more on gun control

TonyT · Post by **TonyT** » Sat May 25, 2002 3:47 pm

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed
until they try to take it." Thomas Jefferson

Think about this:
a. The number of physicians in the US is 700,000.
b. Accidental deaths caused by Physicians per year is 120,000.
c. Accidental deaths per physician is 0.171. (US Dept. of Health & Human Services)

Then think about this:
a. The number of gun owners in the US is 80,000,000.
b. The number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) is 1,500.
c. The number of accidental deaths per gun owner is .0000188.

Statistically, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous
than gun owners.

FACT: NOT EVERYONE HAS A GUN, BUT ALMOST EVERYONE HAS AT LEAST ONE
DOCTOR.

Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban
doctors before this gets out of hand. As a public health measure I
have withheld the statistics on lawyers for fear that the shock
could cause people to seek medical attention.

"Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who
don't." --Thomas Jefferson

Deus ex Machina · Post by **Deus ex Machina** » Sat May 25, 2002 4:01 pm

I sincerely hope you are joking.

If not, perhaps we should shoot out our tonsils next time they become infected.

torsten · Post by **torsten** » Sat May 25, 2002 4:10 pm

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.....

I just thought I'd add that little forgotten introductory clause of the 2nd Amendment, since so many people seem to deliberately forget it.

Interesting that this post only covers accidental deaths. How about intentional?

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Sat May 25, 2002 4:15 pm

Ashcroft giveth and Ashcroft taketh away. LOL

I get a kick out of all this gun control stuff.....So yer teed that you have to wait a couple of weeks to buy a gun?

Look at the good side....at least you can still buy one.

It isn't the moderate left or the moderate right that's gonna take them away...

It's the far left (who we have little of in elected officals) or the far right. Hummm........there are hundreds of em in elected positions.

Deus ex Machina · Post by **Deus ex Machina** » Sat May 25, 2002 4:47 pm

Originally posted by torsten
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.....

I just thought I'd add that little forgotten introductory clause of the 2nd Amendment, since so many people seem to deliberately forget it.

Interesting that this post only covers accidental deaths. How about intentional?

Forget or no longer find germane? We are no longer in the 18th century. Perhaps the link to inane laws still on the ledgers belongs here.

All trifles since America will never lose its passion for fire arms. Do not worry, you will all keep your guns.

shant,
david

messiah · Post by **messiah** » Sat May 25, 2002 4:51 pm

I got a problem solver, and his name is revolver.
-dre-

poptom · Post by **poptom** » Sat May 25, 2002 5:01 pm

Ban doctors now!!!

Interesting stats, Tony T.

TonyT · Post by **TonyT** » Sat May 25, 2002 5:15 pm

heehee.....dentsits & orthodontists not included.
(though admittedly I did have thoughts of shootiong my dentist while he was handling my neglected tooth)

I am not completely serious about the above post. But there is some truth in the stats in that doctors, as a whole entity, with unnecessary operations and mis-diagnoses, are a dangerous lot.

Most people have ill feelings when thinking about doctors. There are 2 basic reasons for this. Doctors have the task of remedying discomfort and painful sutuations people get themselves into and these experiences are in the minds of those so treated. The AMA and APA PR groups have done a poor job promoting medical views and accomplishments because the overall medicine stats are nothing to brag about.

This is not saying that doctors are bad or that they should be ignored or traeted as dangerous people. We NEED competent doctors in this world. The key though is "competant".

Lawers, however , are a different matter entirely. If it was not for lawers, we wouldn't need lawers!

torsten · Post by **torsten** » Sat May 25, 2002 5:23 pm

Originally posted by Deus ex Machina
Forget or no longer find germane? We are no longer in the 18th century. Perhaps the link to inane laws still on the ledgers belongs here.

I actually think it's germane. Here's the full amendment:
"'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."

I say that because the introductory clause serves to limit the application of the rest of the sentence. Yes, militias are no longer used for national defense, but the drafters of the Constitution were making it clear that the right existed for national defense.

I was saying that people like to drop the intro because it obviously limits a right that they would prefer to be broader.

Ashdaw · Post by **Ashdaw** » Sat May 25, 2002 5:23 pm

Originally posted by Deus ex Machina

We are no longer in the 18th century. Perhaps the link to inane laws still on the ledgers belongs here.

All trifles since America will never lose its passion for fire arms. Do not worry, you will all keep your guns.

