You Won the Battle, But Lost The War

[Guest]

quote:

---

I wonder why anyone would make a big deal outta little thing like kids killing kids.....damn media.

---

Kids kill kids ALL the time, and a vast majority of it is not done with guns, a kid of 16 just killed a 6 year old by tying him up, beating him to a pulp and then injecting him with a MASSIVE overdose of insulin, did you hear about that? If he had shot the kid, you would have heard about it all over the country. Did you hear about the kid in a local school here in Washington who took an entire class hostage with a set of kitchen knives? NO? well, if he had a gun, you would have heard about it. There are just loads of stories like that, did you hear about them? Maybe on your local news you would have, but NOT nationally, it'll only be national if the kid had a gun.

Guns are dangerous, you bet, and so are cars, swimming pools, axes, chainsaws, screwdrivers, and of course boxcutters, who can forget about boxcutters? Maybe we ought to outlaw those and get them out of the hands of everyone.

Gun control are for those that wish to oppress the class of citizens that they wish to disarm. Taking away the right to self defense from those that could be oppressed is wrong, and RACIST!!

The jews lost their right to own guns in the late 30's, and you know what happened to them, the chinese were disarmed as well, and then millions of them were slaughtered. The Russians were disarmed to make them safe and then after all of their guns were confiscated, Stalin went in and slughtered MILLIONS of his own citizens.

So, who are you going to go after with your gun control, who are the first citizens that you are going to go after, who are the first that are going to marched off to the ovens? WHO'S FIRST? The jews, the gays, how about Catholics? Oh that's right, we can't do that again, so we'll just disarm EVERYONE, that way we can go after whomever we please, what are they going to do? Shoot spitwads at us?

It's for the children, it's for your own safety, your fellow citizen cannot be trusted with a firearm.

We now have one one of the safest societies in the world!!! Adolf Hitler 1938, after he outlawed all weapons in the hands of citizens.

You betcha Lotharr and others, I'll just happily turn in my guns and then 5 years from now when they come to take me off to the camps, I will just joyfully get in line and walk into the showers.

HISTORY REPEATS ITSELF, because NO ONE listened the first time.

YOU AREN'T LISTENING!!!

quote:

---

Hey guy, I'm not in charge of but two things...jack and sh*t....and Jack left town....just talking ....

show me in that document you claim to value so highly where that is such a crime.

---

That would be the ENTIRE constitution of the United States. The constitution LIMITS the power of government to certain things, but to protect people from themselves is not and never was a part of the constitution. The people are responsible for themselves, the government is responsible TO the people, not FOR them.

[ 05-23-2002, 15:59: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

[Lotharr]

quote:

---

My rant was when I was half asleep. Put simply, you can't ban everything that can be misused.

---

I do that myself

When an idea is given form it may make all the sense (and be progressive) in the world.....now move forward in time and the practicality is gone. That is where I think we find ourselves on this issue.

quote:

---

Kids kill kids ALL the time, and a vast majority of it is not done with guns, a kid of 16 just killed a 6 year old by tying him up, beating him to a pulp and then injecting him with a MASSIVE overdose of insulin, did you hear about that? If he had shot the kid, you would have heard about it all over the country. Did you hear about the kid in a local school here in Washington who took an entire class hostage with a set of kitchen knives? NO? well, if he had a gun, you would have heard about it. There are just loads of stories like that, did you hear about them? Maybe on your local news you would have, but NOT nationally, it'll only be national if the kid had a gun.

---

I personally didn't hear about this but I bet a lot of others did. I'm glad this dude didn't have access to some real firepower or it may have been a lot worse.

quote:

---

Guns are dangerous, you bet, and so are cars, swimming pools, axes, chainsaws, screwdrivers, and of course boxcutters, who can forget about boxcutters? Maybe we ought to outlaw those and get them out of the hands of everyone.

---

I'm sensing sarcasm here.....

Unfortunately for this argument I can't massacre a group of people with a swimming pool. I do think cars are a waste and dangerous. The benefits from a national mass transit system are many.

I don't think you put much weight into my previous posts. The people cannot stand against the weapons systems that the government will be employing soon. Cannon and musket....orbital weapons platforms and fully integrated battle suits....do you see the difference?

quote:

---

That would be the ENTIRE constitution of the United States. The constitution LIMITS the power of government to certain things, but to protect people from themselves is not and never was a part of the constitution. The people are responsible for themselves, the government is responsible TO the people, not FOR them.

