Lawyers, doctors, or guns

[toddler]

Phred, nope, not a member, doing fine thinking for myself(and I'll refrain from name calling).

Thanks all for a generally very civil discussion on a touch subject. Learned something from all of you.

Now as a neurotic city slicker, I'm off to surf the web for one of those electronic shark repellers in case any of those fresh water capable bull sharks makes it up here to lake champlain near my day care attending, future soccer playing/ballet dancing/karate chopping 18month old. Not sure what to do about that cute black bear that wandered across the front yard 2 weeks ago though. Maybe we can throw strawberries into the lake so he'll go in first and test for sharks?? Gonna sleep on that one for a bit.

Good night all.
Todd

 

[Wingnut]

Todd ... Since you're still comparing cars to guns, I have to respectfully disagree on the licensing of cars. The sole reason of license plates, registrations, title fees (hey, Kevin ... can you believe that they actually charge you to give you an official piece of paper that legitimizes your bill-of sale??? Good thing the Canadian governments haven't found about that one yet) and all the others are to raise money without calling it a tax ... it's a FEE which is different, you see.
Driver's License? Identification .. pure and simple. Sure, make it look like it's for the public's benefit by having a mamby-pamby test that people who cabn't even speak or read english can pass. Yep.
But ... I still gotta submit that just because SOME people think guns should be registered and owners licensed ... they have nothing whatsoever in common. Therefore any comparisons are nonsensical.
And before I go any further ... I do admire the way you stickj to your guns! (pun intentional) Standing up for your beliefs is admirable.
So ... why do we need to license guns and/or owners? 'Cause they're dangerous? What isn't? Anything (like my story about boiling water) can be used to injure, maim or kill someone.
Personally ... GlenMac has hit it on the head with his question as to whether it's guns or the principle. For me, it's the principle. You (this is the general public, not you in particular) have been convinced by gun haters that guns ... more specifically handguns ... are evil and therefore, by extension, so are people who have them. Man ... that scares me! That attitude is what burned the witches in Salem ... started many wars ... got people lynched in the deep south in the early years.
My attitude is ... you don't like them ... don't have them.
Me? I don't like oranges. But ... I don't figure that because I don't like oranges ... laws should be passed forcing citrus growers to be licensed and have their trees confiscated.There, I like that comparison better ... guns <> oranges makes much more sense than guns <> cars.

Oh, on a final note ... I do find the fact that if you don't post your land, people can trespass, hunt, and generally make themselves at home almost as endearing as "eminent domain". To me, private property is private property. I would no more dream of entering your property uninvited than I would of asking you to disarm yourself.


too bad that common sense ain't

 

[JonE]

Listening to the news this AM. Turns out that scientists now affirm that sharks no longer mistake people for fish or some other mammal but now consider people as a good source of food. Amazing! I wonder how they made that decision? The sharks that is./w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif

 

[Anonymous Poster]

<font color=blue>scientists now affirm that sharks... now consider people as a good source of food</font color=blue>

I remember hearing a black Congresssman get up in front of the House and claiming that so many slaves were thrown overboard that sharks continue to swim the slave routes to this day looking for food.

Of course this is a bunch of bunk. I wonder if they received a government grant to fund their amazing discovery.

 

[Anonymous Poster]

Gun \"rights\"

Well, we don't need the 2nd Amendment to grant us the RKBA. And EVERY gun law is blatantly unconstitutional. Doubt me? Read this essay:

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/silveira58.html

 

[Wingnut]

>>I wonder how they made that decision? The sharks that is.
<<

taste test??

too bad that common sense ain't

 

[TerryinMD]

I have been reading this thread since it started. Some very interesting viewpoints.

Taking away all of the emotional points and looking at the issue from a constitutional perspective, the constitution wins. Hands down. Sorry.... The Government can protect us from ourselves to a limited degree. People be people!!

I have two Thompson-Center flintlock rifles. A 50 Cal Hawkins and 54 Cal Renegade. Haven't used either in 20 years. Just haven't made the time. If I had to use them, they would make good clubs. Don't own any other weapons. Just really never thought much about it. Enough said about that...

I received a forwarded email from my father-in-law tonight and will share the message. Here 'tis....
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Disarm Law abiding Citizens for a safer World!

From: Ed Chenel, a police officer in Australia.

I thought you all would like to see the real figures from Down Under.

It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by a new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by our own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500
million dollars.

The first year results are now in:

Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent,

Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent;

Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent!)

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. (Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not and criminals still possess their guns!)

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since the criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is
unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the elderly. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in "successfully ridding Australian society of guns."

