Author Topic: Re: About Freedom in the Free World  (Read 7117 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.


  • Member
  • Join Date: Aug 2006
  • Location:
  • Posts: 941
2nd Amendment - Needs its own thread
« Reply #30 on: June 07, 2007, 08:12:59 AM »
Since I do follow the news and such the last 2 years Camden NJ has been #1 for murder and violent crime with Detroit 2 and Flint 4.
A perfect example of Gun Free Zones not working is Washington DC. Populating 550,000 with 195 Murders which is 34 per 100,000. That same year if you look at Dallas which had 202 with more than 2x the population.
BTW please read carefully... I am NOT attacking ANYONE directly or personally I am going after your statements and lack of facts in some instances. That is NOT a personal attack. It is not like I am calling you a lazy ass or something.
Now to go back to the World Stage and cite statistics.
The Top 10 Countries with the highest per capita murder rates are

PER 100,000

(1) Colombia 63(2) South Africa 51(3) Jamaica 32(4) Venezuela 32(5) Russia 19(6) Mexico 13(7) Lithuania 10(8) Estonia 10(9) Latvia 10(10) Belarus 9
Note that the United States is NOT on the list.
This is per 2003 statistics.
For the Texas man here is a 2003 statistic


PER 100,000

(1) Louisiana 13.0(2) Maryland 9.5(3) Mississippi 9.3(4) Nevada 8.8(5) Arizona 7.9(6) Georgia 7.6(7) South Carolina 7.2(8) California 6.8(9) Tennessee 6.8(10) Alabama 6.6
These stats are coming from here.
The only way Dallas gets on a list is when the list is restricted to 250,000 or more population. If you made a list of the top 10 cities for murder and made it 1,000,000 or more you would see Dallas near the top BUT then again there are very few cities of that size in the US.
For those who think Gun Control works.

Two thirds of all 1992 US murders were accomplished with firearms. Handguns were used in about half of all murders. Sharp instruments were used in 17% of murders and blunt instruments in about 6%.
Gun control laws are stiffer in Canada, and many claim this accounts for the murder rate being lower in Canada than in the United States. 65% of US homicides were committed with firearms, versus 32% in Canada. However, a large American study indicated that liberalized laws for carrying concealed weapons reduced murder rates in the US by 8.5%. US homicide rates in the year 1900 were an estimated 1 per 100,000 -- at a time when anyone of any age could buy a gun. Statistics-gathering may have been less thorough at that time -- and few people had the money or interest to buy guns. But American gun supply (including handguns) doubled from the 1973-1992 period, during which homicide rates remained unchanged (WALL STREET JOURNAL, 4-Aug-2000, p.A10). Politicians in Massachusetts have cited the State's tough gun control laws as the reason for its low murder rates. However, the adjacent states of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont have some of the least stringent gun control laws in the US, yet the first two have lower murder rates than Massachusetts and the murder rates in Vermont are comparable to those in Massachusetts. Murder rates in Boston increased 50% in 2004 over the previous year, while murder rates in Los Angeles, Miami, Washington and many other major cites saw murder rates decline.
Gun Control is only one thing. Hitting your target. All other claims to it are false.
The One, The Original, The Hopelessly Insane
I love my Country, I fear my Government
I dont know why I still post here
Tribes 1 is dead


  • bvd| capt.
  • Join Date: Nov 2004
  • Location:
  • Posts: 6282
    • Tribes Ascend - sunfire
2nd Amendment - Needs its own thread
« Reply #31 on: June 07, 2007, 07:57:17 PM »
Quote from: Bramage;197430
Gun Control is only one thing. Hitting your target. All other claims to it are false.

It seems like you are pretty set in stone with this belief. It just makes sense to me that there will be criminals no matter what, but like you said in England they use knives - what's easier to defend yourself against? Knives or guns? I know how to disarm a person with a knife as my brother and I have taken multiple martial art styles. I was surprised that Dallas was not a murder capital because I read about murders, have had several guns pulled on me and nearly been mugged in Dallas. Overall it's a dangerous city, but I'll trust your statistics. I didn't mean that we need more laws, I was simply saying that the laws need to be enforced more thoroughly and they need to take more assertive measures in finding the people who are dishing out the illegal firearms.


  • Member
  • Join Date: Aug 2006
  • Location:
  • Posts: 941
2nd Amendment - Needs its own thread
« Reply #32 on: June 07, 2007, 09:27:49 PM »
Sunfire, 30 years of reading statistics and watching what happens when laws change. I deal in the facts and figures of Gun Control. No feel good legislation or emotional rhetoric.
BTW I watched in the late 70's when Massachusetts enacted a waiting period. One of the first states to do so. The first year it was enacted Massachusetts set a record for murders that was 3x any previous year.
I agree that existing laws need to be ENFORCED. I was reading an article from about 2 years ago. About a kid who took a gun into school with the intent of killing a classmate. The little boy was like 6 and the girl was 7. THe parents were charged with over 20 crimes. WHY do we need MORE if 20 is not enough then 50 wont be and 100 certainly wont nor will the current 20,000 on the books.
I don't like guns. I don't have any in my house BUT I 100% support the right of anyone else to carry and keep guns. I believe in training for those who want a gun. I would rather have a well trained person have a gun than any old joe on the street. That is about as far as I would go with gun control laws.
I also think someone like Whakka appears to be should be able to appeal to have his right to keep and bear arms returned to him.


