Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board » Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk » VETERANS DISARMAMENT ACT (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: VETERANS DISARMAMENT ACT
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
yeah he does...
interesting "character" as long as you aren't his victim...

As of 2007, he is 86 years old and still resides in Trenton Psychiatric Hospital. Shortly after his arrest he was reported to have said to a psychiatrist, "I'm no psycho. I have a good mind. I'd have killed a thousand if I had bullets enough."

that's definitely a soshapath...

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Machiavelli
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Machiavelli     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
quote:
Originally posted by Machiavelli:
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
Patrick Sherrill i already told you about he never served in combat duty...

try again...

I have not said anything a about combat that i recall... and i do use the word Vet but loosely to mean anyone in the military... point is alot of people get into the military with mental diseases (though I don't know how) and come out worst sometimes like those two... some get diagnosed with mental diseases as they are getting out of the military... these as well as SOME combat vets should not own guns and that is what i support...
here's your exact wording:

Let's not forget the numerous of mass killings since the 60's committed by ex-vets who had mental problems of some sort from their war experiences like the ones who went "Postal" at post offices and gave birth to the term Postal or going Postal

I expanded my answer after that post and that was obvious that I did... so quoting a earlier post is pointless if in later ones i expanded my statements like you and everyone else does when we debate... to even include non-military people with mental diseases...

--------------------
Let the world change you... And you can change the world.

Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna

Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Machiavelli
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Machiavelli     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
yeah he does...
interesting "character" as long as you aren't his victim...

As of 2007, he is 86 years old and still resides in Trenton Psychiatric Hospital. Shortly after his arrest he was reported to have said to a psychiatrist, "I'm no psycho. I have a good mind. I'd have killed a thousand if I had bullets enough."

that's definitely a soshapath...

hmmm he interests me now... perhaps I should seek out a book on his crimes... true crime books are a passion of mine though I'm usually more interested in organized crime then mass murderers,spree killers, serial killers etc...

--------------------
Let the world change you... And you can change the world.

Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna

Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
my problem with the bill is that it will make troops AVOID professional treatment..

and they have earned it, and we owe it to them...

there are a lot of shytbirds in the medical profession that don't mind pencil screwing people for the pure joy of doing it...

i've run into a few of them in the miltary/VA system and even at prestigious hospitals like Johns Hopkins..

i refused a frivolous surgery on my wrist (for supposed carpal tunnel that i most definitely did not have) one time at Hopkins and the surgeon screwed me over with my insurance company...

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Machiavelli
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Machiavelli     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
And some troops do AVOID mental health treatment regardless because a Man isn't suppose to go to a therapist... they feel people look down on them if they do... Machismo we call it in spanish... woman troops as well because they constantly have to prove they are just as good or better then a male troop.....

Btw any doctor can phuck you over regardless if your a vet or not... happens all the time whether there is a law or not...

--------------------
Let the world change you... And you can change the world.

Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna

Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
as for keeping guns out of criminals and truly mentally ill peoples hands? i doubt most law-abiding and responsible gun owners would disagree..

they/we want to keep our rights intact, and whenever some a-hole goes postal it brings the problem back to the front..

my understanding is that the guy at VA Tech was not supposed to have been able to buy his gun, but the system failed...
he was under court ordered mental care...

Cho, a South Korean who had moved to the United States at age eight, was a senior English major at Virginia Tech. Cho had been diagnosed with and treated for a severe anxiety disorder beginning in middle school, and he continued receiving therapy and special education support until his junior year of high school. While in college in 2005, Cho had been accused of stalking two female students and was declared mentally ill by a Virginia special justice.

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
see? failed system....
your tax dollars being mismanaged again...


A federal law passed in 1968 in response to the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King,[85] also prohibits those "adjudicated as a mental defective" from buying guns. This exclusion applied to Cho after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in late 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment.[6][4] Because of gaps between federal and Virginia state laws, the state did not report Cho's legal status to the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

the key word is ADJUDICATED mentally defective..
as in a JUDGE decides...

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So how will this bill make things even worse? Well, two legal terms are radically redefined in the Veterans Disarmament Act to carry out this vicious attack on veterans’ gun rights.

