Forums > Social Discussion > US Gun laws are "License to murder"

Login/Join to Participate
Page: 1...2728293031...44
FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:
Non-Https Image Link


[ed]I am going to update this OP as ppl who have not followed the discussion (in the past 2 years it is running now) cannot be bothered to go through all 50+ pages only to inform themselves about all the arguments brought forward. I hope it's allright with everybody.

Please patiently note that this is going to be a massive post that sum up all significant arguments that have been brought forward by both sides so far.

Thus: If you're bothered to read all the post, just scroll down to the bottom of it to get to the links and arguments - NEWEST information at the end of each section

Reading this post will keep you up-to-date with the current level of arguments brought forward - and you might not have to read all the 700+ posts.

If you have any new arguments that you find important to get included in this OP, please feel free to PM me at any time. Please note that I will only honor those arguments that you can back up with verifiable sources (quote your sources). I will *not* honor personal opinions as in 'I feel more comfy with a gun at my side' or in 'I feel horrified with guns present'. Feel free to post your opinions as you like *at the end of this thread*.

As this is a highly political issue, it will be almost impossible to keep this 'objective' and I will honor arguments of both sides, those who are pro and those who are against guns, regardless whether they directly come from the NRA or the Brady campaign.

The entire thread started like this:

Taken from: New York Times on August 7th

Originally Posted By: NYT
In the last year, 15 states have enacted laws that expand the right of self-defense, allowing crime victims to use deadly force in situations that might formerly have subjected them to prosecution for murder.

Jacqueline Galas, a Florida prostitute, shot and killed a 72-year-old client. She was not charged.
Supporters call them stand your ground laws.

Opponents call them shoot first laws.

The Florida law, which served as a model for the others, gives people the right to use deadly force against intruders entering their homes. They no longer need to prove that they feared for their safety, only that the person they killed had intruded unlawfully and forcefully. The law also extends this principle to vehicles.

In addition, the law does away with an earlier requirement that a person attacked in a public place must retreat if possible. Now, that same person, in the laws words, has no duty to retreat and has the right to stand his or her ground and meet force with force, including deadly force. The law also forbids the arrest, detention or prosecution of the people covered by the law, and it prohibits civil suits against them.

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the N.R.A., said the Florida law had sent a needed message to law-abiding citizens. If they make a decision to save their lives in the split second they are being attacked, the law is on their side, Mr. LaPierre said. Good people make good decisions. Thats why theyre good people. If youre going to empower someone, empower the crime victim.

The N.R.A. said it would lobby for versions of the law in eight more states in 2007.

In the case of the West Palm Beach cabdriver, Mr. Smiley, then 56, killed Jimmie Morningstar, 43. A sports bar had paid Mr. Smiley $10 to drive Mr. Morningstar home in the early morning of Nov. 6, 2004. Mr. Morningstar was apparently reluctant to leave the cab once it reached its destination, and Mr. Smiley used a stun gun to hasten his exit. Once outside the cab, Mr. Morningstar flashed a knife, Mr. Smiley testified at his first trial, though one was never found. Mr. Smiley, who had gotten out of his cab, reacted by shooting at his passengers feet and then into his body, killing him.

Cliff Morningstar, the dead mans uncle, said he was baffled by the killing. He had a radio, Mr. Morningstar said of Mr. Smiley. He could have gotten in his car and left. He could have shot him in his knee.

Carey Haughwout, the public defender who represents Mr. Smiley, conceded that no knife was found. However, Ms. Haughwout said, there is evidence to support that the victim came at Smiley after Smiley fired two warning shots, and that he did have something in his hand.

Prior to the legislative enactment, a person was required to retreat to the wall before using his or her right of self-defense by exercising deadly force, Judge Martha C. Warner wrote. The new law, Judge Warner said, abolished that duty.

Jason M. Rosenbloom, the man shot by his neighbor in Clearwater, said his case illustrated the flaws in the Florida law. Had it been a year and a half ago, he could have been arrested for attempted murder, Mr. Rosenbloom said of his neighbor, Kenneth Allen.

I was in T-shirt and shorts, Mr. Rosenbloom said, recalling the day he knocked on Mr. Allens door. Mr. Allen, a retired Virginia police officer, had lodged a complaint with the local authorities, taking Mr. Rosenbloom to task for putting out eight bags of garbage, though local ordinances allow only six.