---

Yep and a new day is upon us, when the people through the government, are going to regulate even more behavior. Probably has something to do with more slob joe's (looks for Dragon Lady) per mile than 250 years ago. Sorry guy....this country has more city folk and your gonna feel it.

It didn't matter that the Jews were disarmed the community accepted it. Probably because of racist views. Chinese and Stalin had to deal with a citizenry that could weigh in with conventional strength....that no longer applies....or it soon won't.

I love the Constitution and I love the fact it can change. I just hope change will happen sooner with less of a body count.

[Guest]

Lothar,

Not sure if you have figured it out yet, but I have. You are a socialist, mass transit, take away guns, jobs. You're a died in the wool socialist, maybe you and Menchise ought to get together and start your own country.

You believe in the "good of society" not the "good of the individual". The constitution is built on individuality. Each person is responsible for themselves and their actions, you believe that the government, for the good of the people should control the peoples actions.

That is NOT constitutional, and your "the government has better weapons, so why even be armed" is the biggest crock of SH%t that I have heard in a while.

HAving the citizens armed, makes it possible to cut down crime and other things due to deterrence. The HIGHEST crome rates are in cities with the strictest gun controls. When a Concealed carry law has been passed, crime has dropped in those cities consistently and drastically.

When the citizens are armed, criminals are rather frightened of the fact that a victim might be armed and they may become the victim. For VERY good reason, it becomes a huge game of russian roulet for the criminal.

The government is afraid of armed citizens because their control is not as great as it could be. It is ALL about control, when a city invokes strict gun control, it's crime rate skyrockets, and it's citizens depend more and more on the government to protect them, the government of course LOVES this and will throw more and more of the taxpayers money at the problem, which of course never fixes the problem, it just gives the government MORE AND MORE power over it's citizens. BUT, when the citizens are given BACK the right to defend themselves, it is amazing how quickly crime rates drop, the problem gets solved and the government is put to the backburner like it should be. Government socilialists and bureaucrats hate this so do their best to brainwash the masses into thinking that "GUNS ARE BAD" when in fact, "Guns are VERY, VERY good". when in the hands of the citizens.

Washington DC has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, but the amount of murders with guns is HUGE!!! If gun control works, why do those murders skyrocket when the law abiding citizens have guns taken from them? BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO WAY TO DEFEND THEMSELVES AGAINST AN ARMED CRIMINAL!!!!

You take away guns from law abiding citizens and the criminals run rampant, why? BECAUSE THEY DON'T CARE ABOUT GUN LAWS!!!!

California has one of the highest crime rates, Chicago, New York, what do they all have in common? gun control laws that have taken the right to keep and bear arms AWAY from the law abiding citizen.

VERMONT, has one of the lowest crime rates in the country, must have an excellent police force, huh? No, as a matter fact they have some of the fewest officers per citizen in the country, but why then is thier crime rate SO low? EVERY CITIZEN is allowed to carry concealed or unconcealed, they have some of the lightest gun regulations and laws in the country.

My goodness, do we see a trend? MORE guns LESS crime, LESS guns, MORE crime. HOW FASCINATING!!! WONDER WHY THAT IS?

Now, why else do you think we have the 2nd amendment Lothar? How about trying some critical thinking skills? Or did they NOT teach you that in highschool, I'm beginning to think not. You seem to be easily led down the big government primrose path. We will take the guns and we(the governemtn) will protect you. Well, they have a really bad track record so far, and let me tell you this, IT'S NOT GONNA CHANGE.

MORE GUNS, LESS CRIME, LESS GUNS MORE CRIME It has been proven OVER AND OVER AND OVER again, and it continues to be proven OVER AND OVER AND OVER again.

History repeats itself, because no one listened the first time.

YOU'RE NOT LISTENING, AGAIN!!!

[Guest]

And just to prove the above point, I am posting an article from the Boston Globe.

Tell me gun control is the answer. /Sarcasm

quote:

---

Targeting a Myth

The evidence suggests that gun control has not made England a safer, fairer society

By Joyce Lee Malcolm Column: Crime, 5/26/2002

Americans who believe that more guns mean more crime awakened earlier this month to find, to their dismay, that the Justice Department and the federal courts had affirmed their constitutional right to be armed. Presumably, they would have preferred restrictions based on the English model, where the toughest firearms regulations of any democracy have been credited by gun control advocates with producing a low rate of violent crime.

