EVE Search - Media Flips out over 2nd Amendment at Obama Town Hall

All Channels

Out of Pod Experience

Media Flips out over 2nd Amendment at Obama Town Hall

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
ceaon Gallente	Posted - 2009.08.14 23:07:00 - [1] Media Flips out over 2nd Amendment at Obama Town Hall dunno if this is posted already but is awesome Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist EvE FTW
Blane Xero Amarr The Firestorm Cartel	Posted - 2009.08.14 23:12:00 - [2] Originally by: ceaon Media Flips out over 2nd Amendment at Obama Town Hall dunno if this is posted already but is awesome Okay, so its legal for him to have the gun... But they are still trying to figure out ways to get him out of the way? _____________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008 Originally by: CCP Fallout :facepalm:
Guillame Herschel Gallente NME1	Posted - 2009.08.14 23:13:00 - [3] The President is a Nih..! Originally by: Sera Ryskin And I have no idea what this bull**** about gang or solo is about.
ceaon Gallente	Posted - 2009.08.14 23:14:00 - [4] anyone know how this story ended ? Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist EvE FTW
ceaon Gallente	Posted - 2009.08.14 23:17:00 - [5] Originally by: Blane Xero Okay, so its legal for him to have the gun... But they are still trying to figure out ways to get him out of the way? seams TV commentators dont give a crap about that law just pay attention at this line Quote: Why cant we get rid of him now? that woman dont care about the law Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist EvE FTW
Guillame Herschel Gallente NME1	Posted - 2009.08.14 23:18:00 - [6] No, gomframmit damnitablit. I said the President is a Nih...! Originally by: Sera Ryskin And I have no idea what this bull**** about gang or solo is about.
Mr Reason	Posted - 2009.08.14 23:50:00 - [7] So people in that area are allowed to carry a gun out in the open. Ok that's cool I guess, in 1850. HAVING a gun is not an issue to me even though I'm personally against them, but I can understand people wanting to protect their own lifes and family or perhaps even have fun shooting stuff on a range. But being allowed to carry one out in the open, in a situation where there's lots of other people who saviour their lives just as much (or perhaps even more if that gun owner planned something) and with a public figure on the way? I'm sure you all feel very strong about your rights and 'freedom' and all that but seriously, who thinks this can EVER be a good idea?
Bestofworst Worstofbest Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2009.08.14 23:57:00 - [8] Originally by: Mr Reason So people in that area are allowed to carry a gun out in the open. Ok that's cool I guess, in 1850. HAVING a gun is not an issue to me even though I'm personally against them, but I can understand people wanting to protect their own lifes and family or perhaps even have fun shooting stuff on a range. But being allowed to carry one out in the open, in a situation where there's lots of other people who saviour their lives just as much (or perhaps even more if that gun owner planned something) and with a public figure on the way? I'm sure you all feel very strong about your rights and 'freedom' and all that but seriously, who thinks this can EVER be a good idea? Some else who illegally concealed a gun pulls it out and the man who legally brought his pulls it on the first guy and shoots him before he shoots some one else ________________________________________________ My Music Posts slowly rising in quality to the decline of my dignity.
soldieroffortune 258 Gallente Trinity Council	Posted - 2009.08.15 00:01:00 - [9] Wow, I don't even know what to say about this. They are tripping about a man legally carrying a gun, but because the President is coming there they want to make the man leave? Didn't Obama swear to an Oath of Office? Originally by: Presidential Oath of Office I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. I don't see the issue here. Hell, I think the President should go up to that man and shake his damn hand for exercising one of the more debated rights we have and proudly doing it, and thus voicing his opinion. Please re-size your signature to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes.Applebabe
Grathar	Posted - 2009.08.15 00:05:00 - [10] Originally by: Mr Reason So people in that area are allowed to carry a gun out in the open. Ok that's cool I guess, in 1850. HAVING a gun is not an issue to me even though I'm personally against them, but I can understand people wanting to protect their own lifes and family or perhaps even have fun shooting stuff on a range. But being allowed to carry one out in the open, in a situation where there's lots of other people who saviour their lives just as much (or perhaps even more if that gun owner planned something) and with a public figure on the way? I'm sure you all feel very strong about your rights and 'freedom' and all that but seriously, who thinks this can EVER be a good idea? In the U.S. Law abiding citizens legally killed just over 3,500 felons in the defense of life last year. They usually have a gun with them. In the U.S. all of law enforcement...killed just under 250 felons last year in the prosecution of their duties. Its not that we feel strongly about it. Its just that we will kill anyone who thinks they can take our rights away. Our country was founded by force of arms. Our founding fathers tasked, by name, the citizenry of the U.S. to keep and bear arms to watch over the government for the potential of corruption, not the other way around. The militia is not the federally controlled national guard, or any other such federal agency. This and many other topics show how far our country has moved away from the republic we were founded upon.
Micheal Dietrich Caldari	Posted - 2009.08.15 00:10:00 - [11] My hats off to that man. He just stood up before many for what he believed in. And I find the medias commentary rather hilarious in how they portray him as a evil monger posing a threat. And while I'm not big on religion I've gotta thank the church for allowing him to express himself. Now I'll sit back and watch as this thread will turn into another pro/anti gun debate or how I like to call it 'you pansies getting all scared over a gun'. Fake edit: I also think that Mr. Obama should walk up and shake that mans hand. He's already being watched and I'm sure that if his hand went anywhere near that gun he would be tackled in seconds.
Jacob Mei Gallente	Posted - 2009.08.15 00:10:00 - [12] Three words sum this up: Slow. News. Day. On an unrelated note, Kneel before Zod!
Awesome Possum Insert Obscure Latin Name	Posted - 2009.08.15 00:19:00 - [13] Originally by: Mr Reason So people in that area are allowed to carry a gun out in the open. Ok that's cool I guess, in 1850. HAVING a gun is not an issue to me even though I'm personally against them, but I can understand people wanting to protect their own lifes and family or perhaps even have fun shooting stuff on a range. But being allowed to carry one out in the open, in a situation where there's lots of other people who saviour their lives just as much (or perhaps even more if that gun owner planned something) and with a public figure on the way? I'm sure you all feel very strong about your rights and 'freedom' and all that but seriously, who thinks this can EVER be a good idea? /facepalms europeans. ♥ Wreck Disposal Services
Micheal Dietrich Caldari	Posted - 2009.08.15 00:24:00 - [14] His name is William Kostric..... His name is William Kostric.....
Jonny 101 Shiva Morsus Mihi	Posted - 2009.08.15 00:27:00 - [15] Taking a gun to a school where the president is about to show up, oh yes I see no problems here. If this was your last president i'm sure nobody would send him straight to guantanamo or anything :P It's one thing having a gun and being allowed to carry it, another to bring it to a huge crowd when your head of state is about to arrive, bad taste or just plain stupid you pick but you obviously can't let people run around with weapons willy nilly when your president comes to visit, lets be honest, you americans do have more than enough nuts that'd love to shoot him. And I quite like this one, I don't think his policies are much better than the rest you've had, but at least this one speaks your damn language.
Awesome Possum Insert Obscure Latin Name	Posted - 2009.08.15 00:29:00 - [16] Originally by: Micheal Dietrich His name is William Kostric..... His name is William Kostric..... reporters should report. ♥ Wreck Disposal Services
Awesome Possum Insert Obscure Latin Name	Posted - 2009.08.15 00:31:00 - [17] Originally by: Jonny 101 Taking a gun to a school where the president is about to show up, oh yes I see no problems here. If this was your last president i'm sure nobody would send him straight to guantanamo or anything :P It's one thing having a gun and being allowed to carry it, another to bring it to a huge crowd when your head of state is about to arrive, bad taste or just plain stupid you pick but you obviously can't let people run around with weapons willy nilly when your president comes to visit, lets be honest, you americans do have more than enough nuts that'd love to shoot him. And I quite like this one, I don't think his policies are much better than the rest you've had, but at least this one speaks your damn language. What he did was completely legal. End of story. I'm sure the secret service ran checks on this guy the moment the local police gave them his name, and if they had found even a rumour of bad history, they would've pulled him as a security risk. ♥ Wreck Disposal Services
Micheal Dietrich Caldari	Posted - 2009.08.15 00:40:00 - [18] This is one of my favorites
Mr Reason	Posted - 2009.08.15 00:42:00 - [19] So law is law until someone "heard a rumor" then they're completely in their right to "take him away". Double standard simpleton reasoning imo, personally it would be easier to just go "no guns in public", dunno about you.
goodby4u Valor Inc. Cosmic Anomalies	Posted - 2009.08.15 00:56:00 - [20] Originally by: Mr Reason So law is law until someone "heard a rumor" then they're completely in their right to "take him away". Double standard simpleton reasoning imo, personally it would be easier to just go "no guns in public", dunno about you. The guy that is packing a gun for everybody to see is not the one you should be worried about, the one you should worry about is the one that conceals such a weapon. He has every right to hold that unconcealed weapon so the media should shut the hell up.
Mr Reason	Posted - 2009.08.15 01:00:00 - [21] Originally by: goodby4u Originally by: Mr Reason So law is law until someone "heard a rumor" then they're completely in their right to "take him away". Double standard simpleton reasoning imo, personally it would be easier to just go "no guns in public", dunno about you. The guy that is packing a gun for everybody to see is not the one you should be worried about, the one you should worry about is the one that conceals such a weapon. He has every right to hold that unconcealed weapon so the media should shut the hell up. By your reasoning anyone who wants to do some serious damage should carry openly, because that somehow means you're no threat. "Hey guys look at me carrying this firearm, I'm not here to use it in any way, that's why I'm carrying in the first place. Please go search for the other people who conceal theirs, go now go and find them while I'll stand here... waiting... to not use the gun I brought to this gathering, for no reason at all. No sirree!". I'm sure no one would think of this...
ceaon Gallente	Posted - 2009.08.15 01:00:00 - [22] even if this can be a gold mine for some ppl anyone should have a gun (at least in house) and depend of the size of that gun should have a proper instruction and whit periodical metal review atm if some one get into my house if am ****ed my only defence should be a chair and chicken knife also i live in a central street in my city and dunno if someone will dare to commit robbery Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist EvE FTW
Grathar	Posted - 2009.08.15 01:06:00 - [23] Even though I never cared much for Bush and usually vote libertarian, he actually showed up once in Phoenix, AZ. and walked around at the states largest gun show and met with thousands of people openly carrying. The secret service looked like they were sh#$@ting two bricks. I did not go up to shake his hand, but I was impressed anyway. Politicians are usually the worst kind of coward and tend to be closet aristocrats. Per capita, we are the most armed country on the planet. More than 1 of 2 Americans legally owns a firearm. In Phoenix we (medical field) had done an informal study. On all the accident scenes we had worked, our investigations show that 79% of all cars on the roadways of Arizona legally have a firearm in them. The F.B.I. uniform crime reports do not lie. The states with the strictest gun control laws have the highest violent crime rates. Criminals simply do not abide by laws...period. This is why places like California, NY, Chicago, DC have such high violent crime rates. In the states that have the most liberal gun laws such as Arizona, Montana, Colorado, Utah. They have much lower violent crime rates. This is a matter of public record. An armed populace is a polite populace. Once Florida passed its ccw (concealed carry permit basically) violent crime dropped by an amazing 27% in just one year and has continued to decline. The current squatter in the presidents office was born out of frustration. His current approval rating is a record. No American president has lost the amount of approval percentage he has lost within their first six months of office.
Jin Nib	Posted - 2009.08.15 01:07:00 - [24] Guns are the great equalizer. Naturally some people would prefer that they are more equal then others. Citizens being equal with career politicians, god forbid. -Jin Nib Trading on behalf of Opera Noir since: 2009.03.02 03:53:00
Bestofworst Worstofbest Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2009.08.15 01:07:00 - [25] Originally by: Mr Reason Originally by: goodby4u Originally by: Mr Reason So law is law until someone "heard a rumor" then they're completely in their right to "take him away". Double standard simpleton reasoning imo, personally it would be easier to just go "no guns in public", dunno about you. The guy that is packing a gun for everybody to see is not the one you should be worried about, the one you should worry about is the one that conceals such a weapon. He has every right to hold that unconcealed weapon so the media should shut the hell up. By your reasoning anyone who wants to do some serious damage should carry openly, because that somehow means you're no threat. "Hey guys look at me carrying this firearm, I'm not here to use it in any way, that's why I'm carrying in the first place. Please go search for the other people who conceal theirs, go now go and find them while I'll stand here... waiting... to not use the gun I brought to this gathering, for no reason at all. No sirree!". I'm sure no one would think of this... Because like said before there would be a background check as soon as he was scene with the gun. If he had any bad history, he will be taken to the sides. Even if not, they are gonna keep an eye on him no matter what. They know where it is, so if he reaches for it they will know when to stop him. ________________________________________________ My Music Posts slowly rising in quality to the decline of my dignity.
goodby4u Valor Inc. Cosmic Anomalies	Posted - 2009.08.15 01:12:00 - [26] Originally by: Mr Reason Originally by: goodby4u Originally by: Mr Reason So law is law until someone "heard a rumor" then they're completely in their right to "take him away". Double standard simpleton reasoning imo, personally it would be easier to just go "no guns in public", dunno about you. The guy that is packing a gun for everybody to see is not the one you should be worried about, the one you should worry about is the one that conceals such a weapon. He has every right to hold that unconcealed weapon so the media should shut the hell up. By your reasoning anyone who wants to do some serious damage should carry openly, because that somehow means you're no threat. "Hey guys look at me carrying this firearm, I'm not here to use it in any way, that's why I'm carrying in the first place. Please go search for the other people who conceal theirs, go now go and find them while I'll stand here... waiting... to not use the gun I brought to this gathering, for no reason at all. No sirree!". I'm sure no one would think of this... Your not getting the point, if that man ever decided to get down on one knee and pull the weapon he would have several snipers shooting him at the face before he could even pull the weapon. A concealed user however, may be packing the pistol in a place that may not seem threatening, and thus, he may be able to get a shot off before either being tackled or simply sniped. The issue is not whether or not the man is allowed to carry openly, the law is pretty clear cut in the states when it comes to this... The question is whether he is allowed to carry it near the president of the united states, and I postulate that in this situation the enemy you know is far less deadly then the enemy you don't know.
