previous post

Sat 04/28/07 09:28 PM
Adj, as Ive stated many times before, I think that people who can prove
themselves responsible enough to use one should be granted a license to
use one. I don't think that "just anyone" should be able to "go armed."
No way, no how. And I don't mean that that should exclude ONLY criminals
and the mentally ill, either.

There are a LOT of people who have "no business" handling a firearm.

________________________________

you do not have to prove anything they tried that with voting in the pre
70s era

in this country you are presumed innocent till proven quilty

if you prove they are not capable then fine

but the burden of profe lies with the state

not with the people

You're not even addressing the points of MY argument, but making up your
own!

For one thing, what do CARS have to do with this discussion WHATSOEVER??
Not a thing! It is COMPLETELY irrelevant!

For another, I didn't say that the entire citizenry should have its
weapons taken away, BUT...even if I did...how would removing weapons
from the citizens directly affect the militia? I'm afraid I'm not
following you on this one.

you do not have to prove anything they tried that with voting in the pre
70s era

in this country you are presumed innocent till proven quilty

if you prove they are not capable then fine

but the burden of profe lies with the state

not with the people

***

I'm fully aware of the laws of the land. Studied criminology and all
that rot for many years.

That being said, as I mentioned before, tell that to the survivors of
the VA Tech massacre. I don't think that the gunman had any "right"
whatsoever to buy or carry a firearm.

you must have missed this on page 11

repost
---------------------

Fri 04/27/07 02:15 PM
fyi
from
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/issues/?page=wait

The Gun Control Act of 1968 established categories of prohibited gun
purchasers and possessors, including convicted felons, fugitives from
justice, minors, individuals with a history of mental illness, anyone
dishonorably discharged from the military, expatriates, and illegal
aliens. But, until the implementation of the Brady Law in 1994, gun
sales operated on an "honor system." A prospective firearm purchaser
merely had to sign a statement attesting that he or she was not legally
forbidden from purchasing a firearm. In most states, no follow-up was
conducted to make sure the statements made on the form were true. Thus,
convicted criminals and other prohibited purchasers could simply provide
false information on their firearm applications and purchase a firearm
despite being legally forbidden from doing so.

____________________________________

LIKE I HAVE SAID MANY TIMES ENFORCE THE LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS BEFORE
MAKING MORE

Who said anything about "making more?" I stated I believe in gun
"control," and that's all. You're the one who's making erroneous
assumptions about what I believe or don't believe.

your post on page 8
__________________________


jeanc200358
95132_5432_thumb
Joined Fri 02/02/07
Posts: 2056

Fri 04/27/07 09:03 AM
I'm not arguing the right to bare arms, as I often go sleeveless
myself... sorry..couldn't resist.

However, if you're speaking about our constitutional "right" to BEAR
arms, your point would be..what, exactly?

That has no bearing on my OPINION, which is, that the "average" citizen
should not HAVE that right, because they're not responsible enough to be
granted that "right."

Gun ownership should NOT be a constitutional RIGHT for "just
anyone,"IMO, and my reasoning behind that should be obvious. If you are
deemed responsible enough to own and use a firearm, then you should be
granted a license, i.e., the "privilege" of owning a firearm.

We can't even get a DRIVER'S license, as a "right." We have to PROVE
that we are RESPONSIBLE enough to drive a car, because a car, in the
wrong hands, can be a deadly weapon.

Well, if a car can be, we certainly KNOW a gun can be, right? I think
this is proven on a daily basis, several times a day.
__________________________________________

not the second to last paragraph

why is it you can use auto but i can not

not paragragh to in the following
_______________________________________

your post

Sat 04/28/07 09:35 PM
You're not even addressing the points of MY argument, but making up your
own!

For one thing, what do CARS have to do with this discussion WHATSOEVER??
Not a thing! It is COMPLETELY irrelevant!

For another, I didn't say that the entire citizenry should have its
weapons taken away, BUT...even if I did...how would removing weapons
from the citizens directly affect the militia? I'm afraid I'm not
following you on this one.

i am a survivor

i was not killed there

and have they asked you to speak for them

maybe they wish someone would have been carrying and shot
him as soon as he started

who has authorised you to lead me to believe you speak for them

have you asked them

maybe you would be surprsed like congress was when they ask someone from
columbine to speak

your ask a virgina tech survivor line has absolutly no merit with me

excerpt from your 935 post


For another, I didn't say that the entire citizenry should have its
weapons taken away, BUT...even if I did...how would removing weapons
from the citizens directly affect the militia? I'm afraid I'm not
following you on this one.
_____________________________________

Militia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Lexington Minuteman representing militia minuteman John Parker.
Lexington Minuteman representing militia minuteman John Parker.

