PDA

View Full Version : "Arming America"


speculative
13th January 2002, 07:12 PM
Has anyone else been watching the news about this book "Arming America?" It's an anti-gun book that garnered a lot of respect a year ago. It basically states that during the time of the revolution, etc., not many Americans actually had guns, and the guns they did have were in a state of disrepair and not very useful anyway.

News media outlets like the New York Times and others praised the book (because it provided proof of their liberal views).

Now, people are taking another look at the book, and it's completely bogus! Scholars are taking a look at the evidence and cannot reproduce the conclusions of the author based on the evidence. And, the author faked some of the evidence! One of the sources he sites had burned up in a fire in San Francisco in 1906. Umm... Let me see here, siting sources that don't exist is usually not a legitimate way to write a book!

All I have to say to that is :mad: People can argue both sides of the gun debate using legitimate evidence, but to fake evidence and flat-out lie is despicable! What should be even more disturbing to pro-gun and anti-gun people alike is that the liberal media was all too willing to be an accomplish to this blatant history re-writing scheme...

-spec

p.s. - In case you missed it, here's a link to a clip of the report: http://www.foxnews.com/printer_friendly_story/0,3566,42611,00.html

Gibbon
13th January 2002, 07:43 PM
You know why I think the US government will never ban guns? Well I know there are many factors, but surely a big part of this is because if nearly every US citizen is armed, what are the chance's of an outside invasion?

If even Grandma has an AK-47 then there is no way. The US may have the biggest army in the world, but its even bigger than you may think, cos the rear guard also includes most of the population...

Probably wrong, but an idea anyways :rolleyes:

Gibbon

speculative
13th January 2002, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by Gibbon
You know why I think the US government will never ban guns? Well I know there are many factors, but surely a big part of this is because if nearly every US citizen is armed, what are the chance's of an outside invasion?

If even Grandma has an AK-47 then there is no way. The US may have the biggest army in the world, but its even bigger than you may think, cos the rear guard also includes most of the population...

Probably wrong, but an idea anyways :rolleyes:

Gibbon

:D True, although nowadays I thinks it's more because of the nukes parked in my backyard... ;)

-spec

Gibbon
13th January 2002, 07:55 PM
http://wintz.phpwebhosting.com/ikonboard3/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/lol2.gif

Gibbon

The Therion
13th January 2002, 11:15 PM
lol nukes are cool :D

do u think many people are mature enough to use a gun properly?Under preassure?I think not...

speculative
13th January 2002, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by The Therion
lol nukes are cool :D

do u think many people are mature enough to use a gun properly?Under preassure?I think not...

Most people aren't mature enough to drive either though, yet there they sit, behind the wheel talking on their cell phone listening to their radio and cutting me off! :mad:

:D

-speculative

The Therion
13th January 2002, 11:27 PM
so there you have it!

no guns and no drivers licence for the little kids :D

JohnyX
16th January 2002, 03:23 PM
Originally posted by Gibbon
You know why I think the US government will never ban guns? Well I know there are many factors, but surely a big part of this is because if nearly every US citizen is armed, what are the chance's of an outside invasion?

If even Grandma has an AK-47 then there is no way. The US may have the biggest army in the world, but its even bigger than you may think, cos the rear guard also includes most of the population...

Probably wrong, but an idea anyways :rolleyes:

Gibbon

Actually the reason why there has never been an outright ban is because it would be unconstitutional until the whole right to bear arms thing is struck from the Bill of Rights. This would take a constitutional convention and there is just not enough votes to pull it off. Instead the tack has been to make it more inconvienient for law abiding people to get ahold of firearms and to take legal action against the gun manufacturers.

Of course this state of affairs may change over time as more and more students are churned out of American puplic schools ignorant of history and the constitution and with no moral center or depth of character.

Gibbon
16th January 2002, 05:40 PM
teehee makes me smile that you think having a gun makes you moral :D

Rules need to be updated, imho, the world has changed just a little since the constitution was drafted... maybe women shouldn't be allowed to vote either :rolleyes:

Gibbon

JohnyX
17th January 2002, 12:23 AM
Originally posted by JohnyX

...Of course this state of affairs may change over time as more and more students are churned out of American puplic schools ignorant of history and the constitution and with no moral center or depth of character.

