All concerned with civil rights, First Amendment separation of Church & State must speak out NOW and let Senators know ? Extremist Judge Samuel Alito must NOT be appointed to a seat on the Supreme Court of the United States!Hours remain until the U.S. Senate is expected to hold a full vote to confirm Judge Samuel Alito to the U.S. Supreme Court.On Monday, January 30 the Senate is likely to vote an end to any filibuster that would stall or prevent a floor vote on the appointment of Judge Alito. Supporters of Alito need just 60 votes to force cloture, and according to Associated Press have 62. That will force a vote by the full Senate on Tuesday, January 31. The latest count indicates that 53 Republicans and three Democrats will vote to confirm Alito, well over the required majority. The White House is moving for a full ?up-or-down? vote on Alito in time for President Bush?s address to the nation on Tuesday night. In his weekly radio address last Saturday, Bush called for immediate Senate confirmation on Alito, describing him as a nominee ?who understands that the role of a judge is to strictly interpret the law.? This is our final opportunity to prevent George W. Bush from ?packing? the Supreme Court and installing a majority that is likely to reverse decades of important decisions affecting all Americans!AMERICAN ATHEISTS is asking all ?Godless Americans? ? Atheists, Freethinkers, Humanists and other nonbelievers to mobilize now and help flood the Senate with phone calls, faxes and e-mails demanding a NO vote on the Alito nomination!* We urge all nonbeliever groups to circulate this Action Alert, and “mobilize your base” of members and supporters to contact the Senate! Alito would assume the post occupied by Justice Sandra Day O?Connor who often (but not always) provided the crucial ?fifth vote? cited by SJC member Sen. Michael Durbin of Illinois. Rather than replace O?Connor with an enlightened, progressive judicial moderate who would offset the strident views of justices like Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, Bush catered to his powerful religious-right constituency and instead selected Alito.The vote by the full U.S. Senate will be the last opportunity we have to stop this appointment! Based on the current party rankings, all Democrats must ?hold the line? and vote against Alito ? and moderate Republicans must be persuaded by their constituents back home to ?break ranks? with party leadership, and vote ?No? on this nomination!Atheists, Freethinkers, Secular Humanists and other non believers must join the effort to stop Alito now by helping to flood the Senate with letters, e-mails, phone calls and faxes! Tell your Senators that you oppose the Bush-religious right takeover our Supreme Court!What you can do!Contact Senators NOW! Urge them to vote “NO!” on Alito! Your letters, calls and e-mails should be concise, polite but to-the-point (see our tips page.) Be sure to ask for a response from your U.S. Senator on how he/she will vote on the Alito nomination! Share your communications with U.S. Senators. Send us a copy and we will post them at our web site Spread this Action Alert! If you are in an Atheist/freethought group, consider posting this message to your newsletter, web site and e-mail lists. Urge others to circulate this Alert, too! After writing your U.S. Senators, consider sending a letter-to-the-editor of the your local/regional paper and other publications voicing your disapproval of the Alito nomination! This will help inform the public and mobilize opposition to this extremist nominee. Be sure to point out that Samuel Alito is ?bad news? for the constitutional separation of church and state! Be informed! Here are some stories about the Alito nomination. We also encourage you to visit other web sites to gain information, including Americans United for the Separation of Church and State and People for the American Way. Related Reading?All Over but the Vote? Alito sails through hearings, some Demos mull filibuster ? what about the new SCOTUS?? 1-18-06 ?New Documents Raise Further Concerns Over Alito & Establishment Clause,? 1-1-06 ?Tipping Point? Alito nomination battle to begin in January, determine possible direction of the Supreme Court ? Free Exercise collides with Separation? 11-22-05 Take Action Now?This may be our last chance to stop this dangerous nomination. If confirmed, Alito will move the court further in the direction of ?accommodating? discriminatory religious practices, allowing blatant proselytizing in the public square by government and religious groups, and even possibly further funding for ?faith-based? social projects. Stop Alito now ? before it?s too late!(AMERICAN ATHEISTS is a nationwide movement that defends civil rights for Atheists; works for the total separation of church and state; and addresses issues of First Amendment public policy.)
brock2
Do you think you have more freedom than me, because you own guns and I don’t?
brock,
What utter rubbish. There is no sacrosanct rights above the scrutiny of logic and reason. To argue the case on it’s merits is the responsibility of inquiring minds. If you are unable or unwilling to do so, then please have the decency to ceasing maligning mine, and other’s character for trying our hand. That you base you reason on the provisions of a constitutional ammendment is pretty much what I expected. That you have been unable to construct a cogent argument to defend the conclusions you draw from that (those?) ammendment is telling of the strength of your position.
Typically I use direct quotes. If I am misreading you I apologise and welcome your clarification of your positions. In my defense, sometimes your prose and grammar makes your intent rather opaque.
Not really sure where to go with this, other than to say I admire your creativity.
pot.kettle.black – compliments to RA
Conversely, why would anyone writing the constitution or amendments thereof, begin enumerating things which the people may own?
