|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 30, 2012, 09:08 PM | #251 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
Quote:
Privileges are fragile things that are easily lost.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
December 30, 2012, 09:26 PM | #252 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 301
|
Can you really compare the Netherlands to the United States? Different size, racial make up, drug policies, political structure, history etc. Based on your argument we should adopt the policies of the countries with the lowest percentage of gun related homicides which would be China or North Korea, or maybe Nazi Germany I'm the late 30s - you remember them, don't you?
|
December 30, 2012, 09:35 PM | #253 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 9, 1998
Location: Ohio USA
Posts: 8,563
|
Quote:
Happy and safe New Year also. While you're laying comfortable in you bed, about to drop off the sleep try to imagine this... The once free people of the United States of America have been disarmed. The last line of defense between a free people and a tyrannical government has been removed. The government is now free to take whatever it wants. Do you really think for even a brief second, that government is going to stop with taking from it's own? It a world of dwindling natural resources, a corrupt United States, free to pillage the world, is an unimaginable horror. The only thing our founding fathers could never have envisioned is that one day, the United States would be the sole hyper-power on the planet. So yes - a lot of us understand all too well the concept of moral responsibility.... |
|
December 30, 2012, 09:42 PM | #254 | ||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 779
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
A) 10,000/350,000,000 = 1/35,000. That's a .000029 ratio, .0029%. How devastating, I mean thats like twice as likely as being struck by lightning! B) You cannot cite per year statistic and then say we restart the clock at 0 the next morning. That is a rather poor construct of time reference. Quote:
Your remarks are quite childish. I thought Europeans were "enlightened".
__________________
I told the new me, "Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'" But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back." Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor |
||||||||
December 30, 2012, 10:09 PM | #255 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,414
|
Quote:
Repeal both Federal and state gun-free school zone laws (although if done right at the state level the Federal law is neutered), and invite both teachers and parents who own firearms to carry when in the schools. Can't afford to post an armed cop or three in every school every day? Canvas the parents and set up volunteer coverage. With enough volunteers, a half decent size school should be able to generate enough armed guards that nobody would need to pull a shift more often than once every two or three weeks. |
|
December 30, 2012, 11:34 PM | #256 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 16, 2006
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
Posts: 301
|
Yup. There should be a couple of people already on staff that would be willing to carry a gun. They could be provided additional training. The shear reality that someone could be armed on the campus will deter most would be cowards.
|
December 31, 2012, 03:07 AM | #257 |
Junior Member
Join Date: August 26, 2012
Posts: 9
|
I may be jumping in here a bit late, but I think that giving any ground to the anti-gun folk is a huge mistake. Say the gun community and the NRA were to agree to support legislation that would require a background check for all private sales just as is done when purchasing through an FFL.
#1 I don't think that would stop gangbangers and psychos from getting guns. They could still obtain them from a 3rd party who would claim the gun was "stolen". #2 *When* the next school shooting happens the anti-gun nutjobs will be back again and this time demanding that we give even more. This time they'll be demanding a ban on "assault rifles" and high capacity magazines. And now the government knows what you have and where you live. Don't think for a second that the anti-gun groupies are not ultimately trying to ban guns outright. It doesn't matter to them if it's for hunting, recreation, etc etc. You hunting rifle is a "sniper rifle" and they'll be wanting that too all for the "greater good". I'm still ticked about the firearms they've already banned, why would I support new laws? |
December 31, 2012, 05:07 AM | #258 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 21, 2007
Location: United Kingdom of the Netherlands, Europe
Posts: 103
|
And this surely is the biggest fail in this discussion.
"The majority has no right...." Wrong. The majority has every right to tell you all these things. The majority elect your lawmakers who get there mandate how to do things. In your narrow mind you only can be truly free when you belong to a majority. So I suggest you get that majority involved. With stupid alternatives portrait by your NRA you will loose this war on guns.
__________________
dutchgunsmoke is a member of the Royal Netherlands Shooters Association (KNSA) AKA gunsmoke on the coltforum and Diamondback on vuwa.net |
December 31, 2012, 05:18 AM | #259 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 26, 2012
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 779
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
I told the new me, "Meet me at the bus station and hold a sign that reads: 'Today is the first day of the rest of your life.'" But the old me met me with a sign that read: "Welcome back." Who you are is not a function of where you are. -Off Minor |
|||
December 31, 2012, 06:24 AM | #260 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,414
|
Quote:
Our lawmakers have no right to overrule the Constitution. This is why every crazy new law they write starts off with declaring that whatever they wish to regulate or outlaw "is in interstate commerce," because our Supreme Court has ruled that the Federal government is allowed to regulate only things that are in interstate commerce. Thus we get such insanity as a person in California who grew his own marijuana for his own, personal use being charged with a Federal drug crime, on the spurious basis that because he grew his own marijuana in California, he did NOT have to import it from another state and thus he negatively affected interstate commerce. The only way the "majority" has a right to outlaw firearms is through the process established in the Constitution itself to amend the Constitution. Until that happens, the 2nd Amendment is still part of the Constitution, and it still says "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Last edited by Aguila Blanca; January 3, 2013 at 07:16 PM. |
|
December 31, 2012, 08:22 AM | #261 | |
Member
Join Date: August 24, 2011
Location: Enjoying snacks by the fo
Posts: 15
|
Quote:
At any rate, a government that recognizes civilian firearms ownership as a right serves/belongs to the people and vice-versa. The gun represents power, so in the end it comes down to how much power the civilians possess.
