? Hardly any.

Last year when my sister was getting into trouble, and I mean TROUBLE, we tried to find a program for her that would help deter her away from the behavior and activities that she was engaging in. Almost all the programs I found cost THOUSANDS of dollars and were therefore not designed for minorites to take part in even though your statictics state we are the most violent and criminally active. You tend to get the feeling that maybe somebody wants it that way.

Statistics don't mean jack unless you research the reasons that create them

BubbaStrangelove

10-23-2002, 08:49 AM

I don't agree with your points at all, Muzzle.

you find that most of these murders take place in large urban areas, which have very stringent gun control laws.

So what?

All rapists committed their rapes illegally. Does this give you reason to disagree with laws against rape?

black males, which make up around 7% of the US population, are implicated in very nearly 50% of reported violent crimes.

Yeah, so? Most accidents caused by firecrackers and bottle rockets were caused by undereducated white kids.

i agree with laws against fireworks too.

What point are you and Heston trying to make? Since it's not white people hurting themselves, we don't need protective laws?

Why would anyone bring up the race issue in the first place?

Another thing to consider: Depending on whom you ask, anywhere from 200,000 to over two million crimes in a given year are PREVENTED by the use of firearms.

No, you think of this: Out of those 200,000 - 2 million foiled crimes - How many of the foiled criminals were commiting their crime using a firearm?

GUNS IN CIVILIAN HANDS PREVENT MORE MURDERS THAN THEY COMMIT.

Unless the civilian holding the gun is a murderer. Then we're in trouble!!

MuzzleBlast

10-23-2002, 09:13 AM

Originally posted by James Logan
I saw BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE. Great flick.
Is it a good movie on its own merits, or because you agree with the political message? I haven't seen it, so I can't really comment myself on the quality of the movie.

And no, ethnic diversity doesn't create violence in the USA. I didn't say that ethnic diversity causes violence in the USA. I said that the level of violence among the black population is way out of proportion to the rest of the population, and that the statistic on this skews the stats for the nation as a whole.
It's the unfairness between blacks and whites, between hispanics and whites, that makes that people from ethnic minorites are socially more driven to use violence. It's not because they're black -- it's because society is fucked up.I don't know why the black community is more violent. But if it was the reasons you cite, would it not make more sense that more of the violent crimes committed by blacks would have non-black victims? Blacks account for a disproportionate number of VICTIMS of violent crime as well.
And guns prevent more murders than they commit? Bullshit. Do you have a refuting argument, or do you just choose not to accept fact? I have already shown that even if you accept the figures from ANTI-gun groups, and even if you assume that 90% of those cases did not involve threat to life, you still get a higher number of murders prevented than murders committed.
The USA's got a HIGH violent criminality rate compared to other developed countries.
And I showed that the actual overall picture, while admittedly bad, is not as bad as the numbers would indicate, because most of the crime is severely localized.
And that's because American people have the right to bear arms, and because culturally they're kinda impulsive, which makes them more capable of using a firearm to kill.
By some estimates, there are over 200 MILLION firearms is civilian hands in the USA. For the sake of argument, let's assume that figure is inflated 50%. There are 15,000 or so murders in a given year. Divide 15,000 by 100,000,000 and you get .015%. This is assuming only half as many guns as there might actually be, and assuming each murder was committed with a different gun. So 99.985% of guns in the US didn't kill anyone is this hypothetical year. Your "murder by impulsive Americans" argument falls flat. I do appreciate that you recognize the fact that it is a RIGHT in this country to possess firearms.

MuzzleBlast

10-23-2002, 09:24 AM

Originally posted by JoBlo
I will run those numbers as soon as you run the numbers about the % of black families living in poverty in the U.S., on welfare or living in the projects So the solution to violent crime in the black community is more government socialism programs? I am not claiming to know the answer. I am just saying the stats are skewed.

If there's one thing that BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE taught me (which I kind of already knew, but it re-confirmed it), is that you should NEVER just judge a book solely by its cover. It's easy to look a stat and deduce what you want from it (and as a Marketing Major, I can tell you that one of the simplest things to do in marketing is to make statistics "work" for you...trust me, it's one of the things that companies use the most!), but it's even more important to discover the CAUSE and SYMPTOMS of these statistics and try to figure out a way to combat them. We are actually trying to argue the same point here; that stats can be distorted and used. The people who want to take away our right to self-protection do that all the time (in all fairness, both sides play that game). I'm just saying keep your mind working amid all the appeals to emotion.

I recommend that you see the movie because I think you will definitely enjoy it (whether you like it or not.....does that make sense?). Absolutely. I don't have to agree with the political message of a movie to be able to recognize a quality movie. And I certainly have enjoyed some of Michael Moore's other work.
Think I'll wait for it to come on HBO, though.

Mick

10-23-2002, 09:32 AM

We're so hung up on this notion that we have some obligation to help the struggling black man, you know. Cut him some slack until he can overcome these historical injustices. It's crap. I mean, Christ, Lincoln freed the slaves, like, what? 130 years ago. How long does it take to get your act together?

Social programs? What a crock of shit. Anyone can get a job if they want one, anyone.

Now, I don't know anyone here personally..... so I can't comment on their individual motives. But it seems to me that a lot of people who would consider themselves completely anti-racist, and condemn racist jokes etc. are completely full of shit and wouldn't have anything to do with black or asian people or whatever.

I'm not racist, I tell racist jokes because they're funny...... not to be hurtful. I just realise that a lot of black people need to get their act together and stop bitching about social injustices and such nonsense. I know black people with good jobs, and it's not a big deal. We're all entitled to an education, put perhaps it's easier to complain about being held back because of your race or poor background than working hard.

The bums always lose.

MuzzleBlast

10-23-2002, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by electriclite
Something which Moore alluded to in "The Big One". Your statistics would change really quick if there was a job on every corner of a highly populated minority area instead of a liquor store. Why are there so many liquor stores in these places? And btw, out of that 50% of crimes committed by AFrican Americans, what percentage of that is black on black crime?Damn near all, as far as I can tell.
What always bugged me about Columbine was how it became the prominent figurehead of violence in america's schools. Kids were getting shot up in school almost a decade before in the inner city, I didn't hear any commotion about that. Oh wait, that because the kids weren't white! My bad.Excellent point. The same applies to this "Beltway Sniper" the media have created. In the two weeks he has taken to kill ten people, probably close to 300 or so have been murdered in minority communities. It is only a news story because it is white suburbanites that are being targeted. But this does digress a bit from my argument.

And like Joblo stated, what kind of facilities or programs do we have to help steer minority children away from a future life of crime in violence? Hardly any.

Last year when my sister was getting into trouble, and I mean TROUBLE, we tried to find a program for her that would help deter her away from the behavior and activities that she was engaging in. Almost all the programs I found cost THOUSANDS of dollars and were therefore not designed for minorites to take part in even though your statictics state we are the most violent and criminally active. You tend to get the feeling that maybe somebody wants it that way.

Statistics don't mean jack unless you research the reasons that create them Again, I was attempting to show that the statistics are skewed. This would be true regardless of what the stats actually represented.

MuzzleBlast

10-23-2002, 10:05 AM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
I don't agree with your points at all, Muzzle.
All rapists committed their rapes illegally. Does this give you reason to disagree with laws against rape?(Woo, that's good!) No, not at all. Acts of violence should have criminal penalties attached. But you can pass all the laws you want, and it will not PREVENT any crimes. Criminals ignore laws. That is what defines them as criminals.
I do oppose laws which do not serve their intended purpose, and are in fact counter-productive. The act of attacking another person and forcing oneself sexually upon them is a violent personal act. The mere act of owning a particular item, not using it to harm anyone, is not an act of violence, and therefore should not be a crime. And since criminals are ignoring the laws against murder, rape, etc., does it really make sense that they would abide by laws against weapon possession, and does it really make sense to render the 99.9% of the population that DOESN'T commit crimes of violence defenseless against the .1% that does?

Most accidents caused by firecrackers and bottle rockets were caused by undereducated white kids.

i agree with laws against fireworks too. At some point, we have to stop delegating all personal responsibility to the government. White kids misusing fireworks is not a reason to ban fireworks. It is a reason to prosecute parents for not teaching their children right from wrong.

What point are you and Heston trying to make? Since it's not white people hurting themselves, we don't need protective laws?We don't need laws that (a) don't work, and (b) further erode our constitutional rights. I already showed that laws restricting the possession of weapons don't prevent crimes.

Why would anyone bring up the race issue in the first place?Actually, I wasn't. I was pointing out a statistical anomaly. It wouldn't matter if those 7% of the population responsible for 50% of the crimes were white, green-eyed Chevy owners, it would still mean that small portion of the population was skewing the numbers for the rest of the population.

No, you think of this: Out of those 200,000 - 2 million foiled crimes - How many of the foiled criminals were commiting their crime using a firearm? About half.

GUNS IN CIVILIAN HANDS PREVENT MORE MURDERS THAN THEY COMMIT.
Unless the civilian holding the gun is a murderer. Then we're in trouble!! Well, THIS civilian will be holding a gun as well. THAT civilian better not miss, because I won't!

MuzzleBlast

10-23-2002, 10:12 AM

Lincoln freed the slaves, like, what? 130 years ago. How long does it take to get your act together? To be factually accurate, Lincoln didn't free anyone. His "Emancipation Proclamation" declared all slaves in the Confederate states to be free. The Confederate states had declared themselves to be a sovereign nation, separated from the US. This is like the US proclaiming that all women in Saudi Arabia are now free to vote, drive and have jobs. Slavery in the US wasn't banned until the passage of the 13th amendment, after the war was over.
Now back to the topic of the thread, sorry to digress...

BubbaStrangelove

10-23-2002, 12:10 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MuzzleBlast
(Woo, that's good!) No, not at all. Acts of violence should have criminal penalties attached. But you can pass all the laws you want, and it will not PREVENT any crimes. Criminals ignore laws. That is what defines them as criminals.

that seems awfully inconvenient for a person wanting to commit a crime.

I do oppose laws which do not serve their intended purpose, and are in fact counter-productive. The act of attacking another person and forcing oneself sexually upon them is a violent personal act. The mere act of owning a particular item, not using it to harm anyone, is not an act of violence, and therefore should not be a crime. And since criminals are ignoring the laws against murder, rape, etc., does it really make sense that they would abide by laws against weapon possession, and does it really make sense to render the 99.9% of the population that DOESN'T commit crimes of violence defenseless against the .1% that does?

Okay, okay. So by that rationelle, drunk driving laws are wrong. I know lots of people who drink and drive. Those people shouldn't have to suffer because only 1 out of 1000 drunk drivers kills someone. Drunk driving is a nonviolent act, just like owning a gun. If someone makes a mistake and accidentally kills someone while drunk, or accidentally shots someone -- we should just handle that on case-by-case merits. That makes sense to you, right?

At some point, we have to stop delegating all personal responsibility to the government. White kids misusing fireworks is not a reason to ban fireworks. It is a reason to prosecute parents for not teaching their children right from wrong.

Sounds great! What? Oh, yeah. There is that problem with parents not being involved in their child's upbringing. The parent isn't scared of getting arrested by the DEA for drug use, but they will surely be damned scared of the Department of Children and Family! Right? That's what we should do. Just sit around and wait for the kids to kill someone, then we can punish the parents. Now that's progress!

And how do these gun laws affect citizens? I don't see anyone not getting guns because of them. Even with a seiqzure disorder, I got my handgun in 7 days. Pow!

We don't need laws that (a) don't work, and (b) further erode our constitutional rights. I already showed that laws restricting the possession of weapons don't prevent crimes.

Right, and this computer I have keeps tigers away. How do I know this? I don't see any tigers!

About half.

So half those crimes wouldn't have happened without firearms.

Well, THIS civilian will be holding a gun as well. THAT civilian better not miss, because I won't!

hell yeah! I'm with you dude. As you can tell, I'm a gun owner, and I am happy about it. But personally, I do feel our laws regarding gun ownership are very outdated, and moded. With all of the ability we have to store information, there is no reason that we can't further our database on bullet markings, or register bullits. I just think BFC looks like a good movie, and I think it may be right in it's politics. The point is for the two groups to come together and make some real laws that will help. The problem with it as it is now, is that you have one group standing on one side of the room saying one thing, and another group on the other side saying the opposite.

Boys and girls need to meet on the dancefloor. This isn't an 8th grade dance.

Up with guns, down with pride!!

http://www.dragg.net/users/pennywitt/ysam/ysam10.gif

Grebdron

10-23-2002, 12:28 PM

MuzzleBlast

10-23-2002, 01:48 PM

This is a good little debate we got going here! Everyone is making points instead of just flaming! Excellent! Anyway...

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
that seems awfully inconvenient for a person wanting to commit a crime.
Not sure I get your point there, Bubba. It's inconvenient to find out that the activity you want to engage in is illegal? I know what you mean. This is what has kept me from owning any machine guns. That and the fact that machine guns are very expensive to buy and feed.

Okay, okay. So by that rationelle, drunk driving laws are wrong. I know lots of people who drink and drive. Those people shouldn't have to suffer because only 1 out of 1000 drunk drivers kills someone. Drunk driving is a nonviolent act, just like owning a gun. If someone makes a mistake and accidentally kills someone while drunk, or accidentally shots someone -- we should just handle that on case-by-case merits. That makes sense to you, right? Interesting point. Here is the distinction as I see it: While drunk driving is not a VIOLENT act, it is a NEGLIGENT act. You are putting other people at a greatly increased risk of being involved in an accident, so it is prudent for there to be a law prohibiting this behavior, and providing penalties for it. People who are rational, and aware of the law, will weigh the risks of getting caught vs. the risks of causing a wreck vs. the cost of a cab ride, and make their own decision. If I am in a public park with a gun, plinking soda cans from park benches with no regard for where my bullets are going, I am committing a negligent act. The police will, and should, come and stop my actions before someone gets shot. Notice the distinction: owning a gun is a passive thing. Firing a gun is an action. Firing a gun indiscriminately is a negligent action.

Sounds great! What? Oh, yeah. There is that problem with parents not being involved in their child's upbringing. The parent isn't scared of getting arrested by the DEA for drug use, but they will surely be damned scared of the Department of Children and Family! Right? That's what we should do. Just sit around and wait for the kids to kill someone, then we can punish the parents. Now that's progress! Hmmm. Throwing my "laws don't prevent anything" argument back at me. Very good. Still not convinced that fireworks should be illegal, though.
And how do these gun laws affect citizens? I don't see anyone not getting guns because of them. Even with a seiqzure disorder, I got my handgun in 7 days. Pow!
Tell that to all the people in NYC who after 9/11 decided a gun for protection would be a good idea, and found out that it takes a year to get a permit just to purchase a gun, and you can't have one unless you are a celebrity or a personal friend of the mayor. Tell that to the citizens of Washington DC, who just flat can't (legally) have one.
I'm glad you aren't upset that a lower government entity can decide on a whim that it is OK for them to delay your exercising of a constitutional right.
Right, and this computer I have keeps tigers away. How do I know this? I don't see any tigers! Did you hear about the shooting in Australia earlier this week? It didn't happen. I know this, because handguns are banned in Australia. Same thing applies to that shooting in Germany a few months back.
So half those crimes wouldn't have happened without firearms. In theory, maybe. In reality, (a) at least half of that half would have used a different weapon, and (b) in reality there ARE firearms. Waving your magic wand or passing a bunch of laws won't make them go away.
hell yeah! I'm with you dude. As you can tell, I'm a gun owner, and I am happy about it. But personally, I do feel our laws regarding gun ownership are very outdated, and moded. With all of the ability we have to store information, there is no reason that we can't further our database on bullet markings, or register bullits.Don't even get me started. Registration ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS leads to confiscation. It has happened time after time after time.
I just think BFC looks like a good movie, and I think it may be right in it's politics. The point is for the two groups to come together and make some real laws that will help. The problem with it as it is now, is that you have one group standing on one side of the room saying one thing, and another group on the other side saying the opposite. Again, I'll have to see the movie before I can come to any conclusions about how stridently anti-gun it is. I'll try to keep my mind open when I see it. I just want others to do the same.

electriclite

10-23-2002, 02:18 PM

I think the real focus here should be on the culture we've created around guns; the fact that we've elevated an inanimate object to almost idol status. I mean look at us, we've interwoven a weapon into our very culture and national identity, and clearly taken it out of the context that it was originally given.

It is a weapon, pure and simple, but we've turned them into status symbols, stress relievers, cultural symbols, etc.

I don't necessarily give a shit about the about the NRA, I mean if it's your right to own a gun than so be it, but don't start making up these unnecessary and ridiculous reasons as to why you should have a gun, everytime some loud mouthed liberal goes on about restricting guns. If you have one that's your business, and if you're being responsible with it than you're ok by me. But don't go overboard. What the hell does a private citizen need with an AK-47?! Like the man said, unless you absolutely, positively need to kill every mofo in the room, you don't need it (unless you're a hunter; and I mean animals).

And btw Muzzle if you wanna gain a little info as to why there are liquor stores on every corner of a highly populated minority area, I suggest you watch "Boyz in the Hood". I don't agree with everything in there, but it'll definitely bring up some interesting ideas.

BubbaStrangelove

10-23-2002, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by electriclite

And btw Muzzle if you wanna gain a little info as to why there are liquor stores on every corner of a highly populated minority area, I suggest you watch "Boyz in the Hood". I don't agree with everything in there, but it'll definitely bring up some interesting ideas.

and same damn reason the white man caused there to be drunk Indians with more casino than land. Only difference in the results of the Native American plight and that of a black man: Indians don't pack heat. bam!

MuzzleBlast

10-23-2002, 03:08 PM

Originally posted by electriclite I think the real focus here should be on the culture we've created around guns; the fact that we've elevated an inanimate object to almost idol status. I mean look at us, we've interwoven a weapon into our very culture and national identity, and clearly taken it out of the context that it was originally given.
It is a weapon, pure and simple, but we've turned them into status symbols, stress relievers, cultural symbols, etc. This is true, but I don’t see it as all that unusual. Look at how many family crests have swords, maces, lances etc. on them. Same thing for symbols of government. I don’t know why that is. I guess the “cool” factor weighs in there somewhere.