I don’t explicitly have a constitutional right to own a washing machine, or a microwave oven (Amendment #9,085,643: the people have a right to bear flat screen TVs). However I ‘d much rather own these conveniences than a gun.
“Madison would not have used the word ‘people’ if he meant only a militia.”
This is taking one word of the second amendment and taking it out of context! Context!
The point is that guns have become a problem in this country, not so ironically. To restrict them to near extinction but at the same time allow for the stockpiling of weapons of all shapes and sizes (tanks, fighter jets, machine guns, grenades) by the states, by a ‘well-regulated militia’ , would not infringe on the second amendment. You get my point?
There is a reason that people aren’t allowed to have certain weapons(arms), because the evidence says that they cause more harm than not. I think that it would be fine to draw the line at a different place and not infringe on the second amendment in the least. For example, no handguns allowed for anyone except to be kept at regulated ranges or clubs, such as olympic training clubs), police officers could continue to carry side arms to protect themselves from criminals. Perhaps evidence suggests that rifles or shotguns are safe in the home as long as there is sufficient background checking and safety procedures are followed to prevent accidents. And on and on.
Gatorade said:
“Comment from: alexgator1 [Member]
Hey Zac you are right! I forgot the important contributions of Legos and sex change surgery. Denmark Rules! (sarcasm)
I am relaxed DK but your America bashing and broad generalizations about American intelligence is so tired and predictable. My first true love was a Dane and I have a special place in my heart for your country but lighten up on us Americans. Just as not all Danes are gloomy nihlistic social_ists drug addicts who work in the sex industry we Americans are not all a bunch of Bush voting, NASCAR watching, Wal-Mart shopping, deer hunting, inbred, backwoods, bible thumping, cousin humping, creationist racist homophobes packing automatic fire AK 47’s. Even those of us living in the South like me.
Alex.”
Hehh!
Righty!
I know. You’re right.
And I -DON’T- automatically hate and fear everything originating in the U.S.
But still, your country is operating a goddamn concentration camp.
And you elected a shrubbery,
which should pretty much eliminate about half your country from contributing to the gene-pool on general principle.
If you don’t see these examples as legitimate stumbling-blocks prohibiting me from saluting the spangled banner, then I don’t know what else to say.
HMDK,
Thanks, that’s all I ask. Living in a conservative part of Texas is challenging and I rarely bite my tongue when someone blathers conservative nonsense(not all conservative ideas mind you) but I realize I am a minority down here.
TX, you’re a good moderator and you’ve given some good advice – thanks (are you gonna throw something at me now?)
There’s a new movie out about two different people; one adopts a parrot for a pet, the other adopts a grizzly.
The end (I think) is nice for the parrot owner; the end for the fellow that adopts the grizzly (but fails to take precautionary measures) is not so good. They won’t hurt you, and it was only Hollywood too.
Atheist
brock2:
Perhaps your message has gone awry: define ‘freedom’ for us then, as you’ve appointed yourself the expert.
All due respect, this reeks of ‘nanny nanny boo boo’.
Freedom is indeed defined by boundaries. You said so yourself, when you spoke of civility.
Civility is in & of itself a boundary of sorts, isn’t it?
Nobody’s bashing anything here. Not freedom. Not guns. I agree w/you on some points: govt. taking away weaponry is indeed a bad sign.
There are however, folks that I wouldn’t trust w/the time of day, let alone a loaded pistol.
Manson. Gein. Dahmer. Bundy.
I respectfully disagree here. A crime of passion is far less likely to occur if the person in question is made to wait 14 days.
Am still waiting for some dissertation on how I was so terribly off on background checks, etc.
Unless that was the denunciation.
Oh, for pete’s sake.
Junkies & muggers & thieves (oh my!).
You never answered my earlier question: would you rather live in an environment where guns weren’t necessary, or not? Simple yes/no. The query isn’t meant to denigrate. It’s meant so that you can do an honest evaluation of your stance.
Chances of a Utopian society are slim at best: I’ll grant you it’s a necessary evil, to some degree.
& again: what is your definition of freedom? To go & do whatever you want, regardless of circumstance? That’s not freedom: that’s anarchy.
We live in a society: can we agree on that? In a society, there are rules that limit our actions. Agreed? Otherwise, many people would be raping, pillaging, killing (w/or w/out guns).
Freedom is indeed defined by boundaries.
It’s statements like that that prompt me to call you ’sonny’. How on earth is a holocaust brought on by citizens armed only w/SNS’s is beyond me. Extrapolate please, or retract, please.
Thus far, I’ve not seen anything remotely resembling your examination of both sides of this issue. Nor have I seen anyone here boasting that they’re more intelligent. I read this (& many pardons if I’m off) as you saying, “Oh, you all think you’re so smart! Well, you ain’t, so there!” due to the frustration you’re feeling at well-framed debate methods.
I defy you to find 1 person here who’s made anything even slightly resembling the statement, ‘We should ban guns outright’. You won’t, because no 1 has. To assume that Americans are more responsible simply because we exist is not true. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have so many laws in re: automobiles, alchohol, safety regulations, medications, oh the list, it do go on.