I was no threat, Mr. Rosenbloom said. I had no weapon.

The men exchanged heated words. He closed the door and then opened the door, Mr. Rosenbloom said of Mr. Allen. He had a gun. I turned around to put my hands up. He didnt even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest.

Mr. Allen, whose phone number is out of service and who could not be reached for comment, told The St. Petersburg Times that Mr. Rosenbloom had had his foot in the door and had tried to rush into the house, an assertion Mr. Rosenbloom denied.

I have a right, Mr. Allen said, to keep my house safe.


Taken from sbcoalition

Originally Posted By: sbcoalition

In Colorado, another state where this law has already passed, when Gary Lee Hill stood on the porch with a loaded rifle, he was afraid the people outside his home would attack him. That was what the jury heard in his murder trial. The jury foreman said that left them no choice but to find Hill not guilty of murder under Colorados Make My Day Law. Although Mr. Knott was in his vehicle, there was no credible evidence that Mr. Knott was leaving, the foreman wrote, adding that testimony showed some of the people were still outside in a car yelling at Hill.

Gary Hill, 24, was found not guilty of first-degree murder in the shooting death, in the back, of John David Knott, 19, while he was sitting in a car outside Hills home.

Chief Deputy District Attorney Elizabeth Kirkman stated, However, the way the Make My Day Law is worded, it allows for deadly force if the shooter reasonably believes the other person might use physical force against the home dweller. She said her office supports the Make My Day Law and respects the jurys decision. She also said, At the time he was shot, there was no imminent danger to the home dweller.

Trust me, wrote Bill Major of Colorado Springs, this will open the door for assaults and murders by those who will now accept this as an interpretation of the Make My Day Law.

I try this to become a comprehensive list, so please feel free to PM me.

Thanks for participating in this discussion, times and again posts get heated (as it is a highly sensitive AND political topic) please do not take criticism on your opinion personal. Usually it relaxes pretty soon.

You're entitled to your *opinion* - whatever it is - hence quote your sources please if you want your *arguments* get taken serious...

In the past 2 years we have collected data and facts from various sources. Please verify these arguments yourself and get informed at these websites:

Wiki on gun control
The second amendment of the US constitution, on "the right to bear arms"


Pro-guns

National Rifle Association USA
How to obtain a class III license
A 1995 DOJ's study on Guns used in Crimes
Microstamping opposition

(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)

Anti gun

Brady Campaign
Informations on the NRA's board of directors
Website on comments of the NRA leaders
A UC study showing that microstamping is feasible but has flaws
Gun control network

(Please PM me your sources and the arguments they point at, I will include them here)

Scientific Studies on gun ownership and the resulting facts

Concealed handgun permit holders killed at least seven police officers and 44 private citizens in 31 incidents during the period May 2007 through April 2009 according to a new study

Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of homicide
Harvard School of Public Health releases 2007 study that links guns with higher rate of suicide
1999 Canadian study: "The rate of f...eightfold"
Utah medical library states that: "...uctivity."
Statistics on Teen homicide, suicide and... in 2004."

Articles in the news about guns, gun laws and accidents

USA Today on the expiry of the assault weapons ban
LA Times on bulletproof parks
CBS reports March 2008 that: "the U...in crimes"
A federal judge has stopped enforcement ...deadly weapons.
Violence Policy Center on CCW permit holders committing violent (armed) crimes
US weaponry spills into neighboring Mexico - across America

EDITED_BY: FireTom (1249974498)


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete Topic

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:I didn't say they automatically have that right. Do not put words in my mouth, or misrepresent what I say

I did not say that you oppose selfdefense. You brought up gun ownership by store owners. I simply addressed it. The storeowner/clerks gun often ends up in the face of the robber and perhaps fired into some merchandise

And they don't need a sign. In Milwaukee, you just assume there is a weapon behind the counter. As for bank robberies, guns aren't always used. Sometimes a bomb is threatened, a finger in a jacket pocket or a knife.