I don't necessarily give a shit about the about the NRA, I mean if it's your right to own a gun than so be it, but don't start making up these unnecessary and ridiculous reasons as to why you should have a gun, everytime some loud mouthed liberal goes on about restricting guns. Here is my ridiculous reason: I like them. Guns are my “thing.” Everyone has their “thing,” that which gets their attention and provides more enjoyment than anything else. For some people it may be motorcycles, or computers, or Beanie Babies or friggin’ antique salt and pepper shakers. For me, it is military firearms.
If we don’t speak up for our rights, we will lose them. In areas where we are outnumbered, such that we are not heard, we have lost our rights. This is YOUR right too, by the way, whether you choose to exercise it or not.
If you have one that's your business, and if you're being responsible with it than you're ok by me. But don't go overboard. What the hell does a private citizen need with an AK-47?! Like the man said, unless you absolutely, positively need to kill every mofo in the room, you don't need it (unless you're a hunter; and I mean animals). Who are you to decide what I “need” or don’t “need?” Personally, I think AK47’s are ugly, poorly balanced, crude, inaccurate and awkward. But if I wanted one, it is indeed my right to have one. The second amendment says, “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.” It doesn’t say “Y’all kin have yore deer gun so’s y’all kin kill critters.” The last time the Supreme Court weighed in on the issue (1939, US v. Miller), it was held that the only weapons protected by the 2nd amendment were ones that could be considered part of “ordinary military equipment.”

And btw Muzzle if you wanna gain a little info as to why there are liquor stores on every corner of a highly populated minority area, I suggest you watch "Boyz in the Hood". I don't agree with everything in there, but it'll definitely bring up some interesting ideas.May have to give that another shot. Saw it many years ago. At least it was more positive and somewhat less exploitative than Colors.

electriclite

10-23-2002, 03:40 PM

Originally posted by MuzzleBlast
If we don’t speak up for our rights, we will lose them. In areas where we are outnumbered, such that we are not heard, we have lost our rights. This is YOUR right too, by the way, whether you choose to exercise it or not.

Yes, but when your explanations are laughable and ridiculous you are not perserving your right, you're further proving the point of the person trying to take the right away from you. I would rather see people who actually use guns arguing for the continuation of the right to bear arms, rather than just "collectors".

Who are you to decide what I “need” or don’t “need?” Personally, I think AK47’s are ugly, poorly balanced, crude, inaccurate and awkward. But if I wanted one, it is indeed my right to have one. The second amendment says, “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.” It doesn’t say “Y’all kin have yore deer gun so’s y’all kin kill critters.” The last time the Supreme Court weighed in on the issue (1939, US v. Miller), it was held that the only weapons protected by the 2nd amendment were ones that could be considered part of “ordinary military equipment"

To slightly quote Eddie Izzard on the kids from Columbine "These kids broke into their grandfathers' "Arsenal" and stole a slew of weapons..... My question is "WHAT THE FUCK'S THE GRANDFATHER DOING?!""

You can categorize this as more of a consumer arguement, but I see too many people with too many things they don't need all because someone advertised it REALLY COOL.

The difference between the family crests with weapons on them and our ownership of guns is that they actually used those weapons as defense when they were coming up with those seals. Just like those old Wild West photos you see people pose in with a Winchester rifle laid across their lap. My parents owned two guns because they owned two stores that got robbed on occasion. Those guns were for a purpose. Now, the only reason most people own these small "arsenals" I see, is for no reason but to show off and it's kind of insulting to those who actually have just the one gun for a real reason.

I don't wanna infringe on rights here, I just wanna infuse a bit of thinking, a little practicality. A gun, just like any consumer product, is something that shouldn't be purchased because Guns & Ammo did their annual Christmas spread with just the right lighting to have you imagine yourself as some sort of commando. It's like buying the lastest technology. Do you really want it, or do you just wanna show it off to everyone else.

MuzzleBlast

10-23-2002, 04:37 PM

Originally posted by electriclite
Yes, but when your explanations are laughable and ridiculous you are not perserving your right, you're further proving the point of the person trying to take the right away from you. I don’t see any of the arguments I have offered as being either laughable or ridiculous. Quite the contrary.
I would rather see people who actually use guns arguing for the continuation of the right to bear arms, rather than just "collectors".Meaning people who’s job it is to carry weapons? I frequently use mine to burn gunpowder and make holes in targets. In the unlikely event that I was ever the intended victim of a violent attack, I might well use one of my guns to stop the attacker. Does this count? I am still detecting a hint of the “why do you need guns” argument here.

To slightly quote Eddie Izzard on the kids from Columbine "These kids broke into their grandfathers' "Arsenal" and stole a slew of weapons..... My question is "WHAT THE FUCK'S THE GRANDFATHER DOING?!"" Sounds to me like he was being burglarized, and having lawful property stolen by criminals.

You can categorize this as more of a consumer arguement, but I see too many people with too many things they don't need all because someone advertised it REALLY COOL. But if they have the money, and it makes them happy, then so what.

The difference between the family crests with weapons on them and our ownership of guns is that they actually used those weapons as defense when they were coming up with those seals. Just like those old Wild West photos you see people pose in with a Winchester rifle laid across their lap. My parents owned two guns because they owned two stores that got robbed on occasion. Those guns were for a purpose. Now, the only reason most people own these small "arsenals" I see, is for no reason but to show off and it's kind of insulting to those who actually have just the one gun for a real reason. That is among the sillier arguments I have ever heard. Is it an insult for people to have more than one car, or more than one Rottweiler? I am glad your parents lived in a place that did not deny them their right, and that they took responsibility for their own safety.

I don't wanna infringe on rights here, I just wanna infuse a bit of thinking, a little practicality. A gun, just like any consumer product, is something that shouldn't be purchased because Guns & Ammo did their annual Christmas spread with just the right lighting to have you imagine yourself as some sort of commando. It's like buying the lastest technology. Do you really want it, or do you just wanna show it off to everyone else.This is totally irrelevant. It doesn’t matter WHY you think you want one, or even IF you want one. Owning a firearm is a RIGHT. When you start thinking in terms of “you don’t really NEED that,” you have bought into the mindset that it is a PRIVELEDGE, which can be allowed or prohibited at the whim of local government.

Look, I gotta split. We can continue this tomorrow.

electriclite

10-23-2002, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by MuzzleBlast
I don’t see any of the arguments I have offered as being either laughable or ridiculous. Quite the contrary.
Meaning people who’s job it is to carry weapons? I frequently use mine to burn gunpowder and make holes in targets. In the unlikely event that I was ever the intended victim of a violent attack, I might well use one of my guns to stop the attacker. Does this count? I am still detecting a hint of the “why do you need guns” argument here.

You think me some sort of card carrying liberal I'm gathering;) . Sorry, I wasn't knocking "YOUR" arguments, I was speaking in terms of those other people whom I've heard ridiculous reasons about why they should retain the right to own a gun.

Sounds to me like he was being burglarized, and having lawful property stolen by criminals.

It also sounds to me like he didn't lock up his potentially dangerous weapons well enough so that it wouldn't be easy enough for teenagers to get into.

But if they have the money, and it makes them happy, then so what?

So that's the kind of requirement you want someone to have for buying a gun?

This is totally irrelevant. It doesn’t matter WHY you think you want one, or even IF you want one. Owning a firearm is a RIGHT. When you start thinking in terms of “you don’t really NEED that,” you have bought into the mindset that it is a PRIVELEDGE, which can be allowed or prohibited at the whim of local government.

Yes owning a gun is a right, which means you are allowed to ask the personal question of yourself "Do I need or want one or not" That goes along with a RIGHT. Just because you can doesn't always mean you should. Just because you can own a gun doesn't mean right off the bat that you are prepared to be responsible for it's ownership. Remember with RIGHTS come RESPONSIBILITIES. If you're buying a gun for personal safety, then I'd like to believe you've gone through the proper preparation that goes along with owning a gun. If not, then you shouldn't own a gun because you are not taking the responsibility that goes along with your right.

I just do not agree with guns being treated as an indulgence, rather than as a weapon. Indulgences are not respected in the same way a weapon is.

James Logan

10-23-2002, 06:01 PM

James Logan

10-23-2002, 06:04 PM

JoBlo's right. If the topic interests you, see BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE: whether you are "pro-guns" or against 'em, it's an entertaining and interesting watch, and you'll get out of the theater much smarter and much more aware of things than when you went in.

Grebdron

10-23-2002, 06:08 PM

I'm in the somewhat unique position of having been professionally trained to use several different kinds of weapons. I've also shot and killed more than one person. Legally. I was not happy or proud to have killed them, more relieved. See, they were trying to kill me. What most of your "average" gun owners don't realize is that it is very hard to kill someone. And even harder to live with yourself afterward. Countless gun "users" (those who have tried to protect themselves by discharging a firearm) feel terrible afterward, and give up owning guns. Many of them have shot the wrong thing.

Lots of your gun owning hunters can prance around all summer, tipping brews and blowing away animals, and think that they are trained well enough and capable of killing a human being just as easy. It is NOT just as easy to shoot a person. And you need training to learn how to safely use a firearm. ESPECIALLY when a combatant has the jump on you. Why do you think police officers go through extensive professional training? Because it is not just something you are born knowing how to do.

Guns have their place, but they should be MUCH more difficult to get. If you want to use them for protection, animal butchering or just target practice, you should have to wait an extended period of time for authorities to perform any such background check they deem fit. You should also have to spend an extended amount of time in courses proving that you are capable of safely using the firearm. Parents and adults should also be held accountable EVERY TIME a child obtains their weapon and a tragedy occurs. Accountable to the tune of incarceration. Safekeeping is a large part of responsible gun ownership. In the military, if someone gets your weapon, you will be courtmartialed. The same standards should hold true in civilian life. After all, your ownership makes you part of a "well-armed militia", doesn't it.

If you feel that you are capable of responsible ownership, none of these requirements should phase you.

Tom Samborski

10-23-2002, 11:06 PM

I want to see Bowling for Columbine, it is on my must-see list.

MuzzleBlast

10-24-2002, 09:45 AM

Originally posted by electriclite
You think me some sort of card carrying liberal I'm gathering;) . Sorry, I wasn't knocking "YOUR" arguments, I was speaking in terms of those other people whom I've heard ridiculous reasons about why they should retain the right to own a gun. I apologize for taking umbrage then.
Usually, true card-carrying liberals would have responded to my original post with something like FUCK YOU YOU FUCKING RACIST IDIOT!!!!!! GUNS ARE EVIL AND MUST BE BANNED FOR THE GOOD OF THE CHILDREN!!! ALL GUN OWNERS SHOULD BE ROUNDED UP AND SHOT!!!! JUST LIKE YOU YOU SISTER-FUCKING REDNECK HICK MOTHERFUCKER!!!! Since you have responded with rational points, I assume you to be fairly average in your knowledge and opinions regarding firearms and the rights of citizens to have them. This meaning you can see where it can be useful, and a good thing for citizens to have them (the fact that your parents have used firearms for defensive purposes enforcing this idea), but while you quite enjoy watching shoot-‘em-up movies and TV shows, you either don’t really have a strong opinion on the issue, or you have a mild distain, and don’t see why anyone would have an actual interest in firearms. This mild distain having been fueled over the past thirty years or so by a national news media and popular media that are controlled by people with a near-total ignorance about firearms and our constitutional rights, and a strong distain for firearms and the mostly rural-dwelling people who use them.
For most city-dwelling people, firearms are always a negative. People either see them being used by oppressive and incompetent police, or in the hands of the street punk who wants your wallet and watch. City people are accustomed to having local government dictate everything from how tall the grass in your yard can be, to what Christmas, I’m sorry, Generic Holiday decorations you can put on your house. So the notion of local government being able to prohibit the owning of weapons seems completely normal.
But what reasons that you have heard do you consider laughable and ridiculous?

It also sounds to me like he didn't lock up his potentially dangerous weapons well enough so that it wouldn't be easy enough for teenagers to get into. The weapons were in a locked house. Those teenagers had to break into a locked residence to get them.

So that's the kind of requirement you want someone to have for buying a gun?

Yes owning a gun is a right, which means you are allowed to ask the personal question of yourself "Do I need or want one or not" That goes along with a RIGHT. Just because you can doesn't always mean you should. Just because you can own a gun doesn't mean right off the bat that you are prepared to be responsible for it's ownership. Remember with RIGHTS come RESPONSIBILITIES. If you're buying a gun for personal safety, then I'd like to believe you've gone through the proper preparation that goes along with owning a gun. If not, then you shouldn't own a gun because you are not taking the responsibility that goes along with your right. On this point, we are in near-total agreement. I am not so reality-challenged that I do not recognize that there are some people who should not have a gun. The trouble is keeping the guns away from people who should not have them without keeping them away from you and me.
Also, we are in total agreement that you certainly have the right to not exercise a right. Guns are most certainly not for everyone.

I just do not agree with guns being treated as an indulgence, rather than as a weapon. Indulgences are not respected in the same way a weapon is. That is true of most indulgences, but I can assure you that 99% of us that do indulge in the weapons hobby are quite aware of the damage that can come from recklessness and negligence. We are well aware of the power we have assumed control of, and acutely aware of the huge responsibility that comes with it. As the slogan goes, freedom isn’t free, and it isn’t safe either. Freedom involves risk. People who live in police states may have as much protection as police are able to provide, but they are not FREE.

MuzzleBlast

10-24-2002, 10:14 AM

Originally posted by Grebdron
I'm in the somewhat unique position of having been professionally trained to use several different kinds of weapons. I've also shot and killed more than one person. Legally. I was not happy or proud to have killed them, more relieved. See, they were trying to kill me.I am very glad the right person walked away from those encounters. Are you a police officer?

Guns have their place, but they should be MUCH more difficult to get. If you want to use them for protection, animal butchering or just target practice, you should have to wait an extended period of time for authorities to perform any such background check they deem fit. Even when that period of time extends to months, even years, at the whim of local government? Remember, this is a constitutional right we are talking about. Also, I seriously doubt that criminals wait any significant amount of time to obtain their weapons. All you are doing is restricting the rights of the tens of millions of people who would never misuse a firearm, and have the legitimate right to obtain and possess one, while affecting the access of criminals to weapons not at all.

You should also have to spend an extended amount of time in courses proving that you are capable of safely using the firearm. I’m going from memory on this, but I think it was Maryland that passed a law to this effect a year or two ago. The law said that in order to obtain a permit to carry a weapon, you had to complete training classes to be provided by the state. They then de-funded the training program.
Parents and adults should also be held accountable EVERY TIME a child obtains their weapon and a tragedy occurs. Accountable to the tune of incarceration. Safekeeping is a large part of responsible gun ownership. In the military, if someone gets your weapon, you will be courtmartialed. The same standards should hold true in civilian life. After all, your ownership makes you part of a "well-armed militia", doesn't it. I agree up to a point. A gun owner with children in the house does incur greatly increased responsibility to ensure their children are aware of the damage firearms can do, and keep the firearms secured. If the children have to commit a crime, such as breaking and entering, to obtain the weapons, then I think there is a case to be made that the parents can be absolved of some of the liability.
If you feel that you are capable of responsible ownership, none of these requirements should phase you. But when these requirements prove to have exactly ZERO effect on reducing crime, which they always do, more restrictions always follow. Aside from this, I find it highly objectionable that I should have to jump through a bunch of arbitrary hoops, put in place by politicians who are ignorant or hostile to my point of view, to exercise a right enshrined in the Bill of Rights to the Constitution!

MuzzleBlast

10-24-2002, 10:38 AM

Originally posted by James Logan
Right on. That's the very core of the subject. I live in Europe, in France, and I can tell you people here are still afraid of guns.
Funny, I thought the French were mainly afraid of Germans carrying guns.
We don't see so many guns around, and we sure as hell know it's dangerous: for us, it's pure and simple, guns kill, that's what they're made for, so you don't need one if you're not out to kill someone. So far at least, my guns have killed fewer people than Ted Kennedy’s car. You don’t see many around, and so you are afraid of them. Go look up what Sigmund Freud said about fear of weapons. You live in total safety under the protection of the state, and yet the police officers of said state feel the need to carry submachine guns.
The US, though, it's the perfect opposite. American people are used to guns. They need guns. I think that's mainly because of the fact that the American Constitution was written during the Civil War and hasn't been changed since. I could sharpshoot your knowledge of US history here, but I think that would be a waste of time.

Quick quiz: What do these things have in common:
Soccer
The Metric System
Socialist/Totalitarian Governments/Police States
The UN?
All these things are enthusiastically embraced by other countries, and strongly spurned by AMERICANS.

Guns kill. Sure, you'll tell me no they don't, they help you protect yourself, if you're not a wacko you won't kill anyone with one. And besides, if you want to kill someone, you can do it bare-handed, right? Well I say no. Guns made killing easier, they gave God-like power of life or death to anyone just by pulling a trigger. And that's why owning and using a gun shouldn't be a right, but should be forbidden. Spoken like someone living in a socialist nation, that was previously a dictatorship, and before that a monarchy. People like you have no notion of individual rights. Stay in France. By the way, could you persuade Barbara Streisand, and all those other people who said they would emigrate if W got the presidency to move there with you?

Grebdron

10-24-2002, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by MuzzleBlast
I am very glad the right person walked away from those encounters. Are you a police officer?

No. Ex-military. 82nd Airborne. Honduras, Panama and South Korea.

Even when that period of time extends to months, even years, at the whim of local government? Remember, this is a constitutional right we are talking about. Also, I seriously doubt that criminals wait any significant amount of time to obtain their weapons.

Yes. A waiting period of months is not a big deal. And the measures have to also take into account the number of guns already on the street. Something needs to be done to reduce the number of guns in criminals hands. I don't know what the answer is, I don't pretend to have the answers. But there are currently way too many guns. And no, I wouldn't have a problem with bullet registering.

I’m going from memory on this, but I think it was Maryland that passed a law to this effect a year or two ago. The law said that in order to obtain a permit to carry a weapon, you had to complete training classes to be provided by the state. They then de-funded the training program.

The training courses should not have to be funded by the state. Why the hell should I have to pay for someone else to take a gun safety course? If you want to spend the money to own a gun, then spend the money to take the course. I would imagine it would only be a one time thing, you wouldn't have to do it every time you bought a gun. So a couple hundred bucks for a program shouldn't be a major deal.

A gun owner with children in the house does incur greatly increased responsibility to ensure their children are aware of the damage firearms can do, and keep the firearms secured. If the children have to commit a crime, such as breaking and entering, to obtain the weapons, then I think there is a case to be made that the parents can be absolved of some of the liability.