Dont know why you need them. The ONLY reason that guns are around IS to kill. Thats ALL the things do. No use at all. And dont put up that tired "guns dont kill people, people kill people" rubbish. People werent made to KILL.

The_Lurker · Post by **The_Lurker** » Sat May 25, 2002 6:27 pm

Originally posted by Ashdaw
dont put up that tired "guns dont kill people, people kill people" rubbish. People werent made to KILL.

Interesting since people have been killing long before guns. humans have been killing since we were created.

Quote by Deus ex Machina:

"Forget or no longer find germane? We are no longer in the 18th century. Perhaps the link to inane laws still on the ledgers belongs here."

if thats the case then our constitution needs to be amended....not "re-interpeted" such as the current liberals thinkers want done. yes our constitition is a "living" document... it has provisions for change, if it is what a majority of our country so choses to do.

so simple

TL

brembo · Post by **brembo** » Sat May 25, 2002 6:28 pm

Torsten-

The ability(right) to bear arms to maintian a free state can and is interpreted in two distinct ways. Lets say the gov't decides to get uppity and become oppresive, CITIZENS that don't have arms are kinda screwed at that point. The framers weren't all that concerned about foreign invading forces, but the government they were creating gettin outta hand.

Adshaw-

How can you say that? Rifles/pistols in general are not manufactured with the sole intent of harm. I have several pistols that are so unweildy that the very thought for using them for defense is funny. Thier purpose in life is to sit on a sandbag and make holes in paper. Now if the person I suddenly took a strong dislike for, was kind enough to stand still while I single feed the shells and take the time to get situated, yeah, it could be used for such purposes. I have NEVER fired a rifle/pistol in anger, and the last thing I ever wanna do is have to plug someone.

Ranged weapons of all sorts are simply tools. Nothing more, nothing less(military grade weaponry excluded). Every rifle/pistol I have in my safe has a purpose, and I intend to use them for those purposes, its my right as a citizen, and thats protected by the 2nd amendment. I don't understand why "guns" get such a lousy rap, its not the bit of metal and wood that does the killing, its the nimrod behind it. With the veratible armory I own, seems that if I wanted to kill a whole buncha people, I'd use em right? Nope, I'd find a big crowd of folks and run em over with my 4x4, much more effective. Morbid yes, but its a point I'm making. Gun=tool. Properly used tool, nothing to worry about. Improperly used tool, someone gets hurt, in almost any instance you can dream up.

Zuma · Post by **Zuma** » Sat May 25, 2002 6:38 pm

Absolutly Brembo! I have the right to protect me and mine and I wont give that up without a fight, EVER

TonyT · Post by **TonyT** » Sat May 25, 2002 7:28 pm

An overlooked point is that guns serve a a means of defense. The hype around guns is centered on the "offense", not the defense. The hype is "guns kill another victim" and 'guns are bad".

Guns are a tool as was said earlier by brembo. Ther are used in military and civilian areas as a defensive tool. ALL civilian commercial ships have an armory. The better trained crews are drilled on the use of the tools, eg guns. Commercial and private larger ships that traverse the Carribean routinely do "pirate drills". In that sea there are routine hijackings, piratings, etc. It is THE major drug route to the rest of the world. These seas are not governed by law though intl law is supposed to prevail. Board a ship uninvited and you will likely be looking down the barrel of a shotgun or other gun. They are a necessary tool in that trade for defense and the protection of innocent people.

nomahe · Post by **nomahe** » Sat May 25, 2002 7:55 pm

Originally posted by Ashdaw

Dont know why you need them. The ONLY reason that guns are around IS to kill. Thats ALL the things do. No use at all. And dont put up that tired "guns dont kill people, people kill people" rubbish. People werent made to KILL.

Some people might like to live the way our forefathers did and grow our own food and kill and eat our own food. There's nothing wrong with that. Why shouldn't they be allowed to dictate what they eat themselves?

I find it funny when people pick and choose what Amendments should be amended because "they're out of date". LMAO
We changed the womens right to vote, (Thankfully) and because I know one woman that isn't very smart should I start a campaign to revoke that right?

People werent made to KILL.

If your ancestors didn't kill every day for food you wouldn't be here.

The main reason I have against gun control is that even if there were laws, the criminals would still have the guns, so you're only taking the guns from the law abiding citizens.

Instead of being told what I can eat for whatever bloated price, I'll hunt for my own food on my own land, thank you.

