PDA

View Full Version : reform gun law in the states


arcus
Sep 14th, 2003, 08:40 PM
just what the title says...............

TonyP
Sep 14th, 2003, 08:45 PM
America has needed to change its gun laws since the beginning of the 20th century.

There is no earthly reason why any private citizen needs an assault rifle or an assault-style rifle,whether it fires fully automatically or in just semi-automatic mode.

Such weapons are designed for one purpose and that is to kill other human beings.

In my mind, firearms have no place in society at all,and should be restricted to police or military use

lizchris
Sep 14th, 2003, 08:47 PM
I have no problems with people owning guns or hunting rifles (my great-grandfather used to own both), but why the hell do people need to own assault rifles? Those type of weapens onlyl need to be owned by the police and military.

*JR*
Sep 14th, 2003, 08:48 PM
After MLK and Bobby Kennedy were killed in '68, they were "reformed". Except that by the time the gun lobby's money and power had spoken, the reforms were nearly meaningless. Even the famous "Brady Bill" sparked by the attack on Ronald Reagan is (I hate to use a pun, but it fits here) "shot full of holes". :(

tennisIlove09
Sep 14th, 2003, 08:49 PM
After Columbine (sp?) things should have changed! I'm not sure what came of it, but I don't think the laws changed.

arcus
Sep 14th, 2003, 08:54 PM
the free availability of guns in the states contributes to a gun-culture that endangers its citizens rather than protecting them.

yetunde price is yet another victim............

starr
Sep 14th, 2003, 08:55 PM
Nope. They didn't. The movie "Bowling for Columbine" is an interesting look at this problem in America, although I think the theory developed there is unsound.

Martian Willow
Sep 14th, 2003, 08:56 PM
...whenever this sort of thing happens you get the usual retards coming out with the same old guns-don't-kill-people-people-do crap...apparently these people really do believe the Columbine massacre would still have happened if they'd used baseball bats or frozen turkeys...

decemberlove
Sep 14th, 2003, 09:04 PM
fuck that.

we are already close enough to 1984 as it is. esp since bush plans to give more control to police to fight "terrorism" :rolleyes:

no thank you.


and wrong forum.

*JR*
Sep 14th, 2003, 09:18 PM
fuck that.
we are already close enough to 1984 as it is. esp since bush plans to give more control to police to fight "terrorism" :rolleyes:

This is the so-called "slippery slope" arguement that was set aside decades ago with the famous words from the US Supreme Court that "...freedom of speech doesn't include the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre". Yes, state power can be abused. However last night in Compton 3 guys "elected themselves" judge, jury, and executioner, it seems.

Infiniti2001
Sep 14th, 2003, 09:23 PM
I just want to understand why any human being feels the need to walk around with a semi automatic weapon... :( :confused: :sad: :tape:

decemberlove
Sep 14th, 2003, 09:23 PM
This is the so-called "slippery slope" arguement that was set aside decades ago with the famous words from the US Supreme Court that "...freedom of speech doesn't include the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre". Yes, state power can be abused. However last night in Compton 3 guys "elected themselves" judge, jury, and executioner, it seems.


oh please, JR, stop being such a drama queen.

this happens all the time, people die with or without guns all the time. and people are just NOW opening their eyes and pulling their heads out of their all tennis, no reality asses cos two famous tennis players sister was killed? thats really fucking sad.

arcus
Sep 14th, 2003, 09:34 PM
I dont know why this thread was moved.

The death of yetunde price is not a "WTA event". It is a tragedy, period. But not a tennis tragedy. Its the direct result of a sad US gun culture. Why allow the event to be discussed in the general forum, but not allow the readers to explore its cause.

bad admiin, IMO

*JR*
Sep 14th, 2003, 09:35 PM
DL, I'm not the one who needs a "celebrity angle" to address real-life issues. Example: I "preach" about sweatshops re. what players wear and its largely ignored. If a celebrity (esp. a big tennis player) died locked inside one like "ordinary people" sometimes are, THEN it would first be treated like a serious issue here! :rolleyes:

arcus
Sep 14th, 2003, 09:38 PM
DL, I'm not the one who needs a "celebrity angle" to address real-life issues. Example: I "preach" about sweatshops re. what players wear and its largely ignored. If a celebrity (esp. a big tennis player) died locked inside one like "ordinary people" sometimes are, THEN it would first be treated like a serious issue here! :rolleyes:

When an event that connects with a celebrity occur, its an opportunity to encourage public awareness and generate debate to encourage people to think about the underlying issues.

decemberlove
Sep 14th, 2003, 09:42 PM
DL, I'm not the one who needs a "celebrity angle" to address real-life issues. Example: I "preach" about sweatshops re. what players wear and its largely ignored. If a celebrity (esp. a big tennis player) died locked inside one like "ordinary people" sometimes are, THEN it would first be treated like a serious issue here! :rolleyes:

i know you dont but a lot of people do. and i think its rather sad that were so obsessed with celebrities that only change should come after something devastating happens in their life.

arcus, the thread was moved to NON-TENNIS cos its not a general topic about the wta, just like you said. general messages is for tennis topics only. and like YOU yourself said, this isnt about a wta event, its about gurn reform which deserves to be in non-tennis. youll prolly get better responses here anyway. not as many idiots romp around over here.

Martian Willow
Sep 14th, 2003, 09:55 PM
...wtf has 'the celebrity angle' got to do with it...?...people said the same things after Columbine... :confused:

...as for 1984, the people defending gun ownership don't give a shit about civil liberties...there are far more important threats to that than the right to carry guns... :rolleyes:

CondiLicious
Sep 14th, 2003, 10:18 PM
I think guns should be banned in the US.

Go into a super Wal-Mart... buy some eggs... buy some bacon... get a new pair jeans... buy your cat food... buy yourself a gun... something is so wrong with that!

However... As long as any crazy freak is free to own a gun then good decent people are gonna own them as well... to protect themselves from burglers and shit. I have lots of friends and family in the US and some of them have guns locked away just incase... Protect yourself at all costs I say.

But yeah... they should be banned so that nobody can own them... good, bad, crazy or insane.

Volcana
Sep 14th, 2003, 11:51 PM
Canada has 10 million firearms for 7 milliopn households. And as murder rate 1/1000th of the United States. Very similar cultures, but THE USA has far fewer guns per capita, and far MORE gun violence per capita.

It's not the NUMBER of guns in the USA that's the problem. It's the people who own them.

Fingon
Sep 15th, 2003, 12:30 AM
Canada has 10 million firearms for 7 milliopn households. And as murder rate 1/1000th of the United States. Very similar cultures, but THE USA has far fewer guns per capita, and far MORE gun violence per capita.

It's not the NUMBER of guns in the USA that's the problem. It's the people who own them.


absolutely agree.

Gun control is similar to drugs control. Soft drugs are legal in Holland and illegal in the US, has that prevented people from taking drugs? hardly, it has only developed a black market.

do you really think that criminals go and buy weapons just in a store? if you want a gun and plan to use it, you'll get it.

Having it legalized allows to at least a certain degree of control.

I agree thought that automatic weapons shouldn't be allowed and also high-powered rifles, users should go through some kind of controls to own them (like hunters).

Sam L
Sep 15th, 2003, 12:35 AM
Canada has 10 million firearms for 7 milliopn households. And as murder rate 1/1000th of the United States. Very similar cultures, but THE USA has far fewer guns per capita, and far MORE gun violence per capita.

It's not the NUMBER of guns in the USA that's the problem. It's the people who own them.

Good point.

The way I see it all goes back to hunting for animals etc... A lot of people think it's ok, it's harmless, they're only animals. But you know what, these people who are hunting animals get bored with it, so eventually they start shooting people. Because they're out for blood and once one curiosity has been satisfied, another one comes up.

So the only effective way would to ban guns and hunting altogether for the general public. If you don't, and society won't, these slayings will continue. If you start to kill one form of life, it's only a matter of time before other forms of life are also killed.

Sam L
Sep 15th, 2003, 12:42 AM
that automatic weapons shouldn't be allowed and also high-powered rifles, users should go through some kind of controls to own them (like hunters).

Hunting for animals will become hunting for humans once that person becomes bored or mentally instable. It only takes 1 person, and these things happen. Very easily.

Sam L
Sep 15th, 2003, 12:47 AM
not always. depends on the shooter and the aim. in the event that someone ends up on my property uninvited at a suspicious time of night, shooting off kneecaps isn't life threatening as long as you get 'em to the ER fast enough.

deterrence is another purpose.
Yes DeuceDiva, but that person could be insane and may have a few weapons of their own.

