Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 3/8/2002 7:19:58 PM EDT
Here is an article I came across by a stundent from Oregon State University. Makes you wonder about the next generation of politicians. Here is the web site address to view the original article.[url=]http://barometer.orst.edu/0102/02winter/020307/020307f1.html[url/] Gun lovers are not patriots, period I think last week was Second Amendment Week. I can't be sure. It might've been national potato week or Bavarian folk dancing month or some other important cause that owned the time. It was some recent week, however. The notification did get me to read it again. "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." After a couple times through, it still doesn't make sense. In any case, the circumstances when it was written are very different from now. It's time for Americans to let go of their religious need for guns. They are no longer necessary for the security of the free State. In 1791, when the Bill of Rights was ratified, the country was not far removed from the Revolutionary War. It was fought to give the people of the colonies the right to self-determination. King George III had used his standing army to suppress them. The colonists defeated these armies, in large part with state militias and citizen irregulars. Before the war, citizens were required to quarter, or give free room and board, to the British army. So afterwards, the new Americans were not sure if they even wanted to have a standing army. Some thought the best model for defense against foreign invasion was an amalgam of "well-regulated" local militias. Also during that time, modern democracy was brand new. There was a legitimate fear that the democratic experiment would not succeed. The government could have proven unstable and been taken over by autocratic forces, again foreign or domestic. So the first original justification for the Second Amendment is to help citizens defend against foreign aggression. The second justification is to defend against domestic tyranny by the government. I say that now both of those are rendered obsolete by the same factor. That is the Unites States military. We have now seen that the local militia model of defense is ineffective. A centralized military just works better. You won't find very many people who would argue that the military should be broken up into state-sized pieces. With the growth of the central military has come a reality that can't be ignored. If someone were to take over the government of this country and gain control of that military, there is no lightly armed citizen force that could stop them. Many people say that the right to bear arms is what protects our freedom and rights from an overbearing government, but there is no example of this. In Waco, Ruby Ridge, and on the back roads around the west there have been groups that have tried to take part against armed conflict with government agents. What they all have in common is that they were hopelessly outgunned. And they were only fighting the FBI and BLM, not the actual military. The good news is that we don't really have to worry about government tyranny anymore. The Republican democracy experiment has become a highly stable tradition and establishment. What I'm saying is that while we can't overthrow the government anymore, it's alright because we don't have to. If the people don't like it, they can elect a new one.
Link Posted: 3/8/2002 7:21:01 PM EDT
continue: The Second Amendment can and will be debated for a long time, but it really doesn't apply for the original reasons. There are other more debatable justifications people have for wanting to own guns. Many will say that it is to "preserve freedom," or whatever. I don't believe, however, that people truly buy guns for reasons that abstract though, unless they are cultists or survivalist nuts. Most people have simpler causes. One is simply the feeling of power. If you have ever used a gun, you know what it is like. It is pretty cool to shoot stuff, or to think how you could destroy something or someone with a little finger motion. While this is a fascinating emotion, I don't think that it justifies the proliferation of efficient deadly weapons in a peaceful society. A related and better reason people cite is that guns can be used for protection and prevention of crime by law-abiding citizens. This is still weak to me, though. There are numerous non-lethal methods for stopping most criminals, unless they are armed. Such is the situation we have gotten into. Since criminals can easily access guns, law-abiding citizens should be able to also to protect themselves. Gun advocates say that if they are restricted or outlawed, then only criminals will have them. This is true in the near term, but they fail to realize where criminals get their guns. They buy and steal from the law-abiding owners in the first place. If they were restricted or outlawed, the supply would dry up. The last reason people own them is for sport. Again, it is fun to shoot stuff, like animals or targets. I don't mind that, although for some reason I think it should be customary to eat what you kill. But again, the fun does not justify the proliferation of lethal weapons. We have them ingrained in our culture. The Second Amendment not so clearly guarantees our right to own them. So for now I propose a national registry. Like an automobile, people should have to apply for a license, prove their competence, and refrain from illegal use to keep the right to own a firearm. Law-abiding citizens realistically don't have anything to fear from registering with the government. Sales should be regulated and registered also. Certain types of weapons, ammo and accessories that have no legitimate sport or personal defense purpose are and should be banned. This would eventually soak up the pool of deadly weapons in the hands of criminals, at which point the law abiding citizenry could disarm. There are more than 100 million firearms in this country now. It is time for America to examine what it is going to do with so many guns. Sanjai Tripathi is a columnist for The Daily Barometer. The opinions in his columns, which appear every Thursday, do not necessarily represent those of The Barometer staff. Tripathi can be reached at sanjaitripathi@netscape.net.
