Too Big to Jail

[Jackal]

I want to preface this with; This is just my opinion based on reading and listening to both sides of the issue for years, and my opinion will be partially based on my geographical location. This is a complex issue that can't be simply sorted out through an internet debate, and hating on people’s ideas accomplishes nothing. Sharing opinions and ideas will broaden everyone’s understanding of the situation and hopefully lead to solutions.

 

One can argue the point that the law only affects those who abide by it, and in Canada we saw that first hand, as even law abiding citizens didn’t register their long arm when the law required it. If someone wants to commit a crime like the ones we have seen on the news recently, they will with any weapon, a gun, a bomb, or other. James Holmes intended on taking out investigators with traps set in his apartment long after he was incarcerated or dead. There is also the point that using a gun as a threatening device has avoided more violence than it has created. The second amendment also states that in the United States you have the right to bear arms against foreign invasion, and a fascist government, although not exactly in those words.

 

To every debate there is another side. The fact that those law abiding citizens may not care for the weapon the way it needs to be (gun locks as example), and that it becomes generally more accessible to those who may not be so law abiding. No other handheld weapon is as efficient at dispatching life, which makes it inherently more dangerous than someone choosing to use a knife, or a car to run someone down. Using a gun as a threatening device to avoid trouble only works if the other party doesn’t have a gun, and without gun control eventually everyone will have one. What you have then is a standoff with the possibility that a family member is in the line of fire. As for foreign invasion, I believe there has only ever been one loss the US has suffered on home turf, and I don't believe it will ever happen again.

 

Let’s just also come to terms with the fact that people in general are not getting smarter, and to phrase it as a question; Are we all comfortable with the lowest common denominator being armed with machine guns?

 

My personal opinion is that more strict gun control can help, but is not the only solution. Here in Canada we have more strict gun control than in the US, but we also have similar shootings that occur. The crimes that gun control help mitigate, are the spontaneous "got mad, grabbed nearest gun" type of crimes, because the availability for said weapon would be more restricted. Further to that, I feel the need for a fully automatic weapon is simply not necessary for any sport, and limiting these weapons in particular also limits someone grabbing the nearest machine gun, and dispatching people quicker than any other handheld device can.

 

I feel that more proactively identifying, and getting help to those that may commit these horrible acts is needed as well. In many instances there are cries for help before a horrible atrocity is committed. These are the crimes that gun control would not help. I know it sounds a little odd (overly liberal, bleeding heart), but in three of the largest shootings in Canada, there were identifiable signs that the person was heading towards this act. The Concordia shooting for instance, Dr. Valery Fabrikant had a few instances where threatening behavior went without investigation, and that investigation had the potential to avoid four deaths. I feel that we need to be able to identify the signs that someone is heading for a mental break, and offer the assistance they need to get well. Generally I see us as a whole, avoiding anything we directly interpret as a cry for help because we don’t want to get involved in something that can make us feel uncomfortable.

 

As I stated, I feel there are no easy answers to this challenge, but I feel it is getting worse. As the economic climate continues to decline, and people feel more lost or desperate, there will be more on the verge of a mental collapse.

Edited January 24, 2013 by Jackal

[JohnK]

In hopes of having an "informed discussion" on anything,

we have to deal with organizations that will do whatever

they please to win. Wouldn't it be nice if there were enough

time to vet all the information.

http://phys.org/news/2013-01-faking-nra-pro-gun-americans-abuse.html

[BusaNostra]

I would ban all guns, they are obscene and evil .

 

Ban yourself, don't take away my gun(s), my gun(s) are for evil people.

In this situation....I'M READY TO KILL AND BE KILLED! i WILL TAKE MY CHANCE.

.....your choice is to rot & cry the rest of your life - call my gun evil when i kill the evil man...

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/petit_family/index.html

Edited January 24, 2013 by BusaNostra

[Jackal]

I would ban all guns, they are obscene and evil .

 

Ban yourself, don't take away my gun(s), my gun(s) are for evil people.

