The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed
- Thread starter N8 v2.0
- Start date
First of all,i'm not a redneck you boob!
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/4/25/130646.shtml
Another
http://www.wsrpa.net/cgi-bin/index.pl?iid=2525&isa=Newsitem&op=show
Theyve gathered in New York City, the best and brightest minds in the global gun ban movement. Oh, they dont want you to think for a second that theyre actually interested in your guns. Kofi Annan as much as said so yesterday, when he told the attendees of the Small Arms Review Conference, "This Review Conference is not negotiating a global gun ban, nor do we wish to deny law-abiding citizens their right to bear arms in accordance with their national laws." Got it, gun owners? Theres nothing to fear from the UN when it comes to your guns.
Its too bad for Kofi that many of the countries attending the summit didnt get his memo. Yesterdays speeches were full of calls for expanding the current agenda to include the civilian possession of firearms. Hans Winkler, speaking on behalf of the European Union, called the current Program of Action "the key starting point for further action on small arms". The ambassador from Australia, Robert Hill, spoke glowingly of his countrys gun laws that "require the registration and licensing of all firearms owners, prohibit a range of automatic and semi-automatic long arms and handguns, and mandate minimum firearms safety training and storage requirements."
The statement from Indonesias representative was perhaps the clearest example of what these countries are aiming for.
"We believe that no armed group outside of the State should be allowed to bear weapons. We also believe that regulating civilian possession of Small Arms/Light Weapons will enhance our efforts to prevent its misuse. In our view, the issue of ammunition should also be addressed in the context of the Program of Action because in the absence of ammunition, small arms and light weapons pose no danger."
Not every country is as transparent as Indonesia. When looking at the statements of the various representatives, what isnt said is just as important as the words we actually hear. Take, for example, the comments by Brazilian representative Ronaldo Mota Sardenberg. He told the summit, "this Review Conference should not limit ourselves to renewing our commitment to the full implementation of the Program of Action. It should rather be taken as an opportunity to address the Programs shortcomings, by means of the adoption of substantive aimed at strengthening and complementing its mechanisms." In other words, what weve got right now doesnt go far enough. This comes from a country tried to ban civilian ownership of firearms outright (the referendum failed last fall).
The anti-gun summit continues for the next two weeks, and you can get daily updates from http://www.NRAnews.com Executive Editor Ginny Simone every afternoon on "Cam and Company", heard on the aforementioned NRAnews.com and Sirius Satellite Radio. Coming up on Tuesday, the United States issues its opening statement.
Cam Edwards is the host of "Cam and Company" on www.nranews.com and Sirius Satellite Radio. A veteran talk show host and political analyst, he blogs at www.camedwards.com in addition to his daily talk show. Cam lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and five children.
See the story at: http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/CamEdwards/2006/06/27/202729.html
MORE
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33584
Awesome sources. 
I'm fairly certain this (along with your rambo lust comments in the other thread) just cements your position as ignorant redneck.
Sorry dude, just not your night. You can always take refuge in the fact that you are nowhere near as backwards as resident racist dhbuilder or as deluded at renegade rick though!
edit: oops, hit post when i wasn't done typing.
I'm fairly certain this (along with your rambo lust comments in the other thread) just cements your position as ignorant redneck.
Sorry dude, just not your night. You can always take refuge in the fact that you are nowhere near as backwards as resident racist dhbuilder or as deluded at renegade rick though!
edit: oops, hit post when i wasn't done typing.
Okay, his delivery needs polishing, but are his points valid or are there sources to the contrary??Awesome sources.
I'm fairly certain this (along with your rambo lust comments in the other thread) just cements your position as ignorant redneck.
SOme people who aren't gun nuts (me), still want to keep a gun at the home of their Philly suburb to protect their family. Convince me I don't need to.
First of all The UN isn't a world government and isn't pushing for any worldwide gun ban. Saying Fvck the UN because you don't understand one of tens of thousands of it's conferences/policies etc is simply ignorant. The sad part is many American's hold this opinion, and they have not a sweet clue what they are talking about.
As for having guns in the home, I simply don't see it as necessary.
