Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Kerry, in his own words

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by barrowaj
    The thing about power tools though is that they are designed for a constructive purpose. Many types of guns are purely designed to kill people.
    My guns are designed for defence and entertainment, both are quite constructive.
    Originally posted by barrowaj
    I would say that there are people who could justify having a rifle, possibly semi-automatic, for protection from wild animals, drug traffickers, etc. along the TX-Mexico border.
    What about sport shooters, and people who don't have a police station 50 yards or less from their home? You're talking to someone who has had to defend their home from an intruder, and I'm glad I had the gun. What would you do to protect your family? Call the cops and hope they get there in less time than it takes for the bad guy to kill them? Not me...
    No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
    I agree completely with this Administrationís goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
    even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
    He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. Itís the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by barrowaj
      Sure it can, I'm sure you've heard of nuclear deterrence, or mutually assured destruction.
      That would require a delivery system too, without it it's not defence, it's scorched earth.
      No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
      I agree completely with this Administrationís goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
      even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
      He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. Itís the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Confed999
        My guns are designed for defence and entertainment, both are quite constructive.

        What about sport shooters, and people who don't have a police station 50 yards or less from their home? You're talking to someone who has had to defend their home from an intruder, and I'm glad I had the gun. What would you do to protect your family? Call the cops and hope they get there in less time than it takes for the bad guy to kill them? Not me...
        Right, I understand your point. But you would have to take in mind that if the intruder were unarmed, then you would feel that a rifle would be sufficient to defend your home.

        I'm not advocating banning all guns, just the ones that are likely to kill innocent people or lots of them.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by barrowaj
          I'm not advocating banning all guns, just the ones that are likely to kill innocent people or lots of them.
          Guns don't kill people, period.
          No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
          I agree completely with this Administrationís goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
          even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
          He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. Itís the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Confed999
            Guns don't kill people, period.
            Rappers do.
            at

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Praxus
              I would say the fault lays soully on the person who choose to eat so excessively. Sure genes are part of it, but that is by no means an excuse to be obese.
              Generally speaking i would agree with you. But, lets be honest, marketing must work or people wouldn't do it, and look at some of the unhealthy stuff marketed by thin people.

              When was the last time you saw a fat person on the side of a can of Pepsi or in one of their commercials?

              Food labelling is getting better, but i remember being at school and was lucky enough to have explained to me exactly how much suger was in Coke. At the time, if you weren't lucky enough to have such teaching where would you get the information?
              at

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Trooth
                Rappers do.
                LOL, yep, some do. ;)
                No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                I agree completely with this Administrationís goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. Itís the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Confed999
                  Guns don't kill people, period.
                  I guess that would be the bullets that really do the killing.

                  Saying that guns don't kill people is like saying danerous automobiles don't kill people, innattentive drivers do. It completely marginalizes the affect of auto safety on the mortality rate. Human nature is a constant and will not change. There will always be bad drivers, and there will always be people who decide to shoot someone when they get angry. But by minimizing the effect those people can have on destroying the lives of others, you protect the rights of other human beings. The right of others to live far superscedes your perceived need for the availibility of automatic weapons.

                  Note that the constitution says you have the right to bear arms, it doesn't specify which weapons. And furthermore, the second ammendment says that the reason people have the right to bear arms is that "A well-regulated Militia [is] necessary to the security of a free State." Since I doubt that an armed population really has much to do with the security of the state, it would be possible to question the relevance of the ammendment in modern times.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by barrowaj
                    I guess that would be the bullets that really do the killing.
                    Never heard of a bullet just jumping up and killing someone, maybe you could share the story you have of the sentient murderous ball of lead and copper.
                    Originally posted by barrowaj
                    Saying that guns don't kill people is like saying danerous automobiles don't kill people, innattentive drivers do.
                    Dangerous how? Design flaws, things like that? If that's what you're saying then it's not the same thing. My guns operate within specs, to the best of my knowledge, no problems or defects found. This reminds me of the old saying "Ted Kenedy's car has killed more people than my guns".
                    Originally posted by barrowaj
                    you protect the rights of other human beings.
                    You protect liberty by taking liberty away... That's funny. You have yet to show me how my owning a gun harms the rights of anyone else anywhere.
                    Originally posted by barrowaj
                    your perceived need for the availibility of automatic weapons
                    The difference you've perceived between semi-automatic and automatic is vast compared to the reality. What right have I taken from anyone anywhere with my ownership of an automatic weapon? I don't even want one in particular, but it would be fun to have one of my own on the gun range.
                    Originally posted by barrowaj
                    it would be possible to question the relevance of the ammendment in modern times.
                    Question it all you want. The militias were allowed long, and short, arms as good as the military posessed, and were made up of armed civilians called to fight in times of need. Until that time of need though, they were just armed citizens, thus the end of the amendment "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". When modern times are devoid of tyrants and criminals, I'll agree with you.
                    No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                    I agree completely with this Administrationís goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                    even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                    He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. Itís the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Confed999
                      Never heard of a bullet just jumping up and killing someone, maybe you could share the story you have of the sentient murderous ball of lead and copper.
                      At this point you are being absurd. Bullets do the killing when they penetrate someone's fleshh and inflict massive tissue damage. When I say that "bullets kill people" it is a factual statement that doesn't take into account what put the bullet into motion.