__________________
Victim: A hapless individual who waits for third party intervention and/or gambles their life on what little good remains in the heart of their attacker. |
|
December 31, 2012, 09:05 AM | #262 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 635
|
Quote:
You allow government agents to freely enter your house and search? And you are happy about it? Unbelievable. This is why we have a right which prevents such unreasonable searches. Yours is a sad, sad situation, and you don't even seem to know it. |
|
December 31, 2012, 09:11 AM | #263 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 15, 2007
Location: Outside KC, MO
Posts: 10,128
|
I can't tell if dutchgunsmoke is serious, or going for irony. Similarly, I can't tell if he is trying to prompt us to get more politically active to defend 2A, or if he really does not get 2A.
This makes it hard to respond. In any case, he is right that contacting elected officials, preferably in tandem with large blocs of voters who contact them, is more effective than online hand wringing. I suspect he is not saying he likes majority/mob rule, but that we ultimately need to find ways to sway a majority in the long term. If so, he is also right. But again, I can't be sure of his intent. Edit: One of my best friends is Dutch. He resides in the US because he is very unhappy with what the majority voted into power in the Netherlands. Gun laws, price controls, and the works. |
December 31, 2012, 09:16 AM | #264 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
While the majority has a right to their beliefs, they don't have the ultimate right to force their beliefs upon the minority. We are not a democracy, despite how many use that term to describe this nation. We are a Constitutional Republic. Do we have democratic processes? Yes. But at the core of our governing system, is our Constitution. To change the fundamental way we govern ourselves, that document must be changed, through the amendment process. It is that very process which protects the minority from rule or oppression by the majority. Two-thirds of both houses of the Congress must agree to an amendment, or two-thirds of the States must call for a convention to amend the constitution. In either case, it then requires three-fourths of the States to agree to make any amendment lawful. That is a rather hard super-majority one must have to make such a change. Democracy, on the other hand, is nothing more than mob-rule. Our founders saw and detested such a governing system. Hence our Constitutional Republic. Quote:
Such evil must be removed from society. Whether that is through the use of arms of the people or the use of arms of the state, it must be done. |
||
December 31, 2012, 10:57 AM | #265 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 6, 2009
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 1,128
|
Quote:
As far as the Dutch point of view: I have come to the conclusion that most Europeans don't really understand our Constitution, even if they read it and comprehend the words. I don't know exactly why but I equate it with the man who does a long stretch in the penitentiary, is released, and violates his parole right away just to get back in. He's been inside so long that freedom is frightening. Europe has been ruled with an iron fist for so long it's all they know. First by the Romans and then by their own kings, nearly 2,000 years, all told, they've been suppressed and told what was best for them, and anything more is frightening. Sad, really, and why we broke away to begin with.
__________________
'Merica: Back to back World War Champs |
|
December 31, 2012, 11:33 AM | #266 |
Staff
Join Date: July 28, 2010
Location: Arkansas
Posts: 8,815
|
Having spent ~2.5 years in Germany over the last 25 years, including two stays of a year or longer each, I have some understanding of the European way of thinking. I wouldn't say that Europe is ruled "with an iron fist," as Ben Towe puts it, but there is (IMHO) a much stronger leaning towards collectivist thinking. In Germany, the perspective on the law is often "if it isn't expressly allowed, it's prohibited." By comparison, we Americans often approach it from the other side, "if it isn't expressly prohibited, it's allowed." The Germans have traditionally paid much higher income taxes, but those taxes paid for a much more extensive social net than we have in America.
dutchgunsmoke -- The body of the US Constitution contains the Articles, which are the grants of power to our federal government. The first 10 Amendments to our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, contains limitations on those grants. These are in place for the precise purpose of preventing the majority from overrunning the minority. One of the interesting things about Rights is that they're not always subject to popular vote.
__________________
I'm a lawyer, but I'm not your lawyer. If you need some honest-to-goodness legal advice, go buy some. |
December 31, 2012, 11:44 AM | #267 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 18, 2004
Posts: 1,944
|
Quote:
Pure democracy would be no better than mob rule. |
|
December 31, 2012, 12:08 PM | #268 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
|
The drafters of our Constitution understood a concept known as the tyranny of the majority. Consider Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist #10:
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
January 3, 2013, 12:06 AM | #269 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2007
Location: Arizona
Posts: 5,292
|
dutch, I feel really sorry for you, with mere privileges, not rights..
Man, am I glad I live in a country with a 2A. We haven't been invaded and conquered by anyone yet. Quote:
. |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|