Gun-toting woman divides community

[Zzarchov]

Zzarchov: While there is no doubt that vehicles are dangerous, they were not designed specifically to kill things.

Colpy: Could the low number of accidental discharges possibly be attributed to the firearms training you and your co-workers received? Would a civilian that carries a firearm in a 'right to carry' state receive that same level of training?

Whether or not its specifically designed is irrelevant. I see nothing wrong with killing people, its why I support the police having guns, should it comes down to it.

I have problems with murder and with manslaughter. Cars are more commonly used in both, and Cars are more dangerous, not just in numbers because of the amount of people using them, but also because they are easier to screw up and able to cause more death.

A nuclear reactor isn't meant to kill anyone either, its still more dangerous than a gun.

Im all for requiring training and lisencing for guns. I think everyone who can safely use a gun should be allowed to carry one.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Im all for requiring training and lisencing for guns. I think everyone who can safely use a gun should be allowed to carry one.

Fair enough...I totally disagree, but don't have the time to get into that right now...

One last question before I rack out:

If the Americans hold the right to bear arms as a fundamental pillar of democracy, why do they not allow civilians to bear arms in the countries they supposedly delivered democracy to. The people of Iraq and Afghanistan are shot dead if they are seen to be carrying. Any weapons the civilian population had have been long since confiscated.

In UN peacekeeping missions, one of the priorities of the mission is the disarm the civilian population in order to better protect them.

A notable exception is in Rwanda, where the peacekeepers were not permitted to intervene and raid known weapons caches.

The reasons for that were political and culpability lies mostly with the US and France.

The U.S. and the Genocide in Rwanda 1994: Evidence of Inaction

 

[Zzarchov]

Ok, lets step in some things.

Iraqi's and Afghan's most assuradely do have weapons.

They are allowed to keep AK-47 assault rifles in their homes.

Other countries in the UN confiscate guns because the UN is not a pillar of democracy, its members including its security council have never been pro-democracy as a whole.

As for Rwanda, the US kept out of it because the world had told it, it is not the world police. Saddam also caused Genocide, but taking him out is still a crime.

And France, ya, France is evil like that. It does alot of evil things but never gets held to task for it because its not America, its not the world super power so no one cares.

 

[TenPenny]

As for Rwanda, the US kept out of it because the world had told it, it is not the world police.

Nice version of history.

 

[Praxius]

..... A nuclear reactor isn't meant to kill anyone either, its still more dangerous than a gun.

Well how is it more dangerous then a gun? How many have had a meltdown since they have been in use? Have more people died from these meltdowns over the years then those who have died from firearms?

Im all for requiring training and lisencing for guns. I think everyone who can safely use a gun should be allowed to carry one.

You think everyone who can safely use a gun should be allowed to carry one.

Fair enough......

..... but then how do you know someone can use one safely if you don't test them?

 

[taxslave]

My.... god...... I'm still just waking up but I already know that's gonna be the most ignorant thing I will read today. At the very least, it'll be in the top three.

Most of those people who are in the professions are not in them because they flunked out of the police force, they do it because it's a job, for probably the same reasons why you do your job. Then again, maybe you flunked out of something and are doing a lower end rate job then you expected and decided to vent your frustrations, what do I know?

The Border guards were agreed to be trained and to carry firearms and the reason for that being is because they deal with people from the US who all pretty well have guns. There's a lot of smuggling along the border, in drugs, firearms and humans.

And you want to label everybody who's ever been in the military as "Almost Human" Drugged up Nutbars?

Not only are you so god damn ignorant in the crap you're spewing out of your little brain of yours, you even managed to generalize information you somehow collected from the US Air Force and put it on our own troops and in every section of it in regards to anybody joining the military.

You don't have a fk'n clue what you're talking about, you never had a clue wtf you're talking about and the more you open your mouth the more of an idiot you make yourself out to be.

And I am fully aware of that being a personal insult, because I take your previous trollish/ignorant and dumbass remarks as personal.

How about next time you get your little snippets of news and information from your star wars conspiracy nerd friends in your little dungeons and dragons chat room, you actually look up the information and confirm the details yourself and perhaps stop making yourself sound like an idiot when you try and act all smart.

