MY final WORD


PDA






Loud Dogg
May 12, 2004, 02:52 AM
I lately have been posting various comments and questions about guns and what is so controversial about them. I see that there is a law that gets paid to protect you, and that I personally believe that that is why you don’t need to be protecting yourself (I know that sometimes the law doesn’t do its justice). I hate violence, any type; from Iraqi prisoner mistreatment to terror attacks. I used to see the gun as a lead character in violence. That it is dangerous to have guns in your household. But when I began to think about this subject I realized that I haven’t even talked to the other side of the argument, instead imp having the "amity-gun-folks" tell me what you people think about the right. So I went to the Internet and started finding forums where I can ask such a question. I now understand allot more. That no one worships the gun, or would like to kill anyone in your way.

I don’t see eye to eye on this subject yet, and probably won’t. I will continue disliking the weapons. But I know understand the right why you should be allowed to own a gun. I do have a proposal that maybe would even things out with guns, and gun safety. Have a nation wide License. I know it "limits" our rights, but we can’t have all our rights, this may be the land of the free, but we still need regulations. You may own a gun but must have a license that will have the government know about you and what you own. That is because guns can be dangerous, I now hammers also can, but guns are technically more dangerous.

To conclude my statement: I learned allot and have changed my view on how I see things, I will continually posting (on and off) some comments on this site. But I want to thank for all the support and understanding that everyone has here. So with that said, enjoy your right, shoot your gun, but be careful.

Loud Dogg.

If you enjoyed reading about "MY final WORD" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Josey
May 12, 2004, 03:06 AM
I tell you what, I will accept a Gun license. There will be a compromise required. Until all minors are of age (21) they may not enter into contracts, have a license to drive, vote, serve in the military or drink alcohol and purchase tobacco products. Deal? This young man IS sharp!

Night Guy
May 12, 2004, 03:20 AM
No thanks. I don't want any more permission slips from the government than necessary. And most of them are not necessary. Especially one for a Constitutionally protected right.

Justin
May 12, 2004, 03:23 AM
Would someone please invite this kid to the range so he can get some firsthand knowledge of safe gun handling?

sm
May 12, 2004, 03:37 AM
I see that there is a law that gets paid to protect you,
I do not have the ruling, somebody help me out, with that Supreme Court ruling. Bascially - NO they don't have to.

License leads to registration. Registration leads to confiscation. England and Australia are examples. The crime rate exponentially went up each step of implementation. Two for two...anyone got those stats? :)

Loud Dogg - keep an open mind and consider the source. I apologize I can't seem to find mine. You will note - when folks give a source here on THR- one can verify its authenticity.

J.J.
May 12, 2004, 03:37 AM
I know it "limits" our rights, but we can’t have all our rights

Who says we can not? I believe the constitution says that our rights shall not be infringed?

Also as Josey hinted at - What rights are you WILLING to give up.

I just honestly want to know why someone would willingly give up any of the rights that they have. That just seems to be beyond me.


__

I do not mean to sound sarcistic or harsh I am just not sure how to phrase those comments in a better manner.. I think that this topic has alot in common with this one (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=81064) and they have said everything much more eloquently than I could.

Fly320s
May 12, 2004, 08:13 AM
Loud Dogg,

Don't leave. Stick around here for a few months. You may learn much more about life, liberty, law, and the people of U.S. than you will learn in school or anywhere else.

You don't need to be actively involved in a discussion to learn. Just reading the discussion thread and giving the topic some real thought will allow you to learn more than you expect.

When, not if, you come across a topic that is under heated discussion (lots of tempers and yelling), please don't be offended or think that we are all that way all the time. If you stay here a little longer you will see that we THR people are mostly good, just like the rest of the U.S.

I really believe that if you keep reading this forum over the next few months you will improve your cognitive ability regardless of whether you agree with us.

DMK
May 12, 2004, 08:31 AM
I see that there is a law that gets paid to protect you, and that I personally believe that that is why you don’t need to be protecting yourself (I know that sometimes the law doesn’t do its justice). The job of law enforcement is not to protect you, it is to enforce laws. If somebody breaks into your house at 3am, there isn't going to be a policeman there to protect you. However, they probably will commit a lot of time and effort into finding and arresting your killer (whatever that is worth to you). Talk to a policeman some time. Most will agree that it's the general public's job to prevent crime. It is whether the public is expected to prevent crime with a gun or a whistle that is the cause of great debate.
I hate violence, any type; from Iraqi prisoner mistreatment to terror attacks. I used to see the gun as a lead character in violence. I abhor violence. I don't like violent video games, I don't like violence on TV (probably why I rarely watch TV), I certainly don't like it in real life. I hate war and feel that our government gets us involved in war irresponsibly. I feel that we (America) do too much of the wrong things and don't do enough of the right things to prevent/fight crime.

