GUN CONTROL & YOU

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='474768' date='Apr 19 2007, 01:48 PM']Except Im not saying ban guns, Im saying that if one owns one it should be a requirement that they pay some sort of dues to a militia and if they go out and buy one to quickly form that milita then those dues should be owed upon buying it. Hell call the NRA a milita for all I care.[/quote]

i disagree w/ that, considering there are few militias nowaday (as we speak now)... i don't want to force people to contribute to the NRA if they don't want... there should be a few check points before people can purchase guns, but how does forcing people to contribute to militias going to thwart attacks like this? i don't see the meaning of a law like this...

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='474770' date='Apr 19 2007, 01:54 PM']i disagree w/ that, considering there are few militias nowaday (as we speak now)... i don't want to force people to contribute to the NRA if they don't want... there should be a few check points before people can purchase guns, but how does forcing people to contribute to militias going to thwart attacks like this? i don't see the meaning of a law like this...[/quote]


In a monatary way.

Youll have to excuse me rick I just found out my sisters best friend lost his little sisiter to this son of a bitch just yesterday.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='474771' date='Apr 19 2007, 01:55 PM']In a monatary way.

Youll have to excuse me rick I just found out my sisters best friend lost his little sisiter to this son of a bitch just yesterday.[/quote]

oh... sorry to hear that... trust me, i have no one directly involved and it has shaken my foundation, so although i say i know how you feel, i don't...

on that note, i tap out of this debate until things calm down... my prayers are w/ the victims...

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='474733' date='Apr 19 2007, 01:01 PM']the problem w/ politics is people focus on the language they use instead of the morals that the laws should fall in line w/... like calling pro-abortion poeple pro-choice... does the change of vocabulary make abortion any more morally right?

If your idea of getting a law passed is changing the wording, i am skeptical...[/quote]


[color="#2F4F4F"][font="Arial Narrow"][size=3][b]BR,

Semantics, syntax, pragmatics, and denotative & connotative aspects are all very important issues when discussing ANYTHING ... especially policy and politics.

Language is of vital importance to any debate … and if you control the language used = you control the debate. To be fair this works on both sides of the aisle.

Human beings for the most part do not like complexity, contextual nuance, or convolution. They like simple concepts – catch phrases – and hyperbole.

Imagine an abortion debate where the two opposing sides were (“pro-life” vs. “pro-murder”). Now imagine the antithesis of (“vaginal rights” vs. “vaginal control”

Other modern instances of: “Death tax vs. wealthy estate tax”, “war on terror vs. war against Islam”, “freedom on the march vs. we're here to steal your shit”.

You mention “morals” … well that in itself is semantically difficult = Morals according to whom? Are we talking about Christian morals or the Taliban? Within Christianity are we talking about Pat Robertson’s idea of “morals” or the Popes?

And all laws and restrictions are usually a result of monopolization of the language used. Most people don’t support murder but support killing in self defense. Most people don’t favor animal cruelty if you mean kicking a dog … but are fine with gutting open a cow. [/b][/size][/font][/color]

[Guest bengalrick]

i didnt' argue that words and language are un-important.. but the words don't change the actions, and i am smart enough to look past the catch phrases and bumper stickers and make a decision based on the facts presented... the problem w/ the gun responsibility debate (or whatever you want to call it) isn't b/c it has been labeled incorrectly... it is b/c when people really think about it, controlling guns for law abiding citizens only means that the non-law abiding citizens would be the only people left w/ guns...

[Ben]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='474791' date='Apr 19 2007, 02:48 PM']i didnt' argue that words and language are un-important.. but the words don't change the actions, and i am smart enough to look past the catch phrases and bumper stickers and make a decision based on the facts presented... the problem w/ the gun responsibility debate (or whatever you want to call it) isn't b/c it has been labeled incorrectly... it is b/c when people really think about it, [b]controlling guns for law abiding citizens only means that the non-law abiding citizens would be the only people left w/ guns...[/b][/quote]

Are we talking about gun control or gun ban?

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='474791' date='Apr 19 2007, 02:48 PM']when people really think about it, controlling guns for law abiding citizens only means that the non-law abiding citizens would be the only people left w/ guns...[/quote]


[font="Arial Narrow"][size=3][b]You are talking about banning guns. No one here thus far that I have seen is advocating that = and I certainly am not.