I totally agree with you Tony.

torsten · Post by **torsten** » Sat May 25, 2002 8:52 pm

Originally posted by brembo
Torsten -
The ability(right) to bear arms to maintian a free state can and is interpreted in two distinct ways. Lets say the gov't decides to get uppity and become oppresive, CITIZENS that don't have arms are kinda screwed at that point. The framers weren't all that concerned about foreign invading forces, but the government they were creating gettin outta hand.

I think we went through this in another thread. When I made the point that the US government has tanks, ships, fighter planes, big bombers, missiles, nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and every sort of smaller weapon known to mankind - not to mention about 3 million people trained to use them, you said that the people who made up the armies would not turn on their own countrymen. So then, what happens to your argument? Who are you protecting yourself against?

Actually it's not a bad argument. You just have to be more blunt about who you'd be protecting yourself against. In a democratic form of government, the big guns will always be representing MAJORITY sentiment. And there are times when majorities can be irrational and brutally repressive to minority sentiment, especially when the minority is small. So strangely enough (although I don't think the 2nd Amendment protects it) as a matter of policy I see a value with citizens owning weaponry.

Now as a person who sees a need for guns against a government that may not respect your individual liberty, how do you feel about no-knock raids (a blatantly unconstitutional practice)? Waco? Ruby Ridge?

brembo · Post by **brembo** » Sat May 25, 2002 9:12 pm

I don't have the knowledge about Ruby Ridge, Waco and whatnot to argue/discuss. I'm just saying the 2nd amendment was put in there for protection against ANY infringment on personal freedoms. I have guns cuz I enjoy em, its just a bonus that the constitution protects that.

For protection? Maybe, I dunno how I'd react if some schmuck tried to harm me/family while in my house.

The main reason I'm such a stalwart for gun rights is that if ya let em have an inch(they being law-makers), the pattern for the gov't is to take a mile. Free speech has plenty of advocates, who's gonna say free speech is dangerous(it is for a corrupt gov't). 2nd Amendment rights are under assault from many quarters, and its a right I don't want to see watered down. I work hard, pay my taxes and guns happen to be one of my favorite hobbies, so its drives me bonkers when OTHER people take it upon themselves to make decisions that could very well reach into my house and disrupt my choices in how I spend my freetime.

nomahe · Post by **nomahe** » Sat May 25, 2002 9:36 pm

Growing up in Michigan we had over 40 attacks on our house by Bears. Of the 40 some attacks where they broke windows and started to enter, a shotgun blast into the top pane of the glass scared them away, but there were 3 times I remembered they kept coming and entered our house. It took a gun to kill the 3 of them.
I'm all for animal rights, even more for animal rights than human rights, but people have to protect their homes. Without a gun we would have all probably either suffered extensive damage or died.

It's been proven that criminals go for houses they KNOW don't have guns. What part of this is bad?

People that don't want guns live in a safe society away from the wilderness or crime. I applaud that and am happy for you, but don't make a blanket statement across the World of safety and security just because you have it.
I've had a gun in my hand since I was about 5 and my grandpa/dad have taught me to fend for myself and not depend on the government or anyone else for food or survival and I'll pass that on to my kids.
I dare anyone to tell me that's a bad ideal system.

torsten · Post by **torsten** » Sat May 25, 2002 9:46 pm

brembo,

I can't agree that the 2nd amendment is there for "protection against ANY infringment on personal freedoms." The introductory clause specifically limits it by speaking of militias and security of the state. HOWEVER, I have no problem with your having guns. I'm sure you have every intention of using them responsibly.

Here's a scenario I envisioned when I mentioned no-knock raids: You have a neighbor who hates you. As a way to get at you he manages to convince the authorities that you're a drug dealer with weapons in the house. One night while you're sitting in front of the TV with family, your front door is smashed down and in come men with assault weapons and an attitude from hell. Everyone is brutally slammed into the floor and handcuffed (a few years ago here in Minneapolis, they accidentally killed someone). Meanwhile, your home is ransacked causing thousands of dollars in damage (not covered by insurance) and numerous items taken and never returned.

Nice night at home huh? In the US it's totally within the law according to a Supreme Court that for years has sh|t on the Fourth Amendment. If you sue for damages, you'll get nothing. Now to me this scenario totally fits your idea of needing weaponry for defense against government. Unfortunately, people who make that argument are unfairly characterized as right-wing zealot nuts. Of course if you look at American history, many patriots in defense of individual liberty were originally branded as outlaws.