However, guns by themselves do not cause, facilitate, or perpetuate crime or war. It is greed that does.

That it is dangerous to have guns in your householdI have a large number of guns in my home. Yet I live in peace and harmony with life and nature. It's all about responsibility. Go figure. :)

cracked butt
May 12, 2004, 08:43 AM
I see that there is a law that gets paid to protect you, and that I personally believe that that is why you don’t need to be protecting yourself (I know that sometimes the law doesn’t do its justice). I hate violence, any type; from Iraqi prisoner mistreatment to terror attacks. I used to see the gun as a lead character in violence

I admire your stance, but in the real world, pacifistic idealism breaks down.

Like it or not, there are alot of bad people out there who like, no enjoy, hurting, mugging, beating, raping, lynching, burning, cutting, strangling, torturing, or just plain killing others. When confronted with such a person in the wrong place, you can do two things: roll over and be at their mercy, or fight back and live to see another day. In all likelyhood, the police will not be there to protect you- they have never been there when I've needed them once or twice in the past when I was in a dangerous situation. Police usually don't show up to a crime scene until after the crime has occured- its not their fault, they are human too and don't have the luck of having superhuman ESP powers.

If you find yourself in a situation that you dearly wished you never stepped into, it might be because the bad guy is much stronger than you, or there are more of them than you can handle, the only reliable defense is a gun.
Carrying a gun is not a violent act, a gun itself is not violent, but it may be necessary to use one to counteract a violent predator.

There is and old made for bumperstickers type saying that holds true:
God made men.
Samuel Colt made them equal.

cxm
May 12, 2004, 08:46 AM
I'd sure like you to explain to me why we can't have "ALL" our rights?

Does inalienable rights mean anything to you?

Which rights are you willing to give up? First Amendment? Fourth? Fifth? Maybe you would like to give up the 14th Amdendment rights?

WHO decides which rights you get to keep?

Trading your rights for a promise of safety is a fools game... Ben Franklin wrote about that very thing.

Chuck

bogie
May 12, 2004, 08:51 AM
Dogg, consider this...

The Iraqi prisoners were humiliated and photographed.

I've witnessed worse treatment of fraternity pledges.

An American who was held hostage by Iraqis was beheaded yesterday.

I do not think that there is ANY comparison here.

On the subject of firearms: It's better to have knowledge, and never need it, than to need the knowledge, and not have it.

El Tejon
May 12, 2004, 08:51 AM
sm, it's DeShaney v. Winnebago County. Loud, the government has no, I repeat no obligation to protect you.

The police serve one function, they are the eyes, ears and hands of the prosecuting attorney. The police are not there to ensure your safety.

As a Ch'an Buddhist, I hate violence as well. However, recall the Paradox of Life, one must accept violence and death in order to truly live and to be free from them.:)

ThreadKiller
May 12, 2004, 08:52 AM
That it is dangerous to have guns in your household

Wow! I must be leading a charmed life. My five brothers and I grew up in a house full of guns. We're all still here. :)

We were all taught at an early age that guns were not toys and there was a time and a place for gun use. It was made abundantly clear what that time and place was and that there were penalties if the rules were not observed.

Now as a grown man, there are guns in my house. There's a 45 within arm's reach as I write this. I'm more comfortable with a 45 near me than a gallon of gas in my garage.

The point I'm trying to make in a roundabout fashion is this: The weapon, the REAL weapon, lies between the ears, not what is in the hands.

And if you still believe gun control is an effective means of crime control, then in all honesty I believe you should be campaigning for the same restrictions on alcohol sales and possession.

And I would like to thank you for at least trying to keep an open mind on this subject. :)

Tim

Highland Ranger
May 12, 2004, 08:56 AM
Licenses are required for privledges, not RIGHTS.

So I tell you what, let them issue licenses for free speech (1st amendment) first. If they get that done, then worry about guns.

After all, ideas are much more dangerous than guns aren't they?