  • bvd| capt.
  • Join Date: Nov 2004
  • Location:
  • Posts: 6282
    • Tribes Ascend - sunfire
2nd Amendment - Needs its own thread
« Reply #33 on: June 08, 2007, 12:59:24 AM »
you are absolutely right bramage


  • Member
  • Join Date: Aug 2005
  • Location:
  • Posts: 131
2nd Amendment - Needs its own thread
« Reply #34 on: November 07, 2009, 08:03:30 PM »
I live in Saint Louis and it's pretty crazy here. I have had my house broken into twice, a knife pulled on me, and i wont even count how many times my car has been broken into, and i was one street over ( leaving a Rob Zombie concert ) one night when a cop was shot and killed by 3 gang members, i heard the echoes.

In a perfect world we wouldn't need guns. Where i live though, not to have a gun or SOME form of protection is irresponsible if you care for yourself. I own several firearms. I have never had to fire them at anybody and i hope i never have to.

I value my firearms beyond words. A few times i have had show my gun to diffuse situations that would have otherwise gotten very ugly. I have a lot of knowledge and experience with firearms. I grew up on a farm and spent a lot of my life hunting. In my family gun safety is taught very early.
Apparently in 2008 St. Louis was ranked #4.

This says STL is #2 for 100k-500k population

I have made an observation though. Your typical gang-banger leaves you alone if you leave him alone. The wanna be gang-bangers are the problem. They are out trying to prove something.


  • Join Date: Nov 2005
  • Location:
  • Posts: 1615
About Freedom in the Free World
« Reply #35 on: November 16, 2009, 02:43:20 PM »
Quote from: Sunfire;196584
yeah i dont have a problem with firearms at all. my problem is that any person that has a valid id can walk into a store (at least in texas) and buy automatic weapons..shotguns..whatever. my friend bought a chinese model machine gun two days ago for 200 someodd bucks. that shit just needs to be regulated more closely. id mostly be worried about my kids getting into them..i knew an 8 year old kid that found his dads gun and shot himself accidentally. some people are just careless with them.

Ok let me clear some things up here starting with this first post.  Your friend did not buy a machine gun and nobody with just a valid ID can buy an automatic weapon.  What your friend probably bought  was a chinese SKS which is a SEMI-AUTOMATIC rifle and YES it can be put to bad use in bad hands.  It's not a machine gun or an automatic rifle, it is simply a semi-automatic firearm.  Is it possible to buy Full Auto rifles or machine guns?  Yes, you have to go through strict checks through the ATF and it has to be approved by them and your local sheriff and takes about 6 months before you can get the weapon if approved.  That goes with silencers and short rifles as well.

As far as firearms mainly being used in crime: They are used in crime and I agree you see more on the news where a person is killed by a firearm in a robbery or w/e than a person that's being killed by a person using self defense.  That is simply because the attacker picks the time to strike on his terms but remember the thought that people may have a firearm is a huge deterrent and keeps people in check.  You can argue these things all day and it's ok to have different beliefs because we all come from different places.  I know that if a guy walked into my house carrying a machete at 2am I would blast him.  If I didn't have a firearm I would be pretty damn defenseless and it would be easy for criminals to kill just as many as they do now just in different ways.

With all that being said in support if firearms I do support STRICT gun control laws.  I believe everyone that wants to purchase a firearm should go through a class on how to use it and all the laws that go along with it.  I also believe that if you have children under a certain age (maybe even under 18) then you MUST keep your firearms locked up or it could be an offense.  That alone would prevent a lot of accidents and also keep firearms out of kids hands and if the kid did something with a firearm of the parents the parent would be to blame also.  As far as all the fully automatic and illegal weapons that you DO see in the hands of criminals, do you really honestly think ANY of those would go away if laws were passed to keep guns out of citizens hands?  (sarcasm) I know drug laws are keeping our streets clean and drugfree and i'm sure it would be that way with guns! (sarcasm off)

As far as the 2nd amendment goes there was a hearing on this not long ago (couple years) and it stated that it is the right for citizens to bear arms.  I'm way to lazy to dig it up but this was a big issue.   As far as pulling info from the brady bill site... the brady bill was the biggest joke in the world.
Quote from: FriedRice;202808
watch out for earthquakes

Quote from: Si;259680
"Utah man arrested over 10 year old internet game. Underground gay community accidentally uncovered."

Hell of a headline if you ask me.


  • Member
  • Join Date: Aug 2006
  • Location:
  • Posts: 941
About Freedom in the Free World
« Reply #36 on: April 17, 2010, 06:10:48 PM »
Quote from: MANiFESTO;196657
that does not apply to citizens having guns. the supreme court has consistenly ruled that the second amendment refers specifically to the militia, which is now defined as the national gaurd. this is not debated, it's judicial fact. i did research paper on gun control a few years back. and calling that a HUMAN right is wrong, at best it could be made a CIVIL right.
so where does it say we have the right to bear arms?