Not sure if I have a grand point to all that, but it's interesting to think about.

nomahe · Post by **nomahe** » Sat May 25, 2002 9:55 pm

Torsten, with all due respect, I know where you're coming from and have agreed with most of your posts here in this thread, until now.
I know you're just saying for debatable purposes but that last post had nothing to do with whether we had guns or not.
I know you're talking about a Militia breaking in and such, but with your post it said he died, what's so bad if he had a gun and took one of the lawmen with him? He still dies and it makes them realize they better do their homework a hell of a lot better before they go barging into a random house.
Which, in essence, means protect yourself from a well regulated militia.

downhill · Post by **downhill** » Sat May 25, 2002 10:00 pm

Ummm...torsten, I rarely disagree with you except this...

Now to me this scenario totally fits your idea of needing weaponry for defense against government.

Your going to end up with a bunch of dead people. Yourself included.

I don't think that was the original intention of the reason to keep and bear arms as envisioned by the framers of the constitution.

Then again, I wasn't there. I missed it by a couple of years.

terrancelam · Post by **terrancelam** » Sat May 25, 2002 10:51 pm

I've been kinda out of it, but I just wanted to drop in and say something about this.

I personally see guns as a sport, just like how Archery is a sport. I'm sure of bows and arrows were used as commonly as they were in the past, the general public would be trying to ban the use of them of some crazy children and adults did stupid things with them.

The answer to the situation isn't banning the items, but regulating it and educating the general public about it more. Granted you will still have accidental deaths due to sheer stupidity, you just can't help that. Some peopel are just that retarded. As for criminals, if you regulate the gun market and make it so that a citizen of your country and get it and only a citizen of your country, with insane gun laws to regulars the sale of it and ammunitions, then you wouldn't have the problems of criminals using guns. Like Chris Rock once said in his comedy act "If a bullet cost $5000, I'd be more concerned about who I should shoot. And if I did shoot them, I'd have to go over and ask them for my bullet back."

But like everything, once taken to the extreme, it's hard to reverse. Some people are just nuts and don't realize that some things should be taken with moderation and others things shouldn't. Just takes some common sense, that's all.

Oh one last thing I just had to get off my chest, to who said that people don't kill people, guns kill people, I just want to let you know that you should look it over again. Why? A gun doesn't have the intent to go out and kill people, it doesn't have that urge to just fire itself at random, a person is always the cause behind it. Guns can be fun and entertaining if used in the proper maner and in the right place. A little brain power and thinking is always a good thing when handling something that isn't a toy.

torsten · Post by **torsten** » Sat May 25, 2002 10:54 pm

hmmmm. Looks like my rambling wasn't clear enough. I deliberately outlined what for some people would be a difficult scenario to break down into right/wrong black/white. I think it's worth considering though, what should be done when the opressor is an arm of the state. That's why I was bringing the issue up to brembo, who had used the defense against government argument. This is a complex issue for me. I can see brembo's point. I can see the point of people who think it would be a safer society without guns. And I can see the point of those who say cops might not so easily trash the fourth amendment if they paid a price for it every time. Everybody can sort of agree that they want safety. The disagreement is how we ensure it. I'm not sure I have an absolute truth to offer; my view about this conflicts at times. I do think we should discuss the real implications in these issues however.

nomahe · Post by **nomahe** » Sat May 25, 2002 11:12 pm

Looks like my rambling wasn't clear enough. I deliberately outlined what for some people would be a difficult scenario to break down into right/wrong black/white. I think it's worth considering though, what should be done when the opressor is an arm of the state.

I knew what you were doing the whole time. You weren't exactly stating an opinion right/left, but were engaging in debating the foundation of your thought.

I can see the point of people who think it would be a safer society without guns. And I can see the point of those who say cops might not so easily trash the fourth amendment if they paid a price for it every time. Everybody can sort of agree that they want safety

Yes, and what does a homeowner have to rely on for the safety of his family if he doesn't have a gun and the criminal does?

The disagreement is how we ensure it.

Guns in every home so the criminal knows there's a chance of dieing in the event he comes in to rob/rape or whatever their sick minds are up to.

The same thesis seems to arise with this question though, only offense/defense. What about the millions and millions of people that use guns to hunt for their food?