One term relates to who is classified a "mental defective." Forty years ago that term meant one was adjudicated "not guilty" in a court of law by reason of insanity. But under the Veterans Disarmament Act, "mental defective" has been stretched to include anyone whom a psychiatrist determines might be a tiny danger to self or others.

The second term is "adjudicate." In the past, one could only lose one's gun rights through an adjudication by a judge, magistrate or court -- meaning conviction after a trial. Adjudication could only occur in a court with all the protections of due process, including the right to face one's accuser. Now, adjudication in HR 2640 would include a finding by "a court, commission, committee or other authorized person" (namely, a psychiatrist).


--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
here's a link to the bill itself:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c110:2:./temp/~c110xsZUoB::


Votes on Passage
Jun 13, 2007: This bill passed in the House of Representatives by voice vote. A record of each representative's position was not kept.
This bill has been passed in the House. The bill now goes on to be voted on in the Senate.

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IWISHIHAD
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for IWISHIHAD     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Am i missing something here? Wasn't the point of this issue that veterans with PTSD are going to be discriminated against? And, that the government won't need much of anything to back up their claim that veterans are a threat to society and themselves.

We are not talking about a few combat vets that will fall into this category.

Posts: 3875 | From: ca. | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IWISHIHAD
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for IWISHIHAD     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry, my statement falls out of context you guys write to fast for me. By the time it takes me to write one statement you are able to write five. [Embarrassed]
Posts: 3875 | From: ca. | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Machiavelli
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Machiavelli     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
see? failed system....
your tax dollars being mismanaged again...


A federal law passed in 1968 in response to the assassinations of Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King,[85] also prohibits those "adjudicated as a mental defective" from buying guns. This exclusion applied to Cho after a Virginia court declared him to be a danger to himself in late 2005 and sent him for psychiatric treatment.[6][4] Because of gaps between federal and Virginia state laws, the state did not report Cho's legal status to the federal National Instant Criminal Background Check System.

the key word is ADJUDICATED mentally defective..
as in a JUDGE decides...

A judge decides but he is not a mental health expert... so of course he is guided by psychiatrists etc... which is the way it should be.. anyways the system is not perfect and does fail sometimes but it's better then none and not having gun control laws is even worst... means any mental case or criminal can get a gun... as for someone postal bringing it to the front page... wouldn't that be even be more a reason to have the law so that person does not committ the crime and there would be no need for more stringent laws? ... kind of makes sense... [Razz]

--------------------
Let the world change you... And you can change the world.

Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna

Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IWISHIHAD
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for IWISHIHAD     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From time to time, Machiavelli, you like to compare apples to oranges. On this topic you have tried to switch the attention from the real issue, which is many veterans being discrimanated against, to that of of few veterans that are seriously sick and gun control in general.

The issue that most of us were addressing was that millions (guess)of veterans will have their legal rights taken away without due process of the law. Most of us realize certain veterans should not have guns, knives, prescription drugs(although prescription drugs are needed in some cases) etc.

This bill as i read it is addressing many if not most PTSD sufferers as defined by VA criteria. This will take rights away from many veterans that should have the right to go hunting etc.

Why should veterans not have the right to bear arms unless due process of law has been allowed? This due process, it appears, will be taken away by this law. All this because the veteran served his country.

The indivuals diagnosing PTSD (or other illnesses at VA facilities) tend to write up explanations of illnesses in funny ways. Many times when you are seen at VA facilities you are seeing trainees and physician assistants. Doctors at the VA often oversee many interns and aids. The care at many of these facilities is good, but the written charts can be very unusal and the information is not always correct. It is always important to get copies of your medical records (which many do not) after a visit to keep your own records. Always make side notes on these records if the records do not state what you or the doctor, aid or intern stated in the room. This is very important for Iraq vets or any vet just in case they ever need to apply for disability compensation.

I hope more veterans seek out the help they need and deserve for their illnesses and they do not have more reasons not to get help ( such as new laws). I also hope that more politicians spend time getting money funded for these veterans. Politicians need to improve the VA system for the next wave of veterans--but unfortunatly things seem to be getting worse.

