Random <snips> of dead portions of the thread. Not all labeled!
"Robert C Monsen" <***@comcast.net> wrote in message news:9uYGc.7645$***@attbi_s51...
: > No! If they didn't carry, or use guns your thin argument might
: > (only might) carry some weight. It has nothing to do with
: > "Helping them" to do what they are hired to do. If guns are
"Not
: > Helping them" do their jobs THEY should give them up for
something
: > more helpful! BUT they can not propose (except as
individuals)
: > any ban or confiscation of the publics arms.
:
: No, again, simply, the point is that YOU having a gun doesn't
help
: THEM. Please, pay attention.
That was not what YOU said! And providing a deterrent is one way
to reduce crime (according to my local police department) like a
neighborhood watch.
: > So believing that crime is a good profession doesn't make them
: > criminals? I agree, committing the crime does!
:
: This is really getting lame. You attempt to misdirect what I'm
saying
: again and again. Can't your arguments, such as they are, stand
up to
: any scrutiny?
There was no "Misdirection, I was working with your poorly stated
position.
: > But You are truly dense! Democrats are the ones proposing the
: > lame laws to restrict private ownership, they do everything to
: > protect the criminal from the honest citizen who will try to
: > protect their property or lives by disarming them, the law
however
: > says you can not require a criminal to register or turn in
their
: > weapon because doing so will self incriminate them. (5th
: > Amendment) So the laws the Democrats propose protect the
criminal
: > from harm while engaging in the criminal activity.
:
: I believe you are trying to say that you believe Democrats are
: fostering crime by attempting to enact legislation that would
limit
: gun ownership, thereby protecting criminals, since honest
citizens
: could otherwise protect themselves and their property with their
guns.
Close, They (the demon-Rats) are protecting the criminals!
: You also seem to be saying that its illegal for criminals to
turn in
: guns, because by doing so, they would be incriminating
themselves.
: Requiring them to do so is thus a violation of the 5th
amendment,
: which states that a person may not be forced to testify against
: himself in a court of law.
No, a law to require a criminal to turn in his guns is
unenforceable BECAUSE he IS A CRIMINAL. Court ruling!
: If that is what you are saying, then I would counter on two
fronts.
: First, my belief is that private gun ownership does not, in
fact,
: deter crime. Neighborhoods with more guns are subject to more
crime.
: If gun ownership prevented crime, that would probably not be
true.
Your belief is irrelevant! I live in an area with 60% gun owners
and crime is minimal here. Occasional car, or burglary, and some
drugs or a DUI. But at a very low rate. There are substantial
studies that establish just that, and a city that requires gun
ownership and training is almost crime free.
: Secondly, many guns that are owned by criminals are
unregistered.
: Since they are already illegal, the criminals are already
supposed to
: give them up, or be subject to prosecution. So, this is already
the
: case; if they decide to give up the weapons voluntarily, and
that act
: is used to prosecute them for illegal gun ownership, they are
: voluntarily giving up the weapon, and thus volunteering the
: information. There is nothing in the 5th amendment which
precludes
: one from giving testimony against oneself. Its only stated that
one
: cannot be forced to give such testimony. If, on the other hand,
they
: do NOT give up the weapon, and it is discovered, they can be
: prosecuted without their own testimony. Thus, your point is both
silly
: and moot.
Few guns are "registered" since that would be a constitutional
violation!
Only Machine guns, large caliber weapons (Cannons and larger than
50 caliber) which require a CLASS 100 License.
: > You are grasping at straws, your inability to understand is
: > annoying!
Your inability to make a rational statement without later
quibbling is also annoying!
: You also have a tendency to ad hominem attack. Please, try to be
: civil. If you are wrong, be a man and admit it. If you are
right, back
: it up with rational arguments. Don't call democrats 'criminals',
or
: call me 'lame', simply because you have no argument.
No, I have criticized your lack of clear verifiable statements and
your shifting to deliberate false statistics and other tired,
trite methods, and propaganda of the Gun control freaks.
I said that the statement was Lame, I haven't called you anything.
": > Like your lame position?"
When you start doubting your making a point you resort to implied
insults and attacks. I call them as I see them, and you can not
alter my opinion on anything. You clearly have no standing!
: > : Also, you aren't going to protect us from invasion.
: > That is the primary function of the militia, along with
prevention
: > of crime, capturing and turning in criminals, and the entire
list
: > of the duties you have never bothered to read about!
:
: These were duties that were required of us in the 1780s? Well,
times
: have changed for some of us.
They haven't changed at all! Neither has the need.
Oh! I'm sorry, are you saying you've been convicted of a felony?
Then your right! Your position is much clearer if that is the
case!
