The whole Republican/Democrat thing doesn't really stand true any more. If people should have the right to choose whether or not they want to own a gun, shouldn't they have the right to choose what they put into their bodies?
Because the parties are no longer about power of the states vs. power of the national government, but instead about the extremes of liberal vs. conservative, there is nobody representing the majority of Americans.
Abe Lincoln was a Republican who felt that the national government should be held higher than state governments. The Democrats wanted the state governments to have more power.
Today, the Republicans want the states to have more power.
Why? Because the parties stopped standing for political viewpoint and instead started trying to win votes.
So, the Republican party no longer stands for strong national government. It now stands for Christian Conservative, because that's where they got the votes. What do the Christian Conservatives want? Strong states rights. Why? Because they were originally Democrats.
The two party system is flawed because the world isn't black/white. Multi-party systems are flawed because it can split the vote of the majority of people who may want to remove a person from office, but by splitting the vote of the majority, the minority (people who want to keep person in office) win. This happened in the Dallas Mayoral election a while back. Most people wanted our mayor out of office but split the vote between the other 2 candidates and we ended up stuck with our crappy mayor for another term.
It's a lose/lose situation.
So, I don't consider myself a Republican or a Democrat. I used to vote Libertarian, but don't do that much anymore. Instead, I find the candidate that seems represent me the best. Right now it's a toss up between Giuliani/Obama and I just like McCain. He really seems like a nice guy.

Thought I would add my 2 cents, as gun control is my 2nd favorite debate subject right after "The War on Drugs". I almost hate to say anything in fear of stealing some Capt. Andtennile's thunder as he's done an EXCELLENT job, a virtual smack down of the apposing side.

BTW gun control has been previously discussed
http://www.mobclan.com/forums/upload/index...?showtopic=3326


US Constitution.[i]
This has always been my humorous reply to discussions about what the 2nd amendment REALLY means

"The People" in the Preamble means The People.
"The People" in Article 1 Sec. 2 means The People.
"The People" in the First amendment means The People.
"The People" in the Fourth amendment means The People.
"The People" in the Ninth amendment means The People.
"The People" in the Tenth Amendment means The People.
"The People" in the Seventeenth Amendment means The People.
But to gun control advocates....
"The People" in the Second Amendment means the National Guard.
which didn't even exist for over a century until it was created by act of congress in 1903

If anyone really wants to know what the 2nd Amendment is really about, all you have to do is refer to the
Federalist Papers
James Madison wrote
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

How about this.
Can everyone agree the US Constitution is a combination of the original State Constitutions?
If so, then we should be able to gain some insight on the true intent of the 2nd Amendment buy looking at the State Constitutions.
This is from the States which mention rights in regard to arms in their individual Constitutions in 1971
Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state.
Kentucky: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State
shall not be questioned.
Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the
State shall not be questioned.
Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Vermont: The people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State.

Does that change any one's perspective when it comes to the meaning of
"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."

I've always hated the gun control advocates and their attempts to rewrite history to minimize WHY we have the 2nd amendment.
The initial trigger of the American Revolution was The Battles of Lexington and Concord.
British troops were sent to Lexington and Concord to seize and destroy the colonists' weapons.
At Lexington, the path of 700 British soldiers was blocked by a small group of Minutemen.
This is when and were the famous "shot heard around the world" comes from.
This isn't pertinent to the discussion but I've always found it interesting.
Only a dozen colonist were killed in the fight at the North Bridge in Concord where they resisted the British advance. Yet, over ten times as many British soldiers were killed in their march back to Lexington after being turned back by the Minutemen without a single additional casualty among the Americans.
Individuals hiding along the road, fired on the passing British as they marched back to Lexington. The British didn't know how to reply these kinds of attacks by random individuals firing from different locations. The soldiers were only trained how to stand in lines and trade volleys of rifle fire with the enemy.
This might be the 1st recorded example of guerrilla warfare.
Anyway the point is, the Founding Fathers thought the Right to bear arms was so important because the attempted infringement of that right is what had just triggered the American Revolution.

I'm sure some people are going to say...
"Big deal, that was over 200 years ago, so it doesn't reflect the realities of today."
Well then, how about something a little more recent like WWII.
There are three important quotes from Admiral Yamamoto who was the commander of the Japanese Navy and the master mind behind Pearl Harbor.
Some move buffs may recognize this one credited to Yamamoto after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
"I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."
Truth is, it's highly doubtful he actually said that but it does accurately convey his well documented opinion.
When he planned the attack on Pearl, there was suppose to be an official break of relations with the U.S. just prior to the attack.
Due to delays caused by decryption of the coded messages from Japan, the formal notification of a break in relations didn't happen until several hours AFTER the attack.
In Yamamoto's opinion this mistake was a deciding factor in Japan losing the war.
He knew the only chance against the U.S. was an early decisive victory. Which Japan would use to force the U.S. into some form non-aggression pact.
Without the official break of relations prior to the attack, he knew the U.S. would never be willing to negotiate.
Another quote which did happen and is important because it shows just how much of a tactical genius he really was.
Months before the attack on Pearl, Yamamoto told the Japanese Cabinet members.
"I can run wild for six months … after that, I have no expectation of success."
Which turned out to be incredibly accurate. The Battle of Midway, considered to be the turning point of the War, happened 6 months after the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Now I'm sure you're wondering what the heck this has to do with "gun control"
Actually a lot, at one point the Japanese command was considering an invasion if the attack at Pearl was a success. Yamamoto told them an invasion would be impossible.
Yamamoto knew America better than any one else in Japan's military command structure as he spent several years in the U.S . First he attended Harvard for a few years and then was stationed for another two years in the U.S. as a Naval attache. So he had 1st hand knowledge that America, unlike almost any other nation, had a freely armed civilian populace.
Which brings me to my final quote.
When the topic of possible limited invasion was brought up, he told them.
"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be an American with a rifle behind each blade of grass."
Don't know about you but for me it puts more recent twist on.
"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."
Maybe it's wasn't just some dumb thing a few guys in white wigs and long frilly coats came up with over 200 years ago.