Posts: 3875 | From: ca. | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Machiavelli
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Machiavelli     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am not comparing Apples to Oranges IWish... because as Glassman pointed out Non Vets can get PTSD under different conditions and also should not have guns etc.

As for "Due Process"... well they are not being charged for a crime... they are just being prevented from harming themselves and others... and that to me is more important then someone getting special treatment and being allowed to do anything just because they served their country... they are special for doing that.. serving their country but they are by no means superhuman because of it... they are still human with a mental flaw that can be triggered at any moment that can harm others and themselves... we see mental patients committ violent acts all the time and be barred from possessing weapons so why should Vets be different? ... give me a break...

If you are a vet or ex military and that is your reasoning then just say so but your rationale of letting someone with mental problems have weapons is ridiculous... Policemen across the country have their weapons taken away because they suffer PTSD or similar mental diseases due to what they see everyday on their job... and in fact Policemen to me deserve a little more respect because they work a job to keep our communities safe domestically from our own worst enemies... our own criminal and mental citizens... no one argues when a gun should be taken away from a cop but when it comes to a Vet because your a Vet or ex military everyone gets their panties in a bunch... I wonder if you would feel the same way if you were never in the military and were directly affected by a violent crime from a mental patient (military and non military alike)....

Perhaps if you do not have such faith in the diagnosis of a VA facility then the Vet can be sent to a private facility with a good reputation... if the vet is still considered a danger to others and himself do you still think they should still carry or possess guns? .... that is question... are you giving a fair opinion or a biased one? ...

--------------------
Let the world change you... And you can change the world.

Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna

Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
T e x
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for T e x     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I heard on the radio tonight, driving in from work, that the Pentagon and the VA can't agree on how to share medical records.

[Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!]

don't know whether that's true, but? if so...how desperately, fundamentally troubling!

--------------------
Nashoba Holba Chepulechi
Adventures in microcapitalism...

Posts: 21062 | From: Fort Worth | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
we see mental patients committ violent acts all the time and be barred from possessing weapons so why should Vets be different? .

taken away after ADJUDICATION... this bill would bypass th ejudge and is fundamentally a violation of the constitution..

Policemen across the country have their weapons taken away because they suffer PTSD or similar mental diseases due to what they see everyday on their job

hmmmm.... they may take away their SERVICE peice, but they can't take away their personal guns without a judge...

we alaready have pretty good and fair gun laws, we just need the system to work properly..

sound familiar? like we had Zack Massaui in custody before 9-11 for taking flying lessons but not landing lessons [Eek!]

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by T e x:
I heard on the radio tonight, driving in from work, that the Pentagon and the VA can't agree on how to share medical records.

[Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!]

don't know whether that's true, but? if so...how desperately, fundamentally troubling!

it's always been that way..

the VA never had my service medical records as i found out in the 80's...
apparently they are in some big warehouse in Kansas, and can't be found [Roll Eyes]

prolly got misfiled heh!!!

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
T e x
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for T e x     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by glassman:
quote:
Originally posted by T e x:
I heard on the radio tonight, driving in from work, that the Pentagon and the VA can't agree on how to share medical records.

[Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!]

don't know whether that's true, but? if so...how desperately, fundamentally troubling!

it's always been that way..

the VA never had my service medical records as i found out in the 80's...
apparently they are in some big warehouse in Kansas, and can't be found [Roll Eyes]

prolly got misfiled heh!!!

Has this ever been an election issue before?

--------------------
Nashoba Holba Chepulechi
Adventures in microcapitalism...

Posts: 21062 | From: Fort Worth | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IWISHIHAD
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for IWISHIHAD     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Machiavelli,

It is not as simple as you and these politicians are trying to make it. If these indivuals are diagosed as being that much of a threat to themselves and others, shouldn't they be under special care?

When i made the statement about very sick veterans it could apply to anyone, but since we were talking about vets i felt i would stay there. I was the one that posted the brief ptsd discription that listed different possible causes of ptsd, some are not necessarily military related.(page 1)

What violent acts have these veterans committed that they are going to be banned for life from owning a gun?

Should people with mental problems have weapons? Why not? There are varying degrees of mental problems. But if you think that is a reason for not allowing someone ever to have a weapon, then there is no point to anything else.

Why do many veterans not go outside of VA for medical care? Many cannot afford to.

