Go Back   CruiseMates Cruise Community and Forums > People > Open Debate
Register Forgot Password?

Open Debate The only forum to discuss politics and religion. Please keep it civil.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old January 15th, 2013, 11:53 AM
AR AR is offline
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,479
Default I Agree: Guns Don't Kill People

Can we talk for a minute about the cliche invoked most frequently by gun advocates, "Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People."

Maybe you're surprised to hear that I agree with this completely. It is obviously true. And because it is so obviously true, it is irrelevant.

Everybody understands that it takes a shooter to make something shoot. It takes a shooter to fire a pistol, a rifle, a shotgun, a semi-automatic military style weapon, a fully automatic machine gun, a grenade launcher, a bazooka, a mortar, a surface-to-air missile, an air-to-surface missile. It takes people to operate tanks, to launch chemical and biological weapons, to drop atomic bombs. None of these things works without human intent. Are they all OK for use by civilians under the Second Amendment? Apparently not. At least not yet.

That's why the "Guns don't kill people" rubric, while true, has no meaning in any intelligent conversation about guns. It is simply used to divert attention from the real question, which is, "How do we best prevent innocent people from getting their asses shot off in this, the most heavily-armed nation on earth?"

There are many answers, some of them good answers, but "Guns don't kill people" isn't one of them. So this childish mantra must yield to serious people asking serious questions and looking in good faith for serious answers. And perhaps the seminal question is a simple one: "Where do we draw the line?"

Right now the line is basically drawn between semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons. The rocket launchers and other military weapons are off limits as well. And so we ask. . .

Based on recent history, should we extend prohibitions to semi-automatic weapons in an effort to begin to thwart mass killings? I say yes.

Should we also prohibit large magazines for the same reason? I say yes.

Should we require that every gun sale be subjected to rigorous background checks against reliable databases? Of course we should.

And should we do a better job of identifying and treating mental illness in this country, while at the same time insisting that the mentally disabled be tracked on "no gun" databases? Clearly.

Maybe we should change the discussion to "Guns are the easiest, most efficient way for people to kill lots of innocent people. We owe it to our common humanity to try to prevent that, or at least make it much, much more difficult."
__________________
The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place. -- George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2 (permalink)  
Old January 15th, 2013, 12:30 PM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 18,199
Default

How to eliminate gun violence :

Anyone who kills a defenseless animal is given 20 years in prison at hard labor .

Anyone who kills a human being is given life in prison at hard labor .
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old January 15th, 2013, 12:37 PM
Mike M's Avatar
Administrator
Admiral
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: You're Looking At Me
Posts: 23,857
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakers Fan View Post
How to eliminate gun violence :

Anyone who kills a defenseless animal is given 20 years in prison at hard labor .

Anyone who kills a human being is given life in prison at hard labor .
Lakers Fan,

The entire meat and poultry industry will be doing 20 years. Your argument is completely irrelevant. When you stop eating any meat product, wearing leather shoes or clothing I'll have a conversation with you. Until then your responses are on the ignore list.

Take care,
Mike
__________________
Cruisemates Community Leader/Moderator

"There is a great difference between being well traveled and just having been to many places." ~Me

"Fear is the assassin of dreams." ~Me
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old January 15th, 2013, 12:47 PM
Mike M's Avatar
Administrator
Admiral
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: You're Looking At Me
Posts: 23,857
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AR View Post
Can we talk for a minute about the cliche invoked most frequently by gun advocates, "Guns Don't Kill People, People Kill People."

Maybe you're surprised to hear that I agree with this completely. It is obviously true. And because it is so obviously true, it is irrelevant.

Everybody understands that it takes a shooter to make something shoot. It takes a shooter to fire a pistol, a rifle, a shotgun, a semi-automatic military style weapon, a fully automatic machine gun, a grenade launcher, a bazooka, a mortar, a surface-to-air missile, an air-to-surface missile. It takes people to operate tanks, to launch chemical and biological weapons, to drop atomic bombs. None of these things works without human intent. Are they all OK for use by civilians under the Second Amendment? Apparently not. At least not yet.

That's why the "Guns don't kill people" rubric, while true, has no meaning in any intelligent conversation about guns. It is simply used to divert attention from the real question, which is, "How do we best prevent innocent people from getting their asses shot off in this, the most heavily-armed nation on earth?"