Skofnung
May 12, 2004, 09:19 AM
Mr. Dogg,

I am glad you have learned from your short time on this board. Please, stick around, sit a spell...

On the subject of giving up rights for the "good of society", I will not do this. I will not be issued a chit from the omniscient, omnipotent .gov/ in trade for my Constitutional rights. This is not limited to the 2nd Ammendment by any means.

Please do not take this as an insult, but it scares me that people think as you do about subjects of rights and liberties. It makes me concerned about the future of my Country and my World.

Perhaps I missed this in previous posts, but you are a German citizen right? How long have you been over here in the USA? Perhaps our ideals of Liberty have not had time to sink in yet after years of Socialist brainwashing, or perhaps you are getting a healthy dose of brainwashing from our (US) public school system...

Here is an open invitation to you. If you ever find yourself in Northern Florida, PM me and I will gladly take you shooting.

Best regards

griz
May 12, 2004, 10:48 AM
This might surprise you but I will agree with your nation wide license, with one important stipulation. The license would also be a nation wide concealed carry license. It would be valid anywhere in the country. Also as long as it was current it would eliminate the need for a background check when you buy a gun. That's my idea of common sense gun laws.

BluesBear
May 12, 2004, 11:45 AM
Kitchen knives in the house are dangerous also.
Now I don't use a kitchen knife every day. Only about 5 days a week.
I carry a gun every day.
I have cut myself several times in the years I have been cooking.
I have never shot myself.

More people are killed by falling in the bathtub every year in the US than are killed by gunshots.

Dogg, why do you think a federal license is a good idea? We already have to have a background check done before we can purchase a gun. Which, by the way, does little of nothing to stop criminals from getting a gun.

Criminals wil always have weapons, laws or no laws.
Now this may come as a shock to you, so brace yourself and prepare for an epiphany, criminals are only criminals because they... BREAK THE LAW!
What? You expect criminals to play by the rules? Ain't gonna happen.
Only law abiding people abide by the laws. Funny how that works isn't it?

R.H. Lee
May 12, 2004, 12:36 PM
. Have a nation wide License. I know it "limits" our rights, but we can’t have all our rights, this may be the land of the free, but we still need regulations. You may own a gun but must have a license that will have the government know about you and what you own. That is because guns can be dangerous, I now hammers also can, but guns are technically more dangerous.

How would you prevent those who do not obtain a "license" from carrying and using guns illegally?

Thumper
May 12, 2004, 12:40 PM
Funny how delving into an issue to see the "other side" can be enlightening, huh Dogg?

raz-0
May 12, 2004, 12:43 PM
well we already have listed the supreme court case that officially put down in black and white why the police are NOT paid to protect you (they uphold the law... after the fact).

I will also point out that One of my friends recently was on jury duty for a trial in which Mr. X beat in the skull of Mrs. X with a hammer. You argue to her family that it's not very dangerous.

mnrivrat
May 12, 2004, 12:44 PM
Quote: " I will continue disliking the weapons"

I have heard simular statements like " I hate guns" and "guns are dangerous"

Make me understand loud dogg - the hate for guns !

They are totaly inanimate objects with no capability of self awareness. They can by themselves do no good or no harm.

When it comes to good or evil I will hold that to be in the character of the person .

Brian Williams
May 12, 2004, 01:07 PM
I know it "limits" our rights, but we can’t have all our rights, this may be the land of the free, but we still need regulations.
Why can't we have all of our rights?
Why do we need regulations????
"The Wild West" had less murders per 1000 than the civilized East.


If the USA repealed all the regulations and "Safety" laws and kept the laws that protected true criminal behavior, Murder, Extortion, and other crimes that deal with one person unjustly harming another person or property. I think that the lawyer should serve the sentence with the criminal if they loose.

O and the People (Juries) should be told that their POWER is the BOXs, Ballot, Soap, Ammo, and the one most forgotten is the Jury, if a jury of the people feel that a law is bad they can vote not guilty for reasons of a bad law.