In this situation....I'M READY TO KILL AND BE KILLED! i WILL TAKE MY CHANCE.

.....your choice is to rot & cry the rest of your life

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/p/petit_family/index.html

 

I'm afraid it's these type of comments (both) that detract from both sides of an intellegent debate.

[BusaNostra]

There is no intellegent debate until you know the 2nd amendment and my right to own a gun.

I'm not going to mix up here not until someone like to take away my right to own a gun. Furthermore...this horrific incident happened 5 miles away from me - this incident always in my mind and bow to protect my family.

The thread section is politics, religion and controversy ...expect harsh and no BS words from me....

The end....

Edited January 24, 2013 by BusaNostra

[Jackal]

There is no intellegent debate until you know the 2nd amendment and my right to own a gun.

 

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Even as a Canadian, I am very aware of the American constitution. I understand that a 222 year old document protects your right to bear arms. At the time though, guns were not exactly as they are now. There was only one model of cartridge loading rifle, and handguns were also very primitive. The technology of the time was not considering the future abilities of weapons, and their ability to mow down a crowd of people. I personally believe you should have the right to own a weapon; we do in Canada. I just believe restrictions need to be placed on the types of weapons.

 

 

Guns in 1791 WOULD

• ...be made by a gunsmith.
  
• ...have rudimentary rifling.
  
• ...be single-shot weapons.
  
• ...be loaded through the muzzle.
  
• ...fire by means of a flintlock.
  

Guns in 1791 WOULD NOT

• ...have interchangeable parts. (Popularized in 1798)
  
• ...be revolvers. (Invented in 1835)
  
• ...be breachloaded. (Popularized in 1810)
  
• ...use smokeless powder. (Invented in 1885)
  
• ...use a percussion cap, necessary for modern cartridged bullets. (Invented in 1842)
  
• ...load bullets from a clip. (Invented in 1890)
  

I'm not going to mix up here not until someone like to take away my right to own a gun. Furthermore...this horrific incident happened 5 miles away from me - this incident always in my mind and bow to protect my family.

 

I sympathize with your situation, and understand how the proximity to an event such as this can make everyone a little on edge. Protecting your family should be a priority, I guess I just feel bad that you feel so strongly that you have to be ready to do so all the time. I don't live with the fear that someone will burst in shooting up the joint at any moment.

 

 

The thread section is politics, religion and controversy ...expect harsh and no BS words from me....

The end....

 

I didn't think your previous comments were harsh, I just stated that they didn't contribute to an intellegent debate. Saying things like "I'M READY TO KILL AND BE KILLED! i WILL TAKE MY CHANCE." and ".....your choice is to rot & cry the rest of your life - call my gun evil when i kill the evil man..." tend to sound a little crazy themselves.

Edited January 24, 2013 by Jackal

[crewst]

There is no intellegent debate until you know the 2nd amendment and my right to own a gun.

I'm not going to mix up here not until someone like to take away my right to own a gun. Furthermore...this horrific incident happened 5 miles away from me - this incident always in my mind and bow to protect my family.

The thread section is politics, religion and controversy ...expect harsh and no BS words from me....

The end....

 

 

If there were armed guards or teachers/staff with concealed carry permits, lives could have been saved.

 

If having gun free zones makes people so safe, then why do anti-gun people ever have armed security? Celebs, rich people, politicians complain about guns, want more gun-free zones or to ban guns completely, but still have armed guards. I guess Obama has asked the Secret Service to not carry guns around him so that he'll be safer... ha! If I remember correctly, Feinstein is submitting a bill to ban "assault" guns, but yet has a rare California permit to carry. Laws for thee, not for me applies I suppose, just like lefties and taxes.

[crewst]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here. Even as a Canadian, I am very aware of the American constitution. I understand that a 222 year old document protects your right to bear arms. At the time though, guns were not exactly as they are now. There was only one model of cartridge loading rifle, and handguns were also very primitive. The technology of the time was not considering the future abilities of weapons, and their ability to mow down a crowd of people. I personally believe you should have the right to own a weapon; we do in Canada. I just believe restrictions need to be placed on the types of weapons.