Then there is the ever popular comparison between the U.S . and Canada in regards to gun laws and crime rates.
Since this concerns statistics, I'll share with you something my teacher said in Statistics class.
"Over half the people involved in car accidents ate french fries in the week preceding the car wreck.
This does not mean skipping fries is a good way to reduce your odds of being in a car accident. "
The point being, statistics don't mean jack unless you can also show an underlying cause an effect relationship. With that in mind, lets take a closer look at this common myth.

Canada has a lower violent crime rate compared to the U.S.
The gun control advocates without any proof, imply this means if the U.S. passed similar gun laws then the violent crime rate would drop. ( ie. the same as it did in Canada )
At 1st glance it seems not only a legitimate argument but common sense.
Less guns = less gun violence
Isn't that the concept gun advocates try to push?
It goes like this......
Canada, being the forward thinking country ( unlike the U.S. ) has greatly restricted gun possession over the last 30+ years with GREAT results.
1977, law passed to require Firearms Acquisition Certificates
1991, Laws passed to tightened up restrictions and established stricter controls on firearms. Bans handguns with over 10 rounds and most semi-automatic rifles over 5 rounds. FAC applicants were now required to pass a firearms safety course, pass a more thorough background check, and wait a minimum of 28 days after applying for an FAC before being issued one.
1995 new, stricter, gun control legislation passed and a landmark Gun Registry is introduced.
Gun control advocates often point to Canada as proof of how their gun restriction laws have reduced violent crime.
One small problem, it didn't actually happen.
Violent crime has been on a fairly overall upward climb since the 1st restrictions were put in place in 1977



Or here is an interesting review of crime statistics from the Canadian National Post
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/is...c3cee14&p=1
It explains why the violent crime rate in Canada is going up while the rate in the U.S. is going down.
BTW, remember that landmark Canadian gun registry.
Here are a few facts the gun control advocates always conveniently forget to mention.
## When the Gun Registry was introduced it was suppose to cost taxpayers 2 Million dollars, the true cost will actually be over 2 Billion, yes that's Billion with a B.
## Because of the cost, ineffectiveness and lack of support, currently all provinces except 1 have plans to "opt out" of the registry and refuse to prosecute violators.
## The long gun registration has not been postponed for ANOTHER year because people have refused to comply with the law.
Then there is my favorite
"It turns out, criminals do not comply with the gun registry making it ineffective."
The ONLY benefit of Canada's gun laws was a windfall for American gun collectors.
1000's of antique or collector weapons were turned in and were suppose to be destroyed but ended up being sold on the secondary market in the U.S.


This isn't meant to be an attack on Canada's gun policy. I'm only trying to point out a different perspective than the misleading suggestion,
Canada's gun restriction laws had a DIRECT impact on lowering gun related violence.
Someone mentioned comparing Canada to the US was like comparing apples to oranges.
Well they were right.
I can name several countries that have just as unrestricted gun laws as the U.S. but have a much lower crime rate.
Why?
Because the suggestion from the gun control advocates, "less guns = less gun crimes"
is complete bullshit.
Here is a question for you to think on.
If less guns equals less gun related violence was true.
Then wouldn't the opposite also be true?
Then why was there NOT a related increase of gun related violence during the 30 year period from 1970 to 2000 where the number of handguns more than doubled.



True, there are several peaks showing an increase but the overall trend in gun violence is down.
Kind of blows the whole "less guns = less gun crime" away.

Or how about this, if you don't want to compare different countries, we could compare different cities.
DC. had the absolute strictest gun laws in the U.S., for several years it also just happen to be the U.S. murder capital. At it's peak, the murder rate per capita in DC was 8 times higher than the national average.
You don't want to compare Canada with the U.S.
Then how about we compare DC with Arlington Va, right across the river.
DC with strict gun laws, murder rate of 46/capita
Arlington with unregulated gun ownership, 2.1/capita.
No, I'm not trying to make the claim Arlington is safer because it has more guns.
I'm only trying to point out the common " guns = violence" is an over simplification to the point of absolute stupidity.
There are hundreds of other factors that result in these statistics.

Another popular gun control myth "Guns DO NOT prevent crime"
Fact: After passing their concealed carry law, Florida's homicide rate fell from 36% above the
national average to 4% below, and still remains below the national average.