And I've found many of your citations from biased locations. Not all. So don't start posting the good ones. I know there were good ones. Of repute is not the same as unbiased


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

Mascot
Mascot

enthusiast

Member Since: 20th May 2002
Total posts: 301
Posted:I went away and thought about this. From a libertarian perspective (and I am a keen libertarian) I feel that America being a democracy, if most people want to be able to purchase and carry guns then they should be allowed to. Even if it cost some extra lives every now and again doesn't really make it wrong, it's a tradeoff that the American people may be entitled to make. I'm not obsessed by the sanctity of life.

I do however have two concerns. The first is that by opening the door to guns you might start an arms race between criminals and the police and also amoung the general populance.

The second is a negative externality arguement. Personaly I would quite like to own a gun. I've never fired a gun before, I'd like to handle a rifle and shoot targets and feel the weight of a pistol in my hand. I'd probably get bored with it pretty quick. BB guns are better cause you can actually shoot them at your friends and play games. Still it would be cool to unload a clip into a load of crockery. On the other hand I really don't want everyone to have guns, I would feel a lot less safe in general. There are a fair number of idiots in the world. Personaly I feel that forgoing the right to own a gun is a small price to pay for knowing that very few people own guns.

I'm still not passionately against gun ownership, I have strong libertarian instincts.


Walls may have ears but they don't have eyes

Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted:That's from a quotation from Admiral Yamamoto from the Japanese Navy during WWII Stout You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.

#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted:It's not low key debate FireTom. I'm not arguing in front of congress, or writing a thesis, we're having a discussion on a forum. You're back to attacking sources of things I posted a long time ago. I'm sorry but I'm not going to cite everything I say, especially things that I have (mistakenly) assumed to be common knowledge. Apparently you haven't done much historical research yourself. You really should take the time to learn about the people you despise just as much as the ones you love. You may find you have more in common than you think.

The second amendment was indeed made in different times, but not for different reasons. Just because our weapons are more effective today than they were 200+ years ago doesn't mean the reason we should have them has changed. Some would say war was far more brutal back then anyways. You like your nanny state, with the government watching over you tending you like a flock of sheep. I feel that the government should remain subordinate to the people. These are apparently key ideological differences between us. The founding fathers foresaw the potential for corruption and tyranny in any government. Don't forget that they had just fought a war for their (our) independence. The *only* reason they won is because there was an ocean between them and the enemy, and it was too much effort to continue the fight.

As for defending a coup d'etat, no, I wouldn't expect to win if they were supported by the military. Every soldier takes an oath upon entering the military, to support and defend the Constitution first and foremost. And defend the US against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Orders against the constitution should not be obeyed. Using the military for civilian police powers is extremely restricted, and convincing individual soldiers to wage war on American citizens is not going to happen easily. So yes, I think we could defend against any likely coup. We may not be able to stop it, but we can at least put up a fight and discourage it right now. The likelihood of something like that happening against a completely disarmed populace is far higher. There is a reason the Swiss haven't been to war in about 200 years, their entire population is their standing army.

So since you apparently have no knowledge about the close ties to gun control and genocide, or the wonderful tactics most dictators use of disarming their target populations, I'll post some quotes, will that make you happy?

 Written by :http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel052203.asp[/quote

Halbrook details how, upon assuming power, the Nazis relentlessly and ruthlessly disarmed their German opponents. The Nazis feared the Jews many of whom were front-line veterans of World War One so much that Jews were even disarmed of knives and old sabers.

The Nazis did not create any new firearms laws until 1938. Before then, they were able to use the Weimar Republic's gun controls to ensure that there would be no internal resistance to the Hitler regime.

In 1919, facing political and economic chaos and possible Communist revolution after Germany's defeat in the First World War, the Weimar Republic enacted the Regulation of the Council of the People's Delegates on Weapons Possession. The new law banned the civilian possession of all firearms and ammunition, and demanded their surrender "immediately."

Once the political and economic situation stabilized, the Weimar Republic created a less draconian gun-control law. The law was similar to, although somewhat milder than, the gun laws currently demanded by the American gun-control lobby.



You see FireTom, oppressive regimes tend to follow strict gun control, at least they did all through the 20th century. Turkey, the USSR, Germany, China etc etc.

"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future." Adolph Hitler, 1933.