                      Originally posted by Confed999
                      Dangerous how? Design flaws, things like that? If that's what you're saying then it's not the same thing. My guns operate within specs, to the best of my knowledge, no problems or defects found. This reminds me of the old saying "Ted Kenedy's car has killed more people than my guns".
                      No, they are dangerous by design. If we could design cars so that they couldn't fall off bridges and sink into the Potomac, then surely we would. The difference between guns and cars is that guns were designed to kill people, and the latter were not.

                      Originally posted by Confed999
                      You protect liberty by taking liberty away... That's funny. You have yet to show me how my owning a gun harms the rights of anyone else anywhere.
                      Does owning weapons of mass destruction violate anyone's rights? No, but you aren't allowed to.

                      Remeber Luby's, Killeen TX?
                      Originally posted by Confed999
                      The difference you've perceived between semi-automatic and automatic is vast compared to the reality.
                      Actually, I know this is true. If you are pretty quick at pulling the trigger you can unload a semi-auto M16 pretty fast.

                      Originally posted by Confed999
                      Question it all you want. The militias were allowed long, and short, arms as good as the military posessed, and were made up of armed civilians called to fight in times of need. Until that time of need though, they were just armed citizens, thus the end of the amendment "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". When modern times are devoid of tyrants and criminals, I'll agree with you.
                      So just because they were allowed to own whatever weapons they wanteed in the past, they should be allowed to now? Times change, law has to keep up with technology while still preserving its original principals. I still don't see how a militia is effectively defending against any of the modern tyrants. I think that the National Guard serves that purpose.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by barrowaj
                        At this point you are being absurd.
                        No, you are. There is virtually no way for an inanimate object to kill someone, I guess if a big stack of bullets in cases fell on someone... Like it or not, people kill each other.
                        Originally posted by barrowaj
                        someone's fleshh and inflict massive tissue damage.
                        I can do the same with a sharp stick, did the stick kill too?
                        Originally posted by barrowaj
                        The difference between guns and cars is that guns were designed to kill people
                        Mine were designed for defence and entertainment.
                        Originally posted by barrowaj
                        Does owning weapons of mass destruction violate anyone's rights?
                        Sure they do, WMD use kills indescriminately.
                        Originally posted by barrowaj
                        If you are pretty quick at pulling the trigger you can unload a semi-auto M16 pretty fast.
                        Yikes! Did you just agree with me? ;)
                        Originally posted by barrowaj
                        Times change,
                        What has actually changed?
                        Originally posted by barrowaj
                        I still don't see how a militia is effectively defending against any of the modern tyrants.
                        So you don't think guerilla warfare is effective? Come on now...
                        Originally posted by barrowaj
                        I think that the National Guard serves that purpose.
                        The NG is controlled by the government, the ones we're trying to keep in check.
                        No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                        I agree completely with this Administrationís goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                        even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                        He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. Itís the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Confed999
                          No, you are. There is virtually no way for an inanimate object to kill someone, I guess if a big stack of bullets in cases fell on someone... Like it or not, people kill each other. I can do the same with a sharp stick, did the stick kill too?
                          I would say yes, the stick did kill him. While it was not the instigator, it was the ultimate cause that led to his death.

                          I dislike the idea of the government trying to tell people what they can and can't do. However, I think that there are cases where weapons are too destructive to put into the hands of ordinary citizens. There is some point on the spectrum of weapon power that you would say cannot be entrusted with a private individual. For you it is probably high explosives. I argue that automatic firearms are that limit because they are excessive for self defense.

                          Originally posted by Confed999
                          What has actually changed?
                          So you don't think guerilla warfare is effective? Come on now...
                          The NG is controlled by the government, the ones we're trying to keep in check.
                          I think that modern warfare has advanced to the point that regular arms are not very effective against a well equipped army. Just look at Najaf, the militia couldn't hold out against the less numerous US Army.

                          Don't get me wrong, I don't beleive that the right to bear arms is not just, I just think that the militia argument is weak.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by barrowaj
                            ultimate cause that led to his death.
                            I suppose you could look at it that way, but I'm still going with 'someone stabbed him' as the cause.
                            Originally posted by barrowaj
                            I argue that automatic firearms are that limit
                            I would be happy with automatics being the limit, because there is really little difference between auto and semi-auto.
                            Originally posted by barrowaj
                            the militia argument is weak.
                            Millions of armed civilians would make a huge difference, even against a well equiped army. If every Jew in Germany were armed, how many less Nazis would there have been after the round-ups began? Today, anyone can make explosives and chemical weapons, with a few dollars and a little reseach, to supplement any partisan action.
                            No man is free until all men are free - John Hossack
                            I agree completely with this Administrationís goal of a regime change in Iraq-John Kerry
                            even if that enforcement is mostly at the hands of the United States, a right we retain even if the Security Council fails to act-John Kerry
                            He may even miscalculate and slide these weapons off to terrorist groups to invite them to be a surrogate to use them against the United States. Itís the miscalculation that poses the greatest threat-John Kerry

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Confed999
                              I would be happy with automatics being the limit, because there is really little difference between auto and semi-auto.
                              Agreed. I think while in reality the difference may not be great, I think its a lot harder to justify having an automatic weapon for self defence.

                              Originally posted by Confed999
                              Millions of armed civilians would make a huge difference, even against a well equiped army. If every Jew in Germany were armed, how many less Nazis would there have been after the round-ups began? Today, anyone can make explosives and chemical weapons, with a few dollars and a little reseach, to supplement any partisan action.
                              Good point. While I don't think this would have stopped the Nazis, they would not have been able to get away with it as easily.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X