myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
1st and 2nd Amendments under attack
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 31, 32, 33  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14235

PostPosted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

maxdownhaul wrote:
Could you tell me how it is not correct or rational. It worked here quite well.

Your country got a head start, before all the actual and potential criminals became armed. We're way past that point. Also, what's left of the UK has gone socialist to the extent that its subjects bow to its government more deeply than do our citizens; maybe some or much of that mindset remains in Australia.

You wrote:
What legislation can legally do in America (without having a referendum on changing your constitution) is to ... ban guns such as hand guns and semi and fully automatic weapons. Once guns that are handed back in (yes surrended to authorities ) it will make it harder ... to become a gun wielding criminal.

Ban hand guns? I doubt our Supreme Court would consider that Constitutional, since self defense would be dramatically curtailed if all we could carry or even own were long guns. (The benefit of such a ban would be that criminals would then target only people not carrying them. Simply carrying an obvious pump action shotgun would send them in search of unarmed victims Smile or would make them shoot/stab/immolate/beat down first and rob later Sad . If I thought that openly carrying a gun would, all by itself, make me free of any and all criminal threat, I'd have a gun on my hip every waking moment. Pants, shirt, shoes, wallet, keys, gun, comb, eyeglasses, and no chance of crime? Bring on that pipe dream.

The primary weapons of practical use in defending myself against my government are not guns, but the courts, my vote, my voice, what little free and unbiased media remain, and my passport. etc. All those are being carefully, aggressively, and both overtly and covertly assaulted as we type.

The U.S. government has no authority to confiscate private property of this nature. If it tries to confiscate handguns, open warfare will ensue. It may last only until the last mountain man or skinhead survives, but that will be many years. Meanwhile many of the decent citizens will have moved out of what's left of the country. The same quest for freedom that brought us here in the first place ... from the earliest settlers to the latest border-hopper or entrepreneurial visa-holder ... will prompt many to move on to freer pastures.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14235

PostPosted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

reinerehlers wrote:
I guess this really is a pointless debate.

That's the most relevant and accurate part of your post, IMO.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maxdownhaul



Joined: 04 Aug 2011
Posts: 34

PostPosted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Iso, you are not that much further ahead as we use to have similar types of guns, maybe not as many though. That's a good attitude of why try to do anything at all. Maybe if some sort of regulation was started tomorrow by next week nothing would be very much different as potential criminals would already be armed but what would it be like in 5, 10, 20 years time.
I am sure you personally are a very responsible gun owner and always store your hand guns unloaded in locked gun safes, not loaded in bed side table or the bedroom cupboard or in the desk drawer. In the last 6 months the parent, friend and relatives of 40 children under 12 years old have been "accidentally" shot and killed by either themselves or their friends because careless gun owners left weapons where they could be accessed. Yes that is cherry picking the statistics as it is more than the normal average (36). And you still dont want gun control because you may one day need to defend yourself. At least you do seem to agree that once "open warfare" begins, many of the decent citizens will have moved out to move on to freer pastures. Only gun nuts remain. By this do you mean another country with crazy gun controls or a safer country with gun controls? You do know that other countries have freedom dont you?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 14235

PostPosted: Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

maxdownhaul wrote:
1. Iso, you are not that much further ahead ...

2. why try to do anything at all? Maybe if some sort of regulation was started tomorrow by next week nothing would be very much different as potential criminals would already be armed but what would it be like in 5, 10, 20 years time.

3. I am sure you personally are a very responsible gun owner

4. and always store your hand guns unloaded in locked gun safes, not loaded in bed side table or the bedroom cupboard or in the desk drawer.

5. you still dont want gun control because you may one day need to defend yourself.

6. At least you do seem to agree that once "open warfare" begins, many of the decent citizens will have moved out to move on to freer pastures.

7. You do know that other countries have freedom dont you?


1. I'd say we're much farther behind, in the sense that we've lost all control of criminals possessing guns. Our only remaining chance, if under some kind of assault, is being better armed than they are.

2. Virtually every legislative cure anyone's proposed has been tried, many of them for decades now, with little to no change. What shuts these lowlifes down is being in prison or the ground or being outgunned.

3. Absolutely. My legal, moral, and practical training already exceeds that of the vast majority of non-hobbyist and non-professional gun owners, and I'm nowhere near done with that training. HOWEVER ...

4. No way my guns are empty, locked away, or in any other way not ready to serve their purpose immediately. My wife has the same training I do, and no one else has (legal) access to our home or vehicles. A gun not ready for instant service is a possession, not a tool.