Mr Reason	Posted - 2009.08.15 01:15:00 - [27] Originally by: Bestofworst Worstofbest Even if not, they are gonna keep an eye on him no matter what. They know where it is, so if he reaches for it they will know when to stop him. Are you willing to bet your own personal life or that of a loved one on the reaction time of some official against someone who is willing to commit a murder? Again, I don't have issues with people keeping guns for personal safety at home or because they find them fun. But out in public is just dumb, you simply can't justify that.
goodby4u Valor Inc. Cosmic Anomalies	Posted - 2009.08.15 01:20:00 - [28] Originally by: Mr Reason Originally by: Bestofworst Worstofbest Even if not, they are gonna keep an eye on him no matter what. They know where it is, so if he reaches for it they will know when to stop him. Are you willing to bet your own personal life or that of a loved one on the reaction time of some official against someone who is willing to commit a murder? Again, I don't have issues with people keeping guns for personal safety at home or because they find them fun. But out in public is just dumb, you simply can't justify that. That is their job, so the president must trust the fact that they can stop somebody that is obviously a threat. The amount of time it takes to get on one knee and pull the weapon would be about the same amount of time it would take him to pull a knife and stab him.... If they cannot stop him then they deserve to be fired. Even though I am sure there are those that wish to assassinate him, he must abide by the clear cut laws in place by the state or country he resides, especially if it is in such a document like the constitution which was to be the backbone of our government.
Bestofworst Worstofbest Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2009.08.15 01:21:00 - [29] Originally by: Mr Reason Originally by: Bestofworst Worstofbest Even if not, they are gonna keep an eye on him no matter what. They know where it is, so if he reaches for it they will know when to stop him. Are you willing to bet your own personal life or that of a loved one on the reaction time of some official against someone who is willing to commit a murder? Again, I don't have issues with people keeping guns for personal safety at home or because they find them fun. But out in public is just dumb, you simply can't justify that. Except it will be multiple officials and a single jerk of his hand will cause retaliation. But then again, did the news clip even say the gun was loaded? Maybe he brought an unloaded gun (forgive me for not being all knowing about guns) to be a part of his protest, if not unloaded, maybe it is still a part of his protest. ________________________________________________ My Music Posts slowly rising in quality to the decline of my dignity.
Grathar	Posted - 2009.08.15 01:23:00 - [30] Originally by: Mr Reason Originally by: Bestofworst Worstofbest Even if not, they are gonna keep an eye on him no matter what. They know where it is, so if he reaches for it they will know when to stop him. Are you willing to bet your own personal life or that of a loved one on the reaction time of some official against someone who is willing to commit a murder? Again, I don't have issues with people keeping guns for personal safety at home or because they find them fun. But out in public is just dumb, you simply can't justify that. So are you saying you want the government to make everything safe and tell you what you can and can't do? You are a perfect european. Keep it.
Mr Reason	Posted - 2009.08.15 01:25:00 - [31] Originally by: goodby4u Originally by: Mr Reason Originally by: Bestofworst Worstofbest Even if not, they are gonna keep an eye on him no matter what. They know where it is, so if he reaches for it they will know when to stop him. Are you willing to bet your own personal life or that of a loved one on the reaction time of some official against someone who is willing to commit a murder? Again, I don't have issues with people keeping guns for personal safety at home or because they find them fun. But out in public is just dumb, you simply can't justify that. That is their job, so the president must trust the fact that they can stop somebody that is obviously a threat. The amount of time it takes to get on one knee and pull the weapon would be about the same amount of time it would take him to pull a knife and stab him.... If they cannot stop him then they deserve to be fired. Even though I am sure there are those that wish to assassinate him, he must abide by the clear cut laws in place by the state or country he resides, especially if it is in such a document like the constitution which was to be the backbone of our government. Again, are you willing to bet your personal life on the reaction times of someone else? besides, following the "as he carries openly he'll be watched" that means security is distracted more by one person. If that person isn't interested in using his gun in public, then just don't bring it in the first place?
Bestofworst Worstofbest Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2009.08.15 01:28:00 - [32] Originally by: Mr Reason Originally by: goodby4u Originally by: Mr Reason Originally by: Bestofworst Worstofbest Even if not, they are gonna keep an eye on him no matter what. They know where it is, so if he reaches for it they will know when to stop him. Are you willing to bet your own personal life or that of a loved one on the reaction time of some official against someone who is willing to commit a murder? Again, I don't have issues with people keeping guns for personal safety at home or because they find them fun. But out in public is just dumb, you simply can't justify that. That is their job, so the president must trust the fact that they can stop somebody that is obviously a threat. The amount of time it takes to get on one knee and pull the weapon would be about the same amount of time it would take him to pull a knife and stab him.... If they cannot stop him then they deserve to be fired. Even though I am sure there are those that wish to assassinate him, he must abide by the clear cut laws in place by the state or country he resides, especially if it is in such a document like the constitution which was to be the backbone of our government. Again, are you willing to bet your personal life on the reaction times of someone else? besides, following the "as he carries openly he'll be watched" that means security is distracted more by one person. If that person isn't interested in using his gun in public, then just don't bring it in the first place? Yes, I would trust my personal life not on the reaction time of just one person, but multiple people, including myself. ________________________________________________ My Music Posts slowly rising in quality to the decline of my dignity.
ceaon Gallente	Posted - 2009.08.15 01:28:00 - [33] Originally by: Mr Reason Again, are you willing to bet your personal life on the reaction times of someone else? besides, following the "as he carries openly he'll be watched" that means security is distracted more by one person. If that person isn't interested in using his gun in public, then just don't bring it in the first place? I find this statement pretty stupid Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist EvE FTW
goodby4u Valor Inc. Cosmic Anomalies	Posted - 2009.08.15 01:30:00 - [34] Edited by: goodby4u on 15/08/2009 01:30:54 As others have said, it could be part of his protest, or possibly he simply carries it everywhere, or he is going to go off and shoot a tree down, to be completely honest it is his own business as he is within his rights to do so. If I were to trust somebodies abilities, it would be the abilities of the couple dozen secret service guarding him and ready to fire on anybody that decides to breath heavy. You are avoiding the issue completely, he is within his rights to do this, hell he most likely even has a class 1 weapons permit atleast just to ensure he has the ability to carry the thing. Personally, I have no problem with people carrying guns around me, and I don't even have the protection he does. Btw troll, 0/10.
Awesome Possum Insert Obscure Latin Name	Posted - 2009.08.15 01:51:00 - [35] I'm sorry mister european that you read into my "rumour" statement. It wasn't meant to be taken literally. Also, I'm willing to bet that the secret service had at least one sniper with crosshairs on that guy's forehead at all times. The secret service follow one law before all others: Keep the president alive. If they thought the guy was a threat, they would've hustled his ass out of there pronto, be damned to state law.
Mr Reason	Posted - 2009.08.15 02:05:00 - [36] Originally by: goodby4u Edited by: goodby4u on 15/08/2009 01:30:54 As others have said, it could be part of his protest, or possibly he simply carries it everywhere, or he is going to go off and shoot a tree down, to be completely honest it is his own business as he is within his rights to do so. If I were to trust somebodies abilities, it would be the abilities of the couple dozen secret service guarding him and ready to fire on anybody that decides to breath heavy. You are avoiding the issue completely, he is within his rights to do this, hell he most likely even has a class 1 weapons permit atleast just to ensure he has the ability to carry the thing. Personally, I have no problem with people carrying guns around me, and I don't even have the protection he does. Btw troll, 0/10. So if I disagree that makes me a troll? I'm sorry, for a moment I thought this was a discussion forum... Also I'm not avoiding the issue, not at all actually. Being allowed to carry a firearm in public while not being a police officer or government official (lets not even go into the whole 'security industry' here) has nothing to do with freedom of speech or whatever, it has everything to do with thinking it's cool to carry a gun (and possibly use it). Unless you live in an area where there's a realistic chance of being eaten by a bear or similar dangers then hauling a gun around is just silly, in which case you'd want to bring a rifle and not some silly handgun. But running into bears at a school, while the president is about to visit is uhm... yeah.
F'nog Amarr Celestial Horizon Corp. Slightly Inappropriate.	Posted - 2009.08.15 02:06:00 - [37] Originally by: Guillame Herschel The President is a Nih..! The President's near! Originally by: Kazuma Saruwatari F'nog for Amarr Emperor. Nuff said Originally by: Chribba Go F'nog! You're a hero! Not a Zero! /me bows
Awesome Possum Insert Obscure Latin Name	Posted - 2009.08.15 02:10:00 - [38] Originally by: Mr Reason Unless you live in an area where there's a realistic chance of being eaten by a bear or similar dangers then hauling a gun around is just silly, in which case you'd want to bring a rifle and not some silly handgun. But running into bears at a school, while the president is about to visit is uhm... yeah. Wrong. There is a reason why violent crimes are higher in states that restrict handguns. He does live in an area where there is a realistic chance of being accosted by a violent criminal, its called America. The fact that the specific area he's in has a lower chance than others is because he, and others, carry their handguns. ♥ Wreck Disposal Services
Kravick Drasani	Posted - 2009.08.15 02:14:00 - [39] Edited by: Kravick Drasani on 15/08/2009 02:14:51 The New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in their homes. The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980 to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in 1983 compared to 1982. And it has stayed impressively low. In addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere 0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential burglaries, commercial burglaries, and ****s have averaged, respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998. With all the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you? The reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and are the cause of violence. The facts tell a different story. What is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed. The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most criminals don't have a death wish. There have been two occasions in my own family when the presence of a handgun averted potential disaster. In both instances the gun was never aimed at a person and no shot was fired. - How to kill interceptors: Zip down your fly and release. After about 10 orbits your stream just might hit him. Or a multi webbed Rapier should slow him down enough that you can drop #2 on him.
Mr Reason	Posted - 2009.08.15 02:14:00 - [40] Originally by: Awesome Possum Originally by: Mr Reason Unless you live in an area where there's a realistic chance of being eaten by a bear or similar dangers then hauling a gun around is just silly, in which case you'd want to bring a rifle and not some silly handgun. But running into bears at a school, while the president is about to visit is uhm... yeah. Wrong. There is a reason why violent crimes are higher in states that restrict handguns. He does live in an area where there is a realistic chance of being accosted by a violent criminal, its called America. The fact that the specific area he's in has a lower chance than others is because he, and others, carry their handguns. So if everyone is allowed to openly carry handguns on the streets, that should somehow make things more safe? I understand your reasoning but I personally believe the logic is backwards. It's a "it's all gone to hell, might as well chime in" sort of thing.
Bestofworst Worstofbest Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2009.08.15 02:23:00 - [41] What kind of idiot would attempt to pull something or steal something when the old lady can pull out a handgun and shoot him. ________________________________________________ My Music Posts slowly rising in quality to the decline of my dignity.
Kravick Drasani	Posted - 2009.08.15 02:25:00 - [42] Originally by: Mr Reason Originally by: Awesome Possum Originally by: Mr Reason Unless you live in an area where there's a realistic chance of being eaten by a bear or similar dangers then hauling a gun around is just silly, in which case you'd want to bring a rifle and not some silly handgun. But running into bears at a school, while the president is about to visit is uhm... yeah. Wrong. There is a reason why violent crimes are higher in states that restrict handguns. He does live in an area where there is a realistic chance of being accosted by a violent criminal, its called America. The fact that the specific area he's in has a lower chance than others is because he, and others, carry their handguns. So if everyone is allowed to openly carry handguns on the streets, that should somehow make things more safe? I understand your reasoning but I personally believe the logic is backwards. It's a "it's all gone to hell, might as well chime in" sort of thing. Yes. Everyone has a sharp staby knife in their kitchens. Are you afraid to go to your friends house or step into a strangers house if you've been invited because they have knives in their kitchens? Of course you arn't. Just because you have a gun and are carrying it doesn't mean you have intent to kill. Its there because of the "what if" factor. If just ONE person at school shooting was armed and knew how to use his gun I guarantee you that the shooting would have never lasted past the initial few shots fired. 33 people killed/wounded suddenly turns into 1-3 people. If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns. Criminals aren't just going to hand over their weapons. Hell, theres a huge black market for fully automatic weapons (which are illegal) that only gang members here in the states use with impunity. We're already out gunned. You want us to simply be completely defenseless? I don't understand how the anti-gun activists and such can disagree. If someone broke into your home and killed your family, can you honestly say that you are still fine with your decision to not have a gun, which may have saved your family? **** happens. We don't live in a perfect world. If you want to be ready and able to defend yourself and your loved ones, a gun is necessary. I challenge any of the "ZOMG GUNS R BAD" crowd to actually get into a violent situation and come out saying they were happy that they were unable to defend themselves because it makes the world a much safer place. - How to kill interceptors: Zip down your fly and release. After about 10 orbits your stream just might hit him. Or a multi webbed Rapier should slow him down enough that you can drop #2 on him.
Awesome Possum Insert Obscure Latin Name	Posted - 2009.08.15 02:25:00 - [43] Originally by: Mr Reason So if everyone is allowed to openly carry handguns on the streets, that should somehow make things more safe? I understand your reasoning but I personally believe the logic is backwards. It's a "it's all gone to hell, might as well chime in" sort of thing. The world is hell, welcome to reality. To be straightforward, I don't care about your opinion. I care about my personal safety, the safety of my loved ones, and the fact that stricter gun laws only increase violent crimes. If you take all the guns away, criminals will just resort to knives. If you take all the knives away, criminals will resort to sticks and stones. No matter what you do, there will still be violent criminals and unless the citizens are allowed to arm themselves against that eventuality, violent crime will not be stopped. ♥ Wreck Disposal Services
Mr Reason	Posted - 2009.08.15 02:33:00 - [44] Where I live (yeah I'm a filthy european) we're not allowed to carry guns at all, funnily enough crime and murder rate are not even CLOSE to what they are in the US nor do I feel the need to carry a weapon. Different situation calls for different ethics I guess. Still, just like with players in EVE who have no pvp experience; unless you really know what you're doing carrying a gun can be more of a liability than a boon.