I could get into the whole 'governments kill more people than criminals' debate with you, but it's a different sort of gun control.. In the mean time, you may want to question why things like Darfur (look at how biased Sudans gun control is), Rwanda, and just about every other 'ethnic cleansing' events happen so easily with so little resistance of those being killed. Two armed opponents going to war is one thing, but if you remove the weapons from only one side there is no war, it's just a slaughter.


-------

I'm not sure where you and Faith started with your fight about store owners carrying. But you need to understand that if I own a store, that is my property. I can carry a gun on my property however I want, concealed permit or not. It's no different than in my house, and why should it be?


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:Lurch: I guess it's fair to say that Hitler did disarm the Jewish population, not the 'entire' population. Every dictator gets support by his followers and usually they will never be disarmed... which subsequently could justify your resistance against new gun laws... btw I wonder how many of the 200 million guns estimated in the US are "legally owned"?

Please tell me one coup d'etat that has not been supported either by the general public (majority) or the regular army.

As I recall the US had a civil war after the southern states were trying to leave the Union. So much about 'independent states'...

I agree, if the majority of a country decides to bear or abolish arms it should be their democratic right. As I see it the US has differing gun laws from state to state - one problem they are facing to enforce these laws are wide open borders (I mean borders you can cross by car on a freeway without having to pass a checkpoint)...

As to the "Nannystate" of the European Union --- ubblol maybe you bother to live there (instead of just to travel it) before you make such statement. Interesting, would you base this judgement merely on our gun laws? umm

wink

Besides I found you citing facts that are more than a decade old vs. ignoring studies that are very recent.


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted: Written by :Mascot


Even if it cost some extra lives every now and again doesn't really make it wrong, it's a tradeoff that the American people may be entitled to make. I'm not obsessed by the sanctity of life.



I don't know that we are that flippant about life as a populace. We use them to protect the sanctity of life from one perspective. The legal ones bought for defense.

 Written by :Mascot


by opening the door to guns you might start an arms race between criminals and the police .



Some cops would tell you this is already the case. As for criminals and regular folk: I don't know because the criminals are part of the general populace. I know my best friends if probably better armed than the majority of criminals in Milwaukee. But he uses them for target practice and hunting. He has a big German Shepherd for the protecting


 Written by :Mascot


The second is a negative externality arguement. Personaly I would quite like to own a gun. I've never fired a gun before, I'd like to handle a rifle and shoot targets and feel the weight of a pistol in my hand. I'd probably get bored with it pretty quick. BB guns are better cause you can actually shoot them at your friends and play games. Still it would be cool to unload a clip into a load of crockery. .



You still shouldn't shot at your friends-lol. I think that you use the word cool is a little bothersome. And it doesn't say anything against you but I think the cool factor is not a reason to have a gun. It leads to the "cowboy" perception of US Americans that I really don't like. And I don't mean it against you, but as a general observation.


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:Oh Tom, you just piss me off to no end bounce


 Written by :FireTom


btw I wonder how many of the 200 million guns estimated in the US are "legally owned"?



According to commondream.org, all of them. And it also suggested that we are approaching one gun per person, but that doesn't take into account that many people who own one weapon, own more than one. Best friend has 10 or so various pistols, rifles and shotguns.

 Written by :FireTom


As I recall the US had a civil war after the southern states were trying to leave the Union. So much about 'independent states'...



They didn't have the right to cede so anyways

 Written by :FireTom

(I mean borders you can cross by car on a freeway without having to pass a checkpoint)...



Ummm noooo. That's not going to happen and is kinda dumb. That's a f censoreding nanny state and not going to happen.

 Written by :FireTom

(As to the "Nannystate" of the European Union --- ubblol maybe you bother to live there (instead of just to travel it) before you make such statement.



I think this knife cuts both ways.


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:Well, Faith - sorry to bother you that much.



The point I tried to make was that state legislation and democracy is fine but as the US has no internal borders, some states definitely have to suffer because ppl can just cross the border and buy a gun there. They wouldn't have to cross a border or checkpoint.



