Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
LuckyInOC
Participantzk, The 2nd Amendment does not cover hunting or sporting rifles. The 2nd Amendment refers to the protection of ones person, family, and property.
Lucky In OC
Participant[quote=squat300]The constitution is not what holds this nation together.[/quote]
I think I will take the word of George Washington, who actually fought to create this country, and other forefathers.
Luck In OC
“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples’ liberty’s teeth.”
George Washington“The Constitution is the guide which I never will abandon.” George Washington
“It will be found an unjust and unwise jealousy to deprive a man of his natural liberty upon the supposition he may abuse it.” George Washington
“It may be laid down as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a Free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defense of it.” George Washington
“Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism.” George Washington
“Over grown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.” George Washington
“When we assumed the Soldier, we did not lay aside the Citizen.” George Washington
Citizen First – Soldier Second“Happiness and moral duty are inseparably connected.” George Washington
“A nation as a society forms a moral person, and every member of it is personally responsible for his society.” Thomas Jefferson
Participant“Some rebel groups are receiving supplies from Gulf states, and Western countries say they are giving non-lethal aid. But many rebels say they have not received anything.”
No…I am sure the gulf states are providing some light military supplies as the article indicates (3000 rounds of ammo per month). I can get that at my local gun shop today…
If the non-lethal aid comes in the form of sugar and fertilizer (ammonia nitrate), I am sure they will use whatever they can.
Lucky In OC
Participant[quote=LuckyInOC][quote=squat300]QUESTION:
to all the people who argue we need guns to protect againsta tyrannical govt.
Don’t the arguments that crazy nutjob killers don’t need guns to kill, and they would kill with other forms of mass death (ricin, fertilizer explosives) equally apply to citizens rising up against the govt?
that is, wont rebelling citizens be just as effective at slaughtering the govt tyrannists with various non-gun weaponry?
if guns didn’t exist, gun enthusiast seem to beli,eve that we won’t be any safer, as killers will turn to equally effective means…and if that were true, then taking away guns shouldn’t affect the ability of the citizenry to revolt.
right?
or are guns absoltuely necessary for the people to overthrow the govt.
the armed masses revolting against the govt frankly sounds kind of unlikely to me.[/quote]
I only have two recent examples to prove you wrong – Egypt and Syria…
If they did not have hand weapons at all, they would not have any chance. A semi-automatic weapon with numbers is good odds. The underdog with inferior weapons and numbers seem to win.
Regardless of the army, it will be always more deadly to fight someone in their own town.
Lucky In OC.[/quote]
“Desperate for weapons, Syrian rebels make their own, fix tanks” ALEPPO PROVINCE, Syria (Reuters) –
http://news.yahoo.com/desperate-weapons-syrian-rebels-own-fix-tanks-153542107.html“Sacks of potassium nitrate and sugar lie nearby. In a neat row against the wall is the finished product, homemade mortars.”
“We’re volunteers, we were workers, we were never soldiers. They’re locally made.”
“We aren’t able to get any weapons from abroad. We have nothing except for the rifle to fight with,” said another man at the workshop.
Our forefathers correctly understood then and now, that personal (fire)arms in the hands of the people will always be the best defense of tyranny. What do you think would happen if you take their firearms away? Will they have more life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness or less?
http://news.yahoo.com/desperate-weapons-syrian-rebels-own-fix-tanks-153542107.html
BTW, I do not own any firearms, but I do respect the right of others who will also protect my personal freedom.
Lucky In OC
Participant[quote=CA renter]How did the Americans save the Swiss from evil?
The Nazis (and many others) avoided Switzerland because of its armed citizenry and superior fighting abilities. They were “neutral,” but it was an *armed* neutrality.[/quote]
I doubt is was superior fighting abilities. Switzerland was surrounded and had no where to run. They had a very good defensive position, Alps. The Germans did plan to attack, but did not due to other priorities. Switzerland provided war supplies to the Germans that would not get bombed by the Americans. The Swiss railways were used by the Germans to move supplies to/from Italy. The Swiss allowed a way to convert gold to usable currency for the Germans.
If Germany war efforts were successful against the Americans and the Allied forces, Switzerland would have been eventually annex or defeated by the Germans.
Lucky in OC
http://switzerland.isyours.com/e/swiss-business-guide/wwii.html
Participant“In 2009, a total of 1,314 children age 14 and younger were killed in motor vehicle traffic crashes. Of those 1,314 fatalities, 181 (14%) occurred in alcohol-impaired driving crashes. Out of those 181 deaths, 92 (51%) were occupants of a vehicle with a driver who had a BAC level of .08 or higher, and another 27 children (15%) were pedestrians or pedalcyclists struck by drivers with a BAC of .08 or higher.”
“181 (14%) occurred in alcohol-impaired driving crashes” This is equivalent to almost 10 Sandy Nook’s every year. Almost one every month.
Over 50% of the children were the occupants. Whether it is guns, cars, or drugs, it comes down to basic responsible behavior. This is taught by parents, not legislated. All we have is a citizenry of immature adults with no training in responsibility.
Lucky in OC.
ParticipantWouldn’t we be better off if we were not collectively heavily drunk?
Based on the current number of deaths caused by alcohol, prohibition of alcohol should also be replaced.
In 2009, 24,518 persons died due directly to alcohol use. This does not include homicides due to vehicle accidents. (1)
Drug induced deaths were 39,147.
All injury by firearms deaths were 31,347.
355 were 14 years and under.Suicide by firearms were 18,735 (included above).
