Good Government

[RuMR]

You know Greg, the original intent of our forefathers was that only WHITE males could vote, not females or blacks...Going back to these documents as unchangeable is laughable to me...they couldn't have possibly foreseen EVERYTHING in our future...

 

It is your opinion that the background check is sufficient, just like it is mine that it is not. Most of the accidents and crimes with guns out there (and i can dig for statistics, or not) are by legally purchased guns...so obviously, there is a systemic flaw. Should a Hinkley have had a psychological review? What do you think? You think its ok???

 

Regarding acting rational: YOU ARE THE ONE WHO IS GETTING EMOTIONAL about this issue...i have refrained from super foul (a few f-bombs) language and personal attacks...I have stated that i owned guns, have shot them and see nothing wrong w/ gun ownership...I have also stated that i do not believe that everyone should be entitled to own one...You are right...those are my opinions...and i stand by them...I have arrived at my thoughts on this after much reflection and have withdrawn my support for the NRA...say what you will, but you come across as a raving maniac on this issue and appear to be the one who has had an emotional chord struck...

 

As far as i'm concerned the general public does not have the respect due to firearms and should not be entitled to them...

Edited September 24, 2003 by RuMR

[minx]

greg you've managed quite the trifecta here

 

you've been inflammatory, not answered the question posed and failed to site your sources. bravo.

[incubus]

minx said:

i didn't say they were right

 

i did quit climbing b/c it wasn't safe, then i broke my elbow walking across a floor.

minx - betty ford clinic

[Greg_W]

scrambler said:

Greg_W said:

scrambler said:

Existence with conviction is superior to existence alone.

 

Existence exists. Period. No qualifier necessary.

 

More along the lines of Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am). Existence without thinking (reasoning) is a lowly existence, subhuman, no better than livestock. Nietzsche, anyone?

 

Backwards. You ARE, then you are able to think. It is called primacy of existence, Ayn Rand. You cannot think without first existing; you cannot be conscious to think without first existing. If you don't exist, how do you think?

[RuMR]

Minx:

 

Edited September 24, 2003 by RuMR

[erik]

so there is no equivilant, on the side of the libs?

 

and so with the stats thing why bring it up at all? (and dont say cuz jb did). because it is all a matter of perception and not truth. so they are a null point, expecially without actual cited material.

 

tho i have a hard time believing 2 million crimes were averted due to gun ownership. how does that factor? and do they include screwed up drug deals with guns involved?

 

pete lives over in s capital hill, we have walked the street a bunch at night...so far, i have been offered several blow jobs and some crack. i declined the crack.

 

there is no right, but how can you claim that owning an high capacity handgun will save you better then owning a revolver? if the legal gun owner was responsible it would only take one bullet. so maybe a black power gun would be in order?

 

 

[Sphinx]

Greg_W said:

scrambler said:

Greg_W said:

scrambler said:

Existence with conviction is superior to existence alone.

 

Existence exists. Period. No qualifier necessary.

 

More along the lines of Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am). Existence without thinking (reasoning) is a lowly existence, subhuman, no better than livestock. Nietzsche, anyone?

 

Backwards. You ARE, then you are able to think. It is called primacy of existence, Ayn Rand. You cannot think without first existing; you cannot be conscious to think without first existing. If you don't exist, how do you think?

These are the questions.....

[Greg_W]

RuMR said:

the general public does not have the respect due to firearms and should not be entitled to them...

 

It's good to know that elitist, intellectual bastions of fortitude are here on Earth to tell us all what is best for us. Otherwise, how would we exist? How arrogant are you that you think you should be able to make decisions about what others are entitled to? It's nice to see your true colors. Your premise assumes that all people are stupid except you, and therefore, need to be taken care of by some all-knowing body of superb minds. Keep that shit away from me.

[scrambler]

Greg_W said:

scrambler said:

Greg_W said:

scrambler said:

Existence with conviction is superior to existence alone.

 

Existence exists. Period. No qualifier necessary.

 

More along the lines of Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am). Existence without thinking (reasoning) is a lowly existence, subhuman, no better than livestock. Nietzsche, anyone?

 

Backwards. You ARE, then you are able to think. It is called primacy of existence, Ayn Rand. You cannot think without first existing; you cannot be conscious to think without first existing. If you don't exist, how do you think?

 

Ok, this is rather an absurd example but animals exist yet they don't have the right granted to us. And, people who don't use their ability to think, well...

[incubus]

RuMR said:

the general public does not have the respect due to firearms and should not be entitled to them...

 

incubus say:

that's laughable - I see RuMR has a sense of humor...

[RuMR]

Once again greg, you've extrapolated what i've said to the extreme...

 

Tell you what i'll play that game...why doesn't the government, just hand every 18 year old a rifle and pistol when they register...fuck the screening, hell any crimes they did pre 18 are expunged, so it wouldn't show on their records anyway...so let's all start off fresh and armed...sounds good to me...

 

and yeah...i do think there are a lot of dumb assholes out there...for that matter i might just be one of them...

[Greg_W]

erik said:

so there is no equivilant, on the side of the libs?

 

and so with the stats thing why bring it up at all? (and dont say cuz jb did). because it is all a matter of perception and not truth. so they are a null point, expecially without actual cited material.