You won't see this data on the American evening news or hear your governor or members of the state Assembly disseminating this information.

The Australian experience proves it. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note Americans, before it's to late!

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So, I guess the problem is just not here... It's global!!!!!

 

[toddler]

Re: Gun "rights"

TB2K,

Interesting article. Liked it a lot as it makes a fairly logical argument. Unfortunately, every law which limits your "rights" in any way could be considered unconstitutional. I'm not averse to the anarchist philosophy mind you, but if you want to make the "right to bear arms" a natural right, you need to make heroin, cocaine, marijuanna, prostitution, and suicide, natural rights too. Plus a slew of others.

Again, I'm OK with that argument. I'm also OK with some restrictions on those "rights", for the sake of public safety. Some laws limit rights, some protect them, and what the founding fathers felt was appropriate in the 1790's might not be appropriate today. But, guns in the hands of private citizens is not what keeps our government in check today any more than fertilizer is what killed in Oklahoma. It's the people who keep the government in check. Not with guns or bombs. With utilization of the first amendment, education, debate, etc.

What I've learned from this thread is that some states have far too many useless gun laws. These useless or inane gun laws, possibly passed by the "gun fearing city dwellers" have pissed off the people who they adversely affect. I'd ditch them all for some that might actually do <font color=red>some</font color=red> good. Not saying what I've proposed is perfect, it's simply what I feel is reasonable. If you actually read the entire thread /w3tcompact/icons/crazy.gif, you notice I've never attacked the second amendment, or used it's language as the basis of my arguments.

Wingnut,

I told one of my nurses today that she needs to go buy a shotgun. Her plan to protect herself if anyone breaks into her home, involves the loaded pistol under her pillow. She's worked out where she'll stand, and where the intruder will have to go to get into the house etc. Unfortunately, if she misses her target, the bullet is going into the neighbors house. Now the odds of anyone breaking in to her home and causing this to happen are so small, that I'm not really concerned for the neighbors from a practical point of view. But she's an example of some of the people in urban areas who buy guns. I took her case, and the lifetime hunter in rural West Virginia into account when I argued what I felt was reasonable. I appreciate that many people felt it was not reasonable. But my nurse is not as rare as you think. She's not even the only nurse I have working for me, with a pistol in their room, to whom I've suggested the dog and shotgun to. So I take some offense, very minimal mind you, to being grouped with the gun haters. You're dealing with a guy who almost bought a Colt 10mm just because it's a cool caliber and I thought they'd stop making them with everything going to 9mm. Decided it cost to much ported and equiped how I wanted it for target shooting. Since I have no need for a gun, didn't buy one. I don't, however, dislike guns.

I think I'm fairly tollerant of just about anything that isn't intrinsically destructive or harmful. The only thing I really have a hard time with in life is stupidity. If I saw less of it in my daily encounters, I probably wouldn't feel a safety course in guns and ammo was necessary or useful. Wish that were the case!!

So should be legalize prostitution and marijuanna. (please G-d, let this change the subject so I can stop writing a dissertation each night/w3tcompact/icons/tongue.gif).


Todd

 

[toddler]

Neat statistics.

Todd {a firm supporter of big dogs, shotguns, and pistols (in limited applications)}/w3tcompact/icons/smile.gif

 

[Phred]

Todd,

I am sorry if I offended you, I did not intend to call you a name personally. What I mean is that a group of americans are arguing that the individual rights of americans (gun onwership) should be set aside for the supposed greater good of society.
You have been arguing this point of view, have you not?

While I respect your point of view and I respect your right to dislike gun ownership, this does not mean that I have to take it lying down.
Once again many of us resent the fact that people who have never touched a gun, and have in many cases only flown over the majority of the country, feel the need to dictate public policy to the rest of us.
Are you aware that to get my permit to carry I was required to submit to a full set of finger prints like some common criminal? And you want to make it more restrictive!

If people who claim to be worried about gun violence want to actually do something about it, they will drop the assault on legal gun ownership and deal with the real problem.

The facts are:
1) that the constitution will never be changed in my life time since it requires ratification by the states. This will not happen. I can think of ~10 states that would do so, no more.
2) The drafters of the document did in fact intend it to apply to individual people. If you dought this point then you have not studied history in any detail.
3) Legal gun owners are not the problem; lawless people are.

I you are so easily offended why would you post an antigun thesis to a bunch folks that are interested in tractors! /w3tcompact/icons/shocked.gif
I suspect the density of tractors is a little greater in alabama than in san francisco, unless harv has been hard at work/w3tcompact/icons/wink.gif.
Fred