I've also seen public study data that shows more friendlies getting hurt when guns get brought into these types of situations than "evil-doers" (the one good thing to come out of this retarded president's reign of terror is the term evil doer.)
Let's be honest here, under stress, at night, when your adrenaline is flowing and you and your family is in danger, the chance of actually successfully hitting someone when you fire your gun is slim to none. Home owner in most cases are not special forces or tactical officers trained to operate firearms under those sort of conditions.
I have had plenty of guns (yes, in canada!) for sport shooting. I have a good selection of medals from competitions, and I doubt I could hit the broad side of a barn under those conditions.
Random statistics below, the delivery is highly biased, but the numbers are real.
Good points, and as a parent I wonder what I will do w/my gun as my babies become boys. When I took my gun lesson the instructor said," More people are shot with unloaded guns than loaded guns" (obviously implying people have more accidents than useful situations).
I think the only real arguements I could make to those stats are:
1. does 154 people saved make it valuable to keep guns legal.
2. For the other 8, 105 homicides, if the other person had a gun would they still be alive and would the value of #1 increase??
Do you still keep a gun? Is Canada anti gun -seriously?? ( yeah, I don't get out much)
I think the only real arguements I could make to those stats are:
1. does 154 people saved make it valuable to keep guns legal.
2. For the other 8, 105 homicides, if the other person had a gun would they still be alive and would the value of #1 increase??
Do you still keep a gun? Is Canada anti gun -seriously?? ( yeah, I don't get out much)
No guns. Change of interests really, but I may get into skeet & trap sometime soon. The camera gear I shoot with now costs an arm and a leg.
Canada isn't anti gun, per say. The guns per capita is fairly high. Last statistics I have seen was 1998 and had about 30% of the population was armed, clearly not the 80% the US has, but significant. Handguns (except match pistols) are pretty much non existent. Lots of hunting rifles and shotguns etc.
For some reason however, we have much less violent crime. Culture plays a big part I'd assume. Deaths by firearm was something like 5-8x lower as a percentage, which doesn't really add up by pure gun numbers. we have 66% less guns, but 800% less death by firearm?
I'll be lucky if the trails clear out by May.
Awesome. He tried to Neg rep me, but his rep giving ability is non existent.
Of course I can sleep at night, in Australia most people, if they're worried about their security, use the "BFD" approach. Gun crime is not a significant problem in Australia, end of story.That paper isn't bad. I do wonder what happens with the estimated 20000 guns illegally imported into Australia, but if you can sleep at night. Do you have a wife and kid??
Where can I get a penis enhancer?? What kind do you reccomend?
I live in Japan where I feel just as safe as I do when I'm in Australia. I'm positive if you asked them, 90% of the people in both countries are very happy at the lack of guns. There's lots of things I worry about but guns or personal security is not one of them.
As for knob enhancers, I suggest one that can not only blow a hole in the bad guy, but also a hole in the wall, as well as the walls of the next three houses where more bogey-men might be hiding.
http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/2008/02/24/75-threatening-to-move-to-canada/
:huh:you should do it. Man up, put on a jacket and do it.
Sorry, Canada's full. We don't even have room for US draft dodgers anymore.http://stuffwhitepeoplelike.wordpress.com/2008/02/24/75-threatening-to-move-to-canada/
you should do it. Man up, put on a jacket and do it.
Welcome to last year. I read the exact story, in fact, a friend of mine wrote it.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/09/01/border-armed.html
You'll notice that since 1642, we haven't needed armed border guards. Unfortunately for us, the US is leaking violence.
As someone who lived in a city with restrictive gun control (NYC) and one with no gun control at all (New Orleans), ultimately I believe it should a local issue.
I used to joke about legalizing guns in NY, you would be arming idiots like Costanza and Kramer. NY could not handle guns on every street corner.
Unfortunately, the murder rate in New Orleans is sky high, but removing guns would be a disasterous proposition. Literally, outlawing guns means only outlaws would have guns.
I used to joke about legalizing guns in NY, you would be arming idiots like Costanza and Kramer. NY could not handle guns on every street corner.
Unfortunately, the murder rate in New Orleans is sky high, but removing guns would be a disasterous proposition. Literally, outlawing guns means only outlaws would have guns.