Sam L
Sep 15th, 2003, 12:56 AM
how are you sam? :) it's true. they could. but you shoot off kneecaps and they won't make it anywhere near you to use 'em. btw...i hope you realize this is mostly tongue in cheek, huh?
Hi I'm good, how are you? No I thought you were been serious. :p Anyway, you know what I mean.

joegerardi
Sep 15th, 2003, 01:38 AM
just what the title says...............

You're absolutely right. There are far too many restrictive gun laws in the USA now, all in direct contravention of the US Constitution. What one dumb idiot does with a gun is NOT indicative of gun owners.

As I read through this thread, I see many people calling for the banning of guns. So, tell me: Were all guns to be banned, are any of you foolish and childish enough to believe that all criminals are immediately going to turn in their guns? Guess what- NOT doing what the law tells them is what made them criminals in the first place.

More people die every year in car accidents. Should we ban cars?
More doctors kill patients every year. Should we ban doctors?

Your childish knee-jerk reactions are typical of the uninformed masses. There ARE no assault weapons on the streets. An assault weapon is capable of firing in fully automatic, or burst mode. They simply ain't out there. An AR-15 (which looks like an M16) fires a .223 bullet, which is 3/1000 larger then a .22. Those of you that say hunting rifles are fine, guess what? An 8mm Mag bullet can kill with tremendous precision at 1000 yards, far longer then an AR has any relevant range. Which is the more lethal weapon?

Since I moved from NY to Savannah, I have had guns. Many of them in fact. I carry a 9mm SIG-Sauer P228 or a Bren Ten 10mm semi-automatic pistol on my person every day. When I go to the tennis courts, it's in my tennis bag. I've not shot anyone. I have no intentions of shooting anyone unless they endanger me or the lives of my loved ones, and then I will blow their fucking heads off. I shoot regularly at a range and take great pleasure in killing paper targets. I don't hunt. I have no desire to kill anything.

Grow up, chilluns. Learn what the real problems are. It ain't the guns.

..Joe

GBFH
Sep 15th, 2003, 01:42 AM
joe, from what I can tell, you haven't read through the thread. not everyone subscribes to the "guns are evil" ideology.

controlfreak
Sep 15th, 2003, 01:44 AM
When an event that connects with a celebrity occur, its an opportunity to encourage public awareness and generate debate to encourage people to think about the underlying issues.

Whereas the fatal shooting of someone like, say, me, would be a total non-event, and certainly not important enough to have its underlying issues made publically aware, let alone discussed.

That's what I love about the world we live in. :tape:

Sam L
Sep 15th, 2003, 01:49 AM
When I go to the tennis courts, it's in my tennis bag. I've not shot anyone. I have no intentions of shooting anyone unless they endanger me or the lives of my loved ones, and then I will blow their fucking heads off. I shoot regularly at a range and take great pleasure in killing paper targets. I don't hunt. I have no desire to kill anything.

You are a very nice person, Joe. But unfortunately not everyone is like you, and therein lies the problem. :sad:

controlfreak
Sep 15th, 2003, 01:51 AM
By the way joegerardi, what are you going to do if some nutcase rushes onto the tennis court, grabs your gun out of your bag, and fills you full of lead right in the middle of your ball toss? My guess would be:
1) crumpling in a heap
2) wishing you had never owned that gun
3) dying
4) getting hit on the head in a very undiginified manner by the tennis ball you never managed to serve, causing you to lose the point, game, set and indeed match.

controlfreak
Sep 15th, 2003, 01:54 AM
Perhaps you can tell from my tone that I think anyone who owns any gun of any kind for any purpose is a complete nutter who deserves whatever comes to him.

joegerardi
Sep 15th, 2003, 03:53 AM
By the way joegerardi, what are you going to do if some nutcase rushes onto the tennis court, grabs your gun out of your bag, and fills you full of lead right in the middle of your ball toss? My guess would be:
1) crumpling in a heap
2) wishing you had never owned that gun
3) dying
4) getting hit on the head in a very undiginified manner by the tennis ball you never managed to serve, causing you to lose the point, game, set and indeed match.

Right, because a total stranger is going to know that I just happen to have my pistol with, and at that moment in time, lose all control, decide to kill someone, and have an epiphany, knowing that there's a pistol available.

Get real.