The next point I was trying to make was that IF there would be 200 million 'legally' owned guns in the US - how many more are there 'illegally' owned... that must be then... wow - you guys really start to freak me out wink



As to "Nanny-State EU", living there and the double edged knife: As stated before I travelled and years later spent months living in Manhattan and a few more living in L.A. (besides having travelled a few times to Phoenix, Tucson, Miami (very scary place btw), upstate New York, Connecticut, Boston, Utah, Nevada, California, Virginia...) All in all I spent way more than a year in the States - dunno really how much experience on the EU you or Lurch can present in return wink



You guys can choose to live however you like - I just hope you stay safe and have never to suffer from news like one of your friends got shot or died in a gun accident... shrug



You might further consider that the EU consists of only 27 members but a population of almost half a billion, by that outnumbering the population of the US. Further the EU is one of the - if not THE - biggest trader(s) worldwide and aid donor... but I'm slipping off topic.



You guys do what you like and I will continue to bring up any new massacre... meditate



And finally you might consider that "death by gun violence or accident" is not nearly as popular in the EU as it is in the US... 'Nanny State' or not, it's just not even remotely as likely to get shot in the EU as it is in the US shrug

EDITED_BY: FireTom (1210433643)


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:I have lost friends to gun violence but that is not going to make me be afraid of guns. They were weapons in the hands of people who made bad decisions.
Since we are talking about the US, I feel my lack of travel experience outside the US isn't that big of a deal. Lurch has spent time outside the US, so for that I defer to him.
How can you not love Miami. Very cool place.
Illegal guns also are not necessarily going to be used in the commission of a crime. A buddy of mine has a pot felony and isn't supposed to have a weapon, but if he did I doubt he would go out and rob a liquor store.

But seriously, you were trying to use the civil war against? Sorta sad


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:What I was referring to in regards of the civil war is that your states are not free to do whatever they want. They can't just bow out of the 'alliance'... Not 'that' much freedom is it?

Why I didn't like Miami? Well that's been in the times where especially tourists with rental cars, coming from the airport got targeted, robbed and frequently killed?

I drove in a rental from the airport and accidentally hit the wrong turn off... the area I found ourselves in has been more than scary... yeah, the beach was nice, errm kinda *cough*silicone*cough*steroid*cough*infested - but eehaa, nice water... certainly some like it just like that wink


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:we can't yell fire in the middle of a crowded theater either.

No states can't just bow out. Can counties just bow out of the UK? Are they being repressed? Your implications are petty and childish. If a state could just leave whenever it got pissed the country would be changing all the time. Holes in the middle of our country would exist of a whole new country.

So there are parts in the EU too that don't like too. Because that would only make sense. I don't get your point about the beach. So you took a wrong turn and you didn't like what you saw, and now it's a bad area or because you heard some horror stories?


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:I thought they got cash-back and all kinds of offers, but this is a new one...

 Written by : BBC News


US car dealer in free gun offer

The offer is proving popular - sales have quadrupled so far

A car dealership in the United States is offering a free handgun with every vehicle sold.

Max Motors in Butler, Missouri, says sales have quadrupled since the start of the offer.

Customers can choose between a gun or a $250 (125) gas card, but most so far have chosen the gun.

Owner Mark Muller said: "We're just damn glad to live in a free country where you can have a gun if you want to."

The dealership sells new and old vehicles, including General Motors and Ford cars and trucks, and its logo shows a cowboy holding a pistol.

It has sold more than 30 cars and trucks in the past three days, an increase which the owners put down to their promotional offer.

Inspiration from Obama

Mr Muller said that every buyer so far "except one guy from Canada and one old guy" chose the gun, rather than the gas card.

He recommends a Kel-Tec .380 pistol, which he describes as "a nice little handgun that fits in your pocket".

He added that the promotion was inspired by recent comments from one of the Democratic nominees for the presidential election, saying: "We did it because of Barack Obama.

"He said all those people in the Midwest, you've got to have compassion for them because they're clinging to their guns and their Bibles. I found that quite offensive. We all go to church on Sunday and we all carry guns."

The website advertisement for the offer, which continues until the end of the month, mentions that an approved background check on gun ownership is required.



the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted:I take it you don't find Obama's comments offensive at all FireTom? I don't cling to bibles though that's for sure..