Link Posted: 3/8/2002 7:27:19 PM EDT
here is the link for the original article somehow i messed up on the first try. [url=]http://barometer.orst.edu/0102/02winter/020307/020307f1.html[url/]
Link Posted: 3/8/2002 7:31:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/8/2002 7:32:26 PM EDT by Guzzler]
That just made me sick, and want to cry that people have been brainwashed into believing this crap. Third time is charm... [url]barometer.orst.edu/0102/02winter/020307/020307f1.html[/url]
Link Posted: 3/8/2002 7:50:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By MinuteMan3: So for now I propose a national registry. Like an automobile, people should have to apply for a license, prove their competence, and refrain from illegal use to keep the right to own a firearm.
View Quote
We have this in some states, and it has the opposite effect on criminal possession of firearms than intended.
Law-abiding citizens realistically don't have anything to fear from registering with the government.
View Quote
Law abiding citizens realistically don't have anything to fear from registering jews. That's not a good reason to do ti. Registration shouldn't be presumed to be inherently good. Historically, it's always been used for evil, never for good.
Sales should be regulated and registered also.
View Quote
How is this different than the current situation? New guns have to be sold from a FFL. Only private transactions are exempt in some states. Are private transactions the real problem, or is it that criminals will commit crimes?
Certain types of weapons, ammo and accessories that have no legitimate sport or personal defense purpose are and should be banned.
View Quote
Same thing goes with cars, motorcycles, televisions, etc. There is no legitimate need for anyone to have a 100" television. It can only be used for illegal, public exhibition of copyrighted material. Bans are inherently bad, there must be an overwhelming need to justify a broad ban.
This would eventually soak up the pool of deadly weapons in the hands of criminals, at which point the law abiding citizenry could disarm. There are more than 100 million firearms in this country now. It is time for America to examine what it is going to do with so many guns.
View Quote
This doesn't work in the states with the most restrictive laws. Do the research, see the reality of the situation. If guns are so inherently bad, get the police and military to stop using them. If someone provides a world free of violent crime, oppressive governments, or other reasons to own firearms, I'll find other hobbies. There, the responsibility for this utopia is on someone else's shoulders. Once the utopia exists, I'll sell my 10/22, the only gun I own. [:D]
Link Posted: 3/8/2002 7:50:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Guzzler: That just made me sick, and want to cry that people have been brainwashed into believing this crap.
View Quote
His name makes me think he is probably from India, or perhaps his parents immigrated to here from there. Every Indian I have met has been adamantly socialist and anti-gun. That's what the government is like over there (it's also corrupt as hell).
Link Posted: 3/8/2002 8:06:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By 71-Hour_Achmed: His name makes me think he is probably from India, or perhaps his parents immigrated to here from there. Every Indian I have met has been adamantly socialist and anti-gun. That's what the government is like over there (it's also corrupt as hell).
View Quote
They also smell like Hell and have the worst God-damned manners of any peoples I've ever had the misfortune to deal with. Anybody who has ever worked in retail or service-related industries can tell you that Indian women are the most feared and hated "customers" of all. Indian men don't tend to be much better. It's like they expect us to kiss their asses because they decided to "grace" our country with their smelly presence. Yes, I don't like Indians. Call me racist, see if I care.