What drugs are you on?
The recent DC ruling last year specifically said that the Right to Bear Arms was the Right of the Citizens. Scalia wrote it into his summary.

The following article appeared in the September, 1991 issue of \California
Libertarian News\, official newsletter of the California Libertarian Party.
Reproduction on computer bulletin boards is permitted for informational
purposes only.  Copyright (c) 1991 by J. Neil Schulman.  All other rights
                   by J. Neil Schulman
I just had a conversation with Mr. A.C. Brocki, Editorial
Coordinator for the Office of Instruction of the Los Angeles
Unified School District.  Mr. Brocki taught Advanced Placement
English for several years at Van Nuys High School, as well as
having been a senior editor for Houghton Mifflin.  I was referred
to Mr. Brocki by Sherryl Broyles of the Office of Instruction of
the LA Unified School District, who described Mr. Brocki as the
foremost expert in grammar in the Los Angeles Unified School
District  -- the person she and others go to when they need a
definitive answer on English grammar.
I gave Mr. Brocki my name, told him Sherryl Broyles referred me,
then asked him to parse the following sentence:
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a
free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall
not be infringed."
Mr. Brocki informed me that the sentence was overpunctuated, but
that the meaning could be extracted anyway.
"A well-schooled electorate" is a nominative absolute.
"being necessary to the security of a free State" is a
participial phrase modifying "electorate"
The subject (a compound subject) of the sentence is "the right of
the people"
"shall not be infringed" is a verb phrase, with "not" as an
adverb modifying the verb phrase "shall be infringed"
"to keep and read books" is an infinitive phrase modifying "right"
I then asked him if he could rephrase the sentence to make it
clearer.  Mr. Brocki said, "Because a well-schooled electorate is
necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the
people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."
I asked: can the sentence be interpreted to restrict the right to
keep and read books to a well-schooled electorate -- say,
registered voters with a high-school diploma?"  He said, "No."
I then identified my purpose in calling him, and read him the
Second Amendment in full:
"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."
He said he thought the sentence had sounded familiar, but that
he hadn't recognized it.
I asked, "Is the structure and meaning of this sentence the same
as the sentence I first quoted you?"  He said, "yes."  I asked
him to rephrase this sentence to make it clearer.  He transformed
it the same way as the first sentence: "Because a well-regulated
militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right
of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
I asked him whether the meaning could have changed in two hundred
years.  He said, "No."
I asked him whether this sentence could be interpreted to
restrict the right to keep and bear arms to "a well-regulated
militia."  He said, "no." According to Mr. Brocki, the sentence
means that the people \are\ the militia, and that the people
have the right which is mentioned.
I asked him again to make sure:
Schulman: "Can the sentence be interpreted to mean that the right
can be restricted to "a well-regulated militia?"
Brocki: "No, I can't see that."
Schulman: "Could another, professional in English grammar or
linguistics interpret the sentence to mean otherwise?"
Brocki: "I can't see any grounds for another interpretation."
I asked Mr. Brocki if he would be willing to stake his
professional reputation on this opinion, and be quoted on this.
He said, "Yes."
At no point in the conversation did I ask Mr. Brocki his opinion
on the Second Amendment, gun control, or the right to keep and
bear arms.
J. Neil Schulman
July 17, 1991


  • Join Date: Jan 2006
  • Location:
  • Posts: 4306
2nd Amendment - Needs its own thread
« Reply #37 on: April 17, 2010, 07:00:27 PM »
bram, my senile friend, that was 3 years ago.  i didn't even read what i or you wrote. whatever i thought three YEARS ago, i'm pretty sure i don't think now.

what drugs are you on?


  • #1 Red Guy
  • Join Date: Aug 2005
  • Location:
  • Posts: 3636
2nd Amendment - Needs its own thread
« Reply #38 on: April 18, 2010, 07:16:29 AM »
I never really understood the dogma around the 2nd amendment. Much like the first amendment, it's used as a blanket argument when it simply doesn't need to be. It, much like the first amendment has also already been significantly encroached and those encroachments are already technically infringements on the rights of people to bear arms. I cannot have an ICBM in my backyard, but I do own several handguns and a rifle. I can be outspoken but I cannot necessarily be disruptive in the lives of others. I do not consider these unreasonable encroachments, but they are still technically encroachments in the most practical and basic sense of the word.

All in all, it's a copout when it comes to gun control. There are only a million better arguments against aggressive gun bans and gun control policies. The first is that the prohibition of most things is simply a failure in every way. From this argument alone there are probably 4-5 negative impacts to the prohibition of guns that can be drawn in the context of the United States. It's not hard to debate the merits of something without some impenetrable vague dogma about a very static view of the world.


  • Member
  • Join Date: Aug 2006
  • Location:
  • Posts: 941
2nd Amendment - Needs its own thread
« Reply #39 on: April 20, 2010, 10:17:47 PM »
didn't realize it when I looked. Not so much senile as just being stupid... about 30 years to go for senile or more I hope...


* Permissions

  • You can't post new topics.
  • You can't post replies.
  • You can't post attachments.
  • You can't modify your posts.