Not interested in murder rates, then how about rape?
In 1966 the police in Orlando, Florida, responded to a rape epidemic by embarking on a highly publicized program to train 2,500 women in firearm use. The next year rape fell by 88 percent in Orlando (the only major city to experience a decrease that year); burglary fell by 25 percent. None of the 2,500 women ended up using their weapon. Ten years later, Orlando's rape rate was still 13 percent below the pre-program level, where as the surrounding metropolitan area had suffered a 308 percent increase.



Not enough, then how about we just deal with the biggest Gun Control Myth.
### Handguns are 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a criminal ###
What they don't tell you....
** This study ONLY counts incidents where someone was shot and killed, FBI statistics show only .1% of the time does the defensive use of a handgun result in someone being fatally shot. So the 99.9 times out of a 100 where a person only shows the gun, fires a warning shot or shoots but only wounds an attacker doesn't count in this 43/1 myth.
** Of the 43/1 myth ( 86%) were suicides. Dozens of studies have shown availability of handguns has no effect on overall suicide rates. If a handgun is unavailable, people simply find another way.
** 9 of the deaths that Dr. Kellerman ranked as "Death of a family member", have another name, it's called self defense. Even though the police ruled 9 of these as self defense and no charges were brought against anyone, ie. A wife shot her husband to stop him from possibly beating her to death. The very biased Dr. Kellerman counted cases of self defense in the "Death of a Family member column" not the "criminal killed column". Changes things a little bit don't you think?
There were additional cases that did go to court and were found to also be self defense.
** The whole study is based on only 1 urban, high population, high crime county over a 6 year period. It's far to limited in scope to prove anything.
** This supposedly unbiased study was funded by a CDC at the request of a DR. who belongs to H.E.L.P.
( Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan )So much for unbiased
** The real show stopper, Dr. Kellerman refused to release his data for 3 years. Within 6 month of him releasing his data for review, he admitted his conclusion of 43/1 as inaccurate and reduced that number to 2.5/1. Which to the majority of people reviewing his data still finds to be misleading because it doesn't account for the 100's of times a handgun is used to prevent a crime and he still counts cases of self defense as "death of a family member" and not as a death of a criminal. Even though the author of the study 10 years ago admitted it was inaccurate and misleading, the handgun advocates still often quote this 43/1 study.
Here is the real breakdown of the 398 deaths that make up this 6 year study.
333 ( 84%) suicides, call me crazy but I doubt it was coincidence he picked the #2 suicide capital of America.
41 (10%) Homicides, at least 8 of these, the court documents show the criminal brought the gun with him but it still counts towards the 43/1 ratio because according to Dr. Kellerman the ONLY requirement is the gun was in the house and it was a family member, it's irrelevant if the gun was the homeowners or brought into the house by the killer. This number also includes several cases where the court found it to be a case of self defense either during trail or on appeal.
12 (3%) Accidents
9 (2%) Self Defense, no charges
3 (1%) Unknown



Bargod said he would rely on UNBIASED information from the CDC before information put out by either the gun control or gun right groups. There is one small problem with that, the CDC has funded several biased studies just like the "43/1" one above.
Studies where the sponsoring group within the CDC supported the author of the study not to release the data they used to draw their conclusions.
For example, the only reason the data was finally released in the 43/1 study is because the author later published his findings in The New England Journal of Medicine, which did require Dr. Kellerman to open his data for review.
Doesn't seem a little strange the Center for Disease Control, a heath study organization, has paid for several large outside studies on gun violence?
All done at the request of doctors in the CDC who also belong to H.E.L.P. ( Handgun Epidemic Lowering Plan ), a gun control advocacy group.
Maybe you would be surprised to find out, as of 1996 congress has barred the CDC from using tax dollars to sponsor outside gun related studies.
This doesn't stop them from doing official internal studies relating to gun violence.
It only stops them doing something similar to what they did with Dr. Kellerman.
Paying someone $1.2 million dollars of tax payer money, then only release the conclusions drawn by the study but refusing to release the data the conclusions are based on.

Another outside study sponsored by the CDC, done in the in early 90's showed how gun violence committed in the home by women was rising at an alarming rate, they titled it a new epidemic.
While the study did accurately point to a large increase in the number of gun deaths resulting from a women's use of a firearm over the last decade. It conveniently left out that anywhere from 50%-75% of the time when a wife kills her husband, no charges are filed because it's either the women acting in self defense or defense of her children.
Call me old fashion but I've got no problem with a women using a handgun to "even the odds" when a man is abusing her or her children.

To me the single biggest problem with all the statistics used by gun control advocates is they never separate out
legal use of a legally owned weapon by a law abiding citizen
versus
illegally use of a weapon by a criminal who due to their prior criminal history cannot even legally own a gun.
They always lump the groups together in an attempt to make numbers more shocking.
The majority of gun related homicides are committed by people with criminal backgrounds which prevent them from legally owning a gun.
So call me crazy but I consider control advocates who demand that we take guns away from law-abiding citizens to POSSIBLY reduce the incidence of felons committing crimes against each other or us, I think those views are not only short sighted but dangerous.