Originally posted by Gibbon

teehee makes me smile that you think having a gun makes you moral

Rules need to be updated, imho, the world has changed just a little since the constitution was drafted... maybe women shouldn't be allowed to vote either

Err... nothing in my post equates morality with owning a firearm.

A gun is amoral. Owning a handgun is an amoral issue. It's ownership is neither good nor bad. The bend to good or evil of its owner can not be equated with handgun ownership. What someone does with a handgun is demonstative of the character of the owner, not to the issue of the inherant good or evil of ownership.

As far as changing the law, it can be changed but must be done so in accordance with the law. Here it is:


Article. V.
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.


If they want to stike or ammend the Second Ammendment from the Bill of Rights all it will take is roughly 325 votes for it in the House of Representatives, 67 in the Senate, and then 38 of the States will have to ratify it.

If the nature of man, his natural inclination to tyranny under the influence of power, had lessened over time, then the need for an armed citizenry would have lessened as well.

Gibbon
17th January 2002, 01:06 AM
Sorry Johny,

having reread you're post, I see you didn't imply that gun owningmakes morality... my bad m8 :o

I'm glad to see that things can be changed within the constitution then, that gives some hope...

As far as I can see a gun is an amoral thing, but the choice of owning a gun is a moral decision, as it is a dangerous weapon, its not like its dual purpose and you can change the television channel with it too (don't try trust me :) ) It might help me too see tyou're point of view if you explain to me what you think a gun is for, and what need ouweighs the obvious potential for harm & abuse.

Gibbon

dicki
17th January 2002, 04:18 PM
i think your trying to point out the difference between the tool and the hand that holds it johnny... it can be argued that a pencil is a leathal weapon because i can think of a dozen ways to kill a man with one but you'd never ban or limit the use of pencils so why do it for guns? is that the gist of your argument?

the big problem is that guns are wholly designed to kill as effectivly as possible with no other purpose (gibbons point) and thats why we don't see thier need here in the uk. why have a gun unless you intend to kill? and even if you don't intend to kill simply having a gun makes you more likly to use it (by accident or on purpose) becuase if you don't have one you can't use it.

it is a thorny subject... i find guns as peices of engineering fascinating... very well designed, ingenious ways around difficult problems but i wouldn't own one because it's too dangerous (this is coming from a man that practises martial arts with live weapons :D) and i don't think the risk justifies any possible use i would have for it.

dicki

The Therion
17th January 2002, 08:56 PM
i agree with dicki here,i once saw him using "The singing sword".....very animated :D :p

Gibbon
17th January 2002, 09:24 PM
Dicki what do you use?

Gibbon

dicki
18th January 2002, 04:36 PM
what do i use in martial arts?

hummm

live katana
practice (balanced but blunt) wakisashi <- not sure how to spell that it's a short sword
live tanto <- the sharpest knife i have ever seen in my life
base ball bats
chains
staffs

we don't do weapons work often and commonaly we will use practice weapons (wooden versions of the above) but we use the real thing too.
all attacks are realistic, if you don't get out the way you'll get cut in two. i've not had any accidents with weapons but i quite often get a bloodied nose because i didn't move quick enough and the trouble is if you miss the first punch and get smacked then they carry on attacking you and you'll get hurt more unless you can defend yourself with a bloodied nose and tears streaming down yourface so hard you can hardly see... ahh great fun

dicki

Gibbon
18th January 2002, 05:15 PM
Kewl :cool:

Baseball bats? :eek:

I dabble a little with fire poi (flails that have flaming ends) and a little nunchaku ;)

Gibbon

speculative
19th January 2002, 03:34 AM
I usually do in my apponenent with useless trivia facts and vacation slides... :p

-speculative

dicki
19th January 2002, 09:23 AM
vacation slides! :eek: nooooooooooooooooooooo! run away!

flaming flails :eek: what do you practice? i do aikido so it's generally unarmed defence from attacks from those weapons but obviously you need to know how to handle them too as aikido was based on sword fighting... had quite a cool iido lesson once (thats an art strictly dedicated to the drawing of the sword) it was mental... this guy cut an old gym mat in 2!

dicki

Gibbon
19th January 2002, 03:49 PM
I am not a martial artist... I am a showman, lol... Well a few years ago I was taught a little nunchuka by a friend, and have continued to practice on and off... can do some basic, and medium difficulty stuff..