There are many answers, some of them good answers, but "Guns don't kill people" isn't one of them. So this childish mantra must yield to serious people asking serious questions and looking in good faith for serious answers. And perhaps the seminal question is a simple one: "Where do we draw the line?"

Right now the line is basically drawn between semi-automatic and fully automatic weapons. The rocket launchers and other military weapons are off limits as well. And so we ask. . .

Based on recent history, should we extend prohibitions to semi-automatic weapons in an effort to begin to thwart mass killings? I say yes.

Should we also prohibit large magazines for the same reason? I say yes.

Should we require that every gun sale be subjected to rigorous background checks against reliable databases? Of course we should.

And should we do a better job of identifying and treating mental illness in this country, while at the same time insisting that the mentally disabled be tracked on "no gun" databases? Clearly.

Maybe we should change the discussion to "Guns are the easiest, most efficient way for people to kill lots of innocent people. We owe it to our common humanity to try to prevent that, or at least make it much, much more difficult."
AR,

I agree with your premise and that people kill people. Guns make the job easier. There is a root cause that also needs to be addressed. What made that person kill another person or persons. Mental health is a vital part of the entire gun and violence problem in society.

There is one thing that does concern me. Originally you stated that no is talking about banning all guns but now you include semi-automatic weapons. This would include a large majority of hunting rifles that no sensible person would consider an "assault rifle". You have demonstrated the "slippery slope" argument that you have previously ridiculed.

This is why gun owners get nervous over the banning of weapons because the true intent of those who wish to ban weapons is to ban all firearms. It may not be their primary thought at the time but the overall ban of weapons is the ultimate goal.

There is more to this equation than just banning guns.

Take care,
Mike
__________________
Cruisemates Community Leader/Moderator

"There is a great difference between being well traveled and just having been to many places." ~Me

"Fear is the assassin of dreams." ~Me
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old January 15th, 2013, 12:49 PM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 18,199
Default MM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike M View Post
Lakers Fan,

The entire meat and poultry industry will be doing 20 years. Your argument is completely irrelevant. When you stop eating any meat product, wearing leather shoes or clothing I'll have a conversation with you. Until then your responses are on the ignore list.

Take care,
Mike

I am referring to people who kill defenseless animals for SPORT or for FUN .

I personally do not wear anything made of leather .
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old January 15th, 2013, 12:58 PM
AR AR is offline
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,479
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike M View Post
AR,

Originally you stated that no is talking about banning all guns but now you include semi-automatic weapons. This would include a large majority of hunting rifles that no sensible person would consider an "assault rifle". You have demonstrated the "slippery slope" argument that you have previously ridiculed.

This is why gun owners get nervous over the banning of weapons because the true intent of those who wish to ban weapons is to ban all firearms. It may not be their primary thought at the time but the overall ban of weapons is the ultimate goal.

Take care,
Mike
Well, that's why I'm willing to have discussions with reasonable people, and others are not. I am happy to hear good exchanges about what an assault rifle is or isn't, and I'm not averse to compromise where it makes sense. But I completely disagree with your assertion that I or most others are interested in banning all weapons. I gave up my Don Quixote credentials ages ago. And I truly don't understand what makes you jump to a conclusion such as that.

The slippery slope thing is ridiculous among people of good faith, and that's most people.

I will say that my conversations with friends who are hunters--some of them serious hunters--yields the information that not one of them uses, wants to use, or could care less about a semi-automatic weapon. Mostly I just hear about bolt-action rifles and shotguns. One woman told me, "If it takes 10 shots for somebody to bring down a deer, he needs to spend some time at the range." Notice that she assumed it was a "he."
__________________
The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place. -- George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old January 15th, 2013, 01:32 PM
Mike M's Avatar
Administrator
Admiral
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: You're Looking At Me
Posts: 23,857
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AR View Post
Well, that's why I'm willing to have discussions with reasonable people, and others are not. I am happy to hear good exchanges about what an assault rifle is or isn't, and I'm not averse to compromise where it makes sense. But I completely disagree with your assertion that I or most others are interested in banning all weapons. I gave up my Don Quixote credentials ages ago. And I truly don't understand what makes you jump to a conclusion such as that.

