Stephen King on US gun contols.

[Sammi79]

@August,

When was the first mass shooting spree in the US?

Life may imitate fiction, certainly.

but fiction is shaped by life in the beginning.

btw your bullet points 2&3 are speculative, and as such add nothing to the argument.

You want to read the essay, I'm sure you could tear a few holes in it

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Sammi79

@August,

When was the first mass shooting spree in the US?

Life may imitate fiction, certainly.

but fiction is shaped by life in the beginning.

btw your bullet points 2&3 are speculative, and as such add nothing to the argument.

You want to read the essay, I'm sure you could tear a few holes in it

Leung Ying was one of the first in the US way back in 1928 he used a .25-30 lever-action rifle and hatchet. i say that we ban all Chinese people from the US in light of this. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leung_Ying

The first school killing spree perpetrator was Andrew Kehoe in 1926 he used bombs to kill 44.This this many choose to ignore becuase he did not use firearms to kill though it is the higest death killing spree at a school.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Kehoe

[August]

Originally Posted by Sammi79

@August,

When was the first mass shooting spree in the US?

Life may imitate fiction, certainly.

but fiction is shaped by life in the beginning.

Well what you consider the first mass shooting spree and what I might may be two different events so if you have a point to make go ahead and make it without the homework assignments if you please.

btw your bullet points 2&3 are speculative, and as such add nothing to the argument.

They're not my bullet points, they're in the wiki article I quoted. Apparently someone else thinks they do indeed add something to the argument or they wouldn't be there. Are you asking me whether I agree with the premise that books like Rage or violent video games can inspire a killer? Yes I most certainly do. Words and violent imagery have far more power than society realizes.

You want to read the essay, I'm sure you could tear a few holes in it

I think i'll pass. I've been listening to the anti-RKBA arguments for almost a half a century now and in all that time their message has not changed one bit. "Guns are bad and you don't need them". (insert shrug smiley) Certainly a novelist is not going to come out with some new earth shaking argument that's going to change my mind.

Our constitution says that the peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon. You can't claim that you are not infringing upon something and then turn around and restrict or ban it. The courts may let them get away with it but that doesn't mean that's not exactly what they're doing.

And while i'm at it, our rights don't have to pass anyone "needs test".

Adherents to that argument should realize that if the Bill of Rights, created to be an inviolate injunction against government oppression of those rights in particular, can be ignored just because someone thinks we don't "need" them then they risk having that standard applied to the rest of our rights as well. We don't "need" to play violent video games or watch violent movies, or read books like Steven Kings Rage or maybe read about things that embarrass the ruling party. We also don't "need" the right to privacy if we have nothing to hide and the right against self incrimination if we're not guilty of something. We don't even "need" the right to free religion if God doesn't really exist.

See the problem with applying "need" to human rights?

The people organizing the anti-gun efforts in my country have been preparing for this attack on the 2nd Amendment long before the world heard of Adam Lanza. Indeed they were already calling for an AW ban when we all thought he used pistols.

They have been ramping up for this push for over a year (publicly) with almost daily op ed pieces and special news reports on why gun control was no longer on the table for either party and how it's been X years since the Clinton Assault Weapons ban was allowed to expire. I don't know how many you see over there but here they were quite regular increasing in frequency all through the summer and fall election season.

I firmly believe we'd be having this "debate" even if Lanza and that other nut hadn't committed their crimes. The Democrats reelection virtually guaranteed it. They know that once their economic chickens come home to roost they'll be a dirty word in most voters minds next election (unless the Republicans continue to step on their male appendages) so they need to strike while the iron is hottest.

What irritates me is they even freely admit that these new laws would not have stopped Lanza nor would it stop another Lanza in the future. What they aren't saying is that it will advance the bar for future "national discussions" on how far we're going to let them get away with crapping on the constitution next time one of these nuts they won't try and stop goes on another rampage.

While they are making this admittedly false argument they also dismiss and ridicule the idea of putting armed policemen in our schools or improving physical security with some stronger doors and locks which arguably would have stopped Lanza.

Oh that costs money they say but how much do you think they'll spend forcing an assault weapons and magazine ban compliance against several million people who don't think they have a right to do it? I'll bet it'll be a lot more expensive than the cost of some stouter doors and a cop on site. We have them in half the schools in the nation already, it's not like it's every school we're talking about but that according to the president is a non starter in this national "discussion" on public safety as is any real mental health care reform.

