Welcome to the Socialist Republic of Maryland

txwest

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Oct 30, 2001
Messages
1,773
Location
Houston, TX
"Everyone, tkl was being sarcastic. If you read his posts, it is quite obvious."

Gun Nut,
The "rolling eye" smiley at the end of his post sorta gives it away too. TX
 

doubleganger

Enlightened
Joined
Apr 18, 2001
Messages
322
Location
northwest MS
Originally posted by txwest:
"Everyone, tkl was being sarcastic. If you read his posts, it is quite obvious."

Gun Nut,
The "rolling eye" smiley at the end of his post sorta gives it away too. TX
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">ouch! I see what you mean. He got me all right. I guess it's all in knowing what buttons to push. Thanks for the heads up.
 

Tomas

Banned
Joined
Jun 19, 2002
Messages
2,128
Location
Seattle, WA area
No thanks, Nascar - I have lived in New Jersey (Atlantic Highlands when I was on loan to Bell Labs in Holmdel for a year).
wink.gif


I did unlawfully import one of my S&W double stack auto's to NJ, and felt much better having it in the condo with me ...

"An armed society is a polite society." Robert Anson Heinlein

"Gun control means hitting your target ... " Anon.

tomsig01.gif
 

Charles Bradshaw

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Messages
2,495
Location
Mansfield, OH
The purpose of the Second Amendment of the Constitution of the Republic of the United States of America, other than an individual right, is a the final check and balance against would be Despots. This is Ben Franklin's thinking and seemingly rather prophetic.

Further, It states "Arms," not "Firearms." This includes all sorts of weapons. The Militia, is not some group calling itself that, nor a State National Guard. The militia are the Citizens. Well Regulated means training, not controlled by Bureaucrats or politicians.

I am beginning to think Kathleen Keating is correct, that the invasion and destruction of the USA is nearing.
 

sunspot

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 22, 2001
Messages
2,707
Location
Graham, NC
Further, It states "Arms," not "Firearms." This includes all sorts of weapons.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">The battle at Concord started because the British were coming to take a private citizen's "cannon" away from him. The rifles was the townfolks way of saying NO.
 

tkl

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Messages
2,332
Location
Tx
"praise the lord and pass the ammunition!"
grin.gif
 

Anarchocap

Enlightened
Joined
Dec 23, 2002
Messages
452
Location
Arizona, USA
Originally posted by Charles Bradshaw:
I am beginning to think Kathleen Keating is correct, that the invasion and destruction of the USA is nearing.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Charles,
I think its more likely that the USA will fall from grace because of economic issues and foreign policies due to a out of control Federal Government.

The writing is on the wall and has been for quite some time. Since WWI, our country has become an imperialist one not unlike the British and Roman empires of their time.

Not only since that time is there deficit spending, centralized banking, fiat money, and a standing Army (all unconstitional), our public education camps are only succeeding in turning out dumb, numb, pro-government fascist sheeple.

Due to the fact that we can't churn out enough engineering educated people, technology companies are turning towards much cheaper countries that do, like India and China. Companies like Intel are already one foot out the door, and you will see a continual but steady divestment of infrastructure here.

Technology is our last real manufacturing base. After that we only have a service based economy and are dependant on the rest of the world to create real goods for us.

Couple that with our immense deficit spending, foreign policy and military that goes around trying to force the "American Way" on other countries, and you get a lot of people who will be very happy when we can't cash the checks we are writing.

I saw a recent poll that people thought we could win a war with Iraq and North Korea at the same time. That certainly shows how naive and brainwashed the majority of the population is. Worst case scenario is that a war with Iraq AND North Korea means that we have opened up a 6 Front World War.

NK doesn't sneeze without China wiping its nose, so what is happening there means it has the full backing of the Communist country. Given that and the recent build-up of the Chinese Air Force and Navy, I would hazard an educated guess that the push has started to "reintegrate" Taiwan back into the mainland (front #4) by suckering us into being pre-occupied with nukes in NK. Our spy satellites are currently tasked with watching NKs nuke plants and harbors, various terrorist cargo ships, Iraq, and Afghanistan. So are we really spending a lot of time watching China right now?

A war with Iraq, North Korea, and the Taliban/Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan also leaves our military power so thinned out that we will no longer have the ability to contain four more countries with scores to settle, three of which are Nuclear powers: India v. Pakistan over Kashmir (front #5) and Israel v. Syria over the Golan Heights (front #6). And if Israel retaliates against any Arab country, I can guarantee the Middle East is going to turn into a sheet of lumpy melted glass (fronts #x,y & z).

The money that it would take to participate in even a three front war is already more than our faltering economy can handle.

Couple that with our indefinate "War on Terror," no one is going to have to invade our country to destroy it. We are doing an excellent job of imploding it ourselves.
 

brightnorm

Flashaholic
Joined
Oct 13, 2001
Messages
7,160
Originally posted by tkl:
......stats and history tell us the truth. new york and DC have the highest murder/gun crime rates in the states and both cities banned firearms ownership a long time ago! what does that tell you? cities that have the fewest gun laws have the lowest rates. see a pattern?....
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">tkl,

Though I live in a gun-hating city I believe in the critical importance of the 2nd Amendment and as a law abiding citizen deeply resent not having the option to defend myself in the way of my choosing.

It is also clear from many examples, including the fact that both Japan and Switzerland show very low crime rates, that mere gun possession is not the cause of crime.

That said, I must respectfully disagree with you on one point: New York City actually has the lowest violent crime rate of any large American city, and the murder rate, despite the recent 2 day flare, is the lowest in more than half a century. This IMO has nothing to do with the banning of handguns, but rather with extraordinarily fine police work initiated by Mayor Guiliani when he first brought in Thomas Bratton as police commish. (Bratton is now in LA but I have my doubts as to whether he can work similar magic there).

Personally, I believe that gun ownership imposes a responsibility upon the individual to be properly trained, for his safety and those around him. If guns were legal in my city I would expect to be licensed, registered, certified, etc. If I need a license to drive, fish or get married I have no problem with similar requirements for deadly weapon possession and carry.

I also don't mind having my stats in a database of gun owners. Despite the many problems of our wonderful country I have confidence in our ability to ultimately steer between the rocks.

If I really thought that owning a gun would put me on the sort of list that other countries use for confiscation, imprisonment and worse, then I would seriously think about leaving, because this would no longer be America.

Maybe the best way to convince gun hating/fearing citizens and legislators of the facts in this issue would be to establish a mixed federal panel of liberals, conservatives, Northerners, Westerners, etc, hire at least two of the best statistics gathering companies to do an intense, well funded examination of violent crime history from, say 1950 to the present day, and correlate that with gun ownership/possession.

People must understand that even if many violent crimes are committed with handguns, that in itself proves nothing. After all, when most crimes were committed with maces or cudgels what did that prove about maces and cudgels? If the intended victims were also armed with maces and cudgels perhaps the statistics back then might have been very different.

I'm starting to ramble so I'll turn it off now.

Brightnorm
 

Monsters_Inc

Banned
Joined
Oct 8, 2002
Messages
654
Location
Monstropolis
Sitting here in Australia, tis sad... At least it's not too late for you guys, Maryland or not.
frown.gif


I think after a shooting at Monash University in recent months, the govt banned hanguns with barrels shorter than 4 inches. Then again obtaining any sort of handgun by legal means in this country has lower odds than winning the lottery.
 

tkl

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Messages
2,332
Location
Tx
brightnorm, in japan gun ownership is very restricted. knifes used in crimes and murders is very common. switzerland, if i recall every citizen is required to have a full auto rifle as part of their civil defense.

as far as being licensed, thoroughly checked out and training, i got that when i took my concealed handgun class (chl) here in texas. and again, when i renewed. you have to renew every 4 years.
i have no problem with this.

what i do have a problem with are the folks like handgun control inc who *claim* to want common sense controls when none of them make any sense. they work off emotion and not logic. as a matter of fact, the ladies that were instrumental in lobbying england's legislature came to america to lend a helping hand.
icon15.gif
mad.gif


the anti gun crowd will tell you all day long they are only intersted in "common sense" controls but their real goal, that has been revealed from time to time, is total confiscation. it's a slippery slope and i'm not budging.

when i got old enough and started paying attention to what was going on in politics i noticed more and more the lies of the mainstream media and the anti gun crowd.

look people, it's simple, the constitution guarantee's me the right to keep and bear arms period. it says nothing about jumping through this hoop or that one. do your own research and come to your own conclusion.

well, there's my rant.
smile.gif
 

tkl

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Messages
2,332
Location
Tx
here's something else to chew on. i'd like to see anybody argue any of these.

Banning guns works, which is why New York, D.C., and Chicago cops need guns.

Washington DC's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the lack of gun control.

An intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot with a .357 magnum, will get angry and kill you.

A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

The New England Journal of Medicine is filled with expert advice about guns; just like Guns & Ammo has some excellent treatises on heart surgery

One should consult an automotive engineer for safewr seatbelts, a civil engineer for a better bridge, a surgeon for internal medicine, a computer programmer for hard drive problems and Sarah Brady for firearms expertise.

The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791 refers to the National Guard, which was created 112 years later in 1903.

These phrases: "The right of the people peaceably to assemble," "right of the people to be secure in their homes." "enumeration of herein of certain rights shall not be construed to disparage others retained by the people," and "The powers not delegated herein are reserved to the states respectively and to the people" all refer to individuals, but "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the state.

The NRA's "don't touch" campaign about kids handling guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign is responsible social activity.

Most people can't be trusted, so we should have laws against guns, which most people will abide by because they can be trusted.

Citizens don't need to carry a gun for personal protection, but police chiefs who are deskbound administrators who work in a building filled with cops, need a gun.

Trigger locks do not interfere with the ability to use a gun for defensive purposes, which is why you see police officers with one on their duty weapons.

Handgun Control, Inc. says it wants to "keep guns out of the wrong hands."

Guess what?

YOU have the "wrong hands."

=====================================================

Source of post:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/815276/posts
 

binky

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Dec 1, 2002
Messages
1,036
Location
Taxachusetts, USA
Heck, I can't add anything constructive to this. All I can do is lament.

1. I don't own a gun, and I don't want one right now.

2. I am infuriated that a criminal can look to the laws and solidly rely on my not having a gun at any time or anywhere, in the house or when I'm walking down a dark alley to get to my car in a dimly-lit public garage. Concealed weapons are indeed a deterrent.

3. The "anti-gun" activism is not changing the laws using legally or even rationally consistent means. They're operating in the realm of being stupid enough to want what they want, but clever enough to get it done. They don't want to convince me or persuade me or even let me vote on something. They just want to control me. That's also infuriating, because then it's not gun-control it's people-control.

And on and on and on...
 

Tater Rocket

Enlightened
Joined
Jun 25, 2001
Messages
574
Location
Close to St. Louis, MO, school at Rolla
What I would want to do is have a couple trial states. How about California and Massachusetts both completely outlaw guns while lets say West Virginia and Nevada or Arizona makes gun ownership mandatory or unrestricted. I chose these states because they are relative in geography to each other. I would be all for trying this. I'd move to probably west virginia if this were to happen. We could make it a 5 or 10 year trial and see the overall trend at the end. Of course, California and Massachusetts will probably fulfill their end of this idea within the next 10 years anyway.

Spud
 

Tomas

Banned
Joined
Jun 19, 2002
Messages
2,128
Location
Seattle, WA area
Just to add one item in response to one of your premis statements, tkl (thanks for posting that), the second person* to attempt to assault my wife in the street ended up on the ground screaming with a .380 Glaser fragmentation round in his thigh.

Her favorite RKBA image as a response to the "gun control" folks was the following:

how.jpg


Take care,
tomsig01.gif


* First time, many years earlier, she hadn't started carrying yet ...

BTW, the guy-on-the-ground was out on bail awaiting trial for an assault/rape when he made his move on Connie.
 

tkl

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Aug 24, 2002
Messages
2,332
Location
Tx
tomas, i'm very sorry your wife had to go through that.

i wish your wife had got him COM
icon8.gif
and he wouldn't be out on anything waiting for anything but the worms.
 

logicnerd411

Flashlight Enthusiast
Joined
Jul 24, 2002
Messages
1,246
Location
Fairfax, VA
A bit OT...

I feel pretty safe living in Virginia. I leave this topic with one example: One of the major roadways into VA from DC (I-66) has an intimidating sign which is not found anywhere else from any other states entering VA or any outward roads from DC to other states:

EXILE for owning an illegal gun: http://www.virginiaexile.com/
 

Anarchocap

Enlightened
Joined
Dec 23, 2002
Messages
452
Location
Arizona, USA
Tomas,
That is an excellent site run by a very upstanding man by the name of Oleg Volk. He is quite a talented photographer. http://www.a-human-right.com/ Ironically a first generation Russian immigrant to this country "gets it" compared to ~80% of the natural born population.
 

Anarchocap

Enlightened
Joined
Dec 23, 2002
Messages
452
Location
Arizona, USA
Originally posted by brightnorm:
Personally, I believe that gun ownership imposes a responsibility upon the individual to be properly trained, for his safety and those around him. If guns were legal in my city I would expect to be licensed, registered, certified, etc. If I need a license to drive, fish or get married I have no problem with similar requirements for deadly weapon possession and carry.
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">There are some huge problems with this statement. Yes, gun ownership is a huge responsibility, but you are making the gross and mistaken assumption that you are "licensed" for some sort of proficiency.
</font><ul type="square">[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">In every sense of the word in the examples you have given, licensing is only about the state collection of taxes.</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">On private property, no such licenses are required for the use of cars or fishing rods. And you can still get married without a license, you just won't be recognized by the state as such.</font>[*]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">You can still purchase a vehicle or a fishing rod without a license. The only such waiting period is for you to pull out the cash and sign on the dotted line.</font>[/list]<font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Saying that the state gets to decide whether or not I can defend myself sounds a lot like I am a slave and the state is my master who decides how valuable my life is.
You may wish to subjegate your life to the state and that is certainly your choice. Forcing or coercing me to do the same is immoral, and illegal according to the founding fathers and
a whole host of historical documents, including: The Magna Carta, the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, and the Bill of Rights.
 

Monsters_Inc

Banned
Joined
Oct 8, 2002
Messages
654
Location
Monstropolis
It is somewhat ironic as you've pointed out Gun Nut - people like Oleg gets it while those born and bred on US soil take their freedom for granted, including the circumstances and sacrifices in history that lead to that freedom.

Tomas, I dunno what to say - it's left me speechless. I just wished things had been different for my partner on the two separate occasions that something similar had happen to her while she was a child. Once is already too much, twice is incomprehensible (to me)...
 
Top