I would imagine you are ok with

"sex control" = rules against pedophilia and rape
"nuke control" = not allowing messianic theocratic Islamic republics to have nukes
“property control” = property rights which define ownership
“child control” = laws against child abuse and kidnapping

etc etc etc


Why is ANY regulation of guns a bad thing ?

And once we get past that .... Then the question becomes = what are some common sense regulations that we can put in place that will prevent the most unnecessary homicides. [/b][/size][/font]

[Jamie_B]

[quote]What are some common sense regulations that we can put in place that will prevent the most unnecessary homicides.[/quote]

#1 suggestion if you are ever put into a mental hospital (as he was for 48 hours) you should be prohibited from EVER buying ANY type of weapon.

[Guest BlackJesus]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='474801' date='Apr 19 2007, 03:12 PM']#1 suggestion if you are ever put into a mental hospital (as he was for 48 hours) you [u]should be prohibited from EVER buying ANY type of weapon.[/u][/quote]


[font="Arial Narrow"][size=3][b]Or at least have to pass a psych evalutation to be "cleared" to purchase a weapon. [/b][/size][/font]

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='BlackJesus' post='474816' date='Apr 19 2007, 03:49 PM'][font="Arial Narrow"][size=3][b]Or at least have to pass a psych evalutation to be "cleared" to purchase a weapon. [/b][/size][/font][/quote]


and have to continue to pass that evaluation for fear of relapse.

[rudi32]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='474768' date='Apr 19 2007, 01:48 PM']Except Im not saying ban guns, Im saying that if one owns one it should be a requirement that they pay some sort of dues to a militia and if they go out and buy one to quickly form that milita then those dues should be owed upon buying it. Hell call the NRA a milita for all I care.[/quote]


wow im gone a few days and this gets deep...

I am against militias, In 1775 they were great, but now they are impratcical. The constitution is, an old document, and can be interpreted many ways.

I believe that every american, who has not been convicted of a felony, should be able to own a gun,...hince the current law.

If everyone carried a gun, crime would be reduced,...thats a police ofc's point of view,.



IE,...

if u were going to do a home invasion, ...would u be more likely to do it if you knew the old guy sitting in the chair watching TV had a 12 gauge with him?

[|Bengal Migration|]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='474801' date='Apr 19 2007, 08:12 PM']#1 suggestion if you are ever put into a mental hospital (as he was for 48 hours) you should be prohibited from EVER buying ANY type of weapon.[/quote]
Looks like the state of VA never sent records to the FBI database that would have indicated that that:

[b][i]Cho presented “an imminent danger to self or others as a result of mental illness, or is so seriously mentally ill as to be substantially unable to care for self and is incapable of volunteering or unwilling to volunteer for treatment.”[/i][/b]

And of course, he lied on the application about having sepnt time in a mental institution. Go figure.

[url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18217741/site/newsweek/"]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18217741/site/newsweek/[/url]

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='rudi32' post='475094' date='Apr 20 2007, 01:49 AM']wow im gone a few days and this gets deep...

I am against militias, In 1775 they were great, but now they are impratcical. [b]The constitution is, an old document, and can be interpreted many ways.[/b]

I believe that every american, who has not been convicted of a felony, should be able to own a gun,...hince the current law.

If everyone carried a gun, crime would be reduced,...thats a police ofc's point of view,.
IE,...

if u were going to do a home invasion, ...would u be more likely to do it if you knew the old guy sitting in the chair watching TV had a 12 gauge with him?[/quote]


Hice what I said about re-looking at it.

[quote name='WhoDeyUK' post='475120' date='Apr 20 2007, 06:25 AM']Looks like the state of VA never sent records to the FBI database that would have indicated that that:

[b][i]Cho presented “an imminent danger to self or others as a result of mental illness, or is so seriously mentally ill as to be substantially unable to care for self and is incapable of volunteering or unwilling to volunteer for treatment.”[/i][/b]

And of course, he lied on the application about having sepnt time in a mental institution. Go figure.

[url="http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18217741/site/newsweek/"]http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18217741/site/newsweek/[/url][/quote]

[|Bunghole|]

Hey, you guys want to start up a milit....er, gun club?