Hkmp5sd
May 12, 2004, 01:19 PM
I know it "limits" our rights, but we can’t have all our rights, this may be the land of the free, but we still need regulations. You may own a gun but must have a license that will have the government know about you and what you own. That is because guns can be dangerous

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania (1759)

spacemanspiff
May 12, 2004, 01:43 PM
I see that there is a law that gets paid to protect you, and that I personally believe that that is why you don’t need to be protecting yourself
the heart of the American spirit is driven to provide for oneself. to be an American means that you are willing to rely upon yourself for as much as possible. that includes protecting yourself and your loved ones.

loud dogg, it sounds like you want to remove my ability to do just that. know what? every criminal in this country agrees with you.

criminals prefer unarmed victims, and so do you.

stevelyn
May 12, 2004, 04:14 PM
I see there is a law that is paid to protect you, that why you don't need to be protecting yourself.....

Loud Dogg,

I assure you that I don't get paid to "protect" you or anyone else. Supreme court rulings have upheld that police do not have a responsibility to "protect" individual citizens. Our responsibility is to society as a whole to get the legal events started after someone requests our assistance.
I get paid to investigate and gather informantion, apprehend offenders, gather evidence and coroberating evidence to ensure what you're telling me is true, do reams of paperwork documenting a series of events in chronological order, all of which takes place after the fact. After you have been assaulted either physically, sexually or otherwise. After you have been robbed. After your home which you thought was a safe haven has been invaded. After you are injured. After you are DEAD.
These "after the fact" activities have to occur with in the framework of rules set by the U.S. Constitution. Rules set by the courts. Rules set within department policies.
Failure to adhere to any of the above results in evidence being
suppressed, the bad guy going free, or in cases of police misconduct in a case, officers getting criminally charged. If any of this happens you won't see "justice". Even when everything is done right, the legal system often fails to administer justice by imposing too light of a sentence for the crimes committed.
You say that the law gets paid to protect you so you don't need to be protecting yourself? Ask any British subject how well the law "protects" them. Ask anyone of Jewish, Slavic, or Gypsy extraction how well the law "protected" them in Germany 60 years ago. Ask any Russian who lived under Soviet rule how well the law "protected" them. Ask any Cubano who has survived the boat ride to American shores how well Castro's laws "protect" them. Ask a Canadian how well their laws are "protecting" them. Ask North Koreans how well the laws "protect' them (if you can get through to one). Ask a resident of any large America metropolitan area with severly restrictive gun laws, how well the law "protects" them from the gang bangers, street thugs, home invaders and other low-life predatory trash. Ask any woman whose been duped by society into believing that restraining order would "protect" her, and consequently killed by a violent husband or boyfriend, if the law "protected" her. Ooops! Too late, you can't she's already DEAD. There are others too numerous to list here. Get the idea now?
Young man, you need to wake up and smell the coffee. Take a look around you and observe what's going on. Read and pay very close attention to history. It does repeat itsself. Watch what people do, not what they say. You are only 15 now and getting bombarded with information, some good, some bad. As you get older, your life experiences will change your views if you are open minded and capable of learning from those experiences. I hope you learn without having to pay a high price for it.
We all abhorr violence. Violence isn't acceptable for settling disagreements.
We must try and live peaceful, but be ready to visit swift, ruthless and decisive violence upon those who seek to do us or our loved ones bodily harm, for that is the only thing they understand. Predators are beyond reason.
As much as we hate violence and violent acts, I can promise you that injury, or death to ourselves or loved ones, and living as slaves under a tyrannical government are much worse. So I think I'll just hang on to my guns for now.

WonderNine
May 12, 2004, 04:34 PM
I lately have been posting various comments and questions about guns and what is so controversial about them.

The only reason why guns are so controversial and knives, big rocks, baseball bats, ect. are not is because of the power issue. Someone with a gun cannot be controlled or subjugated as easily.



this may be the land of the free,

but we still need regulations.


Why?


It just amazes me how many people think this way.

gulogulo1970
May 12, 2004, 04:58 PM
This is why you talk and answer the anti's questions. If they really will listen they will learn. Slowly but any knowledge is better than pure ignorance.

Frohickey
May 12, 2004, 05:29 PM
...MY final WORD... sounds like someone that is not open to having a dialog or conversation regarding the topic. At least in the other thread with Anna G, the poster posted again to engage the rest of us THRers. That is what you call a dialog.