Anyways, this isn't surprising, nor is it all that bad. You seem to have forgotten all the times I've brought up the difference between the rural community and the inner city communities. Guns in rural America are probably far more common place, popular, understood, and respected than you will find in the cities. So what exactly is your problem with a car dealership giving a free gun with their car sales? Do you think they're going into gangs hands? or is it that we're vicariously financing terrorism and wars in 3rd world countries with them?

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=...332336&z=12

Maybe all those people are using their new cars to drive to Kansas City to sell their new free gun!


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:Oooh when I found out he said that....I hate IL people on principle but he takes the cake wink
grrr
The Milwaukee crime statistics are out and good things are happening. And we are religious/some spiritual, but that doesn't mean we cling to our Bible. heck Catholics get accused of not being Biblical enough.


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:Well Obama is (will be) the presidential candidate for the Democrats - if one, then HE should know *what* truths he get away with. At least he's halfway right - if you let go of the Bible, that is wink

But maybe the US will find a "James Earl Ray/ Lee Harvey Oswald solution" to the challenge of possibly having the first black president in history (possibly along with the first female Vice-President)?

As to answer your question: To me he seems to be a reasonable man - and the US seems to be desperate enough to actually vote for him... I pray for his safety (and success).


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:Whatever, he's just a guy with buzzwords and no more.

There is nothing wrong with being faithful and there is nothing wrong about voting your values when all the secular humanists do the same thing. Popular vote determines what the majority wants and if people aren't happy, they should vote. Don't be mad because the Christians actually vote and the idealists stay at home mulling ideas and not doing anything


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:Faith, you're getting me wrong (again).



There is nothing wrong with "having faith". Vice versa. But there's a lot wrong with having *blind* faith.



Vote your values and teach those idealistic peacerally-attending Hippies a lesson.



I'm not mad when the Cristians vote their values and the other -ists don't. I'm getting mad if the general public goes to vote and gets cheated (like in the previous persidential election(s))... I'm getting mad, when "idealists" try to raise awareness, get muffled and accused of being "unpatriotic" by so called "realists". That's pretty much it. shrug



wink


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:idealism has little to do with reality and those idealists sometimes go too far. Calling my friends murders because they are in the Iraq war babykillers and all that

Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:It's a gross generalisation to call all US soldiers "murderers" and "babykillers" - I side you on this one. Fact is that atrocities against the civil population of Iraq have been committed by US soldiers. The US government could help to set the records straight to condemn and persecute those GIs involved and make it publicly known.

No question that some ideals are beyond reason sometimes.

No question that lumping all "idealists" over the same edge is a similar approach...


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:These things have been done by a small percentage of these soldiers. Most are there to help. My best friend is helping with water and schools right now.
What soldiers do is no business of the media that sensationalizes everything. Being reprimanded is all that is needed because that is nothing to sneeze at in the military


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:Faith - we're completely offtopic. If you would like to discus the US military presence in Iraq and the (wrongful) media coverage of it - I'll be happy to do that in your/ it's own thread.

Just that much: "Most GI's are there to help" - errm, yes that might be true. Personally I can't verify that statement.

Yet civilians got and still get killed (amongst them babies) and the US invaded Iraq on completely false pretenses. The Bush administration (as meanwhile certified) completely cunned the US public. A lot of cowspoo derives from US foreign policies and I hope the next US president is one who will curb the damage dun.

What soldiers do (IMHO) *is* business of the media - personally I'm happy that they *do* report from Iraq to the public and *do* let us know what is happening there. How much that reflects the reality and how much the media blows it out of proportion is another story.

Personally I always perceived the US Army to contain mainly of professional soldiers, not volunteers - it doesn't quite equal the Salvation Army does it? However I am far from condemning all of them on the account of a very few. As the audience matures they eventually will do the same. Sorry, I'm the wrong addressee to look for applause on unjustified war and their participants.

But as I said - the topic deserves its own thread.... please.


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted:Why would you tell her to make her own thread then continue to ramble on off topic?

Sure, what soldiers do *can* be the business of the media, but it's not a right by any means. Especially with the many instances where the embedded reporters have put their soldiers (their protectors) at risk by leaking important information.