Bestofworst Worstofbest Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2009.08.15 02:35:00 - [45] Originally by: Mr Reason Where I live (yeah I'm a filthy european) we're not allowed to carry guns at all, funnily enough crime and murder rate are not even CLOSE to what they are in the US nor do I feel the need to carry a weapon. Different situation calls for different ethics I guess. Still, just like with players in EVE who have no pvp experience; unless you really know what you're doing carrying a gun can be more of a liability than a boon. I swore I read somewhere that the people who do carry guns have had the required training to use it. Then again I'm just coming up with those "Don't let your children play with guns" commercials when the kids ran around the house playing soldier and finding daddies gun under his bed. ________________________________________________ My Music Posts slowly rising in quality to the decline of my dignity.
ceaon Gallente	Posted - 2009.08.15 02:38:00 - [46] Originally by: Mr Reason Where I live (yeah I'm a filthy european) we're not allowed to carry guns at all, funnily enough crime and murder rate are not even CLOSE to what they are in the US nor do I feel the need to carry a weapon. Different situation calls for different ethics I guess. Still, just like with players in EVE who have no pvp experience; unless you really know what you're doing carrying a gun can be more of a liability than a boon. dude get one thing on your head: the only way to deal whit guns problem is to allow anyone to have them or dont allow anyone to get one any other thing will fail to solve the problem PD: i am also european Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist EvE FTW
Micheal Dietrich Caldari	Posted - 2009.08.15 02:39:00 - [47] Originally by: Mr Reason Originally by: Bestofworst Worstofbest Even if not, they are gonna keep an eye on him no matter what. They know where it is, so if he reaches for it they will know when to stop him. Are you willing to bet your own personal life or that of a loved one on the reaction time of some official against someone who is willing to commit a murder? Again, I don't have issues with people keeping guns for personal safety at home or because they find them fun. But out in public is just dumb, you simply can't justify that. I don't have to justify that and more importantly I don't have to justify myself to you.
Orion Eridanus Dakota HeadHunters	Posted - 2009.08.15 02:41:00 - [48] Can we link to the CCW 1 criminal 0 video yet? Originally by: Paulo Damarr That is a most Excellent Drake fitting, you are lucky to have survived.
Mr Reason	Posted - 2009.08.15 02:42:00 - [49] Originally by: ceaon Originally by: Mr Reason Where I live (yeah I'm a filthy european) we're not allowed to carry guns at all, funnily enough crime and murder rate are not even CLOSE to what they are in the US nor do I feel the need to carry a weapon. Different situation calls for different ethics I guess. Still, just like with players in EVE who have no pvp experience; unless you really know what you're doing carrying a gun can be more of a liability than a boon. dude get one thing on your head: the only way to deal whit guns problem is to allow anyone to have them or dont allow anyone to get one any other thing will fail to solve the problem PD: i am also european Our crime rates seem to disagree.
Bestofworst Worstofbest Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2009.08.15 02:45:00 - [50] Originally by: Mr Reason Originally by: ceaon Originally by: Mr Reason Where I live (yeah I'm a filthy european) we're not allowed to carry guns at all, funnily enough crime and murder rate are not even CLOSE to what they are in the US nor do I feel the need to carry a weapon. Different situation calls for different ethics I guess. Still, just like with players in EVE who have no pvp experience; unless you really know what you're doing carrying a gun can be more of a liability than a boon. dude get one thing on your head: the only way to deal whit guns problem is to allow anyone to have them or dont allow anyone to get one any other thing will fail to solve the problem PD: i am also european Our crime rates seem to disagree. But our crime rate agrees . Funny how that works. ________________________________________________ My Music Posts slowly rising in quality to the decline of my dignity.
ceaon Gallente	Posted - 2009.08.15 02:46:00 - [51] Originally by: Mr Reason Our crime rates seem to disagree. maybe because we do a good job to apply the second part of my statement ? Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist EvE FTW
Grathar	Posted - 2009.08.15 03:08:00 - [52] Edited by: Grathar on 15/08/2009 03:13:13 Edited by: Grathar on 15/08/2009 03:10:03 Originally by: Mr Reason Where I live (yeah I'm a filthy european) we're not allowed to carry guns at all, funnily enough crime and murder rate are not even CLOSE to what they are in the US nor do I feel the need to carry a weapon. Different situation calls for different ethics I guess. Still, just like with players in EVE who have no pvp experience; unless you really know what you're doing carrying a gun can be more of a liability than a boon. That is a very foolish thing to say. Europe has much more strict immigration laws than the United States does. You don't have anywhere NEAR the demographic make-up the U.S. has. There is ABSOLUTELY no comparison. I am going to relate my own personal experience. I had been a soldier and in my travels and duties, I had come across many other nations soldiers. I came to the conclusion early on that most european subjects/soldiers are meek and easily led. The only stand-outs were Irish, Scots and Norwegians are tough and cool as hell. ****** (Hit#@r German leader of WWII good grief ccp)once feared an armed populace and took all guns away from his subjects...do you know the date? 1938, the borman-vermerke papers. Governments don't like their subjects having the ability to do away with them. I saw a video of a women in the netherlands being stabbed repeatedly by her husband at a busy intersection. Nobody helped her. Not one man gave her any aid. Yet plenty gathered around to watch, take photos and video. They just ooohed and aaahed and looked weak and confused. I have no concern for your kind of sheep mentality. Fact of the matter is, he was carrying a gun in a public place because in this country, we still have the right to do so. He was exercising that right. That is part of the difference of being a citizen versus a subject. You have forgotten what your ancestor have fought for and against. edit- No offense to any Europeans with balls, I have met some good ones who kick a@#.
goodby4u Valor Inc. Cosmic Anomalies	Posted - 2009.08.15 03:29:00 - [53] Originally by: Mr Reason Originally by: goodby4u Edited by: goodby4u on 15/08/2009 01:30:54 As others have said, it could be part of his protest, or possibly he simply carries it everywhere, or he is going to go off and shoot a tree down, to be completely honest it is his own business as he is within his rights to do so. If I were to trust somebodies abilities, it would be the abilities of the couple dozen secret service guarding him and ready to fire on anybody that decides to breath heavy. You are avoiding the issue completely, he is within his rights to do this, hell he most likely even has a class 1 weapons permit atleast just to ensure he has the ability to carry the thing. Personally, I have no problem with people carrying guns around me, and I don't even have the protection he does. Btw troll, 0/10. So if I disagree that makes me a troll? I'm sorry, for a moment I thought this was a discussion forum... Also I'm not avoiding the issue, not at all actually. Being allowed to carry a firearm in public while not being a police officer or government official (lets not even go into the whole 'security industry' here) has nothing to do with freedom of speech or whatever, it has everything to do with thinking it's cool to carry a gun (and possibly use it). Unless you live in an area where there's a realistic chance of being eaten by a bear or similar dangers then hauling a gun around is just silly, in which case you'd want to bring a rifle and not some silly handgun. But running into bears at a school, while the president is about to visit is uhm... yeah. Normally a person that disagrees even though everybody is essentially calling him an idiot is a troll, atleast on this forum anyways. Freedom of speech? When the hell did this come in? "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." - second amendment of the US constitution... Furthermore, one can carry a gun in most parts of the US if the individual has atleast a catagory 1 weapons permit(IE the ability to carry non concealed arms such as pistols, hunting rifles and possibly even shotguns), automatic weapons do not apply for catagory 1 weapons permits. As far as laws go, they are on the individual's side. Lastly, the second amendment is not in place to defend oneself from bears, it is to protect oneself from any enemy that wishes to hurt him or other Americans.
Kravick Drasani	Posted - 2009.08.15 03:53:00 - [54] Edited by: Kravick Drasani on 15/08/2009 03:54:39 Originally by: goodby4u Lastly, the second amendment is not in place to defend oneself from bears, it is to protect oneself from any enemy that wishes to hurt him or other Americans. Actually, it was mainly instituted as a defense against tyranny. A defense that only works if its people are willing to take up arms against said tyranny. Lately though, people have been getting lazy. Patriot Act? Bush relocating protesters to "Freedom of Speech Zones" that where miles away from anything that matters and barricaded behind concrete dividers with barbed wire and armed police? Homeland Security unlawfully placing phone taps in peoples homes? Meh, this is a discussion for another thread. Originally by: Mr Reason Where I live (yeah I'm a filthy european) we're not allowed to carry guns at all, funnily enough crime and murder rate are not even CLOSE to what they are in the US nor do I feel the need to carry a weapon. Different situation calls for different ethics I guess. Still, just like with players in EVE who have no pvp experience; unless you really know what you're doing carrying a gun can be more of a liability than a boon. While its true you guys don't have the issues with guns we do, you most certainly do with knife attacks and beatings with blunt objects, which are FAR more bloody and gruesome and leave a much bigger effect on a persons mentality state. Perhaps mentality is the problem here. Americans realize all to easily how utterly useless our police are. They're almost never near the scene of the crime and by the time they get there its way to late for them to perform any kind of damage control. Most people realize that if people where able to defend themselves legally on equal footing things would never progress to the states they do now. There will ALWAYS be criminals. To think otherwise is foolish and naive. If we disarm, the criminals will still have their guns. We will be completely helpless and they will be able to do whatever the hell they please. Police never arrive in a timely manner and they know it. - How to kill interceptors: Zip down your fly and release. After about 10 orbits your stream just might hit him. Or a multi webbed Rapier should slow him down enough that you can drop #2 on him.
goodby4u Valor Inc. Cosmic Anomalies	Posted - 2009.08.15 03:58:00 - [55] Actually believe it or not that falls under the category of defending oneself from ones enemy. I just wanted to be subtle as to not totally sidetrack the discussion(not that it hasn't been).
Amitious Turkey Gallente TarNec New Eden Retail Federation	Posted - 2009.08.15 06:08:00 - [56] Edited by: Amitious Turkey on 15/08/2009 06:14:35 Originally by: Jonny 101 Taking a gun to a school where the president is about to show up, oh yes I see no problems here. If this was your last president i'm sure nobody would send him straight to guantanamo or anything :P It's one thing having a gun and being allowed to carry it, another to bring it to a huge crowd when your head of state is about to arrive, bad taste or just plain stupid you pick but you obviously can't let people run around with weapons willy nilly when your president comes to visit, lets be honest, you americans do have more than enough nuts that'd love to shoot him. And I quite like this one, I don't think his policies are much better than the rest you've had, but at least this one speaks your damn language. If the Democrats excercised THEIR right to carry arms, Obama wouldn't have anything to worry about. They'd just shoot the nuts who want to kill him before the nuts got the chance . That's the whole point of EVERYONE being allowed to carry a gun. The ones with guns are the first responders and they can prevent MORE loss of life. And heck, I DON't want Obama to die. The Vice and the Speaker are even worse than what we've got! This is turning out to be a good discussion, BTW. Surprisingly enough. My sig was fail, but now it isn't. Originally by: CCP Navigator We love you all as well <3 GO NAVIGATOR <3
annoing Amarr Mortis Angelus The Church.	Posted - 2009.08.15 12:18:00 - [57] Originally by: Grathar This and many other topics show how far our country has moved away from the republic we were founded upon. You mean you want your country to go back to being based on the ideals of its foundation? Well thats cool, let me see .... Slavery, religious intolerence, racism, bigotry, murder, land grabbing, genocide etc ... yup, I can see why you hark back to the good old days of the 'republic' there my friend. We too in the UK would like to go back to the ideals of our foundation ... Slavery, religious intolerence, racism, bigotry, murder, land grabbing, genocide .. oh look, were just the same. However, while in the USA carrying the flag, calling for the good old days, death to liberals and all forms of social welfare will get you cheered in certain areas and make you an ideal presidential candidate, if you tried something similer in the UK, we would give you a cup of tea, pat you on the head and call you eccentric ( and maybe even a trip to the psycho ward) or possibly dangerous. I love it in the UK. I like the idea that we grow and develop as a nation. I love it that we have lost our old intolerances and grown to accept the world as it is not as we want to make it (by force if necessary as we did in empire days). Nope, people who hark back to the 'good old days' and the desire to have their country back to its 'founding ideals' are out of touch with reality, out of place in the modern world and certainly should not be allowed out in public without a nurse. Originally by: Zeba Its all the pron. Fappy people are happy people
Cridil Caldari Cloned from the Gibbet Aggressive Therapy	Posted - 2009.08.15 12:50:00 - [58] Edited by: Cridil on 15/08/2009 12:53:48 As a British citizen I have a couple of questions regarding this story and some of the posts on this thread. 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. What exactly does this mean, and is it still relevant in the 21st Century? What context does this fit in with New Hampshire state law regarding the carrying of firearms? As far as I am aware he was protesting against Healthcare reforms not gun control. On his banner he has a Tree of liberty, along with a snake and the words "It is time to water the tree of liberty". Next to him someone is holding the Gadsden Flag. I really dont understand how two iconic symbols used during the American independence are used in protesting against healthcare reforms. Is there something I am missing? Is objection to healthcare reform being linked with gun control to confront congress? And are the bill of rights being used to legitimise and justify this confrontation? I saw the individual with the gun, and in my opinion if he was to fall into a demographic profile it would be "Joe the plumber". If this person had been, lets say an Arab American, African American or another ethnic group would they have still enjoyed the same public support? I do find myself shaking my head at the absurdity of the arguements supporting this mans right to carry a handgun. Especialy considering that its at a protest against government reforms where the head of state is due to appear. Am I right in pointing out that there have been a number of assaination attempts on US presidents, some of which have been succesfull from the assasins point of view. I think its fair to say that that President Obama is probaly in the high risk category considering who he is, and maybe caution is probally wise in this case. I would like to think that a civilised country could weigh up and come to the conclusion of what is more important. The right for someone to "bear arms". or the life of another human being be put at a greater risk. Is it a common ritual for US citizens before leaving their house to run through a mental checklist of: Keys: check, wallet: check, firearm: check. If not why does this person feel he needs to bear arms? and why does he feel he needs to take one to a political protest?