Now this is going too far, my friend. Were we having this statement in person, & you made this insult, I’d feel obliged to dot your eye for you.
I might say further, that YOU’RE the 1 who doesn’t sound very American – you sound like the King again – ‘w/us or against us’ – if someone doesn’t agree w/your ill-formed opinion & rhetoric, THEY’RE the traitors.
Let me leave you w/a few quotes, from some REAL freedom experts -
“The nation, which indulges towards another, a habitual hatred, or a habitual fondness, is in some degree a slave. It is a slave to its animosity or to its affection, either of which is sufficient to lead it astray from its duty and its interest.
George Washington, letter to Alexander Hamilton, May 8, 1796″
“A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.
Thomas Jefferson, Rights of British America, 1774″
“No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms [within his own lands].
Thomas Jefferson, Draft Constitution for the State of Virginia, June, 1776″
“Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.
George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796″
& 1 more, for the King:
“A feeble executive implies a feeble execution of the government. A feeble execution is but another phrase for a bad execution; and a government ill executed, whatever may be its theory, must be, in practice, a bad government.
Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 69, March 14, 1788″
Now stop, read, re-read if you need to: consider & digest what I’ve told you, if you so desire.
This is from 1 American to another.
Another Atheist.
Brock2,
No, I use to be against guns maybe a decade ago Like religion I changed my position. I honestly believe criminals fear a homeowner that is also a gunowner and that deters crime. I understand that but we may have to agree to disagree on machine gun ownership. I don’t want to take the right of gun ownership away but don’t see a need for anyone to own a machine gun.
TXatheist, I am, myself, of the opinion that owning a gun should be legal.
Yet your reasoning about people owning guns detering criminals…
eh, as far as I’m informed,
a lot of people end up being shot with their own guns by burglars,
because they’re too paralyzed to actually act when it comes down to it.
A bag of mixed blessings at most, it seems.
“The problem here (with all you gun bashers) is that you are so willing – so ready to limit freedom “
Perhaps what you are perceiving is a respect for values. A thinking, caring individual understands that values are a part of civility. The rules, laws, morals of a society are good and are to be respected as long as they have a rational foundation. It is undeniable that America has a problem with guns. It is only logical that a thinking, caring human being show respect for law and order and try to do something about it.
(Personally, since I’ve realized my atheism, my perception of morality and values have heightened intensely. I know that this sounds odd to the theists out there but it is a testament to the concept that values exist independent of religion.)
I detect a tinge of anarchy in your sentiments and I don’t think that’s a good direction for this country to go. As I’ve stated before, anarchy and libertarianism are closely related.
HMDK:
Which is why I’m an advocate of ‘know thy weapon’: Like I tell my students, all the great MA techniques in the world ain’t gonna do snot, if you freeze.
I actually overheard 1 idiot claim that the best gun for home defense was a 357. Which is great if you don’t mind the shell killing other people behind the attacker, or someone 1/2 a mile away.
Shotgun’s best. Short range. & you can adjust the choke for spread. & I know a method by which…let’s just say, it ain’t pretty, leave it at that.
reluctant,
Ah, the Dirty Harry mentality.
“Go ahead, punk: MAKE MY DAY!”
And remember Rambo?
They only get worse as the years go by, IMO. More violent, I mean. The movie “Doom” comes to mind as a more recent example.
I’m not advocating censorship by any means whatsoever, but I do think Hollywood has had a lot to do with some of the current attitudes on guns, at least within the redneck male population.
A .357 Mag?
Lunacy, indeed!
It’ll tear through just about every kind of cheap cardboard wall and annihilate all in its way.
Shotguns really are better,
as they have a somewhat short lethal range.
PeachyCreamy said:
”.
“I’m not advocating censorship by any means whatsoever, but I do think Hollywood has had a lot to do with some of the current attitudes on guns, at least within the redneck male population.
I can’t fault your thinking.
Maybe it’s some sort of Freudian compensation thing…
The bigger the gun smaller the…
Ehhh…
But, hell, if that was true,
I’d be a certified gun-nut.
*sigh* My natural-born equipment is somewhat small… *wail!*
Pity me!
*LMAO*
Peach:
Well, part o’ me sides w/HMDK (not THAT part, BTW): it’s over-compensation.
I was at a TCC seminar a few years back, & the master was really impressed w/a corvette (or was it a Miati?).
I told him (& everyone else), “Hey, I was born w/a pe_nis, why should I go out & buy 1?”
General merriment all around.
Back to the off-topic:
It’s when I hear general advice like that (.357), or having looked 1-eyed stares in the barrel, 1 begins to re-evaluate the ‘all or nothing’ approach.
Assuming that every fellow citizen is a predator is a lousy way to live.
But assuming they’re not, well, that’s plain foolish too.
Hairless
Uh…um…er…uh…
Don’t know WHAT to say!
Karen.
Well, words aren’t important anyway.
But hey, look on the bright side,
there’ll be possibility of uhhh… choking on the wrong meat, as it were.