Militia is the activity of one or more citizens organized to provide
defense or paramilitary service, or those engaged in such activity. The
word can have five somewhat different meanings:

* Defense activity, as well as those engaged in it, when it is
defense of the public, its territory, property, and laws
* The entire able-bodied male population of a community, town, or
state, which can be called to arms against an invading enemy, to enforce
the law, or to respond to a disaster
* A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly
supported or sanctioned by its government
* An official reserve army, composed of citizen soldiers, also
called an Army Reserve, National Guard, or State Defense Forces
* The national police forces in Russia, and other former CIS
countries, or the former Soviet Union: Militsiya
_________________________________________

note the first line

Militia is the activity of one or more citizens organized to provide
defense
________________________________________

i hope that answersyour question

and you still have not responded to the govt suppressing

militia organisers being jailed and their weapons confiscated

They are entirely different analogies. Mine is germane to the
discussion. Yours is not.

And I say this because you are arguing "guns versus cars." Guns have but
one (or two) purposes: to kill or to maim...okay, and perhaps to
threaten.

A car has but specific "purpose": to get one from point A to point B.

Cars *can* be "dangerous weapons" in the wrong hands, sure. A person can
also get tetanus and die after stepping on a dirty nail infected with
the organism, but it'd be a tad farfetched to suggest outlawing nails
because of that, wouldn't it?

So the fact that accidents do happen -- and often as a result of
negligence -- is really a moot point, at least to an extent.

My argument that we even have to get a license to prove we can drive a
car is relevant because it states that we have to prove ourselves
RESPONSIBLE enough to handle that car in a safe manner.

By using that analogy, I'm stating that CERTAINLY the same should hold
true for the proper use of firearms, wouldn't you think?

I didn't realize I was obligated to respond to any of this...

militia
Encyclopædia Britannica Article


military organization of citizens with limited military training, which
is available for emergency service, usually for local defense. In many
countries the militia are of ancient origin; Macedonia under Philip II
(d. 336 BC), for example, had a militia of clansmen in border regions
who could be called to arms to repel invaders. Among the Anglo-Saxon
peoples of early medieval…

militia... (75 of 480 words)

thanks for the history lesson...I don't understand the relevance to this
particular discussion, however.

Do you even understand my stance on the issue? Doesn't seem like it,
considering the "tangents" here.

guns can be used for sport

hunting

target shooting

not just to kill

the point is not moot

how many are killed in Olympic shooting events

your argument that the gun is only for killing maiming or
threating is the moot point

what you do not understand the explaination of militia

that is it per britanica

and above that per wikipidia

a militia is not the govt. organised military it is
the armed citisens

your post

I didn't realize I was obligated to respond to any of this...
_______________

i guess yer not

especially if you don't have a come back for it

i will take a non-response as a cocedance to the point

thank you

"guns can be used for sport -- hunting"

Hunting IS killing.

"target shooting"

Okay, so target shooting, too. I didn't think of that. So you're an
advocate for the right to bear arms so that everyone can go "target
shooting." Well, fine. Let the VA tech massacre guy and others like him
all have guns so that they can go "target shooting." Let a six-year old
have a gun so that he can go "target shooting."

"the point is not moot -- how many are killed in Olympic shooting
events"

LOL. If you say so. Since when did I say guns should be outlawed during
Olympic shooting events?

Your arguments are silly and nonsensical.

"your argument that the gun is only for killing maiming or
threating is the moot point"

No, they are NOT moot--to this discussion. Guns can also be used for a
21-gun salute. Guns can be stuck into the ground and used as stakes for
tomato plants, too. But what's that got to do with the price of eggs in
China?

****

Militia: civilians trained as soldiers who are not part of the regular
army, e.g., the National Guard.

Again, though, what does any of your points have to do with the
discussion between you and me?

"i am a survivor i was not killed there."

Kinda getting a tad farfetched here, aren't ya? hehe

You are not a direct survivor of the event.

"and have they asked you to speak for them"

Uhh...no. And your point of that statement would be?

"maybe they wish someone would have been carrying and shot
him as soon as he started"

I don't doubt that a bit. I also wish "someone" was carrying and had
shot him as soon as he started. I don't think "just anyone" should be
allowed to carry a concealed weapon, though.

"who has authorised you to lead me to believe you speak for them"

I authorize myself to speak and make observations about anything I wish.
That okay with you?

"have you asked them"

Have I asked them what?

"maybe you would be surprsed like congress was when they ask someone
from columbine to speak your ask a virgina tech survivor line has
absolutly no merit with me"

No skin off my teeth whether or not it has any merit with you. My point
is I doubt any one of them would say that the gunman had a right to
own/carry a concealed weapon. I'll bet every single one of them would
have wished that it hadn't been so easy for him to get weapons.

gun control always leads to mass exterminations by the control
group...take away the tools of resistance and you can do what you want
with a population...

gun control is a bad idea...always has been

So if you're going to go to extremes about that, then you also have to
go to extremes the other way...if you don't advocate "controlling" who
gets to carry a weapon and who doesn't, then you believe that EVERYONE
should be able to carry a weapon, no matter how fit or unfit they may be
to do so.