I grew up on my grandpas land and we killed and grew our own food. Screw the gov't. We have over 2000 acres of land and fended for ourselves.

We honored no "hunting season" for any animal and grew what we wanted to eat and only killed what we needed to eat.
It was our land that we paid for and did what we pleased to survive and lived better than anyone in my highschool I knew of.

I know you're throwing questions out there Torsten, and this isn't meant to be personal, but I'm just the same throwing it out there.
It doesn't matter what the government says I can/can't do. I'm going to do what I've been doing all along whether they say I can or not.
I'm just trying to give the farmers pov.

This is a great thread and I hope you don't think I'm just trying to go against everything said, I'm just going with how I actually live.

I love hearing how everyone else thinks.

messiah · Post by **messiah** » Sat May 25, 2002 11:40 pm

all you have to do is look at history, and what happens to the people of a nation who have been disarmed.

I think the availability of guns are a problem, however never would I even suggest that people should nopt own guns. Thats like me saying people shouldn't use Sweet n low.

Mind your own business and govern your own life and family, and not an entire nation of peoples.

HISTROY has our answers

messiah · Post by **messiah** » Sat May 25, 2002 11:42 pm

btw- Why not just ban guns from congested urban enviornments? Notice that alot of gun dwellers live in rural areas on their own proprty. Owning a gun is not as simple as killing or protecting. It used to be a sport. Even the military will prai9se marksmanship. The socialists want your guns. ONLY the socialists.

Deus ex Machina · Post by **Deus ex Machina** » Sat May 25, 2002 11:44 pm

Originally posted by nomahe
I find it funny when people pick and choose what Amendments should be amended because "they're out of date". LMAO
We changed the womens right to vote, (Thankfully) and because I know one woman that isn't very smart should I start a campaign to revoke that right?

Laws need to change with the evolution of the society they are meant to protect. http://www.dumblaws.com contain a list of what appears to be silly mandates which probably had good reasons to be put into law at the time. What you should find humorous is the intransigence of some people who hold the second ammendment as though G-d himself wrote it. Justify and rationalize all you please, private ownership is now predominantly a want rather than a need.

If your ancestors didn't kill every day for food you wouldn't be here.

Perhaps dragging our women around by the hair should be reinstituted as well.....

The main reason I have against gun control is that even if there were laws, the criminals would still have the guns, so you're only taking the guns from the law abiding citizens.

Rather than having the usual suspects recapitulating the reams of data, I will simply disagree.

Instead of being told what I can eat for whatever bloated price, I'll hunt for my own food on my own land, thank you.

I guess it is your business.

I totally agree with you Tony.

I occasionally agree with you, Tony

The US is big and far from being a homogeneous culture. Points of view will vary accordingly.

shant,
david

nomahe · Post by **nomahe** » Sat May 25, 2002 11:45 pm

Mind your own business and govern your own life and family, and not an entire nation of peoples.

Damn straight man!!! I wish I would of thought of that. I'm going to use that as a sig at JLRForum.

I still like hearing everyone elses opinion that disagrees with mine though. That's the only way I can learn and be more educated.
I hope we can all keep this alive and be reasonable so we all can learn, please.

Deus ex Machina · Post by **Deus ex Machina** » Sat May 25, 2002 11:53 pm

Originally posted by messiah
I think the availability of guns are a problem, however never would I even suggest that people should nopt own guns. Thats like me saying people shouldn't use Sweet n low.

Harmful drugs have been stricken from the market. Staunching availability is sometimes necessary to protect society.

Mind your own business and govern your own life and family, and not an entire nation of peoples.

Again, laws are needed to protect society as well as the individual.

HISTROY has our answers

If it were only that easy.....

shant,
david

torsten · Post by **torsten** » Sun May 26, 2002 12:06 am

Before I leave for the night, here's some questions for those who strongly support an unfettered right to own weapons:

Is there a limit? Machine gun? Tank? Small missile?
Some people are rich enough to afford a nuclear weapon and could attach it to a missile. Should they be able to have one under US law? If you would not allow them to have some of these things, where exactly would you draw the line? Most importantly, what principle would you use to ban them that would not conflict with your desire to legally own a handgun?