More than anything, I carry and own guns because it is my RIGHT. Not a priviledge, not something permitted, but a right guaranteed by my birth. That, and the decision NOT to be anyone's victim.

..Joe

PS: NOT lead. I use copper-jacketed hollowpoints.
PPS: If someone gets my gun, then I deserve to be shot with it, and regardless, I will NEVER "wish I never owned a gun."

Steam
Sep 15th, 2003, 04:23 AM
How are we to know that the assholes who did this purchased their guns legally? No matter how much regulations you put on them, assholes are going to get their hands on guns. Its fucked up, but true.

Fingon
Sep 15th, 2003, 05:53 AM
Hunting for animals will become hunting for humans once that person becomes bored or mentally instable. It only takes 1 person, and these things happen. Very easily.


I actually don't agree with hunting. I like firearms and I would love to own some, just to shoot, not to anything alive.

Taking the arms away is like supressing the free press, disention still exists even if it's not noted by the general public.

The cases of people that bought firearms in a normal weapons store and then went on a killing rampage are rare, very publicized but rare, most crimes are committed by people that know how to obtain weapons.

I don't pretend to know the answer to crime, but I think that to blame it on firearms is a dangerous simplification that can lead to wrong solutions, as I said before, is someone wants to kill, they will find the way, making guns illegal won't change a thing (like making drugs, alcohol or tobacco or prostitution illegal doesn't change anything), what you have to do is to stop people from pulling the trigger, more security, more police men in the streets, tougher laws, education, get the children out of the street, etc.

gentenaire
Sep 15th, 2003, 06:50 AM
The main purpose of a car is not to kill, unlike guns.

Why should you own something which only purpose is something that is illegal?

Criminals will always get their hands on guns, that's true. But a lot of gun crimes aren't executed by criminals but by ordinary people who acted without thinking, e.g. a random fight getting out of hand, people who're drunk, don't know what they're doing, people who're scared and paranoid, etc.

I'm not sure people who live in a society where it's believed there's 'evil' lurking behind every corner should have guns.

And the constitution...how many know the full sentence from the constitution? What it really says? It doesn't say everyone should have the right to bear arms, it says a militia has the right to bear arms. It was written so that they could protect the people against the government. Times change, laws should change as well. Things that made sense 200 years ago don't necessarily make sense now.

Colin B
Sep 15th, 2003, 10:22 AM
And the constitution...how many know the full sentence from the constitution? What it really says? It doesn't say everyone should have the right to bear arms, it says a militia has the right to bear arms. It was written so that they could protect the people against the government. Times change, laws should change as well. Things that made sense 200 years ago don't necessarily make sense now.
Correct Tine and as ever, put very eloquently.
The amendment reads:

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.

The objective of the amendment was to ensure that an organized force could be called upon to defend the country.
I'm proud to be a citizen of a country where any homicidal moron doesn't have the right to bear arms against other citizens.

The Crow
Sep 15th, 2003, 10:52 AM
Joe, comparing doctors with guns? :confused: Guns are invented to harm, nothing less, nothing more. Doctors are here to save people's life.

joegerardi
Sep 15th, 2003, 11:50 AM
Correct Tine and as ever, put very eloquently.
The amendment reads:

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.

The objective of the amendment was to ensure that an organized force could be called upon to defend the country.
I'm proud to be a citizen of a country where any homicidal moron doesn't have the right to bear arms against other citizens.

And what is a militia? It is a people's army, NOT an organized army. Now take the bold you put in and look at it here: 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.

This argument hs been brought up many times, and even the Supreme Court has agreed that the people DO have a right to have guns.

Crow wrote:
Joe, comparing doctors with guns? Guns are invented to harm, nothing less, nothing more. Doctors are here to save people's life.

Agreed. But they *accidentally* kill more people every year than guns. Cars kill more people every year than guns. So here are two things that are not "designed to kill," and yeat there are more guns, and they do less damage. It speaks to the fact that guns are not the most dangerous thing out there.

..Joe

gentenaire
Sep 15th, 2003, 11:54 AM
Agreed. But they *accidentally* kill more people every year than guns. Cars kill more people every year than guns. So here are two things that are not "designed to kill," and yeat there are more guns, and they do less damage. It speaks to the fact that guns are not the most dangerous thing out there.


More people die from cancer than from AIDS. So I suppose that means it's silly to look for a cure for AIDS? AIDS is not the most common cause of death, so why bother to try to reduce it, right?