Are these veterans that are banned going to get money to go outside the VA? I really doubt it.

Is my reasoning as a vet affecting my judgement? I don't think so. I do not like guns. But to take that right away from someone for life just because they are a vet with ptsd is ridiculous. It appears they will not do an extensive diagosis or have a court hearing to prove ALL these vets are a major threat to themselves or others, which is just sad.

You cannot take several indivuals and say, see they are a major threat to themselves and others, and thereby concluded that all these millions of other vets fall into that same category. At least i didn't think so. Like i have said before that is discrimination against a disabled vet.

This law appears to make a general statement in order to take a constitutional right away from a lot of vets. Kinda makes you wonder why they were serving their country, doesn't it?

Posts: 3875 | From: ca. | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Machiavelli
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Machiavelli     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IWISHIHAD:
Machiavelli,

It is not as simple as you and these politicians are trying to make it. If these indivuals are diagosed as being that much of a threat to themselves and others, shouldn't they be under special care? [/qb] Travel to NYC and the streets here to see mentally ill who should be under special care then you can get back to me why Vets should get more special treatment then the mentally ill street people in NYC among other places... we are all first and foremost human beings and should be equal.. not Vets getting special treatment over other people because of their past duty... they did their duty for our country and not to be treated more special then others... most vets i talk to just tell me they are not heroes... they did their duty for their coutry and the real heroes are the ones who died...

[quote] When i made the statement about very sick veterans it could apply to anyone, but since we were talking about vets i felt i would stay there. I was the one that posted the brief ptsd discription that listed different possible causes of ptsd, some are not necessarily military related.(page 1)

Again why should Vets be treated differently if others who are no Vets have the same disease? ... I believe it was Bgeesus who once said to me that no one on this board can say how the debate should go... it can start out with the original topic but progress from there which it has... this law should not only apply to Vets with this disease but all who have this disease is my opinion... as for who posted different possible causes of PTSD... i can only recall Glassman posting it before you since I was originally talking to Glassman about this in this thread and not you... you came later... as you always do when you feel the need and superiority to debate me in any thread...

quote:
What violent acts have these veterans committed that they are going to be banned for life from owning a gun?
Oh , excuse me. You are Dr. Xavier and can connect to each person on earth to know what they did or didn't do? Didn't know you were a mutant X-Men. My bad. Sorry I couldn't help myself but in this case your assuming not one vet has committed a violent act after they got out of the service.

quote:
Should people with mental problems have weapons? Why not? There are varying degrees of mental problems. But if you think that is a reason for not allowing someone ever to have a weapon, then there is no point to anything else.
There you go again. Putting words in my mouth. I have said more then once in this thread that only serious mental patients should not have guns ala schizo, bipolar, personality disorder, PTSD (perhaps, further studies needed) etc. Scroll back and reread some of my posts for when I said these things.

quote:
Why do many veterans not go outside of VA for medical care? Many cannot afford to.
there are adequate free clinics with competent professionals imo that are not VA facilities...

quote:
Are these veterans that are banned going to get money to go outside the VA? I really doubt it.
Read above post

quote:
Is my reasoning as a vet affecting my judgement? I don't think so. I do not like guns. But to take that right away from someone for life just because they are a vet with ptsd is ridiculous. It appears they will not do an extensive diagosis or have a court hearing to prove ALL these vets are a major threat to themselves or others, which is just sad.
Is it affecting your judgement? yup.. very much so and you do not have to like guns to have this affect your judgement. You being a vet has to do with it. Anything that has to do with Vets you will always be in favor of the Vet no matter the issue and that is clear. You do not see a Vet and a non Vet as the same even if both have the same diseases etc. I see both the same because to me both are first and foremost a human being. Btw I don't think they said anything about banning for life. More like till they get better and pose no danger to themselves or others. That to me is reasonable and fair and right.

quote:
You cannot take several indivuals and say, see they are a major threat to themselves and others, and thereby concluded that all these millions of other vets fall into that same category. At least i didn't think so. Like i have said before that is discrimination against a disabled vet. [quote] Sure I can. You can take any individual and stigmatize the group as a whole. It's done all the time in other areas in this country. It is a democracy afterall lol And not for nothing but I don't think "millions" are said to have this disease and no one is saying that and are not under any illusions that they are since not "millions" have been in combat since WW2 or Korean War.

