Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 142
  1. Widdy's Avatar
    Posts
    75 Posts
    Global Posts
    78 Global Posts
    #101  
    Quote Originally Posted by Christinac130 View Post
    I live in Acworth and that law scared the Hell out of me when I first moved here. I've been here seven years and never seen anyone with a gun...
    Well...not everybody wears them on their belt like Wildman!
  2. #102  
    Quote Originally Posted by Widdy View Post
    Well...not everybody wears them on their belt like Wildman!
    Well, I figured with that law I'd see everyone and their Grandma with a gun on every corner! But, I still have yet to see even one...
  3. Widdy's Avatar
    Posts
    75 Posts
    Global Posts
    78 Global Posts
    #103  
    Quote Originally Posted by Christinac130 View Post
    Well, I figured with that law I'd see everyone and their Grandma with a gun on every corner! But, I still have yet to see even one...
    Lots of people think that when they first come here.
  4. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #104  
    ^ That's because Kennesaw is not Decatur.
  5. #105  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Of course not. When I see Japan and Canada's statistics and ranking approach our abysmal statistics on gun laws vs. gun violence then I would change my position.

    Again, not sure why you are so caught up on this train of thought. We agree that one person dying is one too many. Still, allowing that pain to be multiplied by 30 by making it easy for this psycho to obtain a gun is 30 times more painfuil to me because the whole incident was avoidable.
    I continued the train of thought for three reasons:

    1. you asked
    2. to make it clear that the travesty is in the murder itself, not the number of victims
    3. to demonstrate that limiting access to guns is not the cure, as we have agreed that even without a gun, the travesty could (would) have occured.

    2 does equal 30

    But murder = murder
  6. #106  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Well you didn't let me down - I knew eventually someone would play the "but here is an example of someone who stopped a violent act because they were armed themselves" card. Yes, I am sure the NRA can send you at least one of these stories for every 17,000 suicides; every 5,000 death of child caused by firearms; etc. What a myopic view of the subject you have.
    That's rich. You advocate the failed policy of more gun control laws and you accuse me of myopia.

    Here's reality. There are 260 million plus guns in this country. You want our guns? Come get them.
  7. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #107  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever View Post
    Here's reality. There are 260 million plus guns in this country. You want our guns? Come get them.
    And what "well regulated Militia" do you belong to?
  8. #108  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    And what "well regulated Militia" do you belong to?
    The same one you do. Read the US code.
  9. #109  
    I think 1911's point is...

    That Rounding up the guns in this country is not only futile but a mute argument.

    Why do most of the people who preach this concept when dicussing the Aliens, fail to translate the logistics to firearms?
  10. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #110  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever View Post
    The same one you do. Read the US code.
    The code as clarified by the Supreme Court? Their last major ruling on this in UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 ( http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=307&invol=174 ) references/agrees with the definition of 'militia' from Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Book V Ch 1:

    'Men of republican principles have been jealous of a standing army as dangerous to liberty.' 'In a militia, the character of the labourer, artificer, or tradesman, predominates over that of the soldier: in a standing army, that of the soldier predominates over every other character; and in this distinction seems to consist the essential difference between those two different species of military force.'
    All lower court legal proceedings/definitions hence have been attempts to sidestep/avoid the inevitable.
    Last edited by backbeat; 04/24/2007 at 01:06 PM.
  11. #111  
    Quote Originally Posted by backbeat View Post
    The code as clarified by the Supreme Court? Their last major ruling on this in UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 ( http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=307&invol=174 ) references/agrees with the definition of 'militia' from Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Book V Ch 1:



    All lower court legal proceedings/definitions hence have been attempts to sidestep/avoid the inevitable.
    Yes. The unorganized militia. Armed citizenry.

    What do you deem inevitable? That the supremes will decide the 2A isn't an individual right? They well may. Look what they did with Kelo. The 5th Circuit, and more recently the DC circuit, don't seem to follow that collectivist interpretation.

    You citation of Miller is incomplete. Are you aware the defense counsel didn't even attend? Miller died before the case made it to the court.

    It will one day boil down to this...you want them, come get them.
  12. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #112  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever View Post
    It will one day boil down to this...come get them.
    Since when did 'well regulated Militia' equate to 'unorganized'? Those nutty, wacky Deist Founding Fathers didn't mean what they debated/voted to write within the context of the day!

    Tangential details of the case are lacking in merit to the overall argument.

    Does inviting a US domestic armed conflict somehow bring about the Apocalypse that the christian-right believe to be inevitable? Thanks for the invite ... But, seriously ... Is that the plan?
  13.    #113  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever View Post
    It will one day boil down to this...you want them, come get them.
    Ooohhh.... I bet George W. and his NUCLEAR ARMED military are quaking in their boots over the prospect that your Desert Eagle may dent one of their F16s.

    The spirit of the right to bear arms has long been cast aside ever since advanced military equipment has been banned from sale to civilians. You're beyond dillusional if you think that a) your government fears you because you own guns (instead they fear your money may stop funding their campaigns) and b) they'd never trust a civilian band of gun owners for anything remotely military unless you sign the dotted line and enlist....at which point they'll issue you a gun of their choosing.
  14.    #114  
    Quote Originally Posted by sxtg View Post
    I think 1911's point is...

    That Rounding up the guns in this country is not only futile but a mute argument.

    Why do most of the people who preach this concept when dicussing the Aliens, fail to translate the logistics to firearms?
    Actually 1911 proves just how well the NRA rhetoric works to get money flowing to those politicians that will protect their right to bear arms. With over 260MM guns in this country it would be impossible to collect them all -yet to listen to the NRA with their "from my cold, dead hands" hyperbole you'd think the Dems are going to come looking for your guns door-to-door.