 

 

Guns in 1791 WOULD

• ...be made by a gunsmith.
  
• ...have rudimentary rifling.
  
• ...be single-shot weapons.
  
• ...be loaded through the muzzle.
  
• ...fire by means of a flintlock.
  

Guns in 1791 WOULD NOT

• ...have interchangeable parts. (Popularized in 1798)
  
• ...be revolvers. (Invented in 1835)
  
• ...be breachloaded. (Popularized in 1810)
  
• ...use smokeless powder. (Invented in 1885)
  
• ...use a percussion cap, necessary for modern cartridged bullets. (Invented in 1842)
  
• ...load bullets from a clip. (Invented in 1890)
  

 

I sympathize with your situation, and understand how the proximity to an event such as this can make everyone a little on edge. Protecting your family should be a priority, I guess I just feel bad that you feel so strongly that you have to be ready to do so all the time. I don't live with the fear that someone will burst in shooting up the joint at any moment.

 

 

 

 

I didn't think your previous comments were harsh, I just stated that they didn't contribute to an intellegent debate. Saying things like "I'M READY TO KILL AND BE KILLED! i WILL TAKE MY CHANCE." and ".....your choice is to rot & cry the rest of your life - call my gun evil when i kill the evil man..." tend to sound a little crazy themselves.

 

 

The age of the Constitution and technological changes to arms does does not matter at all. You clearly do not grasp the concepts involved in the founding and framing. Read some material from the Federalist Papers and similar material, specifically the framers discussing rights and tyranny. Throw in some reading on Paul Revere's warning about the British coming as well.

[BusaNostra]

I understand Jackal, i like your cool head--- that horrific incident stuck in my mind - split second bro, that's why I said...in this scenario.....

...and intellegent debate to me is knowing the law, if you don't know..it becomes more of a stupid debate & goes no where.

 

"At the time though, guns were not exactly as they are now. "

 

Guns are guns - Samuel colts made the REPEATING guns & sold to public 1874

[Jackal]

The age of the Constitution and technological changes to arms does does not matter at all. You clearly do not grasp the concepts involved in the founding and framing. Read some material from the Federalist Papers and similar material, specifically the framers discussing rights and tyranny. Throw in some reading on Paul Revere's warning about the British coming as well.

 

I understand that in 1791 a militia was needed to protect the United states from foreign invaders and a tyrannical government.

 

I find this curious as an outsider looking in. It is without debate that the largest military force on the planet is the United States. The next three largest military forces combined strength is still less than that of the United States. The US has first strike capabilities on any other country in the world. There is absolutely no reason that a citizens militia will ever be of use again.

 

The government of the United States is not exactly what I would call a tyrannical force, and I certainly hope that a citizens militia would not be needed there either. It is curious though, that the public generally give up civil liberties if favour of the governments protection. All but the guns. This is where I wholeheartedly disagree with your technology statement. Wars are won through communication and the ability to do so without the other side knowing what's going on. The public generally agrees that civil liberties need to be sacraficed for security, but if you need to defend yourself from a tyrranical government that you have sacraficed secure communication to, how would a civil militia stand a chance?

[Jackal]

I understand Jackal, i like your cool head---

 

I appreciate that. Thank you.

 

that horrific incident stuck in my mind - split second bro, that's why I said...in this scenario.....

...and intellegent debate to me is knowing the law, if you don't know..it becomes more of a stupid debate & goes no where.

 

I understand the Constitution, the reasoning behind it, and the current interpretations. I also realize that the Constitution has been amended many times, even as recently as 1992. I am simply stating that my opinion is that fully automatic weapons are not necessary in either defence or sport.

Again, I do sympathize with your situation, and completely understand that you want to protect your family. I respect that, and feel the same way.

