If they come for your guns, do you have a responsibility to fight?

UncleBuck said:
yet for some reason, all the massacres occur with guns.

one must be easier than the other.
Click to expand...

Bucky!? Why lie if you don't know? An early mass murder, probably the first recorded on our soil was Capt. George Washington. He had plague infested blankets delivered to an Indian camp. No one knows how far that went but we can assume 100s were murdered by our 1st. This was to prevent their alliance with the French.

Worst Mass Murders in US History (any weapon):
By no coincidence all of the worst mass murders in US history have been non-gun.

Worst School Massacre in US history: Bath, Michigan School Massacre. 1927. Murder accomplished with explosives. 44 victims (equal to the Columbine and Virginia Tech massacres combined).

http://stephenewright.com/fromthebluff/2008/10/23/the-butcher’s-bill-–-non-gun-mass-murders/

See, part of the dumbing down In the USA is to be taught not to care about facts.

Somehow, now, emotions are all important. It is a drug. Tampered emotions. Ignore facts with anger and sarcasm.
 
UncleBuck said:
yet for some reason, all the massacres occur with guns.

one must be easier than the other.
Click to expand...

IAC, the US is not the mass murder capital. It happens all over, without guns, as well.

Arson, Stabbing Rampage in Seoul South Korea : 10/20/2008. 6 people dead, 5 from stabbing. 7 others wounded, 4 seriously. An angry man felt people “looked down on him.”
Anti-police stabbing spree in Shanghai, China: 7/2008. 6 Police Officers stabbed to death, 4 wounded. 28 year old man angry at police attacked a police station with a knife.
Akihabara Massacre, Chiyoda City, Tokyo, Japan: 6/8/2008. 7 people killed (3 struck by car, 4 by stabbing), many more injured. Man slammed into a crowd with his car, then jumped out and began stabbing people to death.
18 year old slashes 4 to death in Sitka, Alaska, US: 3/25/2008. 4 people killed. 18 year old (old enough to purchase a rifle over the counter) kills 4 people, related to him, with a 5 inch knife.
Stabbing Spree kills 2, Tsuchiura, Japan: 3/23/2008. 2 killed, 7 wounded. Man “just wanted to kill anyone.”
Stabbing spree wounds 41, 6 seriously in Berlin Train Station: 5/26/2006. 41 wounded, 6 seriously. Thankfully no one died in this attack, but not for lack of trying on the part of the drunk 16 year old.
4 killed in stabbing spree in London, UK: 9/2004. 4 killed, 2 wounded. Mentally ill man attacks mostly older people.
6 killed over Xbox dispute in Deltona, Florida, US: 8/6/2004. 6 killed. 4 men (all old enough to legally purchase firearms) bludgeon 6 people to death with baseball bats over purloined Xbox.
Daegu subway fire, Daegu, South Korea: 2/18/2003. 198 killed, 147 injured. A 56 year old unemployed taxi driver, dissatisfied with his medical treatment, sets fire to a crowded train.
Osaka School Massacre, Osaka Japan: 6/8/2001. 8 children dead, 13 other children and 2 teachers wounded. Committed by 37 year old former janitor armed with a kitchen knife.
​
Thankfully mass murders are extremely rare. There are 200 hundred million adults in the United States and only a few mass murders per year (any weapon).
 
UncleBuck said:
our common sense DUI laws
Click to expand...

