Stoner's views on Firearm rights.

if you going to go out and steal things from people, they need to stop and think, "gee, there is the possibility my victim might be armed , and that i might be killed"


did he deserve to die? maybe not die, but did he deserve to get shot for stealing that womans purse? yes


if some one breaks into my house, they deserve to get shot

if some one is trying to steal my car, they deserve to get shot


an armed society is a polite society

Johnnyorganic said:

Completely untrue. The U.S. Army was established in 1775 and was never deactivated.

Click to expand...

and was small and incapable of defending the nation necessitating a militia

Johnnyorganic said:

Poppycock. What do you think a militia is composed of? Armed individuals.

Click to expand...

during wartime not during peace

Johnnyorganic said:

The National Guard is not militia. Each National Guard is a auxiliary component of the Army administered by each individual state.

That story was a joke, but to answer your question - crime is a risky business.

Criminals should be forced to ask themselves, "Armed citizen or victim?"

Click to expand...

joke or not it is still useful in making a point. is execution fair punishment for theft? no.

Red Icarus said:

and was small and incapable of defending the nation necessitating a militia

Click to expand...

You misunderstand the concept of the militia. The Army and Navy are Constitutional and defend the country from outside forces.

There have been periods of draw-down during times of peace, but the U.S. Military was never incapable of defending the nation.

The Second Amendment is in place to protect citizens from an oppressive government, just as the militias stood in the gap against the British Government prior to the establishment of the American Army.

Red Icarus said:

during wartime not during peace

Click to expand...

And when the government becomes too oppressive for reasonable men to tolerate, where will the firearms and ammunition come from?

Are we each expected to shit an AR-15 and a case of ammo?

Red Icarus said:

joke or not it is still useful in making a point. is execution fair punishment for theft? no.

Click to expand...

Self-defense is not punishment. An individual has the right to self-defense when robbed. Purse-snatching is robbery.

Johnnyorganic said:

You misunderstand the concept of the militia. The Army and Navy are Constitutional and defend the country from outside forces.

There have been periods of draw-down during times of peace, but the U.S. Military was never incapable of defending the nation.

The Second Amendment is in place to protect citizens from an oppressive government, just as the militias stood in the gap against the British Government prior to the establishment of the American Army.

And when the government becomes too oppressive for reasonable men to tolerate, where will the firearms and ammunition come from?

Are we each expected to shit an AR-15 and a case of ammo?

Self-defense is not punishment. An individual has the right to self-defense when robbed. Purse-snatching is robbery.

Click to expand...

lol, Johnny, without the french you would have been stuffed, fact. And...
The role of militia, also known as military service and duty, in the United States is complex and has transformed over time.[1] The term militia can be used to describe any number of groups within the United States. Types of militia within modern US:

• The organized militia created by the Militia Act of 1903, which split from the 1792 Uniform Militia forces, and consist of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia[2]. The National Guard however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked.
• The reserve militia[3] or unorganized militia, also created by the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia. (that is, anyone who would be eligible for a draft)[2]
• A select militia is composed of a small, non-representative portion of the population, often politicized.[4]
• A private militia, which are made up of non-officially organized individuals who have formed paramilitary organizations based on their own interpretation of the concept of the militia.

Nothing within the US definition of militia has parameters stretching to civilians carrying automatic weapons to shoot people at there whim...Its quite amazing how civilians of the non gun carrying countries such as mine mange really!

Woomeister said:

lol, Johnny, without the french you would have been stuffed, fact. And...
The role of militia, also known as military service and duty, in the United States is complex and has transformed over time.[1] The term militia can be used to describe any number of groups within the United States. Types of militia within modern US:

• The organized militia created by the Militia Act of 1903, which split from the 1792 Uniform Militia forces, and consist of State militia forces, notably the National Guard and the Naval Militia[2]. The National Guard however, is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States, which is a federally recognized reserve military force, although the two are linked.
• The reserve militia[3] or unorganized militia, also created by the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia. (that is, anyone who would be eligible for a draft)[2]
• A select militia is composed of a small, non-representative portion of the population, often politicized.[4]
• A private militia, which are made up of non-officially organized individuals who have formed paramilitary organizations based on their own interpretation of the concept of the militia.

Nothing within the US definition of militia has parameters stretching to civilians carrying automatic weapons to shoot people at there whim...Its quite amazing how civilians of the non gun carrying countries such as mine mange really!