They should be kept secure enough that even breaking and entering should not give someone access to them. Gun safes and the like. It is an immense responsibility, and should be treated as such. If you want that responsibilty, be prepared to deal with the consequences.

But when these requirements prove to have exactly ZERO effect on reducing crime, which they always do, more restrictions always follow. Aside from this, I find it highly objectionable that I should have to jump through a bunch of arbitrary hoops, put in place by politicians who are ignorant or hostile to my point of view, to exercise a right enshrined in the Bill of Rights to the Constitution!

See, that's where the middle ground comes in. Gun zealots have to realize that for the good of the masses, they will have to acquiesce some of the ease with which they can obtain firearms. Accepting this, and succumbing to some restrictions, would make this country safer and would mean less of a necessity to use their guns against criminals. But the anti-gun zealots need to realize that gun owners are not just going to give up that right. There has to be some give and take on both sides.

And, The Bill of Rights guarantees you the right to own a gun, but puts no restrictions on the governments right to regulate gun ownership. So, when you use the BOR argument to back up your right to ownership, remember that.

MuzzleBlast

10-24-2002, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by Grebdron
No. Ex-military. 82nd Airborne. Honduras, Panama and South Korea.
ALL THE WAY!

Yes. A waiting period of months is not a big deal. And the measures have to also take into account the number of guns already on the street. Something needs to be done to reduce the number of guns in criminals hands. I don't know what the answer is, I don't pretend to have the answers. But there are currently way too many guns. And no, I wouldn't have a problem with bullet registering. And I have shown that licensing, registration, waiting periods, even outright bans, do NOTHING to reduce the number of guns in criminals’ hands. They accomplish NOTHING except to put additional restrictions on non-criminals. All they accomplish is to create a situation where people have to break the law to be able to protect themselves.
Again, I think it is Maryland that enacted a law that stipulated that any and all handguns that come into the state must have a fired casing sent to the state police. As a result, many gun manufacturers will not sell their products to people in Maryland. This law is a de facto gun ban.
The training courses should not have to be funded by the state. Why the hell should I have to pay for someone else to take a gun safety course? I totally agree that the courses should not be funded by the state, but that is what the law stipulated. By de-funding the training program, this law became a de-facto ban on carrying weapons.
If you want to spend the money to own a gun, then spend the money to take the course. I would imagine it would only be a one time thing, you wouldn't have to do it every time you bought a gun. So a couple hundred bucks for a program shouldn't be a major deal. So only the people who have the money to pay a couple hundred bucks for a training program should be allowed to own weapons. Some people might see this as an elitist, even racist, position.
They should be kept secure enough that even breaking and entering should not give someone access to them. Gun safes and the like. It is an immense responsibility, and should be treated as such. If you want that responsibilty, be prepared to deal with the consequences. So only the people who have the money to pay a couple hundred bucks for a gun safe should be allowed to own weapons. Some people might see this as an elitist, even racist, position.
See, that's where the middle ground comes in. Gun zealots have to realize that for the good of the masses, they will have to acquiesce some of the ease with which they can obtain firearms. Accepting this, and succumbing to some restrictions, would make this country safer and would mean less of a necessity to use their guns against criminals. Again, I have shown this to be false. The parts of the country with the most stringent gun control laws are also the parts of the country that have the most gun crime.
But the anti-gun zealots need to realize that gun owners are not just going to give up that right. There has to be some give and take on both sides. There has been a great deal of compromise on this, and every time gun owners have submitted to one more “harmless” inconvenience or one more ban “to keep guns off the streets” it has come back to bite us in the ass. Crime continues unabated, and more restrictions are called for, more bans are imposed.
And, The Bill of Rights guarantees you the right to own a gun, but puts no restrictions on the governments right to regulate gun ownership. So, when you use the BOR argument to back up your right to ownership, remember that.
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.
That “shall not be infringed” part exactly contradicts your point. Strictly speaking, government has exactly ZERO right to regulate gun ownership. They have done it anyway, because of that “give and take” thing you mentioned.
Actually, it says “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” which could arguably mean that the government has no right to regulate anything a person could “bear.” That would include Dragon missiles, Stingers, machine guns, RPG’s, etc.

Grebdron

10-24-2002, 01:53 PM

Originally posted by MuzzleBlast
ALL THE WAY!

AIRBORNE!!!

And I have shown that licensing, registration, waiting periods, even outright bans, do NOTHING to reduce the number of guns in criminals’ hands. They accomplish NOTHING except to put additional restrictions on non-criminals. All they accomplish is to create a situation where people have to break the law to be able to protect themselves.

But all I'm saying is that we have to figure something out to begin keeping illegal guns off the street. As I said, I don't pretend to have the answers.

As a result, many gun manufacturers will not sell their products to people in Maryland. This law is a de facto gun ban.

Doesn't sound like a de facto ban. Sounds like for some reason gun manufacturers have a problem with anybody knowing who their guns go to. Why?

I totally agree that the courses should not be funded by the state, but that is what the law stipulated. By de-funding the training program, this law became a de-facto ban on carrying weapons.

Again, not a de facto ban. If you can afford to be a responsible gun owner, more power to you. Maybe they should raise the purchase price of the weapons enough to offset the cost of the training programs.

So only the people who have the money to pay a couple hundred bucks for a training program should be allowed to own weapons. Some people might see this as an elitist, even racist, position.

So only the people who have the money to pay a couple hundred bucks for a gun safe should be allowed to own weapons. Some people might see this as an elitist, even racist, position.

Elitist and racist? I think not. It's about responsibility. If you can spend the money on a weapon, save up to spend the money on a training course. Or, as I said before, raise the purchase price to offset the cost of programs.

Again, I have shown this to be false. The parts of the country with the most stringent gun control laws are also the parts of the country that have the most gun crime.

Again, I don't have the answers. But dialogue needs to be started to figure something out.

There has been a great deal of compromise on this, and every time gun owners have submitted to one more “harmless” inconvenience or one more ban “to keep guns off the streets” it has come back to bite us in the ass. Crime continues unabated, and more restrictions are called for, more bans are imposed.

But we can't continue to let violent crime continue unabated. Again, something has to be done about it.

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.

That “shall not be infringed” part exactly contradicts your point. Strictly speaking, government has exactly ZERO right to regulate gun ownership. They have done it anyway, because of that “give and take” thing you mentioned.

The "right" to own them isn't being infringed. The sale and purchase is merely being monitored. Why is there a problem with this? If you are a responsible gun owner, why is it so terrible for the government to know you own the guns? Do gun owners want violent crime to continue? Do they want violent criminals to continue to have such easy access to weapons? I don't understand the fervor that gun owners fight against this with. Again, if you are not going to commit crimes with your gun, what is the big deal with the government knowing about your guns?

Actually, it says “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” which could arguably mean that the government has no right to regulate anything a person could “bear.” That would include Dragon missiles, Stingers, machine guns, RPG’s, etc.

See, that's the zealot part coming out. I know I'm not anybody to tell you what you do and don't need, but what the bloody hell would a civilian citizen need with a Stinger, RPG, etc? Also, the constitution and Bill of Rights were written before any such weapons existed. Do you not think that changing times and changing technology warrant some re-examination of how our laws are written.

The First Amendment has already had to be re-examined, as you are not allowed to yell "Fire" in a public place. We've also had to write new laws to protect children from pedophiles and kiddie-porn on the internet. Are these not okay? We live in a drastically different world than our fore-fathers did. They had no way to know what advances would be made in weapons of mass destruction and technology. Should the average citizen be allowed to own nuclear weapons? They are "arms." And if not, where do you draw the line?

P.S. I am a gun owner.:)

MuzzleBlast

10-24-2002, 03:00 PM

But all I'm saying is that we have to figure something out to begin keeping illegal guns off the street. As I said, I don't pretend to have the answers. Me either, obviously. But taking away MY gun, or YOUR gun certainly isn’t the answer. Plus there is that nagging problem of it being unconstitutional.
Doesn't sound like a de facto ban. Sounds like for some reason gun manufacturers have a problem with anybody knowing who their guns go to. Why? Partly the principle of the issue of registration, and partly because of the cost of complying with the law, or so I am given to understand. The law may not (or may) have intended to restrict legal firearms, but it has had that effect.

Again, not a de facto ban. If you can afford to be a responsible gun owner, more power to you. Maybe they should raise the purchase price of the weapons enough to offset the cost of the training programs.

Elitist and racist? I think not. It's about responsibility. If you can spend the money on a weapon, save up to spend the money on a training course. Or, as I said before, raise the purchase price to offset the cost of programs. And as I have said before, this has no effect on crime. In fact, if you greatly increase the cost of self-protection, you run the risk of pricing it out of reach of the people that need it the most, like those people living in the black communities where damn near half of the violent crimes happen.
The "right" to own them isn't being infringed. The sale and purchase is merely being monitored. Why is there a problem with this? Okay, following this line of reasoning, I have the right to OWN a weapon, I just don’t have the right to BUY one. Preventing me from getting one sure seems like an infringement to me.
If you are a responsible gun owner, why is it so terrible for the government to know you own the guns? True story: A few years back in California a law was passed that stated you could own a semi-automatic rifle if you registered it. So a great many responsible gun owners, wishing to abide by the law of the land, registered their rifles. A year or two down the road, the law was changed, and those previously legal firearms were declared illegal, with no “grandfather clause.” All those responsible gunowners got letters from the California Attorney Generals Office telling them they needed to either surrender the rifles to local police, or show proof that the rifles had been destroyed or transferred out of the state. Those who could not show said proof, or come surrender their rifles, ran the risk of having law enforcement personnel come to their home to collect the rifles.
This is only one recent example, and it happened right here in the USA. Registration ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS leads to confiscation.
Again, if you are not going to commit crimes with your gun, what is the big deal with the government knowing about your guns? If you have nothing to hide, why would you mind police officers searching your home at any given time? Why would you mind random drug screenings, random searches, random questioning by police? Because absolute power corrupts absolutely. If it CAN be abused, it WILL be abused.
See, that's the zealot part coming out. I know I'm not anybody to tell you what you do and don't need, but what the bloody hell would a civilian citizen need with a Stinger, RPG, etc? Also, the constitution and Bill of Rights were written before any such weapons existed. Do you not think that changing times and changing technology warrant some re-examination of how our laws are written. I would not object to this so strongly if government on all levels would show the least bit of integrity about it. What they are doing now is simply ignoring the constitution, or discounting it as having been written before modern technology existed. (It is a weak argument, but I have heard the analogy made that the First amendment must only protect the use of quill pens and manual printing presses.) The first step (and I catch hell from gun guys more adamant than me when I say this) would be to REPEAL the second amendment as it is presently written, rather that just ignoring it or denying it. It may be in the Bill of Rights, but it is still only an amendment, and can be repealed. Then we can start the debate over again about what the civilian ownership of arms really means to us, and what we should allow civilians to own. Write it up, get three-fifths (if I remember right) of the states to ratify it, and I will respect that. Bill Clintoning around the constitution is not acceptable.
The First Amendment has already had to be re-examined, as you are not allowed to yell "Fire" in a public place. We've also had to write new laws to protect children from pedophiles and kiddie-porn on the internet. Are these not okay? No! Internet filtering is unconstitutional. A federal court in Pennsylvania came to the same conclusion. Doesn’t matter if it SEEMS to be a good idea, there are always unintended consequences.
P.S. I am a gun owner.:)
Me too! ;)

Grebdron

10-24-2002, 03:14 PM

First off, I want to commend both of us on keeping this very civil.

Secondly, we are basically going to have to agree to disagree on this issue. I have no problem who knows I have my gun, you do. I have no problems with the current restrictions (I actually think they should be stricter), you do. We disagree on what the second amendment actually means, or the intent. THAT is another one of our inalienable rights.

The fact that we can have a productive discussion, and not resort to name-calling, is refreshing.

Enjoy!!

MuzzleBlast

10-24-2002, 03:50 PM

Roger that!

notchreturns

10-24-2002, 03:53 PM

Guns don't kill people. People with guns kill people. Always wanted to say that :)

Anyway, my thoughts are simple and short when it comes to gun control and children...

If you can teach your children to look both ways on a busy road, not touch a hot stove, do their homework, and never talk to strangers than you can teach them not to play with guns. Plain and simple.

electriclite

10-24-2002, 07:38 PM

Well kiddies here's something new to chew on. I just got back from watching Bowling for Columbine tonight (great flick GO WATCH) and one of the points the movie raised which really struck me, was "What makes us different from other countries?"

Now I can understand how countries like Great Britain, Japan and France have fewer gun related homicides; they're smaller countries and therefore have fewer people to kill. But than you look at countries like Canada and Australia, both very large countries whose citizens own weapons. Specifically about 17 million Canadians own weapons, yet the combined gun related homicides in those two countries don't even make up half the gun related deaths in the US.

So why are we killing more people with guns?

Because we're an aggressive nation living under manufatured fear.

Our media froths up our imaginations into basically being afraid of everything outside our front door. So what do we do? We buy guns to feel safe, but most of the danger that we've bought our guns for may not exist in the way the media portrays it.

Our crime rate has gone down, but our fear of crime has gone up.

Check this out: Charlton Heston has loaded weapons in his house for "protection". The man lives in the Hollywood Hills. You have to speak through an intercom before you can even make it 50ft to the front door.

Just say you like having guns around ya, Chuck. Much simpler.

A significant amount of weapons owned in the US are owned by people in the suburbs. Most of the guns that end up illegally in the hands of criminals in urban areas were stolen from suburban homes and sold in the city.

Now factor in the fact that we have a significant amount of Americans very stressed and very terrified, especially under the climate we live in now, who are going out in droves and buying guns. And that they could just walk into into a Wal-Mart and buy as much ammo as they want (although I believe Wal-Mart has ended that practice, or so they promised they would in the film).

So basically you have a lot of scared people out there, locked and loaded......... And that kinda freaked me out.

electriclite

10-24-2002, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by Grebdron
Should the average citizen be allowed to own nuclear weapons? They are "arms." And if not, where do you draw the line?

Jeez, Greb that's creepy. That's exactly what Moore asked James Nickels in the film.

bmain77

10-24-2002, 10:49 PM

This is a coming from a gun owner. The NRA is one of the most evil organizations on this planet and I am personally counting down the days until ol Chuck and his Alzeihmers confuses his toothbrush for one of his many loaded guns. That might be heartless, but thats how I feel.

It's these outspoken, holier than thou, and racist attitudes that give gun owners like me who just like to go hunting now and then or shoot some skeet a bad name to the point that I am almost willing to give up my guns just to get rid of the image the NRA has given us. But then again thats my attitudes towards most interest groups, but thats a topic for another day.

I personally think it is too easy to get a gun. I'm more than willing to way to take some tests, fill out some forms, go to classes and all the rest in order to get a gun. I'd even go in for a full body cavity search if it prevent people like an old boss of mine who feels to the need to get a concealed weapons permit because of all the blacks moving in to his neighborhood.

I think I'll stop now I could go on forever on this topic. I just always feel the need to seperate myself from the NRA and a lot of other gun owners out there. I wish someone would start up a group for the many other sensible gun owners out there like me. The NRA has just gone too far and have gotten too powerful.

bmain77

10-24-2002, 10:54 PM

Oh and I almost forgot....

I have to give a shout out to my home boy Michael Moore and remind everyone to watch Donahue tonight. It was filmed in FLint the other night. The live broadcast was pre-empted by all the sniper coverage....how ironic...don't you think...like good advice that you just can't take... :)

electriclite

10-24-2002, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by bmain77
Oh and I almost forgot....

I have to give a shout out to my home boy Michael Moore and remind everyone to watch Donahue tonight. It was filmed in FLint the other night. The live broadcast was pre-empted by all the sniper coverage....how ironic...don't you think...like good advice that you just can't take... :)

I was just about to point the Flint connection out. I had a teacher from Flint.

Quick question: Does Flint still hate Moore for "Roger and Me"?

bmain77

10-25-2002, 09:34 AM

The response to Michael Moore depends on who you talk to. By this point it has boiled down to more about Moore's politics. More left leaning people usually love the guy and the more right conservative detest the man.

There are those that do blame him for Flint's troubles though. They still think that ROger and Me have only scared people from moving in. There might be a small amount of that going on. I think that the film shows just how evil the big corporations were a decade before we found out with Enron and all the others.

And again when I turned on DOnahue last night he as interviewing one of the snipers cousins or something so it's looks like the Michael Moore episode got pre-empted again. I was trying to figure out how to get one of invite's the films premiere and spot in the auidence for the show the other night.

MuzzleBlast

10-25-2002, 01:40 PM

I think I'll stop now I could go on forever on this topic. I just always feel the need to seperate myself from the NRA and a lot of other gun owners out there. I wish someone would start up a group for the many other sensible gun owners out there like me. The NRA has just gone too far and have gotten too powerful. Are you ready for this? There are a great many gun owners who slam the NRA as being too moderate. They say the NRA compromises too much, and every time they compromise, gun owners lose.

BubbaStrangelove

10-25-2002, 02:39 PM

the problem I see, Muzzle, is that you are saying that these laws don't work.

well, most of progressive (or repressive) laws that we are seeing, are all very new.

we've had guns since day one.

shouldn't we allow at least a proportionate amount of time before declaring that they don't work?

bmain77

10-25-2002, 10:21 PM

Thought I'd pass along this email that game from Michael Moore mailing list I belong to from the man himself......

Yes, It Was a Bushmaster

October 25, 2002

Dear friends,

Yesterday, Larry Bennett, a 16-year old, was shot in the head after he was
involved in a minor traffic accident. You probably didn't hear about it
because, well, how could he be dead if he wasn't shot by The Sniper?

Yesterday, an unidentified woman was shot to death in her car in Fenton,
MI. You probably didn't hear about it because she had the misfortune of not
being shot by The Sniper.

Two nights ago, Charles D. Bennett, 48, an apartment security guard, was
shot to death after confronting two teenagers in his parking lot in
Memphis, TN. You probably didn't hear about it because the sniper was too
busy sleeping in his car that night, and thus, poor Charles was not shot by
The Sniper.

Yes, The Sniper has apparently been caught, so we can go back now to NOT
reporting the DOZENS of gun deaths that occur every day, the ones that just
aren't newsworthy because they happen in all those old boring ways --
unlike the ways of The Sniper, who was interesting and creative and
exciting and scary! He played so much better on the news.

