How to contact the NRA....

pthouron · Post by **pthouron** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 3:39 pm

illuminatus99 wrote:
pthouron wrote:
fancypiper wrote:No, and neither has Merriam-Webster’s dictionary:

The word you've entered isn't in the dictionary. Click on a spelling suggestion below or try again using the Dictionary search box to the right.

I was merely making a point by illustrating your absurdity with an absurdity of my own, I am not paranoid by any means.

BTW, I don't currently own a gun.
Do a search, you'll find it. Absurdity is getting you warmer, though. You back up the idea of carrying a gun to church and I am the one who is accused of being absurd... I must be on drugs...
I'm sure if you do a search you could pull up quite a few church shootings, do you think they would have still happened or have been as bad if a couple people in the congregation had been armed?

OK, I get it: you ARE putting me on. It must be that or the mushrooms I had for luch didn't really come from the vegetable stand. Right now, the concept of a shootout in a church is too much before dinner.
You go on fantasizing about it, maybe hoping it does happen so you can save the day with your shiny firestick.
I'm getting off this planet.

fancypiper · Post by **fancypiper** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 3:39 pm

Have you ever experienced vuja de?

That happens when you have an experience you know darn well you never have been through before.

fancypiper · Post by **fancypiper** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 3:46 pm

pthouron wrote:OK, I get it: you ARE putting me on. It must be that or the mushrooms I had for luch didn't really come from the vegetable stand. Right now, the concept of a shootout in a church is too much before dinner.
You go on fantasizing about it, maybe hoping it does happen so you can save the day with your shiny firestick.
I'm getting off this planet.

Ask the soldiers in Iraq where lots of firesticks and RPGs they are attacked with are stored.

Lots of them are stored in the mosques.

No site is holy to a person with no conscience, no matter how much a liberal wishes and thinks it may be different.

illuminatus99 · Post by **illuminatus99** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 4:31 pm

pthouron wrote:
illuminatus99 wrote:
pthouron wrote: See, it's not a question of macho pride with me. I know guns, I've used them as a sport in my college years and later on in the Army because I had to. Fact is, I was top marksman in my company while serving.

Difference is: I don't feel I NEED to own one. Especially with kids around. I know, I know... you teach them all about gun safety. Right. Like any average teenager is going to abide by safety rules if he gets the chance to show off in front of friends or satisfy his own curiosity. And if my aunt had a moustache...
I grew up with plenty of kids who had guns around the home, not one of them was ever injured, I've seen 10 year olds at the range that can handle a gun more safely then some adults I ve seen
I find this exchange very similar to the ones I used to have with Jehovah's Witnesses. Back when I thought "Well, let's hear their point". Trouble is, their thinking was guided by the one guiding truth: they were right. I listened to their argument. Countered with mine. But mine was irrevocably refuted BECAUSE THEY WERE RIGHT.

Right about now, I am getting a sense of deja vu (...all over again)

It's been real (well, not really). I must go home and make sure it is safe.

the difference is that I present my arguments with the facts as I know them, while you present your side of the argument with nothing but pure speculation and emotion.

illuminatus99 · Post by **illuminatus99** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 4:36 pm

pthouron wrote:
illuminatus99 wrote:
pthouron wrote: Do a search, you'll find it. Absurdity is getting you warmer, though. You back up the idea of carrying a gun to church and I am the one who is accused of being absurd... I must be on drugs...
I'm sure if you do a search you could pull up quite a few church shootings, do you think they would have still happened or have been as bad if a couple people in the congregation had been armed?
OK, I get it: you ARE putting me on. It must be that or the mushrooms I had for luch didn't really come from the vegetable stand. Right now, the concept of a shootout in a church is too much before dinner.
You go on fantasizing about it, maybe hoping it does happen so you can save the day with your shiny firestick.
I'm getting off this planet.

like I said, do a search

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3166224.stm
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Daily ... 00323.html
http://www.mcjonline.com/news/03a/20030331a.shtml
http://www.onlineathens.com/stories/051 ... 3018.shtml

If you intend to argue a point opinions and emotions won't get you very far.