The slippery slope thing is ridiculous among people of good faith, and that's most people.

I will say that my conversations with friends who are hunters--some of them serious hunters--yields the information that not one of them uses, wants to use, or could care less about a semi-automatic weapon. Mostly I just hear about bolt-action rifles and shotguns. One woman told me, "If it takes 10 shots for somebody to bring down a deer, he needs to spend some time at the range." Notice that she assumed it was a "he."
I completely agree with the statement that "If it takes 10 shots for somebody to bring down a deer, he needs to spend some time at the range." A ten shot magazine is heavy, changes the balance of the weapon and is unnecessary. I would have no problem with a 10 shot, or even five shot, maximum on a semi-automatic rifle.

There are a number of hunters who prefer a bolt action rifle over a semi-automatic. The bolt action is more accurate at long distance and is a great weapon. I have a Weatherby that I love. I will go out on a limb and say that I probably know many more "serious" hunters than you do and many of them use a semi-automatic rifle with a five shot capacity. One of the main reasons is the ability for a quick kill. A shot at a moving animal or a low shot can result in a wounding where the animal may suffer for hours before expiring. The ability to have the ability to quickly use that second or third shot without going off target to manipulate the bolt can mean the difference in a killed or wounded animal.

There is also personal preference in the type of rifle that is most comfortable for them.

I too am willing to make compromises but I don't want it to be one sided. The issue of what it "fair" on both sides is hard to define and neither side wants the other to unfairly take advantage when a compromise is given and continue to ask or demand for more.

Take care,
Mike
__________________
Cruisemates Community Leader/Moderator

"There is a great difference between being well traveled and just having been to many places." ~Me

"Fear is the assassin of dreams." ~Me
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old January 15th, 2013, 02:17 PM
AR AR is offline
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 2,479
Default

Mike--

I wish the nation could have this kind of discussion.
__________________
The single biggest problem in communication is the illusion that it has taken place. -- George Bernard Shaw
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old January 15th, 2013, 10:45 PM
Truck Cruiser's Avatar
Senior Member
Captain
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 836
Default

The truth of the matter is that we live in a free society. It is impossible to keep everyone safe, even though we would like too. To change anything in the gun laws is just a knee jerk reaction to a unfortunate event that no one could of predicted or stopped.

What many gun owners are afraid of is the "boiling the frog effect" of allowing any guns to be banned. The question that begs to be answered is where do these bans stop?

We have seen the slippery slope of the Income tax, remember that it was only supposed to be the rich who got taxed? We have seen the slippery slope of Social Security, first it was to help people afford retirement, then it was to help those who were disabled and then medicare came about.

The problem is that the American people do not trust their government not to take more then they said they would further down the line.
__________________
Live life to the fullest because tomorrow may never come!

Carribean Princess 07
Carnival Valor 08
Carnival Holiday 08
Carnival Triumph 09
Island Princess 09
Carnival Miracle 10
Norwegian Pearl 11
Norwegian Sun 13
Independence of the Seas Feb 14
Carnival Splendor Feb 15
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old January 16th, 2013, 01:34 AM
ship2shore's Avatar
Senior Member
Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 925
Default

If Americans cannot be responsible for the same use and "enjoyment" of their firearms, then the Government (We The People) has to step in. Dont trust the Government? Well, we have elections for that, not wars. This notion that we must defend ourselves from (essentially ourselves) is patently crazy, and the nutjobs that believe in this idea should be monitored more closely than their guns. They threaten public security more than anyone.

If you dont keep your weapons secured, you shouldnt be allowed to own them. Ammunition should be secured separately. Both under proper lock and key. This alone WILL prevent at least 50 percent of needless firearm tragedies, because the individual is required to actually THINK (and reflect?) before acting.

