|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2004 3:32 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Aug 20, 2004 4:26 pm
God Bless our Second Ammendment rights.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2004 12:53 am
Excellent thread!
Living in Feinstein's state crying , I've seen a lot of attempts to take away our Second Amendment rights. They've claimed such outlandish BS as that it was intended for the population to be armed, just the military. Flaming liberals...!!! stressed
edit: Damn, I'm dislexic again!!! I meant intended for military only, not the civilian population... redface
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2004 1:05 pm
ShuroKarasu Excellent thread! Living in Feinstein's state crying , I've seen a lot of attempts to take away our Second Amendment rights. They've claimed such outlandish BS as that it was intended for the population to be armed, just the military. Flaming liberals...!!! stressed Why WOULDN'T the military be armed? Why WOULDN'T the police be armed? This goes without saying. So, why make an amendment about it? The only Constitutional liberal arguement for the restriction of fire-arms is that it was intended to allow civic organizations, such as hunting clubs or paramilitary organizations and not for the General population. But, then again, how do you define these organizations? Limiting the access to Guns only shifts the balance of power more into the hands of criminals. If there is a well armed citizenry, the risks for criminals greatly increase. Guns do not just decreases the overall crime rate, guns also provide a comparitively large body of evidence behind to other weapons used in violent crime, increasing the chances for a criminal to get caught.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2004 2:54 pm
A Soporific ShuroKarasu Excellent thread! Living in Feinstein's state crying , I've seen a lot of attempts to take away our Second Amendment rights. They've claimed such outlandish BS as that it was intended for the population to be armed, just the military. Flaming liberals...!!! stressed Why WOULDN'T the military be armed? Why WOULDN'T the police be armed? This goes without saying. So, why make an amendment about it? The only Constitutional liberal arguement for the restriction of fire-arms is that it was intended to allow civic organizations, such as hunting clubs or paramilitary organizations and not for the General population. But, then again, how do you define these organizations? Limiting the access to Guns only shifts the balance of power more into the hands of criminals. If there is a well armed citizenry, the risks for criminals greatly increase. Guns do not just decreases the overall crime rate, guns also provide a comparitively large body of evidence behind to other weapons used in violent crime, increasing the chances for a criminal to get caught. If they were meant only for the military and militia they would have put it in Article 1 Section 8, where the provisions for militia and military are made.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2004 3:20 pm
german_bar_wench A Soporific ShuroKarasu Excellent thread! Living in Feinstein's state crying , I've seen a lot of attempts to take away our Second Amendment rights. They've claimed such outlandish BS as that it was intended for the population to be armed, just the military. Flaming liberals...!!! stressed Why WOULDN'T the military be armed? Why WOULDN'T the police be armed? This goes without saying. So, why make an amendment about it? The only Constitutional liberal arguement for the restriction of fire-arms is that it was intended to allow civic organizations, such as hunting clubs or paramilitary organizations and not for the General population. But, then again, how do you define these organizations? Limiting the access to Guns only shifts the balance of power more into the hands of criminals. If there is a well armed citizenry, the risks for criminals greatly increase. Guns do not just decreases the overall crime rate, guns also provide a comparitively large body of evidence behind to other weapons used in violent crime, increasing the chances for a criminal to get caught. If they were meant only for the military and militia they would have put it in Article 1 Section 8, where the provisions for militia and military are made. That's true as well, I didn't think of that right off the bat. Too bad that I didn't. I could really have used that in an argument I had recently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2004 8:46 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Aug 21, 2004 10:50 pm