Nah, seriously folks, I’m pretty much factory-standard equipped.
It’s just that I, at the tender and moist age of 26, suffer from a form of hernia that means my ueeh… Ballzac… is… swelling.
Sperm count is fine, erectile functions fine, and so on.
The only “problem” is that the sack itself is growing.
My doctor has assured me that the operation to fix it is easy and routine, but hell…
Letting a scalpel near your scrotum ain’t easy.
HMDK,
I agree with the statistics of a family member being shot and can barely imagine having to shoot someone. I’ve seeen enough HBO specials to see the message from the criminals themselves. Criminals think they can get away with the crime but worry about being shot.
HMDK, reluctant,
Y’all could be right about the Freudian thing. Gun=phallic symbol, mine’s bigger than yours, etc.
Men. *sigh*
reluctant, great line…”Hey, I was born w/a pe_nis, why should I go out & buy 1?”
I need to tell my hubby the same thing. If he’s feeling depressed sometimes he goes out and starts his car and listens to the 427 Chevy big block rumble, maybe drives it around the block to the chagrin of the neighbors. But, I guess, whatever works. I garden, he has a loud rumbly beast of a car. And guns too.
HMDK,
Sorry to hear about your problem! As much as you dread it, you probably should go ahead and have the surgery.
Where exactly in the constitution or its ammendments does it speak of the seperation of church and state. I understand there is the no establishment of religion clause and the freedom of religion, but doesn’t that mean that officials elected to government offices are FREE to exercise the beliefs they claimed during their campaign? Not trying to be antagonistic, just seeking fairness. I respect your right to be an atheist and I wish atheists would respect my right to be a Christian. It’s not right to demand that all government officials act as Christians is it? Well, is it fair then to demand that they all behave as atheists? Just something for open-minded people to consider. The rest of you can disregard.
Dave
clown4christ:
It’s implied. It’s also an amendment, which can be changed.
As long as it doesn’t unduly influence their duties, or their opinion becomes my law. SOCAS.
How on earth does one BEHAVE like an atheist, pray tell?
Oops, there’s the doorbell. My ride is here. Time to dance around a campfire naked, & jump over it, in the woods.
Oh wait. That’s Wicca. Sorry, got confused.
Anyways, there a laundry list of how atheists behave?
‘Cause we don’t have a rulebook. ‘We don’t need no stinkin’ rulebook.’
Hehehehe.
Does an atheist develop his/her moral standing based on the Bible? Of course not! Therefore, demanding that someone who does believe in the Bible make their decisions without regard to their personal beliefs would be demanding them to act like an atheist. Yes, ammendments can be changed and in fact are changes themselves. But, the document that seperates church and state is a letter, not an ammendment. I have read the entire constitution and all of the ammendments. Trust me, it is not implied or stated. A Christian who is elected to office has as much protection and rights under the first ammendment as an ateist who is ellected. You do have a rule, even if there is no rulebook. If a rule is similar to the Bible or its decrees it must be wrong.
Dave
clown4christ:
Which you still haven’t answered my question: how does 1 act like an atheist?
Yeah, yeah, Jefferson’s letter to Danbury Baptists, 1801, is when the term was coined. Madison also wrote about a ‘line’ between church & state. Also stated that ‘The purer the two will remain, the less they are mixed together’ (paraphrase).
Impressive. & yet you can’t spell the word ‘amendment’. Yes it IS implied, & there’s also the establishment clause.
If your spelling were a little better, I’d be able take you more a little more seriously.
But yes, atheists & xtians have the same rights. Duh!
Oh, yeah, that’s why we go around burning books, bombing abortion clinics, trying to take over the govt., raping, pillaging, etc. Oh wait. We don’t do that.
We’re better behaved.
‘Cause there ain’t no afterlife.
‘If it ain’t spelled out in triplicate, it ain’t so!’
Now go piss up a rope.
Go judge someone else.
Just something for open-minded xtians to consider.
You can disregard that.
My friend, my purpose is not judgement. I apologize if that is how it came across. I also apologize if my spelling error interferred with us having an intelligent conversation.
“If your spelling were a little better, I’d be able take you more a little more seriously.”
This is your quote. I am not bringing this up to start a competition of grammar correction. We are both intelligent enough to know that spelling is not why either of us came here.
You quoted my statement, “demanding that someone who does believe in the Bible make their decisions without regard to their personal beliefs would be demanding them to act like an atheist.” My intention with this statement was to say this is acting like an atheist: “making decisions without regard to the Bible.?
Peacefully yours,
Dave
clown4christ:
Okay.
Yeah, sorry I got a tad short w/you there. You’d be surprised how many theists come here, & start the judgment process, w/little or no background or back story.
& herein lies the issue:
A large % of decisions are made independently of the bible. As a matter of fact, we’d have a civilization regardless of its existence.
Ingersoll: “‘Thou shalt not kill’ is as old as life itself, inasmuch as most men object to being murdered.”
I submit to you then, sir, that atheists are just as moral as xtians.
& I will not have someone else’s beliefs become my law.