OWN3D

I'm going to put an end to this now.

Real, is that you?

<======Gun Control!

Naw...its our Man Druid....... the research, the eloquence, the sheer size of the post sure smacks of him...nice to see ya around!!

not to mention knowledge of previous topics, and...tadaa... his name Is Robert

I thought maybe, but I dared not dream it...
I certainly hope it's true, while at the same time nearly dreading the fact that...

THE STUDENT WILL MEET THE MASTER!!!!!!!!


Yeah, so there are problems with the arguement. Sure, I didn't know about the CDC and sponsering of anti-gun, yadda yadda... but you were still sloppy and didn't directly dispute some very clear points I made.

I'll be posting soon enough my counter to the newest voice in "anit-gun control".

I'm sure it will be good reading by all. It shouldn't be too difficult... ;P

Till whenever I get around to it,
I bid you adieu or something...
















Like Japan ever had an invasion plan for the US... that's just stupid....

Did I tell you I was thinking about buying a boat?

Of course, I know that the Japanese actually invaded the Aleutians, but to consider that they ever had any intention of "invading" the US is silly. Their intention was to knock out the US navy and get a Non-Aggression Pact to stay out of war with the US. Of course, they didn't get the message to drop diplomatic talks with the US in time so they just "woke the sleeping giant".

Cool. What are you looking for? I might just be able to help you out.

Well now I regret including the quotes from Yamamoto as it clouds the subject.
Just to clarify things. I wasn't talking about a large scale invasion with occupation being the goal.
I was talking about land based assaults for the purpose of damaging or destroying industry that could be used to fuel the American war machine, much of which was based right there along the coast.
Sure it's easy to look back with 20/20 vision and say it couldn't have happened.
I'm sure people thought the same thing about an attack on Pearl right up to Dec. 7th.

Things were very different back then, parts of the Military thought an attack on the coast was likely.
Keep in mind, Japan was batting 1000 at the time.
Look at how quickly they took control of everywhere they went.
Guam, Wake islands, Sumatra, Guadalcanal, Hong Kong, Manchuria , Manila, Burma, Okinawa, Malaya, Singapore, New Guinea, Borneo and the East Indies, etc.
They ran us out of the Philippines in a matter of weeks.
Our only other stronghold in the Pacific ( Pearl) had already been devastated.
It was pure luck the attack on Pearl didn't catch 2 aircraft carriers in port. One had just left and another ready to arrive.
An example of what was at stake along the coast.
Douglas Aircraft in Santa Monica and the surrounding industry represented half of the U.S. military fighter/light bomber aircraft production.
90% of heavy bomber production was done just outside of L.A.
5 naval shipyards.
When they took the Aleutian Islands, many people in the military expected it to be used for a forward bomber base. While other military leaders thought the capture of the Aleutian Islands was a fake ruse. They believed it was done to make us focus north while the real attack would come from the south, at one point MacArthur ( back in the U.S. after the loss of the Philippines ) predicted an invasion force would land in Mexico just south of the California and drive up from the Mexico/U.S. border.

Of course a full scale invasion was completely impossible, just from a logistics standpoint.
Small effective strikes were not only possible, but predicted by many people in the military.
I just thought Yamamoto quote was a relevant as it pointed out that the U.S. would have been better prepared than almost any other county to repel an invasion due to the fact unlike most nations, we have an armed civilian population.
Think of it in a different way, transplant a section of America with some of the countries Germany invaded.
Compared to them, we would have been better prepared to conduct an effective civilian resistance.
An no, I'm not saying a group of armed farmers could withstand an advance of German tanks
Just consider how much more effective the resistance movements in places like Poland/France would have been if there was an armed civilian population prior to the start of the war.
The same holds true for the Japanese in the Pacific.
Sure several of the Island chains the Japanese invaded, were easy pickings due to their low population but they had just as easy of a time invading high population areas such as, Manchuria, Burma, Malaya and Singapore.
After Japan destroyed the limited military ability of these area's, they had easy control of a combined population of 40+ million people. Why? because the civilian people had either limited or no ability to personally defend themselves.
Look at it this way, even it you removed our natural defense ( Pacific and Atlantic oceans), we would still be better prepared to defend ourselves then almost any nation.
I'm not talking modern day, I'm talking WWII era
Which brings me right back to the underlying meaning behind Yamamoto's quote.
"There would be an American with a rifle behind each blade of grass"
You may not agree but in my PERSONAL opinion I think it was a modern day example of what the Founding Fathers envisioned when they wrote the 2nd Amendment

At the time there was no telling what Japan would do to postpone our involvement in the War.
If you want an interesting read, do a search for Fire Balloons.
We were very lucky they didn't have the required technology to develop a biological weapon ( they tried but failed ), as they had the perfect delivery system via the balloons.




