-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
VA Tech Shootings
- Thread starter Jeff Weaver
- Start date
- Status
Hope of Glory
New Member
amity said:
You might want to research this. My neighbors and I are exactly what a militia is, as defined at the time the founding fathers wrote this document.
The right to property, free market, the "pursuit of happiness" (a code word for the right to make a buck, basically).Hope of Glory said:
Those guys were concerned with the rights of the oligarchs! The rabbit in the earlier example is the rich and well educated.Hope of Glory said:
See? Even you are admiting you just want to have it in order to have it, even if there were no need for "self-protection" at all. You would manufacture one illegally just for the sheer joy of owning it.Hope of Glory said:
I am sorry, you are not well regulated. You are not organized. You are not disciplined. You just have some gun under your bed or wherever. That does not make you a militia.Hope of Glory said:
I now strongly suspect some are looking forward to getting a chance to use that gun they have squirreled away. It would feel good to vent frustration with modern society by blowing some "_____'s" (your words) brains out, wouldn't it? So your attitude is part of the problem, not of the solution. Sadly, it is statistically more likely that some poor 3 year old will find your little metal security blankie and accidentally fire it, injuring or killing themselves, the family dog, their parents or siblings, or at least blowing a hole in the refrigerator or something.
Look, I am bowing out of this argument because it is not going anywhere interesting or important. I don't need to know more or hear any further arguments to make a decision. I was neutral when this discussion first started after the VA tech incident. I was even thinking of getting a gun for home "protection." I am not any longer, needless to say. Thank you for clarifying so vividly what the issues are.
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
amity said:
Wow...did you really mean to insult HoG like you did? He answers your question about militias, and you make him out to be a Timothy McVeigh wannabe. At the very least, you insinuate he's careless and stupid. At worst, criminal, demented, and dangerous. I think you owe him an apology.
I'm sorry...I don't believe you regarding being "neutral" on the gun thing. From the get-go you argued against gun ownership for anyone (fine if you want to do without...but you are interested in curtailing others' freedom). I think you're bowing out because you're having trouble giving good answers to legitimate questions. You weren't neutral to start with. WHich is fine...but pretending that you didn't already have your mind made up...nah, you did. You're just being disingenuous now.
Then all the glock-wielding criminals out there are also a militia. I reiterate, we need to change the constitution to prevent any ambiguity in your mind whatsover! Jefferson is dead and does not get a vote anymore! We are the ones who have to live with this mess.StefanM said:
No. I meant to insult absolutely everyone who insists on some right to private ownership of a gun. It is crazy.rbell said:
Oh yeah I was. And now we have purported believers in the gospel of Jesus Christ swearing they will build a gun in their basement if they are made illegal! Nope, I am now an official gun control nut. I hope 100 million other Americans are having the same revelation about this whole issue that I am having. VA Tech may have turned the tide on this, along with your disclosure of the true mind-set of the pro-gun folks.rbell said:
Bye, ya'll.
Last edited by a moderator:
Rufus_1611
New Member
amity said:
I pray that the revelation Americans are discovering is, the safest thing to be is a tree on a college campus and unless they are a tree, they are not going to be protected by the authorities when a bad man comes to shoot them dead. Thus, they may need to take some personal accountability for their own safety and the safety of their loved ones and thank God for the blessings of a Constitution that provides us with this freedom.
Guns
I think it is up to you to prove that early militias were well regulated. Very organized (outside of verbal agreement). Or even disciplined outside of hunting. Militias are nebulous by their very nature. I advocated the Switzerland approach to the problem of Crime. Crime over there is much lower than in the States. They give everyone who is an upstanding member of society a gun. The VT shooter would not get very far if this was the case.
Maybe my libertarian streak is coming out but the right to bare arms is constitutional. You cannot avoid that. I don't know many criminals are willing to rob a house if they know the owner has a gun. Almost all of the original colonists all had guns. Violent domestic crime was lower. Finally, The human race is just too depraved and in need of redemption to allow power to be placed in fewer hands. Especially, when this includes the hands of a hell-bent gunman. I am not advocating a return to the Wild West but rather a return to something sensible. Even with many more Guns, society can work the problems that arise out. It needs to focus on rehabilitating people than letting em fall through the cracks.
amity said:
I think it is up to you to prove that early militias were well regulated. Very organized (outside of verbal agreement). Or even disciplined outside of hunting. Militias are nebulous by their very nature. I advocated the Switzerland approach to the problem of Crime. Crime over there is much lower than in the States. They give everyone who is an upstanding member of society a gun. The VT shooter would not get very far if this was the case.
Maybe my libertarian streak is coming out but the right to bare arms is constitutional. You cannot avoid that. I don't know many criminals are willing to rob a house if they know the owner has a gun. Almost all of the original colonists all had guns. Violent domestic crime was lower. Finally, The human race is just too depraved and in need of redemption to allow power to be placed in fewer hands. Especially, when this includes the hands of a hell-bent gunman. I am not advocating a return to the Wild West but rather a return to something sensible. Even with many more Guns, society can work the problems that arise out. It needs to focus on rehabilitating people than letting em fall through the cracks.
Last edited by a moderator:
amity said:
Well, if you can't show class, at least you can be honest about it, I guess. It's probably not possible for you to try and see anything from another's viewpoint. It's a shame....you might learn something every now and then if you would try.
rbell said:
amity said:
Baloney. You've been against it all along. The "purported believers" slam wasn't lost on me either. So if someone disagrees with you on gun control, that gives you the right to question their salvation? It gives you a right to insult people?
You're not showing much class here.
amity said:
I'm pro freedom.