The Crow
Sep 15th, 2003, 12:12 PM
Doctors "accidently" kill more people every year than guns?? First, are you sure about that? Second, since you can't really compare guns and doctors, the solutions for both problems are different. I'm no expert so I'm not going into them. But, incidents prove that there *is* a problem with regular people owning guns. You can't really dismiss that.

gentenaire
Sep 15th, 2003, 12:39 PM
And my guess is that when lots of people die at the hands of an incompetent doctor, the doctor will be discharged, measures will be taken to prevent such deaths, etc.

A lot of people die in traffic, that's true. That's why our government is changing laws, why there are a lot more speed cameras now, etc. People have died who shouldn't have, so they're taking measures to reduce these deaths to a minimum.

Why does the US keep refusing to take measures when it comes to guns? The gun lobby in the US seems to be a bit too powerful.

Also, as far as I know, you can't just drive a car if you want to, you need a permit. And in order to get this permit, you have to prove that you're capable of driving a car. When getting a gun in the US, do you have to prove that you'll handle the gun in a responsible manner?

Gallofa
Sep 15th, 2003, 12:43 PM
Guns are for killing people. Like atomic bombs. People should not own guns. Countries should not own atomic bombs.

You say "people kill, not guns". But that is false. The same people would only injury if they didn't have the guns. They might not even feel 'brave' enough to get into a fight without the gun. Who wants a blue eye? Not me.

It seems to me the value of a life is not the same in all societies. It looks as if a murder in the USA is only a big deal when it is a celebrity. You've lost the sense of how valuable a human being is when you allow yourself to say things like the ones that have been said here. To actually talk about your right to kill people. How can the estate grant such a right to its citizens? how can anyone go around thinking "I have a right to kill you and your daughter".

No. Nobody needs a gun.

gRaFiC
Sep 15th, 2003, 12:55 PM
In times like these I am ever so grateful that I am Australian.

I CANNOT believe that in Virgin, Utah it is illegal NOT to own a gun. That is complete and utter insanity. The gun culture in America is INSANE. I mean, why does it exist?
Bowling for Columbine was certainly an insight and explained a lot.

I'd sooner be killed by a boxing kangaroo than be shot by a gun anywhere in Australia.

controlfreak
Sep 15th, 2003, 12:58 PM
Nobody needs a gun.

:worship:

*JR*
Sep 15th, 2003, 01:24 PM
What exactly does the term "a well regulated militia" mean? Well, the colonies which became the original 13 states recruited citizens to join them for the revolution, and the Constitution kept the provision so we could quickly react if need be (as indeed occured in the War of 1812). So Joe, I'm all for voluntary militias strictly regulated by the states. That would provide the deterrence of a "virtual plainclothes force" and might even make those admitted to them think twice B4 misusing guns in personal disputes. (Your arguement not only ignores the words "well regulated" as the NRA so conveniently does, but would permit both machine guns and "personal nuclear weapons" if literally observed).

Volcana
Sep 15th, 2003, 01:57 PM
Nobody needs a gun.

I live next to a forest. We have bears. They are far bigger and stronger thanhumnas AND have teeth and claws.

Colin B
Sep 15th, 2003, 02:05 PM
And what is a militia? It is a people's army, NOT an organized army. Now take the bold you put in and look at it here: 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.A militia is a military force, usually drawn from the civilian population, ie, a 'Home/National Guard' - not a bunch of disparate individuals who happen to own a gun.
Regulated means controlled by rules, subject to restrictions. They would be accountable to a command structure in their actions.
The first part of the sentence takes precedence over the second.
This argument hs been brought up many times, and even the Supreme Court has agreed that the people DO have a right to have guns.

And supreme court judges would never belong to an organization like the N.R.A. would they?

I agree with the poster who stated that banning guns could never be effective now, though. There are simply too many guns circulating already and an amnesty would only yeild a fraction of them.

Gallofa
Sep 15th, 2003, 03:00 PM
I live next to a forest. We have bears. They are far bigger and stronger thanhumnas AND have teeth and claws.

I could answer that in many ways.

But let me answer literally. It's funny that you mention that to me. My family comes from an area in Spain where there are bears. And wolves. They lived there before we were there, mind you. But still, they attack the cattle and eat the sheep. Sometimes at night, they might come and kill 10 or more sheep before you can do anything about it. Sometimes they come during the day. Let me tell you, a sheppard with a wooden stick can send them packing.