I am familiar with guns, (living in the wild west of Canada lol) but I feel that I would be less effective defending my family with a fully automatic weapon, than one of more precision. The military train extensively to be effective with machine guns. I fear that many folks that own machine guns are not trained to the point of being effective, or safe. Youtube is full of these instances.

[BusaNostra]

"The government of the United States is not exactly what I would call a tyrannical force"

 

 

Tyrants are born every minute!

 

I can google you a few devils...in fact the majority of bloody tyrants was born these days.

 

Alexander II (the Russian emperor, has strangled revolt 1863-64 in Belarus and Poland, occupied Caucasus, Kazakhstan, has arranged a genocide above tens millions people).

 

Hrushchiov (the leader of the USSR, participated in reprisals),

Hitler (the fascist dictator of Germany and the Europe, has arranged genocide above tens millions people).

 

Ekaterina II (Russian emperor, has arranged genocide).

Lenin (the founder of devil empire USSR has arranged genocide).

Hussein (the dictator of Iraq, has arranged genocide).

Ribbentrop (colleague Hitler).

 

Arthur Seyb-Inquart (colleague Hitler).

Nicolay II (he was named "Of Club" because it beat objectionable by clubs, passing through build, has shot, has hung up and has millions people condemned to penal servitude, has strangled revolt against the Russian occupation in 1830th on Belarus and in Poland, has arranged a genocide above tens millions people).

 

Mussolini (the fascist dictator of Italy, friend Hitler).

 

Fidel Castro (the dictator of Cuba).

 

Napoleon (the dictator of France and all Europe, has arranged a genocide above tens millions people).

 

Ivan the Terrible (Grozny) (the Russian tyrant, has destroyed more than half of Belarus population, has arranged a genocide above tens millions people).

 

Erich Honecker (the communistic dictator of East Germany).

 

Lyndon Johnson (war in Vietnam),

 

Milosevic (the dictator of Yugoslavia).

 

Dzerzynski (bloody colleague Lenin, has arranged a genocide - "red terror").

Lukashenko (last dictator of the Europe, he is suspected of murder of the gone politicians).

Cаligula (the bloody tyrant of Roman empire, has arranged a genocide above tens millions people).

 

Trotsky (bloody colleague Lenin).

Fritz Sauckel (bloody colleague Hitler).

Gebbels (bloody colleague Hitler).

 

Franco (the Spanish dictator).

emperor Heron (one of the first murderers of Christians)

Brezhnev (aggression in Czech and Afghanistan, execution of demonstration of workers in Novocherkassk),

Stalin (the most bloody tyrant of the USSR, suited a genocide above tens millions people, was friends of Hitler) and Saakashvili (modern dictator of Georgia),

emperor Aljaksandr I (drove Belarusians for 25 years in recruits, exposing them in баях ahead of armies).

Мао Zedong (the red dictator of China).

 

Gering and Rosenberg - Nazi criminals, Hitler's colleagues, have organized Gestapo and the first German concentration camps, suited a genocide).

 

Shevardnadze (has finished Georgia to crisis).

 

Ceausescu (the dictator of Romania),

Yermoshyna (colleague Lukashenka, chairman of the Central Election Commission, she is suspected of falsification of elections and a referendum).

 

At the time, i thought Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau of Canada will become a tyrant - but he did well and I laughed with his "fuddle duddle" quote.

 

Now, you can predict whose next tyrant in my mind...

Edited January 24, 2013 by BusaNostra

[Jackal]

"The government of the United States is not exactly what I would call a tyrannical force"

 

 

Tyrants are born every minute!

 

I can google you a few devils...in fact the majority of bloody tyrants was born these days.

 

Alexander II (the Russian emperor, has strangled revolt 1863-64 in Belarus and Poland, occupied Caucasus, Kazakhstan, has arranged a genocide above tens millions people).

 

Hrushchiov (the leader of the USSR, participated in reprisals),

Hitler (the fascist dictator of Germany and the Europe, has arranged genocide above tens millions people).

 

Ekaterina II (Russian emperor, has arranged genocide).