As for the fire flails, I actually perform fire shows with these (and also fire blow ;) ) I am self taught but trust me that makes it no less impressive... I have managed to transfer some moves between nunchaku and flails, and vice versa.

Some people who perform with poi, sort of dance around with them, spinning as they go, but I have always had this whole tribal thing going on, and have always treated them like they were a weapon, guess its cos I'm a guy :D

Gibbon

dicki
19th January 2002, 07:45 PM
sounds cool.. i remember seeing someone use flaming nunchuka before......... he set fire to the back of his head and didn't notice until someone squirted him from behind with a fire extinguisher :D seriously funny

JohnyX
23rd January 2002, 01:20 PM
Sorry it took so long to get back with a reply, I was hiding all the pencils from Dicki :)

Being able to dispatch of people with a writing utensil precludes you from needing a firearm. I really don't buy the train of thought that if you own a gun, you're going to eventually kill someone, either intentionally or accidently. The number of cops that have fired their weapon much less have killed someone with their fire arm is small compared to the number of cops carrying. It boils down to the person using the weapon. Does your training in martial arts mean that you are now destined to kill someone just because you are capable?

What separates a soldier or cop from a common citizen that they are deemed worthy enough to wield a fire arm and yet a common man is not?

The Therion
23rd January 2002, 03:17 PM
well if u have a gun its not like you will eventually kill someone....its just more probable to kill/injure someone.And so it is for martial arts as well (unless you're really good...in that case you never kill anyone).

About your last question : at first not much.Later on its experience to deal calmly with situations.

tripodal
23rd January 2002, 10:20 PM
i believe it should be everyones right to own a gun. as it should be everyones right to own common sense too.
i personally will probably never buy a gun for myself. if never had much of a problem controlling my temper. even when i got jumped last year by 4 guys... i didnt fight back
(maybe so they wouldnt beat me down more)
unfortunatly for me tho. when i do lost my temper... I go apesh*t, and in one of those circumstances i would most likely take a life if i could... and thats not something i would ever forgive myself for

people should take into account the power that one bullet can have. and if they believe they can control that power, by owning a gun you are saying "i can control myself when that power is in my hand." and also "i accept responsibility for what the power will allow me to do"

i dont know waht it would be like to shoot someone, but i dont think i wanna find out.

speculative
24th January 2002, 03:47 AM
Hmm... There's a lot of difference between "owning a gun" and "packing heat." People who "own a gun" aren't necessarily looking for trouble. People who are "packing heat" are. (Sorry can't explain it further if you don't know what I mean, it's a cultural thing gleamed from too many John Wayne films... :rolleyes: )

I know lots of people that own guns, but I've yet to meet someone who "packs heat," though there are people like that out there.

I'm surprised no one's brought up the issue of "bounty hunters" yet. I've just seen two lawyer-based shows (one was Law and Order) about bounty hunters - who can "pack heat" and use it, and aren't subject to the same standards as any law enforcement officer in the US is. Basically, they can kick down your door and open fire if need be, and without a warrant. And well if you're not the person they're after and they shoot you... I'm really surprised that anti-gun advocates never bring up bounty hunters in the U.S. Do you have bounty hunters (Bail Agents, Bail Bondsmen, etc.) elsewhere in the world?

-speculative

speculative
24th January 2002, 03:51 AM
btw - why do we keep coming back to the gun/anti-gun debate? (Okay, okay, so I started the thread, guilty as charged! :D) But, it seems like a perennial favorite subject. Perhaps it's a fundamental question about power at its base elements?

