Re: OT - Is it really worth saving any more?

Page 6 of 13  
Upscale wrote:

So, here again we hit the question, how can these things happen since you already have extremely restrictive gun laws? Your solution is, more gun laws?

You act as if guns and/or alcohol are recent innovations and that only now citizens are getting access to guns. The exact opposite is true and societies now have less guns on a per capita basis than in the past. Yet somehow, the population in years past wasn't decimating itself in drunken shooting rampages. So how come all of a sudden this is the solution to what is a very small problem?

Some of that gang-related stuff. Again, guns are hardly a new innovation -- perhaps it's time to use some of that energy being used to restrict peoples' freedom by restricting a tool and start to work on what is causing the behavior and attitude instead. What is so laugh-in-your face funny (again, but for the serious consequences) is the notion by gun ban advocates that somehow guns have just appeared on the scene and are now causing this whole new problem. The reality is that gun access for all citizens was actually greater in those days you are reminiscing about. Kids used to take guns to school for a variety of reasons: gun club, show and tell, and to hunt on the way home after school. There weren't wild rampages then, so guns aren't the problem, why do you think banning them now would be the solution?
The whole idea that by banning an inanimate object along with the accompanying unintended consequences and side effects will somehow solve the problems you describe above would be laughable if it weren't so darn serious for the peasants (what disarmed citizens become) who are subjected to such regulations. The gun control part is just part of the total package -- just look to England. After disarming the citizens, the next step was the idea that "a few farthings worth of x is not worth someone losing their life over" and now you have the case where defending oneself in one's own home leads to jail time for the person doing so. People still die in fights, so the statists start looking for the next problem -- now there are people in England seriously discussing regulating and banning knives. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4581871.stm [You just can't make this stuff up].
All deaths are tragic, society seems to be onto this notion that somehow the world can be made completely safe through the application of various laws and restrictions. The problem is that those laws and restrictions have other various serious consequences and side effects. Where I grew up, and where I live now, law enforcement is a minimum of 30 minutes (most likely 45 minutes) away -- you are proposing disarming people like myself and putting us at the mercy of those who are already breaking the law. Mighty compassionate of you.

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

Baseball bats, screw drivers, chisels, tire irons and yes, automobiles need to be banned. Perhaps after all the inanimate objects have been controlled, boxing gloves should be required to be worn at all times as fists are a dangerous weapon.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Winterburn wrote:

All those things were made for and have other uses. Guns have one use: to kill or maim people and other animals. If you want boxing gloves, you can't fire your gun.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jo4hn wrote:

How do you know about my gun? - a pump bb/pellet rifle. Next you'll claim I kill or maim innocent pigeons while secretly removing my boxing gloves!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jo4hn wrote:

So you're saying that the guns used for Olympic target competition have one use, to kill or maim people and other animals?
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

Practice practice practice.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jo4hn wrote:

Yes, if you want that gold medal you do have to practice, practice, practice, but what does that have to do with your point?
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
jo4hn wrote:

Not sure what the Canuckistani (or other countries) founding fathers saw as a use for firearms, but the US (old white) guys saw it a little differently than you:
http://www.lizmichael.com/founding.htm
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Doug Winterburn wrote:

OK. If we are attacked by armies on our shores, I will take up arms. Or do you believe that we are currently under such attack? In the post revolution time frame, that pesky word "militia" keeps showing up.
You might want to look at the autobio of Ms Michael at http://www.lizmichael.com/biograph.htm . Interesting stuff.
    mahalo,     jo4hn
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

...so does defence of property/self. *That's* the thrust. Hey, if they hit the shores I expect the government to give my M-14 back...otherwise, my XD-40 is within reach from my front door. Times have surely changed, but the concept of property and self-defence haven't...yet.
cg

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Groh wrote:

In the US the right to bear arms is not about defense. It's about resisting an oppressive government. The Founders had just participated in such successfully and had a high opinion of it as a result, so they put in a provision that protected the means of its accomplishment.
And before you say something stupid about tanks, consider that the crews have to get out of them sometime and the crews have families and both the crews and their families live in the same country in which the insurrection is taking place.
--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 07:22:42 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:

Amazing! I'd been ignoring this thread, wondering when, if ever, it was going to end. I took a quick peek to see what it had degenerated to by now and clicked on the above quoted post which actually made sense!
What are the odds? :-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Let me ask you Larry. Those rights were created what, 300 years ago? Please tell me how they make sense in today's society? Like or not, the government of today is not the same type of government that existed all those years ago. Oppression today, even if it existed to a marked degree, would be significantly different than your 300 year old right to bear arms had in mind. The only purpose I can see for your armaments to resist an oppressive government is the delusion of confidence it gives the general public.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Upscale wrote:

How? In /exactly/ the same way they made sense all that long time ago.
It's not important that you do or don't understand, and may be helpful for you to know that at this point it may be more of a cultural than societal issue.

Beware of showing the same arrogance of which you earlier accused someone else.
Your assumption in your second sentence is false.

I think your vision is at fault - or, at the very least, incomplete.
--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Incorrect. Rights are not created by government; rights are inherent. We have them simply because we are human. Government's function is to preserve the rights which we already have. "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these rights are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that governments are instituted among men to secure these rights, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..."

They make as much sense now as they ever have.

Again, the right to bear arms for self-defense is inherent, not something that was created by goverment a few hundred years ago.

And because you can't see any other purpose, there must not be one, eh?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

that
Funny thing Doug. I feel the same way about health insurance, as something that is inherent and suscribe fully to it in Canada. Yet, you didn't hesitate to support Tim with his insistence that it was evil and stealing from others.
Comment?

In reality, I can envision plenty of purposes for guns, just not having them as walking around tools available to the general public.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Upscale wrote:

Not Doug, but funny thing about health insurance vs. our Bill of rights. The rights in our BOR don't require that someone else do something to enable other citizens to exercise those rights. Your health insurance requires that someone else work and earn the requisite money to be confiscated to pay for others' health insurance. Seems a pretty simple to see difference.

Yep, like keeping the peasants in line, eh? Either by the armed government or armed criminal thugs, pretty much the same result.
--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Really? You could use the same flawed logic to not pay income tax. Everybody who has, pays their share. Without taxes, you wouldn't have your infrastructure or your society for that matter. All you'd have is the complete anarchy of everybody out for themselves and none of the great accomplishments that your country has done as a group.
The difference between you and me is that I value the importance of health above most everything else. You value what you can get and keep, by firepower if necessary. You value individual rights and accomplishments while casually tossing aside the great things that can be done as a group and a country. That makes you greedy, selfish and all consuming.
Unless you're been dealing with a serious, long term health problem for a large portion of your life, you don't have a snowball's chance in hell of understanding. And don't for one second suggest that just because someone close to you has experienced what I'm talking about, you understand. There is nothing more important than health within an enlightened society.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Oh, yes, there is: freedom. Think about it a while...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

society.
Then it wouldn't be an enlightened society would it? :)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.