Air guns= Bad??

funnymouth

Active member
Originally posted by supervike
the Police don\'t just get to stop people willy nilly. If they have a suspiscion to stop you (and that can be pretty thin sometimes) they can and will.

aint that the truth. ive been pulled over while biking with my laundry and interrogated - for no reason that was given. in fact, i would get harassed by the cops fairly regularly....\"was (i) drinking or commiting crimes,\" \"sit down on the curb,\" \"why are you out after dark,\" \"where do you live & work.\" i couldnt figure out why - then i cut my hair and it stoped. i have been mistreated by the fuzz more times than i care to mention - i have more trust in street thugs and drug dealers than i do for those who are sworn to \"protect and serve.\" im not a young republican, so im a young criminal, and im not even a minority. with all due respect FTC.

/rant
 

drakhar

New member
all in all i don\'t think anyone should have a gun except law enforcement and the military. If u hunt u should only have one gun and no hand guns or high powered stuff. Everyone gets bent out of shape over there amendment rights to bear arms. Well if u look back in history the only reason they placed that amendment in there was at the time the new America had no real army to speak of so in times of war or civil unrest the \'Minute Men\' or militia could be called upon. Plus in those days everyone had a musket so it wasn\'t a problem like it is now. Do you think if our fore fathers would have included it it they could see what kind of ass monkeys we are in abusing this right. In the end its a shame that children have to die because people can\'t be responsible enough. Just my opinion
 

philologus

Subgenius
Originally posted by drakhar
all in all i don\'t think anyone should have a gun except law enforcement and the military. If u hunt u should only have one gun and no hand guns or high powered stuff. Everyone gets bent out of shape over there amendment rights to bear arms. Well if u look back in history the only reason they placed that amendment in there was at the time the new America had no real army to speak of so in times of war or civil unrest the \'Minute Men\' or militia could be called upon. Plus in those days everyone had a musket so it wasn\'t a problem like it is now. Do you think if our fore fathers would have included it it they could see what kind of ass monkeys we are in abusing this right. In the end its a shame that children have to die because people can\'t be responsible enough. Just my opinion

I believe they couldn\'t anticipate the proliferation of \"ass-monkeys\" as they restricted themselves to more eloquent forms of expression. As to what contaxt they intended the 2nd amendment I will let them speak for themselves:

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785.

One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.
--- Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796.


We established however some, although not all its [self-government] important principles . The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved,) or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;
---Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824.


No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776.


They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
---Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character.
---Alexander Hamilton

[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
---James Madison,The Federalist Papers, No. 46.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).


Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.


To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
---John Adams, A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States 475 (1787-1788)

Here Adams argues that the militia; not the armed freeman should be controlled by govt. The free citizen is the check against the militia powers.
 

airhead

Coffin Dodger / Keymaster
Originally posted by drakhar
...Well if u look back in history the only reason they placed that amendment in there was at the time the new America had no real army to speak of so in times of war or civil unrest the \'Minute Men\' or militia could be called upon....
Those guys were thinking of more than just that. They had just revolted against the very large & very powerful British government. They had just come out from under a government to win their independance by force of arms. They made it the Second Amendment for a reason. They wanted the people armed to help insure that the new government would not become like the one they just got away from. And they wanted to insure that it was indeed a government of the people. The first thing an oppressive government does it take away the arms of the people. (see post above by Phil ologus).

If you don\'t want a weapon, that is entirely your business. I\'m not going to come force you to own one. However, do not go willy-nilly stepping on my blood-earned rights to own one.


In the end its a shame that children have to die because people can\'t be responsible enough.
Care to back up this factoid? A particular instance or circumstance or just a general statement?
 

dauber22

New member
Hear! Hear!

Originally posted by funnymouth

aint that the truth. ive been pulled over while biking with my laundry and interrogated - for no reason that was given. in fact, i would get harassed by the cops fairly regularly....\"was (i) drinking or commiting crimes,\" \"sit down on the curb,\" \"why are you out after dark,\" \"where do you live & work.\" i couldnt figure out why - then i cut my hair and it stoped. i have been mistreated by the fuzz more times than i care to mention - i have more trust in street thugs and drug dealers than i do for those who are sworn to \"protect and serve.\" im not a young republican, so im a young criminal, and im not even a minority. with all due respect FTC.