But there are two problems with that model. When guns were freely available, England had an astonishingly low level of violent crime. A government study for the years 1890-1892, for example, found only three handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a population of 30 million. In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world. One century and many gun laws later, the British Broadcasting Corp. reports that England's firearms restrictions and 1997 ban on handguns ''have had little impact in the criminal underworld.'' Guns are virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan predicted, only outlaws have guns. And what is worse, they are increasingly ready to use them.

Five centuries of growing civility in England ended in 1954. Violent crime there has been climbing ever since, and armed crime - with banned handguns the weapon of choice - is described as rocketing. Between April and November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose by 53 percent. Last summer, in the course of a few days, gun-toting men burst into an English court and freed two defendants; a shooting outside a London nightclub left five women and three men wounded; and two men were machine-gunned to death in a residential neighborhood of North London.

Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment. Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York. England's rates of robbery and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of burglaries in England occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the United States, where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police.

This sea change in English crime is indicative of government policies that have gone badly wrong. Gun regulations have been only part of a more general disarmament based on the premise that people shouldn't need to protect themselves because society will protect them. It will also protect their neighbors. Citizens who witness a crime are advised to ''walk on by'' and let the professionals handle it. First, government clamped down on private possession of guns; then it forbade people carrying any article that might be used for self-defense; lastly the vigor of that self-defense was to be judged by what, in hindsight, seemed ''reasonable in the circumstances.''

The 1920 Firearms Act, the first serious British restriction on guns, required a local chief of police to certify that the potential gun owner had a good reason for owning a weapon and was a fit person to have it. All very sensible. Yet over the years a series of secret Home Office instructions to police - classified until 1989 - narrowed both criteria until, in 1969, police were instructed that ''it should never be necessary for anyone to possess a firearm for the protection of his house or person.'' Since 1997, handguns have been banned. Proposed exemptions for handicapped shooters and the British Olympic team were rejected.

Far more sweeping was the 1953 Prevention of Crime Act that made it illegal to carry any article in a public place ''made, adapted, or intended'' for an offensive purpose ''without lawful authority or excuse.'' Carrying something to protect yourself was branded antisocial. Any item carried for possible defense automatically became an offensive weapon. Individuals stopped by the police and found with such items were guilty until proven innocent. As a concerned member of the House of Commons pointed out, while ''society ought to undertake the defense of its members, nevertheless one has to remember that there are many places where society cannot get, or cannot get there in time. On those occasions a man has to defend himself and those whom he is escorting. It is not very much consolation that society will come forward a great deal later, pick up the bits, and punish the violent offender.''

In the House of Lords, Lord Saltoun argued that the object of a weapon was to assist weakness to cope with strength and this bill was ''framed to destroy.'' He added that he did not think governments ''have the right ... though they may very well have the power ... to deprive people for whom they are responsible of the right to defend themselves ...

nless there is not only a right but also a fundamental willingness amongst the people to defend themselves, no police force, however large, can do it.''

But at government insistence the law passed and became permanent. A broad 1967 revision of criminal law altered the common law standard for self-defense so that everything turns on what appears ''reasonable'' force against an assailant, considered after the fact. As the author of a leading British legal textbook pointed out, that requirement is ''now stated in such mitigated terms as to cast doubt on whether it [self-defense] still forms part of the law.''

Three cases illustrate the results of these measures:

In 1987, two men assaulted Eric Butler, a 56-year-old British Petroleum executive, in a London subway car, trying to strangle him and smashing his head against the door. No one came to his aid. He later testified, ''My air supply was being cut off, my eyes became blurred, and I feared for my life.'' In desperation he unsheathed an ornamental sword blade in his walking stick and slashed at one of his attackers, stabbing the man in the stomach. The assailants were charged with wounding. Butler was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon.

In August 1999, Tony Martin, a 55-year-old Norfolk farmer living alone in a shabby farmhouse, awakened to the sound of breaking glass as two professional burglars burst into his home. He had been robbed six times before but, like 70 percent of rural English villages, his had no police presence. He sneaked downstairs with a shotgun and shot at the intruders. Martin received life in prison for killing one burglar, 10 years for wounding the second, and 12 months for having an illegal shotgun.

