Page 20 of 41 FirstFirst ... 10181920212230 ... LastLast
Results 381 to 400 of 820

Thread: Revisiting Gun Laws in the U.S.

  1. #381
    “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
    George Washington
    First President of the United States

  2. #382
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
    George Washington
    First President of the United States
    I honestly wonder if President Washington ever envisioned a country where people's houses were right next to each other, where thousands may live in the same one acre parcel of land. I wonder if President Washington ever envisioned we could all have weapons that could fire off 30 rounds in 3 seconds that we could easily hold on our hands? I wonder if President Washington ever impagined weapons that would take 2 seconds to drop a clip of multiple rounds and reload to fire off another 30+ rounds in mere seconds?

    To blanketly quote things like this from our founding fathers and not consider the time and world it was stated in when comparing it to today's world is as silly as quoting archaic religious practices that were written in biblical times. Shall I come stone you to death for any blasphemous statements you may have made in your lifetime?

  3. #383
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    5,006
    Quote Originally Posted by intelligentjetsfan View Post
    I love how LaPierre refused to answer questions because God forbid he was forced to add substance to his "plan".
    ================================================== ====

    From a press conference position, they were clear and to the point. They found their talking point, put it out there and hammered it home. This allowed them not to get bogged down in other items or make any very many statements which are unclear. It also kept them in a very 'safe' stance for their support base.

    From that stance they get a 8 out of 10 for a good solid delivery of their message.

    From a content point, I'm a little disappointed that they didn't talk about anything else besides armed guards in schools and their training programs. Yes, it was great they are offering free training to schools but this issue is much more complex than any single solution. And it isn't just schools, but churches, malls, and other public theaters. From this stance I give them a 3 out of 10 for effort.

    We need to have a larger discussion about the cause for these problems not just the symptoms of the problems. We are building a boiler pot right now. We have a failing economy, a media that won't actually have any sort of real conversation, a total breakdown of communication between our political parties, failing medical and mental health system, have been in 2 'wars' for the past 10+ years, and lots and lots of frustrated people. We need to address the larger problems. Children shouldn't have to die for us to understand that our country needs help. I find it very myopic for the NRA to pick one item and hammer on it. It is just as myopic as the other sides 'ban gun argument.'

    I was hoping for more, but didn't expect it.

  4. #384
    Quote Originally Posted by Snell41 View Post
    I honestly wonder if President Washington ever envisioned a country where people's houses were right next to each other, where thousands may live in the same one acre parcel of land. I wonder if President Washington ever envisioned we could all have weapons that could fire off 30 rounds in 3 seconds that we could easily hold on our hands? I wonder if President Washington ever impagined weapons that would take 2 seconds to drop a clip of multiple rounds and reload to fire off another 30+ rounds in mere seconds?

    To blanketly quote things like this from our founding fathers and not consider the time and world it was stated in when comparing it to today's world is as silly as quoting archaic religious practices that were written in biblical times. Shall I come stone you to death for any blasphemous statements you may have made in your lifetime?
    Based on the brilliance and forward thinking found in our constitution I would say yes, they did envision that guns would improve over time. I'm not sure which Semi Automatic weapon you are referring to which can fire 30 rounds in 2 seconds. Most rifles would be lucky to get off 1 or two shots per second. Are you aware of others?

    Reading your post truly makes me appreciative of the type of careful thought the founders put in to creating the Bill of Rights. You for example probably believe that there is no chance that over the next generations that a tyrannical government may seize power in the USA. I'm not sure why you think the concept of defense against tyrany is some biblical relic. There are tyrannical governments all over the world right now. So you think it can't happen here? Well, it would be highly unlikely in a country in which the citizenry is armed that's for sure.

    I also noticed in your musings that you seem to think that just because you live in an urban environment means that everyone else does or has to live by your rules. As far as I can tell most urban cities have all kinds of restrictions on gun ownership. NY, NJ and CT have some of the harshest gun laws in the country. That's fine with me, I'm all for background checks and such. But those that think that we need to ban gun ownership are to me simply ignorant of historical realities. Here is another antiquated relic for you to bash: "those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it"

  5. #385
    Quote Originally Posted by Snell41 View Post
    I honestly wonder if President Washington ever envisioned a country where people's houses were right next to each other, where thousands may live in the same one acre parcel of land. I wonder if President Washington ever envisioned we could all have weapons that could fire off 30 rounds in 3 seconds that we could easily hold on our hands? I wonder if President Washington ever impagined weapons that would take 2 seconds to drop a clip of multiple rounds and reload to fire off another 30+ rounds in mere seconds?

    To blanketly quote things like this from our founding fathers and not consider the time and world it was stated in when comparing it to today's world is as silly as quoting archaic religious practices that were written in biblical times. Shall I come stone you to death for any blasphemous statements you may have made in your lifetime?
    I have a further thought on this topic. Lets picture a time in the near to distant future. The country has gone through the inevitable financial collapse due to explosion of debt. We have a period of high unemployment and hyperinflation that leaves the USA in dire straights. Lets say the country then elected a seemingly charismatic leader with the promise of reclaiming America's greatness. This leader looks for a scapegoat. Hitler rose to power in a democracy under similar circumstances. The German people were not armed and had no means to oppose him. When the call was made to begin rounding up the Jews and the Gays and the Gypsies there who knows what might have happened had those people been able to defend themselves. Maybe the German people would have joined with them to defend against the Tyranny.