My impression is that the criminal culture plays a role as well. My wife lived in Montreal for years and is originally from Quebec City. Having lived in US for a while now she has pointed out to me that the attitude of the criminals seems to be a lot different here. In Canada they seems to leave the average citizen alone for the most part whereas here normal people often get caught in the middle.
When I first met her she was living on the East side of Ste Catherine across the street from a bar owned by the Hells Angels (or maybe the Rock Machine). You could sit on her roof deck and watch the prostitution and drug trade in real time but you could also walk down the street in the middle of the night and feel fairly safe. Try that in some US cities. I lived in New Orleans in the early 90s when the murder rate was at it's highest and that place was downright scary at night. The criminals with guns were never afraid to use them and couldn't care less who was standing there when they opened fire. It was like the old west with gun battles in the streets (not an exaggeration as I actually witnessed this myself).
haha...what goes "clop-clop, clop-clop, BANG!...clop-clop, clop-clop, BANG!"?
an Amish drive-by
Interesting. I had the same feeling in London. My sister lived in Brixton, apparently "'da hood", but I didn't feel particularly threatened walking around at night. Of course if you went looking for trouble you'd soon find it, lotsa drugs there and heaps of dodgy lookin' blokes. When you got out of the Brixton tube station on the high street there, you'd see a line of nefarious types offering all sorts of wares. One would offer crack, the next some coke, then another some dope and at the end of the line was the bloke selling black market ciggies, literally opening his jacket as you walked by and saying "Benson 'n Edges, 2 pound fifty mate".....always made me laugh.
I think it's a great thing. If you want to partake of the criminal culture you have something to fear, otherwise don't worry about it. Sounds good to me. I think part of what makes it work in Montreal is the structure of organized crime (those of you from the area please correct me if I'm wrong). If you live in certain areas you answer to whomever controls that turf. If you're selling drugs on the street without sanctioning you might end up dead but it won't be by way of a driveby with innocent bystanders all over the place. A couple of people got killed in an apartment right down the street from my wife's place and when I asked her if she was nervous about it she said, "Why should I be? I'm not a pimp or a drug dealer."
Unfortunately I think part of the problem is the brazen attitude criminals have in the US. They don't care if they pull it out and start shooting in a crowd. One year at Mardi Gras a guy pulled out a gun and started shooting right on Bourbon Street (you may have seen it on Cops). How no one was killed I'll never understand, but what kind of thought process does a person have to have to do that? I can tell you that the criminals of that city just don't give a damn. When murder is just one step above armed robbery why not just kill your victim. I know that sounds harsh but it's for real there. I used to drive by one of the housing projects every day to get to school (not even the worst one) and, let me tell you, that is a scary place. The only people who feel safe going to those parts of the city are the Postal workers and the cable guy. Everyone needs their government check and cable, you know. (I used to think this was a joke when people would say it, but my wife is a mail carrier and I can tell you it is absolutely true.)I think that little maxim the gun nuts pull out, you know the one- "if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns", well that needs to be appended with "and will most likely use them on other outlaws".
There was a really interesting show on Explorer recently about the Mob and biker gangs in Montreal that was talking about how as long as they kept their business to themselves most people didn't care what they were doing. Even when the biker gangs went to war over the heroin trade as long as it was only bikers getting killed the public turned a blind eye. The minute the line was crossed and people who had no association with crime got caught up the public wouldn't stand for it and everything was done to take down the offending gangs.
I personally have never fired a gun and don't see any need for one despite having lived in a crime-ridden city. I did, however, have plenty of friends there who had sizable collections that they would shoot every weekend out in the woods. Not my cup of tea but to each their own. One of my college roommates had two home invasion occasions where his guns came in handy. Luckily for him he never actually had to shoot anyone.
Not sure why I thought this was a propos of anything but...
starting at the 2:45 mark....
starting at the 2:45 mark....
articles comparing uk to us in gun violence:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html
http://www.johnlocke.org/news_columns/display_story.html?id=370
want to stop gun violence? stop glorifying murder in movies, video games, and other influences in feeble/impressionable minds. once you do that, guns will be as threatening as staplers.