Deus ex Machina · Post by **Deus ex Machina** » Sun May 26, 2002 12:16 am

Originally posted by torsten
Before I leave for the night, here's some questions for those who strongly support an unfettered right to own weapons:

Is there a limit? Machine gun? Tank? Small missile?
Some people are rich enough to afford a nuclear weapon and could attach it to a missile. Should they be able to have one under US law? If you would not allow them to have some of these things, where exactly would you draw the line? Most importantly, what principle would you use to ban them that would not conflict with your desire to legally own a handgun?

The classic question. Good of you to bring it up.

Aside from target shooting (which utilizes special small caliber guns) the only real purpose to handguns is to kill people.

Rifles can be used for hunting, hence their ownership is justifiable.

shant,
david

The_Lurker · Post by **The_Lurker** » Sun May 26, 2002 12:29 am

"Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged against provisions against danger, real or pretended from abroad ". - James Madison, Letter to Thomas Jefferson, May 13, 1798.

just a quote i found in the [H] forum, i thought it appropriate for this thread.

history will repeat itself, it always does...just a matter of time.

people want others to decide thier destinys, to tell them what to do and think and be. no need to have morals and values, to know the difference between right and wrong......thats what laws are for, they tell us how to be. we are to lazy and soft as a society i suppose.

i feel we will be legistated into oblivion one day.

TL

Deus ex Machina · Post by **Deus ex Machina** » Sun May 26, 2002 12:41 am

Originally posted by The_Lurker
"Perhaps it is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged against provisions against danger, real or pretended from abroad ". - James Madison, Letter to Thomas Jefferson, May 13, 1798.

just a quote i found in the [H] forum, i thought it appropriate for this thread.

Is gun ownership is one of the aforementioned liberties or a dangerous rudiment of a bygone era?

The_Lurker · Post by **The_Lurker** » Sun May 26, 2002 1:10 am

Originally posted by Deus ex Machina

Is gun ownership [is] one of the aforementioned liberties or a dangerous rudiment of a bygone era?

Definately a liberty in my opinion, and as far as i can tell it is a liberty as far as the law is concerned...for now.

i feel the the bygone era will come back around to haunt our society one day and be a current event. i just pray that those people living it will have the tools necessary to deal with what is current to them.

we, (our society), are deciding that now i suppose...will we leave the tools intact or not?

TL

Deus ex Machina · Post by **Deus ex Machina** » Sun May 26, 2002 1:37 am

Originally posted by The_Lurker

Definately a liberty in my opinion, and as far as i can tell it is a liberty as far as the law is concerned...for now.

i feel the the bygone era will come back around to haunt our society one day and be a current event. i just pray that those people living it will have the tools necessary to deal with what is current to them.

we, (our society), are deciding that now i suppose...will we leave the tools intact or not?

TL

Science and industry has changed the world dramatically since Jefferson's and Madison's day.

JawZ · Post by **JawZ** » Sun May 26, 2002 1:43 am

Dear God:
Why didn't you save the school children at . . .
a.. Moses Lake, Washington 2/2/96
b.. Bethel, Alaska 2/19/97
c.. Pearl, Mississippi 10/1/97
d.. West Paducah, Kentucky 12/1/97
e.. Stamps, Arkansas 12/15/97
f.. Jonesboro, Arkansas 3/24/98
g.. Edinboro, Pennsylvania 4/24/98
h.. Fayetteville, Tennessee 5/19/98
i.. Springfield, Oregon 5/21/98
j.. Richmond, Virginia 6/15/98
k.. Littleton, Colorado 4/20/99
l.. Taber, Alberta, Canada 5/28/99
m.. Conyers, Georgia 5/20/99
n.. Deming, New Mexico 11/19/99
o.. Fort Gibson, Oklahoma 12/6/99
p.. Santee, California 3/5/01 and
q.. El Cajon, California 3/22/01?

Sincerely,
Concerned Student

Dear Concerned Student:
I am not allowed in schools.

Sincerely,
God

Let's see, I think it started when Madeline Murray O'Hare
complained she didn't want any prayer in our schools.

And we said, OK...

Then, someone said you better not read the Bible in school, the Bible that says "thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbors as yourself,"

And we said, OK...

Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem.

And we said, an expert should know what he's talking about so we won't spank them anymore...

Then someone said teachers and principals better not discipline our children when they misbehave. And the school administrators said no faculty member in this school better touch a student when they misbehave because we don't want any bad publicity, and we surely don't want to be sued.

And we accepted their reasoning...

Then someone said, let's let our daughters have abortions if they want, and they won't even have to tell their parents.

And we said, that's a grand idea...