    We can't know what the future will bring. It is our job as the stewards of this great nation to keep it a force for good in a troubled world. Its fortunate that the founders had the foresight to give us the protections in the BOR that the naive and shortsighted would quickly take away.

  6. #386
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    I have a further thought on this topic. Lets picture a time in the near to distant future. The country has gone through the inevitable financial collapse due to explosion of debt. We have a period of high unemployment and hyperinflation that leaves the USA in dire straights. Lets say the country then elected a seemingly charismatic leader with the promise of reclaiming America's greatness. This leader looks for a scapegoat. Hitler rose to power in a democracy under similar circumstances. The German people were not armed and had no means to oppose him. When the call was made to begin rounding up the Jews and the Gays and the Gypsies there who knows what might have happened had those people been able to defend themselves. Maybe the German people would have joined with them to defend against the Tyranny.

    We can't know what the future will bring. It is our job as the stewards of this great nation to keep it a force for good in a troubled world. Its fortunate that the founders had the foresight to give us the protections in the BOR that the naive and shortsighted would quickly take away.
    In this hypothetical future do you think a populace armed within the restraints of current weapons laws, would be able to overthrow or even slow down a modern tyrannical government?

  7. #387
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Portland Oregon
    Posts
    5,006
    Quote Originally Posted by Axil View Post
    In this hypothetical future do you think a populace armed within the restraints of current weapons laws, would be able to overthrow or even slow down a modern tyrannical government?
    ============================================

    The Air Force and the Marines would be on our side.

  8. #388
    Quote Originally Posted by Axil View Post
    In this hypothetical future do you think a populace armed within the restraints of current weapons laws, would be able to overthrow or even slow down a modern tyrannical government?
    Assuming the cause is just then yes I would say so. It reminds me of the Americans Revolutionaries in a way. They were a militia of citizens going against the most modern army in the world. They won not through large scale military victories but through attrition. The methods a modern tyranical government would use are no different than what Syria is doing to their people. Numbers would overwhelmingly be on the side of the citizenry. Active military could eventually defect and join the resistance.

  9. #389
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    “Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.”
    George Washington
    First President of the United States
    "When Washington was eleven years old, he inherited ten slaves; by the time of his death, 316 slaves lived at Mount Vernon, including 123 owned by Washington, 40 leased from a neighbor, and an additional 153 "dower slaves."

  10. #390
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    Based on the brilliance and forward thinking found in our constitution I would say yes, they did envision that guns would improve over time. I'm not sure which Semi Automatic weapon you are referring to which can fire 30 rounds in 2 seconds. Most rifles would be lucky to get off 1 or two shots per second. Are you aware of others?

    Reading your post truly makes me appreciative of the type of careful thought the founders put in to creating the Bill of Rights. You for example probably believe that there is no chance that over the next generations that a tyrannical government may seize power in the USA. I'm not sure why you think the concept of defense against tyrany is some biblical relic. There are tyrannical governments all over the world right now. So you think it can't happen here? Well, it would be highly unlikely in a country in which the citizenry is armed that's for sure.

    I also noticed in your musings that you seem to think that just because you live in an urban environment means that everyone else does or has to live by your rules. As far as I can tell most urban cities have all kinds of restrictions on gun ownership. NY, NJ and CT have some of the harshest gun laws in the country. That's fine with me, I'm all for background checks and such. But those that think that we need to ban gun ownership are to me simply ignorant of historical realities. Here is another antiquated relic for you to bash: "those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it"
    You guys keep throwing me in with the anti gun people. I'm all for people having a right to guns. I just think it's silly to just continuously fall back on documents written hundreds of years ago as gospel with no leeway for interpretation or understanding of a new modern world. Why is that so hard to understand? These people were not Nostradamus for goodness sakes. They made laws that made sense to them at the time. They could not possibly have imagined our world today because absolutely none if it was relevant at the time. The Right to Bear Arms should be subject to interpretation and laws that grant that right. The Right To Bear Arms should not be viewed as a blanket right that allows for all arms simply because it does not specify the types of arms you can bear. The Right to Bear Arms with the intention you describe would allow me to have a nuclear weapon if I so choose to and had the money and means. It is up to us as a modern society to use our common sense and say "hey, these are the types of arms that make sense today and these are the things you need to do to be able to own one". How about mandatory gun safety classes? How about mental fitness evaluations?

  11. #391
    All League
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Wildcat Country
    Posts
    4,946
    Quote Originally Posted by Pac2566 View Post
    "When Washington was eleven years old, he inherited ten slaves; by the time of his death, 316 slaves lived at Mount Vernon, including 123 owned by Washington, 40 leased from a neighbor, and an additional 153 "dower slaves."
    Wow. Did not know that. It's a good thing he had guns.

