Gun Control in the Socialist Republic of Kahlifornia

[Bender711]

I personally never had the urge to own a firearm. Why would you "need" anything other than a sporting or hunting rifle? And I fail to see the use for automatic guns (or even semi atomatic, for that matter) for both purposes...

And I think the correlation you drew from gun restrictions of Stalin to the downfall of the USSR is quite far fetched.

thank you for mentioning that (sorry I got a link to this thread to the second page) and your right you dont need a gun, then again you dont need a car or a house or clothes, in fact you dont need anything but food and water, any thing else you just want.

 

[[CiA]Stiletto]

Oh I understand, it is just that 5 for one target, when there may be more, is an awful lot to use when you may only have 10 (or 5!).

Heh...

Sheriff: "Son, why did you shoot that man eighteen times?"
Pimply teenager who was playing RO an hour ago: "Slide locked. Dude was on the floor, bleeding all over the new rug."
Sheriff: (Looks at dead guy in ski mask, shakes head) "Good thing you didn't reload."

Side note, apparently things are a little better in the UK than they used to be. GUNS still aren't very available, but at least now you can defend yourself with force instead of having the burden of using "appropriate" (read: not enough) force. Times Online piece.

 

[Bender711]

wow 18 times thats overkill.................ahahahahahaha overkill ahahahahah.

 

[[-project.rattus-]]

thank you for mentioning that (sorry I got a link to this thread to the second page) and your right you dont need a gun, then again you dont need a car or a house or clothes, in fact you dont need anything but food and water, any thing else you just want.

hehe, nice try, but I do need a car to get to places faster and more comfortably than I would on foot. I need a house, because it shelters me from unpleasant weather and I need clothes, because in winter I would freeze without them, and in summer I would get badly sunburned.

Yet I have gladly not encountered an aspect of my life where I would need a gun to improve it...

Still, your main point is valid in my eyes: Most of the stuff we posess is not really needed.

 

[The Soup Nazi]

Well, the first 10 Amendments of the United States are our Bill of Rights, not a "Bill of Needs". We are entitled to bearing firearms because we are entitled to it as citizens of this nation to DEFEND OUR OTHER RIGHTS. Anyone knows that a law is meaningless unless its enforced, just as those Columbine shooters broke /20/ different laws which had no real authority against criminals, the same goes for protecting our rights as American citizens.

Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of press, the right to elect our own representatives, having these rights outlined is pointless unless we can protect and enforce those rights. And while its the duty the government was intended for, who do you look to when the government starts to infringe on those rights? Other Americans who have the capability and will to fight for our freedoms. And if a government wants to take away the rights that our founding fathers fought for and intended for future generations, they can get out of the country. While some want to allow the government to do what they please, thats exactly what the revolutionaries hundreds of years ago fought against.

If you want to oppress your people, start your own country with people who are content to live under those standards. Prime example is the UK, the country that colonists coincidentlly fought for their freedom. From what I've seen, the UK still hasn't given their citizens to possess arms like us Americans have, and they have some of the worst violent crime and robbery/invasion rates of Western nations. While they have Parliment, British citizens have no way to protect themselves or their rights, and if the government decides to strip them of those rights, they'll have to deal. But they owe it to guns, during WW2, the National Rifle Association of the USA and the Lend-Lease plan bailed the UK out of a bad situation which resulted from having very restrictive gun laws and the confiscation of said guns.

Gun ownership goes much further than just personal safety or safety of your friends and family. Its the protection of your freedoms, the right to honor the time honored American tradition of hunting, recreational shooting, and collecting. Its what ensures that we Americans live as the creators of America intended. The 2nd Amendment is the MOST IMPORTANT amendment, its what protects every other amendment, without it, the Bill of Rights is moot.

 

[Bender711]

hehe, nice try, but I do need a car to get to places faster and more comfortably than I would on foot. I need a house, because it shelters me from unpleasant weather and I need clothes, because in winter I would freeze without them, and in summer I would get badly sunburned.