I beg to differ:

traflite.gif

[TABLE="width: 84%, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 4"]
[SIZE=+4]T[SIZE=+3]RAFFIC[/SIZE] T[SIZE=+3]ECH[/SIZE][/SIZE]​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 3"]
​
[SIZE=+1]
nhtsanew3.gif
[/SIZE]
[/TD]
[TD="width: 29%"]
[SIZE=+1]Technology Transfer Series
[/SIZE]
[SIZE=-1]Number 85, February 1995[/SIZE]
​
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

[h=2] REPEAT DWI OFFENDERS IN THE UNITED STATES[/h]In 1992, more people were arrested in the U.S. for driving under the influence (DUI) or driving while intoxicated (DWI) than any other reported criminal offense. Over 1.6 million drivers were arrested for DUI or DWI compared to 1.5 million people arrested for larceny or theft and 1.1 million people for drug abuse violations. There is public concern that many of these drivers arrested each year for DWI are repeat offenders. There is also convincing evidence that repeat offenders as a group are high risk problem drinker drivers.
This Traffic Tech discusses the extent of the repeat DWI offender problem in various states and some sanctions being used to reduce DWI recidivism. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) requested available information from all the states in order to define the extent of the repeat offender problem. Twelve states provided data. The results shown in Table 1 indicate that about one third of all drivers arrested or convicted of DWI each year are repeat DWI offenders. This proportion ranges from 21% of drivers convicted of DWI in Iowa in 1992 to 47% in New Mexico in 1990. The median is around 31% - 32% of arrests and/or convictions. One study in California showed that for every driver convicted of DUI in 1980, a full 44% were convicted again of DUI within 10 years.
Drivers with prior DWI convictions are also overrepresented in fatal crashes and have a greater relative risk of fatal crash involvement. One study showed that about 3 percent of all licensed drivers had a prior arrest for DWI within the past three years, yet 12 percent of intoxicated drivers involved in fatal crashes had at least one prior DWI conviction in the past three years. That same study showed that intoxicated drivers with prior DWI convictions had 4.1 times the risk of being in a fatal crash as intoxicated drivers without prior DWIs. Another study showed that fatal crash risk increases with the number of prior DWI arrests.
About a third of all drivers arrested for DWI are repeat offenders according to the data reported here, and 1 out of 8 intoxicated drivers in fatal crashes have had a prior DWI conviction within the past three years. While this indicates they are a significant problem, repeat offenders do not constitute the majority of the DWI problem in the U.S. Prevention of DWI in the first place and dealing effectively with first time DWI offenders is a rational approach to the problem. State laws, enforcement, and public information and education have recently been effective in reducing impaired driving and alcohol-related crash deaths.
However, evidence from the states indicates that many persons who are arrested and convicted of DWI continue to drink and drive. A number of states and local communities have initiated programs and sanctions to deal with repeat offenders, including:
■ incarceration■ special DWI facilities■ house arrest with electronic monitoring■ victim restitution■ community service■ ignition interlock on the vehicle■ increased fines and insurance rates■ public condemnation■ license plate tagging■ vehicle impoundment or confiscationFurther research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of these specific sanctions.Given that the likelihood of arrest for DWI varies from 1 in 200 instances in some communities to 1 in 2,000 in others, it is important to prevent impaired driving in the first place. State legislation, such as administrative license revocation and lower blood alcohol limits for adults and youth, and increased enforcement in the form of sobriety checkpoints, have contributed to the recent reduction in drinking and driving. Greater public awareness of the problem and reductions in per capita alcohol consumption have also probably played a role.
Each year, however, 1 percent of all licensed drivers are arrested for DWI, more people than for any other crime. States must show drivers that DWI is a serious offense with correspondingly serious consequences in terms of sanctions and treatment. Mandatory alcohol problem assessment and assignment of appropriate treatment, in addition to sanctions, is a reasonable approach with help from the public health community. Certain vehicle actions applied to repeat offenders may also be appropriate. The fact that this information was readily available in only a few states underscores the importance of developing systems to track DWI offenders (e.g., systems that link criminal justice and driver records).
For more information about this topic, contact:
James Fell, Office of Alcohol and State Programs,
NHTSA, NTS-20,
400 Seventh Street, S.W.,
Washington, DC 20590.
INCIDENCE OF REPEAT OFFENDERS IN SELECTED STATES[SUP]1[/SUP]​
[TABLE="width: 90%, align: center"]
[TR]
[TH="class: table1column5, width: 100%, colspan: 5"]DRIVERS CONVICTED OF DWI
[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="class: table1column1, width: 18%"]STATE
[/TH]
[TH="class: table1column2, width: 23%"]
NO. DRIVERS CONVICTED OF DWI​
[/TH]
[TH="class: table1column3, width: 23%"]
NO. WITH PRIOR DWI CONVICTION​
[/TH]
[TH="class: table1column4, width: 17%"]
YEAR [SUP]2[/SUP]​
[/TH]
[TH="class: table1column5, width: 19%"]PERCENT REPEAT DWI OFFENDERS[SUP]3[/SUP]
[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: table1column1, width: 18%"]Iowa