Celtoid · Post by **Celtoid** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 8:35 pm

Basically I think that no one else should be able to own a gun but me..and well, I'm generally well balanced, except sometimes

But, well, I never could shoot worth a damn...even in the Army

And then I got glasses...but now I don't own a gun...more's the pity too...so little time...so many enemies. But if I wanted to own one, I'd be damned if anyone was going to tell me I could'nt. On the other hand, I could use my blow gun..can knock a sparrow off a power line from my front porch (but don't of course). Hunting deer with a blow gun is not done around here (anymore, or maybe never) so I'd have to even the odds with the deer and get a high-powered riffle with laser scope and Track-a-Matic. Don't like venison though. I could get a gun for self-defense except that we don't have any crime, and my younger son's plastic baseball bat would probably do the trick. So I don't own a gun. But you can...just don't point it at me... because I have a blow-gun and I'm crazy

Scott McCallister · Post by **Scott McCallister** » Fri Oct 24, 2003 12:30 am

It floors me that people can spout 10 pages of argument and still not have addressed the issue.

Behold the entire 2nd Ammendment:

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

That's it. A very simple concept stated elegantly in a single sentence. You might notice that the wisdom of our forefathers is exemplified by the words well regulated. Even they recognized the importance of having the kind of power that can be wielded by a firearm be controlled and used with prudence. The uniqueness of the amendment can be recognized apart from other guarantees of the Bill of Rights because its purpose is clearly stated in its text.

This was explicitly recognized by the Supreme Court in its 1939 opinion in United States v. Miller where it said "...that the 'obvious purpose' of the amendment was to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of state militias and that it must be interpreted and applied with that end in view"

The clear meaning of Miller is that the Constitution does not guarantee a right to be armed for private purposes unrelated to the organized state militia, weather they be hunting, recreation, or even self protection.

Our society, sick as it is, has evolved beyond these needs. :roll:

Celtoid · Post by **Celtoid** » Fri Oct 24, 2003 5:41 am

Sure...that may be the purpose of the amendment...to have a well regulated militia, however the explanatory dependent clause does not alter the right granted in the independent main body of the sentence:

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

say it was'nt guns:

"Automobiles being necessary to get to work, the right of the people to own automobiles shall not be infringed"

So if I want to own an automobile just to go on Sunday drives, it would stand to reason that the above right would cover me as well, and not just those going to work. And if people no longer used cars to go to work anymore, but just wanted them for recreation, would the above right still hold? Or would it be an anachronism entirely, with the dependant clause nullifying the basic right for no longer being necessary. Is the dependent clause a controlling clause or simply explanatory? The founding fathers would want us to use a little common sense here! One look at the armed forces of the United States today and they would likely say that we don't need a militia anymore. But they would also see that hunting is still an activity. Looking at the crime picture they might even endorse guns for self-defense. But i do not think that they would be against all attempts to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals, or to have basic registration activities. Given the natural increase in population, they would probably say that these things may be necessary.

A great deal has also been made out of the word to "infringe". Common sense would mean that it would mean to "unduly burden so as to deny, or to deny". I don't think that gun registration implies infringement. I don't think that the ability to trace ammunition and firearms constitutes infringement, I don't think that a 24-48 hr waiting period constitutes infringement.

Bottom line is that, while there is a good case for people having a right to own a gun, I do'nt think that gun controls will prevent Columbines and crime, but they might make it easier to trace the criminals once a crime has occurred. Our wild-west sense of entitlement to weapons needs to be controled to some extent by simple common sense such as registration, tracing and a single data base.

peeplj · Post by **peeplj** » Fri Oct 24, 2003 5:53 am

I think a really good argument could be made that our society is getting more dangerous, not less, and that having a means of personal protection is now more vital than ever.

Also, on the 2nd amendment, I agree that the wording is quite clear.

The first phrase, "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State" states the reason for what is about to follow.

