or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Slope Rage? - Page 4

post #91 of 100
All of you are talking about someone stealing guns and using them for crimes, or just being used for crimes period.

But what about a guy who is an gun expert who owns many guns, one day he snaps.

Rob Wisman... God Bless him. The man my husband and I knew would have never done what he had done. In ONE months time, life stress, no sleep, possibility of diabetes also.
This great friend and person, got into a fight with a man at his work over his girl friend, was sent home.

Later that day he came back loaded with guns.
Two people died that day, his boss and himself(took his own life) severely wounding everyone else that got in the way.

People who knew him (like us)said he could have killed everyone he shot. The Question till this day is... Why, What, and When did he become insane?

Do we really need guns at all??????(it was CNN about 4or 5 months ago)
post #92 of 100
You are right.
Guns don't protect anyone from white collar crime. Police don't either.
A world without guns would be nice.
A world without nukes would be nice.
A world without voilence and hatred would be nice.
A world without evil would be nice.
Back to reality- there is evil in our world.
The only hope for paradise is in the afterlife.
post #93 of 100
Very bad things happen in this world, its every creature for itself most of the time. The word "evil" however tends to be a bit silly in its use pretty often, since what is "evil" and what is not is pretty much opinion. Amish might think we are all pretty evil for even being on this forum/using computers . . . and they might be right, probably not, but who decides? Everybody thinks god is on their side (or they on her/his side), and therefore they can define "evil".
post #94 of 100
Maybe we are closer to nature than we think. In the animal world the large or savage kill the smaller for food or territory/dominance. With humans it seems to be the haves and have nots going after the less predatory or violent.
post #95 of 100
gonzostrike said:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>guns are good for hunting, and all hunters should be allowed to own guns for that purpose. so should "sport shooters" - folks who participate in trap/skeet/target shooting. but for self-protection?<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hmmm...does the Constitution specify who should be able to own a gun? Oh, the right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Not, "the right of a hunter, competitive shooter, or persons with a special license to bear arms shall not be infringed..."

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> boy, I hope you know how to use that gun, because if you don't, it's more likely to get you killed (by the burglar/whomever that sees the threat of deadly force) than to protect you.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yet another liberal fallacy. It's not hard to safely load and fire a gun. I guess liberals feel that they're the only ones smart enough to use a gun safely. :

Look, the right to bear arms is protected by the Constitution, just as plain as day, and just as EQUAL as the right to free speech. If you want to change that, get a Constitutional Amendment passed by 2/3 of the states and Congress. Until then, shut the hell up, or move to Oz, England, or some other country.
post #96 of 100
There are people who are not "liberal" who have concerns about gun use, and those who do. Its a rather simplistic view to polerize all of humanity into either "liberal" or "conservative".


Earlier this century the republicans were considered the 'liberals'.
post #97 of 100

you and the NRA have your own interpretation of the 2d Amendment, to which you are entitled.

please don't forget the the clause that makes the right to bear arms conditioned upon a well-regulated militia:

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

At the time of the Convention in 1787, the "Militia" was the equivalent of our current day National Guard. The National Guard has replaced the "Militia." Without question, National Guard members are entitled to handguns, rifles, and other firearms necessary to defend the nation.

The 2d A responded to an EXTERNAL threat from an EXTERNAL monarchy. It makes no reference whatever to giving unqualified gun ownership rights to every citizen.

So, I'm sorry to say, you are dead wrong on your interpretation.

As to my personal opinion: I think I should be allowed to own a hunting rifle or shotgun, or a handgun for "sport shooting" purposes. However, I don't think the 2d A gives me the right to FIRST call myself the Militia, SECOND declare that I am prepared as the Militia to defend the Country against (whomever I select as the bad guy/bad forces), and THIRD buy, own, possess and shoot any firearm of my choice.

You have a problem with that? I suggest you check in with your local headshrinker for some paranoia/insecurity assessments. Unless you're a criminal or a serious causer of trouble who may not yet be committing criminal acts, I feel pretty safe saying that nobody's out to shoot you.
post #98 of 100
Also, and unlike the other portions of the original ten amendments, the second has not been incorporated to apply to the several States by way of the 14th amendment. Thus, there is not a 2d Amendment bar to regulation of firearms by the states.
post #99 of 100
Seems it takes a disaster to make people even entertain questions such as these. Wonder if Jayson Williams (the ex Nets star) is now a convert to gun responsibility and keeping them outside his bedroom.

The snowboarder thing makes one reconsider the Combination Acts and other illiberal laws (of the French Revolution era) against public groups congregating for any purpose, though. Hmm...maybe a pair would be less trouble...they couldn't start a bread riot, either.

post #100 of 100
excellent point, irul.

too many people hear the catchphrases and soundbites used by 2d A absolutists, the NRA, and folks like "The Freemen." Most haven't read all of the following:

* the 2d A
* The Federalist Papers
* The Anti-Federalist
* the plethora of Federal cases, including US Supremes cases, that have interpreted the 2d A

And then on top of that, layer the issue of psychological bases for assuming people are "out to get you" to such an extent that you need firearms to protect yourself.

Sheesh. Talk about a paranoia-inspiring issue!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion