Gun Control Groups Prepare for 'National Day of Protest'

[blakey]

Ok.
Blakey ~ I mean this not as a "personal assault".

BUT, from your postings here on this board, my only conclusion is that you have little (if any) understanding of American history, civics or politics. I highly doubt you have even a GRASP of politics in America today.... let alone the politics that led to the inception of the Republic.

I don't mean that as an insult. Believe me.
I'm pretty sure that I'd appear foolish if I were to "comment" on the "basic laws" or "legal precedents" of the United Kingdom... I know that I have some basic idea of how it (The United Kingdom system) works - but I'd appear foolish telling the Brits how to run their affairs.


cheers,

no probs roy

i clearly have different opinions from you
and because of that i guess you maybe reckon, perhaps justifiably, that i need to, if i may quote a member who i've not seen around posting for a while, "know my history"

but i don't know is it's safe to always assume that, where you disagree with someone, that person knows nothing of the subject in question

however, i'm not a us citizen or an expert in american constitutional law, that's for sure, only an interested observer of the only current superpower

i know enough, in my perhaps incorrect opinion, to enjoy joining in discussions on here,
- other than that there is no point in me saying "i know this" or "i've read that"

peace.

 

[Roughneck]

Hi blakey,

Thanks for the follow up.

i clearly have different opinions from you

Quite apparent, isn't it?

and because of that i guess you maybe reckon, perhaps justifiably, that i need to, if i may quote a member who i've not seen around posting for a while, "know my history"

I'm not sure about knowing "your history". But I'd be lying if I didn't say that I would appreciate it if y'all read up some more on the US and it's founding principles... because quite honestly, I see some glaring omissions and holes.

but i don't know is it's safe to always assume that, where you disagree with someone, that person knows nothing of the subject in question

I'm not sure if I meant to say "You know NOTHING about the subject" - I think I meant more to say "You are so completely mistaken" about the subject." If I wasn't clear about it then, let me be clear about it now.

Besides, you know what they say about "assumptions", right? "It makes an ASS out of YOU and ME."

I don't assume - I merely go by what said member has posted.

however, i'm not a us citizen or an expert in american constitutional law, that's for sure, only an interested observer of the only current superpower

I certainly DONOT wish to come across as "the arrogant asshole who knows everything" - but at the same time, I have to state that I've spent almost 30 years studying US law and the US Constitution.

As such, many a times when I post about US law, I do not mean to come across as "confrontational" - but it DOES VEX ME when I see folks repeat the same old half-truths, falsehoods and plain old misinformation ... that they ought not to have ever expressed if they'd read US Law and read it's foundation!

See, this is the source of my consternation!

Not that people want to criticize US Law... but that they do so from false assumptions and mistaken positions.

And while doing so - they let their own (or other nations) off the hook. I've said this before and I'll say it again - folks want to make it seem like the US is the "Big bad bully" in this world.... while conveniently forgetting that there are so many other nations and organizations who do the same while not being called out for it.

This lonely fact is what really chaps my hide. I have never denied that the US has it's own problems and that it is acting as an empire - but I resent how others hoist their own colors in seeming nobility while forgetting that they have a past as bloody as the US.

I've always said "Bring the troops back home and let them not interfere in foreign affairs" - and in the same breath I get accused of "cowardice" from neo-con Republicans while being tarnished as a "Don't care isolationist" by the liberals who want to send the same troops to Darfur.


yours in liberty,
R.

 

[Roughneck]

By the way, since we are discussing the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment and all that:

When the first Congress convened for the purpose of drafting a Bill of Rights, it delegated the task to James Madison. Madison did not write upon a blank tablet. Instead, he obtained a pamphlet listing the State proposals for a Bill of Rights and sought to produce a briefer version incorporating all the vital proposals of these. His purpose was to incorporate, not distinguish by technical changes, proposals such as that of the Pennsylvania minority, Sam Adams, and the New Hampshire delegates. Madison proposed among other rights that:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service." 43

In the House, this was initially modified so that the militia clause came before the proposal recognizing the right. The proposals for the Bill of Rights were then trimmed in the interests of brevity. The conscientious objector clause was removed following objections by Eldridge Gerry, who complained that future Congresses might abuse the exemption for the scrupulous to excuse everyone from military service.