Grathar	Posted - 2009.08.15 14:38:00 - [59] Originally by: annoing Originally by: Grathar This and many other topics show how far our country has moved away from the republic we were founded upon. You mean you want your country to go back to being based on the ideals of its foundation? Well thats cool, let me see .... Slavery, religious intolerence, racism, bigotry, murder, land grabbing, genocide etc ... yup, I can see why you hark back to the good old days of the 'republic' there my friend. We too in the UK would like to go back to the ideals of our foundation ... Slavery, religious intolerence, racism, bigotry, murder, land grabbing, genocide .. oh look, were just the same. However, while in the USA carrying the flag, calling for the good old days, death to liberals and all forms of social welfare will get you cheered in certain areas and make you an ideal presidential candidate, if you tried something similer in the UK, we would give you a cup of tea, pat you on the head and call you eccentric ( and maybe even a trip to the psycho ward) or possibly dangerous. I love it in the UK. I like the idea that we grow and develop as a nation. I love it that we have lost our old intolerances and grown to accept the world as it is not as we want to make it (by force if necessary as we did in empire days). Nope, people who hark back to the 'good old days' and the desire to have their country back to its 'founding ideals' are out of touch with reality, out of place in the modern world and certainly should not be allowed out in public without a nurse. what? We are talking about a system (ours, not yours) which was created to limit government...minimal government. Stop with the drama. Health care...is not seperate from any other issue in the U.S. In the last century we have seen a massive reduction in our rights and this is another movement along those same lines. You notice it when you look hard enough, from taxation (which was promised to be temporary by the way) to first amendment censure in things such as music, to our very rights to feel secure in our privacy with the "patriot act". But the media feeds you "it was a healthcare issue" and you blinkered dolts accept it without thought. Another difference between a citizen and a subject. You are the perfect subject by the way. Don't ever question
Sobach Gallente Fourth Circle	Posted - 2009.08.15 14:50:00 - [60] Edited by: Sobach on 15/08/2009 14:51:10 Originally by: Cridil Edited by: Cridil on 15/08/2009 12:53:48 As a British citizen I have a couple of questions regarding this story and some of the posts on this thread. 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. What exactly does this mean, and is it still relevant in the 21st Century? it's rather self-explanatory, and yes, AFAIK it's still very much relevant. Originally by: Cridil What context does this fit in with New Hampshire state law regarding the carrying of firearms? NH is an Open Carry state, which allows its residents to openly carry their firearms on their person except in areas prohibited by law. That's it, rather simple, there's no you're allowed open carry if you're in this situation or that situation etc etc, especially in this case where the guy is carrying on private property with the owner's express approval. Originally by: Cridil As far as I am aware he was protesting against Healthcare reforms not gun control. On his banner he has a Tree of liberty, along with a snake and the words "It is time to water the tree of liberty". Next to him someone is holding the Gadsden Flag. I really dont understand how two iconic symbols used during the American independence are used in protesting against healthcare reforms. Is there something I am missing? Is objection to healthcare reform being linked with gun control to confront congress? And are the bill of rights being used to legitimise and justify this confrontation? No, health care reform is not linked with gun control, and wtf are you talking about "confront" Congress? the Congress is the people's elected representative, we're SUPPOSED to voice our opinion to them, there's no need to "legitimize" or "justify", it's YOUR CIVIC DUTY to let your representative know what his constituents want. the rest of that paragraph is just your paranoia at work. Originally by: Cridil I saw the individual with the gun, and in my opinion if he was to fall into a demographic profile it would be "Joe the plumber". If this person had been, lets say an Arab American, African American or another ethnic group would they have still enjoyed the same public support? I can't speak for other people, but anybody would get the same support from me as long as they're legally exercising their right. Originally by: Cridil I do find myself shaking my head at the absurdity of the arguements supporting this mans right to carry a handgun. Especialy considering that its at a protest against government reforms where the head of state is due to appear. Am I right in pointing out that there have been a number of assaination attempts on US presidents, some of which have been succesfull from the assasins point of view. I think its fair to say that that President Obama is probaly in the high risk category considering who he is, and maybe caution is probally wise in this case. I would like to think that a civilised country could weigh up and come to the conclusion of what is more important. The right for someone to "bear arms". or the life of another human being be put at a greater risk. If they think he's legitimate risk, Obama could move his appearance elsewhere. That man has violated no laws, why the hell should he lose his rights? it's not about the right to bear arms vs. "the life of another human being be put at a greater risk", it's about the right to defend yourself, and in today's world, that usually requires a firearm. Originally by: Cridil Is it a common ritual for US citizens before leaving their house to run through a mental checklist of: Keys: check, wallet: check, firearm: check. If not why does this person feel he needs to bear arms? and why does he feel he needs to take one to a political protest? I do :P, and so do ppl who either conceal or open carry. Your question makes about as much sense if you changed it to be about the freedom of speech
Abrazzar	Posted - 2009.08.15 15:20:00 - [61] Useless fuss. Armed person in the vicinity of the president that isn't part of the president's security => SEIZE HIM !! A armed unknown is a security risk and it has to be removed. Sure he may have had the right to carry the gun around but that doesn't mean it's not a silly thing to do. -------- Ideas for: Mining
Sazkyen	Posted - 2009.08.15 15:27:00 - [62] I'm not American so I don't know squat about the 2nd Amendment but apparently it's legal in that area to own a gun and to wear it openly while on private property. So what's wrong? Change the law or shut up.
Meiyang Lee Gallente Azteca Transportation Unlimited Gunboat Diplomacy	Posted - 2009.08.15 15:35:00 - [63] It almost seems as if they're acting like a republican presidents security detail wouldn't have done the same thing. An armed person near the president that's not part of the security force gets removed, that's how it is. Why are they making a fuss, because he's a democrat?
Arvald Caldari Imperial Manufactorum Aegis Militia	Posted - 2009.08.15 15:53:00 - [64] Originally by: Mr Reason Originally by: goodby4u Edited by: goodby4u on 15/08/2009 01:30:54 As others have said, it could be part of his protest, or possibly he simply carries it everywhere, or he is going to go off and shoot a tree down, to be completely honest it is his own business as he is within his rights to do so. If I were to trust somebodies abilities, it would be the abilities of the couple dozen secret service guarding him and ready to fire on anybody that decides to breath heavy. You are avoiding the issue completely, he is within his rights to do this, hell he most likely even has a class 1 weapons permit atleast just to ensure he has the ability to carry the thing. Personally, I have no problem with people carrying guns around me, and I don't even have the protection he does. Btw troll, 0/10. So if I disagree that makes me a troll? I'm sorry, for a moment I thought this was a discussion forum... Also I'm not avoiding the issue, not at all actually. Being allowed to carry a firearm in public while not being a police officer or government official (lets not even go into the whole 'security industry' here) has nothing to do with freedom of speech or whatever, it has everything to do with thinking it's cool to carry a gun (and possibly use it). Unless you live in an area where there's a realistic chance of being eaten by a bear or similar dangers then hauling a gun around is just silly, in which case you'd want to bring a rifle and not some silly handgun. But running into bears at a school, while the president is about to visit is uhm... yeah. you cant carry a cop around with you. ok but seriously, next person that derails my thread gets a railroad spike shoved through their neck
Awesome Possum Insert Obscure Latin Name	Posted - 2009.08.15 16:10:00 - [65] Originally by: annoing Slavery, religious intolerence, racism, bigotry, murder, land grabbing, genocide etc ... yup, I can see why you hark back to the good old days of the 'republic' there my friend. Those are not the ideals, those are the realities. That's like saying the ideals of Christianity are rape, genocide, etc. When any moron literate enough to open the bible knows that's not true. We are far from the ideals that our founding fathers made this republic upon. Many want us to finally reach them, however there's too much flak in the way from nutballs on the far Right and Left of the political spectrum. One ideal that many are fighting to keep is the freedom to own, and carry arms to protect ourselves, and our neighbours against harm. "security of a free State" doesn't just mean rebellious uprisings, or regime change in government. It means the gangbangers, violent racists, gay bashers, etc. Anyone who would violently violate your rights and freedoms. As for the protest, the President may have been there about Healthcare, but that doesn't mean protesters are limited to only protesting that subject. 1st Amendment covers that. "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." ♥ Wreck Disposal Services
Meiyang Lee Gallente Azteca Transportation Unlimited Gunboat Diplomacy	Posted - 2009.08.15 17:10:00 - [66] Originally by: Awesome Possum Originally by: annoing Slavery, religious intolerence, racism, bigotry, murder, land grabbing, genocide etc ... yup, I can see why you hark back to the good old days of the 'republic' there my friend. Those are not the ideals, those are the realities. That's like saying the ideals of Christianity are rape, genocide, etc. When any moron literate enough to open the bible knows that's not true. We are far from the ideals that our founding fathers made this republic upon. Many want us to finally reach them, however there's too much flak in the way from nutballs on the far Right and Left of the political spectrum. One ideal that many are fighting to keep is the freedom to own, and carry arms to protect ourselves, and our neighbours against harm. "security of a free State" doesn't just mean rebellious uprisings, or regime change in government. It means the gangbangers, violent racists, gay bashers, etc. Anyone who would violently violate your rights and freedoms. As for the protest, the President may have been there about Healthcare, but that doesn't mean protesters are limited to only protesting that subject. 1st Amendment covers that. "or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." All true, but you must admit, the security detail of the president is there to prevent any and all harm coming to the man, regardless of who it is, so a firearm that is not in the hands of said security detail is going to make them nervous, hence they went about removing it before anything could go wrong. The man was exercising his right to bear arms, I doubt anyone will question that, but security forces tend to have a somewhat different view on such things, since they are the ones catching bullets should **** hit the fan.
Awesome Possum Insert Obscure Latin Name	Posted - 2009.08.15 17:23:00 - [67] Originally by: Meiyang Lee All true, but you must admit, the security detail of the president is there to prevent any and all harm coming to the man, regardless of who it is, so a firearm that is not in the hands of said security detail is going to make them nervous, hence they went about removing it before anything could go wrong. The man was exercising his right to bear arms, I doubt anyone will question that, but security forces tend to have a somewhat different view on such things, since they are the ones catching bullets should **** hit the fan. I must have missed a report. I didn't see anywhere that said the man was actually removed. All I saw was reporters wondering why he wasn't being removed. He wasn't being removed, because he wasn't breaking the law. The US Secret Service have one law above all others: Keep the President alive. In that I agree with them. Which is why I would bet good money that the guy had crosshairs on his forehead the entire time. As I said before, I'm sure they also ran background checks on his name the moment they got it. If there had been any black marks in his record, they would have removed him. As it stands, he was a law abiding citizen practicing his 1st and 2nd amendment rights. ♥ Wreck Disposal Services
Cridil Caldari Cloned from the Gibbet Aggressive Therapy	Posted - 2009.08.15 17:45:00 - [68] Thankyou Sobach for replying Regarding my question on the second ammendment in my opinion its not self-explanatory, if it was self-explanatory it would not still be debated more then 200 years after being introduced. So I would still like someone to give me a simple breakdown of what it means for us simple British types with the bad teeth. You say its still relevant, why do you feel that it is? Thanyou for educating me on the democratic rights of a nations citizens, but thats not what I was asking. You completely missed the point of what I was asking and dismissed it as paranoia. However it was kind of ironic being accused of paranoia by someone from a country that gave us:- Alexander Mitchell Palmer McCarthyism 30 minute WMD Fox news network (Murdoch is Australian I know but Bill O'Reilly isnt) Patriot act Homeland Security Advisory System so my question still stands. Now to my fav comment of yours. If they think he's legitimate risk, Obama could move his appearance elsewhere. That man has violated no laws, why the hell should he lose his rights? it's not about the right to bear arms vs. "the life of another human being be put at a greater risk", it's about the right to defend yourself, and in today's world, that usually requires a firearm. Why should President Obama have to move? Does he not have the same rights as the person with the gun? You cannot deny that somewhere in the US there is not at least one nut who would shoot President Obama if given the chance. I am not suggesting this individual was planing to assasinate the President, but by allowing a civilian who is clearly opposed to the President to be in possesion of a firearm near to him is seting a bar for others who may wish to assasinate President Obama. The point I was trying to make is what is more important. The right to bear arms or the right to being kept safe. I would feel far safer in a room of no guns then a romm full of guns. In the UK we do not feel we need to rely on firearms to defend ourselves. We rely on the Police if that does not work we use old fashined self defence or common sense. So in this case to prevent a possible loss of life common sense would be used. He doesnt take a firearm to meet the president. And lets be honest here and look at the bigger picture. How many foreign leaders would want to visit the US if they felt some idiot could shoot them from the crowd. And how stupid would the US look if a world leader was shot and the reply from the US was "Well the guy had a right to carry a gun you know". Without mentioning shoes it kinda makes US security look a bit ineffective wouldnt you say. And finaly as you mentioned free speech, name one country in the world where citizens have that right, if you do you will probaly find it in Europe. If you cant you will find the nearest example to free speech in Europe.
Micheal Dietrich Caldari	Posted - 2009.08.15 17:51:00 - [69] Originally by: annoing religious intolerence, racism, bigotry, murder ... I love it in the UK. I like the idea that we grow and develop as a nation. I love it that we have lost our old intolerances and grown to accept the world as it is not as we want to make it (by force if necessary as we did in empire days). Originally by: annoing religious intolerence, racism, bigotry, murder ... Ah so you finally got rid of those little problems eh.
Captain Hudson Caldari Caldari Provisions	Posted - 2009.08.15 17:52:00 - [70] msnbc is like a super pro-obama news network no?
MaxxOmega	Posted - 2009.08.15 17:56:00 - [71] Originally by: Mr Reason Originally by: Bestofworst Worstofbest Even if not, they are gonna keep an eye on him no matter what. They know where it is, so if he reaches for it they will know when to stop him. Are you willing to bet your own personal life or that of a loved one on the reaction time of some official against someone who is willing to commit a murder? Again, I don't have issues with people keeping guns for personal safety at home or because they find them fun. But out in public is just dumb, you simply can't justify that. I don't HAVE to justify it. Not to anyone. Because the LAW says I can have the gun, in the open, in that situation. And of course, just because he is carrying a gun, he MUST be planning to commit murder. How rediculous... I will do what I please, whenever the law allows it regardless what others say/want. I also drive a gas guzzling SUV, never recycle, and refuse to donate blood. That's the way it is because I am legal to do all three. Don't have to justify any of it...