The one previous post that LoudDogg made, there were no further posts by LoudDogg after the initial post. Same with this one. Sorry, that is not a conversation. And since its not, I will post once, to this thread, like I did to the other one, and no more.

entropy
May 12, 2004, 05:37 PM
Here's one way to view owning a gun, dogg, that might not make it appear so 'evil' to you. Think of it as a safety device, like a seat belt, the guard on a chainsaw, an airbag. You may never need any of these items for their intended purpose, but if you do, you'll be glad they were there. A gun can be thought of as a personal protection device, for that is indeed one of it's capacities. I have used them in this capacity, as have others on THR. I have also used them to provide sustenance and relaxation at the same time (hunting.) I also find it very theraputic to go pop off some rounds target shooting every once in a while. Then there is collecting firearms. Owning a piece of history is rewarding in it's own right. A gun is no more evil than said hammer used in previous posts. It will sit on a table for 10,000 years and turn into a pile of rust before it harms someone of it's own accord. (Just don't leave it in the oven!;) ) Guns are not evil.
Evil is in the hearts of people, Dogg. It has always been , and until the Second Coming, always will be. It is what drives a gangbanger to shoot a person that has done what so many 'pacifists' say to do and submit. Sometimes a person is so gripped by evil that even faced with death by gunshot, they still will not be dissuaded. No one here wants to kill another person, but there are instances in which one must in order to stay alive, or to protect those who cannot protect themselves. Unfortunately, many people go through this life believing that it won't, it can't happen to them.You may have heard "A consevative is a liberal who got mugged" Sadly, some must learn this way, and some do not even then. Wouldn't it be better to be prepared to defend yourself and loved ones, and never have to, than gamble on a person assaulting you having enough humanity not to kill you? I'd rather not bet my life on it, thank you. Talk to the drugged-up gangbanger mugging you about giving up your right to carry and own a gun to defend yourself, I'm sure he'll agree 100%.

Sean Smith
May 12, 2004, 05:55 PM
Another brainwashed drone. Guns are bad, can't we all just sit around the campfire and sing kumbaya and bad... I mean misunderstood... people will leave us alone? :rolleyes:

James Castilla
May 12, 2004, 06:05 PM
I left no final word, and dont plan on doing so. Ive been lurking for a long time, and am learning more and more.

gulogulo1970:
=====
any knowledge is better than pure ignorance.
=====

Careful there... ones knowledge can be incorrect, and that can be worse than ignorance.

Loud Dogg:
=====
Have a nation wide License. I know it "limits" our rights, but we can’t have all our rights, this may be the land of the free, but we still need regulations.
=====

Ive always thought of seeing licenses as something you get for a business, like a doctor's license or whatever. Drivers licenses make more sense as way more people are killed every year by automotive injuries than doctor error or legally owned civilian guns.

Fly320s:
=====
When, not if, you come across a topic that is under heated discussion (lots of tempers and yelling), please don't be offended or think that we are all that way all the time.
=====

Even good families have disagreements. And as for the whole I Hate Violence thing, I can see why breaking down a wall with a sledgehammer can be violent. Blowing up watermelons (as I witnessed my brother doing) with an AK-47 seems violent. Shooting at paper (maybe its purist form) doesn't seem as violent to me.

I guess its the whole thing about delighting in the destruction of something that bugs me, which I guess is a definition of violence.

Anyway, (almost) everyone on this board seems liek good people and you shouldn't give up on them....... I havent yet. :)

Carlos
May 12, 2004, 06:55 PM
Would someone please invite this kid to the range so he can get some firsthand knowledge of safe gun handling?

I did, twice, in LD's first thread. LD, is indeed a thoughtful young man, and has my respect for stating his beliefs.

This is my third offer.

Stickjockey
May 12, 2004, 07:16 PM
I did, twice, in LD's first thread. LD, is indeed a thoughtful young man, and has my respect for stating his beliefs.

This is my third offer.

And my first.:)

Welcome back, James!

BHPshooter
May 12, 2004, 07:37 PM
Loud Dogg, I'm glad you're here...

...but your thoughts on the matter are flawed on so many levels that it causes dizziness.

I see that there is a law that gets paid to protect you, and that I personally believe that that is why you don’t need to be protecting yourself (I know that sometimes the law doesn’t do its justice).

This is completely and utterly wrong. The police are NOT there to protect you -- it has been said before, and it has been confirmed by the supreme court.

Don't be confused: The Police will usually help when they can, but they have no obligation to do so. The police are there to draw a chalk outline around your body and try to find someone behind it.

I'm not comforted that the police will draw a chalk outline around my body. Why? Because I'll be dead. I, and only I, have the responsibility to protect myself. NOT ANYBODY ELSE.

