AR Master on 18/4/2007 at 12:13
.
Vivian on 18/4/2007 at 12:40
Cats that can purr cannot roar, and vice versa.
*Zaccheus* on 18/4/2007 at 12:51
Quote Posted by ignatios
I don't mean to derail, but the Canadian woman killed, Jocelyne Couture-Nowak, was someone I knew. My father worked with and knew her husband Jerzy rather well; we used to go to their house for barbecues and other faculty gatherings.
I haven't seen her in years and we were never very close, so I'm not especially upset. It's just so
weird to think of it.
And incredibly sad. :(
I'm sorry to hear that.
:(
NyquistLimit on 18/4/2007 at 14:50
HTML:
<jre> There is no profile of a school shooter. They come from all walks of life, all religions;
they listen to different music, have different crowds; they are just random
individuals who cannot be determined to be killers until they actually kill.
* jre is now known as SoccerMoms
<SoccerMoms> WE BETTER CENSOR MOVIES, TV, MUSIC,
BOOKS, VIDEOGAMES AND THE INTERNET THEN
* SoccerMoms is now known as Politicians
<Politicians> K
Haha, anyway surely the banning of guns in this case would have been a good thing seeing as he bought the glock and the p22 from legit shops.
Not that I've tried it but I assume its way more inconvenient and dangerous for a 23 year old kid to buy firearms on the black market. Like, handing your money over to the dodgy gun dude and getting shot in the face would kinda suck.
paloalto on 18/4/2007 at 15:15
Quote Posted by Dia
Are you talking about the US as in our military being forced to disarm or US citizens not being allowed to own firearms? I rather doubt the disarming of either is likely to happen in our lifetime. The former for obvious reasons and the latter because the NRA lobbyists - well- that pretty much goes without saying. Sad to say, as much as a lot of US citizens would love to see the day when firearms become illegal to own for all but the military and police, it's just not gonna happen. Might turn out to be a tad more peaceful here if it did though. But silly me; I forgot about the black market thing. Nope; as long as some one is selling them, someone's gonna buy them.
I am talking about both military and society as well.
Slavery of whom?
Would you consider living under the Taliban or Alqaida a form of slavery?Or even under the Chinese?
For disarming the entire world I think you have the," you go first' syndrome.
Democracies are the exception in history not the rule.
fett on 18/4/2007 at 15:30
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
Can someone explain to me exactly why a nation needs the right to have guns? The only thing it'd be good for is aiding in the fight against a foreign invader. If the populace was going to rise up against an evil government I think they'd have done it by now. I think it's just about gun-love, which tbh I can understand, but which isn't really justifiable.
I'll take a stab, but first a disclaimer - I'm not a gun nut, and don't own any weapons except my 120 lb. Alaskan Malamute. However, I am opposed to the notion of banning guns, with the possible exception of handguns (for reasons I won't go into here).
The right to bear arms doesn't mean we intend to 'rise up against an evil government' - though few would dispute that our government is "evil." The purpose of citizens owning weapons equal or proportionate to the police is to give the population a recourse when/if the government grossly oversteps their bounds as elected leaders.
For example, if the U.S. government were to suddenly pass a law - contrary to the majority of citizens wishes - that the police are allowed to seize property or persons without provocation, the population as a whole has the option of resisting the government which has obviously ceased to protect the interests and freedom of the people. They have that option because they own weapons that pose a serious threat to those who are oppressing them - a pitchfork and mace won't work.
This is not happening right now, and hopefully it never will, but it's a bit foolish to say "if you were going to rise up against the government, you'd have already done it" when there is currently no strong reason for doing so. However, given the executive powers that Bush has abused these past years, many Americans fear loss of freedoms and personal rights in the future. Government isn't static, and must be kept in check. I'd be willing to bet that the U.S. government has restrained itself from doing many self-serving things because they fear riots and resistance - armed resistance - by the American people. This was probably more true in the early days of the republic, though in modern times, the government seems to count on the lethargy of the people and isn't afraid to take ridiculous liberties with both the constitution and the law. Self-appointed congressional pay raises anyone?
The civilized system of checks and balances lies in the democratic system whereby each citizen can vote for these leaders. But what if the current leadership decides to do away with that system? The population needs equal or proportionate weapons to restore democracy. Despite all it's problems, gun ownership provides a type of safety net in case the democracy fails, or turns utterly corrupt.
I've not thought about this in great depth, but given all that has happened during the Bush administration, I'm very uneasy about the population having no recourse to defend itself from corrupt government. Bush has already misconstrued and raped the Geneva conventions to allow torture, even torture of American citizens for suspicion of 'collaboration' - with very vague definitions of what that word means. Notice that there have been no violent protests concerning this, but I suspect that's because there have been no sweeping or publicized arrests of significant number. If that were the case, I'd be willing to bet that we'd see many incidents of armed resistance to this obvious violation of civil rights.
The fact that the precedent has been set is enough to make me *want* to go buy a gun. I just don't trust the government (especially the current administration) enough to believe that they won't overstep those bounds. Hell, they already have.
TBE on 18/4/2007 at 15:45
Well said.
Turtle on 18/4/2007 at 15:53
Also, we need to keep the black man down.
David on 18/4/2007 at 16:05
How are the masses, who do not have firearms training, going to protect themselves with a handgun or two against a well armed and trained military or government?
Would the average citizen be able to hit a barn door when given a handgun and an entire clip?
I would imagine that if the government did overstep its bounds to an extend where the public rose up against them then these masses would be a massive liability to any militia.
BrokenArts on 18/4/2007 at 16:06
Quote Posted by Turtle
Also, we need to keep the black man down.
I'll tell him you said that Turtle. :P
