[Fooboy]

I know from being a member here for a while that most folks here seem somewhat liberal ... but I still thought I would share this.

http://www.givethemback.com/

This just totally shocked me. This is truly an example of the overused (and somewhat trite) saying "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

I'd also like to take this time to say that I own a couple guns, I have grown up shooting, I am safe and responsible, and I have no issue with legitimate forms of gun control and gun education ... permits, waiting periods, background checks. Also, I've seen adults with appauling gun handling habits (inadvertantly pointing towards people, not double checking to see if it is loaded or not before they handle), and I have seen young teens who are incredible careful and safe ... it all comes down to if you are educated properly. Point is, I am not trying to get into a 2nd amendment debate. If the 2nd amendment got struck down ... then this would be expected I suppose. It just blows my mind that this was allowed to happen.

[Barto]

I didn't bother watching the video, my bullshit meter went to 11 when I saw the web site and read the blurb.

(and now I make an unrelated point)

Here in Australia (as many annoying Australians have pointed out here) we have severe gun control - they are basically illegal. And do you know what? Most people here like that. Now I know attitudes in America are different, my point is that there certainly are people who would agree with total gun control (eg, the overwhelming majority of Australians).

[Kickaha]

Wow, that's just... not right. At pretty much any level.

Nagin & Co screw up *again*. Wonderful.

I wonder when he's going to run for President?

Barto: so you didn't bother reading any of the info, and made up your mind ahead of time? Well, that's nice to know.

It doesn't matter what your personal opinion is, it's strictly against not only the right to bear arms, but also unreasonable search and seizure, as I see it.

[Barto]

The over-the-top indignation and scaremongering present in the *blurb* was enough to make me close the browser tab.

In addition, I believe the NRA talking about guns as much as George Bush talking about Iraq or Steve Jobs talking about Macs. (Or if you like, Al Gore on the environment and Bill Gates talking about Windows).

[Banana]

Barto,

It is fallacious to say that because X said that, we cannot believe it, because X is untrustworthy.

Even liars *do* tell truth now and then.

[Kickaha]

Agreed. I'm not a huge NRA fan, I think that they *are* blowhards much of the time, but take out the hyperbole, and that's still sickening, based just on dry facts.

Barto, your personal opinion on how things *should* be doesn't trump basic law.

[thegelding]

meh, i read the first page and turned it off too...

don't like angry sites,

angry white men

angry black men



but anger seems to be what sells these days...lots of hate out there on all side....doesn't mean i have to read it

g

[Dorian Gray]

Bah, the poor things are bleating for donations! Off the top of my head I can think of at least ten thousand better causes, not least the save-the-lopsided-crested-finch campaign. Wake me up when you guys join the civilised world and put your John Wayne days behind you.

[Barto]

Originally Posted by Kickaha Barto, your personal opinion on how things *should* be doesn't trump basic law.

Never said it should. That's what the "(and now I make an unrelated point)" was for.

[Kickaha]

I am continually amazed at how... *trusting* people are of the power structures that govern them. Is it just naivete? A deep-seated willingness to be led and controlled?

To me, this is really the core of the gun control issue - do you trust your government *completely*, to the point that you're willing to place *all* personal safety in their hands, including safety *from* them if the powerbase becomes utterly corrupt? Or is that just seen as so impossible, despite repeated lessons from history?

Anyone care to explain?

[Banana]

Security.

Look up feudalism.

*shrugs* Not complete answer, but works for me.

[thegelding]

lots of different ways of doing things...we have very limited gun control...sometimes it works ok, sometimes it doesn't...definetly not perfect

many countries have very strict gun control...some it works well in, like britian and down under


why i don't mind our gun control and would like it to be even stronger? well the orginal thinking behind an armed citizentry is so the people could overthrow the government if it became dangerous to the people...there is no way the people can overthrow our government with weapons (maybe by voting, but that is unlikely also)...so if we can't use our weapons to overthrow the government, why do we need them? we should allow rifles for hunting (no automatic weapons with thousand round clips), we should allow handguns for personal safety (i don't totally believe this since handguns tend to kill kids and other innocents more than "bad guys"...be this country likes its handguns so it is an allowance we have to make it seems)...or we go whole hog and let people have rocket launchers and tanks and jet fighters and such so we can truly overthrow our government when and if needed...but that is kinda silly

so you work with the process and try to make changes that way...and it is slow and awful and you are frustrated most of your life till you realize that you are but a speck on the timeline and hopefully you have some fun and happiness in the few years you inhabited this earth

why i turned off the other site and didn't read past that first page and why i couldn't care less about these people and their cause? it is all in the wording...if they want us to listen, tell us their story and why we should care, but without the hate and the nastiness that is all around us anymore... example:

The arrogance of anti-gun politicians and government officials and their hate of freedom will churn your stomach. The law is the law, the Constitution is the Constitution

so they are just preaching to the choir for the first part and only care about the constitution when it suits their cause...do they care about illegal wiretaps, about 800 signing statements that allows the president to do whatever he pleases, contitutional or not?

they could present their cause in a way to make me care, but they choose instead to ramp up the hate for their core base...and the is fine, and that is their choice...just don't be surprised when many just disregard their site...

and it works both ways...when extreme greens or extreme religious or extreme just about anybody starts ramping up the hate and talking only to their base core group it is always the same effect

g

[Sauvblanc]

Originally Posted by thegelding well the orginal thinking behind an armed citizentry is so the people could overthrow the government if it became dangerous to the people...

You're correct, that was the original aim behind the 2nd amendment when the Constitutional authors wrote it.

But how many Americans actually *know* this? How many Americans can recite the entire wording of the 2nd amendment? I'd hazard a guess that most can quote the part about "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed", but that's it. I remember reading a statistic somewhere that said a scarily large majority of people actually believe that their right to bear arms is somewhere in the Bible.

And I'm fairly sure-quoting something that's been said ad infinitum-that the Constitutional authors didn't envision such things as AK-47's etc.

Canada-OTOH-actually has a higher gun ownership on a per-capita basis than the US. But on a per capital basis we have lower numbers of gun-related fatalities.

There's more to the problem than simply unfettered access to guns, IMHO.

But then again I've never really understood the absolute zeal that Americans have for their guns. But if it thins out the gene pool, so much the better.

[Dave]

Originally Posted by Sauvblanc And I'm fairly sure-quoting something that's been said ad infinitum-that the Constitutional authors didn't envision such things as AK-47's etc.

But since the original purpose was to allow for the citizens to overthrow their own government, surely the assault weapons of the day, whatever form they may take, would be included.

[alcimedes]

And I've said this before and I'll say it again. An armed group of citizens, even if it's just handguns and rifles/shotguns would be more than enough to overthrow our current government.

You'd have 200+ million armed people, and the folks who are supposed to subdue them would be their own friends and family. I doubt our military would hold up under that kind of pressure. More likely the military would join with the citizenry in the overthrow.

[thegelding]

nah, it would be civil war again...the government, whichever was in charge, would tell the military that the liberals are trying to overthrow them and want to kill all their women and children...or the governement would tell the military that the radical right was trying to overthrow them and kill all their women and children...

it would be damn bloody...kinda like iraq or vietnam...the government wouldn't stop easily and many many people can be convinced to fight, even against US citizen if you think they are evil...the government will convince those soldiers that the people are evil

g

[Fooboy]

I dont think that we face the SAMEkind of tyranny that our forefathers faced during the american revolution. The world has changed. There would be no huge showdown between citizens and governments ... guns (among other rights) would taken away slowly, quietly. Not with a bang, but with a whimper.

I like this quote by Jeff Cooper.

"The rifle is a weapon. Let there be no mistake about that. It is a tool of power, and thus dependent completely upon the moral stature of its user. It is equally useful in securing meat for the table, destroying group enemies on the battlefield, and resisting tyranny. In fact, it is the only means of resisting tyranny, since a citizenry armed with rifles simply cannot be tyrannized." "The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."

And Sigmund Freud

"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Kickaha I am continually amazed at how... *trusting* people are of the power structures that govern them. Is it just naivete? A deep-seated willingness to be led and controlled? To me, this is really the core of the gun control issue - do you trust your government *completely*, to the point that you're willing to place *all* personal safety in their hands, including safety *from* them if the powerbase becomes utterly corrupt? Or is that just seen as so impossible, despite repeated lessons from history? Anyone care to explain?

Would I completely trust the US government if I were a US citizen? No. Would I trust it a heck of a lot more than an organization like the NRA? You bet.