In 1994, an English homeowner, armed with a toy gun, managed to detain two burglars who had broken into his house, while he called the police. When the officers arrived they arrested the homeowner for using an imitation gun to put someone in fear. Parliament is now considering making imitation guns illegal.

This is a cautionary tale. America's founders, like their English forebears, regarded personal security as one of the three great and primary rights of mankind. That was their main reason for including a right for individuals to be armed. Everyone doesn't need to avail himself of that right. It is a dangerous right. But leaving personal protection to the police is also dangerous.

The English government has come perilously close to depriving its people of the ability to protect themselves at all, and the result is a more, not less, dangerous society. ''It is implicit in a genuine right,'' an English judge pointed out, ''that its exercise may work against (some facet of) the public interest: a right to speak only where its exercise advanced the public welfare or public policy ... would be a hollow guarantee against repression.''

Public safety is not enhanced by depriving individuals of their right to personal safety.

Joyce Lee Malcolm is a history professor at Bentley College and author of "Guns and Violence: The English Experience."

---

History repeats itself, EVERY TIME!!! As Australia and Canada are learning the hard way. They are running into the SAME exact situation and just can't seem to figure out the cause.

The cause is easy, they created an ENTIRE society of unarmed victims!! What a concept, you disarm law abiding citizens and the criminals take advantage and crime rates rise.

Who'd a thunk it?!!

[ 05-26-2002, 16:12: Message edited by: Jaguar ]

[CommanderJohnson]

Ok, now, there's no reason to not let a FREE people own something if it's virtually pointless not to.

Only reasons i've heard left are:

1. Guns increase crime.

2. Guns let innocent people hurt themselves.

Now, off the first argument, I really agree with Jaguar. It makes logical sense. Sure, guns are TOOLS that *can be* used by CRIMINALS to commit VIOLENT acts, but *CRIMINALS* who are going to *KILL SOMEONE* are going to break gun control *LAWS* anyway, and the LAW-ABIDING citizens will be put at the MERCY of the CRIMINALS. If your a criminal and your target MIGHT have a gun, your less likely to go after them, and more likely to commit a different crime (a burglary of a store or move to a different area) It's impossible to make the argument that criminals WANT to get killed.

So with that, all that's left is the argument that guns let innocent people get killed. If some adult is stupid enough to kill him/herself, it improves the gene pool of the human race. Short of that, guns are tools. People can kill themselves by driving into walls, hitting their head when jumping into swimming pools, falling down stairs, accidently cutting themselves, falling off builidings, etc. Should ALL of those things be outlawed because people MIGHT hurt themselves? Don't think so. The same thing can happen with children too.

So with that, guns decrease crime, and might kill a few innocent people, and gun control laws get rid of the few innocent people killed by their own guns, and increase the number killed by criminals. Who the hell cares about the rest of the arguments? Guns are HELPFUL. What's next, the US should disarm all of their nuclear weapons because nukes are evil, and then we should be at the mercy of the rest of the world? Morons.

So, what's the point after that?

[Lotharr]

That article does make good points. However it is obviously biased in one direction so strongly it loses any hint of objectivity. I've read the same type of stuff in favor of gun control. In fact, I don't really need to go find anything (but I will) because not a week goes by that someone is not hurt by people with guns...so go turn on your TV and the bulk of my, and many others, side of this issue are there...in the body count.

All I can say is I don't care if responsible people have guns. However they are finding there way into the hands of irresponsible people and causing serious tragedies.

quote:

---

Lothar,

Not sure if you have figured it out yet, but I have. You are a socialist, mass transit, take away guns, jobs. You're a died in the wool socialist, maybe you and Menchise ought to get together and start your own country.

---

I haven't decided what to call myself yet. But I'd agree with you on one thing...you seem to think you have this, and a lot of other things all figured out....

Yeah I do think mass transit is the way to go. As far as I have been able to tell it is safer, cleaner, and more user friendly for citizens. I spent a year in Korea and there system is awsome once you figure out what the hell is going on.

Menchise lead the way!

quote:

---

You believe in the "good of society" not the "good of the individual". The constitution is built on individuality. Each person is responsible for themselves and their actions, you believe that the government, for the good of the people should control the peoples actions.

---

I think both are connected. I think we have to balance the two in order to have more harmony. I also think 250+ years ago it was very easy to focus on the individual more than the group. But as we see denser populations our views and actions must acknowledge a new climate.

quote:

---

That is NOT constitutional, and your "the government has better weapons, so why even be armed" is the biggest crock of SH%t that I have heard in a while.