[quote]This law appears to make a general statement in order to take a constitutional right away from a lot of vets. Kinda makes you wonder why they were serving their country, doesn't it?

They served their country and not for any benefit derived from it. That's how I see it.

--------------------
Let the world change you... And you can change the world.

Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna

Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IWISHIHAD
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for IWISHIHAD     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"This law appears to make a general statement in order to take a constitutional right away from a lot of vets. Kinda makes you wonder why they were serving their country, doesn't it?"
-------------------------------------------------
My explanation of this statement i made.
Part of serving our country in the military is protecting our constitutional rights, in the case of this law, veterans are having that right taken away from them by serving their country.

Definition discrimination

Unlawful discrimination can be characterised as direct or slightly less direct. Direct discrimination involves treating someone less favourably because of their possession of an attribute (e.g., sex, age, race, religion, family status, national origin, military status, disability), compared with someone without that attribute in the same circumstances.

Is forever and life about the same time?

Like i said you can take my statements and apply them to non vets, but i have decided to stay pretty much to the original post, what you do is your business.

I have no problem with standing up for servicemen or vets in most cases Machiavelli. If you think im biased that's fine, does not bother me in the least. I could go into a lot more depth but it would make this just get worse, so i will leave it here for now.

Posts: 3875 | From: ca. | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Bigfoot
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for The Bigfoot     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am for gun control, but I don't agree with this bill. Seems to me that PTSD ( and I am not meaning to belittle the disorder here) is the ADHD of the military medical system. War changes you. PTSD is the name they give to those who have trouble with that change. To bar them access to guns for the sole reason of PTSD is like barring me from eating cheese just cause I live in Minnesota on the grounds that I am more likely to eat too much of it. (Which I do, but it has nothing to do with me being a Minnesotan.)

As to the constitution and the right to bear arms. Let's put this in historical context please.

At the time of the writing of the constitution America was a fledgling country defying an oppressive and increasingly militaristic British government, carving new communities out of an unknown wilderness totally dissimilar to the countries of origination for most of its people, with neighbors of dubious intent like the French and the Spanish (not to mention the Native Americans who were fantastical in appearance, culture, and not to be trusted.)

We do not live in that world anymore (unless you are a Jon Candy "Canadian Bacon" type thinker). [Smile]

As to the guns of the period? Muskets were expensive, not terribly accurate, and took a good 20-30 seconds to reload. Pistols were only good in close range, were even more expensive, and still had accuracy issues. Bullets were a hunk of lead. They didn't pierce armor, they didn't explode in your body to do the most amount of damage possible, and they sure as hell didn't have automatic or semi-automatic fire. A good knife or sword/spear was just as reliable and a whole lot easier to get your hands on.

If we lived in circumstances such as those I would insist on the right to bear arms too. If the examples listed above were the extent of the arsenal an individual could aspire to I wouldn't care. And as a hedge against political and militaristic extremism I believe it is good to have a public that has the ability to enforce its will when all else goes to pot.

But I will never agree that the right to bear arms as written in the constitution gives carte blanche to citizens to own weapons capable of killing hundreds within minutes and it was never intended to do so.

--------------------
No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues.

Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
i have to disagree about the large differences in damage a firearm could to a person at the different times...

i would MUCH rather take a non-lethal wound from a standard nine millimeter made today than a 50 caliber ball... the wounds from musket balls and even pistol balls were pretty bad.


then consider that they had NO antibiotics...

i think the differences are about evened out...

most firearm "incidents" are close range and even among family members...

as for the "native american" comment? i have no idea where to begin...
they were no less likely to be trusted than anybody else. as matter of fact? if you do some reading on how the US Govt broke just about every treaty they ever made with them? you would understand why the "frontier" people needed guns to defend themselves from pissed off people.

now? take that "propensity" to break treaties and you come back full circle to not trusting the govt. and you get back to what the founders were saying about the govt they had just disposed of.