The proposal finally passed the House in its present form: "A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." In this form it was submitted to the Senate, which passed it the following day. The Senate in the process indicated its intent that the right be an individual one, for private purposes, by rejecting an amendment which would have limited the keeping and bearing of arms to bearing "for the common defense".

Link to full text

That's a quote, lifted straight out of:

The Right to Keep and Bear Arms

REPORT of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

of the UNITED STATES SENATE

NINETY-SEVENTH CONGRESS
Second Session

February 1982

I encourage all members interested in the gun debate to read it in it's entirety - if you haven't already.


cheers,

 

[Roughneck]

Oh and while we are at it, here's an extensive list of gun useage in self-defence and protection of property.

When was the last time you saw the media highlight these stories?
Now ask yourself "Why don't they?"

cheers,

 

[AFA]

Oh and while we are at it, here's an extensive list of gun useage in self-defence and protection of property.

When was the last time you saw the media highlight these stories?
Now ask yourself "Why don't they?"

cheers,

Good list, good information. No, the news in many restrictive places does not often broadcast those situations of lives saved as I've said. They follow the political climate of the area so as not to appear out of place. However on the news in this overall area where guns are fairly easily available I do see a lot of homeowner stopped intrustions by the use of guns.

Another pet peeve of mine is when they talk about a robbery with a particular type of gun and then show something else because they call everything an assault rifle. Calling something an AK-47 or Mac 9, is favorite "terminology", and as we know they are already illegal under federal law and scarce at best in the US. They are not part of the determination of some narrow minded politicians to ban, but guns that only look similiar.

I have a water pistol that looks like an UZI. I guess that might have to go.

 

[McRocket]

By the way, since we are discussing the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment and all that:

Link to full text

That's a quote, lifted straight out of:


I encourage all members interested in the gun debate to read it in it's entirety - if you haven't already.


cheers,

I committee formed during the Reagan Administration (1982) at the height of the Cold War. Made up (I believe) predominintely of Republicans. With both the Committee and the Subcommittee chaired by Republicans. And the Chairman himself being the rather infamous Republican Strom Thurmond?

That is not exactly what I would call an unbiased committee.

 

[Roughneck]

I committee formed during the Reagan Administration (1982) at the height of the Cold War. Made up predominintely with Republicans. With both the Committee and the Subcommittee chaired by Republicans. And the Chairman himself being the rather infamous Republican Strom Thurmond?

Oh yeah, now THAT'S un unbiased Congressional committee - not.

Once again, attack the messenger, not the message.

Why am I not surprised?

McR - I could simply state the same about Democrats and Gun Control.
I pointed out that passage because it relates to the Constitution - specifically the 2nd Amendment.

Do you dispute that? No, instead you attack the medium it is presented in.
That's not a logical argument McR, that's ad hominem.
A fallacy.

cheers,

 

[McRocket]

Once again, attack the messenger, not the message.

That's interesting. It seems to me you were attacking the messanger in the following thread just a couple of days ago.

http://board.freeones.com/showpost.php?p=1601199&postcount=59

Why am I not surprised?

McR - I could simply state the same about Democrats and Gun Control.
I pointed out that passage because it relates to the Constitution - specifically the 2nd Amendment.

Do you dispute that? No, instead you attack the medium it is presented in.
That's not a logical argument McR, that's ad hominem.
A fallacy.

cheers,

If the source of the message is biased, then I think it is reasonable to assume that the message from that source is biased as well. Especially when it comes to the rather extreme partisanship of American politics.

Besides, people can interpret the 2'nd Amendment all they wish. Gun lovers will interpret it their way. Gun haters theirs.

My interpretation? How it was written.

So until they change or modify it; how it is written is how I choose to define it.

 

[Phaeton]

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

What a delightfully useless thread!

 

[AFA]

What a delightfully useless thread!

Not entirely.

I thought that sig was like a heart rate monitor or something, but I see it's an AM / FM band.