A person should be allowed (under the true spirit and intention of the Second Amendment) the right to own SINGLE SHOT firearms, for personal defense and for hunting. Gatling Guns (from the same historic timeframe) were and are exclusively for the military. If you cannot defend yourself or hunt with a single-shot weapon, then you need more training, as you are quite frankly a loser. Apparently, there are a lot of losers out there...
__________________
-----------------------------------------------------------
Norwegian Breakaway 12 Day Caribbean Jan. 18, 2015


So you thought YOU were having a bad day???
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old January 16th, 2013, 09:29 AM
Marsdude's Avatar
Senior Member
Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 763
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truck Cruiser View Post
The truth of the matter is that we live in a free society. It is impossible to keep everyone safe, even though we would like too. To change anything in the gun laws is just a knee jerk reaction to a unfortunate event that no one could of predicted or stopped.

What many gun owners are afraid of is the "boiling the frog effect" of allowing any guns to be banned. The question that begs to be answered is where do these bans stop?

We have seen the slippery slope of the Income tax, remember that it was only supposed to be the rich who got taxed? We have seen the slippery slope of Social Security, first it was to help people afford retirement, then it was to help those who were disabled and then medicare came about.

The problem is that the American people do not trust their government not to take more then they said they would further down the line.
Your argument about "boiling the frog" are, frankly, a little ridiculous. You could look at any regulation that way. What about speed limits, where will they stop. The d*mn guberment will have us all going at 5 MPH!

You don't need to TRUST the government, I am from the 60s we friking started the whole question the government thing.

What you do need to do is understand our government. Once you really understand what is going on in Washington you can work to effect change.

Or you can sit back and grouse about everything and make unsupportable statements.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old January 16th, 2013, 10:16 AM
Mike M's Avatar
Administrator
Admiral
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: You're Looking At Me
Posts: 23,857
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marsdude View Post
Your argument about "boiling the frog" are, frankly, a little ridiculous. You could look at any regulation that way. What about speed limits, where will they stop. The d*mn guberment will have us all going at 5 MPH!

You don't need to TRUST the government, I am from the 60s we friking started the whole question the government thing.

What you do need to do is understand our government. Once you really understand what is going on in Washington you can work to effect change.

Or you can sit back and grouse about everything and make unsupportable statements.
Truck's opinions are usually farther to the right than mine but I am concerned with the "boiling the frog" issue.

I can equate it to smoking laws. Yes, smoking is bad, it smells and can cause adverse effects on others. Similar to the arguments against firearms.

If you take each smoking law that has been enacted , individually they make sense. No smoking in the workplace. No smoking in an enclosed public area. No smoking in a bar or restaurant. It was to the point that it you could only smoke if "you can see the sky." Now it has gone a bit farther in many states: "No smoking in a public park. Even in a public campground in some states. (that wood smoke isn't dangerous) No smoking in a vehicle if a child twelve or under is in the car. Here in Minnesota a bill almost made it through the legislature that would outlaw smoking in any private vehicle.

Individually they seem to make sense but cumulatively they basically stop people from smoking. That may be a good thing and I personally believe the only reason cigarettes are still legal is because of the tax revenue they bring in.

I can see the same thing happening with firearms. I agree that many of the laws make perfect sense but the more "laws" enacted the end result will be the banning of firearms or we'll have something like England where only single shot and double barrel shotguns are allowed. Or Australia where rifles and shotguns can only be kept, and fired, at a licensed "gun club" and cannot be transferred to any other person. Handgun ownership is illegal in both countries.

With the right Congress and Supreme Court justices a system like England or Australia could be enacted and be ruled that it fulfills the second amendment of the Constitution.

Is this paranoia? Personally I don't believe it. I don't know how "likely" it will be within my lifetime but I definitely can see it happening within the next 30 to 40 years. If not sooner.

You're not paranoid if they really are out to get you.

Take care,
Mike
__________________
Cruisemates Community Leader/Moderator

"There is a great difference between being well traveled and just having been to many places." ~Me

"Fear is the assassin of dreams." ~Me
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old January 16th, 2013, 11:10 AM
Marsdude's Avatar
Senior Member
Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 763
Default

Mike,

Your example about smoking would be a good one except for one problem.

Smoking is not a Constitutional right. Having guns is.

Something that is really interesting is to look up the second amendment on Wikipedia. It has the entire history of how the amendment has been viewed and the different legal precedents.

The big difference in guns is that the majority of us in this country see no problem with gun ownership. We do have questions about assault weapons etc.

I am very liberal, however I would fight tooth and nail to have people keep the right to own guns. All of my pinko liberal friends feel the same way.