[CatScratchFever]

My boy speaks out on CNN:
[url="http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/commentary.nugent/index.html"]http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/04/19/commentar...gent/index.html[/url]

[quote][b]Nugent: Gun-free zones are recipe for disaster[/b]
POSTED: 11:25 a.m. EDT, April 20, 2007
By Ted Nugent
Special to CNN


Editor's note: Rock guitarist Ted Nugent has sold more than 30 million albums. He's also a gun rights activist and serves on the board of directors of the National Rifle Association. His program, "Ted Nugent Spirit of the Wild," can be seen on the Outdoor Channel.

Read an opposing take on gun control from journalist Tom Plate: Let's lay down our right to bear arms

WACO, Texas (CNN) -- Zero tolerance, huh? Gun-free zones, huh? Try this on for size: Columbine gun-free zone, New York City pizza shop gun-free zone, Luby's Cafeteria gun-free zone, Amish school in Pennsylvania gun-free zone and now Virginia Tech gun-free zone.

Anybody see what the evil Brady Campaign and other anti-gun cults have created? I personally have zero tolerance for evil and denial. And America had best wake up real fast that the brain-dead celebration of unarmed helplessness will get you killed every time, and I've about had enough of it.

Nearly a decade ago, a Springfield, Oregon, high schooler, a hunter familiar with firearms, was able to bring an unfolding rampage to an abrupt end when he identified a gunman attempting to reload his .22-caliber rifle, made the tactical decision to make a move and tackled the shooter.

A few years back, an assistant principal at Pearl High School in Mississippi, which was a gun-free zone, retrieved his legally owned Colt .45 from his car and stopped a Columbine wannabe from continuing his massacre at another school after he had killed two and wounded more at Pearl.

At an eighth-grade school dance in Pennsylvania, a boy fatally shot a teacher and wounded two students before the owner of the dance hall brought the killing to a halt with his own gun.

More recently, just a few miles up the road from Virginia Tech, two law school students ran to fetch their legally owned firearm to stop a madman from slaughtering anybody and everybody he pleased. These brave, average, armed citizens neutralized him pronto.

My hero, Dr. Suzanne Gratia Hupp, was not allowed by Texas law to carry her handgun into Luby's Cafeteria that fateful day in 1991, when due to bureaucrat-forced unarmed helplessness she could do nothing to stop satanic George Hennard from killing 23 people and wounding more than 20 others before he shot himself. Hupp was unarmed for no other reason than denial-ridden "feel good" politics.

She has since led the charge for concealed weapon upgrade in Texas, where we can now stop evil. Yet, there are still the mindless puppets of the Brady Campaign and other anti-gun organizations insisting on continuing the gun-free zone insanity by which innocents are forced into unarmed helplessness. Shame on them. Shame on America. Shame on the anti-gunners all.

No one was foolish enough to debate Ryder truck regulations or ammonia nitrate restrictions or a "cult of agriculture fertilizer" following the unabashed evil of Timothy McVeigh's heinous crime against America on that fateful day in Oklahoma City. No one faulted kitchen utensils or other hardware of choice after Jeffrey Dahmer was caught drugging, mutilating, raping, murdering and cannibalizing his victims. Nobody wanted "steak knife control" as they autopsied the dead nurses in Chicago, Illinois, as Richard Speck went on trial for mass murder.

Evil is as evil does, and laws disarming guaranteed victims make evil people very, very happy. Shame on us.

Already spineless gun control advocates are squawking like chickens with their tiny-brained heads chopped off, making political hay over this most recent, devastating Virginia Tech massacre, when in fact it is their own forced gun-free zone policy that enabled the unchallenged methodical murder of 32 people.

Thirty-two people dead on a U.S. college campus pursuing their American Dream, mowed-down over an extended period of time by a lone, non-American gunman in illegal possession of a firearm on campus in defiance of a zero-tolerance gun law. Feel better yet? Didn't think so.

Who doesn't get this? Who has the audacity to demand unarmed helplessness? Who likes dead good guys?