But I am not telling you to confront them. You can be sure that they don't open doors or climb fences. So you are quite safe in your home, just call 911. They will send someone over who can safely take care of the bear. No need to kill an animal only because it scares you.

Colin B
Sep 15th, 2003, 03:27 PM
I live next to a forest. We have bears. They are far bigger and stronger thanhumnas AND have teeth and claws.
A friend of mine is doing her Ph.D. on some obscure plant that can only be found in remote wilderness areas of northern Europe and North America. She has spent many weeks on her own, sleeping in a tent at night and sitting around by day waiting for the things to flower.
The only animal that has ever bitten her was a Dalmation dog.
She was once staying in a forest cabin that had a klaxon; so when she heard a bear outside, she sounded that and the bear would run away.

gentenaire
Sep 15th, 2003, 10:39 PM
DD, burglars here know people generally don't have guns, so they don't bring guns themselves. I prefer it that way. The odds of someone trying to kill you over here are extremely small, almost nihil! I think that if everyone here owned a gun, the odds would suddenly get a lot higher.

*JR*
Sep 16th, 2003, 12:28 AM
Maybe if most people were packing heat, the muggers/burglars would get silencers and kill the victims first. I'm not saying this WOULD happen, only that it could; that's called "The Law of Unintended Consequences".

Halardfan
Sep 16th, 2003, 11:05 AM
I too think "Bowling for Columbine" was an interesting take on the subject...moore basically suggested there where several reasons in play why gun related crime was such an epic problem in parts of the US...but that one of them must be the easy availability of guns...

The scene where the bank gives away a free gun is surreal! :eek:

Guns are one of the reasons Im not a libertarian...I don't think any regular member of the public should be able to own any gun. Full stop.

It would be wrong to think that would solve everything...but it would be an obvious, logical step in the right direction.

Colin B
Sep 16th, 2003, 11:54 AM
and maybe if the intended victims first got a couple of m89-sp galil's or some ruger m77's they could all sit atop various highrises in their cities and look for would-be mugger/burglars and snipe their asses first. i'm not saying this WOULD happen, only that it could; that's called "The Law of First Come, First Served." ;)
....and then the muggers/burglers will get even better rifles, sit on even taller buildings and snipe at the snipers, the whole thing escalates and proliferates until anyone who goes outside is dodging bullets and then it's 'whoopie we're all gonna die!!'

Volcana
Sep 16th, 2003, 01:31 PM
Gallofa, Colin B - I don't own a gun. Never have. But I'm not going to tell someone else how to deal with a predator that three times their size, with teeth and claws to match.

99% of the time, bears are harmless and no threat to humans. I just don;t want my nickname to become '1%'.

Gallofa
Sep 16th, 2003, 01:41 PM
Gallofa, Colin B - I don't own a gun. Never have. But I'm not going to tell someone else how to deal with a predator that three times their size, with teeth and claws to match.

99% of the time, bears are harmless and no threat to humans. I just don;t want my nickname to become '1%'.

I am sorry, but that does not make any sense. You are talking about a danger that affects 1 out of every 10,000 people... maybe less? are you trying to justify that everyone should have a gun in case a mad bear attacks them?

What of falling pianos? What do you propose against them?

decemberlove
Sep 16th, 2003, 04:33 PM
making assault weapons illegal wont change much except not allowing responsible, common people to own them. criminals will still be able to get ahold of them easily.

you think just cos something is illegal its harder to get? psht. drugs, prostitution, its all a couple walks down the block.

if theres a will, theres a way.

Colin B
Sep 16th, 2003, 05:49 PM
surely, colin, you realize that i'm messin' around with roger?
p.s....no need for a 'whoopie' when it's time to die. we'll all get there someday anyway.
Yup. My post was a poor attempt at paraphrasing a Vietnam protest song by (I think) Lauden Wainwright III? You're probably waay too young to remember it but it was all upbeat about going to war but with each verse ending in 'Whoopie we're all gonna die!!'

decemberlove
Sep 16th, 2003, 05:55 PM
Yup. My post was a poor attempt at paraphrasing a Vietnam protest song by (I think) Lauden Wainwright III? You're probably waay too young to remember it but it was all upbeat about going to war but with each verse ending in 'Whoopie we're all gonna die!!'

