AlpineK Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Fairweather: quote:Originally posted by AlpineK: Isn't the 2nd amendment more open to interpretation than the first. I mean does having an armed militia mean that everyone has the right to own a gun. I think the 1st amendment is a lot clearer. I disagree. Indeed, liberals have successfully twisted the First Amendment.... "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the excercise thereof:....." Now we have those who believe "separation of church and state" is written in the constitution. Liberals have denied countless individuals the right to freely excercise their religion(s) in public places by twisting the First Amendment. Why should I trust them to interpret the Second Amendment? Public places? Like in school over th PA system? Cause that's what most of that brouhaha is about? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mattp Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 quote: Originally posted by Fairweather: "If you torture the data long enough, it will tell you what you want to hear." That is true, but you didn't raise this argument last week, when GregW stated that crime increased when they banned guns in Australia and in England. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ade Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 Don't worry the NRA has all the answers... When Michael Moore asked Charlton Heston why other countries with high levels of gun ownership, like Canada and Switzerland, didn't have the same high rates of gun related deaths Heston replied that those countries didn't have the same "mixed ethnicity" problems as the US. Nice... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 Ade, well, was he wrong? I don't think so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cj001f Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 quote: Originally posted by trask: Ade, well, was he wrong? I don't think so. Shouldn't Vancouver and Toronto be like DC then? Fairweather - Your right - the debate has become too polarized, religous almost in tone. People have taken their positions, and no amount of arguing will change their mind which is sad but commonplace in the political landscape. I don't believe that most gun laws reduce crime (DC's certainly didn't affect it substantially). I don't believe that having guns adds to safety (note Richmond vs DC & Baltimore). If the law does nothing their's no point in having it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 quote: Originally posted by mattp: quote:Originally posted by Fairweather: "If you torture the data long enough, it will tell you what you want to hear." That is true, but you didn't raise this argument last week, when GregW stated that crime increased when they banned guns in Australia and in England. The issue is more complex within the US where individual states can write their own gun laws to a large degree. My "data torture" comment was intended to cut both ways, my own beliefs aside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ade Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 quote: Ade, well, was he wrong? I don't think so. - traskMr Heston obviously though he didn't get it quite right because when asked to clarify the point he got up and left the interview. Pretty strange given that it was in his house. Given that most people are killed by those they know and/or who are of the same ethnic background it would seem to be a hard point to back up. Is this a troll, or are you having trouble seeing the keyboard through the little eyeholes in that nice big white pointy hat and robe? [ 11-02-2002, 04:54 PM: Message edited by: Ade ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 Over the years I have developed the notion that there is a definite connection between marksmanship and morality. A good shot is nearly always a good man, and conversely the bad guys usually cannot shoot for sour owl jowls. This proposition cannot be proven, of course, but I think it has to do with the fact that the essence of good marksmanship is self-control, and it seems pretty clear that self-control is the foundation of good morals. Hurray for our side! cooper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muir_on_Saturday Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 quote: Originally posted by trask: Over the years I have developed the notion that there is a definite connection between marksmanship and morality. A good shot is nearly always a good man, and conversely the bad guys usually cannot shoot for sour owl jowls. This proposition cannot be proven, of course, but I think it has to do with the fact that the essence of good marksmanship is self-control, and it seems pretty clear that self-control is the foundation of good morals. Hurray for our side! cooper apparently the williams/mohamed the dc sniper was a pretty good marksman, but then many of his victim's probably didn't even own guns so maybe he was a good guy after all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 Muir On Saturday, As our civilization continues along its degenerate way, we note that the acceptance of specialization in life is achieving new lows. It appears that post-modern man is content to manifest no interest in anything beyond the confines of his own little cubicle. In my youth it was assumed that a grown man should know a good bit about a whole number of things, besides any specialty that might take his fancy. I do not remember visiting a household which was totally without personal firearms - always a 22, and usually a shotgun. Today the press assumes a curious obligation to inform us (not necessarily correctly) about matters relating to firearms. Generally speaking, journalists and commentators do not choose to educate us about cooking, or motoring, or swimming, or equitation, or flying an airplane, but they seem to be anxious to tell us all about firearms, and furthermore they assume that no one will know anything about firearms unless he has been instructed in the military. Actually military instruction in firearms is pretty rudimentary. Any well educated youth should know more about marksmanship and gunhandling when he enters the service than he is likely to learn after he does so. The notion that our finally apprehended Muhammad (may peace be upon him) had to have been trained in the military before he could use a rifle is an example of this. This mass murderer displayed no particular knowledge or skill in his disgusting rampage, yet a number of journalistic types seems to think that he is some kind of an expert. cooper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fence_Sitter Posted November 2, 2002 Share Posted November 2, 2002 naw that dude was a freakig pansy...he missed a couple of times...how can you miss when you have a disguised car with a hole in it so you can get really close... that guy should have kept to his tree stump... cause even though he was a snipe in the army, he doesn't have that impressive of a kill ratio (given that his targets are unsusspecting and unarmed civilians) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodchester Posted November 3, 2002 Share Posted November 3, 2002 "When Michael Moore asked Charlton Heston why other countries with high levels of gun ownership, like Canada and Switzerland, didn't have the same high rates of gun related deaths Heston replied that those countries didn't have the same "mixed ethnicity" problems as the US." Hahahahaha. Come on man. Switzlerland has soo many ethnicities, and Canada does as well. However, neither have anywhere NEAR the gun ownership in quantity or quality. The problem is in comparison. We can't campare Canadd with the US, or US with france...etc. There are no easy answers. [ 11-03-2002, 03:08 AM: Message edited by: Rodchester ] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ade Posted November 3, 2002 Share Posted November 3, 2002 You miss my point. I agree that the question, and impled answer are full of holes, and that a direct comparison with other countries is at best problematic, although something can surely be learnt from it. My real problem is with the answer as given. It's a dumb answer. The NRA has a stack load of more defensible answers to the same question, most of which don't imply some sort of racist undertone. Heston clearly thought this too. It is however possibly Heston's greatest contribution to entertainment. I'm sure "Bowling for Columbine" would be less of a movie without it. Hence "Nice..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fence_Sitter Posted November 3, 2002 Share Posted November 3, 2002 quote: There are no easy answers. [Confused] sure there is one easy answer...guns will always be in the U.S. the sooner you accept that fact, the sooner we can get ridof this discussion. do you think that if you banned guns all of the millions of guns would jsut dissapear? "oh yeah hey i have a gun...lemme hand it over" yeah right...neither the criminals nor conservatives will let this happen and the latter because the criminals possession of guns. so...buy a piece and get over it... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allthumbs Posted November 3, 2002 Share Posted November 3, 2002 Weapons protect the weak from the strong, not the other way around. The passengers of Flight 93 showed us the way to defend ourselves - they fought back. If every passenger fought back immediately, no terrorist could succeed. If every victim fought back immediately, no criminal could succeed. No one lives forever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fence_Sitter Posted November 3, 2002 Share Posted November 3, 2002 quote: No one lives forever and i would venture to say that most dont live at all... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ade Posted November 4, 2002 Share Posted November 4, 2002 quote: If every passenger fought back immediately, no terrorist could succeed. If every victim fought back immediately, no criminal could succeed. No one lives forever. And Trask wins a huge prize for gross oversimplification combined with dubious logic plus a small bonus prize for stating the glaringly obvious with "No one lives forever". I look forward to yet more informative posts from Mr T. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.