Tell me: do you have a cop that follows you everywhere? Do you have a SWAT team in your back pocket? Funny thing: neither do I.

I hate violence, any type

The world is a violent place. It always has been and it always will be. People who try to MAKE the world a peaceful place are fools. It never can be -- that's the cold, hard truth.

That said, it is not only prudent to prepare against unjust violence, it is also very wise.

I own, train with, and will carry a pistol because I value life. I value my friends, my family, and I value my bodily integrity.

Do YOU value life? I question that, my friend. Because if you value life, you fight -- violently, if necessary -- to preserve it.

I do have a proposal that maybe would even things out with guns, and gun safety. Have a nation wide License. I know it "limits" our rights, but we can’t have all our rights, this may be the land of the free, but we still need regulations.

We Americans are a funny lot... we don't like hassles. We hate them with a passion. This is a big, unnecessary hassle.
Do you know why this won't work? Because bad guys don't jump through hoops. They buy their guns without licenses, without background checks, without minimum required ages, and without waiting periods.

That means that the GOOD GUYS are the ones that have to jump through the hoops. Now, like I said, we Americans hate hoops. The more hoops you make, the fewer good guys will jump through them; the fewer good guys that jump through hoops, the more exponentially the bad guys outgun us.

I hope you're starting to understand this. And if you don't, for God's sake, don't vote.

Loud Dogg, I'm glad you're here. You have the potential to learn a lot... but until you have the world figured out (in another 10 years) stay away from the press and the polls.

Wes

Bobarino
May 12, 2004, 07:57 PM
mnrivrat took the words out of my mouth. its excellent that you're seeking out other views. that shows intelligence. now you just have to realize that that its not the gun that causes violence. your hate towards weapons is misdirected. hate towards the MISusers of weapons would be more appropriate. a gun is just a little machine. its a mechanical device with no persuasive powers or hypnotising properties. it doesn not turn its bearer into a lead slinging zombie. evil people are evil people. yes, they choose to use guns to do their evil deeds. there is no law or regulation that will ever stop that. the best we can do to protect ourselves against those that choose to do evil with a gun is arm ourselves so at a minimum, we are on a level playnig field with our opponent, and ideally, give ourselves as much advantage as humanly possible. examine your hatred and i think you will find its aimed at the evil doers, not the impliments they use. those that approach the subject with reason and logic innevitably come to that conclusion. you seem to fit into that category.

Bobby

p.s. welcome back James Castilla! i thought you were long gone. glad to see you're still around.

mountainclmbr
May 12, 2004, 09:34 PM
My observations on law enforcement:

1. Arresting, prosecuting and housing crimminals costs the government money.

2. Police chiefs have great pressure from politicians to show crime is decreasing. To "lose" crime reports or never write them up in the first place achieves this goal nicely.

3. Going against otherwise law abiding citizens to write parking and minor traffic tickets generates money for the government and gets promotions for law enforcement officers.

4. What gets rerwarded gets done.

I fail to see how to see how vigerous parking ticket enforcement makes me safer from crime, but maybe I missed that day in school.

derferin
May 12, 2004, 09:43 PM
"Dogg, consider this...

The Iraqi prisoners were humiliated and photographed.

I've witnessed worse treatment of fraternity pledges.

An American who was held hostage by Iraqis was beheaded yesterday.

I do not think that there is ANY comparison here."

Want to compare?
http://www.iraqbodycount.net

cracked butt
May 12, 2004, 10:20 PM
The Iraqi prisoners were humiliated and photographed. I've witnessed worse treatment of fraternity pledges.

I thought the same thing when I saw the newsreels on the whole iraqi prisoner thing. As being a member of an international fraternity while in college, I can tell you that what happened to those iraqi prisoners was child's play.
:rolleyes:

Don Gwinn
May 12, 2004, 10:24 PM
Loud Dogg, you said:

but we can’t have all our rights,
Before you leave, could you please explain why?

SunBear
May 12, 2004, 11:31 PM
Nothing personal, but fear of inanimate objects is a mental illness AND crooks don't sign up for gun licenses. Happy trails.

The_Antibubba
May 13, 2004, 02:18 AM
Loud Dogg,

Go to the THR Library. Read. When you have digested that information, come back and debate.

Oh, and I can tell you, that at 15 years old I hated the thought of any violence, and I was anti-gun, too. But when you gain the priviledges and responsibility of adulthood, and your parents do not and cannot cover your behind, you will understand that "what must be done" and "what I wish" are often lines that never cross.