If a Moslem were elected Senator in your state, & instituted a Koran study in the state schools, how would you feel about that?
After all, the senator wouldn’t be an atheist, would he/she? & that would be an expression of their belief, wouldn’t it?
Now, the 1st amendment:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”
So, if any of the representatives are indeed religious, that’s fine. That’s their rights as individuals.
But if I’m an atheist, & I’m the representative?
No way am I going to discriminate for my fellow atheists, & against anyone else.
Because EVERYONE has equal rights in this country. No matter what.
So religion, like sex, is best left behind closed doors, unless participation is requested & agreed to.
& has no place whatsoever in our govt.
I need to go to bed now, but I would enjoy talking to you about this tomorrow. Your last response is intriguing, but I will let you have the last word for tonight. No need to apologize for getting short with me. Trust me, I know that people can be very offensive in the name of Christ. This is not however the Christ I serve.
Dave
Clown4Christ@hotmail.com
Jim;
“I detect a tinge of anarchy in your sentiments and I don’t think that’s a good direction for this country to go. As I’ve stated before, anarchy and libertarianism are closely related.” [Jim] 2-06@1647
This country has been headed in a not so good direction for a long time.
‘Nothing could be further from the truth.’ Kinda sad your perception of Libertarians, and paradoxical too. Bush recently rejected Isolationism – the opposite of which many of our problems occur (meddling). What is the good direction ?
“It is undeniable that America has a problem with guns. ”
Jim, we have lots of problems, and they won’t go away by banning everything. What’s the problem with guns ? People die everyday from other things. With guns it’s easy to find fault – with cancer it’s more difficult.
Because of cancer they tried to ban McDonalds restaurants; but that was good for me because now it’s less crowded. You’ve heard this line before: ‘why do you try to save everyone’s life’ ? If you want to save us and or the planet then protest excessive population growth – reduce that and you reduce pollution (and many other problems). But why expect others to behave like pacifists in the face of danger (turning the other cheek)? You’re not realistic.
(not attempting to be an expert) Can you imagine the outcome on 9/11 if pilots were typically armed and some degree of cockpit security were maintained ? The WTC would still exist – the Patriot Act would not – the NSA would be innocent and there would be no Iraq war ! From reading your objections to firearms you must be opposed to the war in Iraq ! Security cameras are now being installed everywhere (they will see and hear everything you do, including where you direct your eyesight) Soon they will listen to your conversations while you dine in a public restaurant. We are losing our privacy because of that – it will change our character forever. Are those the things you want for the next generation. You expect humans to behave flawlessly ?
You may get your utopia, but if you do future generations will be less human and more like robots. You display more respect for government and less for the citizens – that’s been the problem for a long time; now our government easily dictates to us. I wonder how is it you feel no loss of freedom or don’t have the same need for it as I do. When I walk alone and on an isolated length of ‘bike path’ I don’t feel afraid, but I do acknowledge the potential for harm and my foolishness at not taking precautionary measures. Why do I use the example of vicious dogs rather than a criminal ? Why are our public parks and shoreline being fenced off and declared off-limits during hours of darkness (in a so-called free country)? Is it wrong to be recreating (walking the shoreline) after sunset or before sunrise?
Guns: a female jogger gets molested then beaten in the face beyond recognition (in Central Park.) Another female is attacked by several dogs and mauled to death, followed by another (but manages to survive) on the same public jogging path by the same dogs. In California a female gets mauled to death by a large dog in the hallway of her apartment. How many children must be attacked by dogs before we tire of ‘turning the other cheek’ or of depending on government to keep us safe; how many home invasions or carjackings, and the resultant kidnappings, need to occur ?
Guns are more commonplace than admitted; do you hear the rounds rocketing overhead ? How many have been gunned down in the last twelve months by an assault rifle – how many have been gunned down by a .50 caliper bullet in the last twelve years (zero!) Are you brainwashed ? Why do you insist on disarming us and leaving us vulnerable ? The pitch by media that guns are bad should never have occurred – the media should have reminded us how to protect ourselves and of our responsibility to take it upon ourselves and not depend on others. Joggers need to be reminded (not by government) by the media (the ‘town crier’) of their responsibility to themselves and to take precautionary measures.
If you oppose gun permits, waiting periods and background checks you owe the weaker, more vulnerable elements of society a responsibility of learning why others oppose them, because it is definitely not criminals or ignorant or sadistic people that are against these so-called neccessary measures. And who do you think you are to say guns are only neccessary if allowed only in the home (reluctantA), as if crime don’t occur outside of our homes.
An Atheist needs to learn freedom – not my version of it – but whatever version they acquire. The most pathetic thing for any adult to do is to advocate an action that limits reasonable freedoms for the benefit of excessive or unrealistic civility – to be ignorant of the principles of freedom. Too many believe freedom means being free to deny it from others. But we are not perfect – we never will be.
Karen;
” Do you think you have more freedom than me, because you own guns and I don’t?” [Karen]
Every now and then you write some short lines that are fun to read (”do you feel the love”)…keep em coming, and thanks, I enjoy them.