    So I don't advocate a banning of all guns simply because we're too far gone. We can and should act as democracy whereby we find a way to compromise for the betterment of society and in that regard both political parties and those extremist that support them have failed miserably.

    The net of it, EFFECTIVE gun control - not diluted by the NRA so that they can come back years later and claim gun laws don't work (how can they when they spend millions making sure they don't?) is possible in this country if rational people are willing to find common ground. Judging by this thread we have a long way to go....
  15. #115  
    Ah. Now I see. Your zealous anti-Christian bigotry shines through...anyone who owns a gun and views the government with suspicion is a bible thumping nut. Got it.

    I note you decline to comment on the recent court findings, or the modern "standard model" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that is carrying the day in those rulings. Typical of your ilk.

    Have you ever noted how many of the states have a 2nd Amendment in their constitutions? Do you REALLY think the framers, who had just fought a war of independence would seek to limit arms in the population? That they would author a Bill of Rights enumerating free speech, assembly, etc, and then guarantee the governemnt a right to an army? You must've really loved Michael Besllisle's book...too bad he turned out to be such a fraud.

    The "plan" is as the framers intended. The 2nd Amendment stands as a bulwark the people man against a tyrannical government, criminals and, more recently, terrorists.

    And while not a Christian, I am starting more and more to believe that the domestic armed conflict you refer to is, in fact, inevitable.
  16. #116  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    Actually 1911 proves just how well the NRA rhetoric works to get money flowing to those politicians that will protect their right to bear arms. With over 260MM guns in this country it would be impossible to collect them all -yet to listen to the NRA with their "from my cold, dead hands" hyperbole you'd think the Dems are going to come looking for your guns door-to-door.

    So I don't advocate a banning of all guns simply because we're too far gone. We can and should act as democracy whereby we find a way to compromise for the betterment of society and in that regard both political parties and those extremist that support them have failed miserably.

    The net of it, EFFECTIVE gun control - not diluted by the NRA so that they can come back years later and claim gun laws don't work (how can they when they spend millions making sure they don't?) is possible in this country if rational people are willing to find common ground. Judging by this thread we have a long way to go....
    Guns exist. Criminals exist.
    Gun control will not change the mindset of criminals, It just won't!
  17. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #117  
    Quote Originally Posted by moderateinny View Post
    The net of it, EFFECTIVE gun control - not diluted by the NRA so that they can come back years later and claim gun laws don't work (how can they when they spend millions making sure they don't?) is possible in this country if rational people are willing to find common ground. Judging by this thread we have a long way to go....
    This cuts to the chase of one of my central arguments. The elimination of K Street as the unelected, unqualified, defacto respresentative of the People to Congress. Without the lobby money in the system, those in Congress who cast votes only have themselves and their constituency to hold them accountable. How refreshing! An honest-to-goodness republican representative government.
  18.    #118  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever View Post
    Ah. Now I see. Your zealous anti-Christian bigotry shines through...anyone who owns a gun and views the government with suspicion is a bible thumping nut. Got it.

    I note you decline to comment on the recent court findings, or the modern "standard model" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that is carrying the day in those rulings. Typical of your ilk.

    Have you ever noted how many of the states have a 2nd Amendment in their constitutions? Do you REALLY think the framers, who had just fought a war of independence would seek to limit arms in the population? That they would author a Bill of Rights enumerating free speech, assembly, etc, and then guarantee the governemnt a right to an army? You must've really loved Michael Besllisle's book...too bad he turned out to be such a fraud.

    The "plan" is as the framers intended. The 2nd Amendment stands as a bulwark the people man against a tyrannical government, criminals and, more recently, terrorists.

    And while not a Christian, I am starting more and more to believe that the domestic armed conflict you refer to is, in fact, inevitable.
    Are you talking to me or BB? I am trying to see where I've indicated I am anti-christian.
  19. backbeat's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    138 Global Posts
    #119  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever View Post
    Ah. Now I see. Your zealous anti-Christian bigotry shines through...anyone who owns a gun and views the government with suspicion is a bible thumping nut. Got it.
    You find argument where this is none.

    I note you decline to comment on the recent court findings, or the modern "standard model" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that is carrying the day in those rulings. Typical of your ilk.
    I've already addressed these side-step measures.

    Have you ever noted how many of the states have a 2nd Amendment in their constitutions? Do you REALLY think the framers, who had just fought a war of independence would seek to limit arms in the population? That they would author a Bill of Rights enumerating free speech, assembly, etc, and then guarantee the governemnt a right to an army? You must've really loved Michael Besllisle's book...too bad he turned out to be such a fraud.
    I'm quartering a British soldier. Get a rope!

    I am starting more and more to believe that the domestic armed conflict you refer to is, in fact, inevitable.
    See ya in the streets!
  20.    #120  
    Quote Originally Posted by 1911sforever View Post
    ...anyone who owns a gun and views the government with suspicion...
    Do you? Do you really view it with suspicion? Or are you only suspicious when it suits you? http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...d.php?t=122312

    So let me get this straight - you're suspicious of our government (as well you should be) and want to own firearms to defend yourself against them and/or overthrow them if need be BUT it's OK if they illegally spy on you with warrantless surveillance?

    Why can they be trusted to spy on us without warrants (which the FBI just proved why the government cannot be trusted with warrantless powers) yet you don't trust that they will let them keep your guns? Or has it occured to you they might be spying on you because you own guns....oohhh...the plot thickens.
Page 6 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Posting Permissions