"mai gunn; i bleev u havvit"
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28582.html
http://www.johnlocke.org/news_columns/display_story.html?id=370
want to stop gun violence? stop glorifying murder in movies, video games, and other influences in feeble/impressionable minds. once you do that, guns will be as threatening as staplers.
"mai gunn; i bleev u havvit"
^^^^ wft? you mention as your "proof" a 6 year old article (and a 5 year old article) that mentions 3 gun related crimes, and expect us to believe that somehow gun violence is worse in the UK than it is here in the US?? I have yet to hear an answer for the fact that the vast, vast majority of guns used ILLEGALLY were at one point purchased LEGALLY. The reason i95 is the gun runners corridor is because criminals go to some southern state where guns are plentiful, buy a carload/vanload, and truck them back up to NYC where they're used for shootings, muggings, robbery, etc.
If these guns weren't legally available for purchase (or legally available to "disappear out the back door"), how in fact would criminals be able to get their hands on them?
If these guns weren't legally available for purchase (or legally available to "disappear out the back door"), how in fact would criminals be able to get their hands on them?
dante, a few points
- wasn't offering it as proof, but for compelling consideration
- of course guns were originally legally purchased; that's what happens at the end of the supply chain
- would you suggest our vast interstate system is indirectly complicit in the prevalence of guns?
- how effective do you think a license to purchase (w/ compulsory ownership limitation/regulation) could be w/o infringing upon the right to keep & bear?
- should we treat people in possession of an illegal gun as a federal violent offense & then apply 3 strikes in order to drain the swamp of consumers, which would be met w/ expected cries of racism due to the targeted demographic?
- wasn't offering it as proof, but for compelling consideration
- of course guns were originally legally purchased; that's what happens at the end of the supply chain
- would you suggest our vast interstate system is indirectly complicit in the prevalence of guns?
- how effective do you think a license to purchase (w/ compulsory ownership limitation/regulation) could be w/o infringing upon the right to keep & bear?
- should we treat people in possession of an illegal gun as a federal violent offense & then apply 3 strikes in order to drain the swamp of consumers, which would be met w/ expected cries of racism due to the targeted demographic?
SOme of your crime theories in other countries are missing one major segment:
America has more poverty than London, australia or canada. Follow the lack of money (poor parts of texas, LA, jersey, DC) and follow the violence.
I have heard that organzid crime tries to only hit "soldiers" of other organizations, but poor people (or those in search of drugs) shoot more for less reasons.
Funny how quiet N 8 has been during his own thread
America has more poverty than London, australia or canada. Follow the lack of money (poor parts of texas, LA, jersey, DC) and follow the violence.
I have heard that organzid crime tries to only hit "soldiers" of other organizations, but poor people (or those in search of drugs) shoot more for less reasons.
Funny how quiet N 8 has been during his own thread
It happens when it gets too thinky....
This is all well and good, but ask a random selection of 100 Poms if they think they should have American style access to firearms and what do you think the majority response will be. You'd get the same answer in Australia, Canada, Japan, NZ, Western Europe I'd wager. As far as guns go, you're the strange ones, not us.
was Reuterswärd's scuplture suddenly moved from Berlin to NYC? when did this happen?
and since we have the world's highest incarceration rate, i guess good ol' law and order just ain't working to change this. what's the next step?
incarceration as rehab doesn't work.
the current process of capital punishment is so caught up in red tape that it isn't even close to a deterrent because criminals know they can just keep appealing for years, sucking up more of our money.
i'm all for immediate public execution/beating following a jury trial conviction. those that aren't deterred by the swift and violent punishment probably just need to be dead anyway.
Agreed.
Death row needs to be a 12 hour facility. You get a nap and a meal.
I'm all for public humiliation too.
If you rape someone, public cock removal. By dogs.
If you molest a child, public cock removal by dogs, after kindergarten children tattoo your face for 30 minutes.
you'll poke your eye outH8R said:
Bring back the stocks
The previous Heller decision is quite well-thought and written.
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf
http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common/opinions/200703/04-7041a.pdf
Ok that one made me squirm