  12. #392
    All League
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Boston area
    Posts
    4,475
    It would've been nice if LaPierre stated that the NRA was at least considering closing the gun show loophole. Having said that LaPierre correct in saying that bad guys with guns are only stopped by good guys with guns. The NRA's suggestion of a cop in every school is common sense.

  13. #393
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,946
    Columbine had an armed guard. That worked out pretty swell.
    Last edited by PlumberKhan; 12-21-2012 at 03:29 PM.

  14. #394
    Quote Originally Posted by Snell41 View Post
    You guys keep throwing me in with the anti gun people. I'm all for people having a right to guns. I just think it's silly to just continuously fall back on documents written hundreds of years ago as gospel with no leeway for interpretation or understanding of a new modern world. Why is that so hard to understand? These people were not Nostradamus for goodness sakes. They made laws that made sense to them at the time. They could not possibly have imagined our world today because absolutely none if it was relevant at the time. The Right to Bear Arms should be subject to interpretation and laws that grant that right. The Right To Bear Arms should not be viewed as a blanket right that allows for all arms simply because it does not specify the types of arms you can bear. The Right to Bear Arms with the intention you describe would allow me to have a nuclear weapon if I so choose to and had the money and means. It is up to us as a modern society to use our common sense and say "hey, these are the types of arms that make sense today and these are the things you need to do to be able to own one". How about mandatory gun safety classes? How about mental fitness evaluations?
    I advocated here for mandatory gun safety training. My post is about discussing why we need and should have the right to bear arms. Nothing I have said suggests that there shouldn't be background checks and such in place. I also like to point out since most people simply don't know it is that "assault rifles" have been illegal since the 1920's when gangsters were using submachine guns in the streets. What they refer to today as assault rifles are semi-automatic rifles that are painted and shaped to look like assault rifles.

  15. #395
    Quote Originally Posted by Pac2566 View Post
    "When Washington was eleven years old, he inherited ten slaves; by the time of his death, 316 slaves lived at Mount Vernon, including 123 owned by Washington, 40 leased from a neighbor, and an additional 153 "dower slaves."
    Whats your point?

  16. #396
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    Whats your point?
    That this model of virtue who is quoted with such reverence felt it was perfectly acceptable to buy and sell human beings.

  17. #397
    Quote Originally Posted by Pac2566 View Post
    That this model of virtue who is quoted with such reverence felt it was perfectly acceptable to buy and sell human beings.
    He happened to be the only prominent founding father that freed all of his slaves upon his death. The sad reality is that virtually every southerner of prominence at that time owned slaves. It was an ugly time in American History in that regard.

    Per Wiki:

    Washington was the only prominent Founding Father to arrange in his will for the manumission of all his slaves following his death.[173] He privately opposed slavery as an institution which he viewed as economically unsound and morally indefensible. He also regarded the divisiveness of his countrymen's feelings about slavery as a potentially mortal threat to the unity of the nation.[174] Yet, as general of the army, president of the Constitutional Convention, and the first president of the United States, he never publicly challenged the institution of slavery,[175] possibly because he wanted to avoid provoking a split in the new republic over so inflammatory an issue.[176]

  18. #398
    All League
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Cape Cod, MA
    Posts
    3,566
    Quote Originally Posted by PlumberKhan View Post
    Columbine had an armed guard. That worked out pretty swell.
    Response to active shooter situations have changed drastically since and because of columbine. Those first two responding officers would now be expected to do things a lot differently.

    That being said, I'm not sure armed guards is the answer. Like a lot of things, the solution needs to be in the right place at the right time.

  19. #399
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    22,946
    Quote Originally Posted by stanner View Post
    Response to active shooter situations have changed drastically since and because of columbine. Those first two responding officers would now be expected to do things a lot differently.

    That being said, I'm not sure armed guards is the answer. Like a lot of things, the solution needs to be in the right place at the right time.
    What about ninjas?

    Or capoeira?

    Or giving all the teachers table legs with drill bits and saw blades duct taped to the side of them?

    Or maybe an HVAC system that introduces laughing gas into the system when a teacher pulls an alarm?


    Sent from a phone using an app

  20. #400
    Quote Originally Posted by Bonhomme Richard View Post
    A He did nothing but enforce the opinion that his organization is painfully out of touch with society.

    And that's a shame, because I am a supporter of gun rights and the Second Amendment. The "policies" that LaPierre put forth are embarrassingly short-sighted, and probably not even possible -- practically or fiscally. It's amazing to think that this is the best they came up with after a week of media blackout.

    The NRA jumped the shark today.

    .
    I thought the NRA did a great job pointing out that we need to arm the schools which will eliminate the knowledge for all the nutjobs that schools are a safest place to go to kill innocent people.
    The weapon free zone must go and is insane to keep .
    And yes we can afford it.
    A country that is giving money away and wasting money can afford the fundamentals of government that is to protect the people.
    But I also agree with the left to ban assault weapons and clips no more than ten bullets per clip.
    Lets do both.
    Stop the insanity of leaving the kids to get slaughtered.

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us