Yet I have gladly not encountered an aspect of my life where I would need a gun to improve it...

Still, your main point is valid in my eyes: Most of the stuff we posess is not really needed.

But you dont need a car to get to where ever. But you want to get there in comfort and or style. trees shelter you from weather, as for clothes move some where warmer, as for summer, stay in the shade. And for the gun I guess you've never been mugged or had a break in.

life, liberty and the pursit of happines. Guns cover all three.

 

[[-project.rattus-]]

And for the gun I guess you've never been mugged or had a break in.

True dat... and I don't know a single person (or a person who knows a person, for that matter...) who got mugged, burglared, broken in, or even pickpocketed. And the only person I know who owns a gun is my grandfather: A Kar98 and a Steyr-Mannlicher M95 (World War 1 rifle) hanging over his chimney. Allthough both are fit to be fired, they can't be regarded as "home defense" weapons, and the only occasion he fires them (with blanks) is to welcome a new year.

And concerning the defense of your liberties and the very values your nation is founded on: I don't know for sure, but judgeing by the media coverage and Micheal Moore (don't worry, I don't trust him as far as I could throw him, and he is known to be twisting some facts and figures to fit his needs. Still fun to read though) the "Patriotic Act" did impair personal freedom in the US. Still, again judgeing by the covereage here, the demonstration against this "Act" was mostly carried out by the political left wing, who are more likely to be in the "anti-gun" faction, and not by the law abiding citizens carrying guns to protect their home and liberty.

 

[Musketeer]

And concerning the defense of your liberties and the very values your nation is founded on: I don't know for sure, but judgeing by the media coverage and Micheal Moore (don't worry, I don't trust him as far as I could throw him, and he is known to be twisting some facts and figures to fit his needs. Still fun to read though) the "Patriotic Act" did impair personal freedom in the US. Still, again judgeing by the covereage here, the demonstration against this "Act" was mostly carried out by the political left wing, who are more likely to be in the "anti-gun" faction, and not by the law abiding citizens carrying guns to protect their home and liberty.

It is very easy to get that impression but the truth is the "moderate" factions of both sides (Democrats and Republicans) equally sold out Americans with this garage piece of legislation. Just because it was pushed forward by the White House does not mean that it is accepted by those on the right. Most gun owners, especially those who are politically and Constitutionally educated, despise the Patriot Act. It is a hard thing for a "moderate" to oppose though. If you do you are "not patriotic" and "not taking terrorism seriously." I, and every other person I know who values the Constitution and the principals on which it was founded despise this legislation. As Ben Franklin said "He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither"

Campaign Finance Reform from the turncoat John McCain is also a serious abridgement of free speach rights but people not farmilar with our internal politics mistakenly think because McCain is Republican (RINO - Republican in Name Only) that the right supports it. It certainly does not!

Illegal Immigration is another such issue. Bush is so pitifully weak on that issue I am convinced Vincente Fox has photos of him in drag romancing a sheep that he must be using as blackmail! (just kidding) The White House's stance on our illegal invaders from the south is an abomination and the majority of those on the right who are NOT politicians are disgusted by it. Unfortunately the world sees Bush's stance and thinks it is the stance of the right...

 

[Lucius]

If you want to oppress your people, start your own country with people who are content to live under those standards. Prime example is the UK, the country that colonists coincidentlly fought for their freedom. From what I've seen, the UK still hasn't given their citizens to possess arms like us Americans have, and they have some of the worst violent crime and robbery/invasion rates of Western nations. While they have Parliment, British citizens have no way to protect themselves or their rights, and if the government decides to strip them of those rights, they'll have to deal. But they owe it to guns, during WW2, the National Rifle Association of the USA and the Lend-Lease plan bailed the UK out of a bad situation which resulted from having very restrictive gun laws and the confiscation of said guns.