Click to expand...

Nothing at all.... Except the 2nd Amendment and that pesky clause about the individual right to keep and bear arms.

And who's talking about the French? We already paid them back at least three times already for their kindness.

It was a militia who prevented you Redcoats from seizing the arms at Concord, which is the very basis of the 2nd Amendment.

LOL!

but the U.S. Military was never incapable of defending the nation.


Hence my point about the French.
I believe that your constitution (re guns) was intended for exactly what it states. To raise an equiped 'army' quickly. Not for Joe public to use as an excuse for carrying a 45mm to prevent his car (lol) from being stolen Keenly! The funny thing is most pro gun carrying Americans think the Arabs are terrible for chopping off peoples hands for theft, but its ok to shoot them in the back for a handbag! By the way Johnny happy new year to you and your family, all the best! 2010 her in the UK.

Woomeister said:

but the U.S. Military was never incapable of defending the nation.


Hence my point about the French.
I believe that your constitution (re guns) was intended for exactly what it states. To raise an equiped 'army' quickly. Not for Joe public to use as an excuse for carrying a 45mm to prevent his car (lol) from being stolen Keenly! The funny thing is most pro gun carrying Americans think the Arabs are terrible for chopping off peoples hands for theft, but its ok to shoot them in the back for a handbag! By the way Johnny happy new year to you and your family, all the best! 2010 her in the UK.

Click to expand...

The Constitution was ratified seven years after the Battle of Yorktown of 1781.

You are correct that we benefited from the French discord with the Crown at the time. And, for the record, I was referring to the period after the Army and Navy were authorized by the Constitution.

You'll excuse me if I do not rely on you as a Constitutional scholar.

And of course, Woo. Happy 2010 to you as well. We may disagree on a few issues, but we can still be civil.

Happy new year, Dude!

Without discussion and disagreement there would be indifference. I may not be a constitutional scholar but I am in European history. The French revolution was a direct consequence of the French navy coming to the US's aid. Fascinating really.

The INTENTIONS of the writers of the 2nd amendment may never be exactly clear, HOWEVER, the US Supreme court has affirmed the right to bear arms for common defense AND personal defense. It wasnt until 2008 (DC V. Heller) that they affirmed the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense.

CSI Stickyicky said:

The INTENTIONS of the writers of the 2nd amendment may never be exactly clear, HOWEVER, the US Supreme court has affirmed the right to bear arms for common defense AND personal defense. It wasnt until 2008 (DC V. Heller) that they affirmed the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense.

Click to expand...

there you go right there


and woo, seriously? once again, some one is trying to argue and not making any fucking sense


if some one is breaking into your home / car or whatever

they have made it clear they have 0 regard for your personal space OR your safety, and you dont know if they are armed, so i, as a human being, have every right to blow you away if you just broke my window and are crawling into my house

granted ill most likely give you the oppurtinity to see the error of this decision and leave, im still morally, if not legally, justified in shooting this fictional character for breaking into my home... my castle...my domain

i am the man of my house, and it is my duty to keep all residents of my castle safe


you can disagree with the second amendment all you want, it still stands... and ill leave you with a quote

"from my cold dead hands"

(I.E. second amendment is not going anywhere)

Woomeister said:

Without discussion and disagreement there would be indifference. I may not be a constitutional scholar but I am in European history. The French revolution was a direct consequence of the French navy coming to the US's aid. Fascinating really.

Click to expand...

or maybe the serfs grew fucking tired of the aristocrats running everything so one day they just mobbed up and executed them all? im sure there are millions of pages of details, but basically thats what i got out of it, and its rather inspiring


we need something like that here, only less brutal, preferably through a reformed independent justice system

the us will go a different routine, than that of the guillotine

Hi to all,

Im from Australia and guns are Nearly totally illegal here, you need to get all this B/S just to get a Gun License here and even then you can hardly use it, the only people who have weapons here are cops and bank security and so on.

Having said that I can go anywhere in Australia, and never be worried about being shot, I can walk down any street and not get shot, I have never in my life been scared of being shot, besides when I was in the states in NY NY, which is a sic place, I cant wait to go back.

Shootings do happen here from time to time, but rarely. Having said that I like guns wish I could have one, but then again I probably would have shot someone by now.