joe mcdonald
feel like im fixing to die rag

ain't no time to wonder why, whoopee we're all gonna die

Colin B
Sep 16th, 2003, 06:09 PM
isn't great to know that sarcasm is healthy in every generation? ;)
Except I prefer to call it irony when I'm using it. ;)
After all, 'sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and the highest form of vulgarity'. Or so my English teachers used to say. :)

kiwifan
Sep 16th, 2003, 07:54 PM
joe mcdonald
feel like im fixing to die rag

ain't no time to wonder why, whoopee we're all gonna die

I used that song as the centerpiece of a speech I gave in college for my "Political Violence" class. I used to get in great fights in that class. :p

The theme of the speech was that Rock Stars ended the war in Vietnam (thus making them the real heros of the war) or something like that.

My Professor was one of the guys involved with planning bombing tactics in Vietnam in the early '70s and I created that speech just to piss him off. He was also my academic advisor and he knew I was just busting his chops (probably all 5 of my speeches in that class could have me in the FBI's files; I was very hawkish, still am) but the speech was good enough that he wanted to have a copy of it for future classes.

Unfortunately all I had written down on the paper was the lyrics to a bunch of protest songs, I just "winged it" from there.

But one of the lyrics was something like (this was many years ago kids) "Come on mom be the first on your block, to have you son come home in a box" a cheery sarcastic little ditty.

Country Joe and Ray Manzerak (sp) of the Doors are two of the biggest "quote whores" when it comes to the "Flower Power Movement" they are in nearly every 60s documentary giving thier two cents.

And that was my two cents.

C-Ya!!!

Ps. For those who are reading impaired, speech was a goof not my personal beliefs.

Oh yeah, don't own a gun; but have fired a few. Don't see the need for assault weapons; a shotgun for hunting and an old 6 shooter for personal protection is sufficient.

King Satan
Sep 16th, 2003, 08:14 PM
I don't like guns, but sometimes they can come in handy. a gun saved my mom from being raped. some guy was gonna attack her in a parking lot, but when she took that gun out of her purse, the dude started shitting bricks and ran away.

I don't see anything wrong with responsible ppl having guns. my friend and his dad own about 13 guns, and i don't see anything wrong with it.

JasonW
Sep 17th, 2003, 12:32 AM
Lol, it's amazing how much we disagree yet still love eachother ;) I've been on this board for ever and have yet to figure out how to quote people so, if one of you can help me out there, i will make my argument.

GBFH
Sep 17th, 2003, 12:39 AM
Lol, it's amazing how much we disagree yet still love eachother ;) I've been on this board for ever and have yet to figure out how to quote people so, if one of you can help me out there, i will make my argument.

it's easy ;)

just type QUOTE=poster name within [ ] these kinds of brackets at the beginning of the text you want to quote. don't leave any spaces. then at the VERY END of the text you want to quote, type "/QUOTE" (include the backwards slash) within [ ] these kinds of brackets. DON'T have spaces!!!!!

If you want to see an exampe...just click "reply" on my post and you'll see how it works in the reply box.

*JR*
Sep 17th, 2003, 12:49 AM
I don't like guns, but sometimes they can come in handy. a gun saved my mom from being raped. some guy was gonna attack her in a parking lot, but when she took that gun out of her purse, the dude started shitting bricks and ran away.

I guess she really scared the :devil: out of him! :o

Colin B
Sep 17th, 2003, 01:01 AM
joe mcdonald
feel like im fixing to die rag

ain't no time to wonder why, whoopee we're all gonna die
Thanks decemberlove/Kiwifan. Don't know why I thought of Lauden Wainwright III, it was just a guess.
At least I'm not the only one on here who knows it.

JasonW
Sep 17th, 2003, 01:52 AM
In times like these I am ever so grateful that I am Australian.

I CANNOT believe that in Virgin, Utah it is illegal NOT to own a gun. That is complete and utter insanity. The gun culture in America is INSANE. I mean, why does it exist?
Bowling for Columbine was certainly an insight and explained a lot.

I'd sooner be killed by a boxing kangaroo than be shot by a gun anywhere in Australia.

U know sumpin? Kennesaw, Georgia is the same way and it's the safest city in America.

Guns are for killing people. Like atomic bombs. People should not own guns. Countries should not own atomic bombs.