Micheal Dietrich Caldari	Posted - 2009.08.15 18:03:00 - [72] Originally by: MaxxOmega Originally by: Mr Reason Originally by: Bestofworst Worstofbest Even if not, they are gonna keep an eye on him no matter what. They know where it is, so if he reaches for it they will know when to stop him. Are you willing to bet your own personal life or that of a loved one on the reaction time of some official against someone who is willing to commit a murder? Again, I don't have issues with people keeping guns for personal safety at home or because they find them fun. But out in public is just dumb, you simply can't justify that. I don't HAVE to justify it. Not to anyone. Because the LAW says I can have the gun, in the open, in that situation. And of course, just because he is carrying a gun, he MUST be planning to commit murder. How rediculous... I will do what I please, whenever the law allows it regardless what others say/want. I also drive a gas guzzling SUV, never recycle, and refuse to donate blood. That's the way it is because I am legal to do all three. Don't have to justify any of it... Didn't you know that? I'm a murderer with intentions to kill every time I have to transport my firearms in full view on the gun rack on my window from my house to the gun range.
Benco97 Gallente	Posted - 2009.08.15 18:05:00 - [73] The way I see it is that he did nothing wrong, he was allowed by law to do what he did. End of story tbh. However, on the issue of gun control in regards to America vs Europe I believe that one solution cannot possibly apply to both sides. Americans, did you know that most Europeans go their entire lives without seeing a single gun or being involved in a mugging or break-in? Guns would not help them they would simply provide more avenues of opportunity to the less "law-inclined". It's not a case of "Those Europeans sure are wusses, they don't even WANT to shoot someone in the head!" it's a case that most of us don't NEED to shoot someone in the head, EVER. Conversely, Europeans, You understand that Australia is a dangerous place due to all the wildlife that would like nothing better than to end you, no? Well America is like that except with people instead of snakes and spiders and jellyfish. In America it is reasonable to assume that you require protection in the form of a firearm because America is a dangerous place. Accept that. Both sides of the argument, do you understand what I am getting at? Owning a gun does not make you a murderer just as much as not wanting a gun doesn't make you an "Unthinking smelly European sheeple" Different solutions for different situations. Originally by: P'uck You're a DUMBASS - bold italic underline at the VERY LEAST.
Cridil Caldari Cloned from the Gibbet Aggressive Therapy	Posted - 2009.08.15 18:05:00 - [74] Originally by: Micheal Dietrich Originally by: annoing religious intolerence, racism, bigotry, murder ... I love it in the UK. I like the idea that we grow and develop as a nation. I love it that we have lost our old intolerances and grown to accept the world as it is not as we want to make it (by force if necessary as we did in empire days). Originally by: annoing religious intolerence, racism, bigotry, murder ... Ah so you finally got rid of those little problems eh. Slavery we have. Racism, bigotry and religious intolerance is still an issue. But unlike in the US you cant in the UK use mainstream media to promote it. Even the Daily mail knows there is a line not to cross. Murder could be dealt with better. So no we havent got rid of these BIG problems but I think we are way ahead of the US in attempting to get rid of them.
Awesome Possum Insert Obscure Latin Name	Posted - 2009.08.15 18:08:00 - [75] Edited by: Awesome Possum on 15/08/2009 18:15:21 Before I start, I'd like to say that, in my own opinion Sobach replied to your points pretty clearly. Originally by: Cridil Regarding my question on the second ammendment in my opinion its not self-explanatory, if it was self-explanatory it would not still be debated more then 200 years after being introduced. So I would still like someone to give me a simple breakdown of what it means for us simple British types with the bad teeth. You say its still relevant, why do you feel that it is? I have explained this in my own post. "security of a free State" means against violent criminals as much as against tyrannical governments. It is not just a job for the police in this country. It is a proven fact in this country, that stricter gun laws means higher crime rates. Quote: Now to my fav comment of yours. If they think he's legitimate risk, Obama could move his appearance elsewhere. That man has violated no laws, why the hell should he lose his rights? it's not about the right to bear arms vs. "the life of another human being be put at a greater risk", it's about the right to defend yourself, and in today's world, that usually requires a firearm. Why should President Obama have to move? Does he not have the same rights as the person with the gun? The President doesn't have to move. What he has is the option of deciding if a man practicing his 1st and 2nd Amendment Rights within State law are enough to make him move/cancel his meeting. Quote: You cannot deny that somewhere in the US there is not at least one nut who would shoot President Obama if given the chance. You cannot deny that the intelligence community isn't resourceful enough to decide if that particular man may or may not have been one such person. Quote: I am not suggesting this individual was planing to assasinate the President, but by allowing a civilian who is clearly opposed to the President to be in possesion of a firearm near to him is seting a bar for others who may wish to assasinate President Obama. People who wish to assassinate the president are going to get a gun close to the president if they want to. Violating this man's rights is not going to make the president any safer. An assassin is probably less likely to wear a gun unconcealed, and I saw no reports of police/secret service doing weapons checks on every person there. Quote: The point I was trying to make is what is more important. The right to bear arms or the right to being kept safe. To many Americans, they are one and the same. Quote: I would feel far safer in a room of no guns then a romm full of guns. I'm sorry. Quote: In the UK we do not feel we need to rely on firearms to defend ourselves. We rely on the Police if that does not work we use old fashined self defence or common sense. Quote: And finaly as you mentioned free speech, name one country in the world where citizens have that right, United States of America Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. edit: broken tags Also, why is it when Europeans start rambling about how nutty us Americans are, and how much more awesome Europe is with all their gun control.. they always leave out the Swiss? ♥ Wreck Disposal Services
goodby4u Valor Inc. Cosmic Anomalies	Posted - 2009.08.15 18:09:00 - [76] Originally by: Cridil Originally by: Micheal Dietrich Originally by: annoing religious intolerence, racism, bigotry, murder ... I love it in the UK. I like the idea that we grow and develop as a nation. I love it that we have lost our old intolerances and grown to accept the world as it is not as we want to make it (by force if necessary as we did in empire days). Originally by: annoing religious intolerence, racism, bigotry, murder ... Ah so you finally got rid of those little problems eh. Slavery we have. Racism, bigotry and religious intolerance is still an issue. But unlike in the US you cant in the UK use mainstream media to promote it. Even the Daily mail knows there is a line not to cross. Murder could be dealt with better. So no we havent got rid of these BIG problems but I think we are way ahead of the US in attempting to get rid of them. Notice the bold, don't you love that freedom of speech you have?
Awesome Possum Insert Obscure Latin Name	Posted - 2009.08.15 18:17:00 - [77] Notice the bold, don't you love that freedom of speech you have? uhm... yes? ♥ Wreck Disposal Services
goodby4u Valor Inc. Cosmic Anomalies	Posted - 2009.08.15 18:19:00 - [78] Originally by: Awesome Possum Notice the bold, don't you love that freedom of speech you have? uhm... yes? Like I said, read the bold... He said his media cannot promote certain things.
Meiyang Lee Gallente Azteca Transportation Unlimited Gunboat Diplomacy	Posted - 2009.08.15 18:26:00 - [79] Edited by: Meiyang Lee on 15/08/2009 18:26:33 Originally by: Awesome Possum I must have missed a report. I didn't see anywhere that said the man was actually removed. All I saw was reporters wondering why he wasn't being removed. He wasn't being removed, because he wasn't breaking the law. I didn't really watch the news report, just assumed from the title there was some fuss about a violation of the 2nd amendement. If the man wasn't removed, then fine. He wasn't breaking the law anyway, and as long as he didn't do anything fishy he could stay and protest like everyone else. The instant he reached for the gun he would have looked like swiss cheese though.
Arvald Caldari Imperial Manufactorum Aegis Militia	Posted - 2009.08.15 18:27:00 - [80] i find it hilarious how alot of you guys are trying to justify carrying a gun or other weapon to the people who think its a stupid thing, simplest reason as stated in my last post, you cant carry a cop with you. ok but seriously, next person that derails my thread gets a railroad spike shoved through their neck
Surfin's PlunderBunny Minmatar Dark Ascendancy The Council.	Posted - 2009.08.15 18:40:00 - [81] This will be dealt with Originally by: Xen Gin Originally by: FOl2TY8 I know that some people like to have voluntary periods of abstinence. Yeah, I use that excuse too.
goodby4u Valor Inc. Cosmic Anomalies	Posted - 2009.08.15 18:41:00 - [82] Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny This will be dealt with Plunderbunny!
Surfin's PlunderBunny Minmatar Dark Ascendancy The Council.	Posted - 2009.08.15 18:52:00 - [83] Yes! It is I! Originally by: Xen Gin Originally by: FOl2TY8 I know that some people like to have voluntary periods of abstinence. Yeah, I use that excuse too.
Micheal Dietrich Caldari	Posted - 2009.08.15 18:53:00 - [84] Originally by: Cridil Originally by: Micheal Dietrich Originally by: annoing religious intolerence, racism, bigotry, murder ... I love it in the UK. I like the idea that we grow and develop as a nation. I love it that we have lost our old intolerances and grown to accept the world as it is not as we want to make it (by force if necessary as we did in empire days). Originally by: annoing religious intolerence, racism, bigotry, murder ... Ah so you finally got rid of those little problems eh. Slavery we have. Racism, bigotry and religious intolerance is still an issue. But unlike in the US you cant in the UK use mainstream media to promote it. Even the Daily mail knows there is a line not to cross. Murder could be dealt with better. So no we havent got rid of these BIG problems but I think we are way ahead of the US in attempting to get rid of them. So you haven't got freedom of speech either eh. Yeah unfortunately that little freedom can be a double edge sword but it is nice to be able to express yourself. My apologies to you and yours for being so restricted.
Cridil Caldari Cloned from the Gibbet Aggressive Therapy	Posted - 2009.08.15 20:25:00 - [85] Just to clarify, I am not debating the rights and wrongs about gun ownership in the US. I am asking about the second amendment being used to justify the carrying of a firearm near the US President. What I asked was: 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. What exactly does this mean, and is it still relevant in the 21st Century? The responce that has been posted regarding to this question. "security of a free State" means against violent criminals as much as against tyrannical governments. It is not just a job for the police in this country. It is a proven fact in this country, that stricter gun laws means higher crime rates. The security of free state is the clearest part in the second amendment, that goes without question in any country. The bearing of arms part is also pretty clear even if the definition of bear arms may of changed over the last 200 years. I find it bizzare that the Police have to be backed up by armed civilians but then thats my opinion. Could someone explain the militia part to me as that appears to be the most confusing element to me. The President doesn't have to move. What he has is the option of deciding if a man practicing his 1st and 2nd Amendment Rights within State law are enough to make him move/cancel his meeting. As far as I am aware the 1st amendment wasnt the issue it was the 2nd. And as far as I was aware the bill of rights are seperate from state law as its to protect US citizens from the Federal goverment. But being British if im wrong I apologise. You cannot deny that the intelligence community isn't resourceful enough to decide if that particular man may or may not have been one such person. I would like to think so but thats not the case. Intelligence services do make mistakes in the US and the UK (Jean Charles de Menezes). You are correct in saying that if someone who wants to smuggle a gun towards the President could easily do so, I am not that naive to think they couldnt. There is so many scenarios that could be played out that security services would be hard pressed to make plans for all of them. What I fail to understand is why make an assasins job easier by using the 2nd amendment to allow him to take a gun near the president in the first place. Regarding the emotional attachment to guns and whether they protect life and property I think we can agree that your life is better for having them and my life is better for not having them.
Awesome Possum Insert Obscure Latin Name	Posted - 2009.08.15 20:53:00 - [86] Originally by: Cridil The bearing of arms part is also pretty clear even if the definition of bear arms may of changed over the last 200 years. It hasn't, arms are weapons. The arms of choice are firearms. Quote: I find it bizzare that the Police have to be backed up by armed civilians but then thats my opinion. Police are armed civilians. I don't know about where you live, but most places in America the police are severely outnumbered and understaffed. Quote: Could someone explain the militia part to me as that appears to be the most confusing element to me. Plenty of debate on that end, just check the web. Unless you can call up good ol' Thomas Jefferson you'll probably not get a straight answer. Quote: As far as I am aware the 1st amendment wasnt the issue it was the 2nd. And as far as I was aware the bill of rights are seperate from state law as its to protect US citizens from the Federal goverment. But being British if im wrong I apologise. True, however plenty of different States have interpreted the 2nd amendment in different ways. That is why there isn't a single unifying firearms law for the U.S. And the Bill of Rights are to protect the citizens from any government intrusion upon those rights, from local to federal. Quote: What I fail to understand is why make an assasins job easier by using the 2nd amendment to allow him to take a gun near the president in the first place. Because that is fear mongering. Destroying a constitutional right just under the possible scenario of what someone else might do is a closer step to tyranny. Its why the PATRIOT ACT was passed, after all. Quote: Regarding the emotional attachment to guns and whether they protect life and property I think we can agree that your life is better for having them and my life is better for not having them. As you don't have them, and I assume you never have... you cannot correctly make that assumption. I just hope you never find yourself in the position where a handgun would have meant the difference between life or severe injury/death for you or a loved one. Plenty do. ♥ Wreck Disposal Services
Cridil Caldari Cloned from the Gibbet Aggressive Therapy	Posted - 2009.08.15 20:57:00 - [87] Originally by: Cridil And finaly as you mentioned free speech, name one country in the world where citizens have that right, if you do you will probaly find it in Europe. If you cant you will find the nearest example to free speech in Europe. Originally by: goodby4u Originally by: Cridil Originally by: Micheal Dietrich Originally by: annoing religious intolerence, racism, bigotry, murder ... I love it in the UK. I like the idea that we grow and develop as a nation. I love it that we have lost our old intolerances and grown to accept the world as it is not as we want to make it (by force if necessary as we did in empire days). Originally by: annoing religious intolerence, racism, bigotry, murder ... Ah so you finally got rid of those little problems eh. Slavery we have. Racism, bigotry and religious intolerance is still an issue. But unlike in the US you cant in the UK use mainstream media to promote it. Even the Daily mail knows there is a line not to cross. Murder could be dealt with better. So no we havent got rid of these BIG problems but I think we are way ahead of the US in attempting to get rid of them. Notice the bold, don't you love that freedom of speech you have? You have me beat. I didnt consider that in the US you have the right to preach hatred and intolerence as free speech. So yeah I accept that you have more free speech then Europeans. The bold by the way was to indicate what you believe as small problems I consider are big problems. But judging by this thread as a European I dont have the right to express my view to an American.
baltec1 Antares Shipyards Vanguard.	Posted - 2009.08.15 21:02:00 - [88] Grassy knoll and book depository come to mind. Screan all you want, the silent nutters will always find a way through!