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html

From best we can tell from an initial scan of the graphs, the biggest impact in Australia was a sharp initial drop in accidental gun deaths.

Once the dumb fucks that would have normally accidentally shot themselves or family now survive long enough to reproduce.

With the huge resurgence in dumb fucks, the Rate - 400 (must be Australian) of accidental rock to the head deaths skyrocketed, but has recently stabilized when divided by 100,000 instead.

[youtube]6nf1OgV449g[/youtube]

YES HE DID DESERVE TO DIE!!! There are always consiquenses for your actions.. Let me ask you. As that dirtbag was stealing that lady's purse, What if she held on to her purse and did not let go? and was draged threw the street and hit by a car and died? Did she deserve to die because she had her purse stolen? That dirtbag had no idea the danger he would put her in... Nor did he care!!!!!!!! But as a victim now you want to make her the bad guy? PEACE

Red Icarus said:

the intention of the second amendment was to provide the means to form a militia. at the time the u.s. government could not afford to form a military let alone arm one. it was never intended for your average citizen to be carrying around firearms for personal defense during times of peace. did that thief deserve to die for stealing that woman's handbag?

Click to expand...

Australia sounds like a great place. We have a different culture in America. We have a culture where the criminals have guns, no matter what the law says. People in Australia also don't live in the culture of fear that we have come to know. I bet if you turn on the news over there, they actually show you news. Over here, everytime we turn on the TV, we hear "FEAR EVERYTHING, THE WORLD IS COMING TO AN END, AND PEOPLE ARE OUT TO GET YOU! Unless you watch tonight at 9!"

Red Icarus said:

the intention of the second amendment was to provide the means to form a militia. at the time the u.s. government could not afford to form a military let alone arm one. it was never intended for your average citizen to be carrying around firearms for personal defense during times of peace. did that thief deserve to die for stealing that woman's handbag?

Click to expand...

You are off into the weeds, my friend. SCOTUS just recently took your argument and trashed it. It has been affirmed as an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, not just to members of a militia.

Also, could you post ANYTHING that the framers wrote that supports your position? Not what recent "comers to power" have spouted...only quotes or thoughts of the people who wrote The Bill of Rights.

The thief should have taken into account that not everyone on earth is there for his pleasure. When you work to earn your pay, you are giving a portion of your time here on earth away to do it. That time is finite and has a limit. Some people take that time seriously when someone else steals it from them. I do not feel sorry for the fool that stole the purse.

Gun control is only followed by law abiding citizens ... think it through.

CrackerJax said:

No, that's TEXAS!!!!
In NY, she would be incarcerated and eviscerated in public.

Click to expand...

not true! last fall in a suburb of rochester,NY. a man confronted 3 teenagers breaking into his neighbors car. when 1 of the punks rushed him,he was shot & killed.while the homeowner was arrested & tried,he was found not guilty

Red Icarus 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."
you missed a bit there.
keep in mind that it was written at the birth of the nation when our only means of defense was a militia. you can talk till your blue in the face, the intent of the 2nd amendment was to provide the means to defend the country without the cost of creating an army. we no longer have a need for a militia.

Click to expand...

our founding fathers were very wise and literate men who said exactly what they meant. the right of the PEOPLE to bear arms was just that.a right delagated to the people,not the state,not the feds,& not any organized militia. is the right of the people to assemble or be free from unreasonable searches also not rights granted to each individual but to a group only?
or are you saying that our founders felt it important enough to add a clause to the bill of rights so that a future congress wont send our troops to war w/out rifles?
the reason for the 2nd amendment was not to save money.at the start of the war for independance, we had an army of volunteers, what we lacked was weapons of war as the crown had outlawed assault weapons. the shot heard around the world was fired when the british army moved to confiscate said weapons stored at concord.

Yes, but he RUSHED him ... the perp in Texas was running away. try shooting someone in the back in NY and watch ur future be taken away from you.

anyone who feels outlawing guns will reduce gun violence should read More Guns,less Crime by John Lott.he was antigun and set out to study the statistics to prove his case for gun control. what he found was the opposite. what is disturbing is the way statistics are used/manipulated by the antigun groups. for example, they often claim that 58 percent of murder victims are killed by either relatives or acquaintances. What they don't mention is that they lump drug dealers and gangs shooting each other as "acquaintances".