5. Of course I want gun control. It should stop short of disarming good citizens, however.

6. I'm not worried about "open [armed] warfare", but hope to be long gone ... one way or another ... before the government starts confiscating private property as a means of controlling its citizens. One state tried confiscating guns, but I didn't follow the progress of that legislation. Another state passed several draconian gun control laws, followed quickly by public and legislative outrage threatening the recall (ousting) of the bills' sponsor. Many other states are already fighting to overturn similar new knee-jerk legislation. Some new laws effectively disarmed even the police, and citizens are PISSED because their safety is threatened.

7. Sure ... but few if any are as free as ours is DESIGNED and INTENDED to be. For example, our Constitution gives the federal government very specific and very limited authority, specifically to:
Coin and regulate the value of money.
Administer the seat of government.
Tax.
Borrow.
Spend.
Punish crimes on the high seas.
Establish federal courts.
Pass copyright and patent laws.
Raise and finance armed forces.
Establish bankruptcy laws.
Establish rules for citizenship.
Call up state militias.
Administer federal lands.
Establish rules for the armed forces.
Establish a postal system.
Regulate commerce.
Standardize weights and measures.
Punish counterfeiting.
Declare war.
Pass laws to implement the above.
The other 99.999% of the BS the feds now impose on us violate that Constitution, and Obama has publicly expressed frustration that the Constitution impedes his authority to mandate even more controls. That's why he is so hell-bent on using agencies such as the Environmental Protection Authority and the IRS to implement by force what he can't persuade the Congress to legislate.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevenbard



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 4153

PostPosted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 1:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGURa1DfWEo

The father of our next president....maybe should be our next president?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pueno



Joined: 03 Mar 2007
Posts: 2677

PostPosted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

stevenbard wrote:

The father of our next president....maybe should be our next president?

Some people tried equating Obama to Hitler.

That didn't work, so now they try to equate him to Castro.

When that fails, what next? Equate Obama to Cheney? Is that the ultimate insult? (And if your answer is "yes," then the question is: "Insult to whom?")
.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
maxdownhaul



Joined: 04 Aug 2011
Posts: 34

PostPosted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 7:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Iso I respect you for your windsurfing experience and knowledge but you are one scary individual and I would imagine that there are millions more with a similar attitude. It is not a good thought that people like you have the right to vote for a government with WoMD.
Can someone explain to me, as I am not an expert on constitutional law, why Americans always site the 2nd amendment as the right to individually bear arms of their choosing. The way I read - 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. - is not for individuals to pick and choose whatever gun they want but to be a member of an official militia, then they would have the right to bear arms. Would that not be the police and military personal who are issued weapons and then are they allowed to "keep and bear arms". I cant see how keeping a loaded gun under the pillow as being necessary to the security of a free State.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
techno900



Joined: 28 Mar 2001
Posts: 1485

PostPosted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 8:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let's assume that Obama is a socialist and would like to take the US as far as he can in that direction, given the constraints of Congress and the Supreme court. The real question is -

Is this something that the left (this means you, guys) would embrace or reject?

Is there something between the two extremes that would be the ideal for the left to embrace?

Is there a point where your party's platform would go too far to the left and you would reject it? If so, where is that point?

Do you believe in some elements of socialism and if so, what?

The right just can ignore the old saying - if it looks like sh%#, and it smells like sh%#, it just might be sh%#.

It seems to me that the right is pretty clear where they stand what they want from government, but the left's desires seem somewhat undefined and obscure to me, which leads me to think that what they espouse and what they want are two different things.

You can help clear this up for those of us on the right.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 5259

PostPosted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Let's assume Obama is a socialist? Now that's an effective way to start a comment. He's pretty much like moderate Republican's used to be. But why bother with facts?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2673

PostPosted: Tue Jul 09, 2013 10:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

maxdownhaul wrote:
I cant see how keeping a loaded gun under the pillow as being necessary to the security of a free State.

However, the US Supreme Court has recently affirmed the right of individuals to bear arms, so a debate by a bunch of windsurfers is academic. This is a complex topic with no simple solutions. There are cultural norms in most countries which outsiders have difficulty understanding. Resistance to the notion that "the government knows what's best for us" has certainly been embedded in the American psyche since the early days of of this country. Politicians will primp and posture but there is currently no realistic possibility that the government will require firearms to be surrendered or do anything to severely curtail gun ownership.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 31, 32, 33  Next
Page 6 of 33

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group