---

Ok...dismiss it out of hand. That's is your right but because you dismiss the issue doesn't it remove it from reality. Every day citizens are being left behind by weapons R+D. You can thank the Republicans and the defense industry they support and make profit from for that. A lot of people love the Republicans because they keep the Army strong.....I think we need a strong Army myself. However I don't know where the madness and spending ends....

quote:

---

HAving the citizens armed, makes it possible to cut down crime and other things due to deterrence. The HIGHEST crome rates are in cities with the strictest gun controls. When a Concealed carry law has been passed, crime has dropped in those cities consistently and drastically.

When the citizens are armed, criminals are rather frightened of the fact that a victim might be armed and they may become the victim. For VERY good reason, it becomes a huge game of russian roulet for the criminal.

---

I think I'll look into this to try and gain a clearer picture of the situation. But I'd say right now this is not accurate.

quote:

---

YOU'RE NOT LISTENING, AGAIN!!!

---

Sure I do I just don't accept everything I hear as gospel guy.

[ 05-28-2002, 10:56: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

[Guest]

Look over ALL the statistics that you want, REAL statistics, NOT propoganda, and you will see, that where there are MORE guns in the hands of citizens, there is less crime. It is a statistic that anti-gunners hate,because it goes AGAINST everything that they want to believe.

Fool yourself as much as you want, but your being afraid of a gun, and again, YOUR guilt about the fact that some people get killed by guns, does not mean that I should have to NOR want to give up my ONLY means of self defense.

Those who give up freedom for security get NEITHER!!! Our founding fathers knew that, the constitution is as good today as it was 200 years ago, and will be JUST as good 1000 years from NOW!!

[Lotharr]

I just don't know what to say to that.....I wish I knew what will be good a thousand years from now......

[Guest]

The constitution worked quite well until the early 30's when they REALLY began to ignore it.

When the constitution is ignored, problems result, sad, but so true.

If and when they begin to go by the constitution, instead of ignoring it, this country will be in MUCH better straights. This socialistic crap that they have thrown in the mix is BLATANTLY against the constitution and is slowly but surely destroying the fabric of this society.

[Lotharr]

You live in the past and ignore the realities of the present. That to me is sad. However, like all who refuse time, it will move forward unhindered with cold indifference to your outdated views and your cries for sanity.

I think it was Dragon Lady who posted that the great thing about the Constitution is that it can be interpreted many ways to suit the given time....or something to that effect (and if she didn't I'm sure she'll correct me shortly). I agree with that.

I think no one can deny that the founding fathers knew they didn't know everything. They created that document to be flexible and durable to protect against loss of relevance and practicality over time. Those charged with the responsibility of interpreting meaning in the context of today are the ones who's opinion truly have any practical relevance. Those people are drawn for the populous. A populous that has changing needs. The interpretations handed down today may not be the ones originally intended but these hold the most practicality while trying to keep with original intent.

And the people through elected officials can change anything they want in that document with the exception of the last bit in Article V on equal state suffrage in the upper house. That document is for us now and our children later.

So don't sit there and tell me people's ideas are crap when you promote thoughts that carry the same, if different brand, of a pure and idealistic view that reeks of the same offensive odor.

[Guest]

I do NOT live in the past, I LEARN from the past. There is much there to be learned.

Such as socialistic ideas in a free enterprise system will destroy it. Government can be useful or it can be destructive. The constitutional model was for a constructive model of government with limited powers. They have gone way beyond the limited powers that they were givern and it is destroying the country.

When you disarm the common citizen, the government, EVERY TIME, has overrun the citizens, have murdered it's own citizens, and has taken away the rights of it's citizens.

Disarming the population is the beginning of the end for this country if it is ever done. History my friend, history.

You ignore the past at your peril, learn from it, or be forced to repeat it.

[Epsilon 5]

quote:

---

Disarming the population is the beginning of the end for this country if it is ever done. History my friend, history.

---

Really? Teach me.

To my knowledge, the very most of the countries (or at least the industrialised ones) do have gun control.

[Guest]

And they are also the most socialistic.

Germany instituted gun control in 1933, by 1939 they were amrching jews into concentration campes and killing them. But a block of Jews that did not give up their weapons, held off the nazis for over a month. When the citizens are armed, the government is pretty cowed.