[ETR3(SS)]

There's a lot of hoopla about banning "assault weapons" from democrats and the anti-gun lobby. But you know what they are ominously quiet about? Repealing the Patriot Act and doing away with all of its violations of our rights. Think about that.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by August

... our rights don't have to pass anyone "needs test".

That's the cogent point. A right does not need justification.

Of course do we really have any rights?

If the government believes it has the authority to change it, then it is not a right but a government granted privilege.

If the Founding Dudes intended it as such, they were capable of entitling that addition piece of paper, the "Bill of Privileges" .

So when it is right for a right to not be a right?

[Ducimus]

The Bill of Rights (not bill of needs) is supposed to be inviolate. The second amendment is ultimately what guarantees the rest. Lessen, cheapen, or infringe upon it, and the door is open for steady erosion on the rest of our rights. You could argue our rights are already on the road to slow erosion.

The purpose of second amendment were woven into our national fabric before the Bill of Rights was even drafted with the Declaration of Independence.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

I believe The United States is unique among nations in this regard, in our national history, and the engrained culture of our people as a result of our history, so I wouldn't expect people from Australia, England, or Ireland to understand it.

EDIT:
Great video here:

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

The Bill of Rights (not bill of needs) is supposed to be inviolate. The second amendment is ultimately what guarantees the rest. Lessen, cheapen, or infringe upon it, and the door is open for steady erosion on the rest of our rights. You could argue our rights are already on the road to slow erosion.

The purpose of second amendment were woven into our national fabric before the Bill of Rights was even drafted with the Declaration of Independence.



I believe The United States is unique among nations in this regard, in our national history, and the engrained culture of our people as a result of our history, so I wouldn't expect people from Australia, England, or Ireland to understand it.

EDIT:
Great video here:

I agree with the right to bear arms however if that right keeps the government in check then how come we have the Patriot Act which largely violates many of our rights?
People have lots of guns here yes but rarely do they if you threaten this right I'll stop you with my right to bear arms.

It seems to me that no matter what laws or documents a nations has they can be trampled upon and under the correct guise no one will try to stop it.

The trick in an armed nation is to slowly take other right away and then by that point you have control over most anyone who might try and resist.

To me your video only proves my views people in the US have the right to bear arms yet that fact did not stop that law and many others that clearly violate the Constitution from being passed.Perhaps your take is that they hid the true meaning of the law but they did not because the effect of the law was clear only a pointless statement made that means nothing in particular.Also all the members of Congress knew as well yet they passed it so that clearly shows that they have no fear of the armed citizens rising up against them if the truth was learned.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

The trick in an armed nation is to slowly take other right away and then by that point you have control over most anyone who might try and resist.

Which is what this latest assault on the second amendment is all about. People like Fienstien were WAITING for the next incident. The proposed assault weapon ban was written a long time ago. The people involved were not about to "let a good tragedy go to waste". Like circling vultures waitig for the next dead carcass, they waited with their legislature already formulated and ready to go.

To me your video only proves my views people in the US have the right to bear arms yet that fact did not stop that law and many others that clearly violate the Constitution from being passed.Perhaps your take is that they hid the true meaning of the law but they did not because the effect of the law was clear only a pointless statement made that means nothing in particular.Also all the members of Congress knew as well yet they passed it so that clearly shows that they have no fear of the armed citizens rising up against them if the truth was learned.

To me that video illustrates one reason why the second amendment is just as relevant and important today, as it was in past history. The problem as i see it is three fold.

1.) Our people have grown complacent or disenfranchised (count me among the latter).

2.) In todays society, within the last 10 to 15 years, i think too many people have become unwilling to take personal responsibility. Whatever it is, its always somebody else's job, or somebody else's fault.

2.) As a result of above points 1 and 2 ; in the years following 911 our government has gotten to big for it's britches.

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by Ducimus

Which is what this latest assault on the second amendment is all about. People like Fienstien were WAITING for the next incident. The proposed assault weapon ban was written a long time ago. The people involved were not about to "let a good tragedy go to waste". Like circling vultures waitig for the next dead carcass, they waited with their legislature already formulated and ready to go.



To me that video illustrates one reason why the second amendment is just as relevant and important today, as it was in past history. The problem as i see it is three fold.

1.) Our people have grown complacent or disenfranchised (count me among the latter).

2.) In todays society, within the last 10 to 15 years, I think too many people have become unwilling to take personal responsibility. Whatever it is, its always somebody else's job, or somebody else's fault.

2.) As a result of above points 1 and 2 ; in the years following 911 our government has gotten to big for it's britches.