You say "people kill, not guns". But that is false. The same people would only injury if they didn't have the guns. They might not even feel 'brave' enough to get into a fight without the gun. Who wants a blue eye? Not me.

It seems to me the value of a life is not the same in all societies. It looks as if a murder in the USA is only a big deal when it is a celebrity. You've lost the sense of how valuable a human being is when you allow yourself to say things like the ones that have been said here. To actually talk about your right to kill people. How can the estate grant such a right to its citizens? how can anyone go around thinking "I have a right to kill you and your daughter".

No. Nobody needs a gun. To say that the state is giving us the right to kill people is wrong. That is simply not true. The reason that Kennesaw, GA is the safest city in America is because they asked violent criminals what was the one thing that would stop them from being criminals...they said "knowing potential victims were armed". I own numerous guns...i'm not a human killer, i'm simply a hunter and a target shooter with no interest of killing people. To say, like some posters have, that people who hunt will become bored and eventually become human killers is outlandish! They must not know alot of hunters.

arcus
Sep 17th, 2003, 02:44 AM
I live in a city where there hasnt been a gun related death in more than 50 years, and it has nothing to do with guns. Its just a quiet place.

THe point isnt what happens in a quite city full of paranoid gun slingers, but whats happening in inner city ghettos where guns in the wrong hands spell disaster.

To own and charish a gun and say you're not interested in killing, is like saying you own a gas-chamber and hate nazis

decemberlove
Sep 17th, 2003, 03:27 AM
U know sumpin? Kennesaw, Georgia is the same way and it's the safest city in America.

To say that the state is giving us the right to kill people is wrong. That is simply not true. The reason that Kennesaw, GA is the safest city in America is because they asked violent criminals what was the one thing that would stop them from being criminals...they said "knowing potential victims were armed". I own numerous guns...i'm not a human killer, i'm simply a hunter and a target shooter with no interest of killing people. To say, like some posters have, that people who hunt will become bored and eventually become human killers is outlandish! They must not know alot of hunters.

where are you getting your information from that kennesaw is americas safest city?
also, you call a population of 22,000 a CITY? thats more like a town, honey. just cos the word city is placed after the name doesnt mean its actually considered a city in the sense that it should be compared to a metro area. theres twice as many people in my hometown and most of manchester is woods anyway. weak comparison.

check this link out for americas safest/most dangerous cities: http://www.morganquitno.com/cit03pop.htm

gentenaire
Sep 19th, 2003, 12:22 PM
where are you getting your information from that kennesaw is americas safest city?
also, you call a population of 22,000 a CITY? thats more like a town, honey. just cos the word city is placed after the name doesnt mean its actually considered a city in the sense that it should be compared to a metro area. theres twice as many people in my hometown and most of manchester is woods anyway. weak comparison.

check this link out for americas safest/most dangerous cities: http://www.morganquitno.com/cit03pop.htm

Interesting website.

I noticed the only time NY city is mentioned, is in the column of the safest city. I think this is much more telling than Jason's information. We always considered NY to be one of the most dangerous cities. I know NY is a lot safer now. Is it because the people are now suddenly armed? I don't think so. It's the zero tolerance policy.

Experimentee
Sep 19th, 2003, 05:17 PM
If we ban firearms it will make society a much safer place. Yes other weapons can kill as well, like knives, baseball bats etc, but they dont have the essential feature that guns have, that is, the ability to kill instantly over a long range. The truth is if someone was attacking with a knife you would have a much greater chance of survival than if they were spraying bullets from an automatic weapon. The sole purpose of a firearm is to kill, not an objective anyone should be condoning.

decemberlove
Sep 21st, 2003, 09:51 PM
Interesting website.

I noticed the only time NY city is mentioned, is in the column of the safest city. I think this is much more telling than Jason's information. We always considered NY to be one of the most dangerous cities. I know NY is a lot safer now. Is it because the people are now suddenly armed? I don't think so. It's the zero tolerance policy.

it has absolutely nothing to do with guns. its all about kicking out the poor people by tearing down the projects, putting up expensive housing, and letting the rich flood the area.

outlawing assault weapons will really change nothing. if anything, and i said this earlier i believe, it will just make it harder for common folk to protect themselves from criminals with assault weapons. cos just like with drugs, assault weapons would be easier to find and purchase in a rougher area than it would in a nice neighborhood.