On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Bruce Marshall wrote: > On Tuesday 10 October 2006 12:48, Net Llama! wrote: >> On Tue, 10 Oct 2006, Bruce Marshall wrote: >>> On Tuesday 10 October 2006 10:59, Net Llama! wrote: >>>> Crushing constitutional & civil rights is far worse than the evils >>>> committed by prior administrations. >>> >>> And if the Dems come into power.... what will they do to the 2nd >>> amendment? >>> >>> There are evils on both sides of the aisle. >> >> Its funny how the only ammendment that the Republicans care about is their >> right to arm themselves. Who cares if you can be imprisoned forever >> without a trial, as long as you can carry a gun around before they lock >> you up & throw away the key. > > Then why are the liberals so intent on taking that right away? What do > they gain by it?
Beats me, other than sadistic pleasure of seeing the ultra-conservative gun-nuts squirm. > The basics, in case you don't get around much, is that the 2nd amendment > is the one that protects all the other amendments! And yes, it comes > down to a distrust of governments, and the forefathers of this country > thought enough to the right to bear arms to make a separate amendment > for it. As I've already noted, if it comes down to the government versus the people in some war, the people are going to be outgunned by a long shot. So this argument holds no water whatsoever. Obviously that wasn't the case 200+ years ago, but right now, its laughable that anyone truly believes that having the right to carry a weapon is going to prevent the govt from nullifying the Constitution. > Take note throughout history that all oppresive govements usually start > out by disarming the populace. Ask the Jews in Germany what happened > first. Times have changed. Now we're losing habeas corpus first. So you can keep your gun, until deemed an ememy combatant, at which point, you're thrown in prison until the govt decides to let you go. And btw, not supporting the president is deemed criteria for being an ememy combatant. >> What I've never understood (and would genuinely like to understand) is >> how the right to bear arms benefits anyone? > > Maybe I can have a shot (no pun intended) of fending off a bad guy who > breaks into my house... maybe on drugs so he could care less what > happens to himself? Have you read at all about the increasing crime > rates in countries that have done away with the gun-rights? Canada, > England, Australia? It is well documented what the crime rate does when > guns are taken away. And a good reason for the spate of school > shootings is that schools are gun-free zones. If someone wants to > create mayhem and not be stopped for quite some time, pick a gun-free > zone to do it in. These "well documented" cases of crime rate increases that correspond with gun bans have been disproven as nothing but manipulation of facts (primarily by the NRA). See http://www.guninformation.org As for why there are school shootings, its because the majority of school shooting are usually with the purpose of retribution for perceived offenses. If you want to punish those kids who were making fun of you, the best place to do it is where you know they'll be, namely school. > Why do almost all states now have concealed carry laws for law-abiding > citizens? This has all come about in the last 10 years or close to > that. It is well documented (you love your facts - well they are out > there) that "More guns, Less Crime". Gee, Washington, D.C. has has a > ban on handguns now for how long? At least 10 or more years. Yet it is > known as the "Murder Capitol of the USA". Crime is rampant. So? DC has a host of other problems (poverity, drugs, etc) which are usually what spurs crime. See: http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/325/23/1615 >> Sure, you can hunt animals in >> the woods, but I've never heard anyone getting fired up over the potential >> loss of that right. > > You don't read much then. Lots of people get upset about that.... However > most of them down live in San Francisco. OK, if you say so. >> Most folks get very ticked off that they lose their >> right to defend themselves. What exactly are you defending yourself from? > > Anything from a break-in burgular, to a rabid dog, car jacker, you name > it. I'm not at all convinced that guns have prevented any of those scenarios more often than not. The thought of someone roaming the streets armed to the teeth, opening fire on a rabid dog sounds like the perfect scenario for killing innocent bystanders, or just killing dogs that happened to be defending their turf (and not rabid). > I own a mini-storage business and frequently have to hold auctions to > sell the goods of people who haven't paid up. I often worry about a > disgruntled tenent coming to an auction and causing problems. Then perhaps you should hire adequate security rather than preparing for a shootout. >> Unless I'm missing something (and perhaps I am), the only time a gun >> benefits you is when the person attacking you has a smaller/weaker gun, or >> no gun at all. > > Not really.... How about the element of surprise? How about hearing > someone break into your house and you can sit in your dark bedroom and > shout that you have a gun... and can see when the person comes down the > hall. Good, then you don't need a gun for that. By your argument, just bluffing that you have a gun is as good as having one. If not, then you're screwed anyway when they come down the hall ready to kill you regardless. > All kinds of scenarios are possible; I would think just shouting a > warning that you have a gun would get half of the breakins to leave > immediately. Sure you might have a gun fight, but its better to come to > a gun fight with a gun rather than nothing at all. If you say so, but I'm not at all convinced of that. It sounds like the more likely scenario is that the residents are injured or killed in the shootout, and the person breaking in escapes unharmed, or is also injured or killed. >> And as we all know, in an arms race, there are no winners, >> only losers. > > I read at least 20 cases a month where homeowners or business people > have successfully 'won' in an attempted burglary or worse. You sure > aren't looking for the right information. There is also an estimate > made based on reported facts that guns are used 2.6 *million* times a > year to fend off attackers. You don't hear about them, because the > liberal media doesn't want to report on successful gun use. Don't > believe that? I can probably dig up a report where someone went and > researched the shooting at the Virginia law school a few years back. > That attack was stopped by *two* students who had guns in their cars > (legally). But if I recall correctly, the media never reported that > fact, even though they interviewed the two students and the students > told them exactly what happened. Nope, the news just said the attacked > was stopped by two students. Didn't say how. I'd like to read about this. Please provide URLs. >> When it comes down to it, unless you distrust the govt, such >> that you feel that you're going to need to defend yourself from their >> attack, what good is a gun going to do you? > > Need I say more. Why do Diane Feinstein, Dick Schumer or the rest of > the governement want to dis-arm me? What are their motives? (not to > mention the fact that Diane once had a carry permit herself. probably > still does and I suspect many of our Congress-critters carry too. And > then there is the Washington columnist - forget the name - who long > railed against guns until he shot a teenager who was using his swimming > pool. A bunch of hypocrits for sure, all of them) I can't disagree with that. Most politicians are hypocrites. I can't speak for why they do what they do, only myself. I'm not advocating repealing the 2nd ammendment. I just don't understand its perceived benefits in modern society, and I haven't found/read any objective studies providing otherwise either. >> And if the govt is coming >> after you, the odds of you having sufficient & large enough weapons & ammo >> are just about nil. > > Depends whether the army goes along with it or not. If they don't, then you don't need your guns anyway. Any anyway, if it comes down to a coup, all bets are off, as there's sure to be mass chaos & rampid suspension of any number of constitutionally protected rights. >> So, can someone actually help me to understand all of this? I honestly >> would like to understand it better. > > Get out and read a little. But I won't hold my breath for that to happen. Whatever. You're so full of hate, its incredibly disapointing. > > Oh, and while your at it, place a sign in your front yard: "There are > no guns in this house" and see what happens. It has been tried before. Good for them. -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Lonni J Friedman [EMAIL PROTECTED] LlamaLand http://netllama.linux-sxs.org _______________________________________________ [email protected] Unsub/Pause/Etc : http://mail.linux-sxs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general
