Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Freedom to bear arms...a mistake ?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Freedom to bear arms...a mistake ?

    US Sniper Hunt Police: 'We're Close'
    Detectives hunting a possible US sniper are questioning more than 100 suspects after three people were shot dead in copycat killings.Two men and a woman have been murdered after dark outside convenience stores by a single shot fired from 30 yards away, with the same rifle used each time.The shooting spree in Charleston, West Virginia, has left people "watching their backs" and scared they are in the midst of a repeat of the sniper attacks in the Washington DC area last October which left 13 people dead.

    FBI agents who worked on that investigation have been drafted in to work on the current case.

    Police in Montgomery County, where many of last October's sniper attacks were carried out, have offered advice on the killings.

    Kanawha County Sheriff David Tucker said: "Every lead is being covered. The leads that we've got are very solid.

    "I'd say we're close. But as an investigator, you've got to be patient."

    The first victim was Gary Carrier Jr, 44, followed four days later by mother Jeanie Patton, 31, and Okey Meadows Jr, 26, the latter two killed just two hours apart from each other.

    After Ms Patton's funeral, the Rev Bucky Hanson said: "Senseless. I mean, what's the reason?

    "I don't understand the times we're living in."

    Charleston residents are trying their best to maintain a sense of normalcy about their everyday lives.

    Bud Roe said: "It's like everywhere else, we're not immune to violence."

  • #2
    Long time no hear Marko.

    The right to bear arm should not be infringed based on the criminal misuse of arms by individual(s). In America, we seem to have forgotten why we were given this right. We've allowed politicians seeking greater authority to blame tools for the acts of people. I recall President Clinton dragging the relatives of victims of violent crime in front of television screens to support his ban on assault weapons.

    The rotten SOB didn't call me up. Probably because I would have said, "had my dad had a gun on that fateful Sunday, I might know him better. By the way, thanks for letting the pyscho who killed him out of prison, and allowing him to stay less than 100yds from where I live." I'd also complain about how the government deemed his drug addition as a disability and provided him over $500 a month to buy more drugs. However, since the money purchased the drugs that eventually killed him, I do owe Uncle Sam a tad bit of appreciation.

    At a Town Hall meeting in 1994, I presented evidence that Clinton had lied to the public. The National Association of Police Chiefs conducted a survey of 500 chiefs around the country. Almost 70% said banning assault weapons, or any weapons for that matter, would result in a decline in crime. In that same survey, those prolice chiefs felt few crimes were committed by people who legally owned weapons.

    President Clinton grabbed some two-left-shoe police officer, gave him a bunch a stars, and some ignorant job title, stuck him on television, and told him to read from the cards. The moron did just that, and we tolerated further restrictions to our Constitutional rights.

    Clinton pointed to a decline in crime as proof he was right. In reality, the only reasons crime declined was the upturn in our economy.

    I guess you have to experience the right bear arms to understand it. However, I don't believe my government is just and filled with people who will serve our interest. The American system is slowly sliding toward a police state where the government keeps track of everything you do.

    The right to bear arms might someday become our only option to defend freedom not only from foriegn invaders, but those in power who seek to stay there.
    "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

    Comment


    • #3
      As the right to bear arms is fundamental in the United States; should it be a right transferred to the soon to be newly democratized Iraqis?
      And we are here as on a darkling plain
      Swept with confused alarms of struggle and flight,
      Where ignorant armies clash by night.


      Matthew Arnold

      Comment


      • #4
        Based on the reports coming out of Iraq, the Iraqis already have instituted their own version of the 2nd Ammendment.

        I believe that any new Constitution in Iraq might need to include the right to bear arms at the individual level. Most Iraqis don't trust big government. A responsible legal process that allows people to bear arms is one way to establish that trust.

        Of course, they must first see and trust democracy. If they don't accept the power of the vote, Iraqis will almost certainly turn to weapons to bring about favorable political changes.
        "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Deltapooh
          Of course, they must first see and trust democracy. If they don't accept the power of the vote, Iraqis will almost certainly turn to weapons to bring about favorable political changes.
          This is one thing that really irked me whenever I listened to Blair prior to the war. Handing people democracy on a platter has a pretty dubious success rate. The INC is nice and all but most Iraqis seem to distance themselves from it.
          "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government’s purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

          – Associate Justice Louis D. Brandeis, Olmstead vs. United States.

          Comment


          • #6
            In many cases, it's not democracy that is the problem, it's who's definition is being used. If the Blair and Bush tries to force Western democracy on Iraq, it will fail. The Iraqis will likely prefer a system based around Islamic laws. In some cases, this will counter to democracy as we know it. We should give them the power of the vote, but allow the Iraqis to work out the details.
            "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

            Comment


            • #7
              mmmmmmmtasty Marko, blaming an object not the people who commit crimes; always a dandy solution......
              "Have you forgotten the face of your father?"

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Tim McBride
                mmmmmmmtasty Marko, blaming an object not the people who commit crimes; always a dandy solution......

                yeah right...the fact that people have access to guns means they are in a position which makes it alot easier to kill people. You get angry pull the trigger and its done. Whreas when you beat someone to death its a different story. Just look at your murder rate compared to the non-arms bearing nations of the world and you will see.

                Comment


                • #9
                  The thing that I don't get is...since you don't live in the U.S. why do you care ?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Priest
                    The thing that I don't get is...since you don't live in the U.S. why do you care ?

                    oOOPS I forgot non-Americans were not allowed to have a view on anything American. Weird that considering so many Americans are currently in Iraq IMPOSING their views.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Priest
                      The thing that I don't get is...since you don't live in the U.S. why do you care ?

                      I also care about our former colonised states

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Marko
                        oOOPS I forgot non-Americans were not allowed to have a view on anything American. Weird that considering so many Americans are currently in Iraq IMPOSING their views.
                        Why don't you answer the question Marko? Shall I repeat it? Typical liberal.
                        Last edited by Priest; 21 Aug 03, 11:44.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Marko
                          I also care about our former colonised states
                          Well gee that's awful nice if you, but, we don't need it.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Marko
                            yeah right...the fact that people have access to guns means they are in a position which makes it alot easier to kill people. You get angry pull the trigger and its done. Whreas when you beat someone to death its a different story. Just look at your murder rate compared to the non-arms bearing nations of the world and you will see.
                            Our crime rate has nothing to due with gun laws. The city with the highest murder rate here in the states has the most draconian gun laws........
                            "Have you forgotten the face of your father?"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Marko
                              I also care about our former colonised states
                              Good one!

                              Originally posted by Marko
                              yeah right...the fact that people have access to guns means they are in a position which makes it alot easier to kill people. You get angry pull the trigger and its done. Whreas when you beat someone to death its a different story. Just look at your murder rate compared to the non-arms bearing nations of the world and you will see.
                              This is the driving argument used by those who support weapon bans. People don't kill others simply because someone put a weapon in their hand. Drugs, poor economy, social issue, diverse ethnic population, etc all play a far more important role in crime rates. People kill people, not weapons. The only way to eliminate crime is to eliminate the motives behind criminal acts. The gun is a small factor.
                              "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X