Suicide by other means were 18,174.
Persons under 55 were less likely to use a firearm.All type of homicides were 16,799.
11,493 by firearms (included above).Accidental discharge of firearms were 554 (included above).
Deaths by motor vehicle accidents were 36,216.
1,548 deaths were 14 years old and under.It appears this all comes from the lack of personal responsibility for ones self, ones family, and others. Without this basic understanding, no wonder these statistics will rise.
Lucky In OC
Note:
Alcohol related Vehicle deaths could be listed as Homicides.
Drug related deaths could be listed as suicide.CDC Death statistics 2009:
(1) http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr60/nvsr60_03.pdfParticipant[quote=squat300]So when the revolution comes.
The local cops who live down the street are going to be our enemies. And we are going to kill them with our guns? And the federal troops. Who are on 4 year rotations. We’re going to kill them?
And all this is going to clear away corruption and America will be better after?[/quote]
I trust the most police and national guard will act morally and protect the rights of ‘we, the people’ to which they are sworn to protect. They are the same citizenry that lives among us. They could be shooting their own family members.
Lucky In OC.
Participant[quote=zk][quote=dumbrenter]
As for your position on cultural differences, I hope you realize that it is a very thin argument that can logically be taken to dangerous conclusions: Americans are culturally inferior, hence cannot be trusted with guns while swiss can > to Americans are more violent > to Americans are inferior & violent.[/quote]
“Thin” and “can logically be taken to dangerous conclusions” are two completely different things. You say it’s both and then explain how you think it can be logically taken to dangerous conclusions, but don’t explain why you think it’s thin. I’d be interested to hear why you think that.
As far as “dangerous” conclusions, the most dangerous conclusions are those you reach based on what you want to believe instead of the evidence. If you don’t want to conclude that Americans are more violent than Swiss, and therefore you don’t, that is dangerous. If it is your opinion that “more violent” is “inferior,” then I don’t see how you can escape the conclusion that Americans are inferior to Swiss. In that respect. Because clearly Americans are move violent.[/quote]
I find it very interesting that the non-violent Swiss were neutral in WWII, while the more violent Americans stepped in to save them from evil.
Lucky in OC
Participant[quote=squat300]QUESTION:
to all the people who argue we need guns to protect againsta tyrannical govt.
Don’t the arguments that crazy nutjob killers don’t need guns to kill, and they would kill with other forms of mass death (ricin, fertilizer explosives) equally apply to citizens rising up against the govt?
that is, wont rebelling citizens be just as effective at slaughtering the govt tyrannists with various non-gun weaponry?
if guns didn’t exist, gun enthusiast seem to beli,eve that we won’t be any safer, as killers will turn to equally effective means…and if that were true, then taking away guns shouldn’t affect the ability of the citizenry to revolt.
right?
or are guns absoltuely necessary for the people to overthrow the govt.
the armed masses revolting against the govt frankly sounds kind of unlikely to me.[/quote]
I only have two recent examples to prove you wrong – Egypt and Syria…
If they did not have hand weapons at all, they would not have any chance. A semi-automatic weapon with numbers is good odds. The underdog with inferior weapons and numbers seem to win.
Regardless of the army, it will be always more deadly to fight someone in their own town.
Lucky In OC.
Participant[quote=zk]I think that we should have gun laws like the U.K.’s. I think we could have those and still comply with the second amendment.
I’d like to hear other views.[/quote]
ZK, the same individuals who fought the english with weapons as the same firepower as the english armies wrote the 2nd amendment. The ‘arms’ referred to in the 2nd amendment is for protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, not for sporting or hunting. If england banned weapons in the new world as it currently has, there would not be an United States. Like or not, our country exists because of the end of a gun barrel.
A real example of the need for semi-automatic weapons for the citizens against non-government aggressors would be the 1992 L.A. riots and the Korean shop owners. They protected their stores from hundreds of looters. The local police would not help. They were too busy protecting fire fighters and government buildings.
Who would willing to pay the compensation for the losses of these store owners if they did not have the semi-automatic weapons and shotguns for personal protection, not hunting? I assume you would be the first in line to pay up.
In the time of major emergencies (earthquakes, riots, etc.), one will need to protect, secure, and feed your family for at least 3 days. Even after 3 days, your local police or national guard may not be able to protect you on a hourly basis. If you really needed them, they might be there in hours, not in minutes.
I have always believe one should vote with his/her feet. May be you should live in UK if you would feel safer.
Lucky in OC
ParticipantProgress is made by lazy men looking for easier ways to do thing. — Robert A. Heilein
December 4, 2012 at 12:23 AM in reply to: OT: Lawn care: Do you pay when they don’t show up? #755711Participant[quote=flu]Technology is your friend Ox….
[/quote]Ingenuity is the ‘mother’ of invention…
… laziness is its ‘father’ – meLucky In Oc
November 20, 2012 at 12:52 PM in reply to: I’m thinking of building a house on the back of my OB lot #754994Participant[quote=spdrun]Design the gar(b)age to be able to be surreptitiously converted to living/rental space after the town inspectors are done spooging over the final build. 1085 sf in a place where a lot of people street-park is absurd.[/quote]
1085 sf / 25′ = 43′ / 2 = 21.5′
This is about the size of two 2-car garages.
25′ x 21.5′ each.Probably for the tenants in the two 1085 sf units above. This doesn’t seem obsessive. You could make two 1-car garages for the tenants and one 2-car garage for yourself and convert it to a shop or something else.
Lucky in OC
-
AuthorPosts