SCOTUS to decide on handgun ban - Page 12

TurtleDude · 01-21-08, 05:57 PM

The guy with the knife was really pathetic then. We used to take the rubber knives and put lipstick on them and spar with some 4-5 dan TKD black belts or similar guys who were everything from good boxers, college wrestlers and some of the gracie taught boys. Good knives, like the stuff you can buy easily for 100 bucks, cut to the bone without much effort, the really good stuff, like a Randall or a Chris Reeve will cut through the bone. Guess what, the martial artists always had a "serious" cut no matter what they could do

LaMidRighter · 01-21-08, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bodhisattva

hunters who use high powered rifles are hardly hunters and the government or rifle ranges can hold all weapons in armories...

Why should I "let" someone hold my private property for one. And two, high powered rifles do the same thing that low powered rifles do, just with.......well.....higher power. Besides, try taking down a full sized buck with a .22, then we'll talk about excessive power.

{QUOTE=Bodhisattva;1057511547]LaMidRighter

Quote:

If you did, then you would not attack the 2nd amendment. - Rather juvenile in its assumption and to declare that as you "logical" arguement is a little disturbing indeed

Really, then why is it that the second agrees with me? Take your time, I know this will take a while.

Quote:

I've seen the compiled data. - So have I... and? Perhaps Interpretation is not your forte?

Fine, then print what you've got, because I'll surely show you the non-biased, accurate, and......well interpreted data.

Quote:

Would you like to see how easily refutable these points are? All I have to do is point out how infrequent these things can be...

The fact that some criminals build up a tolerance to "pepper" spray chemicals - The fact that some criminals wear bullet-proof vests and body armor. The LA Police Shootout is one such example of many.

Fully armored criminals are a rarer occurance than those that pepper spray don't work against. Try again.

Quote:

the fact that the most advanced tazer has two shots, - Some guns only hold six shots and there might be more than six assailants... not to mention actually being able to hit the targets.

Six shots are more than two, most semi-autos hold more than ten, all six+ of which WILL stop a target and have a much better accuracy rating than two prongs, which will have less aerodynamics, especially when attached to cables. But hey, if you choose to be protected by those options be my guest. Two points though, don't tell me how to protect myself and don't cry when someone has to use a gun to defend you if said alternate options fail you.

Quote:

the fact that an armed assailant has an advantage over an unarmed martial artist. - Guess you missed the two posts were I said that I disarmed a thug that pulled a knife and kept him and his two friends from mugging me, huh?

Fine, when the next one pulls a gun, or is better with a knife, come and talk to me......if you can.

Quote:

The fact that the second amendment states we can bear arms - The Constitution USED to say that slaves/blacks counted as 3/5 of a person as well...

And the second one you are talking about was nullified by a constitutional amendment, it was also not one of the ten BOR amendments which are listed as absolute. Do try to find a BOR amendment that was repealed to make things more accurate.

Quote:

AND that it shall not be infringed. - The Constitution is continually updated for the betterment of society at large.

Same response as above.

Quote:

Which "opinion" isn't backed up by fact. - those

If you don't like my counterpoints it is not because they lack logic...
It is because they show that you have opinionated arguements, that is all.

No...see an opinion is that you have the right to take my guns, the fact is that the constitution prohibits it. Facts are concrete and based in truth, opinions are founded on personal belief. What FACTS are written in the founding documents allowing you to determine who, what, where, how, and why guns will be issued. Again, take your time.

Quote:

No, it really isn't irrelevent at all, well, not to me because it backs up my argument. - But the very fact that you use something that is Irrelevant to "back up your arguement" shows that your arguement is Irrelevant as well.

please explain.

Quote:

But please, don't let a little thing like the U.S. constitution get in the way of your infringement argument - You keep tossing this out at me as if this prooves anything. The Constitution is not a static document. It evolves. It changes. The 2nd Amendment can be altered or even flat-out DELETED. The fact that it hasn't yet does not make it any more relavant.

Actually, no the second can't. Read the founding writings and the safeguards built into constitutional law before you state a falsehood like that. And by the way, if the constitution is so "dynamic" why has it only been amended 22 times or so since the founding of our country. It could have something to do with the founders making it incredibly difficult to do, there's a reason for that.

Bodhisattva · 01-21-08, 08:47 PM

Turtle Dude

yeah, we could all second guess each other about the sissies that we faced I guess. Guess that makes you feel better then? Like you have a point? Each situation is unique and a guy starting out facing an opponent with a knife at the ready will have it tougher than a quick start-up situation...just like you had.

Perhaps I got lucky, but perhaps I was just quick and got him in a wrist lock and kicked out his knee ... no way to tell now.

Not the point either. If the bad guy in your situation was smarter, you would be dead or robbed no matter how fast you say you are. I think that any person that mugs another and does not incapacitate their victim in the blink of an eye is a moron. IF you were my victim you would be unconscoius

We could just go back and forth about scenarios regarding how this or that.

You are deadpan in your ideas and that is fine.

You are not discussing this with an open mind, and I think that we are done.

LaMidRighter

You are too arrogant to understand that you are not countering anything that I have said. Sorry, no more time to spend with you on this one. Think what you like and have fun trying to prove anything else with the last words here.

LaMidRighter · 01-21-08, 08:55 PM

[quote]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bodhisattva

Turtle Dude

yeah, we could all second guess each other about the sissies that we faced I guess. Guess that makes you feel better then? Like you have a point? Each situation is unique and a guy starting out facing an opponent with a knife at the ready will have it tougher than a quick start-up situation...just like you had.