Answer: would you surrender your washing machine and oven to a knife wielding thief? Or wouldn’t you prefer to just blow his brains out ?
In the UK they are banning kitchen knives from the home. No? And they are actually trying to learn a replacement for those sharp evil things.
Today, in England, a jogger can be shot to death by a cop because the cops are so highly trained, qualified and well, so above the rest of us.
How many of you want to kill me for my views on guns and my opposition to background checks ?
brock2:
1st off, I think you mean, “if you’re in FAVOR OF”, not “opposed to”.
2nd off, you absolutely refuse to admit that human beings are terribly irresponsible, AMERICAN OR NOT.
No, the most pathetic thing for any adult is to deny that humans are flawed & prone to error.
LMAO! Ovens? When was the last time a mugger stole someone’s oven at knife-point? Or a burglar stole someone’s washing machine?
How old are you, son?
You really need to start supplying relevant links to this info. Otherwise, you’re just going to look silly.
And you say I’m irrational?
I think it’s time for your medication.
brock2,
Please supply some sources for your preposterous claims about knives in the UK. I’ve asked you to do this before – and have seen nothing. I am now going to assume that the reason you are not supplying such is because it is untrue.
If that is the case then your credibility is worth zip.
Put up or shut up.
I own a gun (one shotgun)for one primary reason, best summed up in this quote: “If owning guns is outlawed, then only outlaws will own guns.” In other words, the criminals, maniacs, and general “bad guys” will always be able to obtain guns and other weapons, one way or another, mostly through the black market. So even if honest citizens like me are not allowed to own guns, the criminals out there will always be able to get their hands on them. I keep a gun in my house to defend it and myself against such criminals (I also occasionally use it for hunting). I do think there should be some sort of limits, however. I don’t think just anyone should be able to own a gun, not without a background check to make sure they’re not a murderer out on parole or someone who just got out of a mental institution. Sure, they can still go to the black market, but why make it any easier for them to obtain guns? Also, I think there should be limits on the number of weapons one person can own. Even an avid hunter doesn’t need enough guns and ammo to supply a small army (antique collectors excepted). Also, when the Religious Right eventually comes knocking on my door in their pocess to hunt down and exterminate all the non-believers, I want to be able to defend myself.
Another good point: think of how many wars were fought and people killed, long before guns were ever invented. If owning guns were outlawed for everyone except the military and police, I seriously think the businesses of making swords, knives, and even bows and arrows, would suddenly flourish. We would still have a problem.
Dagny2;
You make some good points. You can lead a horse to water but you can’t force them to drink.
HeathenZ; You’re right about me making “preposterous” claims, but only that the effort to ban kitchen knives, by UK politicians, is preposterous. When politicians ban firearms they don’t stop there; they continue banning anything that can be used as a weapon. Because banning weapons doesn’t reduce crime, so those dumb politicians that originally banned firearms must continue to ban any and all weapons or objects that can be used as a weapon so that they can somehow prove that their strategies will work as intended. But banning weapons doesn’t reduce crime, it increases crime. Be careful about using statistics derived by the Brady Bunch.
Brock2,
Thanks for admitting that you are not above making preposterous claims to try to bolster your case. It’s a poop practise if you want anyone to take your word on face value.
Aside from the fact that noone has suggested banning weapons, do you have any support for this claim? And why do you insist on framing the debate as one of banning vs the cuurent scenario, when the call is really for more effective control vs the current scenario?
I’m confused. You admit to making a preposterous calim but immediately use that claim as a springboard to what politicians do after they ban firearms. Where is you evidence?
Please name a society that has banned firearms. I am unaware of one that has even proposed it, let alone carried it through. I assume you know of some such societies (but I would not place a wager on it). If you do not then how do you possibly know what the consequences are? Or is it that you are merely assuming?
Point well taken. I try to use statistics that are fair and middle of the road. I certainly treat statistics publish by the ‘Brady Bunch’ in a similar vein to those published by the ‘National Redneck Association’ – and so should we all.
I know – name-calling is such a cheap shot on the NRA, but I’m invoking the eye-for-eye maxim in this post.
Brock2,
I understand your point but I wanted to share a story with you. It hasn’t posted yet but here is the source. It should be on this site later this week.
http://www.newsoftheweird.com/archive/index.html
Anyway, a public school teacher said there was nothing she could do about her 11 year old son bringing his loaded gun to school for a second time. It’s his gun and there is nothing she can do about it was her response.
p.s. I do not think guns are evil and I do not want to kill you for your gun views.
Tx;
I know; I also knew you would never go on a shooting spree if you owned an F-14; if I thought you might I never would haver asked you the question. But you know the point: one bad apple don’t mean the whole basket needs to be discarded. You’re the proof (and millions like you) that Americans are responsible – not the ten percent that don’t follow rules that involve our physical well being. You are easily trusted with an F-14 – no doubt about it.
What if you were to suddenly snap ? Is there a giant on the beach ?