So you seem to be saying that the second amendment is still important(in keeping the government in check) yet many people are complacent and will not take personal responsibility if this is the case then no one even if they have a firearm is going to do anything to challenge things.

In what way are/where you disenfranchised specifically?

Originally Posted by Ducimus

The Bill of Rights (not bill of needs) is supposed to be inviolate. The second amendment is ultimately what guarantees the rest. Lessen, cheapen, or infringe upon it, and the door is open for steady erosion on the rest of our rights. You could argue our rights are already on the road to slow erosion.

As the unifringed right has never existed how can it be eroded?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

Is that why blacks and non free white men were not allowed guns?

Lets get right down to basics.
Should a convicted violent felon be allowed to buy a nuke?


@HundertzehnGustav

Just turned around the image to offer a different perspective.

Indeed, and by that measure the only actual trolling in this topic was the original post which you altered.

[Sammi79]

Originally Posted by August

Well what you consider the first mass shooting spree and what I might may be two different events so if you have a point to make go ahead and make it without the homework assignments if you please.

August. I'm glad to see you entered the debate and that you hit the ground running. Thank you for the rest of your post it is very informative, much more articulate than 'molon labe'

However, your abrasive demeanor lends no credence to anything you say. Like you say, who cares what a novelist thinks, and heaven forbid people check their history - who cares what you think, sir? not I for one.

You want to bite me over arguments you put in my mouth?

Go do your homework August.

What arguments have I made in this thread? What questions did I ask?

I was very tempted to go through your verbose reply, and highlight every argument you project upon me or Mr King, but it would be a waste of time instead I'll just say, you're arguing with your own monologue.

/ignored

[August]

Originally Posted by Sammi79

I was very tempted to go through your verbose reply, and highlight every argument you project upon me or Mr King, but it would be a waste of time instead I'll just say, you're arguing with your own monologue.

/ignored

Whatever. Not like you have a dog in this hunt anyways.

[Oberon]

First things first, Ducimus, love that M1 I do like the M14s, there's something about them that the modern rifles just don't have, perhaps it's that wooden stock.

Anyway, secondly, what do people here think is the biggest threat to the freedoms of the American people, the PATRIOT act or an Assault Rifle ban?
Not trying to put anyone into a trap or anything, just curious and I think that there will be a polarised reply depending upon political views, however I could equally be wrong.

[August]

Originally Posted by Oberon

Anyway, secondly, what do people here think is the biggest threat to the freedoms of the American people, the PATRIOT act or an Assault Rifle ban?

A good question but difficult to answer. They're both part of an ongoing government assault on our liberties.

[Ducimus]

Originally Posted by Oberon

First things first, Ducimus, love that M1 I do like the M14s, there's something about them that the modern rifles just don't have, perhaps it's that wooden stock.

I think the M1A/M14 has a "soul" so to speak. It's the last wood and steel battle rifle the US ever made. There's just something timeless about wood and steel. I'll have to take another picture of it later if you want. I took it down and put several coats of 100% pure tung oil on the stock. It has that classic look in the wood now more then ever. I also have a new flash surpressor with a bayonet lug and an M6 bayonet i just got yesterday. My intention is to bring the rifle up to its classic configuration. After that my next project will be to get a detatchable scope mount that holds zero, and a scope for deer and elk hunting. As so far im just enjoying using the Iron sights.

Oh yeah, you might like this video from the history channel. Pretty short and quick explanation of the rifle for those who aren't familiar with it.

Anyway, secondly, what do people here think is the biggest threat to the freedoms of the American people, the PATRIOT act or an Assault Rifle ban?

For me, the patriot act, taken by itself is cause for concern, but not any reason to get up in arms over (pun not intended). However, it's not just the patriot act. I look at it as a combination of things:

1. . (Hauling citizens off without any due process.)

2. (Ability to detain citizens indefinitely)

3. Jumping up on the crackpot for a minute, hearing various rumors on the internet about the military practicing corralling and funneling, Dept of homeland security stocking up on millions of rounds hollow point ammo, and other misc crackpottery about Obama replacing top generals with those who would be willing to fire upon American citizens - is not helping. I'm still of the opinion this is tin foil hat stuff, and theres a ton of it out on the internet, but combined with the patriot act and the NDAA, i have to wonder if there is a little truth to some of this stuff. (EDIT: Here's an of something that makes wonder: Paranoia, or real cause for concern? )

4. And now they're going after our most effective means of self defense with the assault weapon ban.


Something's not right here.