I have never taken drugs in my time in the forces, and nobody else I have known, including members of my family never taken drugs while in the forces..... and for you to generalize everybody in the military or whoever served in the military as almost human and nutbars shows how clueless you truly are on the subject.

Tell you what, I make a simple thread for you in regards to your favorite colour, you can then tell us what your favorite colour is and why, and then you might actually sound like you know what you're talking about.

Then again, based on given evidence, that might be too much credit for you.

Get a damn education you ignorant monkey spanking troll.

Praxis: Are you really as stupid as you sound? Or do you just need to get out into the real world instead of your make believe one.

 

[Praxius]

Praxis: Are you really as stupid as you sound? Or do you just need to get out into the real world instead of your make believe one.

Wow... nice come back buddy, you couldn't even spell my name right.... it's only 7 letters and it's spelled the same way it's pronounced...... who's the one sounding stupid again?

I already am out in the real world, which is why I know more about the subject then you clearly do..... pssh.... complaining about border gaurds carrying firearms and not even knowing the background reasons why they have them.

Or even your lame ass assumption about people who work in the forces?

Yeah.... nice argument.

Thanks for playing though. :roll:

 

[Tyr]

That's right, walk right in, buy your 9mm Beretta, 3 or 4 - 15 round magazines, a couple of boxes of 115 grain +P Hollow Points, load her up right in the store, drop in in your pocket and cruise down the street. Perfectly legal.

The average murder rate in Vermont over the past 5 years? 2.0 per 100,000.

The average murder rate in Canada over the past 5 years? 1.9 per 100,000.

I have this moral issue

My girlfriends a chemist and she collects, um chemicals, :idea:

like

ammonium nitrate fertilizer
nitromethane, and
diesel fuel mixture

Perfectly legal and it is a free country after all....

 

[Vanni Fucci]

They are allowed to keep AK-47 assault rifles in their homes.

They are allowed to keep one rifle in their home. If they step out of their home with it, and a soldier spots them, they will likely be shot.

No right to carry there.

 

[Zzarchov]

They are allowed to keep one rifle in their home. If they step out of their home with it, and a soldier spots them, they will likely be shot.

No right to carry there.

Not all US states are right to carry in public either.

 

[Zzarchov]

Well how is it more dangerous then a gun? How many have had a meltdown since they have been in use? Have more people died from these meltdowns over the years then those who have died from firearms?



You think everyone who can safely use a gun should be allowed to carry one.

Fair enough......

..... but then how do you know someone can use one safely if you don't test them?

1.) Nuclear reactors are only used by highly trained individuals, there is a relative handful compared to guns, and they still have a large and vast history of mishaps.

Give everyone a nuclear reactor in their home and see what happens.

2.) Im all for testing people to the same extent we do driver's lisences, and like a drivers lisence as long as you can pass a reasonable test (that allows the vast, vast majority of adults to pass, the same as driving) you can have and carry a gun. And if you screw up, the same as with a car, you can have your right to use guns taken away, for either a short time or permanently, just like a car.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Not all US states are right to carry in public either.

My point is that in Iraq, where US has thrust democracy upon the people, they are still restricted as to what and how many firearms they are allowed to possess, and where they are allowed to wander with them.

These restrictions were not in effect when Saddam was in power. There were few restrictions on weapon ownership, and they were allowed to carry. In the months leading up to the invasion, Saddam made a point of arming the Fedayin militias.

In fact when the US invaded they found that everyone and their dog was strapped, and they had to crack down on that situation soon after the shock and awe...remember all the looting and crime right after the toppling of Saddam's statue...that was a fully armed civilian population out for a little fun...

The US army put the kybosh on that in a hurry...

 

[Praxius]

1.) Nuclear reactors are only used by highly trained individuals, there is a relative handful compared to guns, and they still have a large and vast history of mishaps.

Give everyone a nuclear reactor in their home and see what happens.

That didn't explain how they are more dangerous based on given evidence today. You didn't answer the question on how many have died from nuclear reactors compared to firearms.

You didn't have an issue doing a comparison with vehicles and Px pills, but then you bring up nuclear reactors, but won't back up your claim.

Why So?

But you basically justified another angle I have been saying all along...... They are used by trained individuals.... firearms for the most part, are not.