Well maybe the UK got the worst robbery/invasion rates of western nations, my country certainly doesn't. We do have the rights that you call 'first amendment', but we don't have the same 'right' the posses arms. My country certainly isn't a hell on earth because we don't have guns. Actually, reading the describtions of the places you guys live in makes me think it is actually better here (legal drugs anyone? ).

 

[[CiA]Stiletto]

Well maybe the UK got the worst robbery/invasion rates of western nations, my country certainly doesn't. We do have the rights that you call 'first amendment', but we don't have the 'right' the posses arms. My country certainly isn't a hell on earth because we don't have guns. Actually, reading the describtions of the places you guys live in makes me think it is actually better here (legal drugs anyone? ).

Yeah, the Netherlands does seem like a pretty chill place.

It should be noted that crime rates in the US are hugely lopsided by location; out in the country/smaller cities, it's not uncommon to still find people who leave their doors unlocked. A few of my neighbors (in Charlotte) do, even though Charlotte metro is inching up past a million people. Similarly, if i were living deep in the poor district (projects, if you will) of a big city like, say, Detroit...well, I would rather move out first, but I would NOT feel comfortable without having a loaded shotgun by my bed.

Bear in mind that the US is unusually diverse and stratified for a First World nation; perfect setup for a higher-than-"normal" crime rate. Still, the US was based on "give me liberty or give me death", not "the government is my friend, The Man will take care of me".

 

[[-project.rattus-]]

Bear in mind that the US is unusually diverse and stratified for a First World nation; perfect setup for a higher-than-"normal" crime rate.

True. No european country (or at least, member of the EU) has that large a gap between the poorest and the richest citizens as the US do. This is because Europe has a tradition of social democracy and solidarity and we don't just expect the state to do something, the state actually does do something about mishaps. The downside though is, that it is very expensive, and I doubt we can afford live much longer with such a system with a very tightly knit net of social security, which might lead to a situation similar to the US...

Well, sorry for going astray a little

 

[The Soup Nazi]

Thats the problem. You're relying on the government to do everything for you. That usually entails higher taxes, restriction of freedom, and what happens when your government craps itself over? First off, you pretty much have no way of defending yourself if the government decides to act unjustly unless you're lucky enough to get foreign intervention (just like how America had the support of France). Second, how are you going to react when you lose those social services? You've completely relied on the government to provide those things.

Thats why I believe we should kill pretty much any program that the US government provides short of law enforcement, the military, hospital/ambulance services, public transportation. In exchange, the citizens would have very considerable tax cuts and be allowed to decide for themselves how they want to invest their money and obtain their social services. I view the government as an entity to protect our freedoms and enforce justice. Nothing else.

I'd also like to address the unfairness of concealed carrying in states like New York and California. In these states, while it is legal to address concealed carry licenses, its heavily restricted. You have to either be very wealthy, very well connected, a celebrity, a politician, or a politican's bodyguard to get a concealed carry license. Thats completely against the spirit of being an American, only allowing certain people who meet an asinine criteria creates a caste system of those who get to retain their rights and those who don't. It just seems like another attempt to limit us because the government is afraid of giving up their power if they crap up real badly.

 

[[-project.rattus-]]

Thats the problem. You're relying on the government to do everything for you.

No. I rely on my government to ensure I have the minimum standard I need to survive. I rely on my government to care for me when I can't do it myself, if I had an accident or illness for example which would leave me crippled and unable to work. I rely on the government to have access to the best medical treatment available, no matter if I am poor or rich.
Isn't the credo of the Marines "leave no man behind"? It's basically the same on a society level.
But now we're really drifting OT, and both systems have advantages and downsides. Let's agree on that

 

[Lucius]

Thats the problem. You're relying on the government to do everything for you. That usually entails higher taxes, restriction of freedom, and what happens when your government craps itself over? First off, you pretty much have no way of defending yourself if the government decides to act unjustly unless you're lucky enough to get foreign intervention (just like how America had the support of France). Second, how are you going to react when you lose those social services? You've completely relied on the government to provide those things.