Sobach Gallente Fourth Circle	Posted - 2009.08.15 21:07:00 - [89] Originally by: Cridil Just to clarify, I am not debating the rights and wrongs about gun ownership in the US. I am asking about the second amendment being used to justify the carrying of a firearm near the US President. And what we've been trying to tell you is that there's no need to "justify" anything, it is completely within the rights of the citizen to carry the firearm in this case. That's not to say that there's no practical security concern, which is why the Secret Service and other agencies charged with protecting the President need to make that determination on whether there's a legitimate threat or not, and deal with it appropriately, including a move of venue. However, going "ZOMG TH3 DUD3'S GOT A GUNZ!!11" and forcibly remove him when he has broken no laws and is completely within his rights is the wrong way to go about it, there's no legal basis behind a move like that, just like they can't decide to carpet bomb the city blocks on the sides of the road the President will be traveling just to make sure there's no snipers. Originally by: Cridil What I asked was: 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. What exactly does this mean, and is it still relevant in the 21st Century? The responce that has been posted regarding to this question. "security of a free State" means against violent criminals as much as against tyrannical governments. It is not just a job for the police in this country. It is a proven fact in this country, that stricter gun laws means higher crime rates. The security of free state is the clearest part in the second amendment, that goes without question in any country. The bearing of arms part is also pretty clear even if the definition of bear arms may of changed over the last 200 years. I find it bizzare that the Police have to be backed up by armed civilians but then thats my opinion. Could someone explain the militia part to me as that appears to be the most confusing element to me. Actually, it's a really bad idea for armed citizens to be "backing up" the police in almost all cases, it'd just add too much confusion and is prone to become a huge liability, and a very good way to get yourself or someone else killed. Originally by: Cridil Regarding the emotional attachment to guns and whether they protect life and property I think we can agree that your life is better for having them and my life is better for not having them. This I completely agree.
annoing Amarr Mortis Angelus The Church.	Posted - 2009.08.15 21:31:00 - [90] Originally by: Micheal Dietrich So you haven't got freedom of speech either eh. Yeah unfortunately that little freedom can be a double edge sword but it is nice to be able to express yourself. My apologies to you and yours for being so restricted. Oh we have freedom of speech all right. But we, unlike you, understand what 'freedom of speech' actually means.If you think, for example, 'freedom of speech' is the right to call someone black by the 'n' word then you dont understand what that 'freedom' is (another example is those religious freaks who go to soldiers funerals to picket). You, like alot of right leaning Americans seem to think that 'freedom' for all gives the right to racists to abuse someone for the race, colour, religion or creed because that is part of the double edged sword of free speech. Thats pure BS. Thats the BS racists use to justify their 'right' to abuse. Surely then, its the 'right' of the blacks to shoot everyone in a * outfit, or the 'right' for the families of those dead soldiers to shoot those freaks? Everyone has a 'right' right? The 'old intolerances' that we left behind included that 'freedom' to abuse someone for being different. If I have lost 'freedom' because of that then I, for one, welcome my new shackles. I welcome the 'heavier tax burden' (O'Reilly) to keep afloat the NHS which cares for EVERYONE and is inclusive to all. I dont see it as some pinko russian socialist subservive plot (as one woman called it before Obamas speech) I see it as something that I, as a human being, can do for my fellow man. Do we pay more taxes for it? yes. Is it a burden, hell no. Your health care system isnt inclusive. Oh yeah, you can talk about free hospitals but the truth is simple, if you have the money you get the medicine. You pay a whole lot more than me, via insurence, for the same treatment. Oh we may be a little more slower than you, our 'service' may not have that rapid urgency that your insurence pays for, but the treatment we get lasts a lifetime, not until the money runs out. Oh btw, we still have religious intolerence, racism, bigotry, murder but its NOT as institutionalised as it once was, we are not proud of our past intolerances, we dont revel in the freedom to abuse. We hang our head in shame at those that do. We are leaving those behind, we move on, we develop. I LOVE the UK, i'm proud to be British and I love our NHS, even with all of its faults. In 17 days time I will be undergoing heart surgery (mainly to find if I have one according to the wife ). Im having the surgery done at one of the best Cardiothoracic hospitals in the UK led by a surgeon who is WORLD reknowned for his skill. The innovitive surgery, developed by a team he was a member of, is now used the world over. America was behind on this and took lessons from this side of the pond for it. And im damn proud of that too. Oh and before y'all get worked up and I get even more accusations of being an America hater, save the keyboard, it aint so. I love your tenacity, your innovotive spirit, your patriotism. See? You aint all bad Originally by:** Zeba Its all the pron. Fappy people are happy people
baltec1 Antares Shipyards Vanguard.	Posted - 2009.08.15 21:39:00 - [91] Originally by: annoing I LOVE the UK, i'm proud to be British and I love our NHS, even with all of its faults. In 17 days time I will be undergoing heart surgery (mainly to find if I have one according to the wife ). Im having the surgery done at one of the best Cardiothoracic hospitals in the UK led by a surgeon who is WORLD reknowned for his skill. The innovitive surgery, developed by a team he was a member of, is now used the world over. America was behind on this and took lessons from this side of the pond for it. And im damn proud of that too. Good luck man
Surfin's PlunderBunny Minmatar Dark Ascendancy The Council.	Posted - 2009.08.15 21:42:00 - [92] Originally by: annoing I LOVE the UK, i'm proud to be British and I love our NHS, even with all of its faults. In 17 days time I will be undergoing heart surgery (mainly to find if I have one according to the wife ). Im having the surgery done at one of the best Cardiothoracic hospitals in the UK led by a surgeon who is WORLD reknowned for his skill. The innovitive surgery, developed by a team he was a member of, is now used the world over. America was behind on this and took lessons from this side of the pond for it. And im damn proud of that too. ... and he was never heard from again... Originally by: Xen Gin Originally by: FOl2TY8 I know that some people like to have voluntary periods of abstinence. Yeah, I use that excuse too.
TimMc Gallente Brutal Deliverance Novus Auctorita	Posted - 2009.08.15 21:44:00 - [93] lol it made me laugh that John Stewart freaked out about it. I guess its because he is from New Jersey, while where this protester is (new hampshire) the gun laws are very liberal. And seriously, people shooting eachother over healthcare? Really? Slow news day. If USA gets national healthcare similar to canada or UK, while maintaining the constitution, I will happily move back. However a recession is a bad time to do it.
Cridil Caldari Cloned from the Gibbet Aggressive Therapy	Posted - 2009.08.15 21:52:00 - [94] Originally by: Cridil The bearing of arms part is also pretty clear even if the definition of bear arms may of changed over the last 200 years. Originally by: Awesome Possum It hasn't, arms are weapons. The arms of choice are firearms. I disagree, in 1795 it is generaly agreed to "bear arms" meant to serve as a soldier, do military service, or fight. Originally by: Cridil I find it bizzare that the Police have to be backed up by armed civilians but then thats my opinion. Originally by: Awesome Possum Police are armed civilians. I don't know about where you live, but most places in America the police are severely outnumbered and understaffed. The Police in the UK are trained proffesionals whos job is to maintain the peace and uphold the law. They are normaly not armed. There are some who may debate the profesional part. However I dont understand your armed civilians part, as civilians are already armed. So why do you have Police then? Originally by: Cridil Could someone explain the militia part to me as that appears to be the most confusing element to me. Originally by: Awesome Possum Plenty of debate on that end, just check the web. Unless you can call up good ol' Thomas Jefferson you'll probably not get a straight answer. So your saying that there is no clear statement to what the second amendment means? Originally by: Cridil As far as I am aware the 1st amendment wasnt the issue it was the 2nd. And as far as I was aware the bill of rights are seperate from state law as its to protect US citizens from the Federal goverment. But being British if im wrong I apologise. Originally by: Awesome Possum True, however plenty of different States have interpreted the 2nd amendment in different ways. That is why there isn't a single unifying firearms law for the U.S. And the Bill of Rights are to protect the citizens from any government intrusion upon those rights, from local to federal. Thankyou for clarifying that. Originally by: Cridil What I fail to understand is why make an assasins job easier by using the 2nd amendment to allow him to take a gun near the president in the first place. Originally by: Awesome Possum Because that is fear mongering. Destroying a constitutional right just under the possible scenario of what someone else might do is a closer step to tyranny. Its why the PATRIOT ACT was passed, after all. And puting a picture regarding whats the best way to deal with a HIV rapist to promote gun ownership is not fear mongering? Is stating someone is trying to destroy a constitutional right because they question that right, also not fear mongering? Looking at what has been stated the issue is not whether the second amendment is wrong but whether it needs to be draged from the 18th centure into the 21st century. Im sure if I could call up good ol' Thomas Jefferson he may aggree. Originally by: Cridil Regarding the emotional attachment to guns and whether they protect life and property I think we can agree that your life is better for having them and my life is better for not having them. Originally by: Awesome Possum As you don't have them, and I assume you never have... you cannot correctly make that assumption. I just hope you never find yourself in the position where a handgun would have meant the difference between life or severe injury/death for you or a loved one. Plenty do. You assume wrong I was in the British armed forces, so yes I can correctly make that assumption. My current job does put me in the face of losing my life or risking severe injury on a regular basis. And although a handgun may be the easy way to solve the problem, I have yet to be in a situation where common sense or physical force was not enough. I think we are now entering the "going around in circles" point in the thread, so I will leave at that. Umless of course something new pops up.
annoing Amarr Mortis Angelus The Church.	Posted - 2009.08.15 21:56:00 - [95] Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny ... and he was never heard from again... You have a 26.7% chance of being right about that
baltec1 Antares Shipyards Vanguard.	Posted - 2009.08.15 22:03:00 - [96] Originally by: annoing Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny ... and he was never heard from again... You have a 26.7% chance of being right about that Dont worry your welsh, theres a 99% chance that your just too stubborn to die.
Bestofworst Worstofbest Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2009.08.15 22:04:00 - [97] Originally by: baltec1 Originally by: annoing Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny ... and he was never heard from again... You have a 26.7% chance of being right about that Dont worry your welsh, theres a 99% chance that your just too stubborn to die. You've had a heartattack! "35 and counting.." ________________________________________________ My Music Posts slowly rising in quality to the decline of my dignity.
Micheal Dietrich Caldari	Posted - 2009.08.15 22:06:00 - [98] Originally by: annoing Misconstrued interpretation of free speach. I'll let you look up our laws on hate crimes before I mock you and your inspirational speech there. You obviously know very little to nothing about them. Originally by: annoing Stuff about healthcare Hey I get it, you like leeches and bench warming, that's cool. Originally by: annoing Oh btw, we still have religious intolerance, racism, bigotry, murder but its NOT as institutionalized as it once was, we are not proud of our past intolerance, we don't revel in the freedom to abuse. We hang our head in shame at those that do. We are leaving those behind, we move on, we develop. So you left them behind, but you still have them, but you're leaving them behind? Or did you just tell me that you're above something when you really aren't making it a pretty bold face lie. Pretty audacious of you I must say. and I didn't think it was even possible for the British to hang their head low with their noses stuck in the upright and locked position. Originally by: annoing I LOVE the UK, i'm proud to be British and I love our NHS, even with all of its faults. good to see that you'll point out our faults and turn a blind eye to your own, how neighborly of you. Originally by: annoing In 17 days time I will be undergoing heart surgery (mainly to find if I have one according to the wife ). Im having the surgery done at one of the best Cardiothoracic hospitals in the UK led by a surgeon who is WORLD renowned for his skill. The innovative surgery, developed by a team he was a member of, is now used the world over. America was behind on this and took lessons from this side of the pond for it. And im damn proud of that too. glad to hear, and let your wife know I back her theory. See you in 9 months when after your done playing shuffleboard with the hospital rooms. Originally by: annoing Oh and before y'all get worked up and I get even more accusations of being an America hater, save the keyboard, it ain't so. I love your tenacity, your innovative spirit, your patriotism. See? You ain't all bad Oops, shoulda read this part first damnit. But to each country their lifestyle I say. We have our way, you have ours. And the only time I get riled up is when some know all try's to tell me how to live. I'm a big boy now, I'll figure out on my own.
Micheal Dietrich Caldari	Posted - 2009.08.15 22:10:00 - [99] Oh and Cidril Originally by: Isoroku Yamamoto You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. There is your armed militia. He sure as hell didn't say that about Europe.