Then some wise school board member said, since boys will be boys and they're going to do it anyway, let's give our sons all the condoms they want, so they can have all the fun they desire, and we won't have to tell their parents they got them at school.

And we said, that's another great idea...

And someone else took that appreciation a step further and
published pictures of nude children and then stepped further still by making them available on the Internet.

And we said, everyone's entitled to free speech...

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, classmates or even themselves.

Undoubtedly, if we thought about it long and hard enough, we could figure it out. I'm sure it has a great deal to do with...

"WE REAP WHAT WE SOW,"

============================================================================================

The above was from an email that a friend of mine sent to me recently.

Take it for what it is......

I own plenty of weapons. I don't have the sudden urge to go out and hurt people for two reasons....I don't view people as objects and I have a respect for the consequences.

As for nukes and missiles and bombs...those are weapons of mass destruction where thousands of people could be killed in an instant.

This is why we have terrorists ramming planes into buildings instead of shooting those they suspect as the enemy.

It is rather amusing that in light of 9/11, guns have found their way back onto planes again...and to prevent the planes from becoming weapons of mass destruction......

Brent · Post by **Brent** » Sun May 26, 2002 1:52 am

Originally posted by UOD
Dear God:
Why didn't you save the school children at . . .
a.. Moses Lake, Washington 2/2/96
b.. Bethel, Alaska 2/19/97
c.. Pearl, Mississippi 10/1/97
d.. West Paducah, Kentucky 12/1/97
e.. Stamps, Arkansas 12/15/97
f.. Jonesboro, Arkansas 3/24/98
g.. Edinboro, Pennsylvania 4/24/98
h.. Fayetteville, Tennessee 5/19/98
i.. Springfield, Oregon 5/21/98
j.. Richmond, Virginia 6/15/98
k.. Littleton, Colorado 4/20/99
l.. Taber, Alberta, Canada 5/28/99
m.. Conyers, Georgia 5/20/99
n.. Deming, New Mexico 11/19/99
o.. Fort Gibson, Oklahoma 12/6/99
p.. Santee, California 3/5/01 and
q.. El Cajon, California 3/22/01?

Sincerely,
Concerned Student

Dear Concerned Student:
I am not allowed in schools.

Sincerely,
God

Let's see, I think it started when Madeline Murray O'Hare
complained she didn't want any prayer in our schools.

And we said, OK...

Then, someone said you better not read the Bible in school, the Bible that says "thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbors as yourself,"

And we said, OK...

Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem.

And we said, an expert should know what he's talking about so we won't spank them anymore...

Then someone said teachers and principals better not discipline our children when they misbehave. And the school administrators said no faculty member in this school better touch a student when they misbehave because we don't want any bad publicity, and we surely don't want to be sued.

And we accepted their reasoning...

Then someone said, let's let our daughters have abortions if they want, and they won't even have to tell their parents.

And we said, that's a grand idea...

Then some wise school board member said, since boys will be boys and they're going to do it anyway, let's give our sons all the condoms they want, so they can have all the fun they desire, and we won't have to tell their parents they got them at school.

And we said, that's another great idea...

And someone else took that appreciation a step further and
published pictures of nude children and then stepped further still by making them available on the Internet.

And we said, everyone's entitled to free speech...

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, classmates or even themselves.

Undoubtedly, if we thought about it long and hard enough, we could figure it out. I'm sure it has a great deal to do with...

"WE REAP WHAT WE SOW,"

============================================================================================

BEST POST IN HERE

Deus ex Machina · Post by **Deus ex Machina** » Sun May 26, 2002 2:36 am

Originally posted by UOD
Dear God:
Why didn't you save the school children at . . .
a.. Moses Lake, Washington 2/2/96
b.. Bethel, Alaska 2/19/97
c.. Pearl, Mississippi 10/1/97
d.. West Paducah, Kentucky 12/1/97
e.. Stamps, Arkansas 12/15/97
f.. Jonesboro, Arkansas 3/24/98
g.. Edinboro, Pennsylvania 4/24/98
h.. Fayetteville, Tennessee 5/19/98
i.. Springfield, Oregon 5/21/98
j.. Richmond, Virginia 6/15/98
k.. Littleton, Colorado 4/20/99
l.. Taber, Alberta, Canada 5/28/99
m.. Conyers, Georgia 5/20/99
n.. Deming, New Mexico 11/19/99
o.. Fort Gibson, Oklahoma 12/6/99
p.. Santee, California 3/5/01 and
q.. El Cajon, California 3/22/01?