Of course, had Congress not caved in to the NRA we would have known after
the first HOUR of the first day of the killings three weeks ago that those
bullets were coming out of a rifle that belonged to John Williams/Mohammad.
How would we know this? It's right there in the state records in New
Jersey: this gun was purchased this past July, under the name of John
Mohammad!

Many more people died needlessly in the days and weeks after that first
hour of the shootings, and every one of their deaths could have probably
been prevented had we had a national ballistics fingerprinting data base.

Thank you, Mr. Heston for this unnecessary carnage. Thank you, Mr. Bush,
for supporting Mr. Heston and his group's agenda -- which protects only the
criminals.

And thank you, Bushmaster Firearms, Inc., for providing the gun used to
shoot the 13 people in the DC area. Bushmaster's president, Richard E.
Dyke, was the Maine finance chairman of George W. Bush's 2000 Presidential
campaign. According to Business Week, Dyke had to step down as Bush's
finance chair "after reporters began quizzing him about his business
dealings. Bushmaster Firearms Inc., is notorious for using loopholes to
sidestep a 1994 federal ban on assault rifles." Bush and Bushmaster. Too
tragically perfect.

If everyone reading this letter (and you now number in the millions) would
share this fact with just one person who is thinking of skipping going to
the polls on Nov. 5th, I believe that on Nov. 6th, Mr. Bush will have
neither the Senate nor the House doing his or Heston's bidding. Americans
don't like people who assist serial killers in being able to ratchet up
their kills because The Sniper knows that his bullets are prohibited by law
from being traced to his gun.

That, in a nutshell, is what the NRA is all about -- and I implore all
responsible gun owners and hunters to join with me in putting an end to the
NRA agenda once and for all. Don't give Bush his majority on November 5th.
He's already seen to it that his cronies in big business have wiped out
your 401 (K), and they are doing their best to see that you are left with
no pension at all. That alone should be reason enough to NOT pull a single
lever for a Republican on Nov. 5th. Send a message. Do something brave.

Yours,

Michael Moore
mike@michaelmoore.com
www.michaelmoore.com <http://www.michaelmoore.com>

BloodiedCelticVengeance

10-26-2002, 10:26 AM

Originally posted by bmain77
[B]This is a coming from a gun owner. The NRA is one of the most evil organizations on this planet and I am personally counting down the days until ol Chuck and his Alzeihmers confuses his toothbrush for one of his many loaded guns. That might be heartless, but thats how I feel. [B]

Yeah...and perhaps Michael Moore will soon vacate the planet too. Maybe he'll be running into Krispy Kreme or Burger King before closing and drop from a massive coronary, the fat bastard.
Or, he could choke on a fuckin' chicken bone...or a petrified twinkie...or a REALLY big ham sandwich!!

As if Heston is PERSONALLY responsible for all gun crimes. Puhleeze...I'm here in NYC, and there are so many gun related crimes per day that we've become desensitized. So much so that most of it is relegated to the middle of the papers, rather than front page...that's reserved for news about Gandolfini once being in rehab, or Lizzie Grubman going to jail. That's Heston's fault too, correct?

And guess what, kiddies? The rate is ridiculously disproportianate, racially. And don't give me this shit about "social inequities" in the "minority" neighborhoods. I grew up in relative squalor myself...as did most in my neighborhood. And we were predominately WHITE. There were no "programs" for us, either. Thing is, we were not weened on a culture and mindset that pounded us relentlessly with the glamorization of packing a "gat".

You want to say that it's so hopeless in certain neighborhoods that folks have no alternative? Fuck that liberal bullshit!! You DO have a choice...and you DO have a conscience. If one chooses to go down the path of crime and violence it is THEIR fault!! Stop blaming every fucking ill in society on the NRA and other conservative policies.

I could come and post in this thread every day from here to eternity with a new murder carried out here in NYC. And, trust me, none of the wretched miscreants perpetrating these deeds EVER heard of Mr.Heston or the NRA. Get a fuckin' grip. Why is everyone afraid of the truth? ~muzzleblast~ was spot on in his statistics. Why must people CONSTANTLY try to rationalize and BLAME when pure, cold, HARD facts are presented to them?

Let me fill you in on a phenom happening here. Certain gangs here in the City are now accepting membership...provided you VIOLENTLY attack a delivery person. One instance: An immigrant Chinese delivery person was called to one of the projects in Brooklyn. When he arrived, the bastards set upon him, and threw a blanket over his head. They proceeded to PUMMEL this poor sonofabitch with a BRICK, until his brains were spilled all over the pavement. Then the fuckwads adjourned upstairs to eat the FREE food!! Woo Hoo! Yeah, let's BAN BRICKS!!!! I personally think it's too easy for one to procure a brick on the streets...

When asked as to why the murder was carried out, the dickheads all admitted that it was an initiation process. Yep, Mr.Heston and the NRA are TOTALLY responsible for this, right?

One of the more sickening murders carried out here in my lifetime was of a doctor in Roosevelt Hospital. She was a 28 year old, pregnant intern, who specialized in OB/GYN for "underpriveleged" families. What did she get for her benevolence? She was set upon by one Steven Smith, who brutally beat her, raped her, then proceeded to strangle her with the cord from a lamp on her desk. When the detectives arrived, they said it looked like someone had splashed three gallons of red paint on the walls, that's how damn BLOODY it was. LET'S BAN ELECTRICAL CORDS!!!

When asked why he killed her, Smith said "The WHITE BITCH deserved it"...really? Why? Because there were no "programs" for him? Gimme a fuckin' break. Depravity, insanity, HATRED...that's what drove the deed...not the fact that this FUCKIN' DOUCHEBAG couldn't play Scrabble anywhere after hours.

Lest we all think I'm singling out "minorities"...how 'bout the episode in Jasper, Texas a few years ago? The guy was dragged to his death by a pickup truck. The racist scumbags tied him up, and gleefully did donuts 'til the poor bastard was damn near cut in half. LET'S BAN PICKUP TRUCKS!!!!

Let's review, shall we? I think the gist of my post is this: PEOPLE KILL, not guns! Is a gun the most prevalent choice of weapon? Fuck yes, no denying that. But, along with the examples I already gave, there are SCORES more where murder was carried out without a gun. Ferchrissakes, how many people have been stabbed to death? Shall we ban knives? Fuck that!! They can have my Ginsu when they pry it from MY COLD DEAD HANDS!!

If it sounds ridiculous, good! It SHOULD! Because it is not the weapon, it's the numb nuts in POSESSION of the weapon. Let me ask...has a gun ever just gotten up, stretched itself, yawned, scratched it's ass...then said "Hmmmm...I feel like killing today!!"
I think not, it's the HUMAN who makes that choice, not the weapon.

When censorship is bought up on these boards, people go fuckin' BONKERS, and rightfully so. The First Ammendment is always cited: "Freedom of Speech", which encompasses artistic license.
Let me ask you ARDENT defenders of our Constitution this: Why is it ok to then slag the Second Ammendment? You know, the one which gives us the "Right to bear arms"? To alot of citizens out there, the Second Ammendment is as sacred as the First. But, when people assail the First, it's called "ridiculous", "inane", "narrow minded"...ad infinitum.

One cannot lean on the Constitution one minute, then slag it the next. It is the credo that gurantees our rights...ALL of them. Why hasn't the Second Ammendment been repealed yet? Surely, if it causes so much strife and hardship...
Because the gun lobby is so powerful? Perhaps...
Because our legislators don't have the temerity to upset certain constituents? Perhaps...

I don't claim to have all the answers..but, I do know this: I'm fuckin' sick of BLAME being placed everywhere except where it BELONGS...with THE INDIVIDUAL.

Remember this, folks. The first thing the Nazis did was come a callin' for the guns. Yes, 'tis true. Before their twisted policies were foisted upon the populace, they made sure to disarm the people. Why? Maybe to insure that no worthwhile insurrection would take place...

One last thing. Moore appeared on The O'Reilly Factor, and with Sean Hannity. During these appearances, Mr.Moore was extremely docile in his manner. Basically, he came off as a big, fat PUSSY. I have no respect for the fat fuck, he punked right the fuck out when confronted. Some comments and facts illustrated in "Bowling For Columbine" and his book (thankfully, I forgot it's name..."Stupid White Men"?) were bought up. Mr. Moore had no rebuttal for most of the questions. I guess he was hungry...and preoccupied with FOOD.

Oh...by the way, Heart disease is the number one killer here in the States. People jam their faces with the most hideous junk day after day after day. Shall we ban fast food as well? The burden placed on our entire society by the alarming putrid National Health is crippling. The illnesses, the strain on Health Care, the Deaths...

We are becoming a nation of FAT, WHINING, CAPITULATING, EXCUSE MAKING, SOFT-ASS WEAKLINGS.
It's sickening.

Grebdron

10-26-2002, 02:50 PM

I actually agree with quite a bit of what you say, BCV. But I don't think that fingerprinting bullets and shot testing every gun sold is infringing on anybody's right to own a gun. I don't make excuses for violent criminals, black or white. But maybe something could be done to slow down the rate of murders, or at least to help take murderers off the streets by knowing who owns the guns? It would take a long time to accomplish, but we've got to start somewhere.

electriclite

10-26-2002, 09:06 PM

Sure you can't blame Heston for all the gun deaths in America, but you can seriously knock him for his POOR timing. I mean, 2 NRA rallys in 2 states that each had their owned firearm-related tragedy!

Isn't his job as the President of the NRA to try and not bring bad press to the organization? He's got handlers. Don't you think one of them watches CNN? Come on! That's just fuckin rude to show up in Columbine within a month of the massacre and start tootin about your guns. I'm sure the gun lovers could've waited awhile for a little rally in Colorado, and in Michigan.

And you can go on about how knives kill people, and electrical cords, but you can't kill large amounts of people running around with an electrical cord! You want to create large amounts of casualties you get yourself a gun, perferably something large and that can hold lot's of bullets and fire automatically. And if that's your goal, well then somebody better be keeping track of those damn bullets your firing so you can actually catch the bastard if he/she decides to shoot and run, ala the Beltway Sniper.

Keep the guns, track the bullets.

But most importantly, lock your guns up so that people don't end up stealing them and selling them in the city so some punk can buy it and help raise the homicide rate in the city.

BubbaStrangelove

10-27-2002, 02:18 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BloodiedCelticVengeance
Let's review, shall we? I think the gist of my post is this: PEOPLE KILL, not guns! Is a gun the most prevalent choice of weapon? Fuck yes, no denying that. But, along with the examples I already gave, there are SCORES more where murder was carried out without a gun. Ferchrissakes, how many people have been stabbed to death? Shall we ban knives? Fuck that!! They can have my Ginsu when they pry it from MY COLD DEAD HANDS!!

at an inpatient center I volunteered at one time, they kept all the knives locked up because the people would use them as weapons.

I think not, it's the HUMAN who makes that choice, not the weapon.

I'm glad that more registered gun owners don't make the choice to shoot people.

When censorship is bought up on these boards, people go fuckin' BONKERS, and rightfully so. The First Ammendment is always cited: "Freedom of Speech", which encompasses artistic license.
Let me ask you ARDENT defenders of our Constitution this: Why is it ok to then slag the Second Ammendment? You know, the one which gives us the "Right to bear arms"? To alot of citizens out there, the Second Ammendment is as sacred as the First. But, when people assail the First, it's called "ridiculous", "inane", "narrow minded"...ad infinitum.

Actually, I feel that freedom of speech is justly limited by the clear and present danger clause.

I think I would be stupid if I yelled "fire" in a crowded building, when there was no fire. It would be negligent.

I think I would be stupid if I owned a gun and did not keep it secured. That would be negligent.

The NRA has fought against laws making it mandatory to secure guns.

One cannot lean on the Constitution one minute, then slag it the next.

And one cannot preach that a literal interpretation of the constitution is necessary one minute, then use slang the next.

I don't claim to have all the answers..but, I do know this: I'm fuckin' sick of BLAME being placed everywhere except where it BELONGS...with THE INDIVIDUAL.

I can't blame you for feeling that way.

Remember this, folks. The first thing the Nazis did was come a callin' for the guns.

Oh no! And they sang songs too! Better watch out for choir boys! (Hey didn't you make the same type of joke to make your point, BCV?)

Oh...by the way, Heart disease is the number one killer here in the States. People jam their faces with the most hideous junk day after day after day. Shall we ban fast food as well? The burden placed on our entire society by the alarming putrid National Health is crippling. The illnesses, the strain on Health Care, the Deaths...

Well, there is the FDA.... What's the FDA equilvilant for guns?

We are becoming a nation of FAT, WHINING, CAPITULATING, EXCUSE MAKING, SOFT-ASS WEAKLINGS.

Add mean-spirited, resentful, and jaded to that list.

RIPlayne

10-27-2002, 02:26 AM

If I ever wanted to kill someone, I'd use a gun. I could stay a fair distance away and do it very easily. Thats the advantage of a gun. Now, I don't want to sound like a psychopath, but its true. Its much more difficult to go to up to a person and strangle him or stab him.

Reading this topic from the beginning, I've seen a lot of use of statistics. Any argument based on stats is weak, in my opinion. As Mark Twain said 'There are three kinds of lies ; lies, damn lies and statistics'

I don't care if 99% of the guns in the country haven't been used to kill anyone. That figure doesn't make me feel any better when I'm walking down a lonely street at night.

Look at the tragedy that took place in Moscow in the past few days. Before it happened, what would say your chances were to go to a theater and get taken hostage and ultimately shot dead? 0.01% or something like that? Tell that to the families of the ninety or so victims who were shot dead.

I know people will kill whether they have guns or not. But making it difficult to get hold of a gun will reduce crime, even if it is by very little. How would the captors have killed those people in Moscow. By electrical cords? I don't think so. They only used guns and bombs. And by elimnating guns, you narrow their odds of getting what they want.

Dr. Pants

10-27-2002, 07:42 AM

BCD you have become my new hero. While I may not agree entirely on your post (my issues on gun-control are mixed), I find many things you said to be true.

Originally posted by bmain77
..."That alone should be reason enough to NOT pull a single
lever for a Republican on Nov. 5th. Send a message. Do something brave.
"

Seeing as how I'm a Republican, that personally offends me dude.

Guys, pull your heads out of your asses and come to realize that not every republican is a racist, bible-thumping religious zealot who is bald, fat, and rich.

I'm not racist, I'm fat but not bald and rich, I don't own any guns, and I'm a Christian but hardly a religous zealot. And I'm against censorship of the media. And I actually support abortion on some cases. What a shock :eek: , coming from a Republican?

Bmain, I don't mean to disrespect you or anything. But I just find it funny that you go on to state how bad you think violence has become in our country, and how much you want control on our guns so that gun-owners like yourself won't be given a bad name... then you go and state how you wish horrible deaths on leaders of the NRA. Regardless of whether you agree with the NRA's views or actions, that's a pretty hateful and harsh statement towards an individual.

And to think, before I signed up I just sorta lurked around the board. And I remember you stating that you're a teacher. What kind of an example do you think you're setting for your students?

bmain77

10-27-2002, 10:01 AM

The whole not voting Republican thing is from Michael Moore not me. If you notice that whole post is a email from Michael Moore. I'm on his mailing list and I suggest all of you to suscribe to it.

In fact I would go further than MM and say don't vote Republican or Democrat in the next election. The only difference in the two major parties is what is being said, not done.

I agree that my comments on Hestion were a bit harsh. Just part of frustration with people like him, Rosie O donnell or any other celebrity who become sage like geniuses only because they are famous and so many people lap up what they say. I mean as much as I love Michael Moore I also have come to know you have to take some of what he says with a grain of salt.

And just because I am a teacher (actually will be teacher...one semester away) doesn't mean I can't have an unsavory position. My classes will be as politics free as possible. My goal is to be honest as I can be.

MuzzleBlast

10-28-2002, 09:10 AM

Hi everybody. I'm back. Y'all have a good weekend?

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
the problem I see, Muzzle, is that you are saying that these laws don't work. Yes, that is what I am saying.
well, most of progressive (or repressive) laws that we are seeing, are all very new.They started in this country on the federal level with the National Firearms Act of 1934, got a big boost with the Gun Control Act of 1968, and the Brady act in 1994.
we've had guns since day one.Since somewhere around the middle 1300's, if I recall correctly.
shouldn't we allow at least a proportionate amount of time before declaring that they don't work? Here is the problem I see with your argument: For most of the five hundred years of history of Europeans in this hemisphere, there were essentially no restrictions on firearms ownership. In fact, in many areas firearms ownership was not only expected, it was mandatory. So you are correct that all of the "progressive" laws (and if that isn't a euphamism, I don't know what one is) are very recent. But the problem of gun violence is also very recent, starting in the 1920's with prohibition. We have had 68 years to see the effects recent laws have had on an 80-year old problem, and clearly the law, while certainly well-intentioned, have very little positive effect on crime, and in some cases have shown to be counter-productive.

MuzzleBlast

10-28-2002, 09:21 AM

Leave it to someone like Michael Moore to attempt to use murder as an opportunity for political gain.
There were a good many people who suggested this "Beltway Sniper" was a hit man hired by the Democratic National Committee to prop up Kathleen Kennedy Townsend's campaign for governor of Maryland, and to put "gun control" back on the political map. Even my wife, who is by no means an NRA member, said, "Doesn't it seem odd that someone would start shooting people around Washington DC only a few weeks before an election?"
From the mouth of my twelve-year-old daughter, genuinely puzzled when she heard me say there would be new laws called for to ban Bushmaster-type rifles: "Why would they want to ban the guns? Do they think those guns just jump up off a table and start shooting people?"

BubbaStrangelove

10-28-2002, 11:09 AM

Originally posted by MuzzleBlast
But the problem of gun violence is also very recent, starting in the 1920's with prohibition.

So, it's not that we need less guns, just more beer.

MuzzleBlast

10-28-2002, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
So, it's not that we need less guns, just more beer. Absolutely. Beer is a lot cheaper.:D

electriclite

10-28-2002, 11:32 AM

So what's the modern version of Prohibition? The Drug War.