You're mad when the general public gets cheated out of the will of the majority? Well I've got news for you FireTom, by in large the 'general public' doesn't care whether or not I own a gun, because chances are they have one, or know someone that already has one. Those misguided outspoken fearmongering few like the Brady campaign continue to try and cheat the general public out of their rights under the guise of "safety for the community"


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:Why would I not state my opinion and still ask Faith to start her own thread? She can reply (still) offtopic, what could I do about it? smile

What soldiers do (in the name of the general public anyway) is greatly a business of the media for way over a century now and personally I reckon it's good that people "back home" learn what is done with their reputation and taxmoney abroad - especially in the case of Iraq.

Back on topic and the rest of your post: let's wait and see smile


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:I wasn't the one who went off topic

It isn't the media's business because we have no idea what war is like. It's a different reality.

My question is how exactly does the general public get cheated when we are the ones who are supposed to be voting here. If we don't vote we cannot complain.

Anyways, lately, I've been hearing more about stabbings and beatings, than shootings. There have been two beating on bus drivers. Scarey


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted: Written by : Faith


It isn't the media's business because we have no idea what war is like. It's a different reality.

My question is how exactly does the general public get cheated when we are the ones who are supposed to be voting here. If we don't vote we cannot complain.



a) How do you know? And even if it was "a different reality" - how would that affect the right of information?

If taken to extremes, you could say that I cannot legibly criticise conditions in the US, as it's a different reality and I'm not a resident (an approach thta I have heard before).

b) How is there an "obligation to vote"? And even if there were, how could it superceed that "right to complain about the present conditions"?

We have the "right for free speech" (even if it's not on topic) and by that can raise awareness. Awareness subsequently can lead to live a more harmonious life. It's not that we need to indulge in negativity simply by acknowledging that the society at preasent is not perfect.

That in itself is an independent notion...

wink


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:How do I know? Because I have friends on the front line. I've had friends who's lives ended up as part of a news story. Information is not biased but those who present it and those that interpret it give it a swing. We may see a woman blown up but they saw a woman with a bomb strapped to herself walking toward their convoy with a child in tow. That is not a fictional account but a factual one given to me by a friend on leave.

And no I don't think you understand our culture and nor do you want to. Your criticism is not to help but rather to cut and I feel, be destructive

That is part of our culture, the voting. And this shows all the more the void between you and us. You vote to have your voice heard and action is important. Why complain that you're wet when you stand in the middle of a rainstorm and refuse to come out of the rain. You can complain but no one will listen to you and most likely people will tell you to shush. We are talking about taking someones right to free speech, and that you would take it there only reveals how acerbic you really are. This is about people committing to change rather than simply talking about it. Talk and awareness do little and remain talk and awareness if nothing is done.


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:So you do support change... that would indicate you perceive the present state as imperfect. Does that include the current US gun legislation or does it not?

Admittedly, Mc Cain would mean a great deal of change for America, just as the Bush dynasty did... wink

Voting is not to have your voice heard, Faith. You vote to calm your consciousness and to give a justification to the present system. Going to vote all 4 years alone is not going to make any difference whatsoever and making an "x" on a sheet of paper is not considered "doing something (right)". You have your way of democracy, yet it has nothing to do with what democracy *really* is.

It's true, just because I spent time in the US and had USAmerican friends (who I talked about living and dying in that country) does not make me understand anything. I note that even the first hand information I gathered myself and the first hand information I received from my friends is biased too. I know it's getting dangerous where I reckon to have the only valid view on reality.

You have made up your mind about me already, it seems. Not much I can do about it. No matter how often I ask you to cut your *personal* attacks, you continue.

thankx for sharing your thoughts about me, but continuing to call me names and use derogatory terms is only due to your personal vendetta. It doesn't make it much better. Please stick to (what you think) are 'the facts according to the topic'.


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

faith enfire
faith enfire

wandering thru the woods of WI
Location: Wisconsin
Member Since: 27th Jan 2006
Total posts: 3556
Posted:What personal attack, Tom. There is none. I put it in the form of an opinioned obeservation. What names?

Yes, you do vote to have your voice heard.

Present gun legislation, I am comfortable with and think it merely needs more enforcement.

People live and die in many countries, the US is not the only country that has people die in it, no?

Did I say the only right is in voting? Please desist from twisting my words out of context or just putting random ones in.