We tend to focus on the irresponsible and make changes based on that; then the rest get punished. Reluctant is not wrong when he says: “No, the most pathetic thing for any adult is to deny that humans are flawed & prone to error.” But his argument is flawed. This is not a good reason to limit other peoples freedom; because it is not a good reason to teach people to go out on an early morning jog at a semi deserted place and where criminals can have the ‘cover and concealment’
that enables them to harm an unarmed, physically weaker atheist gay female (or any person) and never be caught. ‘But they shouldn’t go there’ you say ? You have the nerve to say such a thing in a so-called free society ? Where should she go ? She can safely go there if she carries a weapon of choice. What’s the harm in that ? Will she harm another because she is armed – the statistics prove otherwise – most people never harm anyone – armed or unarmed. And then there is the gradual decay and growing contempt of our freedoms with the resulting respect for government at the expense of the citizen that follow. We come first – not our government.
Character assasination:
“And you say I’m irrational?
I think it’s time for your medication.” [Reluct]
(I enjoyed that remark.)Either it’s okay or it’s not; which is it ?
HeathenZ: You were not designed to favor self imposed self-defense – you were created to oppose it – even after your friends or family are dead from following your dogma.
Sometimes in a debate it’s the effort and attitude (belief) – the belief from your stupidity to not take precautionary measures – the belief displayed by my perseverence against your effort to get me or others killed.
Or mabe it’s your selfish inflated ego that the allows you to ignore the safety of others; you need to be forced to rationalize with a grizzly while you, not the grizzly, are unarmed.
” …when the call is really for more effective control vs the current scenario?” [HZ]
“Please name a society that has banned firearms.” [HZ]
UK.
From those two statements I’d say you are looking for a way out. As if I can’t recall or interpret what you have written previously.
The “control” is so effective and common it equates to a ban. Firearms are banned in enough places to equate to ‘banned enough.’ The bans have taught too many Americans that it is okay to ignore the 2nd Amendment and then that it is okay to ignore the Bill of Rights – but it is not – and they are not changeable – they are etched in stone – permanent. If anything the Framers did not make us free enough.
They were products of monarchy, content, until the monarchy arbitrarily removed too much of their freedom; then they rebelled.
They should have written an amendment that made the first ten permanent and unchangeable; and another that restricts the President’s war time power. And another that prohibits ignoring them under the guise of ‘the public’s safety.’ But we all know what Franklin said: “…we got you a republic, can you keep it..”
We are trying Ben, but dam, there are so many heathens and reluctants that just don’t know what freedom is.
The NRA: Wayne LaPierre, Sandra Froman (she’s been seen packing heat under her armpit), John Lott, Chris Cox, and Mark Chesnut, that’s the NRA leadership: all are freedom and 2nd Amendment experts (unlike Sara Brady). None are rednecks. Again, you are wrong.
brock2
You enjoy my one-liners sometimes and don’t respect me much otherwise. I get that. But I don’t get the rest of your post. Is it supposed to be an answer to my freedom question at the beginning? Perhaps you could lay it out more simply, since I am too obtuse to understand you.
How does the knife-wielding thief support your gun argument? I have a better chance unarmed against a man with a knife than one with a gun. What if either comes in on me while I am downstairs and my gun is upstairs in the bedroom? Do you carry your gun on you at all times while in the house? I wouldn’t want to live like that.
As others said, how about a reference for the banning of kitchen knives? That’s ridiculous. Once again, killing is not the only use for a kitchen knife. All things that could be used as weapons cannot be banned. We’d have to have our teeth extracted, our arms and legs amutated and our minds lobotomized.
You are placing an awful lot of the load of responsibility of freedom on the possession of a firearm. You seem to equate freedom with protection.
What is your point about the jogger being shot by a cop in England?
I don’t want to kill you for your views. I just want you to be more realist and open-minded.
brock2,
The UK banned private ownership of hand guns a few years ago. This is radically different from banning guns period.
I have read some articles on the results of this ban and would agree with you that the results have been mixed at best. I would also agree that this is an excessive measure, and unlikly to reduce criminal access to weapons. It is unnessessarily restrictive on sporting shooters, collectors, etc.
Actually I am looking to call you on your bullshit of constantly reframing the argument. The issue is the level of control, not total banning vs unrestricted use.
Bullsit. The US has gun controls – are they immediately bans? Most every civilized society has some level of controls on guns, yet gun ownership is still legal to greater and lesser extents in (all?) most of these countries.
Additonally blanket banning is short-sighted and seldomn effective. All it tends to do is drive the problem underground. This is precisely why the issue is appropriate control – not all or nothing.
Aside from making no sense – where are these places that ban ‘firearms’? Do you mean banning private ownership of certain firearms? Please explain what you actually mean by banning firearms.
What bans? Maybe people are looking at the logic, consequences, and reasons for the 2nd ammendment and it’s various interpretations. Nothing wrong with questioning and discussion. Etched in stone? Unchangable? We can’t even agree as to what they say. This sure reminds me of an argument about biblical inerrancy.