Lenin (the founder of devil empire USSR has arranged genocide).

Hussein (the dictator of Iraq, has arranged genocide).

Ribbentrop (colleague Hitler).

 

Arthur Seyb-Inquart (colleague Hitler).

Nicolay II (he was named "Of Club" because it beat objectionable by clubs, passing through build, has shot, has hung up and has millions people condemned to penal servitude, has strangled revolt against the Russian occupation in 1830th on Belarus and in Poland, has arranged a genocide above tens millions people).

 

Mussolini (the fascist dictator of Italy, friend Hitler).

 

Fidel Castro (the dictator of Cuba).

 

Napoleon (the dictator of France and all Europe, has arranged a genocide above tens millions people).

 

Ivan the Terrible (Grozny) (the Russian tyrant, has destroyed more than half of Belarus population, has arranged a genocide above tens millions people).

 

Erich Honecker (the communistic dictator of East Germany).

 

Lyndon Johnson (war in Vietnam),

 

Milosevic (the dictator of Yugoslavia).

 

Dzerzynski (bloody colleague Lenin, has arranged a genocide - "red terror").

Lukashenko (last dictator of the Europe, he is suspected of murder of the gone politicians).

Cаligula (the bloody tyrant of Roman empire, has arranged a genocide above tens millions people).

 

Trotsky (bloody colleague Lenin).

Fritz Sauckel (bloody colleague Hitler).

Gebbels (bloody colleague Hitler).

 

Franco (the Spanish dictator).

emperor Heron (one of the first murderers of Christians)

Brezhnev (aggression in Czech and Afghanistan, execution of demonstration of workers in Novocherkassk),

Stalin (the most bloody tyrant of the USSR, suited a genocide above tens millions people, was friends of Hitler) and Saakashvili (modern dictator of Georgia),

emperor Aljaksandr I (drove Belarusians for 25 years in recruits, exposing them in баях ahead of armies).

Мао Zedong (the red dictator of China).

 

Gering and Rosenberg - Nazi criminals, Hitler's colleagues, have organized Gestapo and the first German concentration camps, suited a genocide).

 

Shevardnadze (has finished Georgia to crisis).

 

Ceausescu (the dictator of Romania),

Yermoshyna (colleague Lukashenka, chairman of the Central Election Commission, she is suspected of falsification of elections and a referendum).

 

You can predict whose next in my mind...

 

It seems a bit excessive though doesn't it? There are 7 billion people on the planet currently and possible that 107,602,000,000 people have been born since recorded time (Source: Population Reference Bureau estimates.) A list of fourty people doesn't seem like theres one born every minute. Certainly not enough to require a citizens militia in the worlds most powerful military power.

A question about weapons and technology came to mind and I'd like to pose it to the group, and I really would like to hear some honest answers. I personally consider fully automatic weapons excessive but I am curious for those that don't, is there a limit that you would consider restrictions needed? As an example if an incindiary or some form of toxic ammunition was invented, would there be a need to restrict them in your opinions? Is there an upper limit to what you feel the public should be allowed to carry? I currently don't know where the restrictions begin in the United States and that is why I ask.

Edited January 24, 2013 by Jackal

[BusaNostra]

...as i said tyrants are born every minute, not all of them gets into the system - does not matter about the ratio. that's not the way it works....who knows if we have a tyrant in a making now? lol

[MoPho]

Weeeeee!!!!!!

 

 

http://lonelyconservative.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/tin-foil-hat.jpg

 

 

.

[WestTexasS2K]

Jackal we don't have fully auto guns available to the public. These are semi auto guns that are causing the controversy. I can show you my Ruger mini 14 and it my AR15. My mini 14 one has a wooden stock and looks like a .22cal rifle. Yet it shoots the same rounds as my Ar15 and can shoot just as many rounds as my AR15.

The average response time for police in my town is 6 min. if you live outside the city limits then it can take 30 min. for sheriff to respond. They will arrive in time to take photos and tape off the crime scene. I hope I never need to use my gun, but I will if I need to to protect my family.