Thats why I believe we should kill pretty much any program that the US government provides short of law enforcement, the military, hospital/ambulance services, public transportation. In exchange, the citizens would have very considerable tax cuts and be allowed to decide for themselves how they want to invest their money and obtain their social services. I view the government as an entity to protect our freedoms and enforce justice. Nothing else.

I'd also like to address the unfairness of concealed carrying in states like New York and California. In these states, while it is legal to address concealed carry licenses, its heavily restricted. You have to either be very wealthy, very well connected, a celebrity, a politician, or a politican's bodyguard to get a concealed carry license. Thats completely against the spirit of being an American, only allowing certain people who meet an asinine criteria creates a caste system of those who get to retain their rights and those who don't. It just seems like another attempt to limit us because the government is afraid of giving up their power if they crap up real badly.

Our government (and I assume the one in Austria too) does exactly what you say it should do (law enforcement, military, hospital etc.) Furthermore, it makes an attempt to get rid of caste systems by given those in bad situations a chance to make their situation better. We don't rely on those people to do anything other than the very stuff you mentioned on what a government should do. And what do you mean with 'act unjustly' ?

*edit* LOL, rattus said what I meant better....

 

[The Soup Nazi]

When I say act unjustly, I mean when our freedoms that we're clearly entitled to as stated by the US consitution are stripped away, or whatever your consitution states. If the government decided to just censor something that was covered in the first amendment, if they shut down Burger King just for the hell of it or because they had other economic agendas in mind, if they take away our guns that aren't on our terms, those are unjust actions. The abuse of the power that we give the government, because the government has to remember, we trusted them act in favor of protecitng our rights and civil liberties, that power can easily be taken away if they decide to abuse that power or fail to adequately perform the duties assigned to them.

 

[[-project.rattus-]]

When I say act unjustly, I mean when our freedoms that we're clearly entitled to as stated by the US consitution are stripped away, or whatever your consitution states. If the government decided to just censor something that was covered in the first amendment, if they shut down Burger King just for the hell of it or because they had other economic agendas in mind, if they take away our guns that aren't on our terms, those are unjust actions. The abuse of the power that we give the government, because the government has to remember, we trusted them act in favor of protecitng our rights and civil liberties, that power can easily be taken away if they decide to abuse that power or fail to adequately perform the duties assigned to them.

I asked it before, but it seems to be gone under in the huge wordcount of this interesting topic: What's your opinion about the patriot act?
After a bit of superficial googling, I found that critics of it think that it basically paved the way for infringements of the freedom of speech, the freedom of press, rights for privacy and human rights.
Wouldn't that be a reason to take your guns and storm the capitol? Or at least show up there and tell them cleary: "No step further"?
It seems to me that those who did NOT take responsibility for their liberties by owning a gun were the ones protesting against it the loudest, while those who owned guns to protect the American values were not organising NRA meetings at least to discuss the possible results of it.
But then, at least some of my sources were biased, so I would find your views on it quite interesting.

 

[Musketeer]

No. I rely on my government to ensure I have the minimum standard I need to survive. I rely on my government to care for me when I can't do it myself, if I had an accident or illness for example which would leave me crippled and unable to work. I rely on the government to have access to the best medical treatment available, no matter if I am poor or rich.
Isn't the credo of the Marines "leave no man behind"? It's basically the same on a society level.
But now we're really drifting OT, and both systems have advantages and downsides. Let's agree on that

Those are noble intentions for a government but come at a very high price. The fact is, unless one has worked for something one rarely values it. In the USA we have 12 million illegal aliens int he nation draining our resources. In some areas hospital emergency rooms are closing because there is no way to cotnrol the skyrocketting cost of hordes of illegals. They pay no taxes to cover even the most basic governemnt provided care. Contrary to what many beleive the poor are NOT locked out of hospital emergency rooms in America. Everything has a cost though.