Anyhoo....
Just for shits and grins
Let's all put on our rose colored glasses an envision a day in the not to distant future where every single handgun except those used by police have been rounded up and destroyed..
It\'s now officially illegal to own a firearm.
What do you think what happen?
We would sudden all live in peace an harmony?
There would little or no violent crime?
What I think would happen would be a black market where every criminal who wanted a gun could get one.
I can't find it now, I use to have a link to either a FBI or DEA sudy which concluded it would only take a year of smuggling before there would be a big enough supply that a gun t would be available to every criminal that wanted one.
It sucks that I can't find the link but I hope it's not needed.
To me common sense would say, if we can't stop illegal drug smuggling, we probably couldn't do much better for illegal gun smuggling.
For that matter, if we can't keep illegal people out, then how are we suppose to keep illegal guns out?


Something I forgot to bring up when discussing the CDC external studies that were bought and paid for by doctors who just happen to belong to a gun control advocacy group.
The CDC did their own legitimate study a few years back.
It was the single largest study done to evaluate the effectiveness of gun control measures and the prevention of gun related violence.
What did they find?
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr5214a2.htm#tab
Turns out not much.
"The application of imperfect methods to imperfect data has commonly resulted in inconsistent and otherwise insufficient evidence with which to determine the effectiveness of firearms laws in modifying violent outcomes.
"Insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of gun control laws"
I'm not going to claim this as some big victory like some gun rights groups have.
What I do find interesting is how can gun control groups still claim a direct link between restrictive gun laws and reduced gun related violence when the single biggest independent study done wasn't able to show a link.


Which takes us right back to square one.
To me the single biggest problem with all the statistics used by gun control advocates is they never separate out
legal use of a legally owned weapon by a law abiding citizen
versus
illegally use of a weapon by a criminal who due to their prior criminal history cannot even legally own a gun.

A big one able to tow topics off course.... see now I got you talking about boats.

Will this one work?







Shortly after we got it.







More recent (after we renamed it).

Well, Mr. Robert, you bring up many good points. Some of whcih i really need to look into more.
I do know that there is a decent amnt. of CRAP that I needed to wade through....
I'm not saying it's all cray...
But you seem to pick and choose numbers as well as anyone else.
We'll talk about these numbers in the future...

And you people are talking about guns being dangerous... why not focus on a real problem. Bet this one is a choice most of you wouldn't want our lovely gov't taking away from you. Here's some info for your reading pleasure.

http://www.usfa.dhs.gov/downloads/pdf/tfrs/v5i5.pdf

The losses from smoking-caused fires have been consistently high over the past 25 years— In 2002 alone, lighted tobacco products caused an estimated 14,450 residential fires, 520 deaths, 1,330 injuries, and $371 million in residential property damage.1, 2


http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/..._and_Health.asp

More than 7 million current and former smokers suffer from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), the name used to describe both chronic bronchitis and emphysema. COPD is the fourth leading cause of death in America, and the number of women dying from the disease is higher than the number of men. Smoking is the primary risk factor for COPD. About 80% to 90% of COPD deaths are caused by smoking

Pregnant women who smoke risk the health and lives of their unborn babies. Smoking during pregnancy is linked with a greater chance of miscarriage, premature delivery, stillbirth, infant death, low birth weight, and sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Up to 10% of infant deaths would be prevented if pregnant women did not smoke. This would amount to 2600-3600 babies a year who live in the US alone.

About half of all the people who continue to smoke will die because of the habit. In the United States, tobacco causes nearly 1 in 5 deaths, killing about 440,000 Americans each year. Smoking is the single most preventable cause of death in our society.

Based on current patterns, smoking will kill about 650 million people alive in the world today.

This is just a tiny piece of what is really out there. I'm not a smart man but me thinks 650 million is a few more than whatever number you want to dig up from your studies on guns.... So let's keep things in perspective when we talk about exactly how dangerous these are.

Totally different subject, but I agree. How can alcohol and tobacco be legal, yet possesion of marijuana is a criminal offense?

High Fructose Corn Syrup is making our nation obese and is a leading cause of childhood diabetes, and also causing children to get adult diabetes. Why? Because it's because we put tariffs on imported sugar to keep the price of American sugar higher, while subsidising corn. So, making the seriously unhealthy HFCS, a complex chemical process, is still cheaper than sugar.

This might interest you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trZ96d59hmY They only go to honest folks not the real crooks.

Jeeze, don't you people have jobs or something. Do you just sit around thinking this shit up and doing research to back up your arguments.



I am a gun owner. I love the fact that I can own a gun. I have lots of them and I plan on getting more. I even want to get fully automatic weapons, the bigger the better. Why? Because they exist and I want to blow the shit out of an old car or TV just to say I did. I am the guntoting, conservative redneck they talk about on the news. I don't need to debate this issue. I know what is right and I know what is wrong because my parents taught me so.



Someone earlier quated they have the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." I believe these are guaranteed by the Bill of Rights which also says somewhere in there that "these rights are inalienable",which means to me cannot be taken away.



People need to stop trying to tell others how to live their lives. You don't want to own a gun, don't. Don't want to get shot accidently,don't hang out with people that own guns. If you don't want to get shot on purpose, stop trying to take peoples guns away from them.



That is redneck logic.



I now realize why I only check forums about once every 2 months, because I always get stuck reading this pseudophilosophical bullshit. Why don't you guys start a thread and argue about why some people get blue belly button lint and others get grey.



I'm done, see you in 2 months.