Read. Learn. Open your mind to possibilities.

And welcome to The high Road.

Loud Dogg
May 13, 2004, 03:14 AM
I realize that because I only visit this site rarely that this is not conversation.

I am not on the ANIT side! Thought it seems like it, and I was. But now my mind has changed. There is this big-ass argument about those who like guns and those who don’t. The way I think this all could be settled is by a license.

I’m not asking for agreement, and am not thinking that people will see my way. I haven’t lived long in my life to know that much. But two sides arguing the entire time doesn’t help solve anything. (That is why I started posting here in the first place)

I like the offers to go to a shooting range, but I am not interested. I don’t feel obligated to join any side. I try to stay neutral as much as I can.

Oh yeah, it costs more to execute someone than to pay someone’s life in prison. (Had to add that for someone bitching that the costs are too much when the guys still alive)

P-35/53
May 13, 2004, 03:23 AM
Loud Dogg , I undestand on principle wht you say . But let me tell you about the Police defending you - I was a Police Officer and a Police officer is a responder. Someone who gets called after the trouble starts and is often over. I saw people killed with hammers and knives more than guns in all the years I worked in fact I saw a man beaten to death with a woman hi-heel shoe. The dead people usually had no weapons to fight back with or were smaller or outnumberd by there attackers. I also have seen people who were saved from death or injury because they had a gun and seemd willing to use it. Predators like helpless , pasifistic victims. Stay safe and good luck.

entropy
May 13, 2004, 03:46 AM
"Oh yeah, it costs more to execute someone than to pay someone’s life in prison. "

How? Facts, please.

cracked butt
May 13, 2004, 03:59 AM
am not on the ANIT side! Thought it seems like it, and I was. But now my mind has changed. There is this big-ass argument about those who like guns and those who don’t. The way I think this all could be settled is by a license.

Then to keep things consistant, US citizens should have to acquire a license if they want to exercise these rights:

1. speak, protest, write newspaper articles or letter to an editor. Probably a license to exchange ideas on forums such as this- as ideas and knowledge can be dangerous.

2. A license to vote.

3. A license to not have your property searched without due process
Authority figure: We want to search your house to see if youhave anything illeal in there.
citizen: do you have a search warrant?
Authority figure: Nope. Do you have a license to keep me out?
Citizen: nope.
Authority figure: then you have to let me in.

4. A license to allow you to have a fair trial.

5. A license to allow you to not be enslaved.

Do you understand what a license is? A license is a permission slip from the government that allows you topartake in an activity, and they usually cost money to obtain. If the government turns your 'rights' into 'priviledges' and is the sole dispenser of these priviledges, what's to say they will not deny you the priviledge at a whim, or make the priviledges out of reach to most people by raising the prices to a point that noone can afford.

If you think this scenario of priviledges being restricted is a fanciful scenario, take a look at Ney York City, a place that requires licenses for handgun ownersip. The only people who can own them in NYC are the very wealthy or politcally connected.

As far as I'm concerned, I will not compromise on my rights. If people prefer to not have certain rights, they can either go live somewhere that dos not guarantee such rights, or put up and shut up.

Anna G.
May 13, 2004, 04:03 AM
I cant stand behind each side yet, but I'd like to add something.

On the question why we cant have all our rights: This is the basic idea of the Social contract (the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau's most popular work). You give up part of your freedom because if you could do whatever you want you would take away someone elses freedom.

At least I suppose this is what Loud Dogg meant. :confused:

I dont think this applies for the issue here though. If you can own a gun without being an obstacle for anyone else (and this is how it seems in most of the cases), then this isnt against the social contract.

BHPshooter
May 13, 2004, 10:31 AM
Anna, what you refer to doesn't directly affect the topic, but it IS something that we Americans have thought about.

Most Americans who consider themselves "libertarians" are very familiar with the "Non-Aggression Pact." This means that if it doesn't directly harm someone else's life, liberty, or property, then you can do it.

We're not saying that we have "a right" to go around busting car windshields, or shooting kittens. We're saying that we have a right to protect ourselves with the most effective weapon possible.

That is a gun. To register, or to require a permit or license is to change a right -- something that may be exercised at any time without permission -- to a privelege that is subject to a politician's ambition.