We then have a multi generation welfare problem. Kids are born into it, grow up in it, have their own kids in it (usually skipping the marriage part), then repeat. They contribute nothing to the system.

Government welfare programs are, as I said, a noble undertaking. They shoudl be a "safety net" for those who have fallen through the cracks for unforseeabel reasons. The problem is far to many people have turned the "safety net" into a "hammock." Since every one of them can also vote though the politicians who depend on the people living off the work of the rest will do nothing to force them to care for themselves. While those not on welfare control their family sizes and live within their means, those on it breed like rabbits and consume the resources provided by those who are working. Given time the get stuff for free attitude degenerates into the belief of entitlement. "The government " owes us that turns into "they" owe us that. The "they" is anyone who has more, regardless of the fact that they worked to get it. If "they" owe it to us then there is no problem with our "taking" it, hence the skyrocketting crime in such areas.

All of these problems that grew out of the noble intention to care for citizens. It grows worse here every year. The moral degeneration has come about greatly due to race baiting and divisions among an ethnically diverse society. Other societies, not as diverse, have similar problems but to a lesser, or not as developed extent as the USA. I do wonder regularly how many nations like France and Germany will manage to maitain the programs so many believe they are entitled to with such economic and social pressures mounting. I know the USA cannot do so much longer. Eventually it must collapse under its own weight. That is why not one person I know in my age group believes there is any chance of collecting the social security money we pay to the government when we grow older. Care for yourself is the motto and it is the only one proven to cause the most peopel to put forward the best effort.

 

[Musketeer]

Regarding the Patriot Act...

It seems to me that those who did NOT take responsibility for their liberties by owning a gun were the ones protesting against it the loudest, while those who owned guns to protect the American values were not organising NRA meetings at least to discuss the possible results of it.

The NRA and most enlightenned gun owners are very much opposed to the Patriot Act.

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=5970


Type "NRA" and "Patriot Act" into Google and you may be surprised of the responses. The NRA also opposes McCain's Campaign Finance Reform, which is a gag on free speech around the time of an election and any other infringement of the First Ammendments (free speech). The ACLU seems to always show up to defend Free Speech, gay marriage, abortion, affirmative action (legalized discrimination) and a host of other issues but is hypocritical when it comes to clear violations of the Second Ammendment. Care to guess where I send my money?

 

[Musketeer]

Too see how Government Corruption and Gun Control go hand in hand check out the three videos that are part way down ont his page. They show police looting stores, assaulting an old lady (who had not broken one law, wound up with a fractured arm and is sueing the US Government), and confiscating lawfully owned firearms, leaving the home owners defenseless against looters. This was all illegal and the police got called on it in Federal Court. The judge immediately orderred the government to cease and desist confiscation operations and return all stolen firearms.

http://www.terrybressi.org/NewOrleans/NewOrleans.htm

When people tell me I am wrong to not trust our government and police and that we should depend on them for our safety, not privately owned guns, I show them these videos.

 

[[-project.rattus-]]

Regarding the Patriot Act...



The NRA and most enlightenned gun owners are very much opposed to the Patriot Act.

http://www.nraila.org/News/Read/InTheNews.aspx?ID=5970


Type "NRA" and "Patriot Act" into Google and you may be surprised of the responses. The NRA also opposes McCain's Campaign Finance Reform, which is a gag on free speech around the time of an election and any other infringement of the First Ammendments (free speech). The ACLU seems to always show up to defend Free Speech, gay marriage, abortion, affirmative action (legalized discrimination) and a host of other issues but is hypocritical when it comes to clear violations of the Second Ammendment. Care to guess where I send my money?

Thx, really didn't know that (and the simpla thing of putting NRA in my search efforts kinda crippled that too...).