Maybe if we legalized the pot some of that pent up tension Moore alluded to in the film wouldn't be such a problem:D

Grebdron

10-28-2002, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by MuzzleBlast
There were a good many people who suggested this "Beltway Sniper" was a hit man hired by the Democratic National Committee to prop up Kathleen Kennedy Townsend's campaign for governor of Maryland, and to put "gun control" back on the political map. Even my wife, who is by no means an NRA member, said, "Doesn't it seem odd that someone would start shooting people around Washington DC only a few weeks before an election?"

Most of your comments are well thought out and concise. But these conspiracy theories are hilarious. Do you seriously believe some "democrat" hired the snipers? THAT is funny.

MuzzleBlast

10-28-2002, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by Grebdron
Most of your comments are well thought out and concise. But these conspiracy theories are hilarious. Do you seriously believe some "democrat" hired the snipers? THAT is funny. No, but I don't totally discount the possibility of a deeper conspiracy. Does anyone believe that either of the major political parties are above committing cold-blooded murder? If so, you probably believe Oswald acted alone.

Paterfamilias

10-29-2002, 11:42 AM

Wow, great topic. I wish I had discovered this thread earlier. In reading the posts it seems to have been an intelligent respectful debate for the most part. Kudos to the participants.

For the most part, I think Muzzleblast has done a good job articulating points that I would make. Crime is a difficult issue, but blaming/banning guns is not going to solve the problem.

To me the issue comes down to a cost/benefit analysis. I have heard it argued that if gun control can just stop one murder then it is worth it. Someone brought up drunk driving earlier and asked if we should repeal drunk driving laws because they don't work. A better analogy to gun control would be to ban cars because some people abuse their priviledge to drive by drinking and driving, or driving while they are tired, or talking on the phone or whatever. We could cut deaths by automobiles in this country dramatically if we banned cars. I'm not sure of the statistics of automobile related deaths, but I'm sure it is more than gun related deaths. But that wouldn't make any sense because as a society, we feel that the benefits of automobile ownership outweighs the risk of death associated with them. The same goes for swimming pools, motorcycles, matches, knives, rollercoasters, airplanes, or hundreds of other things that can cause death or injury.

"but how can gun ownership possibly be beneficial" you may ask. In a violent society, guns level the playing field. How can an elderly woman protect herself from a group of young hoodlums intent on depriving her of her life or property? How can a small business owner stop a group of thugs from coming in his store and robbing him? How can a mother of young children stop someone from coming in to her house and robbing, raping, killing, etc. Guns provide a means of protection.

Keep in mind that the police's role is to catch criminals after the fact, not prevent crime. In our society, the burden of protection falls to the individual. It is the individual's right to keep and bear arms, and that right should not be infringed.

Grebdron

10-29-2002, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by Paterfamilias
Keep in mind that the police's role is to catch criminals after the fact, not prevent crime. In our society, the burden of protection falls to the individual. It is the individual's right to keep and bear arms, and that right should not be infringed.

But nobody's right to own a gun is being infringed. I'm just asking for more stringent laws to prevent those guns from getting into the hands of the criminals. Can we agree that a convicted violent felon shouldn't have access to a gun? If so, that's all I'm asking. I don't know where to start to get the illegal guns off the street. But we have to start somewhere. If you can prove that you are capable of responsible gun ownership, more power to you.

Maybe anybody who wants to own a gun should have to join the military for at least two years. That would probably cut down on the number of fervent gun toters.

BubbaStrangelove

10-29-2002, 12:44 PM

shoot! I can't believe I forgot this story, but Paterfamilias reminded me.

My grandfather is 90 years old, and owns more than one gun. I think I actually did mention him earlier with his hunting.

Well, he was sick last year, and we went to help him get around to appointments and with house care.

The doctors put him on an anti-depression medication that really did a number on his head.

One night we were in another room, and my grandfather was alone. Then he came out saying someone was in the house. We looked around (humoured him) and said it was all clear, and told him that it was probably us he had heard.

Well, when I went with him to the living room - Surprise, he had his gun out, loaded, and the safety off. I asked him why he had the gun, and he said to protect himself. When I asked from what, he said the people in the house. Do I need to go on?

I tactfully got the gun, and hid it. The next morning, when he came too he asked where the gun was, and I reminded him of the previous night. I didn't want to make him feel bad, so I gave him the gun back, minus the bullets, and made a call to the doctor (who took him off the meds - gramps is fine now)

Well during this ordeal with him being sick, the doctors had his licensed revoked.

So, why is it that there are laws to take a driver's license away from such a person, but no laws to take a gun away from such a person. My grandfather can go by more guns, and he is still trying new medicine.

Oh yeah, right - It's in the constitution that a 90 year old man with a history of dementia can own a gun. Well, it doesn't say that, but it doesn't say otherwise, so it must be true.

Please....

Granted, this was the only time this type of thing happened, but I can't believe it was isolated. (interesting note was that my grandfather was robbed last year, and they stole several guns that were later retrieved...)

I feel lucky that my grandfather did not hurt me or myself, I didn't exlain it that much, but the scenerio was very intense.

And by the way -- this whole "It's in the constitution" arguement is made BS by the 18th and 21st Amendments. If laws don't matter, or prevent any crimes, then why did they feel it necessary to make drinking legal again?

MuzzleBlast

10-29-2002, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Oh yeah, right - It's in the constitution that a 90 year old man with a history of dementia can own a gun. Well, it doesn't say that, but it doesn't say otherwise, so it must be true. Has your grandfather ever been in hospital for a mental condition? During the incident reported above, did he directly threaten you or anyone else in the house? What kind of gun was it?
As I said before, there certainly are people who should not be armed. Fortunately, for most of those people it is already illegal for them to be armed. Not that this keeps anyone from getting a gun if they want one. That DC "sniper" asshole got his gun illegally. And, hey Grebdron: He was a Gulf War vet.

And by the way -- this whole "It's in the constitution" arguement is made BS by the 18th and 21st Amendments. If laws don't matter, or prevent any crimes, then why did they feel it necessary to make drinking legal again? Hmm, let's see, it could be because :
1. Most people who were drinking before prohibition continued to do so illegally, creating a market for illegal booze, which led to
2. Organized crime, which flourished and flowered as a direct result of prohibition, much like the illegal drug trade does now under the "war on drugs."
Constitutional amendments can be repealed, and that includes the 2nd amendment. Until politicians grow balls big enough to actually do that, they will go on ignoring the law, or discounting it as being too old to be relevant. I'm trying to point out that it IS the law, whether you exercise your right or not, or whether you think it is a good idea or not.

MuzzleBlast

10-29-2002, 01:47 PM

Originally posted by Paterfamilias
Wow, great topic. I wish I had discovered this thread earlier. In reading the posts it seems to have been an intelligent respectful debate for the most part. Kudos to the participants.

For the most part, I think Muzzleblast has done a good job articulating points that I would make. Crime is a difficult issue, but blaming/banning guns is not going to solve the problem. Thanks!
Yeah, I've been really impressed by how civil this debate has remained, considering how long it has been going on. Only one real ad hominem attack, and it was me that delivered it! Sorry about that, but anyone that criticises the US while living in France does not garner much respect from me.

Paterfamilias

10-29-2002, 02:38 PM

Originally posted by Grebdron
Can we agree that a convicted violent felon shouldn't have access to a gun?

Yes, we agree, a convicted violent felon has forfeited his right to own a firearm.

If so, that's all I'm asking.

You seem to be taking it a bit farther. For example ...

If you can prove that you are capable of responsible gun ownership, more power to you.

Maybe anybody who wants to own a gun should have to join the military for at least two years. That would probably cut down on the number of fervent gun toters.

I certainly do not agree that one should have to join the military for two years to be able to exercise his right to own firearms any more than one should have to study two years of Political Science to exercise one's right to vote. (Although mandatory military service could have many positive benefits on our society, but that's for another thread ;))

As a gun owner and father of two small children, I understand the weight of that responsibility. My guns are locked. I also feel it is important to teach my children about the use and the dangers of firearms. My children know to never touch a frearm unless I am with them and to always assume that a gun is loaded.

The problem comes with trying to regulate "responsibility". How does one prove that they are capable of responsible gun ownership?

Also, you mention cutting down on the number of "fervent gun toters". Do you mean criminals, or folks like Muzzleblast and I who are fervent about our right to bear arms? If you are referring to the latter, do you think that cutting down those numbers will reduce crime?

Grebdron

10-29-2002, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Paterfamilias
I certainly do not agree that one should have to join the military for two years to be able to exercise his right to own firearms any more than one should have to study two years of Political Science to exercise one's right to vote. (Although mandatory military service could have many positive benefits on our society, but that's for another thread ;))

I actually don't believe that either. Just throwing out a "what if". I do believe there would be many benefits to mandatory military service, but that will never happen. (Yes, I know it has already happened, but I don't mean a wartime draft.)

As a gun owner and father of two small children, I understand the weight of that responsibility. My guns are locked. I also feel it is important to teach my children about the use and the dangers of firearms. My children know to never touch a frearm unless I am with them and to always assume that a gun is loaded.

I'm glad you are a responsible gun owner. I can tell that you are. But I sincerely hope that when they are teenagers, a tragedy does not happen.

The problem comes with trying to regulate "responsibility". How does one prove that they are capable of responsible gun ownership?

The least one can do is have to take extended gun safety courses. I know that won't necessarily mean a whole lot, but it's at least one stepping stone. I don't think that's too much to ask.

Also, you mention cutting down on the number of "fervent gun toters". Do you mean criminals, or folks like Muzzleblast and I who are fervent about our right to bear arms? If you are referring to the latter, do you think that cutting down those numbers will reduce crime?

I, too, am a gun owner. Of course I mean criminals. I just think it is far too easy to obtain a gun, legally or illegally. We have to start somewhere.

I like your screenname. You're a fan of O' Brother?

Muzzleblast, I know he was a GW veteran, and that pisses me off. It helps to give veterans a bad name. But it is not "because" he's a veteran that he did this. Malvo, the 17 year old, was not a veteran. They are just sick fucks; one of whom "happens" to be a vet. Bastard!!

BubbaStrangelove

10-29-2002, 04:25 PM

Originally posted by MuzzleBlast
Has your grandfather ever been in hospital for a mental condition?

No. That was the first time anyone had seen him whig out like that.

During the incident reported above, did he directly threaten you or anyone else in the house?

nope. This line of questioning sounds like something a crisis counsiler would ask... haha

What kind of gun was it?

This one was only the .22

And, hey Grebdron: He was a Gulf War vet.

I think we all assumed he was military.

Constitutional amendments can be repealed, and that includes the 2nd amendment.

You mean someone can legally take away my constitutional right to own a gun! What is this? Nazi Germany?

Grebdron

10-29-2002, 04:34 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
I think we all assumed he was military.

See, that's what sucks. Again, he didn't do it because he was ex-military. He is fucked up in the head regardless of his military background. Not all shooters are ex-military. As a matter of fact, it is probably a very low percentage. Most gun killings are done now by under-educated, younger criminals. Most servicemen are quite responsible gun owners.

Paterfamilias

10-29-2002, 05:09 PM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Grebdron

The least one can do is have to take extended gun safety courses. I know that won't necessarily mean a whole lot, but it's at least one stepping stone. I don't think that's too much to ask.
Actually, I agree with you on this one. Mandatory gun safety training is probably not a bad idea.

[QUOTE]
I like your screenname. You're a fan of O' Brother?

Thanks. Yep I'm a huge fan of O Brother. It came out shortly after my daughter was born and I was goin around sayin, "I'm the Paterfamilias"

electriclite

10-29-2002, 05:14 PM

You know I've seen some examples of people showing parallels between gun ownership and cars, showing how they can both kill people if mishandled.

But you have to take 2 tests in order to gain the legal right to drive (and you have to continue taking tests to regain a new license), yet all you have to prove at the time that you buy a gun is whether you're nuts or a former felon.

You should be required to take a test before being able to buy a gun, to show that you are serious about what it means to own a gun and that you're not going to be a frivolous gun owners who really don't understand the responsibilities of owning a gun.

And it's very easy for people to say that they own a gun for protection, but how many of those people who say that are fully prepared to use a gun and kill someone in order to protect themselves? Most people just hope they can incapacitate whoever is attacking them. If you want a gun for protection you should be taught how to properly use it, so then maybe you can actually know how to incapacitate an intruder or attacker, or at the very least learn how to deal with the fact that you will probably have to kill someone to save your life.

And I think those people who don't lock up their guns correctly should be penalized in some way. Too many guns get stolen from homes that think locking up a gun properly is by just putting a lock on their front door. They've got combination boxes, ones with locks and large cabinets for bigger guns, not those glass cases that you can just smash to get to. These are weapons, don't make them so easy to get to.

Paterfamilias

10-29-2002, 05:17 PM

Hey Grebdron,

I just noticed on your info it says you've been a member since July 2002 and have over 2000 posts!!!:eek: That's not right is it? You must be one serious postin mamma jamma.

Grebdron

10-29-2002, 05:27 PM

Originally posted by Paterfamilias
Hey Grebdron,

I just noticed on your info it says you've been a member since July 2002 and have over 2000 posts!!!:eek: That's not right is it? You must be one serious postin mamma jamma.

Yeah, it's right. I sit in front of my computer 8 hours a day at work. I have the luxury of not truly doing anything all day except monitor JoBlo and my fellow schmoes. And I get paid for it.;) Right now I'm actually reading a discussion board that was going on during this glorious world series, only it is a board of SF Giants fans. It is priceless. You can read what they were posting in real time as the games went on. Smug bastards! One had even posted a picture of a fat lady singing; just before Scott Spezio's three run blast in the bottom of the seventh of game 6. It is lovely literally watching them eat their words.

Paterfamilias

10-29-2002, 05:50 PM

Electriclite, Good point about having a license to drive a car. Perhaps some mandatory gun safety training is a good idea.

One difference between driving a car and owning a gun is that driving is a car is a privilege granted by the state, while owning a gun is a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

As far as your point about penalizing people for not locking guns properly, I think we have to be real careful there. If someone commits a criminal act and breaks into my home, I should not be responsible for things that they take out of my home and use for ill purposes.

Remember many people have guns for protection. If they don't have kids, why shouldn't they be able to keep a gun where it would be easily accessible if needed?

electriclite

10-29-2002, 06:04 PM

Originally posted by Paterfamilias

As far as your point about penalizing people for not locking guns properly, I think we have to be real careful there. If someone commits a criminal act and breaks into my home, I should not be responsible for things that they take out of my home and use for ill purposes.

Remember many people have guns for protection. If they don't have kids, why shouldn't they be able to keep a gun where it would be easily accessible if needed?

Yes, but it's not just for kids that guns should be locked. There are many guns that get stolen from homes and end up being the illegal guns that are used by criminals to commit murder, theft, etc.

You can't just think of the immediate people a gun can hurt, but of the greater community.

Paterfamilias

10-29-2002, 07:36 PM

Electriclite:

I understand what you are saying but we just disagree on what is a prudent level of caution. I think if someone has to commit a crime and break into my house to get my gun, then I should not have to face some penalty. Here are some analogies:

Someone steals your car and hits someone and kills them ...not your fault.

someone breaks into your house and takes a kitchen knife and kills someone with it ...not your fault

a minor breaks into your house and steals some alcohol ...not your fault

someone breaks into your house and steals some prescription drugs from your unlocked medicine cabinet and overdoses ...not your fault.

Again, I think it is a matter of cost/benefit. We need to stop trying to invent new ways of penalizing law abiding citizens and begin to place the blame and the punishment on those who commit crimes.

BubbaStrangelove

10-30-2002, 08:37 AM

a 4 year old kid was killed last night when he discovered the family gun. the parents are being charged with negligence.

I totally disagree with the driving/gun connection.

Why?

how many 4 year olds can figure out how to start a car and drive over someone?

I also disagree with the knife/gun connection.

How many 4 year olds have the strength to pierce through skin with a knife?

I disagree with the prescription medicine/gun connection.

How many 4 year olds can get into a child-proof bottle?

I disagree with the alcohol/gun connection.

How many 4 year olds can pop open a can, or open a bottle?

I've already said the constitutional arguement is a load of crap. Yeah, I have freedom of speech, but I can't go around telling lies about people, or causing distubances. That is a disruption of public safety. It is also a disruption of public safety for idiots to have guns. How do we know who the idiots are? We create tests that you can study for.

Grebdron - You really shouldn't take my assumption as an insult. It was an objective assumption that had nothing to do with the guys personality, and had everything to do with his abilities. Knowing that you are military, I'm willing to bet that you could out shoot me on a course, and I consider myself to be above average. Nothing offending, really. I also assume that these are the same reasons other people knew he was military. I know Travis Bickle may give our soldiers a bad stigma, but most of us are smart enough to know that a nut job is a nut job, and a military man is a military man. Besides, I've known too many great military people to assume that all nut jobs with guns are military. I can, though, assume that they can all handle long range firing.

and no, I wasn't surpised to find out the guy had an ex-wife. And yes, my reasons there ARE subjective.

Paterfamilias

10-30-2002, 09:41 AM

BubbaStrangelove:

My driving, alcohol, etc. analogies were in response to electriclite's comments about someone breaking into a home to steal a gun. We were discussing adults. A four year old is not going to break into a locked home and steal a gun. I had already said "if the person doesn't have children". The 4 year old you mention didn't commit a crime to get the gun, he "discovered the family gun". This is obviously extreme negligence on the part of the gun owner in that household and perhaps they should be punished in some way.

Let me be clear, I think it is the responsibility of every gun owner to keep and handle guns in a safe manner. And if there are children in the house it is extremely important to keep the guns locked and to teach those children about gun safety.

MuzzleBlast

10-30-2002, 10:20 AM

Awright! Tag-team debating!
Anyway:

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
a 4 year old kid was killed last night when he discovered the family gun. the parents are being charged with negligence. Good! I hope they nail their asses to the wall! Having a gun in the house is a HUGE responsibility, and having one with children around amplifies that exponentially. Those parents killed their own kid.