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 1:18:02 AM EDT
In response to Qwijibo: I am not sure if your response was directed towards me or towards the article. I did not write the article. I just found the article on a web site that is part of the Oregon State Univeristy college newspaper. I also think that the guy who wrote the article is one brainwashed SOB. Unfortunetly this is the mindset that is being established in colleges all throughout the united states. These are the ideas that future politicians are going to have. To me it is we should be aware of what these idiots are thinking so we can continue to defend our 2nd amendment rights. I personally agree that in situations were the civilian population is disarmed crime is very high . Just look at the United Kingdom and Austraila. We even dont have to go to far in the United States to see this. Just look at states that dont have shall issue concealed carry laws and restrictive gun laws. Crime is very high. All these anti-gun statistics are fony. They use inacurate and inflated data to get there results. Example being that they call someone over the age of 18 still a child, but legally and morally they are concidered an adult. More children die each year from doctors,car accidents,pool drawnings and such then gun related incidents. So all these anti-gun groups are full of crap. Unfortunetly two things they do very well that the pro-gun groups dont. One is they have lots of money, and the other is that they have alot of lawyers that will fight the fight and not give up. They use some very simple,and very strategic ideas to push there agenda. Personally I think that pro-gun groups are to nice on the issue and dont fight hard enough. Pro-gun groups dont go into the schools to tell the other side of the issue. They dont go into elementary schools,junior high school, high schools,community colleges, and colleges to push the pro-gun agenda. Why not use the liberals own tactics like discrimination laws to get into these places. But what would it take. Well one is lots of money and two would be good pro-gun lawyers that have a pit bull kind of attitude just like these liberal lawyers do. You dont let go and you dont give up. You keep on keeping on until you win. If that means changing stratigies so be it. That is what the liberals do. Why cant pro-gun groups do the same thing. Why should we keep sitting back and being discriminated against and made to believe that we are defeated. As far as I am concerned until the constitution is ammended then we should be fighting for equal representation, not discrimination. Screw this pollitically corrert crap.
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 1:25:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/9/2002 1:29:55 AM EDT by Stealth]
And I thought all the liberals, hippies and idiots went to the University of Oregon.
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 1:30:01 AM EDT
That kind of article makes me want to simply choke the living shit outof the author.
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 1:32:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By 71-Hour_Achmed:
Originally Posted By Guzzler: That just made me sick, and want to cry that people have been brainwashed into believing this crap.
View Quote
His name makes me think he is probably from India, or perhaps his parents immigrated to here from there. Every Indian I have met has been adamantly socialist and anti-gun. That's what the government is like over there (it's also corrupt as hell).
View Quote
This is sooooo true i have a cousin that married an indian man he's very anti-gun.
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 5:14:56 PM EDT
Let's take up a collection to pay for him to have a vasectomy. I'd sure hate to think he could reproduce. Does anyone know how to e-mail him a weggie? Oh, better yet, let's drop him off in the worst part of New York city and see how he feels about citizens being able to protect themselves then!
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 6:21:52 PM EDT
Like I said before: Leave gunplay to the trained professionals in the military and law enforcement. Civilians only need a cell phone with 911 on autodial.
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 6:34:28 PM EDT
"If you have ever used a gun, you know what it is like. It is pretty cool to shoot stuff, or to think how you could destroy something or someone with a little finger motion. While this is a fascinating emotion, I don't think that it justifies the proliferation of efficient deadly weapons in a peaceful society."
View Quote
We live in a peaceful society? Last time I looked at the cork board at the end of my hall, I saw that a woman had been raped about 200 feet away from the door of my building and they were looking for the bastard that did it. Until all people are civil, there will always be a need for arms. I'm also a firm believer that women should be given easier access to CC permits, especially in NYC!
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 7:48:48 PM EDT
We are STILL required to quarter the troops, if not in our homes, then from the 50% of our paychecks that those legions of whores in D.C steal. The second ammendment is about killing corrupt men. It's far past time to excercise the second ammendment again.
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 7:55:22 PM EDT
"That kind of article makes me want to simply choke the living shit outof the author" You SHOULD want to choke the shit out of the citizenry of a nation which has allowed communists to take over educational systems that were designed to make better educated men. Don't blame the dumbass who thinks so poorly..... Blame the evil pricks who intentionally neglected him (his parents and piss scared community) and those who INTENTIONALLY mislead him, his limp wristed professors and the legions of effiminate public school teachers that preceded that. Americans should have listened to McCarthy when they had the chance. Now the communists have the good sense to call themsleves Democrat or Republican while practicing their craft.....all in the name of "saving the children", no less......
Link Posted: 3/9/2002 8:08:17 PM EDT
Sounds to me like he is saying that we should have bigger guns, like tanks and artillery. Maybe even aircraft carriers.
Top Top