/rant

I used to get stopped regularly for WWLH (walking with long hair). It used to average about once a week from about the age of 14 until 18 or so. A couple of times I get spread-eagled on the hood of the patrol car and patted down. At the least, I had to empty my pockets and have everything inspected for drugs. Had them destroy at least one pocket watch that way. Had to answer all the questions. Had to explain that at 14 there was no such thing as a proper form of identification. Had one of them tell me that if I didn\'t have ID or $10, I could be arrested for vagrancy. After that I never left home without a tenner in my pocket. I\'ve had the contents of my backpack dumped all over the ground on several occassions and the pack all but destroyed. Tons of fun were had by all. (oddly enough, they never did successfully find the switchblade I used to carry ;))

I\'ve also witnessed several people stopped for DWB or at least DWNW (driving while not white)

For these reasons, I will NEVER agree that only the military and police should be allowed to possess weapons.

/rant
 
Air guns=bad?? No they do not. At least in my eyes.

For the record, I do not own a gun. I do however own several very sharp swords and one sharp big ass battleaxe. :D

I have heard a drive by, seen the car in fact, I have been shot at, several times, and I will still defend my right to bear arms.
 

vincegamer

Active member
I\'d like to read that whole Adams bit because the quote there seems to be saying letting the citizenry have guns to use at their discretion is to end government.

As to what the forefathers thought, you should note that Thomas Jefferson wasn\'t part of the Constitutional Convention, neither was Adams. Hamilton was, but then again Hamilton came within a week or so of staging a military coup against president Adams.

Also note that the Constitutional Convention took place in 1787, more than a decade after the Declaration of Independence. Oh, and the Militia hardly did squat in the Revolution. It was the standing army what won it.
 

philologus

Subgenius
Good points Vince. It should also be noted that Jefferson did not want a standing federal army (something I disagree with) mostly because he thought the citizens should have a reasonable chance of overthrowing the govt. if the situation warranted.

By the way you can find these quotes and others at the L.O.C website. Especially the Jeffersonian statements.
 

noneedforaname

New member
have as many guns as you like, just make the bullets cost $10,000 each. Now who wants to go on a killing spree? Best check with the bank manager first.
 

paintingploddy

New member
I may have Dauber wrong here. because police have abused powers (his opinion - though he states he was carrying a weapon we could legally search for here) he feels people ought ot have the right to own weapons (no restrictions so I assume fully automatic and semi automatic concealable firearms are right by him).

When does he believe (and everyone else such as Philologus, hell everyoneelse who believes they need a gun against the day their government crosses a subjective line {knowing some believe a line has been crossed already - Waco, the Oklahoma City Bombers to start with}) it would be appropriate to use that gun.

Having seen at least four shootings of my workmates for similar reasons I would love to know when I near a line which would justify someone taking it in their hands to end my life for oppressing them (instead of standing in harms way for the community in which I live)?

In relation to searching cars, we can\'t do it willy nilly - our powers are given to us by the government and that is generally determined by the community in which we live. I need reasonable grounds to believe someone has weapons or drugs to search a car.
 

airhead

Coffin Dodger / Keymaster
PaintingPloddy, where are you from? no mention in your sidebar or profile. I assume GB?

Were your co-workers shot with illeagle weapons. (People that had them should not have had them either because they were not authorized or that type of weapon was just illeagle?)

You sound like a Law Enforcement Officer (LEO)?

As a legal gun-owner, that is one of our biggest beefs. The ones that are not supposed to have guns (convicted felons) are the ones that have the best guns. And the places with the most restrictive gun laws (DC for example) are the places witht he highest rates of gun violence.