What I desire in all of this is plain old common sense. The NRA has effectively blocked gun studies in the US for at least the past 10 years. Some good studies were done by Arthur Kellermann.

In 1986 he found:
  • 54% of firearm-related deaths occurred in the home where the gun was kept
  • 70.5% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) involved handguns
  • 0.5% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) involved an intruder shot while attempting entry
  • 1.8% of these (firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept) were judged by police as self-defense
  • there were 1.3 times as many accidental firearm-related deaths in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings
  • there were 4.6 times as many criminal firearm-related homicides in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings
  • there were 37 times as many suicides in the home where the gun was kept as self-protection shootings.

In 1988, Kellermann published a study comparing robberies, burglaries, assaults, and homicides in Seattle, Washington and Vancouver, British Columbia, a city "similar to Seattle in many ways" that had "adopted a more restrictive approach to the regulation of handguns."
  • The study found that:
  • both cities had similar rates of burglary and robbery
  • in Seattle, the total rate of assaults with any weapon was modestly higher than that in Vancouver
  • rates of homicide by means other than guns were not substantially different in the two study communities
  • the rate of assaults involving firearms was seven times higher in Seattle than in Vancouver
  • the rate of being murdered by a handgun was 4.8 times higher in Seattle than in Vancouver.
The study concluded that restricting access to handguns may reduce the rate of homicide in a community by reducing the lethality of assaults.

In 1993, Kellermann responded to the criticism of his 1986 paper with a case-control study[13] of the rates of all homicides in the victim's home in Cleveland, Ohio, Memphis, Tennessee, and Seattle over five years, in homes where a gun was kept versus homes where a gun was not. This study found that:
  • 23.9% of homicides occurred in the victim's home
  • 35.8% of the controls (homes where there was not a homicide) kept a firearm in their home
  • 45.4% of all victims of homicides in their home kept a firearm in their home
  • 62% of victims of firearm homicides in their home kept a firearm in their home (correction to original paper)
  • other protective measures, (reinforced doors, deadbolts, burglar alarms, and bars on the windows) were associated with small (about 0.8 times) reductions in risk of homicide in the home
  • after adjusting for other factors (such as a police-report history of violence in the home, a convicted felon in the home, drug or alcohol abuse in the home, race, etc.) there remained an independent 2.7 times increase in risk of homicide, specifically associated with a firearm in the home; this risk was not attributable to any particular "high risk" subgroup(s) identifiable by the above factors but was evident to some degree in all subgroups
  • this risk was essentially entirely attributable to being shot by a family member or intimate acquaintance with a handgun which was kept loaded and unlocked in the house
  • this risk was significantly less than the increased risk due to sociological factors (rental of a home instead of ownership, living alone) but close to that associated with the presence of a convicted felon in the home

Above was copied from: Arthur Kellermann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

These studies indicate that statistically having a hand gun in your house poses more of a threat than protection. I know gun owners will cite many different variable like, keeping the weapon secure, etc, and those are factors of course. However these studies were well done by a respected researcher.

IMHO, gun will never be outlawed as long as we have our current system of government.

WE DO however, need to have more studies done by independent researchers to see how we can keep the innocent safe.

This debate is not about guns - it is about keeping the innocent safe. A child's right to be safe HAS to trump EVERY OTHER ISSUE -

Do you not agree?
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old January 16th, 2013, 02:31 PM
Truck Cruiser's Avatar
Senior Member
Captain
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 836
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ship2shore View Post
If Americans cannot be responsible for the same use and "enjoyment" of their firearms, then the Government (We The People) has to step in. Dont trust the Government? Well, we have elections for that, not wars. This notion that we must defend ourselves from (essentially ourselves) is patently crazy, and the nutjobs that believe in this idea should be monitored more closely than their guns. They threaten public security more than anyone.

If you dont keep your weapons secured, you shouldnt be allowed to own them. Ammunition should be secured separately. Both under proper lock and key. This alone WILL prevent at least 50 percent of needless firearm tragedies, because the individual is required to actually THINK (and reflect?) before acting.