A Soporific Limiting the access to Guns only shifts the balance of power more into the hands of criminals. If there is a well armed citizenry, the risks for criminals greatly increase. Guns do not just decreases the overall crime rate, guns also provide a comparitively large body of evidence behind to other weapons used in violent crime, increasing the chances for a criminal to get caught. Yep, please remember the incident some years ago when George Harrison was attacked and injured in his own home by a burgular with a knife. My husband's uncle lives in London and he has told us that criminals have become way bolder, acting in broad daylight since they know that the law-abiding citizens are not armed...we have been warned by Britain and Australia to NOT give up our guns.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 9:20 pm
Here's a lesson I've learned from watching the hostage siege of Beslan, North Ossetia:
Guns in the hand of sufficiently motivated citizens ... twisted
(There were actually civilians carrying Kalashnikovs and civilian-legal clones of the Dragunov SVD firing on the terrorists, taking out their cover. Especially after word got out from Reuters on the troops deployed to the site being of an "offensive" nature [as opposed to hostage rescue], and the troops' plan being incomplete when they had to storm the place, it seems that the citizens ended up having to "make up" for the government-sanctioned soldiers' incompetence.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 9:29 pm
Edward Yee Here's a lesson I've learned from watching the hostage siege of Beslan, North Ossetia: Guns in the hand of sufficiently motivated citizens ... twisted (There were actually civilians carrying Kalashnikovs and civilian-legal clones of the Dragunov SVD firing on the terrorists, taking out their cover. Especially after word got out from Reuters on the troops deployed to the site being of an "offensive" nature [as opposed to hostage rescue], and the troops' plan being incomplete when they had to storm the place, it seems that the citizens ended up having to "make up" for the government-sanctioned soldiers' incompetence.) And that, my friends, is a strong case for the "well regulated militia" meaning an armed population. When people have something they hold dear at stake, they're more useful than any number of mercenaries or professionals because of their stake in the objective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 06, 2004 10:25 pm
The bottom line, folks, is that our forefathers intended for us to be able to defend ourselves against tyranny. They had seen enough of it and didn't want the generations that followed them to have to see it.
Listen to what the socialist/communist crowd are saying--they want to get our guns away from us! The only way their regime can take hold is if we are unarmed!
Also, the incidence in Britain and Australia both of daylight strongarm robbery, for example, is on the dramatic rise, due to the fact that the liberals got their guns. Are we going to let this happen to us too? The only nation that does not use the metric system because we're too proud and stubborn? The only nation big and bad enough to take on all comers, yet merciful enough to rebuild every nation we've ever had to take on?
Yeah, okay, so I'm on a bit of a rampage tonight, but this is important! We can't afford to be complacent on this issue! I live in a state full of dope-smoking, anti-war liberals--they're eroding away at MY rights as quickly and persistently as they can manage...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2004 3:52 am
I know it occurred without a lot of fanfare around this guild, but for about a week now the Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 has been over, no longer in effect.
In other news I'm looking into buying a Romanian SAR-1.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2004 9:37 am
The demise of the assault weapon ban does nothing for me... crying crying
California is so screwed up that changes in federal law don't effect us. Nevada is looking better and better... wink
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2004 9:58 am
Sorry about my lack of enthusiasm on the AGB ending. I just don't think we should give it a second thought...just that it was a good effort at ending it ^_^
As to how screwed up California is, I'll stay to make it better. Or if needs be, the Bear Flag Republic is looking better and better whee
OoC: *wonders if anyone caught the innuendo* ninja
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 21, 2004 10:28 am
Patton Sorry about my lack of enthusiasm on the AGB ending. I just don't think we should give it a second thought...just that it was a good effort at ending it ^_^ As to how screwed up California is, I'll stay to make it better. Or if needs be, the Bear Flag Republic is looking better and better whee OoC: *wonders if anyone caught the innuendo* ninja Republic, eh? Yeah, the state does seem to think itself above everyone else...kinda like the People's Republic of Berkeley, only bigger... And I've stuck it out this long trying to make it better without much to show for it, but we're committed to staying for a while, jobs and all. (Or maybe it is that we have been committed...) Did you ever consider that we have a grizzly on our flag, but there haven't been any grizzlies here in about a hundred years...? Hmm...point to ponder...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