 

tho i have a hard time believing 2 million crimes were averted due to gun ownership. how does that factor? and do they include screwed up drug deals with guns involved?

 

pete lives over in s capital hill, we have walked the street a bunch at night...so far, i have been offered several blow jobs and some crack. i declined the crack.

 

there is no right, but how can you claim that owning an high capacity handgun will save you better then owning a revolver? if the legal gun owner was responsible it would only take one bullet. so maybe a black power gun would be in order?

 

 

No equivalent to Patriot Act? Well, they had to vote for it, for one. Two, the Assault Weapons Ban that they are trying to broaden on an extremely scary level (banning semi-automatic shotguns, commonly used for bird hunting, etc.)

 

RE: mentioning stats, because I believe them and feel they support my position. I can't make you believe them, but I can cite them to support my argument; whether you accept them as valid is up to you. No, these are potential crimes as reported to police; I don't think crack deals gone bad would count.

 

You may never be the victim of a crime, but my house may never burn down, either. Insurance, man. It is my personal belief that I want to be able to protect my family in the best way possible; I chose to do so with a gun, others may not.

 

REgarding type of gun, this is a BS argument. At the heart is the right to protect myself in the best way I SEE FIT, not any government body.

[RuMR]

incubus said:

RuMR said:

the general public does not have the respect due to firearms and should not be entitled to them...

 

incubus say:

that's laughable - I see RuMR has a sense of humor...

 

I'm at you!

[Sphinx]

Have we come to an agreement yet?

[Sphinx]

This is why we should give everybody a gun.

[RuMR]

Sphinx said:

Have we come to an agreement yet?

 

Not yet...but soon we will be moving on to politics and then religion and then bolting...wanna come along??

[Greg_W]

RuMR said:

Once again greg, you've extrapolated what i've said to the extreme...

 

Yes, I do so to prove my point. Government ever seeks to expand its power. Look at Canada, Great Britain, Australia. All these countries started with some innocuous "registration" scheme. This led to confiscation and banning of any ownership. Why register it unless you need to know where it's at so you can take it away?

 

I'm out of here. PM me any questions, I'll respond when I get back.

[Sphinx]

RuMR said:

Sphinx said:

Have we come to an agreement yet?

 

Not yet...but soon we will be moving on to politics and then religion and then bolting...wanna come along??

I'm all ears! You guys do so much to instill a sense of ethics and politican beliefs in young guys like me! Thanks!

[RuMR]

Have a good one, greg

 

[erik]

greg my point on stats is that you can cite them and not be attacked, but if someone else posts stats you do not agree with they are utter bullshit, but you offer noting to refute them other then emotion and insults???

 

hmmmmm......

 

 

[Dru]

actually greg_w you don't know anything about Canada's gun laws except what you read in NRA PARANOIA WEEKLY

 

we banned ownership FIRST

 

then we register the LEGAL ones.

 

you can't register an illegal weapon, so no illegal weapons have been confiscated as a result of being registered.

 

OK?

[j_b]

Greg_W said:

It's good to know that elitist, intellectual bastions of fortitude are here on Earth to tell us all what is best for us.

 

so is bloodletting still your favorite remedy to all ills? better watch out for those 'elitist, intellectual' doctors. they are out to get your right to life. what about those engineers who force upon you all those construction codes, bunch of commies out to get your freedom to build as you see fit (hey it's your 'freedom', right?). what a dastardly world we live in .... darn intellectuals, out to force their knowledge upon you. what a shame ....

[rbw1966]

I also find it interesting that its the gun ownership supporters who resort to epithets, slurs and personal assaults. Whats up with that?

 

I'm not so narrow-minded that I can't appreciate a different point of view but when you preface it with some nasty invective or racist remark you lose any credibility with me whatsoever.

 

I'm still left wondering how one can come to the conclusion that our forefathers envisioned assualt weapons when drafting the constitution but its not health care, privacy, etc.

[Greg_W]

Dru said:

actually greg_w you don't know anything about Canada's gun laws except what you read in NRA PARANOIA WEEKLY

 

we banned ownership FIRST

 

then we register the LEGAL ones.

 

you can't register an illegal weapon, so no illegal weapons have been confiscated as a result of being registered.

 

OK?

 

According to what I've read, registration was ennacted in the 30's (? I'm going from memory). The ban was in the past 10-15 years. That's handguns. Rifles are a different story; that registration is now ongoing and costing a bundle more than originally quoted, on the order of a factor of 10, I believe.

 

Erik, you are right, I didn't refute j_b's stats in an accurate manner.

[incubus]

One of the most ancient debates among conservatives is whether liberals hate the Constitution, or simply don’t understand it. Some argue that the Left is far too blinded by their own ideology to comprehend the importance of the Constitution, and that they therefore lack the ability to interpret it honestly.

 

The point is simple: liberals have a preternatural talent to manufacture rights and liberties in the Constitution that don’t exist. No issue better illustrates that truth than gun rights.

 

For decades conservatives have been trying to explain the Second Amendment to liberals, but they just won’t listen. They sniff that certainly our Founding Fathers didn’t really mean “people” (despite having written “people”); they were talking about the militia! The militia can carry as many guns as they please, but the people? Ordinary Americans? How could they be trusted?

 

The Second Amendment clearly states that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” That’s what the Framers wrote, like it or not.