If licensing is ever passed, I will refuse to cooperate. I'm not alone, either -- that's why licensing (registration) will never work.

I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything I do. -- Robert A. Heinlein

Wes

derferin
May 13, 2004, 10:33 AM
So much for free speech.. my last post deleted.

Brian Maffei
May 13, 2004, 11:02 AM
But two sides arguing the entire time doesn’t help solve anything.

The compromising, since the establishment of the BoR, has been entirely on the pro-RKBA side. The anti-gunners have nothing to bargain with nor have anything WE(the pro-gunners) want. They push forward, we fall back. There is no mutual sacrifice. In the end, each new "compromise" is simply a settlement on how much freedom the law abiding gun owners will lose.

So when you say "licenses and no more," I can't help but imagine some NRA honcho waving a piece of paper and saying "Peace for our time!"

Sean Smith
May 13, 2004, 11:39 AM
So much for free speech.. my last post deleted.

Well, boo hoo. Guess what? This is a PRIVATE forum. You have no "right" to post anything here. Hell, you have no "right" to be here at all. :rolleyes:

Try reading the rules of conduct before you shoot your mouth off.

However, The High Road is private property and requests that members adhere to all forum policies. It is a contract agreed to by all who become members of The High Road. Those who break forum rules cannot invoke censorship or freedom of speech - a contract broken is a contract broken. If you do not like the rules of conduct or the acceptable topics, seek out a new venue to frequent or start your own board.

sm
May 13, 2004, 12:41 PM
Anna G. - I'm glad you joined in on this thread !


Loud Dogg - Okay what I'm hearing is you ARE interested or you would not have posted the original thread.

What many of us are trying to convey - not agrue - is really simple.

You admitted your positions were from input from school, M.Moore, rearing,and your age. You will also note many of us are NOT being negative about age, just being honest that the enviroment up to now has shaped some beliefs for you. We all do. As time passes we humans simply have more enviroment, life experiences, exposures to develop our belief systems.

Have you read the Constitution and Bor. Really looked at the amendments?

See what is boils down to is LIBERTY. It is NOT about guns.
It IS about protecting Liberties - NOT being Controlled.

Liberty to speak freely, practice whatever religion,...etc.

Now I for one consider the FACTS that in history, a people have lost whatever liberties they may have had when licenses, permits, registrations and the like were ISSUED. Anything ISSUED can be Taken away.

Another Fact it is easier to Remove those things issued if the people have no way to resist.

If only one person is an option to vote for...how in the heck can another form of Gov't be opted for? So the Gov't is issued with no other options.

So let us pretend you are Issued a learner's permit to drive. This permit says you can only drive red cars, of a particular make and model. Then the gov't says there will be no red cars of this make and model allowed in your area. You have been "controlled", you have a license to learn, but the abilty to do so has been taken away.

Firearms are a RIGHT.

Firearms keeps the Gov't in check so they cannot take away Liberties. Plain and simple.

See my gut says you are very interested and curious. Afraid or hesitant to take an offer to go shoot, you know why? I do. Comfort zone!

As the lady that is a victim why she stays with an abusive man. She "says" she is "neutral" ,"not interested".

The truth is - The Fear of the Unknown. Her comfort zone is to be abused, she knows what that zone is. She is afraid of something new, afraid what folks told her about getting out and trying new things is correct.

The easier softer way is denial, be abused and stay neutral. Act disinterested...oh but she is very much interested.

MLH
May 13, 2004, 12:49 PM
Read This:

http://www.frontiernet.net/~lendringser/wwog.htm

The_Antibubba
May 14, 2004, 01:59 AM
I don't feel obligated to join any side.I try to stay neutral as much as I can.

Dogg,

There is no neutral. There may be a middle, but "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice". Then again, you are still a teenager. And you can change your mind at any time.

But do so with knowledge, not emotion. And if you can, do it with clarity, because I'm not certain I understand where you stand-hell, I'm not even sure you understand where you stand. :confused:

Something like that.

RealGun
May 14, 2004, 09:33 AM
I could be wrong, but the way I read Loud Dogg's post is that there was no intent to learn anything here. There was only an intent to prevail upon us. Finding no satisfaction in our resistance to impenetrable dogma, of course he is finished, but only here. To some extent, I was like that too when I was much younger. Some things are learned only when we are ready.

"A mind is like a parachute. It only works if it's open."

If you enjoyed reading about "MY final WORD" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!