I've already said the constitutional arguement is a load of crap. Yeah, I have freedom of speech, but I can't go around telling lies about people, or causing distubances. That is a disruption of public safety. It is also a disruption of public safety for idiots to have guns. How do we know who the idiots are? We create tests that you can study for. …and to make sure no one can get a gun, we’ll structure the test to where no one can pass it, or simply not issue a passing grade to anyone, or de-fund the testing program so no one can take the test. Even if we can’t get away with that, we will take mug shots and fingerprints (and in the future, DNA samples) of everyone who takes the test, and keep this in a database along with the brand, model and serial numbers of all firearms they buy when/if they pass the test, along with a “ballistic fingerprint” of those guns. Of course, NOT ONE actual criminal will put up with all this nonsense, and a great many previously law abiding gun owners will be driven underground, but at least it will make us appear to our political constituency that We Are Doing Something About Crime. Also, once we get a full registry of everyones’ guns, we pass laws making those guns illegal, and we will already have the addresses where to send the SWAT team to confiscate those guns. We will create a whole new government bureaucracy, spend millions of tax dollars, wipe our ass with the constitution, and not prevent or solve a single actual crime. Have I forgotten anything?
We should have an idiot screening process before the right to vote can be exercised as well.

BubbaStrangelove

10-30-2002, 11:14 AM

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MuzzleBlast
We should have an idiot screening process before the right to vote can be exercised as well.

I live in Florida, so no comment.

Paterfamilias - I wasn't debating against you, just in general.

Muzzleblast - Do you have ANY suggestions for anything, or do you think the US is fine just the way it is?

I, and I belive you did too, alluded to a lift on the war on drugs.

Grebdron

10-30-2002, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Muzzleblast - Do you have ANY suggestions for anything, or do you think the US is fine just the way it is?
[/B]

That's my main question also. What do you suggest be done? Or do you think we don't have a problem? Or do you think it'll just never go away, so you're gonna be ready to "buss a cap in someone's ass"?

We've got to start somewhere. And yes, I think the databases and ballistic fingerprints and all that are perfectly acceptable.

Bubba, no worries, mate.;) I know you don't necessarily think the military does that to a person, but making the statement might convince more ignorant people of that.

MuzzleBlast

10-30-2002, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
[QUOTE]Originally posted by MuzzleBlast
We should have an idiot screening process before the right to vote can be exercised as well.
I live in Florida, so no comment. LOL!
Muzzleblast - Do you have ANY suggestions for anything, or do you think the US is fine just the way it is?

I, and I belive you did too, alluded to a lift on the war on drugs. Humans have been infesting this planet for what, ten million years? And we still don't have it figured out.
Is there a problem? Yes.
Is it likely to get better? I don't know.
Do I have the answers? I WISH I has the answers. I'd be one rich MF.
These things I do know:
1. When you correct our stats for the before-mentioned statistical anomaly, our crime stats as a whole, per capita, are no worse than other Western European countries. Things are bad, but not as bad as you may have been led to believe.
2. Criminals ignore laws out of habit, so you can pass all the laws you want and it won't help much.
3. Firearms in civilian hands prevent crime. All the caveats about responsibility apply. It has been proven that states that have relaxed restrictions on carrying of concealed weapons have experienced significant, even dramatic, decreases in violent crime. It may be counter-intuitive, but it is proven fact.

Specific recommendations:
1. Keep the current restrictions regarding felons, minors, aliens, fugitives and persons adjudicated to have mental defect from purchasing firearms. They may not keep real criminals from getting weapons, but they do little harm, and maybe even some good.
2. On a state-by-state basis, eliminate laws prohibiting the carrying of weapons except for people in the above categories. The principle of "innocent until proven guilty" applies here: if you have not proven yourself to NOT be trustworthy with a firearm, then you are presumed to be trustworthy.
3. Bans on specific weapons are just plain silly, feel-good measures that affect crime not at all. Get rid of the bans.

Freedom isn't free, and it also isn't safe. We can choose to live as free citizens, take responsibility for our own safety and actions, and accept the inherent risks, or we can submit to the police state, or "nanny" state, and have a stronger illusion of safety while giving up freedom.

(edit)P.S. Oh yeah, the "war on drugs": This is another feelgood, "look how tough your congressman is on crime" measure that is totally unconstitutional, and does far and away more harm than good. Time to pull the plug.

Paterfamilias

10-30-2002, 01:20 PM

Personally, I think the place to start is with the justice system. We must make criminals pay great penalties for committing crimes. We must keep first time offenders from becoming second and third time offenders. I don't know the statistics off hand, but the number of crimes committed by those who already have prior offenses is staggering.

If you commit a violent cime, then in my opinion, you have forfeited your right to live in our free society.

Start giving the death penalty consistantly to first time armed robbers, and you will see that statistic drop over a 5 - 10 year period I guarantee it.

Grebdron

10-30-2002, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by Paterfamilias
Personally, I think the place to start is with the justice system. We must make criminals pay great penalties for committing crimes. We must keep first time offenders from becoming second and third time offenders. I don't know the statistics off hand, but the number of crimes committed by those who already have prior offenses is staggering.

If you commit a violent cime, then in my opinion, you have forfeited your right to live in our free society.

Start giving the death penalty consistantly to first time armed robbers, and you will see that statistic drop over a 5 - 10 year period I guarantee it.

Hear, hear!! We completely agree on this. I think the death penalty should be used much more liberally. Not even just in the weapons offenses. Pedophiles, home-invasion robberies, rapists, armed robberies, etc. should all be dealt with swiftly and harshly.

And just so I'm not confused with being racist, white-collar criminals should be dealt with quite harshly as well. Probably not the death penalty, but they should have ALL assets confiscated, do major prison time, and not allowed to live in the splendor that their crimes have made them accustomed to.

We have major faults in our justice system, but this is still the best god-damned country in the world.

Paterfamilias

10-30-2002, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by Grebdron
Pedophiles, home-invasion robberies, rapists, armed robberies, etc. should all be dealt with swiftly and harshly.

And just so I'm not confused with being racist, ...

I don't understand why someone would consider you a racist for wanting to be tough on crime?

We have major faults in our justice system, but this is still the best god-damned country in the world.

Amen

electriclite

10-30-2002, 07:43 PM

Paterfamilias
Start giving the death penalty consistantly to first time armed robbers, and you will see that statistic drop over a 5 - 10 year period I guarantee it.

Originally posted by Grebdron
I think the death penalty should be used much more liberally. Not even just in the weapons offenses. Pedophiles, home-invasion robberies, rapists, armed robberies, etc. should all be dealt with swiftly and harshly.

Woa, woa, woa! Easy there chilluns.

Let's get something straight here. The death penalty does not detur murder in this country, it's still going on because usually when you kill someone you're thinking how you're gonna get away with it, not what happens when you get caught. So let's not get so liberal with the death penalty.

We're very quick here to stamp out the symptoms, but we're all very reticent to try and cure the disease.

BubbaStrangelove

10-30-2002, 10:32 PM

they need the chain gang back. everyone said it was cruel but if the Pretenders wrote a song about it, it couldn't be that bad.

Grebdron

10-30-2002, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by electriclite
We're very quick here to stamp out the symptoms, but we're all very reticent to try and cure the disease.

I'm all for trying to cure the disease. That's what most of my previous posts have been about. I understand that there's a problem, and something needs to be done about it.

Let's get something straight here. The death penalty does not detur murder in this country, it's still going on because usually when you kill someone you're thinking how you're gonna get away with it, not what happens when you get caught. So let's not get so liberal with the death penalty.

It damn sure does deter that person from commiting murder again. And there are not many more horrifying things in this fucked up world than a home invasion, or rape, or kiddie-fiddling. If a person can do that to another person(s), we as a society don't need them around. Those crimes aren't just done because society has held those perpetrators down. Those are horrific crimes. I'm not saying to execute everybody on some whim. But if there is indisputable proof that a person has done these things, or they are caught in the act...see ya. We are better off without them.

electriclite

10-30-2002, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by Grebdron
I'm all for trying to cure the disease. That's what most of my previous posts have been about. I understand that there's a problem, and something needs to be done about it.

It damn sure does deter that person from commiting murder again. And there are not many more horrifying things in this fucked up world than a home invasion, or rape, or kiddie-fiddling. If a person can do that to another person(s), we as a society don't need them around. Those crimes aren't just done because society has held those perpetrators down. Those are horrific crimes. I'm not saying to execute everybody on some whim. But if there is indisputable proof that a person has done these things, or they are caught in the act...see ya. We are better off without them.

Which is all well and good for the guy you already got locked up, but it doesn't stop the other guy who is still out there and can commit murder. That's the guy that matters, that's the guy who isn't intimidated by the death penalty.

And you kind of did say to "execute people on a whim" when you add the word "liberally" to "death penalty".

Indisputable proof is the Holy Grail of the justice system,and just like it, very few have found it. Which is why everyone on death row is automatically signed up for an appeal.

Grebdron

10-30-2002, 11:42 PM

Part of the problem now is that we live in a society where there is no indisputable proof. Lawyers can fight fucking DNA results. WTF is that? We have Winona Fucking Ryder on VIDEO stealing shit, and it has to be decided by a jury. Guess what? SHE DID IT. IT'S ON CAMERA. (Not yelling at you, electriclite, just frustrated.)

Appeals should not be automatic. Just like everything else, they should be on a case by case basis.

electriclite

10-30-2002, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by Grebdron

Appeals should not be automatic. Just like everything else, they should be on a case by case basis.

And when you do it that way, you open the floodgates for even MORE bias.

Grebdron

10-30-2002, 11:58 PM

Yeah, but some people just really need to die. Why have we kept Manson alive for all these years? And there are thousands of killers who will just rot away for life on our dime. That sucks.

There are many on death row who WANT to die, and we don't let them. That's sick.

BubbaStrangelove

10-31-2002, 09:12 AM

look you hot heads. I was only joking around about the Pretenders, but was damn serious about putting criminals to work.

Grebdron - Most murderers have suicidal tendancies. So killing them is like punishing the kid who stole the cookies by making him clean the pan with the cookie mix. (damn that was weak)

there are thousands of jobs out there that decent people should not have to do. It is sick. We can lower the labor costs on such work by putting criminals at it. Then with the extra monies in the budget, we would be able to funnel more wadges into skilled labor and raw resources.

but no. We cannot do that. And sorry, it is flat out a problem with civil right liberties being taken to an extreme.

Here is my point -

Criminals cannot do these jobs because it is cruel and unusual punishment.

Well, these jobs get done anyway, but when you are paid for it, it isn't "cruel and unusual" it is a "high risk job".

Bullshit.

If Good Guy Ted is able to do these jobs, why can't JoJo The Dogfaced criminal.

People need to stop sticking their nose in with the rights of strangers and start poking their head around the corner and see what's going on in their own backyard.]

ps - and I think the entire problem with the legal system is this: There used to be a time when people didn't worry about criminals, because they knew that if they themselves didn't commit crimes, there was nothing to worry about.

But that has changes. Now everyone wants to be Martin Luther King, or Mother Theresa.

Sorry, but I can't help but to feel that Martin Luther King Jr., if asked what should be done to his James Earl Ray, would say, "That's not for me to decide."

Paterfamilias

10-31-2002, 12:39 PM

Here are some statistics for you from the Bureau of Justice. I have included the link so you can see for yourself.

The following statistics are within three years of release.

The rearrest rate for violent offenders remained relatively stable (59.6% in 1983 compared to 61.7% in 1994

That's 61.7% !!!

The rearrest rate for property offenders, drug offenders, and public-order offenders increased significantly from 1983 to 1994. During that time, the rearrest rate increased:
- from 68.1% to 73.8% for property offenders
- from 50.4% to 66.7% for drug offenders
- from 54.6% to 62.2% for public-order offenders

Now, if the death penalty were applied more consistantly to violent offenders, it would reduce crime significantly. While it may be true that it would not deter first-time offenders (although I'm not convinced that it would not at least deter some), it would clearly be a good first step.

Here's the link:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/reentry/recidivism.htm

Grebdron

10-31-2002, 01:20 PM

Originally posted by Paterfamilias
Now, if the death penalty were applied more consistantly to violent offenders, it would reduce crime significantly. While it may be true that it would not deter first-time offenders (although I'm not convinced that it would not at least deter some), it would clearly be a good first step.

Parole Board Member #1: They've got a name for people like you H.I. That name is called "recidivism."

Parole Board Member #2: Repeat offender!

Parole Board Member #1: Not a pretty name, is it H.I.?

H.I.: No sir. That's one bonehead name, but that ain't me anymore.

Parole Board Member #1: You're not just telling us what we want to hear?

H.I.: No sir, no way.

Parole Board Member #2: 'Cause we just want to hear the truth.

H.I.: Well, then I guess I am telling you what you want to hear.

Parole Board Member #1: Boy, didn't we just tell you not to do that?

H.I.: Yes, sir.

Parole Board Member #1: Okay, then.

Paterfamilias

10-31-2002, 01:34 PM

Grebdron, you just made my day. Nice job bringin' it back to movies too.

Grebdron

10-31-2002, 01:47 PM

We needed a little respite.

bmain77

10-31-2002, 02:56 PM

October 30, 2002

To: Charlton Heston, President, NRA
From: Michael Moore, Winner, NRA Marksman Award
Subject: Your Visit to Tucson Today in the Wake of Another School Shooting

Dear Mr. Heston:

When you showed up in Denver to hold your pro-gun rally just days after the
massacre at nearby Columbine High School, the nation was shocked at your
incredible insensitivity to those who had just lost loved ones.

When you came to Flint to hold another rally in the months after a 6-year
old boy shot a 6-year old girl at a nearby elementary school, the community
was stunned by your desire to rub its face in its grief.

But your announcement that you are on your way to Tucson today, just 48
hours after a student at the University of Arizona shot and killed three
professors and then himself, to hold ANOTHER big pro-gun celebration --
this time to get out the vote for the NRA-backed Republican running for
Congress -- well, sir, I have to ask you: Have you no shame?

I am asking that you not go to Tucson today. Do not cause any more grief,
any more pain. Let the relatives and friends of the deceased mourn. Why
show up to play the role of the bully, kicking these good people when they
are down, just so you can prove that you have a right to your big, bad
guns? These are not the actions of a once brave and decent man. They are
the acts of a coward, as no man of courage would think of picking on his
fellow citizens when they are so consumed with tragedy.

Obviously, you couldn't care less. Because to you, The Gun is supreme --
and wherever it is used to kill multiple people (preferably at a school),
there shall we find you gloating about some misbegotten right you think you
have to own a device that is designed to eliminate human life.

Well, Mr. Heston, this time I think you have crossed the line. I hope that
your efforts as a gun supremacist -- you are now, I understand, in the
middle of a 12-state tour to help elect Republicans -- backfire on you in
the surest way that it can: total rejection of you, the NRA, and the
candidates you back come next Tuesday. The American people have had enough.

To the people of Tucson and the students at the University of Arizona, I am
so sorry for the tragedy you have suffered, and I feel terribly sad that
you will have to endure the sight of Charlton Heston and his gun nuts
today. Take some solace in knowing that your fellow Americans by an
overwhelming margin want tough gun laws -- and that the day of obtaining
them is not far away. There is one small way to make sure Heston and the
NRA are stopped in their tracks -- just check out the website of the man
(http://www.grijalva2002.com/) they have come to Tucson to defeat. Let them
pack their guns -- we will pack the polls!

Yours,

Michael Moore
www.michaelmoore.com
mike@michaelmoore.com
__________________________________________________ __

Thought I'd pass on another email from Michael Moore. I thought was interesting. I don't think this is even a pro or anti-gun issue. It's just having some fucking decency to use a horrible event like this to serve your own interest. It's one of the major reasons why I can't stand the methods of the NRA. Having the right to carry or anything would not have prevented this from happening, because most states allowing people to carry cannot carry them on school campuses of any kind. So don't even try and this random violent event from helping your cause. I'd also like Michael Moore to do the same. He's coming damn close with this particular email, but he still has some great points up there as usual.

Dr. Pants

10-31-2002, 03:22 PM

What we need, is to start where it matters most, so it can be prevented. What I'm talking about is youth.

Now, before you get on my case about how young people shouldn't be punished, hear me out.

What I'm saying is, let Natural Selection take it's place. The kids who go out and steal, rob, break into people's houses, and bully other kids around, shouldn't grow up to have kids of their own. It's time the nation stood up to these brats instead of saying "Oh well, boys will be boys, let's just give them a slap on the wrist and tell them not to do it again"

Paterfamilias

10-31-2002, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by bmain77
October 30, 2002

It's just having some fucking decency to use a horrible event like this to serve your own interest.

This event was scheduled months in advance. It's not like the NRA said, "oh there was a shooting, lets go have a rally."

Paterfamilias

10-31-2002, 03:44 PM

Originally posted by Dr. Pants

What I'm saying is, let Natural Selection take it's place. The kids who go out and steal, rob, break into people's houses, and bully other kids around, shouldn't grow up to have kids of their own. "

Are you suggesting the death penalty for minors?

Grebdron

10-31-2002, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by Paterfamilias
Are you suggesting the death penalty for minors?

Well, I'm not him, but I say yes, in some cases. Malvo needs to die. Depending on the severity of the crime I think that the death penalty for minors is not out of the question.

BubbaStrangelove

10-31-2002, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by Paterfamilias
Here are some statistics for you from the Bureau of Justice. I have included the link so you can see for yourself.

The following statistics are within three years of release.

The rearrest rate for violent offenders remained relatively stable (59.6% in 1983 compared to 61.7% in 1994

That's 61.7% !!!

The rearrest rate for property offenders, drug offenders, and public-order offenders increased significantly from 1983 to 1994. During that time, the rearrest rate increased:
- from 68.1% to 73.8% for property offenders
- from 50.4% to 66.7% for drug offenders
- from 54.6% to 62.2% for public-order offenders

Now, if the death penalty were applied more consistantly to violent offenders, it would reduce crime significantly. While it may be true that it would not deter first-time offenders (although I'm not convinced that it would not at least deter some), it would clearly be a good first step.

Here's the link:
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/reentry/recidivism.htm

does anyone even read my posts anymore?

all of those statistics listed above also correspond with an increase in the rights of criminals.

Most of these repeat offenders were most likely release from jail early because someone said the jails were overcrowded and inhumane.

As a result, someone served 18 months of a 5 year sentence.

Will they think they're going to get off easy again?

You bet your ass they do.

Death penalty doesn't detour crimes -- Slack sentences and half-assed punishments encourage crime.

We can also trace many things back to the lack of corporal punishment...

Kids cannot be punished in school. A teacher is getting hit by a kid and if the teacher uses any force in return - Lawsuit.

Shit - Holy Shit

Guys - We must forget our differences! I just realized what the problem is.

Not the lack of death penalty. Not too many guns. Not parenting skills.