: > : Ah, my stepfather let his guns rust. I'm sure lots of people
do.
: > : They just aren't very useful anymore.
: > Two Fools! Figures!
:
: Again with the attacks. You really shouldn't get so worked up.
My
: father in law didn't need the guns, he no longer hunted, and
didn't
: really expect to be called up to serve the minutemen.
Characterization, not an attack! I am not worked up, I am
disgusted!
: > : Nobody said anything about welfare.
: > Actually YOU did!
: No, I didn't.
Another Lie?
: Indirectly, since all public servants ARE
: > functionally on welfare!
:
: Are you talking about the ones that educate our kids? Or the
ones that
: build our roads? Which ones are you talking about, I think you
should
: explain yourself here, so everybody can understand the depth of
your
: thought.
:
: (They receive money from the government!)
Yes, Including my two sisters! (Teachers)
I do not need to explain. If your able to read and comprehend the
language I am quite clear on all points.
: > No one said anything about "revennooers" until you interjected
: > that bastardized word into the discussion. The language of an
: > literate? What the hell is it? I'm not into dialects!
: >
: Sorry, it was a joke, referring to a certain form of
anti-government
: activity (moonshine). I'll try to keep my remarks simple for you
in
: the future.
Now you think excessive government is funny? You are a strange
thing indeed!
: > First the Democrats support a policy that results in a
reduction
: > in income for the average citizen, then tax the same citizen
to
: > pay welfare to buy off criminals? You make no sense!
:
: You don't have any evidence to back that up.
Several Economists made the statement, I only said it because I
see it happening. Look it up!
: > Keeping your gun serviceable is also in your best interests,
but
: > you neglect self defense in favor of paying a toll to the
unruly!
:
: No, as I pointed out, (in a civil way, I might add,) I believe
that
: when you own a gun, serviceable or not, it is NOT in anyone's
best
: interests.
You have never been civil! Also, I can't believe you think in
such a twisted and strange way. To suggest that anyone should
trust that government will take care of them and that there is no
obligation to protect oneself and property is really a head in the
sand situation.
: > So? Yes, unlike yourself, I have read it, and the papers and
: > discussion about it by the founders. James Madison said it
: > included "Swords, muskets, and cannon, and all the terrible
: > weapons of war!" If your mentally fit and a citizen you ARE a
: > member of that militia!
:
: Isn't that nice! And so appropriate for 2004!
Well we agree on that!
: > When asked what the Militia was, George Mason, one of the
Framers
: > of the U.S. Constitution, said, "Who are the Militia? They
consist
: > now of the whole people, except for a few public officers."
Yet we
: > also see statutes like 10 USC 311, which defines it as "all
able-
: > bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided
in
: > section 13 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or have
: > made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the
United
: > States." Some state statutes define it as "able-bodied males"
of
: > different age ranges, such as 16 through 59.
: > For a complete history of the Militia See:
: >
: > http://www.city-net.com/~davekle/what_mil.htm
: >
: > : The essential point is that NRA members own guns as toys.
: > There is nothing essential about it, your language is at the
third
: > grade level.
: >
: > : They are playthings, to be fondled and savored and collected
: > : and taken out and shown off on weekends on the firing range.
: >
: > Is that a sentence? What were you trying to say?
:
: You really didn't understand what I was trying to say? I guess
I'll
: have to word things more carefully for you in the future.
Lets see, Poor use of the connective "AND."
: > Your delusions are not germane to any rational discussion.
:
: Cover your ears, close your eyes, and hum all you want. Guns
don't
: make people safer. They are dangerous in the best of situations,
allow
: impulse to translate into deadly action much more readily than
other
: weapons, and are prone to falling into the hands of criminals.
I can only observe that you have an irrational belief and you
could never influence me to think you have a clue about what your
saying.
: > As they are now! In the Frontier days there was less crime
and
: > far fewer murders (per/100,000 population) than now, it is
much
: > more dangerous now!
:
: That might have something to do with the fact that there are far
more
: handguns now, per person, than there was back then.
Not as compared to the population as a whole. The percentage of
the population who are gun owners is only slightly higher than
when the west was "won".
: My point was that guns were tools on the frontier and in rural
: America. Guns were used for hunting and for protection. Now,
they are
: used for recreation by middle aged NRA members. Police are
forced to
: use them for protection due to their proliferation in society.
Owning
: a gun does not make you or your family safer. It makes you more
likely
: to be killed or injured by a gun.
So you really don't have a point, only a belief?
I do not accept that as a rational statement, just an observation
of deviance!
: And best regards to you too!
I see no point in continuing this, you have demonstrated an
unwillingness to learn, or to even seriously consider an
alternative to your sick beliefs.
Goodbye, stay out of high crime neighborhoods.