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
the During the Napoleonic Wars (1799-1815) the very best musketeers could fire 4-5 times per minute.. thier accuracy was abysmal

rifles appeared in British army infantry at this time and the very best riflemen could only go 3 times per minute, but with deadly accuracy up to 100 yds...

a rifleman could fire as fast as a musketeer too, but without the accuracy... they would forget the patch and "tap" the ball down instead of ramming it, which was required with a patch to "match" the rifle grooves

the constitution was ratified only a dozen years before...

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
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.


seems pretty clear to me, the only way to regulate the militia is for the people to have the same power they do...

what else COULD this mean? [Razz]

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Bigfoot
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for The Bigfoot     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[Razz]

How COULD they write it with the foresight of current warfare technology?

I was writing my description of history from the perspective of that time period. Wasn't meaning to imply I think American Indians are not to be trusted. With hindsight we know who the aggressors were. Back then it wasn't nearly so clear. Kind of reminds you of current times eh?

Bullets may or may not be less painful but penetration and lethality of the bullet itself is much more dangerous now days. That many died back in those days due to subsequent infection is immaterial but actually bolsters this assertion. When discussing gun control and the constitutions intent behind bearing arms the invention of antibiotics is a significant but irrelevant achievement to the topic itself.

From the way your position is framing the right there is nothing to prevent me from putting together a nuclear bomb since the military currently has a stockpile of these items. I think you and I would both agree that argument is ridiculous and the government would find it criminal. So...there is a line. Since there is a line then the discussion turns to where is that line drawn?

The current bill being considered by the senate would suggest that anyone that fulfills a selective criterion (military service) and shows any possible propensity for violence should be denied the right to bear arms. I disagree with this. It smacks of guilty until proven innocent which is counter to what America stands for.

However, I would suggest that the right should be restricted to the modern equivalent to what was used when the constitution was written. That would mean shotguns and rifles principally for hunting and hand guns for self defense. Nothing automatic, nothing semi-automatic. There is no demonstrable need for these devices to be in the publics hands, nor were they in use at the time of the signing of the constitution therefore any suggestion of how the founding fathers would have reacted to such weapons is mere conjecture.


Leno's on. [Smile]

--------------------
No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues.

Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
T e x
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for T e x     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Your various arguments imply a further argument: weapons according to license grade, ie, sumpin like ==> handguns only, less than .380/9mm; handguns & shotguns; all previous plus rifles 30-caliber and lesser; all previous + all rifles; etc etc...

--------------------
Nashoba Holba Chepulechi
Adventures in microcapitalism...

Posts: 21062 | From: Fort Worth | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Bigfoot
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for The Bigfoot     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That sounds right, but I gotta tell you Tex that other than using a friends to go hunting now and then I don't use guns and probably never will unless something goes wrong in the world again and my company puts one on my belt.

Really...if gun enthusiasts want to make sure all these specialty guns stay available...they gotta help the government find a way to keep track of weapons that works. It's the street market on guns that is fueling the whole debate. They say country wide that while overall crime is down, youth violence and confiscation of illegal firearms are skyrocketing. Find a way to stop that and you'll stop the issue cold.
There will be talk now and then when some new guys goes postal but there really is very little a society as a whole can do about that. Virgina Tech boy's ilk will only be stopped by good clinical services and intervening friends who care. No law in Washington is gonna change that.

--------------------
No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues.

Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Machiavelli
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Machiavelli     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

But I will never agree that the right to bear arms as written in the constitution gives carte blanche to citizens to own weapons capable of killing hundreds within minutes and it was never intended to do so.

Exactly... I agreed with this statement 100%... the constitution was written in a different era and world... they had no inclination of what the future was going to be like and therefor it is the modern politician's job to modify things in the constitution that are outdated... for all we know our founding fathers thought their way of life in those times would be forever and we all know that isn't true... we have gangs, guns, drugs, school shootings etc.. that were not precedented in those times... they were pretty much non existent in the 1700's and early 1800's or very little if at all... it's just too funny to hear gun proponents say that what we need more is not less guns but more guns and more powerful guns to protect ourselves... lol

Anyways as for the anti gun controllers... here's a couple of stories lately in which we don't need Gun Control laws to prevent this for the mentally ill or otherwise [Roll Eyes] :

http://www.wnbc.com/news/14211196/detail.html?rss=ny&psp=news

http://breakingnews.nypost.com/dynamic/stories/S/SCHOOL_SHOTS_FIRED?SITE=NYNYP&S ECTION=HOME

Makes me wonder if you care about your children's future with less violence and such or you only care about your selfish selves and your childhood fantasies of blowing things up with a gun...