 

http://m.reporternews.com/news/2012/dec/26/man-fatally-shot-by-exgirlfriend/

 

People use the argument that the USA is this big military superpower. Yes for now that is the case. Can you guarantee that will be the case in 25 years or 50 years. Rome was a superpower, where are they now. Look at all the great countries in history. Most have gone away and I suspect the same will happen to the USA may not be in my lifetime, but it will be very likely to happen someday. The USA is slowly taking more rights away from the citizens thru things like the Patriot Act and NDAA. There is a perceived threat and they rush in to save the day and in the process take a few of your liberties away. The people happily hand them over to the government in exchange for a little security or the promise of security. They will eventually take a bite at a time until the whole thing is gone.

 

I hope I never need my guns for more than target practice and deer hunting.

 

Governments tend to cycle from Aristocracy to Timocracy to Oligarcy to Democracy to Tyranny. I think the founding fathers noticed this trend and wanted an arm citizenry to stand up to it. It has nothing to do with how many bullets can be fired from a gun. The government can typically out muscle the citizens with firepower. A good example of what small arms can do all you have to do is look at Afganastan. They have held off powerfull nations with rocks and small arms.

[rnr]

The age of the Constitution and technological changes to arms does does not matter at all. You clearly do not grasp the concepts involved in the founding and framing. Read some material from the Federalist Papers and similar material, specifically the framers discussing rights and tyranny. Throw in some reading on Paul Revere's warning about the British coming as well.

 

Except the 2nd amendment is by definition an amendment and not part of the original constitution (adopted 4 years later according to Wikipedia). And there is precedent to adding an amendment and then removing it later(21st repealed the 18th).

 

Plus its not like the founders were a 100% right about everything. The original document clearly allows slavery which was then repealed by the 13th amendment.

 

I am not an american myself and I find the it interesting how people from 200+ years ago are expected to have been right for all eternity despite having several of their decisions being changed already.

[MoPho]

 

I am not an american myself and I find the it interesting how people from 200+ years ago are expected to have been right for all eternity despite having several of their decisions being changed already.

 

 

It's like the bible, you only have to believe in the parts that fit your agenda :flag:

 

 

.

[ayseven]

That is the most useful comment in a while! It's hard for us "up here" to agree with a lot of what goes on "down there", and vice versa, which is why we live where we do.

 

To be controversial again, though, I truly don't understand the abject fear of THE GOVERNMENT that many pro-gun people have. I don't go around thinking how the world is nuts, and I have to "PROTECT MY FAMILY" from all evildoers. I know someone in Canada like this too (although he is an immigrant, suspicious in itself, don't you think?). I just don't get it. The government only represents what we vote for, so we only have ourselves to blame.

[Jackal]

Jackal we don't have fully auto guns available to the public. These are semi auto guns that are causing the controversy. I can show you my Ruger mini 14 and it my AR15. My mini 14 one has a wooden stock and looks like a .22cal rifle. Yet it shoots the same rounds as my Ar15 and can shoot just as many rounds as my AR15.

The average response time for police in my town is 6 min. if you live outside the city limits then it can take 30 min. for sheriff to respond. They will arrive in time to take photos and tape off the crime scene. I hope I never need to use my gun, but I will if I need to to protect my family.

 

http://m.reporternews.com/news/2012/dec/26/man-fatally-shot-by-exgirlfriend/

 

Firstly, thanks for the clarification.

 

I hear the self defenses discussion point often. It seems so foreign to most Canadians I suppose. It seems like the General Public is always afraid for their lives down south, in that at any moment a crazed lunatic will need gunning down. I feel sorry for folks that feel that way, because the general feeling where I live is that it is a safe place where gun violence is generally not feared. I notice the change in feeling when I go to the States.

 

Does the cycle not perpetuate itself though. Everyone who snaps looks normal enough at sometime. By allowing less restriction on folks having guns, aren't we really just arming the ones that have the potencial to snap?