The upright citizen should be able to at least defend himself.
 

paintingploddy

New member
I\'m from Melbourne Australia

The shootings I\'m referring to are two illegal weapons, 1 legal weapon and one was the members own handgun (I raise that one because the offender was aggrieved at being pulled over twice in the same night by the same policeman, attacked the member, managed to grab his gun and executed him on the roadside)

In my experience most guns I\'ve come across have been owned lawfully. The family has then either allowed someone who doesn\'t know what they are doing or who is irresponsible get their hands on the wepons and we become involved. The other scenario is that we find that someone has been hurt due to an accident or lastly the saftey has become totally ignored. On pretty much every occasion I get told that they know about guns and gun safety and wouldn\'t do anything unsafe. The louder the protestation the worse the safety breach in my experience.

I\'m not anti gun. I wasn\'t raised with guns but have used both my issue weapon and military weapons in the past. I have a problem with people who are so fearful they need to have a weapon at hand to defend themselves (I might be naive - but I\'m yet to see a happy outcome from that). I also have a problem with large numbers of military style weapons being kept in private homes, especially in suburban areas. The carnage and power of these weapons is excessive. Lastly i hate concealable weapons. I prefer to be able to see something like that rather than just stumble across them.

This is a subject I care about, and I\'m not for indiscriminant disarming of the population. Unfortunately though there have been four mass shootings in this country (that I can name off the top of my head - Hoddle Street, Queen Street, Stratfield (I think the name is) and Port Arthur) and in each occasion the weapons were obtained legally by an appropriately licensed shooter. Each tightening in gun laws has been a reaction to those shootings - and is simply intended to reduce the number of rounds a shooter can put in the air in a given time and lessen the hitting power of those bullets.

Some of you have expressed surprise our shooters allowed it. Most are law abiding citizens. They are not collectors or people have a great attachment to their guns. They were well compensated and are a very small proportion of the population to begin with. A small number are the zealots who started hiding guns in paddocks - they are law abiding in the past because up to a point them and the law travelled in the same direction, and if their belief and majority belief part, the majority are wrong and must be resisted. That is not democracy nor is it law abiding.
 

paintingploddy

New member
That must be the longest post I have ever written here. I think I need to paint something - much more productive use of time.

PS Not trying to convert anyone, I think views are fairly well set - we\'re all grown ups (well most of us anyway) with life experience to justify our views. Just trying to explain my view albeit in a disjointed way.

I think I\'ll walk away now.
 

airhead

Coffin Dodger / Keymaster
Even though I respectfully disagree, I do see your side of it. A LEO\'s job is thankless and can always be nit-picked and second guessed. Couldn\'t get me to do it. Much simpler when the good guys and the bad guys know who each other are and what the rules are.
 

funnymouth

Active member
Declaration of independance
- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
fairly positive that this was their rational for the second amendment
im with philo on this one.
 

RedSevenBlue

New member
Australia is a good example of what happens when you take away gun rights, violent crims go up more than 800%! Do that in the US, and it will end with a jump up to 2000%!:wow:
 
A

Arkzein

Guest
Interesting enough topic this. Coming from Northern Ireland, where there are extremely tight controls on guns (Even shotguns, hunting rifles and the like) I\'ve always found it hard to imagine what it is like in the states.

Not too sure where I\'d sit on the fence, I couldn\'t see war on the streets here if we had similar laws for example, laughable that in the current climate (but things can change, not entirely stable here yet), but likewise the gun crime rate would surely rise simply because it\'s easier I would think. Total crime though? probably not. We still have plenty of punishment beatings and killings in any case, lack of guns dosen\'t stop that.

After all if you\'re going to kill someone you\'ll do so, gun or no gun. And if you really want one, you can find one. (If committing a crime it\'s not going to matter to you whether or not you own the gun legally or not surely)

Not entirely sure of any statistics but gun crime in the UK is a great deal lower than in the states, but violent crime isn\'t, hence the leaning towards the thinking that a gun would be used, just they\'re harder to get hold of, but the crime still goes ahead.

In any case I\'m of the opinion that it dosen\'t make much difference in a politically stable developed country, though public opinion and the fear factor can have mean a lot more than statistics. (For example if the laws were relaxed here and muggings, assault and killings moved from knives to guns, with no rise in number, there would still be widespread panic I expect)

In any case thanks for the informative read in the previous pages. :)
 
Back To Top
Top