-speculative

dicki
24th January 2002, 07:34 AM
i completly understand your last point johnny, why should something thats legal for the state (army, cops, whatever) be illeagal for it's citizens... who knows... thats bugged me too.

my major problem is that many of people i have met are not exactly bright... i have met people with zero commonsense and in the jobs that i have done it seems that they are in the majority... the people that frequent this board and the people you and i tend to hang around with are probably in the upper ten percent of the worlds population intelligence wise... i personally would'nt trust most people with a gun or car or just about anything else dangerous (maybe this is just me being bitter about nearly getting run of my motorbike 5 times in one day and seeing another dozen crashes through shear stupidity)

anyway where was i... people like you and i would most likly be fine with a gun we understand the implications of owning one and the power and responsibility it gives us but many people do not understand these things and as such should not own something of this nature but you can't very well split the earths population into 2 groups and say yes you are ok to use a gun and no your not because thats discrimination it has to be all or nothing and in my opinion keeping guns out of the hands of the masses is worth banning guns.

regarding the point about martial arts... thats very true... if i got into a fight and killed some one and then tried to claim self defence (weather it's true or not) they would not believe me because i am trained in a killing art (no messing around these arts are designed to kill no matter how many flowery phrases you put around it) and i would be sent down. thier argument would be that with my training i should be able to "supress" someone e.g. only doing what is nessacery to stop them (notice that supress may include killing but only in extreme circumstances)

umm i'm not entirely sure any of that made sense... i'll re read it when i wake up and post again :D

dicki

tripodal
24th January 2002, 12:19 PM
no dicki it made perfect sence, i totally agree

stupid people + guns = BAD

i dont want to walkout of my house and have to worry about some dumb blonde driving and SUV far to big for her to control almost killing me when she not paying attention.. and then if i honk i dont want to have to worry about her pulling out a gun and blasting my car.
because thats what stupid people do.

maybe an iq test is in order ( or some form of intelligence test)
to find out who is really capable of the responsibilities of a hand gun.

there is gun safety for rifles and hunting.. but i dont know of anything like that for hand guns.

speculative
24th January 2002, 04:13 PM
So true Tripodal!! People should have to take and pass a self-defense course/shooting course before buying a handgun. (The self-defense part so people can exhaust their options before pulling out their gun if necessary - and so they know when it is necessary.) After all, in MT we have to pass a hunter's safety course before we can get our hunting license.

Also, people should educate their kids about guns. People always tell their kids "don't do drugs," but a lot fewer people tell their kids never to play with guns, or show them how to handle guns safely.

-speculative

JohnyX
25th January 2002, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by tripodal
no dicki it made perfect sence, i totally agree

stupid people + guns = BAD

i dont want to walkout of my house and have to worry about some dumb blonde driving and SUV far to big for her to control almost killing me when she not paying attention.. and then if i honk i dont want to have to worry about her pulling out a gun and blasting my car.
because thats what stupid people do.

maybe an iq test is in order ( or some form of intelligence test)
to find out who is really capable of the responsibilities of a hand gun.

there is gun safety for rifles and hunting.. but i dont know of anything like that for hand guns.

There are tons of courses and training that can be taken but none of it is manditory. I am all for having some kind of license involved in hand gun ownership. The background check is not enough, as there are many people with clean legal records but lack the dicipline, repect of life and commonsense that gun ownership requires.

If they can have sobriety check points, why not gun permit check points? Just set up some huge ultrasound or x-ray type machine that will scan cars as they go through and have someone from the Game commision there so they can bypass the whole probable cause and search warrent issue.

tripodal
25th January 2002, 09:42 PM
although it would be a good idea to scan for guns... i lean towards the side of privacy myself. i woudl rather not have machines checking me over.
innocent untill proven guilty. (in a manner of speaking)
i am much more apt to requiring someone to get a license before being allowed to own a hand gun.
maybe nothing to intensive, but a background check and safety coarse.
we all require a license to drive, so a gun should involve something similar.

i do know it is a constituonal right for people to own firearms, not a privlidge as is driving a car... but some similarity is there involving the responsibility of an impliment of destruction.