It's the lawyers making sure none of these things have to actually work

Kill your wife - Dont' worry, get a lawyer
Purchase a gun illegally - Don't worry, get a lawyer
Sent to death row - Don't worry, get a lawyer
Your a bad parent whose kid strangles a neighbot - Don't worry, get a lawyer

Why do I keep forgetting that bad lawyers are this nations only real problem?

Grebdron

10-31-2002, 04:27 PM

Yes!! And it is nothing new. As a matter of fact, one of Shakespeare's most famous lines is..."First off, let's kill all the lawyers.

Paterfamilias

10-31-2002, 09:07 PM

Good Job Bubba, I think you found something we can all agree on!!!!

electriclite

10-31-2002, 11:46 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
there are thousands of jobs out there that decent people should not have to do. It is sick. We can lower the labor costs on such work by putting criminals at it. Then with the extra monies in the budget, we would be able to funnel more wadges into skilled labor and raw resources.

but no. We cannot do that. And sorry, it is flat out a problem with civil right liberties being taken to an extreme.

Well to bring up Michael Moore again. In the Big One, he interviewed a recent parolee who told him that while he was in prison he used to book flights for airlines.

Let me repeat: A felon, IN PRISON, was booking your flight to Tahiti. A guy who was incarcerated for God-knows-what took down your PHONE NUMBER and ADDRESS. And the corporations ere doing this so they wouldn't have to hire law-abiding citizens that they would have to pay more to than a felon.

Nice huh?

boggie

11-02-2002, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
Your a bad parent whose kid strangles a neighbot - Don't worry, get a lawyer

Never mind that, what are these neighbots that kids are going aroung killing? Man, if I saw a neighbot, I'd train my kids to kill them too. Come o think of it, that old woman next door is moving al ittle jerky lately, u think SHE could be a neighbot. I'm'onna keep an eye on her.:D

PS, sorry if I seem pedantic, just trying to lighten the mood.

MuzzleBlast

11-04-2002, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
It's the lawyers making sure none of these things have to actually work

Kill your wife - Dont' worry, get a lawyer
Purchase a gun illegally - Don't worry, get a lawyer
Sent to death row - Don't worry, get a lawyer
Your a bad parent whose kid strangles a neighbot - Don't worry, get a lawyer

Why do I keep forgetting that bad lawyers are this nations only real problem? Hmm, well, I kinda agree, except that it isn't the lawyers who are doing the damage, it is the lawyers' clients. Sure, anytime there is any tragedy or any accident that happens, there are platoons of ambulance chasers that show up to try to capitalize on tragedy. But no one has to use them. No one is holding a gun to peoples' heads and saying they MUST sue. The lawyers are only a symptom.
Lawyers don't sue people, people sue people. Lawyers don't defend criminals if the criminals don't hire them.

Oh, if y'all want to see an example of people really using tragedy as an opportunity to further a political agenda, check this out:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021101/ap_on_el_ge/sniper_politics&cid=548&ncid=548

Tell me again why I shouldn't think it possible this guy was hired by the Democratic National Committee?

Grebdron

11-04-2002, 01:06 PM

Originally posted by MuzzleBlast
Tell me again why I shouldn't think it possible this guy was hired by the Democratic National Committee?

But it doesn't scream "conspiracy" to me. It just sounds like a tasteless POS running for office using a news story to her advantage. Banning assault weapons would not have prevented this from happening. But bullet fingerprints and rifle registering might have enabled the authorities to find him earlier.

BubbaStrangelove

11-04-2002, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by MuzzleBlast
Hmm, well, I kinda agree, except that it isn't the lawyers who are doing the damage, it is the lawyers' clients. Sure, anytime there is any tragedy or any accident that happens, there are platoons of ambulance chasers that show up to try to capitalize on tragedy. But no one has to use them. No one is holding a gun to peoples' heads and saying they MUST sue. The lawyers are only a symptom. Lawyers don't sue people, people sue people. Lawyers don't defend criminals if the criminals don't hire them. Oh, if y'all want to see an example of people really using tragedy as an opportunity to further a political agenda, check this out:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021101/ap_on_el_ge/sniper_politics&cid=548&ncid=548

Tell me again why I shouldn't think it possible this guy was hired by the Democratic National Committee?

WTG, Muzzle. You have shown me that you are able to negate any point using the same damn arguement! ;)

Muzzle, state defenders can be just as sleezy. I had one tell me that I may have not of witnessed a man shaking a baby, because I was excited about something that was on TV. Really, that was his arguement. The accussed did not feed this to the lawyer, nor did he hire the lawyer.

So whose fault was that? My fault for trying to testify?

MuzzleBlast

11-04-2002, 03:12 PM

Oh, I'm not saying lawyers don't SUCK, I'm just saying if no one hired them they wouldn't be able to do as much damage.

This thread has begun to veer totally off topic, so I am going to make my last post in this thread by restating and summarizing my points:
1. Bowling for Columbine: See it if you want, but don't just accept Michael Moore's information. THINK, don't react.
2. There is more gun violence in this country, but when you adjust the statistics such that they are not skewed by the much higher incidence of violence among urban black males, our stats are not much different from Western European countries, nearly all of which have much stronger gun control laws.
3. Any and all restrictions on firearms possession only affect people who are in the habit of obeying the law. Criminals are not affected.
4. US citizens, with a few exceptions, have the RIGHT to own firearms. Infringements of that right are unconstitutional and therefore illegal. Government at all levels has gotten away with imposing restrictions in spite of this.
5. All firearms registration schemes always lead to confiscation.
6. Firearms in civilian hands prevent more murders than they commit, and provide a means for self-defense for many people who would be otherwise defenseless.

If anyone needs further clarification of these points, or if you have any questions about firearms, feel free to PM me.

Grebdron

11-04-2002, 03:43 PM

So I guess in closing you list off all of your opinions as facts. Both sides have points, and somebody in power should do some heartfelt looking in to both sides, and start to figure something out.

electriclite

11-04-2002, 04:17 PM

I think it's time that Muzzleblast take a look at Bowling for Columbine himself. A few other gun-luvin' schmoes have seen the film and loved it. So until you actually see the film Muzzleblast I don't think you can be able to advise people how to watch it. The way you say it makes me think you believe the film to be very anti-gun, which I don't think it is. I think it's an exploratory look into American culture and what makes us buy guns by the huge numbers that we do.

And I find it very curious that you phrased your statement about how guns prevent more "murders" than they commit, instead of saying "killings". Has someone learned the political guide to grammar usage?

And in your 5th statement, I have to say I get really bothered by the use of definitives in arguements: all, none, total, etc.... From what I learned in school you are to always steer clear of those kinds of words. I don't think ALL firearm registrations leads to one thing.
Do you believe that ALL gun owners are cousin-luvin' hicks with a hard-on for the 2nd Amendment? No. And it's unfair to just arbitrarily group things in the negative, and automatically dub them as the path to a slippery slope. Like Greb said, we should decide these things on a case by case basis.

Every right has a degree of restriction to it. Why should guns be any different as long as you are still able to retain the right to own one (or four)?

Buck Turgidson

11-05-2002, 06:40 AM

I've resisted getting involved in this, but I can't let point 4 go. The US Supreme Court, time after time, has consistently rejected the absolutist assertion that citizenship carries a granted, recognized right to private ownership of any gun. It is not a right that is recognized in that manner, on a par w/ the rights to speech, assembly, jury trial, due process and all the others spelled out in the various amendments.

You may interpret those words that way yourself, but you have a heavy weight of legal precedent against you in that assertion. Look it up.

Buck Turgidson

11-05-2002, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by electriclite
Well to bring up Michael Moore again. In the Big One, he interviewed a recent parolee who told him that while he was in prison he used to book flights for airlines.

Let me repeat: A felon, IN PRISON, was booking your flight to Tahiti. A guy who was incarcerated for God-knows-what took down your PHONE NUMBER and ADDRESS. And the corporations ere doing this so they wouldn't have to hire law-abiding citizens that they would have to pay more to than a felon.

Nice huh?

The Republicans would consider that entrepreneurial initiative.

BubbaStrangelove

11-05-2002, 07:48 AM

Aren't we going to war to confiscate weapons?

MuzzleBlast

11-05-2002, 10:06 AM

Originally posted by Buck Turgidson
I've resisted getting involved in this, but I can't let point 4 go. The US Supreme Court, time after time, has consistently rejected the absolutist assertion that citizenship carries a granted, recognized right to private ownership of any gun. It is not a right that is recognized in that manner, on a par w/ the rights to speech, assembly, jury trial, due process and all the others spelled out in the various amendments.

You may interpret those words that way yourself, but you have a heavy weight of legal precedent against you in that assertion. Look it up. >SIGH< Okay, I'm back, but this is positively my last post in this thread.
The US Supreme Court has only really ruled on the 2nd amendment in one case, United States v. Miller 1939. I would invite you to read the full opinion in that case, which can be found by going to http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/ and searching on 1939 and Miller. Here are a couple of quotes from the decision of the court:

In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
And:
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. ‘A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.’ And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
So there you have it: “All males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense” have the right to possess weapons that are “part of ordinary military equipment,” and "could contribute to the common defense."
All the other times the 2nd Amendment has been brought up to the Supremes they have refused to hear the case.

MuzzleBlast, out.

Buck Turgidson

11-05-2002, 02:35 PM

None of that contradicts my main point, that an unfettered right to bear arms has never been given a place among the pantheon of rights enjoyed by American citizens. Refusing to hear cases isn't a neutral statement that they're too busy to bother, it's an affirmation of their previous ruling. If they had wanted to establish a personal right to bear arms, they would have done so by now. I'm out of this, also.

BloodiedCelticVengeance

11-07-2002, 09:36 AM

Interesting development Tuesday...

The NRA backed candidates kicked ass in the midterm elections.
I believe the final tally went something like this:

The NRA backed candidates won 21 out of the 26 Senate seats they ran for.
The NRA backed candidates also won 206 out of the 231 House of Represntatives slots they campaigned for.

It was a LANDSLIDE of epic proportions, and a VERY WELCOME SLAP IN THE FAT FACE to Mr.Moore! And Ms.Streisand, Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin etc., etc... All the "sky is falling!!" propoganda spewed by these asswipes fell on DEAF EARS.

I hope those bedwetting, weak kneed liberal assholes are LISTENING to the voice of the voters all around the country.

Shut the fuck up, you spoiled limousine sycophants!!! The PEOPLE have spoken!!

Madeline

11-07-2002, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by Mick
We're so hung up on this notion that we have some obligation to help the struggling black man, you know. Cut him some slack until he can overcome these historical injustices. It's crap. I mean, Christ, Lincoln freed the slaves, like, what? 130 years ago. How long does it take to get your act together?

Social programs? What a crock of shit. Anyone can get a job if they want one, anyone.

Now, I don't know anyone here personally..... so I can't comment on their individual motives. But it seems to me that a lot of people who would consider themselves completely anti-racist, and condemn racist jokes etc. are completely full of shit and wouldn't have anything to do with black or asian people or whatever.

I'm not racist, I tell racist jokes because they're funny...... not to be hurtful. I just realise that a lot of black people need to get their act together and stop bitching about social injustices and such nonsense. I know black people with good jobs, and it's not a big deal. We're all entitled to an education, put perhaps it's easier to complain about being held back because of your race or poor background than working hard.

The bums always lose.

Exactly. I agree with you totally. Slavery's over in America. It's done with. Get over the past and although the whole injustice thing was tremendous, I don't see Native Americans shooting up people, blaming the white man. I hate it when I see minorities being prejudiced against white people. That's still a crime, no matter who you are. Why do blacks and other people make racial slurs and mock white people and expect to be respected by them at the same time?
As for guns, you take away the guns, you have immediate chaos. Human nature isn't so easily repressed. We used to be a society of club swinging, barbaric land-grabbers and haven't even evolved fully as a whole yet. Look at the third-world countires. School shootings, also, isn't about the lack of gun control either, in my opinion. It's the bitter loathing a lot of teenagers hold in their guts and shoot it out of their system one day simply because they hate school and the school system does nothing for them. Canada has lower gun fatalities or violence from guns because they are a different people. Americans cannot be compared to Canadians. I'm hoping to be a criminologist and prevent murder by assessing people from childhood and I think if we can uphold prevention of violent conscience more than impulsive lawmaking than something can happen.

electriclite

11-07-2002, 07:54 PM

Originally posted by BloodiedCelticVengeance
Interesting development Tuesday...

The NRA backed candidates kicked ass in the midterm elections.
I believe the final tally went something like this:

The NRA backed candidates won 21 out of the 26 Senate seats they ran for.
The NRA backed candidates also won 206 out of the 231 House of Represntatives slots they campaigned for.

It was a LANDSLIDE of epic proportions, and a VERY WELCOME SLAP IN THE FAT FACE to Mr.Moore! And Ms.Streisand, Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin etc., etc... All the "sky is falling!!" propoganda spewed by these asswipes fell on DEAF EARS.

I hope those bedwetting, weak kneed liberal assholes are LISTENING to the voice of the voters all around the country.

Shut the fuck up, you spoiled limousine sycophants!!! The PEOPLE have spoken!!

It doesn't matter who wins the seats, the whole lot in Washington is just as corrupt and deceitful as the next. As one person put it, "Democrats are just pro-choice Republicans."

This wholeelection proves only that the cycle continues. One term we'll get a large win for the Republicans and the next a large win for Democrats and so on and so on....

bmain77

11-08-2002, 12:05 AM

Originally posted by electriclite
It doesn't matter who wins the seats, the whole lot in Washington is just as corrupt and deceitful as the next. As one person put it, "Democrats are just pro-choice Republicans."

This wholeelection proves only that the cycle continues. One term we'll get a large win for the Republicans and the next a large win for Democrats and so on and so on....

Exactly....it doesn't matter who is in control. Both parties only do the will of the people and interest groups that can afford to donate massive amounts of money to their campaigns. Still though not that they'll actually get off their ass and pass anything meaningful that would piss of a lot of people hurting thier chances of not getting re-elected.

Whatever happened to our represenatives actually representing us and not just the big companies and interest groups? And everybody wonders why nobody votes anymore. It has gotten the point where I do think it is a meangingless act unless you are at the top of the ladder, because if you aren't fattening their back pockets your opinion isn't going to matter in the least anyways.

electriclite

11-08-2002, 01:19 AM

Originally posted by bmain77
Exactly....it doesn't matter who is in control. Both parties only do the will of the people and interest groups that can afford to donate massive amounts of money to their campaigns. Still though not that they'll actually get off their ass and pass anything meaningful that would piss of a lot of people hurting thier chances of not getting re-elected.

Whatever happened to our represenatives actually representing us and not just the big companies and interest groups? And everybody wonders why nobody votes anymore. It has gotten the point where I do think it is a meangingless act unless you are at the top of the ladder, because if you aren't fattening their back pockets your opinion isn't going to matter in the least anyways.

Preach on brother, preach on!

I have never voted before simply because of the reasons you just stated.

"I don't vote, it only encourages them."

I almost voted in the last presidential election, but then later realized it was a no win situation either way. As Billy Connelly put it " The people who didn't vote exercised great taste....... and won!".... for a while anyway:(

flowrchild

11-08-2002, 08:44 AM

Originally posted by electriclite
I have never voted before simply because of the reasons you just stated.

You know, I love how SO many people deliberately don't vote as some kind of rebellious act, but then those same people constantly bitch about how shitty the country is being run.

Not voting in a presidential election, IMHO, is not something to be proud of. Since so many people share that attitude of "it doesn't matter anyway", certain lousy presidents end up winning by default. It is just such a shame that people are given one opportunity to have their voice heard in some little way, and they choose to give up that right.

Grebdron

11-08-2002, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by electriclite
I almost voted in the last presidential election, but then later realized it was a no win situation either way.

If you do, this would have been one of the few times where your vote actually counted. If even a few more liberals would have voted, G Dub might not be our president right now. I can sort of sympathize. I've been turned off by the political process myself. But I drug my ass to the polls on Tuesday. If I truly don't like either candidate, I won't vote for either. (Which happens most often.) But there are still issues that should matter to you.

bmain77

11-08-2002, 02:54 PM

Yeah I voted tuesday too. To be honest I don't even know the name of the person who I voted for governor. I saw green party and punched the hole. Thats what I did through the whole ballot. I was more there for some of the state and local issues being decided on that my vote might have some impact on me and the outcomes would most assuredly have an impact on me.

Also if you don't vote for president I don't even want to here your complaints or compliments for G'dub. You lost your right to any opinion by not voting in my book. There are always more canidates out there besides the big two.

Ronaldinho

11-08-2002, 03:57 PM

Originally posted by Paterfamilias

The following statistics are within three years of release.

The rearrest rate for violent offenders remained relatively stable (59.6% in 1983 compared to 61.7% in 1994

That's 61.7% !!!

I question how meaningful this statistic is.

After all, it's an ARREST rate, not a conviction rate. Arrests are often based on suspicion. People can be considered suspicious because they have a criminal record.

So what percentage of those rearrested were eventually convicted of the crime they were arrested for?

BubbaStrangelove

11-08-2002, 05:16 PM

You should vote electriclite. it's fun. I make a game of it and get stewed before I go. It's fun to get the elderly people to help show you how to work the machines. They are so nice and they have fun too. Just be polite and respectful.

I always vote for the losers though. That makes me a loser, i guess. Haha

PS - The Green Party put GW in office.

Grebdron

11-08-2002, 05:54 PM

Originally posted by BubbaStrangelove
PS - The Green Party put GW in office.

Jeb Bush and the State of Florida put G Dub in office. That and the vote being taken out of the voters' hands when the electoral college was instituted.

BubbaStrangelove

11-08-2002, 08:47 PM

I live in Florida, and I blame it more on Gore losing in Tenessee, than on Florida's win. Florida is a republican swing state, so it was a given that he would lose in Florida anyway.

So really, it wasn't Florida, it was all Tenessee. If Gore had nabbed a victory in his home state, he would have won. But Gore did not campaign as much in Tenessee as he did in Florida, for some reason.

But really, the votes that the Green Party split from the Democrats would have put Gore over the top.

That's why Moore cracks me up.

2 years ago, Moore was a HUGE Green Party backer.

He is much, much more silent since 2000.

He used to be Green Party! Green Party! Green Party! Now he is "No Republican!" No Republican

Moore knows what happened - that's why he doesn't mention it.