Well, this guy caught me by surprise, but I think he chickened out when the response he got was anger instead of fear, obviously, the situation could have been worse for one of us if he hadn't yielded.

Quote:

Perhaps I got lucky, but perhaps I was just quick and got him in a wrist lock and kicked out his knee ... no way to tell now.

Well, I certainly don't wish anyone harm, and fortunately you were able to escape unharmed, I just wouldn't want to think of my loved one's helpless in the same situation.

Quote:

Not the point either. If the bad guy in your situation was smarter, you would be dead or robbed no matter how fast you say you are. I think that any person that mugs another and does not incapacitate their victim in the blink of an eye is a moron. IF you were my victim you would be unconscoius

Can't argue that. It all comes down to who would have gotten the final shot in.

Bodhisattva · 01-21-08, 09:46 PM

I hear ya LaMidRighter
Protecting oneself is extremely important, and I don't harbour ANY ill feelings about any person that is a responsible gun owner...no problem at all really.
I am just not as passionate about this issue as you two are apparently.
Take it easy.
Bodi

American · 01-23-08, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheHonestTruth

Its important to note this issue is about ownership of HAND guns. Not guns in general.

Im a bit torn on this issue. The argument the DC city limits had was that handguns are involved in the vast majority of crimes because they are easily concealed weapons. Yet at the same time, nobody really needs a handgun imo. Defending yourself can be done in other ways, your home with a shotgun or rifle for example is equally as safe. I think if fewer handguns were sold over time crime would decrease. Plenty of crimes are committed simply because people shove guns into their wasteband, if these guns were systematically eliminated over time crime would decrease.

Its certainly a tenuous issue.

Yeah, and if I walked into Walmart with my 12ga shotgun, because I couldn't have a carry/conceal permit you'd complain I'm wielding a dangerous weapon around at Walmart. And if I had a rifle we could talk about how many people would be endangered by the fact that it can penetrate shelves and kill unintendedly, when a handgun round would be much safer. Do you people ever think about the technical aspects of anything? There are many things in this world that sound plausible and logical when they are just the opposite. The Founders had reasons for the 2nd amendment, and don't think for a second that they were naive or unaware of their decision. You should go and read what they said about gun ownership.

Quote:

"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important, but especially so at a moment when rights the most essential to our welfare have been violated." --Thomas Jefferson to -----, 1803. ME 10:365

"We must train and classify the whole of our male citizens, and make military instruction a regular part of collegiate education. We can never be safe till this is done." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1813. ME 13:261

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824. ME 16:45

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks." --Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. ME 5:85, Papers 8:407

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms (within his own lands or tenements)." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution (with his note added), 1776. Papers 1:353

scourge99 · 01-23-08, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by American

Yeah, and if I walked into Walmart with my 12ga shotgun, because I couldn't have a carry/conceal permit you'd complain I'm wielding a dangerous weapon around at Walmart. And if I had a rifle we could talk about how many people would be endangered by the fact that it can penetrate shelves and kill unintendedly, when a handgun round would be much safer. Do you people ever think about the technical aspects of anything? There are many things in this world that sound plausible and logical when they are just the opposite. The Founders had reasons for the 2nd amendment, and don't think for a second that they were naive or unaware of their decision. You should go and read what they said about gun ownership.

Bodhisattva will just claim that times have changed. He has yet to show why armed citizens are no longer a check and balance on our government which is implied by his belief that the 2nd amendment is outdated.

Willie Orwontee · 01-24-08, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bodhisattva

. . . I wanted to make it clear that I don't care about the stats on this issue and I think that the 2nd Amendment should be stricken from the document.

Stats lie and the document should be changed to omit the 2nd Amendment

What would striking the amendment do?

Would that confer to government powers that beforehand were expressly forbidden? The power to impact the private arms of the citizen was never granted to government - hence the government can not "take back" something it never possessed!

The right to arms is not granted, given, established, created or otherwise transfered to the citizen by the 2nd Amendment so meddling with the words that just recognize and promise to secure the right would in fact be the condition for the 2nd amendment to become fully actionable.

The 2nd doesn't really matter until the government tries to mess with it.

Bodhisattva · 01-24-08, 01:34 AM

well... I mis-spoke. I think that the 2nd Amendment should be altered and that other laws whould be written and passed enabling better gun control.
That is the issue of course...

Quote:

The right to arms is not granted, given, established, created or otherwise transfered to the citizen by the 2nd Amendment so meddling with the words that just recognize and promise to secure the right would in fact be the condition for the 2nd amendment to become fully actionable.

The only thing that messing with it might do is lead those that already have weapons to action against the government. The rest of that is already in place.

TurtleDude · 01-24-08, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bodhisattva

well... I mis-spoke. I think that the 2nd Amendment should be altered and that other laws whould be written and passed enabling better gun control.
That is the issue of course...

The only thing that messing with it might do is lead those that already have weapons to action against the government. The rest of that is already in place.

Given that you cannot find ANY evidence that additional gun control laws (ie laws that affect the possession of guns by Non-banned [ie honest] people) will make us any safer

Given that the Clinton Gun bans and the Brady waiting period were found not to have any relevant or positive impact on crime

and Given that gun bans only impact people who follow the laws

what exactly do you think GOOD will happen if your plan was implemented?