Sincerely,
Concerned Student

Dear Concerned Student:
I am not allowed in schools.

Sincerely,
God

G-d is everywhere. Clearly gun control is not.

Let's see, I think it started when Madeline Murray O'Hare
complained she didn't want any prayer in our schools.

And we said, OK...

Must be that seperation of church and state thingie...

Then, someone said you better not read the Bible in school, the Bible that says "thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbors as yourself,"

And we said, OK...

Our country's has laws against theft and murder.
The Bible also speaks of polygamy, torture, genocide and an often indifferent G-d. If the Bible were any other book it would have been banned from Christian reading rooms.

Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem.

And we said, an expert should know what he's talking about so we won't spank them anymore...

Then someone said teachers and principals better not discipline our children when they misbehave. And the school administrators said no faculty member in this school better touch a student when they misbehave because we don't want any bad publicity, and we surely don't want to be sued.

And we accepted their reasoning...

I have to agree with you on these points.....

Then someone said, let's let our daughters have abortions if they want, and they won't even have to tell their parents.

And we said, that's a grand idea...

Not a grand idea. An unfortunate but necessary evil

Then some wise school board member said, since boys will be boys and they're going to do it anyway, let's give our sons all the condoms they want, so they can have all the fun they desire, and we won't have to tell their parents they got them at school.

And we said, that's another great idea...

Sex Education still teaches the virtues of abstinence.

And someone else took that appreciation a step further and
published pictures of nude children and then stepped further still by making them available on the Internet.

And we said, everyone's entitled to free speech...

Ummm... you get put in jail for a long time for that.... Recent cases in NJ

Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, classmates or even themselves.

Undoubtedly, if we thought about it long and hard enough, we could figure it out. I'm sure it has a great deal to do with...

"WE REAP WHAT WE SOW,"

And you make no mention that children view entertainers (Sports, film and music) as role models. They are suckling on the effluvium of an amoral media that preys on their rebellion and individuality. Their minds are being desensitised as they empty their wallets.

The above was from an email that a friend of mine sent to me recently.

Take it for what it is......

I own plenty of weapons. I don't have the sudden urge to go out and hurt people for two reasons....I don't view people as objects and I have a respect for the consequences.

As for nukes and missiles and bombs...those are weapons of mass destruction where thousands of people could be killed in an instant.

This is why we have terrorists ramming planes into buildings instead of shooting those they suspect as the enemy.

It is rather amusing that in light of 9/11, guns have found their way back onto planes again...and to prevent the planes from becoming weapons of mass destruction......

I received the same email. I thought it fatuous... More importantly, what does it have to do with gun control?

Since 9-11.... How many people have died as a result of guns?

The_Lurker · Post by **The_Lurker** » Sun May 26, 2002 2:53 am

Originally posted by Deus ex Machina

Science and industry has changed the world dramatically since Jefferson's and Madison's day.

yes, much has changed since their days.
people have changed as well..and it will all continue to change on into the future. change to what? i don't know and you don't know. yes i can agree with you and anyone else who wants to say we don't need guns here AND now, no we as a society don't need them at this moment in time.

but the future IS un-written.......that is what drives my thoughts.

how dare i assume that because we don't need guns right now in time we should take them away from future law abiding free citizens of this country, that they will not need them.

times were peaceful up until......

well, let me put it this way. i wonder if those that had a means to protect themselves during the 1992 LA riots while the POLICE were retreating would give up their proven means of protection. time has passed and they don't need guns right now.

me, well lets just say I will not be a "Reginal Denny" ever in my lifetime, i will fight back...and i will have the means to protect me and my family against whatever time brings on.

just a fact for you. you do not have the right to be protected by your local police, local sherrif, local state trooper or by the federal goverment. that has already been determined by the federal supreme court. your protection is up to you.

just how i feel.

TL

Deus ex Machina · Post by **Deus ex Machina** » Sun May 26, 2002 3:03 am

Mr. Denny's properly locked up firearms would not have helped him. Should we all be "packing iron"? When we consider everyone's growing impatience (i.e. road rage), I think it a poor idea.

"The future is unwritten" One of my favorite lines. I first read it on a Clash album.

shant... and good night,
david

SG Broadband Community

more on gun control

more on gun control

Hi