Ouch. The whole point of this was to have a debate. I like debating. I like arguing. I'll argue points I know are wrong or that I actually disagree with because to me it's fun.
I was actually think about making a forum room for debates that I come up with. No lie. I just thought of that while washing the dishes like an hour ago.

Same here on your points BG.... I find these debates informative - no matter who rambles off topic just like people suffer reading through my posts. Some others here may not want to visit every 2 months at all if they find these varying viewpoints so stressful or beyond comprehension of what a debate is all about -various views and informative suggestions.

From what I remember where you're living cowdoc guns in rural areas are a natural 'asset' to own. Gun control is a huge issue to deal with in urban areas/cities regarding gangs and organised crime , and loose cannon individuals-> that's the different perspective to what your angle is. Collections of bigger/badder assault guns by gun-owners in cities not an issue you think? ........ Other thing about that is such a gun-owner would likely be targeted for a home invasion by low-life crooks-and they'd be prepared knowing the gun-owner might be prepared.

reading the newspaper today, and yet another school shooting in the U.S. but thats ok cause with more guns out there means less gun crime right and everyone would feel safe, so i was told by some ppl.

I haven't read the entire thread, but thought I'd put in my two cents.

I'm not pro-gun. On the other hand, I served in the US Army and have fired many rifles and pistols in that time. I like to shoot, target shooting. I don't hunt and don't agree with people that hunt for sport. If you're going to feed your family all winter off some deer meat, that's cool.

I would be for an overall gun ban or some very very strict screening process. My thoughts would be, you'd have to be over 18 years old, no criminal past, no prior convictions, no arrests, etc. Absolutely no assault weapons! They could have ranges where you can fire those type of weapons or if you really want to shoot them, join the military.

I moved to Richmond, VA in the mid-90's to attend college at VCU. At the time, Richmond was the murder capital of the US. Two years later, they appointed a new mayor, Tim Kaine (now governor of VA) and he imposed a new law. You get caught with an unregistered gun, you go to jail. No questions asked. Crime dropped insanely low, especially crime involving hand guns.

The arguement that if you take away the guns, then only criminals will have them. Hmm, yeah, kinda makes sense. But look around at other countries that don't allow a broad assortment of weapons. They don't or barely have any gun crime.

The arguement that if you grow up with rifles, etc and learn gun safety that it's okay. Nah, you look at all the kids that go shooting into schools. There are pics of them a few years earlier out hunting with dad and junk. I think if you have access to them that you'd probably think about using them more.

Anyway, just my two cents.

Here's why for gun control- even though you can get registered to buy them there are a number of idiots who shouldn't have that right. When you see the pic in this link, it was the boy's mom and dad buying him the 'arsenal'. Well cowdoc when I saw this pic/tv footage I thought of your post where you mentioned 'having a load of guns-bigger the better' etc., I hope you see why how everyone buying guns legit are seemingly not the ones going to commit a crime- or in this case being responsible for providing them to others intent on doing so.

http://www.philly.com/philly/news/breaking...vestigated.html

It's not that gun crime cures crime in gun-controlled countries, but guns are too easy and efficient a way to kill people and quickly. We have gun control up here in Canada but street-gangs do have their hands on them, however the massive police/community intervention on youth gangs really crush the gangs ability to get wildly chaotic. I think total murders in Toronto and Montreal so far this year are around 50 - 60 in each city-> still 50 too much, but compare it to Philadelphia with 400+ right now.

gun control up here is a joke if you ask me.

Yes, all stats and opinions would make it seem so, but it reminds me of a WW2 thing [of course ].
Everyone says the air bombings on industrial targets in Germany did no good as the production stats in those areas showed a still huge output. If that's the case, imagine how much more huge the production would've been without the intense bombings on those targets. Maybe our gun control is like that- seemingly ineffective, but maybe the effort is keeping things from going beyond a joke to becoming a nightmare on the streets.... imo

I read about this in a different article, and they said that most of those guns were air guns. I think there was only 1 or 2 "real" guns in there.

Of course, I do like the fact that they are holding the parents accountable. The kid felt picked on so the mom, to make him feel better, bought him a pistol, a .22 rifle, and a semi-auto 9mm rifle, or something along those lines.
That's quality parenting!

Although I currently live in a rural area (Fox Lake, WI) i grew up in downtown Chicago, 2 blocks north of Cabrini Green. In 1991, my friend Ethan was shot in the head in the alley behind his parents house. Within 2 months, my friends Matt and Rocky were also dead. I am very familiar with the gun problem in an urban environment. That is why I now live in the sticks. I didn't want to rasie my children in the city and Chicago has a law that bans all handguns. Ask OUch who is a Chicago cop. apparently that law did nothing to stop the gangbangers from getting guns. They shot Ethan because he whooped some kids ass in a fist fight. So what happened, the banger got some homeboys and a gun and killed him. matt and Rocky got killed because they had been with Ethan and saw what the shooter looked like. Maybe if my friends had guns the bangers would be dead. I don't care because my friends would still be here.



No easy answer to this issue but "banning guns" is a fantasy. They exist and they are not going away. You might as well try and ban cars or TVs. Obviously, everyone is entitled to their opinion on this matter and we all know where I stand. I always have a gun on me because I am a firm believer in having one and not needing it, than needing one and not having it.