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column2, width: 23%"]18,000
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column3, width: 23%"]3,780
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column4, width: 17%"]1992 (6 yrs)
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column5, width: 19%, align: center"]21%
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: table1column1, width: 18%"]Louisiana
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column2, width: 23%"]101,161
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column3, width: 23%"]24,918
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column4, width: 17%"]89-93 (5 yrs)
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column5, width: 19%, align: center"]24%
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: table1column1, width: 18%"]Nebraska
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column2, width: 23%"]146,619
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column3, width: 23%"]38,547
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column4, width: 17%"]65-94 (30 yrs)
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column5, width: 19%, align: center"]26%
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: table1column1, width: 18%"]Wisconsin
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column2, width: 23%"]169,390
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column3, width: 23%"]52,073
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column4, width: 17%"]84-88 (5 yrs)
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column5, width: 19%, align: center"]31%
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: table1column1, width: 18%"]North Carolina
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column2, width: 23%"]65,714
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column3, width: 23%"]21,028
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column4, width: 17%"]1988 (7 yrs)
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column5, width: 19%, align: center"]32%
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: table1column1, width: 18%"]Ohio
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column2, width: 23%"]637,678
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column3, width: 23%"]211,280
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column4, width: 17%"]80-93 (5 yrs)
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column5, width: 19%, align: center"]33%
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: table1column1, width: 18%"]California
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column2, width: 23%"]216,453
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column3, width: 23%"]72,728
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column4, width: 17%"]1991(7 yrs)
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column5, width: 19%, align: center"]34%
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: table1column1, width: 18%"]New Mexico
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column2, width: 23%"]16,184
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column3, width: 23%"]7,637
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column4, width: 17%"]1990 (30 yrs)
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column5, width: 19%, align: center"]47%
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: table1column5, width: 100%, colspan: 5"]DRIVERS ARRESTED FOR DWI
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TH="class: table1column1, width: 18%"]STATE
[/TH]
[TH="class: table1column2, width: 23%"]
NO. DRIVERS ARRESTED FOR DWI​
[/TH]
[TH="class: table1column3, width: 23%"]
NO. WITH PRIOR DWI ARREST​
[/TH]
[TH="class: table1column4, width: 17%"]
YEAR [SUP]2[/SUP]​
[/TH]
[TH="class: table1column5, width: 19%"]PERCENT REPEAT DWI OFFENDERS[SUP]3[/SUP]
[/TH]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: table1column1, width: 18%"]South Dakota
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column2, width: 23%"]8,821
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column3, width: 23%"]2,090
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column4, width: 17%"]1993 (5 yrs)
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column5, width: 19%, align: center"]24%
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: table1column1, width: 18%"]Colorado
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column2, width: 23%"]99,848
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column3, width: 23%"]26,335
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column4, width: 17%"]89-91(5 yrs)
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column5, width: 19%, align: center"]26%
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: table1column1, width: 18%"]Texas
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column2, width: 23%"]352,372
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column3, width: 23%"]125,941
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column4, width: 17%"]87-90 (10 yrs)
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column5, width: 19%, align: center"]36%
[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="class: table1column1, width: 18%"]Minnesota
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column2, width: 23%"]30,717
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column3, width: 23%"]14,034
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column4, width: 17%"]1993 (30 yrs)
[/TD]
[TD="class: table1column5, width: 19%, align: center"]46%
[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]
​
​
​