The USSR, disarmed their citizens, and Stalin was able to murder close to 2 million of them, China disarmed her citizens, and the real count is still not available, but it is easily in the millions, North Korea, same, same. There are so many more that continuing to spout them off would be a lesson in futility.

If as a citizen, you are disarmed, you are then a subject. The government is no longer an entity that really cares about your rights, because there is NOTHING that you could do about it anyway.

The time is coming near, when you will be saying, geez I wished that I hadn't allowed them to disarm us. Because it is going to happen. WHY?

BECAUSE IT ALWAYS DOES!! ALWAYS!!!

History repeats itself, because no one listened the first time.

History has much to say, if you are intelligent and open minded enough to listen to it.

You may think that I am crying wolf now, but within the decade, you will not only know that I was right, you will be experiencing it. GOOD LUCK!!

[Lotharr]

And I think the time is coming...or is already here when the government will have weapons that citizenry cannot fight against with conventional means. These systems will be too expensive and powerful for private citizens to own.

So the only solution in my mind is to decentralize governmental power even further. Increase checks and balances, have easier access to information by the private citizens and break up systems of power that threaten a democracy allegedly created for the people.

[CommanderJohnson]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lotharr:

And I think the time is coming...or is already here when the government will have weapons that citizenry cannot fight against with conventional means. These systems will be too expensive and powerful for private citizens to own.

So the only solution in my mind is to decentralize governmental power even further. Increase checks and balances, have easier access to information by the private citizens and break up systems of power that threaten a democracy allegedly created for the people.

---

People still die from bullets. Again, i'm totally against gun control as i've stated earlier, but I don't think it's as dangerous right now as your making it out to be. The government (because of the stupid socialists and liberals) can't appropriate enough funds to give all their troops super-body armor that civilian weapondry can't pierce. Also, one thing that we still have going for us is that our military is made up of citizens who believe in democracy and are unlikely to open fire and oppress American civilians.

[Guest]

quote:

---

So the only solution in my mind is to decentralize governmental power even further. Increase checks and balances, have easier access to information by the private citizens and break up systems of power that threaten a democracy allegedly created for the people

---

Man, did you just say that?

EXCELLENT!! And you know all they have to do is go by the constitution and we'll have it.

If the government would release all the power they have taken, and keep ONLY those given to it by the constitution, we would be in VERY good shape.

That is the decentralization that we need.

[Lotharr]

Dredd, have you been paying attention? Why don't you stop calling people's ideas and belief’s stupid and the same won't be applied to you? You won't even make the distinction between stupid idea's and stupid people....just rollin’ it all into one grossly inappropriate and inaccurate stereotype. If you think you have a legitimate position or idea don’t give me the room to dismiss your idea’s out of hand because of poor remarks that reflect a narrow mind.

And where Jaguar was warning about ten years (applied to anti gun polices) I would warn you about dismissing this idea. I work in an Army R+D area. I have seen unclassified data showing these ideas for the future. I can’t even imagine what is in the works that is classified.

If you think it matters which of the two parties controls spending makes any difference to weapons development your mistaken. This is high dollar stuff and the network is already in place. If what you think of as a liberal controlled government could dismantle (even if they wanted to) this system you are mistaken. Something more fundamental would have to change before that could happen. The services will shift funding to accomplish the goals they set (or wait out the political storm)…. you would be surprised at the maneuver room they have for this. And you would further be surprised at what policy corporate interest can effect when properly motivated.

I’ll get to your comments in a second Jag…..

[CommanderJohnson]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lotharr:

Dredd, have you been paying attention? Why don't you stop calling people's ideas and belief’s stupid and the same won't be applied to you? You won't even make the distinction between stupid idea's and stupid people....just rollin’ it all into one grossly inappropriate and inaccurate stereotype. If you think you have a legitimate position or idea don’t give me the room to dismiss your idea’s out of hand because of poor remarks that reflect a narrow mind.

---

I never called your ideas or beliefs stupid, I just disagree with the validity of them in the United States. Yes, i'm against gun control. Yes, i'm against centralization of governmental power and the discarding of the Constitution. No, I don't think that the United States government has enough money invested into the military that they could outfit all their troops with invulnerable body armor that US civilians couldn't stop. No, I don't think that the government will turn against its people in the forseeable future due to the make-up of the armed forces.

quote:

---

And where Jaguar was warning about ten years (applied to anti gun polices) I would warn you about dismissing this idea. I work in an Army R+D area. I have seen unclassified data showing these ideas for the future. I can’t even imagine what is in the works that is classified.