I hope I have not upset too many people with this post. I believe what I believe and I am not afraid to share it if asked. Good luck with your debate.

Cowdoc, this is exactly the reason I was brought up to hate guns. As I said earlier my father grew up in one of the worst slums in the country at the time, Hell's Kitchen. He saw guns as the problem and has always been a streetfighter. When I brought this up earlier it was commented that guns protected people against guys like my dad, as if my dad was some ultimate fighting champion or something. To me it made no sense. If you have an arguement with somebody and you have a fist fight, generally nobody dies. My dad told me he hated Texas because when he was here in the Air Force, if you got in a bar fight with locals they went out to their trucks and got their guns.
Now what kind of sense does that make?
He has only been back to Texas twice since then.
Anyway, clearly one of the problems with gun laws is that they aren't universal across the country. The guys that shot your buddies most likely didn't buy their guns at a gun shop. They bought them out of the trunck of a car.
Where did the seller get them?
They were stolen out of the houses of law-abiding citizens living in the 'burbs.
So, how do you keep criminals from getting hand guns?
You remove their source.
What is their source?
The law abiding citizen.
I don't see shot guns and bolt-action rifles as a problem. In your home a shot gun is going to be better defense against an intruder than a hand gun anyway. And nobody is going to mug you carrying a bolt action rifle.

Guns are not the problem. The moral callapse of certain sectors of our society is partially at fault. The other is that we don't punish those that use guns in crime and those that have them illegally.

We need more capital punishment and more prisons with longer, mandatory prison terms for those that improperly use a gun.
Problem solved.

.
I agree with the capt......you guys ever heard of the "tent city"? This sheriff in Arizona has the right idea:

http://www.mcso.org/index.php?a=GetModule&mn=Sheriff_Bio

Point One I agree with you - with the culture of rap songs glorifying simplistic mentality as a good thing, and violence the cure-all for resolution of disputes for those they've brainwashed into simple-minds.

However, on point 2 I'd wish it would be the answer, but its not working is it. We see mega-prisons at the bursting point, and crooks being let out early as a result on flimsy 'good behaviour' excuses.
Is it because crooks using firearms get more savage in their crimes since they know that getting caught is a very undesirable option? Cowdoc's horrific story regarding his 3 good friends may be a good example of that. Personally summary executions for scum-leach violent crooks, a 'Devil's Island' for thugs, sweeping known gang-hangouts with military afvs would be more to my liking but I think it's all about point one. While violence will always exist, we need to build societies that 1] sets-up guns to be used only by mentally stable people [and sends to prison those selling/illegally turning over guns to those that aren't fit [registration rules]. 2]shows the idiocy behind violent rap music and ridicules bling bling rapsters - kids need to learn more about honouring their neighbours growing up.... imo.

One interesting thing becoming popular up here in Canada is the reintroduction of school uniforms to deter hardcore gang affiliation at high-school age-not cure, but deter it.... you can see its potential for success.

I was brainwashed into this behavior at my Sunday School......

hmmm. - ok, maybe what I meant was more along the lines of good-will to neighbours/ fellow citizens.....

We aren't doing this now, so I don't see how u can tell if it is working or not. Someone using a gun to commit a crime, like robbery, should get 10 to 15 years with 10 years mandatory. Right now they get maybe 2yrs at best. If someone shoots someone during a crime it should be 20years minimum. Kill someone? The death penalty or life.

I believe we have those specific laws up here - 6pak would better inform us on that. But stats up here for 2006 shows murders by handguns dropped 10%.
From what I see it varies State to State in the U.S and depending on the presiding judge's whims. Britney would probably get 3 months in rehab for killing someone with an ak47. But seriously, some people are getting away with murder while others are let out early for the same thing- and only a few pay the full price -or didn't even do it. The recent Preacher's Wife case farce was a good example imo... I forgot her name but she did 6 months for manslaughter after shooting her husband in the back with a shotgun mostly because she was fed-up with his 'mean-ness' and apparently nothing more.
But then I go back to my point, a scuzbag who winds up shooting someone is then inclined to finish someone off - rather than do 20 years being lowlife scuzz that they are. I think your point one is the key - and I'd extend it by saying most sectors of society in the realm of inhumane decline..

I here ya Hellfighter. However, I don't see anyway to fix #1. So toughening the penalties is the only practical way to move.

Never disagree with the man pouring your drinks....

Lead

The reasonable proximity to deadly force is inherently dangerous. Trusting the miriad of humanity with access to firearms is a frightning proposition. Common sense tells me this is not optimal.

Look at the differences when Michael Moore visited Toronto vs major city in the US and doors werent locked. Im not saying this is a direct result of gun laws or lack there of, but it is representative of a societal difference, one big difference is firearm accessibility and amount of violent crime. Admittedly I would be hard pressed to prove that they are directly related.

look at the differences between M. Moore and a high IQ / common sense

Guns don't kill people, men who come home unexpectedly from work in the middle of the afternoon do!