2.) Im all for testing people to the same extent we do driver's lisences, and like a drivers lisence as long as you can pass a reasonable test (that allows the vast, vast majority of adults to pass, the same as driving) you can have and carry a gun. And if you screw up, the same as with a car, you can have your right to use guns taken away, for either a short time or permanently, just like a car.

Well that's all I have been saying.... I never said anything about making a test that would make it almost impossible to do, just a test for some common factors that may need attention brought to that are common in an uncommon amount of the population.

The problem is that in the US, driving a car isn't a right, while owning a firearm is a right..... and even if they failed the test and appear to be on the verge of popping a brain nugget and kill everyone, they can still fight and say they have a constitutional right to have one and nobody has the right to take it away from them......

..... which creates the mess we're all in debate over in the first place.

It'd work just fine here in Canada, because owning a firearm isn't a right, just like owning a car isn't. You have to prove you can operate one in a safe manner.

In the US....... Got an ID? US Citizen? Are you of Age?

Here's your gun.

As soon as someone puts in a system that actually makes sense like the above, you're going to have half or more of the US population picking up their guns and exercising their rights to defend their rights.

Then again, if people want to get technical about the whole thing, the Constitution only states you have a right to bear arms...... that doesn't specifically state "Firearms." It could be a sword, a cannon, a crossbow, hell, it could even be what Family Guy Thinks it is...... a pair of Bear Arms hanging over your fireplace like a bear's head.

People could say that what was intended was Firearms, but that's an assumption no matter how much you believe in it. Technically and legally, it says nothing about guns/firearms.

 

[Colpy]

It'd work just fine here in Canada, because owning a firearm isn't a right

Then again, if people want to get technical about the whole thing, the Constitution only states you have a right to bear arms...... that doesn't specifically state "Firearms." It could be a sword, a cannon, a crossbow, hell, it could even be what Family Guy Thinks it is...... a pair of Bear Arms hanging over your fireplace like a bear's head.

The problem with your logic is that you obviously believe rights are granted by government. They most definitely are not: they are merely recognized by government, and exist whether or not gov't legal structures allow them. If you read the preambles of the American constitution, or of the Bill of Rights of 1689 it becomes very obvious that even the people that wtrote those documents realized they did not depend on the whim of government, or even on the transitory opinion of the majority, they were natural and ancient rights, and the document merely gives them the nod.

I have a right to keep and bear arms. I don't much care what the gov't thinks about it.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

I have a right to keep and bear arms. I don't much care what the gov't thinks about it.

Your 'right' to bear arms exists only in your mind...there is no basis for it...

 

[Praxius]

The problem with your logic is that you obviously believe rights are granted by government. They most definitely are not: they are merely recognized by government, and exist whether or not gov't legal structures allow them. If you read the preambles of the American constitution, or of the Bill of Rights of 1689 it becomes very obvious that even the people that wtrote those documents realized they did not depend on the whim of government, or even on the transitory opinion of the majority, they were natural and ancient rights, and the document merely gives them the nod.

I have a right to keep and bear arms. I don't much care what the gov't thinks about it.

Well whther or not you think the government is right or wong in what they deem as legal, illegal, a right or not a right, the law is the law until it is challenged and beaten in a court of law.

It doesn't matter what you or I think about a subject or if the government is wrong..... if you break the laws they deemed nessecary in our country, expect to see fines and/or jail time.

You think the government is wrong in restricting firearms and not stating the possession of one as a right...... I think the government is wrong with their restrictions on various drugs which they deem are dangerous and illegal.

But if either of us are caught breaking what we think shouldn't be illegal, we'll both get charged and probably fined or jailed for those actions.

That's the reality, I sure don't think it's right though.

But how does that document suddenly become the golden rule that can not be challenged or changed? If the bible can be revised and changed on numerous occasions over the centuries, and is supposed to be some sacred text.... how does this constitution suddenly become so untouchable?

The people who wrote the constitution were not saints, they were no more special then you or I, and was just an agreement of things written down by average humans. And Humans are flawed, imperfect and make mistakes.

If they really knew what they were creating and it was supposed to be a set of sound rights for all of mankind to follow (Or at least in the US) then how come there is so much division between the context of the right to bear arms? Wouldn't everybody agree on those rights and consider them to be a good idea?