--------------------
Let the world change you... And you can change the world.

Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna

Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IWISHIHAD
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for IWISHIHAD     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
No gangs on the streets in 1700-1800? No shoot outs? Guns? History?
Posts: 3875 | From: ca. | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Machiavelli
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Machiavelli     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
For someone who said he will leave it for now so it doesn't get worst... you sure don't keep your promises lol... I said very little of those things existed in those times then now... it can even be argued that the evolution of weapons in particular guns contributed to the rise of gangs and violence after those times and into the present times... because of no Gun Control and letting every Dick, Tom & Harry own a gun with very little restrictions... our Founding Fathers did not intend a free for all when it comes to guns and I'm sure they thought people would be responsibly mature when it came to guns though however misguided they were about that... Laws sometimes have to change with the times and not live in the past for the sake of our children's future... don't you agree? ...

--------------------
Let the world change you... And you can change the world.

Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna

Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
it can even be argued that the evolution of weapons in particular guns contributed to the rise of gangs and violence after those times and into the present times..

holy crap:

this mean anything to you?
 -

not a damn thing has changed. the only thing that's changed is the technology...

several million, probably tens of millions of Native Americans were wiped out with those "outdated weapons"

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
IWISHIHAD
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for IWISHIHAD     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Now is not forever Machiavelli. I do read your statements from time to time and try and understand them.

You seem interpret history way different than i do. From what i have read about the past, guns, gangs, drugs, prostitution were very prevalent in the US. Isn't that how guys like Wyatt Earp, Bat Masterson, Jesse James Gang, Dalton Gang, etc.etc got there reputations. Sorry forgot Matt Dillion of Gunssmoke.

As far as a free for all, in many of these towns it sounded like thats pretty much what it was. The Wild West

Maybe the right to bear arms did not get changed because of this issue? (bad guys and guns)

I thnk the only way we are going to slow up the bad guys (gangs,robbers,etc.) from using guns
against others is to have a lot more surveilliance and i do not like the trade off myself.

I will get back to you on the new law.

Posts: 3875 | From: ca. | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character.
---Alexander Hamilton

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Machiavelli
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for Machiavelli     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by IWISHIHAD:
Now is not forever Machiavelli. I do read your statements from time to time and try and understand them.

You seem interpret history way different than i do. From what i have read about the past, guns, gangs, drugs, prostitution were very prevalent in the US. Isn't that how guys like Wyatt Earp, Bat Masterson, Jesse James Gang, Dalton Gang, etc.etc got there reputations. Sorry forgot Matt Dillion of Gunssmoke.

As far as a free for all, in many of these towns it sounded like thats pretty much what it was. The Wild West

Maybe the right to bear arms did not get changed because of this issue? (bad guys and guns)

I thnk the only way we are going to slow up the bad guys (gangs,robbers,etc.) from using guns
against others is to have a lot more surveilliance and i do not like the trade off myself.

I will get back to you on the new law.

Do you not see it IWish... those very same guys/gangs you named from the old West came to be when better guns that can kill more people came about... and were more prevalent to them... what would you want in terms of killing people? Guns from the 1700's or the mid to late 1800's? ... As for saying that the right to bear arms were not changed because there were bad guys... how about the flip side.. more bad guys came about because the right to bear arms was not changed... make sense? ...

As for surveillance and such... Bush is already tried or is trying to do that under the banner of stopping Terrorism... wouldn't you say criminals who rob, rape and kill are terrorists in a way against our own citizens? ... But anyways we already have surveillance on gun runners/dealers, gangs etc... it's obviously not working much like the War on Drugs...

--------------------
Let the world change you... And you can change the world.

Ernesto "Che" Guevara de la Serna

Posts: 4669 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Allstocks.com Message Board Home

© 1997 - 2013 Allstocks.com. All rights reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2

Share