Surfin's PlunderBunny Minmatar Dark Ascendancy The Council.	Posted - 2009.08.15 22:14:00 - [100] Originally by: annoing Originally by: Surfin's PlunderBunny ... and he was never heard from again... You have a 26.7% chance of being right about that Now I feel bad, you're one of the people around here I like Can I hold on to your stuff just in case? Originally by: Xen Gin Originally by: FOl2TY8 I know that some people like to have voluntary periods of abstinence. Yeah, I use that excuse too.
baltec1 Antares Shipyards Vanguard.	Posted - 2009.08.15 22:15:00 - [101] Originally by: Micheal Dietrich Oh and Cidril Originally by: Isoroku Yamamoto You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. There is your armed militia. He sure as hell didn't say that about Europe. The UK has not been successfully invaded for almost 1000 years, you young'uns have some time to go before you catch up to this largely unarmed island
Awesome Possum Insert Obscure Latin Name	Posted - 2009.08.15 22:22:00 - [102] Originally by: Cridil I disagree, in 1795 it is generaly agreed to "bear arms" meant to serve as a soldier, do military service, or fight. Its nice of you to disagree, however in 1795 to "bear arms" meant to own and carry weapons, the same as it does today. "the rights of the People.." Throughout the constitution, the term "the People" means the average U.S. citizen. Not soldiers. Quote: The Police in the UK are trained proffesionals whos job is to maintain the peace and uphold the law. They are normaly not armed. There are some who may debate the profesional part. However I dont understand your armed civilians part, as civilians are already armed. So why do you have Police then? I think you misunderstood me when I said the police are civilians. The police force are not a part of the military, therefore police officers are considered civilians. Quote: So your saying that there is no clear statement to what the second amendment means? There are a few U.S. Supreme Court rulings, but otherwise no. There's the 'common sense' people, vs the hardcore Right nuts, vs the pacifist Left nuts. Quote: And puting a picture regarding whats the best way to deal with a HIV rapist to promote gun ownership is not fear mongering? Compare the number of presidents assassinated by firearms to the number of **s committed in the US. No, I don't believe that picture is fear mongering. Quote: Is stating someone is trying to destroy a constitutional right because they question that right, also not fear mongering? You have the right to question an amendment, you have the right to debate it, you even have the right to get a constitutional amendment made to change that one.. you don't have any other right to take it away, by constitutional law. Quote: Looking at what has been stated the issue is not whether the second amendment is wrong but whether it needs to be draged from the 18th centure into the 21st century. Im sure if I could call up good ol' Thomas Jefferson he may aggree. Read more quotes by Jefferson to find the answer to that: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ææLaws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.ÆÆ æNo freeman shall be debarred the use of arms" Quote:** You assume wrong I was in the British armed forces, so yes I can correctly make that assumption. I did not mean as a member of the military, I meant as a regular civilian walking down the street. Sorry I did not clarify. ♥ Wreck Disposal Services
Bestofworst Worstofbest Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2009.08.15 22:22:00 - [103] Originally by: baltec1 Originally by: Micheal Dietrich Oh and Cidril Originally by: Isoroku Yamamoto You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. There is your armed militia. He sure as hell didn't say that about Europe. The UK has not been successfully invaded for almost 1000 years, you young'uns have some time to go before you catch up to this largely unarmed island You don't need guns to protect against invaders, once they find out about Chavs, they'll lose interest. ________________________________________________ My Music Posts slowly rising in quality to the decline of my dignity.
Awesome Possum Insert Obscure Latin Name	Posted - 2009.08.15 22:26:00 - [104] Originally by: baltec1 The UK has not been successfully invaded for almost 1000 years, you young'uns have some time to go before you catch up to this largely unarmed island I'm going to call Godwin's Law right now, and post the obligatory before some ranting americans do it with actual meaning: You would've been invaded if Pearl Harbor had not been bombed, and the US came over to bail your butts out blah blah blah WWII USA you'd be all talkin german or russian or japanese or pig latin wah wah wah USA USA USA /waves flag ♥ Wreck Disposal Services
Bestofworst Worstofbest Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2009.08.15 22:39:00 - [105] Originally by: Awesome Possum Originally by: baltec1 The UK has not been successfully invaded for almost 1000 years, you young'uns have some time to go before you catch up to this largely unarmed island I'm going to call Godwin's Law right now, and post the obligatory before some ranting americans do it with actual meaning: You would've been invaded if Pearl Harbor had not been bombed, and the US came over to bail your butts out blah blah blah WWII USA you'd be all talkin german or russian or japanese or pig latin wah wah wah USA USA USA /waves flag Look onto me, I possess the blue flag! ________________________________________________ My Music Posts slowly rising in quality to the decline of my dignity.
baltec1 Antares Shipyards Vanguard.	Posted - 2009.08.15 22:43:00 - [106] Originally by: Awesome Possum Originally by: baltec1 The UK has not been successfully invaded for almost 1000 years, you young'uns have some time to go before you catch up to this largely unarmed island I'm going to call Godwin's Law right now, and post the obligatory before some ranting americans do it with actual meaning: You would've been invaded if Pearl Harbor had not been bombed, and the US came over to bail your butts out blah blah blah WWII USA you'd be all talkin german or russian or japanese or pig latin wah wah wah USA USA USA /waves flag Also, yadda yadda, American being late in yet another world war Blah Blah, RAF beat them before pearl Rabble Rabble red army zerg ect. I think that covers us
Cridil Caldari Cloned from the Gibbet Aggressive Therapy	Posted - 2009.08.15 23:32:00 - [107] Originally by: Awesome Possum Originally by: baltec1 The UK has not been successfully invaded for almost 1000 years, you young'uns have some time to go before you catch up to this largely unarmed island I'm going to call Godwin's Law right now, and post the obligatory before some ranting americans do it with actual meaning: You would've been invaded if Pearl Harbor had not been bombed, and the US came over to bail your butts out blah blah blah WWII USA you'd be all talkin german or russian or japanese or pig latin wah wah wah USA USA USA /waves flag Awesome Possum I was going to reply to you in my earlier post, then I saw this and decided you were either a troll or an idiot, so why bother. Then I reread your reply, laughed to myself and looked up Godwins's law. At that point I thought fair comment and decided you were not an idiot. So sorry for that. For those ranting Americans, Germany gave up on their plans for invading after the Battle of Britain. I have seen the film Pearl Harbour and although out of all foreign nationals more Poles flew in the Battle of Britain then any other nation, I know that a single American called Ben Affleck won it for us. So yes a single American called Ben Affleck preserved the British identity.
Cridil Caldari Cloned from the Gibbet Aggressive Therapy	Posted - 2009.08.15 23:59:00 - [108] Originally by: Awesome Possum You have the right to question an amendment, you have the right to debate it, you even have the right to get a constitutional amendment made to change that one.. you don't have any other right to take it away, by constitutional law. Originally by: Awesome Possum Read more quotes by Jefferson to find the answer to that: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." ææLaws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.ÆÆ æNo freeman shall be debarred the use of arms" "We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government shall become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, & to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles & organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness" "no society can make a perpetual constitution or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation." "Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it is to be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right."
Kata Dakini Amarr Flatiron Academy	Posted - 2009.08.16 01:53:00 - [109] I like Ted Nugent's point: Quote: I believe that a person's moral compass can be determined by how he references free men the right to defend themselves. Quote: I don't like repeat offenders, I like dead offenders. Linkage For more enjoyment and greater efficiency, consumption is being standardized.
Micheal Dietrich Caldari	Posted - 2009.08.16 01:54:00 - [110] Originally by: baltec1 Originally by: Micheal Dietrich Oh and Cidril Originally by: Isoroku Yamamoto You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. There is your armed militia. He sure as hell didn't say that about Europe. The UK has not been successfully invaded for almost 1000 years, you young'uns have some time to go before you catch up to this largely unarmed island Who wants a dinky island when you can get so much more?
Rick AstIey	Posted - 2009.08.16 02:21:00 - [111] Originally by: Micheal Dietrich His name is William Kostric..... His name is William Kostric..... That was the most obnoxious reporter I think I have ever seen. WAS YOUR GUN LOADED TODAY? who would be silly enough to carry an unloaded firearm? I'M ONLY ASKING, YOU'RE AWNSERING THE QUESTIONS! WHY DID YOU BRING A LOADED GUN TO THIS EVENT? Well here in new hampsh- I KNOW THE LAW!!! Unbelievable. Disgusting. Whoever allowed that man to be in front of a camera is a complete moron.
Micheal Dietrich Caldari	Posted - 2009.08.16 02:26:00 - [112] Originally by: Rick AstIey Originally by: Micheal Dietrich His name is William Kostric..... His name is William Kostric..... That was the most obnoxious reporter I think I have ever seen. WAS YOUR GUN LOADED TODAY? who would be silly enough to carry an unloaded firearm? I'M ONLY ASKING, YOU'RE AWNSERING THE QUESTIONS! WHY DID YOU BRING A LOADED GUN TO THIS EVENT? Well here in new hampsh- I KNOW THE LAW!!! Unbelievable. Disgusting. Whoever allowed that man to be in front of a camera is a complete moron. Yeah at first he was really off the hook but he really calmed down later and actually gave Will a chance to speak his mind and even agreed with him on many points. I think his whole plan of shooting the man down kind of evaporated after the first 2 minutes
Awesome Possum Insert Obscure Latin Name	Posted - 2009.08.16 02:32:00 - [113] Originally by: Rick AstIey who would be silly enough to carry an unloaded firearm? Eminem? ♥ Wreck Disposal Services
Santiago Fahahrri Galactic Geographic	Posted - 2009.08.16 02:32:00 - [114] Originally by: Micheal Dietrich Originally by: baltec1 Originally by: Micheal Dietrich Oh and Cidril Originally by: Isoroku Yamamoto You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. There is your armed militia. He sure as hell didn't say that about Europe. The UK has not been successfully invaded for almost 1000 years, you young'uns have some time to go before you catch up to this largely unarmed island This is a point that should be recognized and respected, not contested, by US citizens (after all it's the same victorious defenders which we defeated in the US Revolution). Defense of one's home should always be a good thing. During the last ground invasion of the UK, the UK citizens were armed with the weapons of the day. There's a lesson that's being repeated here. ~ Santiago Fahahrri Galactic Geographic
mercyonman Caldari SOMBER SOLAR WINDS	Posted - 2009.08.16 06:23:00 - [115] Originally by: Mr Reason Where I live (yeah I'm a filthy european) we're not allowed to carry guns at all, funnily enough crime and murder rate are not even CLOSE to what they are in the US nor do I feel the need to carry a weapon. Different situation calls for different ethics I guess. Still, just like with players in EVE who have no pvp experience; unless you really know what you're doing carrying a gun can be more of a liability than a boon. well you might say that but one of the US smallest city's has some of the highest crime rate just because its in proportion to the people. and i RARELY hear of murders in my area. let alone my city When you crash your car, then jump out running down the street to save your pod. Then you're playing way too much eve - MacGrowler III
mercyonman Caldari SOMBER SOLAR WINDS	Posted - 2009.08.16 06:30:00 - [116] Originally by: baltec1 Originally by: Micheal Dietrich Oh and Cidril Originally by: Isoroku Yamamoto You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass. There is your armed militia. He sure as hell didn't say that about Europe. The UK has not been successfully invaded for almost 1000 years, you young'uns have some time to go before you catch up to this largely unarmed island cause i think the US kinda saved your ass. hehe but hey there is always a damn nub cake with a nuke When you crash your car, then jump out running down the street to save your pod. Then you're playing way too much eve - MacGrowler III
Schalac Caldari Apocalypse Reign	Posted - 2009.08.16 09:10:00 - [117] Why do you think that the USA was never, ever successfully invaded by a foreign army? Why do you think that? Anyone ever see Red Dawn? Now imagine hundreds if not hundreds of thousands of people doing the same thing. The USA is strong because we support private ownership of arms. The USA is strong because we allow people to defend themselves. Do you really think the gang bangers in LA or NYC are going to care about what colors their fellow citizens are wearing if there are enemy landing ships landing on the coast? Hell no, they will band together with everyone else that owns a weapon and fight to the death to defend what is the United States of America. We are strong because of this and ask any military officer that is not a United States officer what they think about the land invasion of the USA and they will tell you that that fact is why we are strong. E pluribus unum. From many one. Buy your guns now and save them. A war is coming. Are you prepared? SCHALAC HAS SPOKEN
Cridil Caldari Cloned from the Gibbet Aggressive Therapy	Posted - 2009.08.16 12:55:00 - [118] Originally by: Schalac Why do you think that the USA was never, ever successfully invaded by a foreign army? Why do you think that? Anyone ever see Red Dawn? Now imagine hundreds if not hundreds of thousands of people doing the same thing. The USA is strong because we support private ownership of arms. The USA is strong because we allow people to defend themselves. Do you really think the gang bangers in LA or NYC are going to care about what colors their fellow citizens are wearing if there are enemy landing ships landing on the coast? Hell no, they will band together with everyone else that owns a weapon and fight to the death to defend what is the United States of America. We are strong because of this and ask any military officer that is not a United States officer what they think about the land invasion of the USA and they will tell you that that fact is why we are strong. E pluribus unum. From many one. Buy your guns now and save them. A war is coming. Are you prepared? In recent times I cant think of the US ever being at risk from an invasion, and I certainly cant think of any nation today that has expressed a desire to invade the US. If the cold war had ended up as a shooting war, I think the world would of been a nuclear wasteland way before the US was actualy at risk of a Soviet invasion. Japan was more interested in carving an empire in the western and southern Pacific. Pearl Harbour was an attempt to keep the US away long enough for them to do it. If things had been diffrent and Japan had invaded mainland USA then any romantic comparisons to Hollywood fiction would be very misplaced. If you need evidence of that then read about Nanking. Any civilian resistance is dependent on a number of factors, you have named one which is the access to weapons. some others are Geography Climate Propaganda Commitment to the struggle by both sides. Outside assistance Money Logistics Time There are more, but these give enough of a picture to demonstrate that a succesfull resistance or deterrent to an invasion is not because Joe the plumber has a gun cabinet next to his plasma TV.
Sera Ryskin	Posted - 2009.08.16 13:01:00 - [119] Originally by: Schalac Why do you think that the USA was never, ever successfully invaded by a foreign army? Oh FFS, why do my fellow Americans have to constantly make us look bad with their ignorance of history? BTW, you may want to read the parts where the militia was pretty much useless. But really, it has very little to do with privately owned guns and a lot to do with the fact that the US is an entire ***ing continent. Invading the US would be suicide, not only would the invader first have to cross thousands of miles of ocean just to get there (while being hunted by the US navy) and fight their way through the shore defenses, but even if they managed to secure the beaches, they would be looking at thousands of miles of territory to attack, much of it broken up by incredibly inhospitable terrain. Meanwhile the invader's supply lines are stretched over the entire ocean (again, with the US navy killing them), while the US has an intact road/rail network. Any "militia" that happens to show up is simply redundant at that point. Now, granted, there's a good argument for privately owned guns to protect against *criminals, but expecting to fight off the invading hordes with your personal rifle is just pure delusion. Yes, I know Canada and Mexico exist. But not only are both even more difficult terrain to cross, but they are close US allies and would be defended just as strongly as the US itself. ========== Merin is currently enjoying a 14 day vacation from the forums. Until she returns, you've got me to entertain you!