I'll tell you who. People who tramp on the Second Amendment, that's who. People who refuse to accept the self-evident truth that free people have the God-given right to keep and bear arms, to defend themselves and their loved ones. People who are so desperate in their drive to control others, so mindless in their denial that they pretend access to gas causes arson, Ryder trucks and fertilizer cause terrorism, water causes drowning, forks and spoons cause obesity, dialing 911 will somehow save your life, and that their greedy clamoring to "feel good" is more important than admitting that armed citizens are much better equipped to stop evil than unarmed, helpless ones.

Pray for the families of victims everywhere, America. Study the methodology of evil. It has a profile, a system, a preferred environment where victims cannot fight back. Embrace the facts, demand upgrade and be certain that your children's school has a better plan than Virginia Tech or Columbine. Eliminate the insanity of gun-free zones, which will never, ever be gun-free zones. They will only be good guy gun-free zones, and that is a recipe for disaster written in blood on the altar of denial. I, for one, refuse to genuflect there.[/quote]

[Jamie_B]

No offence Catscratch but I dont know how anyone could take the opinion of someone who finds enjoyment in guns seriously.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='475248' date='Apr 20 2007, 12:53 PM']No offence Catscratch but I dont know how anyone could take the opinion of someone who finds enjoyment in guns seriously.[/quote]

attack his point, not the man jamie... he makes some good ones...

clearly, if ONE person had a gun at VTech and the balls to use it, about 30 people would probably have their lives... at least, that is what the history of these events dictates...

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='475251' date='Apr 20 2007, 01:01 PM']attack his point, not the man jamie... he makes some good ones...

clearly, if ONE person had a gun at VTech and the balls to use it, about 30 people would probably have their lives... at least, that is what the history of these events dictates...[/quote]


Rick with all due respect that is dumb. Thats like saying David Duke has points.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='475256' date='Apr 20 2007, 01:04 PM']Rick with all due respect that is dumb. Thats like saying David Duke has points.[/quote]

what? now ted nugent = david duke?

no offense brother, but that comparison is dumb...

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='bengalrick' post='475261' date='Apr 20 2007, 01:09 PM']what? now ted nugent = david duke?

no offense brother, but that comparison is dumb...[/quote]


In so much as he's an NRA nut that finds enjoyment in guns = his opinion is kind of hard to take seriouly. Much LIKE David Duke is hard to take seriously when he talks about race reltions. THAT is the fair comparison I was trying to make.

[Guest BengalBacker]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='475248' date='Apr 20 2007, 12:53 PM']No offence Catscratch but I dont know how anyone could take the opinion of someone who finds enjoyment in guns seriously.[/quote]

Care to expand on that? That's a pretty broad indictment.

[Guest BengalBacker]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='475263' date='Apr 20 2007, 01:12 PM']In so much as he's an NRA nut that finds enjoyment in guns = his opinion is kind of hard to take seriouly. Much LIKE David Duke is hard to take seriously when he talks about race reltions. THAT is the fair comparison I was trying to make.[/quote]


Define NRA nut.

[Guest bengalrick]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='475263' date='Apr 20 2007, 01:12 PM']In so much as he's an NRA nut that finds enjoyment in guns = his opinion is kind of hard to take seriouly. Much LIKE David Duke is hard to take seriously when he talks about race reltions. THAT is the fair comparison I was trying to make.[/quote]

i dont' see anything wrong w/ finding enjoyment in guns... just b/c you and i don't, doesn't make anyone that feels that way a psycho...

i don't listen to duke b/c hes a biggot... i don't listen to people that has the goal of spreading hate... nugent's goal is to spread independance (not freedom, but to free people from the dependance they have on gov't, etc...)

i still don't feel this comparison is fair, although i admit i took it the wrong way at first...

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='BengalBacker' post='475268' date='Apr 20 2007, 01:21 PM']Care to expand on that? That's a pretty broad indictment.[/quote]



Have you seen Nuget in interviews ect..? He gets enjoyment from weaponry in general (espessally bow & arrows)

[quote name='BengalBacker' post='475270' date='Apr 20 2007, 01:22 PM']Define NRA nut.[/quote]


One who gets enjoyment from the weapons rather than defending the rights of ownership.

[Guest BengalBacker]

[quote name='Jamie_B' post='475272' date='Apr 20 2007, 01:25 PM']Have you seen Nuget in interviews ect..? He gets enjoyment from weaponry in general (espessally bow & arrows)[/quote]

That doesn't mean his opinion doesn't count.