Whether you believe in democracy or not, at least you have some sort of control over the governments. Some control and accountability. It may be quite limited these days, but it still exists. Organizations like the NRA, on the other hand, are barely controllable and accountable at all.

And as thegelding pointed out so nicely, their website is full of hypocrisy anyway.

[Barto]

Originally Posted by Fooboy "A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

So... you're calling us pussies and managing to sound intellectual about it. Nice.

[Kickaha]

Originally Posted by chucker Would I completely trust the US government if I were a US citizen? No.

Then that's it, end of story. Whether you trust it more than another body is completely irrelevant. No one is asking you to choose allegiances between the two, after all.

Leaving side-topics out of it, if you don't trust your (hypothetically, work with me) government implicitly, then does a complete gun ban make rational sense?

[chucker]

Originally Posted by Kickaha Leaving side-topics out of it, if you don't trust your (hypothetically, work with me) government implicitly, then does a complete gun ban make rational sense?

Who's advocating a complete ban?

[thegelding]

you would also have to be willing to kill you elected officials and the soldiers that protect them...that is what the NRA doesn't tell it's members....

i don't own a gun because i am not ready to kill other americans...maybe that will change, but i doubt it

but if you really support the 2nd amendment and you really believe all US citizens should own a gun, then you also must support and be willing to kill other citizens and our elected officials...again i am not saying that is a bad thing, but i am not there yet...and i think bush and cheney are about as evil as they come...so it would take a lot for me to go the NRA route

g

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Originally Posted by Fooboy I know from being a member here for a while that most folks here seem somewhat liberal ... but I still thought I would share this. http://www.givethemback.com/ This just totally shocked me. This is truly an example of the overused (and somewhat trite) saying "If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."

In the words of Eddie Izzard, 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people. And if you give guns to monkeys, then monkeys kill people.'

Between 1999 and 2000, 62 Britons were killed by guns.

In the USA, 7,950 people were killed by guns 1999.

The population of the US is about 4.5 times bigger than Britain's.

How anyone can claim it's education and not the easy availability of firearms is kinda... out there.

[Barto]

Just because I don't fully trust someone doesn't make me want to buy a gun in case I have to shoot them...

Hassan, from what I've heard Canada has the same access to firearms yet much less gun deaths. Lies, damn lies and statistics.

[Bryson]

Man, I wish Americans against Gun Control would just either:

Overthrow the damn government.
or
Shut up.

Either option works for me.




I am somewhat kidding. Somewhat.

[alcimedes]

Basically the "War on Drugs" combined with massive poverty in areas of the US lead to our insanely high gun death rates.

[spotcatbug]

Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah Between 1999 and 2000, 62 Britons were killed by guns. In the USA, 7,950 people were killed by guns 1999. The population of the US is about 4.5 times bigger than Britain's.

I think you really mean to be comparing murder rates, not "killed by guns" rates. Who cares what tool was used to kill somebody, if they're dead. I mean, if you get rid of all the guns, but everybody just switches over to killing each other with knives, have you really done what you were trying to do?

I have no idea if a murder rate comparison would look any better (I have a feeling not), just pointing out that you have to measure the right stuff.

[naren]

Originally Posted by Barto Hassan, from what I've heard Canada has the same access to firearms yet much less gun deaths. Lies, damn lies and statistics.

I understand they have far fewer monkeys in Canada. One would presume that they therefor have fewer armed monkeys. Remember, monkeys kill people too, if they have a gun!

[thegelding]

murder by knife and murder by gun are very very different

one is close up and very personal

the other is at a distance and removed


you would have a hard time doing a drive by kniving


guns make it very easy to kill, and to kill from far away, and to kill at random....

murder would go down without guns just because it takes alot to kill with a knife or your hands...you have to care alot to kill with a knife or your hands, you don't have to care at all to kill with a gun...

plus there would be fewer kids accidentally killing another kid with the knife they find in their house than the gun they find

and again, i'm pretty much fine with our gun control laws, maybe a few more restrictions, but not too many...rifles are ok, nothing automatic, nothing hollow point...handguns with trigger locks are cool too...we require people to have a licence to drive, a freakin license to fish, so having a few restrictions on a gun ain't the end of the world

g

[Barto]

spotcatbug - it's even more complex than that. You'd have to look at accidental deaths caused by guns as well. And there's no guarantee there is or is no causal relationship between guns and murder rates.

Like I said, lies, damn lies and statistics.