I do plenty in my community but voting takes it to another level. Local, state and national votes. What do you take us for? Vote to ameliorate our conscience. That is a personal attack if anything I've said is. To imply that all I do is to vote and then do nothing to help the community and that I only vote at a national level. It would seem that I am not the only one who has preconcieved notions about those in this discussion


Faith
Nay, whatever comes one hour was sunlit and the most high gods may not make boast of any better thing than to have watched that hour as it passed

Delete

FireTom
Stargazer

Member Since: 20th Sep 2003
Total posts: 6650
Posted:@Lurch: Just recently I've been reading into essays regarding the rise of the NSDAP in Germany and - unfortunately - it seems as if the ban of firearms was already introduced by the Weimar Republic. This subsequently led to protests of (Bavarian based) militia and fueled support for the NSDAP.

At this point I can't quite provide links as the essays have been in German only, but I will do my best to find the authors online and give you an opportunity to verify.

At the time that the Nazi regime attempted to 'disarm the general population', support has already been around 50% or more. The claim that Jews were posing a potential threat to the Nazi regime and got disarmed due to that reason might prove itself insubstantial due to the (blind) support of the regime and prevailing antisemitism of this time (=Jews themselves would not remotely have been able to threat Germany's interior safety or the regime of the NSDAP - the disarmament was a measure along with a lot other reprisals).

Again, history might repeat itself as Barack Obamas comments about the US' midwest population and their favor for guns apparently might diminish their support for his electoral campaign. Disarming the general public seems to be highly unpopular with US citizens and makes them cling even harder/ turn to conservative/republican policies - just as it happened in Germany during the early 20st century.


the best smiles are the ones you lead to wink

Delete

Lurch
Lurch

old hand
Location: Oregon
Member Since: 1st Nov 2003
Total posts: 929
Posted:Well that was a little out of nowhere..

But yes, you're right (for the most part). A good chunk of Germany's gun control was introduced with the Weimar Republic, I'm pretty sure I said that exact same thing if you actually look up and read my post wink

The Nazi's didn't need to pass additional laws for awhile after they gained power because the laws from the Weimar government already forced gun registration. The Nazi party didn't introduce its own gun laws until 1938, but all that did was further restrict Jews and a select for other parties. You may want to read The Holocaust by Leni Yahil, and Resistance: The Warsaw Ghetto Uprising by Israel Guttman. Or you could hit up Kopel's book Lethal Laws where he goes a little more in depth about the Weimar laws.
Guns were required to have serial numbers. (They are now in the US for the most part as well)
Those without were required to be stamped
Permit required to obtain a gun (required in some states)
Permit required to obtain ammunition
Permit required to carry a gun
Permits only given to people of "Undoubted Reliablity"


Since the Nazi Party was in control of the police, who were in control of the permits, it wasn't hard to limit access to firearms to whoever they wanted.

The Nazi's laws in 1938 didn't allow Jews to work in businesses involving guns. And also introduced a minimum age (18) and another permit for handguns, among other things. After Kistallnacht they were pretty much banned from having any weapons.

I never ment to say that the Jews may have been able to overthrow the Nazi Party if they were armed. That is most certainly doubtful, but when you look at the power that a relatively small number of armed, and determined people can have (Warsaw for example) there is no doubt the war could have been changed dramatically if they actually *had* a way to resist. Passive resistance isn't exactly effective against an opponent intent on killing you.

As for Disarming America being unpopular, you bet it is. It's seen as giving up our rights, and our freedoms. Even doing such a thing "for the good of the public" is frowned on in this country. Obviously that's something that seems difficult to comprehend for people outside the country.

My freedom is more important to me than my safety. If you can't understand that then you won't understand me.


#homeofpoi -- irc.newnet.net Come talk to us we're bored frown

Warning: Please Do Not Jump On The Seals

Delete

Page: 1...2728293031...44

Similar Topics

Using the keywords [gun law* quot license murder quot] we found the following similar topics.
1. Learn > POI > Partner Poi > Partner Poi Suicides (aka Murder Suicide) *help/resource murder suicide   ...
2. Forums > US Gun laws are "License to murder" [1 reply]
3. Forums > weird laws [8 replies]
4. Forums > the NEW smoking laws [103 replies]
5. Forums > Know the score as regards the law?? [10 replies]

     Show more..