Grez Neo Spartans Laconian Syndicate	Posted - 2009.08.16 14:13:00 - [120] Why don't they just get rid of the right to bare arms? I can't remember a time when it was a good idea to have a gun on you. And someone may say "To protect myself from the person that has a gun!", but if you get rid of them, then you have no need to defend yourself from one. ---
ceaon Gallente	Posted - 2009.08.16 14:20:00 - [121] Originally by: Grez I can't remember a time when it was a good idea to have a gun on you. And someone may say "To protect myself from the person that has a gun!", but if you get rid of them, then you have no need to defend yourself from one. exactly like i said before or allow anyone to have a gun or ban them for everyone the major point in this is: criminals have guns and that is the main reason why ppl want to keep guns how you take away gun from criminals ? Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist EvE FTW
Sobach Gallente Fourth Circle	Posted - 2009.08.16 14:28:00 - [122] Originally by: ceaon how you take away gun from criminals ? the same way those people solve all their problems, by waving their magic wand!
Grez Neo Spartans Laconian Syndicate	Posted - 2009.08.16 15:03:00 - [123] Originally by: Sobach Originally by: ceaon how you take away gun from criminals ? the same way those people solve all their problems, by waving their magic wand! Harry Potter to the rescue? ---
Micheal Dietrich Caldari	Posted - 2009.08.16 16:55:00 - [124] Originally by: Grez Why don't they just get rid of the right to bare arms? Yaaarrr I'm with you on that! No more Calvin Klein models with their shaved chests and bare arms! Robin Williams hairy ftw!
Kravick Drasani	Posted - 2009.08.16 17:00:00 - [125] Originally by: Grez Why don't they just get rid of the right to bare arms? I can't remember a time when it was a good idea to have a gun on you. And someone may say "To protect myself from the person that has a gun!", but if you get rid of them, then you have no need to defend yourself from one. How do you propose we disarm the criminals then? The unlawful already disregard the laws, so if a new law was passed that removed the 2nd amendment then what the hell makes you think that criminals will just disarm themselves? Let us look to Jefferson for the answer there. ææLaws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.ÆÆ If you think that by outlawing guns they will simply disappear? Criminals will still have guns and will love the extra business selling guns to other criminals or people who wish to commit crimes. Quote: I can't remember a time when it was a good idea to have a gun on you. And someone may say "To protect myself from the person that has a gun!", but if you get rid of them, then you have no need to defend yourself from one. School shootings. Its illegal to carry a fire arm on school property. Guess what? Those people who shot up their schools ignored that law. They where able to get a weapon, not owning one previously, illegally ignoring the 5 day waiting period, since it is also illegal for minors to own fire arms. However, if just one teacher of those 20-40 people had a gun to defend themselves with suddenly the death toll/injuries drops from 20-40 to 1-3. Even less if we're talking about colleges where everyone would be legal to own a firearm. Most of you people also disregard the fact we have guns here is NOT because of the fighting against criminals thing. Its to prevent tyranny from our government. Of course we kinda dropped the ball on that one. Patriot Act slipped through the cracks and we're doing nothing about it. - How to kill interceptors: Zip down your fly and release. After about 10 orbits your stream just might hit him. Or a multi webbed Rapier should slow him down enough that you can drop #2 on him.
Bufo T	Posted - 2009.08.16 22:26:00 - [126] You say that you bear arms to protect against tyranny, but would the whole of the United States really take up arms against a ruling they thought was tyrannical by the president? Also after reading this thread I was wondering how many people are killed or injured in America every year due to accidents with or careless use of firearms. I know that now weapons are so widespread it would be extremely hard to successfully reduce gun ownership etc. as the criminals will just be even better armed than the rest of the population, but in most countries people do not feel the need to carry knives or other weapons on the grounds that criminals will have them. Maybe it just shows that there is a serious problem the police and other law enforcement agencies if you feel there is a serious risk do yourself or family wherever you are in America.
Overseer Aliena Caldari	Posted - 2009.08.16 22:42:00 - [127] Edited by: Overseer Aliena on 16/08/2009 22:42:27 Pop quiz *******s You are a 74 year old man trying to just running your business when out of no where 4 young men barge in brandishing pistols, yelling at you to hand over your money that isn't even there while they pistol whip one of your employees. Even if you had a way of warning law enforcement you know it will be several minutes before they get to you. What do you do? What do you do?
Jin Nib	Posted - 2009.08.16 22:47:00 - [128] Originally by: Bufo T You say that you bear arms to protect against tyranny, but would the whole of the United States really take up arms against a ruling they thought was tyrannical by the president? Also after reading this thread I was wondering how many people are killed or injured in America every year due to accidents with or careless use of firearms. I know that now weapons are so widespread it would be extremely hard to successfully reduce gun ownership etc. as the criminals will just be even better armed than the rest of the population, but in most countries people do not feel the need to carry knives or other weapons on the grounds that criminals will have them. Maybe it just shows that there is a serious problem the police and other law enforcement agencies if you feel there is a serious risk do yourself or family wherever you are in America. I've never felt unsafe the times I've lived there. Granted I wasn't living in Harlem, but most people aren't so it's moot. At the same time there is no reason not to protect yourselves against threats that might conceivably occur and do. It's another option that you could have should it be required. If that option is curtailed so that you never have it, then it forces reliance on things you have no control over and do not necessarily have your best interests at heart. For no real reason. -Jin Nib Trading on behalf of Opera Noir since: 2009.03.02 03:53:00
Blane Xero Amarr The Firestorm Cartel	Posted - 2009.08.16 22:52:00 - [129] Originally by: Overseer Aliena Edited by: Overseer Aliena on 16/08/2009 22:42:27 Pop quiz *****s You are a 74 year old man trying to just running your business when out of no where 4 young men barge in brandishing pistols, yelling at you to hand over your money that isn't even there while they pistol whip one of your employees. Even if you had a way of warning law enforcement you know it will be several minutes before they get to you. What do you do? What do you do? He did the right thing. _____________________________________ Haruhiist since December 2008 Originally by:** CCP Fallout :facepalm:
Kravick Drasani	Posted - 2009.08.17 00:11:00 - [130] Originally by: Overseer Aliena Edited by: Overseer Aliena on 16/08/2009 22:42:27 Pop quiz *******s You are a 74 year old man trying to just running your business when out of no where 4 young men barge in brandishing pistols, yelling at you to hand over your money that isn't even there while they pistol whip one of your employees. Even if you had a way of warning law enforcement you know it will be several minutes before they get to you. What do you do? What do you do? 2 less criminals on the streets or in the hands of our prisons sucking up tax money. Sadly, he only killed 2 of them. - How to kill interceptors: Zip down your fly and release. After about 10 orbits your stream just might hit him. Or a multi webbed Rapier should slow him down enough that you can drop #2 on him.
Xrak X Inc	Posted - 2009.08.17 02:12:00 - [131] Originally by: Kravick Drasani Originally by: Overseer Aliena Edited by: Overseer Aliena on 16/08/2009 22:42:27 Pop quiz *******s You are a 74 year old man trying to just running your business when out of no where 4 young men barge in brandishing pistols, yelling at you to hand over your money that isn't even there while they pistol whip one of your employees. Even if you had a way of warning law enforcement you know it will be several minutes before they get to you. What do you do? What do you do? 2 less criminals on the streets or in the hands of our prisons sucking up tax money. Sadly, he only killed 2 of them. Guess that makes up for these 2 kids that are dead then right?
Jin Nib	Posted - 2009.08.17 02:20:00 - [132] Originally by: Xrak Originally by: Kravick Drasani Originally by: Overseer Aliena Edited by: Overseer Aliena on 16/08/2009 22:42:27 Pop quiz ******s You are a 74 year old man trying to just running your business when out of no where 4 young men barge in brandishing pistols, yelling at you to hand over your money that isn't even there while they pistol whip one of your employees. Even if you had a way of warning law enforcement you know it will be several minutes before they get to you. What do you do? What do you do? 2 less criminals on the streets or in the hands of our prisons sucking up tax money. Sadly, he only killed 2 of them. Guess that makes up for these 2 kids that are dead then right? You didn't read the article did you? -Jin Nib Trading on behalf of Opera Noir since: 2009.03.02 03:53:00*
Xrak X Inc	Posted - 2009.08.17 03:30:00 - [133] Originally by: Xrak Originally by: Kravick Drasani Originally by: Overseer Aliena Edited by: Overseer Aliena on 16/08/2009 22:42:27 Pop quiz *******s You are a 74 year old man trying to just running your business when out of no where 4 young men barge in brandishing pistols, yelling at you to hand over your money that isn't even there while they pistol whip one of your employees. Even if you had a way of warning law enforcement you know it will be several minutes before they get to you. What do you do? What do you do? 2 less criminals on the streets or in the hands of our prisons sucking up tax money. Sadly, he only killed 2 of them. Guess that makes up for these 2 kids that got shot then right?
Xrak X Inc	Posted - 2009.08.17 03:31:00 - [134] Originally by: Xrak Originally by: Xrak Originally by: Kravick Drasani Originally by: Overseer Aliena Edited by: Overseer Aliena on 16/08/2009 22:42:27 Pop quiz *******s You are a 74 year old man trying to just running your business when out of no where 4 young men barge in brandishing pistols, yelling at you to hand over your money that isn't even there while they pistol whip one of your employees. Even if you had a way of warning law enforcement you know it will be several minutes before they get to you. What do you do? What do you do? 2 less criminals on the streets or in the hands of our prisons sucking up tax money. Sadly, he only killed 2 of them. Guess that makes up for these 2 kids that got shot then right? That better?
Kravick Drasani	Posted - 2009.08.17 03:52:00 - [135] Edited by: Kravick Drasani on 17/08/2009 03:53:55 Originally by: Xrak Originally by: Kravick Drasani Originally by: Overseer Aliena Edited by: Overseer Aliena on 16/08/2009 22:42:27 Pop quiz *****s You are a 74 year old man trying to just running your business when out of no where 4 young men barge in brandishing pistols, yelling at you to hand over your money that isn't even there while they pistol whip one of your employees. Even if you had a way of warning law enforcement you know it will be several minutes before they get to you. What do you do? What do you do? 2 less criminals on the streets or in the hands of our prisons sucking up tax money. Sadly, he only killed 2 of them. Guess that makes up for these 2 kids that are dead then right? Thats their parents fault for being stupid. #1 they didn't keep the ammo separate from the gun. #2 they didn't keep the gun locked in a safe place away from children. #3 Under the bed? Are you ing kidding me? Darwin's law at its finest. Clearly these parents where too damn stupid to have kids. Quote: The father in that case has been charged with child endangerment. At the very least this needs to happen to both parents. You do NOT** keep a gun under your bed without it being in a locked container if you have children in your house.
Bestofworst Worstofbest Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2009.08.17 03:58:00 - [136] Originally by: Xrak Originally by: Kravick Drasani Originally by: Overseer Aliena Edited by: Overseer Aliena on 16/08/2009 22:42:27 Pop quiz *******s You are a 74 year old man trying to just running your business when out of no where 4 young men barge in brandishing pistols, yelling at you to hand over your money that isn't even there while they pistol whip one of your employees. Even if you had a way of warning law enforcement you know it will be several minutes before they get to you. What do you do? What do you do? 2 less criminals on the streets or in the hands of our prisons sucking up tax money. Sadly, he only killed 2 of them. Guess that makes up for these 2 kids that are dead then right? No law protects the stupid, at least for very long. ________________________________________________ My Music Posts slowly rising in quality to the decline of my dignity.
Xrak X Inc	Posted - 2009.08.17 04:27:00 - [137] Originally by: Bestofworst Worstofbest No law protects the stupid, at least for very long. So because the parents are stupid the kid deserves to die?
Bestofworst Worstofbest Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2009.08.17 04:56:00 - [138] Originally by: Xrak Originally by: Bestofworst Worstofbest No law protects the stupid, at least for very long. So because the parents are stupid the kid deserves to die? Never said that. ________________________________________________ My Music Posts slowly rising in quality to the decline of my dignity.
Sobach Gallente Fourth Circle	Posted - 2009.08.17 05:00:00 - [139] Originally by: Xrak So because the parents are stupid the kid deserves to die? No, because the parents are stupid the kids got hurt. Like everything else, once you have children you have to adjust the way you do things, such as not leaving household chemicals in easily accessible place, alcohols, power tools, etc etc, the list goes on, and yes, it includes firearms. The gun isn't to be blamed any more here than the bottle of drain cleaner/bleach if a kid gulped one down.
Awesome Possum Insert Obscure Latin Name	Posted - 2009.08.17 05:07:00 - [140] Originally by: Bufo T You say that you bear arms to protect against tyranny, but would the whole of the United States really take up arms against a ruling they thought was tyrannical by the president? Yes, they would. Quote: Also after reading this thread I was wondering how many people are killed or injured in America every year due to accidents with or careless use of firearms. Those statistics are readily available. And guess what, its a lot lower than you think. Quote: Maybe it just shows that there is a serious problem the police and other law enforcement agencies if you feel there is a serious risk do yourself or family wherever you are in America. /sighs Europeans. You just won't get it, ever. What part of "Crime rates are LOWER in areas with less strict gun laws." is so difficult to understand? Oh by the way, our violent crime rates may be higher than yours, but your home invasion statistics are a hell of a lot higher. Don't know about you, but I like knowing I'm less at risk of some dip**s bursting through my door while I'm at home. (Guess why they're lower?) Originally by:** Xrak Originally by: Bestofworst Worstofbest No law protects the stupid, at least for very long. So because the parents are stupid the kid deserves to die? Way to read into things. The parents deserved to be punished for their stupidity. Its just unfortunate in the way they were punished. IMO, I blame the parents for not teaching their children proper gun safety. Just letting the child shoot a watermelon with a .22 will teach them how dangerous a gun can be. ♥ Wreck Disposal Services
Kayosoni Caldari Destructive Influence	Posted - 2009.08.17 12:07:00 - [141] Originally by: Mr Reason So people in that area are allowed to carry a gun out in the open. Ok that's cool I guess, in 1850. HAVING a gun is not an issue to me even though I'm personally against them, but I can understand people wanting to protect their own lifes and family or perhaps even have fun shooting stuff on a range. But being allowed to carry one out in the open, in a situation where there's lots of other people who saviour their lives just as much (or perhaps even more if that gun owner planned something) and with a public figure on the way? I'm sure you all feel very strong about your rights and 'freedom' and all that but seriously, who thinks this can EVER be a good idea? That crowd is more safe as a result of the dude having a gun, not less. ---

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.