A person should be allowed (under the true spirit and intention of the Second Amendment) the right to own SINGLE SHOT firearms, for personal defense and for hunting. Gatling Guns (from the same historic timeframe) were and are exclusively for the military. If you cannot defend yourself or hunt with a single-shot weapon, then you need more training, as you are quite frankly a loser. Apparently, there are a lot of losers out there...
The true spirit and intention of the 2nd amendment is not for self protection or for hunting but rather to keep our liberty free from a oppressive government. A 30 round clip for a AR 15 rifle would be important to keep us free from a tyrannical government.
__________________
Live life to the fullest because tomorrow may never come!

Carribean Princess 07
Carnival Valor 08
Carnival Holiday 08
Carnival Triumph 09
Island Princess 09
Carnival Miracle 10
Norwegian Pearl 11
Norwegian Sun 13
Independence of the Seas Feb 14
Carnival Splendor Feb 15
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old January 16th, 2013, 05:20 PM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 18,199
Default

I spent 6 years working as an undercover insurance frauds investigator . I spent time is some of the highest crime areas in NYC .I was not armed .I had 2 unarmed body guards .
Reply With Quote
  #16 (permalink)  
Old January 16th, 2013, 05:21 PM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 18,199
Default Ignoring me

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike M View Post
Lakers Fan,

The entire meat and poultry industry will be doing 20 years. Your argument is completely irrelevant. When you stop eating any meat product, wearing leather shoes or clothing I'll have a conversation with you. Until then your responses are on the ignore list.

Take care,
Mike
Yes ,I guess you are ,just as you ignored the condolence card I sent you a few years ago.
Reply With Quote
  #17 (permalink)  
Old January 16th, 2013, 05:54 PM
Mike M's Avatar
Administrator
Admiral
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: You're Looking At Me
Posts: 23,857
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakers Fan View Post
Yes ,I guess you are ,just as you ignored the condolence card I sent you a few years ago.
If you sent me a condolence card, I thank you. I do not remember receiving one. If it was in the form of a PM then I must have missed it or it got lost in my PM's.

If it was an e-card then I do not open them and they are automatically deleted.

Take care,
Mike
__________________
Cruisemates Community Leader/Moderator

"There is a great difference between being well traveled and just having been to many places." ~Me

"Fear is the assassin of dreams." ~Me
Reply With Quote
  #18 (permalink)  
Old January 17th, 2013, 12:47 AM
Kuki's Avatar
Moderator
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Right here :)
Posts: 22,410
Send a message via AIM to Kuki
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truck Cruiser View Post
The true spirit and intention of the 2nd amendment is not for self protection or for hunting but rather to keep our liberty free from a oppressive government. A 30 round clip for a AR 15 rifle would be important to keep us free from a tyrannical government.
I would like to try to wrap my head around the logic... of thinking you are going have to protect yourselves from the "tyrannical government".

If the logic is that the government is going to attack you, or defend against a "revolution" to the tyranny by "you" (the collective), then wouldn't it be the government's military doing "its" bidding?

If that were the case wouldn't it make sense for those with similar concerns, to have worked for many years, pushing for major cutbacks to the military budgets (in order to diminish the government's military forces that they might be up against)?

And wouldn't those who believe this, in preparation, have being working hard for years already to legalize personal possession of more serious weaponry... like gernades, bazookas, rpgs, land to air missles, tanks, etc. ?

It doesn't seem to make sense to think you are going to need to protect yourself with only the weapons you suggest; wouldn't that leave you'd badly "outgunned"?

It just seems in preparation for the scenario envisioned, logic would have dictated the planning I've mentioned above.

So, doesn't that really mean that people who believe as you do have really not been planning very effectively for that forthcoming fight?
__________________
Kuki
Reply With Quote
  #19 (permalink)  
Old January 17th, 2013, 02:18 AM
Truck Cruiser's Avatar
Senior Member
Captain
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 836
Default

__________________
Live life to the fullest because tomorrow may never come!

Carribean Princess 07
Carnival Valor 08
Carnival Holiday 08
Carnival Triumph 09
Island Princess 09
Carnival Miracle 10
Norwegian Pearl 11
Norwegian Sun 13
Independence of the Seas Feb 14
Carnival Splendor Feb 15
Reply With Quote
  #20 (permalink)  
Old January 17th, 2013, 02:39 AM
ship2shore's Avatar
Senior Member
Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 925
Default