[SUP]1[/SUP] These twelve states may not be necessarily representative of all fifty states in the U.S.[SUP]2[/SUP] Years in parentheses indicate the number of years in which the records of prior DWI offenses were available. In general, the percent of repeat offenders was greater in states that retained driving records for longer periods of time (NM, TX, MN).[SUP]3[/SUP] These percentages may be conservative. Some drivers arrested or convicted of DWI in one state may have DWI arrests or convictions in another state that were not identified or were not in the current driver record.

U.S. Department of Transportation
National Highway
Traffic Safety
Administration
400 Seventh Street, S.W. NTS-33
Washington, DC 20590
Traffic Tech is a publication to disseminate information about traffic safety programs, including evaluations, innovative programs, and new publications. Feel free to copy it as you wish.
If you would like to receive a copy contact:
Linda Cosgrove, Ph.D., Editor,
Evaluation Staff Traffic Safety Programs
(202) 366-2759

http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/outreach/traftech/1995/TT085.htm
 
zambonic said:
If you choose to not own a firearm that is your right... as it is mine to own one. The second amendment was not put in place for hunting and fishing. It was to protect from tyrants both foreign and domestic. It does not state anything about magazine restrictions, or types of firearms. You start off by saying "doesn't stem from me knowing what is right for others" and finish off with "would be best for the general welfare of all." LOL double talk much?
Click to expand...

Well, I'm only trying to be honest. I will admit it is a bit of a double standard.

If you were being truly honest with yourself however, you wouldn't surmise as to why the second amendment was drafted 200+ years ago. There are plenty of constitutional scholars that believe that the 2'nd was put in place to give "militias" the authority to keep slave uprisings tampered down. Nothing close to what pro-gun folks like to hang their hats on today.
 
st0wandgrow said:
Well, I'm only trying to be honest. I will admit it is a bit of a double standard.

If you were being truly honest with yourself however, you wouldn't surmise as to why the second amendment was drafted 200+ years ago. There are plenty of constitutional scholars that believe that the 2'nd was put in place to give "militias" the authority to keep slave uprisings tampered down. Nothing close to what pro-gun folks like to hang their hats on today.
Click to expand...

Constitutional scholars? Do you mean like Obama? How about some documentation? There is plenty of documentation FROM the founding fathers that explains EXACTLY what their intent was.
Do these supposed constitutional scholars know how to read or is this just more drivel like the general welfare and interstate commerce bastardizations?
 
st0wandgrow said:
Well, I'm only trying to be honest. I will admit it is a bit of a double standard.

If you were being truly honest with yourself however, you wouldn't surmise as to why the second amendment was drafted 200+ years ago. There are plenty of constitutional scholars that believe that the 2'nd was put in place to give "militias" the authority to keep slave uprisings tampered down. Nothing close to what pro-gun folks like to hang their hats on today.
Click to expand...
There are plenty of Constitutional scholars who say it because it's a political thing, y'know, solidarity. If they really believe it or not is debatable.

<add> Your post would have been an ideal candidate for a citation or three. cn
 
cannabineer said:
There are plenty of Constitutional scholars who say it because it's a political thing, y'know, solidarity. If they really believe it or not is debatable.

<add> Your post would have been an ideal candidate for a citation or three. cn
Click to expand...

I found this article interesting. What do you make of it?

"Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Law Review in 1998, "The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search 'all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition' and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds."

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
 
Interesting if true, but i have no way to check its truthfulness without a massive library campaign. I will say that i have come to distrust any blog that uses "truth" as a part of its name ... smells of the opposite. cn
 
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I really do not need a so called constitutional scholar to interpret this to me. Unfortunatly we have people in this country that can not read perfect english. It can not get any clearer than this.

st0wandgrow said:
Well, I'm only trying to be honest. I will admit it is a bit of a double standard.