To me, the constitution, all constitutions are just a simple sheet of paper with words written down in agreement by various other flawed humans, just like the Bible or the Quran..... and if those books and texts are not being forced on everyone to follow, which apparently have some holy back up claims of being sacred...... how does a constitution beat those out when it comes to dictating the way people should live?

Times change, and so do humans, countries and governments.

 

[Colpy]

Your 'right' to bear arms exists only in your mind...there is no basis for it...

No....the idea that the right does not exist is misinformation propagated by those who fear arms in the hands of the people.....

And no, I'm not talking about the United States.

The right to keep and bear arms in jurisdictions operating under English Common Law follows a precedent that predates the invention of firearms, originating contemporaneously with the jury trial and the emergence of the common law system, during the reign of Henry II, who promulgated the Assize of Arms in 1181, which required knights and freemen to keep arms and to bear them in service of the king.[18] A Common Law right to have arms for self defense was codified in the English Bill of Rights of 1689 (also known as the English Declaration of Rights), at least for Protestants. England, Ireland, the Colonies in North America (which became the United States), Canada, and Australia all received this Common Law inheritance and long maintained a responsibility to keep and bear arms tradition originating from this common basis.
The English Bill of Rights 1689 set out the right of Protestants to have arms suitable for their own defense as allowed by law.[19] This was because of the fear the Protestants had in England of being disarmed that led to the Glorious Revolution and subsequently their guaranteed right to self-defense.
William Blackstone wrote in the eighteenth century about the right to have arms being a "natural right of resistance and self-preservation", espousing the individual right to protect oneself.[19]

Right to keep and bear arms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Blackstone and Property Jurisprudence Blackstone's characterization of property rights as "sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe," has often been quoted in judicial opinions and secondary legal literature as the dominant Western concept of property. In spite of the frequency with which this conception is quoted, however, the phrase is often presented without taking into account the greater context of Blackstone's thought on the subject of property. Blackstone likely offered the statement as a rhetorical flourish to begin his discussion, given that even in his age, individual property rights were not sole and absolute. Property owners must rely on the enforcement powers of the state, in any event, for the realization of their rights.

Rights are not god-given, they are granted by the state...ALWAYS, and so it is upon the pleasure of the state that you enjoy the rights you have today.

Because we have property rights that are granted and protected by the state, we have no need to a right to bear arms to protect them further.

If there were a need for such a right, it would be given, because that is how free societies cope with necessity.

Because there is no need for that right, you do not have that right, and unless and until that need presents itself, you never will.

It has nothing to do with freedoms, that is just an illusion...

You may think it's nice to have...but so what, rights are not granted on that basis alone.

 

[Zzarchov]

Uh huh, that is the fascist view, that rights come from the state. Its caused a lot of problems over the years.

The other view is that individuals hold rights, which they deign to empower the state with on their behalf and may revoke should they feel the state is mishandling them.

Those societies tend to better ones to live in.

 

[Colpy]

Rights are not god-given, they are granted by the state...ALWAYS, and so it is upon the pleasure of the state that you enjoy the rights you have today.

Because we have property rights that are granted and protected by the state, we have no need to a right to bear arms to protect them further.

If there were a need for such a right, it would be given, because that is how free societies cope with necessity.

Because there is no need for that right, you do not have that right, and unless and until that need presents itself, you never will.

It has nothing to do with freedoms, that is just an illusion...

You may think it's nice to have...but so what, rights are not granted on that basis alone.

Strange....your post belies the quote you use to support it......read the last line again:

Quote: Blackstone and Property Jurisprudence Blackstone's characterization of property rights as "sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe," has often been quoted in judicial opinions and secondary legal literature as the dominant Western concept of property. In spite of the frequency with which this conception is quoted, however, the phrase is often presented without taking into account the greater context of Blackstone's thought on the subject of property. Blackstone likely offered the statement as a rhetorical flourish to begin his discussion, given that even in his age, individual property rights were not sole and absolute. Property owners must rely on the enforcement powers of the state, in any event, for the realization of their rights.
​

The "realization" of their rights, which means the right exists, the state either realizes it, or not; the quote in no way supports the contention that existence of rights depends on the whim of the state.......

Certainly Blacksone believed rights were god-given......or "natural".​