BloodiedCelticVengeance

11-09-2002, 10:11 AM

Originally posted by bmain77
Exactly....it doesn't matter who is in control.

BULLSHIT!

That is a fuckin' crock. It certainlydid matter during this landslde midterm election.
Do you think it is just coincidence that a mere 2 days after the results that the United Nations Security Council voted unanimously in support of Bush's suggestions regarding Iraq? And that cabal (Security Council) includesSyria, ferchrissakes!

Is it also coincidence that now the French government has also swung it's support behind Bush? Chirac was adamant in his opposition for months...now he changes his mind, eh?
Saddam Hussein was on Al Jazeera a few weeks ago saying: "Bush is weakened in his own country, as the overwhelming majority of his people oppose his war drums".
Well, even Mr.Hussein has to now sit up and take notice as this overwhelming victory by the Bush line candidates shows that the people voting are definitely giving Bush a mandate.
The whole world was watching these elections, as it was going to be the first tangible sign of Bush's real "approval" or "disapproval".

I'm sure his dissenters were counting on Bush getting trounced, as the bitterness from the 2000 election fiasco, the dissatisfaction with his foreign policy, the economy, etc. were all going to come home to roost. Bush bashers everywhere were licking their chops at the prospect of the total emasculation of his presidency. If the candidates Bush backed lost the majority of the elections, it would have further legitimized all of his detractor's opinions that his tenure is no more than a "sham".

But, well now, it certainly didn't play out that way, did it?
If the majority of the country was against the administration's policies, they would have slapped them right in the face at the VOTING BOOTH. You can talk about "apathy" and "disenfranchisement" all you like, but the Liberals crowed for MONTHS that this midterm election was where Bush was going to get payback for 2000. It wasn't even CLOSE!
The Liberals and the DNC especially targeted Florida, which, in a way, has become their Waterloo. They even trotted out Janet (burn the Davidians!!!) Reno. She couldn't even get her parties nomination! Yep, the Dems were going to pay ol' Jeb back BIG TIME for 2000. What a joke, Jeb cruised to victory.
You still think it doesn't matter? Bullshit! It matters, because it shows that the Democrat's platform is ridiculously, painfully out of touch with the majority of voters. If you feel like disagreeing with that staement, I'll just say: SCOREBOARD!

The defeat was so bad, it forced Dick Gebhardt to resign his position...it has left Terry Macauliffe (head of the DNC) scratching his dizzy head. No one saw this overwhelming support of Bush coming, and now the Dems and the Bush bashers are in total dissarray. The Dems and Liberals need to wake up...'96 was only a scant 6 years ago, but, policy and platformwise, it seems like 600 years ago. This country has been profoundly changed forever, and the people have spoken...in favor of the more acccesible policies for them.

I was pleased to see Bush being humble in victory. He had every RIGHT to sit there and tell everyone "HA! Go fuck yerselves!! WE DID IT!! WOO-HOO!!"...
I'm sure Bush bashers were saying: "Oh NO!!! He has a mandate now!!! We'll be at war by Friday!!! ARRRGGGHHHH!!!!"
Nope...not quite. He sat back and watched the U.N. and most of his foreign detractors simply agree to press forth with the Bush agenda for weapons inspection in Iraq. He still chooses NOT to act unilaterally, waiting instead until it is proven that Hussein must be stopped.

Bush is the first president since FDR in '36 to be given such overwhelming support by the midterm results. That's 66 years ago, and in the midst of the great depression. The populace needed firm leadership back then to lead it through it's darkest hour, and the same can be said here. Like him or not, Bush is handling this whole affair in damn good fashion. So much so that he has been given what he needed most...tangible, UNDISPUTED support from his country via the VOTING BOOTH.

We're all in this together, folks...and if you fail to grasp the fact that this was the most important midterm election in history (for the reasons elucidated earlier in the post), then you are simply stewing in your bias and failing to see the big picture.

The world was watching, and the people have SPOKEN!

PS- I agree with those who blast the non-voters. You have no right to bitch if you choose to sit on your apathetic asses on election day.
As much as I despise Mr.Moore and his ridiculous views, I do laud hiss fat ass for trying to affectate change. He pools all of his resources to push his agenda, and he stresses the fact that the only way to answer the opposition is to VOTE.
But, all of his alarmist rhetoric and anti-Republican propoganda is obviously out of touch with the great majority of the voting bloc. The same can be said of all the Elitist Liberals in the entetainment industry. They live in a fuckin' fantasy world to begin with. They are so far removed from the people they "preach" to, it's pathetic. I think Moore is an exception, 'cause he comes across as more of a "regular" guy...someone who actually knows of the hardships facing everyday people, and I think the guy actually gives a shit. But his leftist views are still the exception, not the rule. And his request to "pull any lever but Republican on November 5th" was fuckin' TRAMPLED.
But, that's the thing about this country...there is room for everyone, no matter how much you disagree with their politics. As much as I loathe those Limousine Liberals, I'd never look to silence them. They need to be heard...for they give credence to the old adage: "Better to keep your mouth shut and have everyone think you're a idiot, than to open it and prove them right"!

That goes out to you: Ed ASSner, Alec Baldwin, Sean Penn, Rosie O'Donuts, Norman Mailer, Gore Vidal, Barbra Streisand, Robert Altman, Eric Roberts, etc. Who's laughing NOW ?

electriclite

11-10-2002, 12:40 AM

Originally posted by flowrchild
You know, I love how SO many people deliberately don't vote as some kind of rebellious act, but then those same people constantly bitch about how shitty the country is being run.

Not voting in a presidential election, IMHO, is not something to be proud of. Since so many people share that attitude of "it doesn't matter anyway", certain lousy presidents end up winning by default. It is just such a shame that people are given one opportunity to have their voice heard in some little way, and they choose to give up that right.

No it's not an act of rebellion, it's just a sad fact that our politocal parties don't nominate leaders, they nominate potential winners.

I didn't vote for Gore because in my law class in high school my mock arguement's reason for not impeaching Bill Clinton was this: President Al Gore. That was scary enough for me.

And Bush..... Oh Jesus Christ where do I begin?! Obviously someone in the Republican Party had seen The Distiguished Gentlemen and and ran with that plotline. Don't believe me? There was a poll made out where a very scary amount of REGISTERED VOTERS thought the Dubya was actually his father!

Oh, and let's not forget what these two men had in common: Both their parents were politicians, one more prominent then the other. I don't think this is what our forefathers had in mind when they were seeking separation from the British monarchy.

I did not vote, because I did not like my choices.

I would've voted in the PRIMARIES, which is where your vote REALLY MATTERS, but I lived in Miami (aka BAD Public Transportation), had no car and unfortunately a remedial math class that lasted six hours. Otherwise I would've given my support to John McCain. The Only reason no one else did is because everyone likes their candidates in little neat, simple, easily digestible boxes who will tell them everything they want to hear and lull them in a false sense of security. The American public in general does not like it's boat rocked very often, and it's candidates prove this. Americans don't vote progressively, just take a look at the fact that all a third Party needs in order to receive funding and national recognition is just 2% of the vote, and they STILL haven't gotten it!

We just don't like candidates that'll tell us the truth. This country just loves bullshit, but only the kind that you can see and smell instead of the kind we can just smell.

And tell me how exactly my vote would've counted for Gore? Gore won the popular vote and STILL LOST!

And of course GWB and FDR had such a high approval ratings: It's called a war! We always get stirred up and patirotic and stand behind whoever the hell has his finger on the little red button that'll annihlate the coutry or organization that wants to fuck with us. One was a Democrat and one is a Republican. It doesn't take a certain party affiliation to point to a map and say "BOMB THAT!" after someone has committed mass murder in your country.

The way people vote is, to me, like the way people have sex: Sometimes you like it rough, sometimes you like it easy. On Nov. 5, America said "Spank me!"

And there's noting wrong with that. Whatever gets you off.

For me, now that I'm in NY, if and when I get the chance to vote in a primary and there is a candidate who actually seems like he's got some guts then I just might vote. But don't give me the choice between the lesser of two evils. That's not a choice, that's an ultimatum.

Reigh Kaufman

11-11-2002, 10:26 AM

I have only one thing to say on the subject (having just seen Bowling for Columbine on Friday evening): when I emigrate to America - Portland, Oregon - in September I would appreciate it all the more if you guys would ban guns, period. Having never owned, nor wanted to own a gun, I can honestly say this is one part of your constitution that needs to be amended. The constitution, after all, is only written on paper - it's not stone. And if you've seen BFC, seen the sequence where Michael Moore takes the victims of the tragedy into the store to return the bullets sold over the counter, you ought to think about the right to bear arms a little deeper....

By the way, my parents move to North Carolina in July - is this place safe for a middle-aged couple? Just wondering...

Grebdron

11-11-2002, 02:08 PM

Originally posted by Reigh Kaufman
By the way, my parents move to North Carolina in July - is this place safe for a middle-aged couple? Just wondering...

NC is as safe as any state in the union. What part are they moving to? I spent a few years there, and know a little about the geography.

My secretary work is done.;)

electriclite

11-11-2002, 06:22 PM

Jesus, we've scared the foreigners now!

Ender

11-12-2002, 03:58 PM

I'm having a little trouble following this debate, so I'll just kick in my two-cents here at the bottom.

People claim that gun ownership prevents crime. If guns in this country weren't as easy to buy as a newspaper, would regular folks have to be packing so much heat? I'm not deluded enough to think that guns cause crime, but they sure as fuck make it easier, don't they? A bankrobber armed with knife is nowhere near as intimidating as one with a rifle, and he's easier to defend oneself against and much easier for the police to apprehend.

Dude

11-20-2002, 08:04 PM

Until my city appoints an ARMED cop to stand sentry duty at my home while I sleep, I WILL own guns.

Until GOD HIMSELF, comes down from Heaven and announces to the world;

Hey everybody, the Lion is laying with the Lamb... there will be no more crime. No more robberies, thefts, burgarlies, innocent kids being killed by near sighted shitty drive by-ers...

I WILL own guns. To quote Charlton Heston: "From my cold dead hands, will you pry my gun from me"

Bottom line: I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6!

dellamorte dellamore

11-27-2002, 02:09 PM

My biggest problem with Moore is that he makes the documentaries ultimately about himself. He makes them, not too inform or maybe even educate, but to serve his insatiable narcissistic impulses. Look at me, i'm the little guy pointing out the evils of America, and American business/politics.

Now i think journalism is an important part of a democracy, but to me Moore is just a self centered wiseass looking for some attention. He totally defeats the purpose of an effective documentary, to shed light on a certain reality, not as it's filtered through his agenda, but as it really is. In order to do this, a person would have to keep their ulterior motives in check, and exhibit a certain degree of patience. Only a mature individual could pull this off, and Moore is not one of them.

He really is deluded, at least when it comes to his politics, he only has the ability to see one side of a particular issue, his, and that's the only one you will in all his films. Now this is great, if you agree with his politics, but an annoyance if you don't.,

Now when it comes to reasons for violence, i don't know, their are many motivations. Look at Africa, more people have been murdered there in the past ten years, then have been killed in WW2( alright, i'm exaggarating a bit, but i wouldn't doubt it). A number of them were hacked and slashed, it had nothing to do with guns. Guns were just the tool, but once a person loses all touch with reality, humanity means nothing to them anymore, they will find a way to do what they want to do, regardless if they are in possesion of a gun.

I don't think that certain movies, music, or celebrities are responsible for a violent culture, but i do feel it is a symptom. If M Manson is that naive to think his music doesn;t have an affect on a naive, gullible, highly suggestible, depressed youth, then he is either extremely naive, or just callous and indifferent. Again i'm not blaming him or any other hard core performers who dwell on death and destruction ( after all they are just savvy marketers to braindead teens ), but their music contributes to the problem. At the minimum, it definitely does not help.

There is a violent culture in America, but contrary to popular belief, i still don't see us as the most violent. Countries are at war right now all over the world for reasons as petty as religious ideals, land distributions, political ideology, or just sheer hatred for someone they consider different.

That's what annoys me the most about Moore, all his creations are just propaganda of the highest order, this isn't some insightful look into the gun culture and it's effect on US citizens, it's an all out attack on people he despises.

I'll leave youth this, Mr Moore wouldn't be in a USA spouting his nonsense today if it weren't for the effective use of firearms. Used responsibly they have won wars and secured freedom.

They are a great equalizer for women, and a potent tool for self defense. I wonder how many women who have been attacked before wish they had a gun to protect themselves from physical assault.

I'm not claiming to be some expert, and this is the rant section, so just file these statements under random musings.

Anyway everyone have good thanksgiving, and don't eat too much.

bmain77

11-27-2002, 10:52 PM

Wow...I cannot believe how this thread just keeps going and going and going.

I'll just throw in my final thoughts on Michael Moore. Obviously, I have a huge respect for the man. He grew up about 15 minutes from where I have and so he is somewhat of an inspiration for me just seeing what he has accomplished.

As far as his politics go I admit I do largely agree with him. Sometimes he does go a bit overboard though and I had always thought you sort of had to take some of what he says with a grain of salt. But then I finally had the opportunity once to see him in person.

The man is just incredibly passionate about what he believes in. He nearly had the whole room in tears on a couple of occasions. Keep in my this was in flint with a largely pro moore crowd. But still is was a truly moving speech. No matter what side you believe in ...if more people even had half his passion for what he believes in it would be a better place.

freakandgeek

11-29-2002, 03:49 AM

Originally posted by MuzzleBlast
Interesting point. Here is the distinction as I see it: While drunk driving is not a VIOLENT act, it is a NEGLIGENT act. You are putting other people at a greatly increased risk of being involved in an accident, so it is prudent for there to be a law prohibiting this behavior, and providing penalties for it. People who are rational, and aware of the law, will weigh the risks of getting caught vs. the risks of causing a wreck vs. the cost of a cab ride, and make their own decision. If I am in a public park with a gun, plinking soda cans from park benches with no regard for where my bullets are going, I am committing a negligent act. The police will, and should, come and stop my actions before someone gets shot. Notice the distinction: owning a gun is a passive thing. Firing a gun is an action. Firing a gun indiscriminately is a negligent action.

i could not have said that better myself......

freakandgeek

11-29-2002, 03:56 AM

dellamorte dellamore

11-29-2002, 08:11 AM

I would go a bit further and consider drunk driving a potentially violent act. Just as many lives can be lost and lives destroyed as a result of driving in that condition, as can be wiped out with gunfire.

I don't see a clear distinction between someone who willfully drives while they are impaired by drugs or alcohol and a person who uses a gun in a crime. Unless the person is totally braindead, they know there will be dire consequences. Vehicular manslaughter and manslaughter with a firearm have the same spirit behind them, a total disregard for human life.

I'm only saying this because i think auto accidents are a more immediate threat than firearm fatalities, but gunfire gets more press, plus most people need cars.

It's disheartening to think that people still feel there vote won't count, or worse, that it doesn't matter who you vote for. Scratch that, that's scary. I wonder how the Iraquis feel about their elections. Now that's sham, would you rather live in a country ruled by a dictator, then you would really have something to complain about.. It's a shame to waste freedom because of nihilism or because you feel discouraged. An effective leader can change the course of history for the good( Churchill ), the wrong one can destroy nations ( Hitler ).

I know there seems to be a number of shmoes that feel disenfranchised because they did vote in the 2000 election but they feel it didn't make a difference since Gore won the popular vote but still lost as a result of the electorate.

First, put it in perspective, he only won the popular vote by about 200,000 votes, that's only a margin of 1 percent, not what i would consider a clear majority, or at least a commanding one.

Second, we elect presidents via electorates, persons appointed by each state that will reperesent the voting majority in their respective states. The number of electorates is determined by the population of each respective state (they determine this with the census i think ), that's why NY, Cali, Texas have a high number of electorates. If a candidate gets a majority in a certain state, he/she will win all the electorates, whatever that number may be, they cannot be divided or split, you either win the state, or you don't. You need 270 electorates to win the presidency.

Third. The purpose of the electoral college is to ensure that each state, no matter how many citizens reside there are represented, and that areas with large populations don't overshadow or even overpower states with less dense populations. Without the electorate, candidates would only campaign in Cali, NY , and Texas, most likely that would be all the votes they needed. But, in oreder to have a centralized government, everyone must be represented, or else you will have breakaway provinces such as Russia has experienced after the fall of the soviet union. The electorate ensures this ,hopefully will never happen.

Fourth, although Gore won the popular vote, a number of mail in votes were never counted, because the electorate was clearly won by either Bush or Gore, and it wouldn't have affected the outcome in those particualr states. Now, who knows how many more votes bush may have received if all the mail in votes were counted, especially in the states he trounced Gore.

Fifth, Gore only asked for recounts in three particular counties ( Miami-Dade, Valusia, can't remember the third ), where he knew he received an overwhelming number of votes. Why didn't he asked for a statewide recount? Because he knew if he only protested the results in a specific area were he clearly won the majority there was a good chance he could " find " more votes. A statewide recount would have exposed him to counties that heavily favored Bush, and he wasn't willing to take that risk. Plus, he tried to deny military votes from overseas, why? Eventually he relented, or more like was overruled, and sure enough, most of those votes were for Bush.

Sixth, if a voting card is not clearly punched, it's invalid. Intentions do not count in elections. I'm positive just as many people who " intended " to vote for Bush made a mistake and voted for Gore, or didn't punch the card effectively enough to cast a vote at all.

Seventh. The supreme court didn't elect Bush. Gore was given the maximum amount of extentions for the purpose of recounts under current election law. He was even given what could be an illegal extention by a local Florida judge, an extention that was ultimately overruled because it was in violation of election law. So the Supremes did not alter law in favor of Bush, they simply interperted it the way it is written. You have to follow certian deadlines, or else you can have in theory no president at all because of litigation and the protesting of election results. To ensure continuity, all votes must be certified by a particular date, that was the role of Katherine Harris. She would have been bound by law to certify the results even if Gore had won the electorate in Florida.

Eigth. I have way too much time on my hands, and i apologize for getting off the subject, but i feel this is something important, not only too the older shmoes, but the younger ones who have yet to reach voting age. Hollywood is all about politics, so it's not entirely off topic.And Moore has an political agenda.

I know how some shmoes feel, but please don't get discouraged. Complacency, nihilism, disenfranchisement, nothing good ever comes from any of them. They may seem cool, but in the end there just destructive to all involved.