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. At the time the law was passed, critics predicted increases in violence. The founder of the National Organization of Women, Betty Friedan stated:



"lethal violence, even in self defense, only engenders more violence." (13)



* When the law went into effect, the Dade County Police began a program to record all arrest and non arrest incidents involving concealed carry licensees. Between September of 1987 and August of 1992, Dade County recorded 4 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. None of these crimes resulted in an injury. The record keeping program was abandoned in 1992 because there were not enough incidents to justify tracking them. (13)(15)

* Florida adopted a right-to-carry law in 1987. Between 1987 and 1996, these changes occurred:


Florida vs United States

homicide rate

-36% -0.4%

firearm homicide rate

-37% +15%

handgun homicide rate

-41% +24%

221,443 concealed carry licenses were issued in Florida between October of 1987 and April of 1994. During that time, Florida recorded 18 crimes committed by licensees with firearms. (15)

* As of 1998, nationwide, there has been 1 recorded incident in which a permit holder shot someone following a traffic accident. The permit holder was not charged, as the grand jury ruled the shooting was in self defense. (7)

* As of 1998, no permit holder has ever shot a police officer. There have been several cases in which a permit holder has protected an officer's life. (7)

Great long winded topic! One that will never end until we are all gone form this Magic place we call earth and that's what is so kewl ……we all have the rights to speak out on anything we want and that is what makes America



Pro or con it's your life and you are all free to live it the way U want, I don't tell you how to live so why would I want you to tell me. I'm an American sportsman like my dad his dad and on and on it has been a way oh life for us



If you want Gun control go to the range and with practice you will become an expert

As for me I will not gave up my right to carry a weapon to anyone, but for those who use a gun to commit a crime well lets jus say he has given up his freedom … I say Get a Rope! But that won't happen because the same people that cry for gun control are mostly the ones that are against the death penalty



In 1990 I lost my brother, he was shot at point blank in the head with a 357 did it change the views on gun control with me or my family or his friends …NO … Justice was served and while the murdering sob didn't get the death sentence he did get 2 life sentences with no possibility of parole

Unfortunately like many of you have stated in this great debate there is no good answer other then we need tougher penalties.



And that is why I live in Montana …we have plenty of trees

if anyone can login here and actually find this vid on youtue...apperantly i can't (This link is on facebook){

http://hs.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=5...;oid=2207081116

he basically Pwns Caorlyn McCarthy with sarcasm.







R.I.P. to your bother MorPhine

I'm not sure if Moore was visiting a particularly cozy/neighbourhood part of the city on a hot day but doors are not left unlocked like that in Toronto as he would suggest- [maybe Torontonians are just 'forgetful' ] -I did find that part of the movie pretty funny though. People there [Torontonians] are worried by crime in reality -there is gang violence.... however that being said;
Murders in total in the city [around 4,000,000 pop. in and around the city] are annually about 60-70 per year -if it climbs closer to 80+ the city gets in hyped anti-crime mode and everyone hunkers down to take steps to get control back in order. The one thing I really liked about Toronto having lived there a long time is they have a system of organization in which politicians, law enforcement, citizens kick-in together as a society when an 'urgent' situation warrants it. You can bet the tough firearm laws make a difference-though some consider it confusing and some laughable, I saw stats for crimes committed with various firearms for Canada not too long ago -i wish i had the link for you now- and in my opinion having those laws do work in that things could be alot worse contrary to those who have the glass half empty idea and consider nothing has changed -exactly my point> things could be worse without the laws.
The big difference imo between the US and Canada though are the very heavy anti-gang stategies in place by the community, education, and especially the police working together to avoid it spinning out of control and taking irreversible root. There are many gangsta wannabe's across Canada and there are legal/illegal firearm carriers not in gangs that commit gun-using crimes [worst being 3 rcmp cops shot dead several years ago by a pot-grower if I remember correctly -I was surprised there was no coverage at all on it following that in the major US media!] but I think in general it's perhaps a national-cultural difference in play where whackos up here are significantly less inclined to use a gun to rectify personal issues or in the 'commission of a crime' than those in the U.S.

Or expand conceal/carry permits. Great post FilthyBunny!

I live in Alabama and haven't locked my doors to go to bed, work, or even vacation in as long as I can remember. In fact I literally don't know where a key is to any door in my house. But I know exactly where my shotgun and shells are

Word!





Here in the U.S. our Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. This is for three primary reasons. Hunting, defense (self and country) and most importantly, so we can rise up and overthrow an oppressive government. Be careful before you give some bureaucrat that much power over your life.



Word! Word!





BTW I gave up actually reading this thread on about page 4 so this reply might not even be relevent any more. Don't you people have jobs? Sheesh



JJ

Triple Word. lol- yes we have jobs- we just like debating.... I'm in mob forum more than I play now it seems lol. Debating isn't bad- it's progressive....
I don't think that 'Rise Up' thing is relevant though - FBI has an eye out for any major militias/contenders regarding gunpower imo. I think alot of people in nations in the West don't see a problem with not having the right to collect an arsenal of big guns -I'm not criticizing you, just pointing out a different perspective.

Well as soon as the Muslims complete their take over of France, Britain, and Germany, they probably will wish they had stockpiled a few Glock's.