Why not tell me what exactly my "true mind set" is? Don't beat around the bush...put it out there. BTW...I no longer own a handgun. I will get one when my kids are older and can understand consequences, etc. Likewise, I have 3 shotguns and a rifle--stored at my parents' house, so the kiddos can't get them. They are 6 and 2. Does that sound like a "crazy pro-gun nutcase" to you?
I've offered rational arguments, and you've been busy insulting folks...calling them crazy, insinuating they're deranged, and more.
So tell me, O wise one...what exactly is my "true mind set?"
I await.
tinytim said:
There's nothing classier than insulting a bunch of people and signing off. THere is no way this woman went from "neutral" on gun legislation/control stuff to "Rosie O'Donnell" in 3 days. She went from "I'm not sure how I feel," to "Anyone who owns a gun is crazy!" and the almost Klan-like scenarios she insinuated. I'm sorry...no one makes that jump, that quickly.
Amity had an agenda all along, but she wasn't honest enough to admit that up front.
Hope of Glory
New Member
amity said:
So, do you make it a habit to lie?
Or is this just a special occasion for you to try to justify your anti-Constitutional feelings?
Hope of Glory
New Member
amity said:
And, how was that changed?
amity said:
First of all, I flat out stated that as a right, I don't need a good reason. If I just want to have it, if I'm not a criminal, I should have, and do have that right.
However, I see a need for it. I use that one for self protection. I have more than one for hunting, depending upon what I am hunting.
You also are a liar. I challenge you to show me where I said that I would manufacture one for the sheer joy of owning it.
Of course, I don't expect you to even try, as most liars hope that no one inspects their words very closely.
amity said:
Interesting how well you think you know me.
But, you are correct: That does not make me a militia. Only a member. It takes more than one to make a militia.
amity said:
If I were so looking forward to it, don't ya think I would have done it when I had the chance to legally do so?
amity said:
Care to back up these wild assertions? (I know they're baseless, but at least make the effort to find some statistics.)
Hope of Glory
New Member
OK, guys, I will give her the benefit of the doubt. I have encountered people before who are emotional instead of logical, and they will often swing from one extreme to the other.
We have a judge locally who was soft on crime until he went to a convention in NYC and was mugged. He went to the police station, was basically tols, "So what?"
He came home and went from a liberal, soft-on-crime judge to the "hanging judge".
Same way with guns. I've known rabid anti-gunners who were robbed, who turned into gun enthusiasts instantly.
But, those who blame the tool instead of the user, will swing the other way just and be as rabid as they come.
It comes from perception.
Guns are perceived as dangerous because the crimes committed with them are spectacular and are played out on the front of every newspaper and on all the news stations. Knives and blunt objects, which are orders of magnitude more dangerous aren't as spectacular and aren't the targets of the liberals. (Besides, it's hard to protect yourself from tyranny with a Louisville Slugger.)
Airplanes and nuclear power are also unjust victims of the emotional perception syndrome. They're perceived to be dangerous by those who feel instead of think because when there's an accident, it's spectacular! Never mind that flying in an airplane is statistically safer than walking, and all the nuclear accidents in the world have resulted in a tiny handful of deaths, while emphysema from coal fired plants claim many lives annually.
My cousin is that way. When the WTC came down, she refused to do anything for days and days, and blamed the US for it for being so prosperous and not sharing it all. (She's also a socialist, but that's beside the point.)
We have a judge locally who was soft on crime until he went to a convention in NYC and was mugged. He went to the police station, was basically tols, "So what?"
He came home and went from a liberal, soft-on-crime judge to the "hanging judge".
Same way with guns. I've known rabid anti-gunners who were robbed, who turned into gun enthusiasts instantly.
But, those who blame the tool instead of the user, will swing the other way just and be as rabid as they come.
It comes from perception.
Guns are perceived as dangerous because the crimes committed with them are spectacular and are played out on the front of every newspaper and on all the news stations. Knives and blunt objects, which are orders of magnitude more dangerous aren't as spectacular and aren't the targets of the liberals. (Besides, it's hard to protect yourself from tyranny with a Louisville Slugger.)
Airplanes and nuclear power are also unjust victims of the emotional perception syndrome. They're perceived to be dangerous by those who feel instead of think because when there's an accident, it's spectacular! Never mind that flying in an airplane is statistically safer than walking, and all the nuclear accidents in the world have resulted in a tiny handful of deaths, while emphysema from coal fired plants claim many lives annually.
My cousin is that way. When the WTC came down, she refused to do anything for days and days, and blamed the US for it for being so prosperous and not sharing it all. (She's also a socialist, but that's beside the point.)
Amity said:
Can happen, really, but mostly if the people handling the firearm does not have the proper amount of respect for it.
Handling firearms often can cause one to develop "contempt" for it because of the familiarity that develops.
I almost capped myself back in the 60's because I was so used to removing the load from the chamber and then dry firing the pistol pointed either upwards or downwards and didn't pay attention to my uncle who told me to always check the chamber twice, and then blow on the muzzle and see if the thing "whistles" before dry firing.
The gun went off, and I felt the slug go whizzing past my right kneecap.
That was the first and only instance.
Since then, I handled every gun I had with respect.
And I do not think banning gun ownership is the answer simply because one nutcase used a gun on 32 innocent people, otherwise we ought to ban driving because there is more than one nutcase out there who drinks and drives and kills people.
I think there is more truth to what some of VA Tech's students said, that if there were armed guards patrolling the campus, and armed faculty, and armed students, nutcases like Cho will think a lot more than twice.
I use the word nutcase, but Cho isn't a nutcase. He knew what he wanted to do, he planned what he was going to do, and he executed his plan.
- Status