Hey Truck> Homemade nuclear weapons work even better against Tyrannical Governments than a 30 round clip. Maybe they should be legal too. That way, if Obama makes a calculation error on your taxes, you are prepared.
__________________
-----------------------------------------------------------
Norwegian Breakaway 12 Day Caribbean Jan. 18, 2015


So you thought YOU were having a bad day???
Reply With Quote
  #21 (permalink)  
Old January 17th, 2013, 08:40 AM
Mike M's Avatar
Administrator
Admiral
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: You're Looking At Me
Posts: 23,857
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truck Cruiser View Post
Truck:

That isn't a quote from George Washington. It is "based" on a quote from President Washington. That quote is:

"A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies."

Here is the link to the entire address: http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documen...on/state1.html

He is referring to having a standing militia for national defense.

Take care,
Mike
__________________
Cruisemates Community Leader/Moderator

"There is a great difference between being well traveled and just having been to many places." ~Me

"Fear is the assassin of dreams." ~Me
Reply With Quote
  #22 (permalink)  
Old January 17th, 2013, 11:39 AM
Senior Member
Admiral
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 18,199
Default E-card

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike M View Post
If you sent me a condolence card, I thank you. I do not remember receiving one. If it was in the form of a PM then I must have missed it or it got lost in my PM's.

If it was an e-card then I do not open them and they are automatically deleted.

Take care,
Mike
According to the greeting card company it was read by you or someone who used your e-mail address ,perhaps your wife.
Reply With Quote
  #23 (permalink)  
Old January 17th, 2013, 11:56 AM
Marsdude's Avatar
Senior Member
Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 763
Default

In all honesty the idea of second amendment right to bear arms as a means to protect against a tyrannical government has historical precedent. Early in our history the second amendment was viewed in this way.

According to Wikipedia:

In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:
  • enabling the people to organize a militia system.
  • participating in law enforcement;
  • deterring tyrannical government;[34]
  • repelling invasion;
  • suppressing insurrection, allegedly including slave revolts;[35][36]
  • facilitating a natural right of self-defense;

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote
  #24 (permalink)  
Old January 19th, 2013, 09:25 AM
Truck Cruiser's Avatar
Senior Member
Captain
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 836
Default

I found this in George Washington's farewell speech.....so true when thinking about the political climate today.

I have already intimated to you the danger of Parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on Geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, & warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the Spirit of Party, generally.

This Spirit, unfortunately, is inseperable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human Mind. It exists under different shapes in all Governments, more or less stifled, controuled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy. [return to top]

[Page 17]

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge natural to party dissention, which in different ages & countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders & miseries, which result, gradually incline the minds of men to seek security & repose in the absolute power of an Individual: and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of Public Liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight) the common & continual mischiefs of the spirit of Party are sufficient to make it the interest and the duty of a wise People to discourage and restrain it. [return to top]

[Page 18]

It serves always to distract the Public Councils and enfeeble the Public Administration. It agitates the Community with ill founded Jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another, foments occasionally riot & insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence & corruption, which find a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passions. Thus the policy and the will of one country, are subjected to the policy and will of another.
__________________
Live life to the fullest because tomorrow may never come!

Carribean Princess 07
Carnival Valor 08
Carnival Holiday 08
Carnival Triumph 09
Island Princess 09
Carnival Miracle 10
Norwegian Pearl 11
Norwegian Sun 13
Independence of the Seas Feb 14
Carnival Splendor Feb 15
Reply With Quote
  #25 (permalink)  
Old January 19th, 2013, 09:36 AM
Truck Cruiser's Avatar
Senior Member
Captain
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 836
Default

Yep Mike, you are right and I apologize for posting a bogus Quote from George Washington!
__________________
Live life to the fullest because tomorrow may never come!

Carribean Princess 07
Carnival Valor 08
Carnival Holiday 08
Carnival Triumph 09
Island Princess 09
Carnival Miracle 10
Norwegian Pearl 11
Norwegian Sun 13
Independence of the Seas Feb 14
Carnival Splendor Feb 15
Reply With Quote
  #26 (permalink)  
Old January 19th, 2013, 09:40 AM
Truck Cruiser's Avatar
Senior Member
Captain
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 836
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marsdude View Post
In all honesty the idea of second amendment right to bear arms as a means to protect against a tyrannical government has historical precedent. Early in our history the second amendment was viewed in this way.