The second phrase, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed," says it all. Note that it does not say "The right of the state to keep and bear Arms..," which would be the wording if we were talking about the right of each state to keep an armed militia, or if it were delegating all decision making powers on this to the states themselves.

What is says is the right of the people shall not be infringed.

One last note: I don't think the concept of Arms is limited to firearms. It could include anything you can have to make yourself more dangerous than you'd be without it, such as swords, knives, arrows, spears, pocket knives, table knives, butcher knives, baseball bats, and even sharp pointy sticks.

--James

Jens_Hoppe · Post by **Jens_Hoppe** » Fri Oct 24, 2003 6:01 am

Yawn. :roll: Splitting hairs over the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, to make it suit people's particular point of view has just been done to death soooo many times. Does anyone really believe any concensus of the interpretation will ever be reached between the pro- and anti-gun people?

Legalities aside, I believe the really interesting question is why anyone - assuming for the sake of argument that they did have an inarguable right to do so - would choose to own and carry handguns. I am not talking hunting rifles and stuff here (which do have a somewhat legitimate purpose if you're not opposed to hunting) but only handguns, which are really only good for one thing, namely shooting other people.

My best guess is that psychological (Freudian?) principles are at work here, with gun nuts feeling a need to compensate for something. I could be wrong though, and would love to hear why pro-gunners feel the necessity of being able to carry around guns. Remember, I am not talking about the legal question, and we're assuming you do have an inarguable right, so the answer "because I have the right to do so" is no good...

Cheers,
Jens

peeplj · Post by **peeplj** » Fri Oct 24, 2003 6:46 am

If you are ever mugged you will understand why.

There aren't many times you really need a gun.

When you need one, nothing else will do.

--James

pthouron · Post by **pthouron** » Fri Oct 24, 2003 6:50 am

fancypiper wrote:
pthouron wrote:OK, I get it: you ARE putting me on. It must be that or the mushrooms I had for luch didn't really come from the vegetable stand. Right now, the concept of a shootout in a church is too much before dinner.
You go on fantasizing about it, maybe hoping it does happen so you can save the day with your shiny firestick.
I'm getting off this planet.
Ask the soldiers in Iraq where lots of firesticks and RPGs they are attacked with are stored.

Lots of them are stored in the mosques.

No site is holy to a person with no conscience, no matter how much a liberal wishes and thinks it may be different.

I won't even argue this point. Iraq is in a state of war. We're not.

pthouron · Post by **pthouron** » Fri Oct 24, 2003 6:53 am

fancypiper wrote:
pthouron wrote:OK, I get it: you ARE putting me on. It must be that or the mushrooms I had for luch didn't really come from the vegetable stand. Right now, the concept of a shootout in a church is too much before dinner.
You go on fantasizing about it, maybe hoping it does happen so you can save the day with your shiny firestick.
I'm getting off this planet.
Ask the soldiers in Iraq where lots of firesticks and RPGs they are attacked with are stored.

Lots of them are stored in the mosques.

No site is holy to a person with no conscience, no matter how much a liberal wishes and thinks it may be different.

And do me a favor: get off the "liberal" bit, would you? You use it in such a condescending way as to make it sound like an insult. Wishful thinking is not an exclusive prerogative of liberals. The current administration is living proof of that

Jens_Hoppe · Post by **Jens_Hoppe** » Fri Oct 24, 2003 7:21 am

peeplj wrote:If you are ever mugged you will understand why.

Not good enough, in my book. Even if I were mugged, who's to say that
A) I would even want to shoot and kill another person just to avoid being mugged,
B) I would be successful in my attempt to shoot and kill the mugger, and
C) (if not B) he wouldn't be able to take control of the gun from me, turning a nasty beating into a potential homicide?

As far as muggings go, I'll take my chances not carrying a gun.

When you need one, nothing else will do.

Not even a Chieftain Gold low D?

peeplj · Post by **peeplj** » Fri Oct 24, 2003 7:41 am

I hope you never have the experience of being a victim of violent crime.

I hope none of us ever do.

--James