If you were being truly honest with yourself however, you wouldn't surmise as to why the second amendment was drafted 200+ years ago. There are plenty of constitutional scholars that believe that the 2'nd was put in place to give "militias" the authority to keep slave uprisings tampered down. Nothing close to what pro-gun folks like to hang their hats on today.
Click to expand...
 
zambonic said:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I really do not need a so called constitutional scholar to interpret this to me. Unfortunatly we have people in this country that can not read perfect english. It can not get any clearer than this.
Click to expand...

The words are pretty clear... Especially "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS"

If they wanted a militia to be able to keep and bear arms they would have said THE RIGHT OF THE MILITIA...
 
st0wandgrow said:
Well, I'm only trying to be honest. I will admit it is a bit of a double standard.

If you were being truly honest with yourself however, you wouldn't surmise as to why the second amendment was drafted 200+ years ago. There are plenty of constitutional scholars that believe that the 2'nd was put in place to give "militias" the authority to keep slave uprisings tampered down. Nothing close to what pro-gun folks like to hang their hats on today.
Click to expand...

So by foreign, they meant brought over on boats, and by domestic, those born here? Wow you're racist.
 
zambonic said:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
I really do not need a so called constitutional scholar to interpret this to me. Unfortunatly we have people in this country that can not read perfect english. It can not get any clearer than this.
Click to expand...

Right the double standard is not being Constitutional, but emotional.... mobbish. Ignore the facts.

Just heard Bloomberg, ragging on Hunters. "If you can't get deer in 2 shots you shouldn't be hunting."

OK, but this is the red herring, the BIG LIE. This nothing to do with hunting and the Agenda driven, anti-Constitutional forces know this. The document was written specifically against this Agenda. The New Pussy Left hates it. They think they can tamper us into re-writing it. And the argument smoke screens are as stupid as they are dense.

They are like vampires in the sun. Exposed and neutered. Blocked by serious thinkers that outclassed them centuries ago.

Our Founders, the Sovereigns, knew this Progressiveness, by other names. Generally, despotism. It is not a 200 hundred year old concept. It was the best minds of the day, thinking very hard about our future and how to protect it from the loons they knew and the ones we would know. Their thinking was cast firmly in the future, seems to me. Not hunting, or protection.

It is only about....being necessary to the security of a free State...Right...shall not be infringed.
 
hrm... Buck seems to have managed to forget this thread existed after page 35. Too much truth to handle.
 
st0wandgrow said:
I found this article interesting. What do you make of it?

"Dr. Carl T. Bogus wrote for the University of California Law Review in 1998, "The Georgia statutes required patrols, under the direction of commissioned militia officers, to examine every plantation each month and authorized them to search 'all Negro Houses for offensive Weapons and Ammunition' and to apprehend and give twenty lashes to any slave found outside plantation grounds."

http://truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratified-to-preserve-slavery
Click to expand...

You can dig up all dirt on all States. Dirty little water wars still going on. Those used to be all out and bloody.

Hey, man, Slavery was slavery. We didn't like it. We abolished it. We won. End of story.

To link the pre-Lincoln State militas to the 2nd....just more sophistry. It has nothing to do with it.

Perhaps you did not know that Georgia didn't even ratify the Bill of Rights until March, 1939?
You can find out why for yourself.

Don't quote these idiots. They are parsing words to tamper with your feelings.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

F
Cannabis and Firearms Question
2
Replies
21
Views
1K
Bad Karma
Bad Karma
O
Great White users - method of application?
Replies
0
Views
104
onegallongrow
O
hanimmal
So what rights are you radicalized enough to give up?
3 4 5
Replies
89
Views
5K
hanimmal
hanimmal
yocan
Do you want to have a pass through function on your vaporizer?
Replies
7
Views
597
Jeffislovinlife
Jeffislovinlife
D
Intro and a question...
Replies
0
Views
152
D_Wooderson
D
Back
Top