According to Wikipedia:

In no particular order, early American settlers viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes:
  • enabling the people to organize a militia system.
  • participating in law enforcement;
  • deterring tyrannical government;[34]
  • repelling invasion;
  • suppressing insurrection, allegedly including slave revolts;[35][36]
  • facilitating a natural right of self-defense;

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Exactly Mars......That was the only point I was trying to make...the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting, but rather to give the people of the country a way to keep Government from overstepping it's bounds when all other options have been exhausted.
__________________
Live life to the fullest because tomorrow may never come!

Carribean Princess 07
Carnival Valor 08
Carnival Holiday 08
Carnival Triumph 09
Island Princess 09
Carnival Miracle 10
Norwegian Pearl 11
Norwegian Sun 13
Independence of the Seas Feb 14
Carnival Splendor Feb 15
Reply With Quote
  #27 (permalink)  
Old January 19th, 2013, 09:52 AM
Truck Cruiser's Avatar
Senior Member
Captain
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 836
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuki View Post
I would like to try to wrap my head around the logic... of thinking you are going have to protect yourselves from the "tyrannical government".

If the logic is that the government is going to attack you, or defend against a "revolution" to the tyranny by "you" (the collective), then wouldn't it be the government's military doing "its" bidding?

If that were the case wouldn't it make sense for those with similar concerns, to have worked for many years, pushing for major cutbacks to the military budgets (in order to diminish the government's military forces that they might be up against)?

And wouldn't those who believe this, in preparation, have being working hard for years already to legalize personal possession of more serious weaponry... like gernades, bazookas, rpgs, land to air missles, tanks, etc. ?

It doesn't seem to make sense to think you are going to need to protect yourself with only the weapons you suggest; wouldn't that leave you'd badly "outgunned"?

It just seems in preparation for the scenario envisioned, logic would have dictated the planning I've mentioned above.

So, doesn't that really mean that people who believe as you do have really not been planning very effectively for that forthcoming fight?
Kuki, no right thinking person in this country wants "That" fight with the government. It would have to be something as a last resort!
Besides, think about this.....Those who get elected in this country are those who have money backing them. Are they the best people in the country that truly has what is best at heart? For the most part, NO. The truth is that someone who would be honorable and seek not their own wealth but rather the wealth of this country first would never get anywhere in Washington DC...Ron Paul is proof of that!
__________________
Live life to the fullest because tomorrow may never come!

Carribean Princess 07
Carnival Valor 08
Carnival Holiday 08
Carnival Triumph 09
Island Princess 09
Carnival Miracle 10
Norwegian Pearl 11
Norwegian Sun 13
Independence of the Seas Feb 14
Carnival Splendor Feb 15
Reply With Quote
  #28 (permalink)  
Old January 19th, 2013, 10:13 AM
Marsdude's Avatar
Senior Member
Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 763
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Truck Cruiser View Post
Exactly Mars......That was the only point I was trying to make...the 2nd amendment isn't about hunting, but rather to give the people of the country a way to keep Government from overstepping it's bounds when all other options have been exhausted.
Historically, that does seem to be one of the ideas behind the 2nd amendment.

Facts are facts.
Reply With Quote
  #29 (permalink)  
Old January 19th, 2013, 10:22 AM
ship2shore's Avatar
Senior Member
Captain
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 925
Default

Where, oh where, are Jesse Ventura and George Noury when you need them?
__________________
-----------------------------------------------------------
Norwegian Breakaway 12 Day Caribbean Jan. 18, 2015


So you thought YOU were having a bad day???
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Guns are not toys! Marsdude Open Debate 8 January 15th, 2013 05:18 PM
Guns: Contrasting Christian Viewpoints AR Open Debate 29 January 15th, 2013 11:14 AM
Why do people ignore facts if they don't agree with them Marsdude Open Debate 6 December 3rd, 2012 11:46 PM
Overpopulation? Hand Out Guns AR Chit - Chat for Cruisers 33 April 19th, 2008 10:56 PM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


 

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:20 AM.
design by: Themes by Design

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1