---

I've agreed with just about all of Jaguar's points regarding gun control, but I highly doubt that the government is corrupt to the extent that they are going to get invulnerable equipment, take all of our guns, and then oppress us all. I guess the main point i agree with is the end result. The citizen-army of this country isn't going to turn against it's people, and if gun control legislation is stopped, I highly doubt that the scenario would happen.

quote:

---

If you think it matters which of the two parties controls spending makes any difference to weapons development your mistaken. This is high dollar stuff and the network is already in place. If what you think of as a liberal controlled government could dismantle (even if they wanted to) this system you are mistaken. Something more fundamental would have to change before that could happen. The services will shift funding to accomplish the goals they set (or wait out the political storm)…. you would be surprised at the maneuver room they have for this. And you would further be surprised at what policy corporate interest can effect when properly motivated.

---

If there's no money, there's no money. The liberals will pass gun control legislation but will also not increase military spending. The conservatives will increase military spending but not get rid of our guns. The only way both will happen is if there's a radical change in American politics. The system is in place, but the money going into it, which is needed for the type of deployment and construction of that much equipment, is not.

[Lotharr]

Jaguar I think you would find we have a lot in common we just disagree strongly on execution.

quote:

---

Man, did you just say that?

EXCELLENT!! And you know all they have to do is go by the constitution and we'll have it.

If the government would release all the power they have taken, and keep ONLY those given to it by the constitution, we would be in VERY good shape.

That is the decentralization that we need.

---

When you say release don't you mean move? From the Federal level to the state?

[Lotharr]

quote:

---

Yes, i'm against gun control. Yes, I’m against centralization of governmental power and the discarding of the Constitution. No, I don't think that the United States government has enough money invested into the military that they could outfit all their troops with invulnerable body armor that US civilians couldn't stop. No, I don't think that the government will turn against its people in the forseeable future due to the make-up of the armed forces.

---

If the power to kill large groups of people without a lot of collateral damage is controlled by only a few, a bleak picture takes form and it really won't matter about the citizen soldier idea anyway. I think weapons tech is headed this way. If these systems are deemed classified we won't know about them so we can't voice an opinion on them and control them.

But anyway, if you don't think that "the government" can take over the country by force of arms with or without armed citizens (I believe this) then why have weapons at all? I think earlier you talked about only the criminals having weapons? I still believe that only very well organized groups with a serious and professional attitude would be able to get their hands on weapons. Not knuckle head Joe Loser with a gat and a born to lose tat on his chest....

Yes there will always be exceptions to this but I believe this would create a safer environment for school, work, and life in general.

No I don't want to be a slave but I don't want to be killed by a fourth time loser that can get a hold of a gun faster then I can. And no I don't want to have a shootout at the 7-11 with Joe Loser either....I have better ways to spend my time.

And someone commented above about other industrialized nations having these laws. I believe that is correct. I would need to do some checking but I do believe America leads the way on violence, gun violence, sex crimes, citizen incarcerations etc out of other industrialized and democratic countries.....not a pretty picture. Well for some anyway. A lot of hypocrisy going around….

quote:

---

I've agreed with just about all of Jaguar's points regarding gun control, but I highly doubt that the government is corrupt to the extent that they are going to get invulnerable equipment, take all of our guns, and then oppress us all. I guess the main point i agree with is the end result. The citizen-army of this country isn't going to turn against it's people, and if gun control legislation is stopped, I highly doubt that the scenario would happen.

---

I think I agree with most of that but the question still stands. Why do people need access to military grade weapons or devices who’s sole purpose is killing and being concealed...like a handgun? Unless it is to fight off the other death wielding citizens.....

quote:

---

If there's no money, there's no money. The liberals will pass gun control legislation but will also not increase military spending. The conservatives will increase military spending but not get rid of our guns. The only way both will happen is if there's a radical change in American politics. The system is in place, but the money going into it, which is needed for the type of deployment and construction of that much equipment, is not.

---

I don't know really. But an air of fear is created by many different sources to justify an armed citizenry and vastly superior military but where is this mentality going to take us….

[CommanderJohnson]

To tell you the truth, I say either decentralize the government OR sell everything the military gets to civilians.