For the record, I am not a big fan of a written constitution. Sure it has some big pluses, but it also has some nasty restrictions and unintended consequence. It also has a tendancy to be viewed akin to a holy text where because it is so written, it must be right. Well such words should never be considered etched in stone. Things change, people change, society changes, so do the rules under which we live.
There are no sacred cows.
Huh? Relevance? I thought the dispute started over unnecessary taxation or “taxation without representation”. I really don’t know what this point refers to.
Change is the only constant. Live with it. You cannot legislate against change. Eventually it is going to happen. (I think I just made an absolute statment). I tend to agree with the other two points that you wish had been written in ealier. You do realize that the US can actually make those changes today if they so wished? The ship has not sailed.
Sorry – not familiar with Franklin’s saying. I don’t claim to be well versed in US history, but I do know some stuff – probably more than many natural born Americans.
“n 1: the condition of being free; the power to act or speak or think without externally imposed restraints” Not a very tough concept. However its application is always moderated in a governed society. Its the extent and nature of that application that requires continual assessment. I certainly do not wish for excessive restrictions and neither do I advocate carte blanche for the populous. And I suspect you are of the same opinion. Where we differ is in the extent of restriction to pivate individuals in respect to personal firearm responsibility.
You’ll note that I never said those people were rednecks, it was a play on words – lighten up. By the same token the Brady Foundation is not a (80’s?) TV sitcom.
I do however wonder what you consider makes someone a “freedom and 2nd ammendment” expert? Could a prerequisite be that they share your views? Do you know of any such experts that disagree with your views? If not I respectfully suggest that you are in danger of being one-eyed to the issues.
Okay, this comment speaks to me of paranoia. Do you seriously think people want to kill you because you have a different point of view? What kind of people do you think you are conversing with? Such questions speak volumes as to why you think it is necessary for you to walk around packing heat, and sadly to extent that you imagined dangers are real.
Move away from the crazy pills, I have no desire to hasten your death. Why on earth would I?
What concerns me is that you would ask that question. It concerns me because it shows that you are capable of perceiving a non-existant threat, and a possible reaction to that is one of ‘pre-emptive self-defense’. I wish you well, but I hope I’m never within 10 miles of your person. You scare me.
HZ
Do you know if the UK required gun owners to turn in any weapons they already owned, or did they just disallow any sale of waepons from the date of the ban forward?
Karen,
I don’t know the details, but I’ll try to dig a little deeper.
Meantime I came across these ‘facts’. I’m not sure of there origin or veracity, so please treat them as such.
# For every gun that is destroyed another 10 are manufactured
# Around eight million new guns are made every year
#There are approximately 640 million guns in circulation- one for every ten people
# Approximately 14 billion rounds of military ammunition are made every year – two bullets for every person.
# Small arms are produced by 1249 companies in more than 90 countries
# Only three countries in the world (Nigeria, Latvia and South Africa) have a policy of destroying all surplus or confiscated weapons.Most resell their old stocks onto the world arms market.
# On average, around one million guns are lost or stolen every year
# Much of the 650,000 tons of arms at abandoned military depots across Iraq have been looted.
HZ
I’ve been looking, but haven’t found anything about turning in weaponry yet.
It does look to me as though it is still possible to obtain a firearm. Shotguns are allowed, and with a Firearms Certificate, you can own a handgun. Self-defence is NOT an accepted reason to need a gun, however.
It doesn’t look like a total ban.
Interesting document on UK gun control:
http://www.parliament.uk/post/pn087.pdf
I guess this is the precursor to the banning on hand guns?
karen
Iread a press article that stated it was a ban on hand guns. Perhaps that is not so. We need something more concrete.
This from wikipedia re UK gun laws (note that no reference is supplied)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_UK
HZ
The very end of the link you noted first stated that the ban would involve the destruction of about 160,000 legally held hand-guns.
So I suppose people were supposed to turn them in.
I had read the wikipedia link already; was looking elsewhere because it needed citings.
Also…APOLOGIES!!! I misread. The Firearms certificate applies to shotguns, not handguns.
HZ
I forgot to say, this is where I was reading about it:
http://www.tysknews.com/Depts/2nd_Amend/flawed2.htm
It has much the same information that your link had.
Karen,
Thanks for the links. It’s nice to see a more substantial argument for the abrogation of gun control. Ploughing trough the rhetoric, I can now see where brock2 has picked up the virbiage spewed forth in many posts.
It was also interesting to read “Shot Full of Holes, Deconstructing John Ashcroft’s Second Amendment” and see whether the claims made are supportable. Link follows:
http://www.vpc.org/studies/ashintr.htm
I did not win, freedom won, but you clearly have lost. Not because of me, but because of your opposition to it.
If you ever finally agree with the NRA, you have nothing to regret or apologize or admit to; you can say or do nothing because so many others before you or me have sacrificed so much to make you and me free.
Amazing that one like you can be so much at odds with the principles that this country was founded and yet in the end those principles that you opposed are the very ones that protect you and your opposition. And that is how it should be in a free society. In a free America you are free to slap the hand that frees you.
There is one thing you could do; you can learn the principles of freedom and pass them on to the next generation.