Wednesday, December 01, 2004

Brady Bill

The Brady bill expired not too long ago, so since I know people who were killed by guns I think I have the right to talk about them and the weapons ban.
I'm not saying outlaw guns totally; I just wish people would be rational about it. I know the old saying that if you outlaw guns then only outlaws have guns, and that guns don't kill people, people kill people, but no kids playing on a swing set ever got killed in the crossfire of a drive by stabbing. And of course the people who usually say that tend to be found nailing their sister in a compound with a cache of weapons the size of my balls. But why do they take the 2nd amendment to such an extreme when it actually never says a thing about owning guns, machine guns, tanks, or anything else that can fire 10 rounds per second. The 21st amendment gave us the right to drink alcohol but there are several limits to this right that very few conservatives would object to. Some say that outlawing handguns in Chicago is unconstitutional under the 2nd amendment, well then with that rational outlawing drinking and driving is unconstitutional under the 21st amendment since it repeals an amendment that banned alcohol entirely, and realistically so is outlawing the sale of alcohol on Sundays and the completely dry counties in KY, TN, etc. And by the way what a perfect combination, alcohol, cars and guns, let the good times roll!
For me, I'm willing to live with the common sense law that you shouldn’t operate a car while your drunk, and if I can't drive down the street with a 40oz, then the asshole next to me shouldn't be driving around with an AK-47. I have no problem with guns that have a purpose other than killing people, and are owned by smart responsible people who's favorite show doesn't include the words Jerry Springer or Hee Haw, but that’s what an AK-47 street sweeper is intended to do. Rifles are for deer, shotguns are for rabbits and AK-47s are used to kill people. They are called assault weapons for a reason. And you also have to think about this, if more guns make you safer, then America would be one of the safest places on earth. Forty percent of American households have guns, there are over 30,000 gun deaths in the US a year, of those 30,000, only between 100-200 deaths is a result of self-defense. But, in Canada about 30% of the households have guns and they have a tenth (per-capita or 0.4%) of the gun deaths that we do, so it’s not always the guns. But I would assume in Canada most of the people who have guns live 50 miles away from their nearest neighbor, and in American its probably more like 50 feet, and they have about a tenth of the population and about twice the space.
And as far as the cost of outlawing guns goes, consider this: each illegal shooting costs over 1 million dollars starting with the 911 and police involvement, hospitalization and or funeral for the victim, the prosecution and incarceration of the offender; 80% of those hospital bills are paid by tax payers, as most gun shot victims have no insurance.
To me, I just think that the Right to bear arms is just that, you can have a weapon to defend yourself, and you can have a weapon for sport. The 2nd amendment was written when we didn’t have an effective military, foreign countries wanted to overthrow us, it took 5 minutes to load a single inaccurate bullet /round, and most people lived in rural areas and hunted to survive, or they just liked shooting Indians. Nowhere does it say you have a right to own, tanks, anti-aircraft guns, grenades, M-16s or any other military weapons. And banning military weapons from psychos, gangbangers, criminals and militias doesn’t mean you can't go hunting with the guys anymore. And supporting, or admitting that, doesn’t make you a left wing liberal homo; it just means that you realize there are limits to things such as free speech, limits to the 21st amendment and limits to the 2nd amendment.


Joe Wiess said...

I'm not against banning certain guns from public use. For example. Uzi's, machine guns, assualt rifles, automatic weapons, heavy weapons.

The only thing you need a weapon for is to hunt for food and to defend yourself.

Why does a hunter need an automatic weapon to hunt geese?
An uzi to hunt gophers?
or a bazooka to hunt a deer?

Toad734 said...

They don't, my point exactly.

Anonymous said...

Hey, that's MY point too!

I don't hunt so that's why I hava an UZI and a machine gun and lots of assault rifle thingies. Dang hunters usually have boring guns but mine are fun.

Yeah, that's why I have all those guns. Because they are fun.

"And banning military weapons from psychos, gangbangers, criminals ..." Aren't they already banned from ownership. I'm just sayin'.

Toad734 said...

Most criminals are banned, not gangbangers and psychos.

Toad734 said...

Also, a lot of people would think owning an 11 year old asian boy would be fun too, that doesn't mean they should be able to do it.

Anonymous said...

your boat navy philippine tug blog is great thanks

Anonymous said...

The 2nd amendment is there for one reason only-to keep the "people" as well or better armed than the government. The founding fathers knew that eventually the gov't would exceed their authority (as they have many times over) and that the people would need a means to defend themselves. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with shooting deer or sporting purposes. You say that back then "foreign countries wanted to overthrow us". Do you think that is not the case today?

Using your logic, I can say that back then the 1st amendment protected those who wanted to have intelligent discussion on the gov't. It certainly wasn't meant to protect pornography, movies, violence, and newspapers that promoted alternative lifestyles. Should we now ban those or just show some "reasonable" accomodation. Maybe register if you're Jewish-what's wrong with that? Why would you object? How about homosexuals? Just get a tag to wear-it will help those who mkt to you identify you-why would you object?

Your analogy with alcohol is ridiculous! As a matter of fact, you CAN drink any alcohol you want and there are NO limits on that right (as long as the gov't is able to tax it of course). Outlawing drinking and driving is not the same as outlawing drinking! That you are not allowed to get in a car and drive is like saying "well, you can have an assualt weapon but you can't shoot old ladies for fun." They are both already outlawed.

While we're on the subject of cars-they are MUCH more dangerous than guns. They are designed, produced and marketed to break the law and have virtually NO safety systems. If you like, you can drink a liter of Jack Daniels, strap yourself in a car and go 180 mph into the first minivan you see. Where are the protections against this? If gun manufacturers should have trigger locks, shouldn't car makers install anti drunk locks and cap all vehicles at 65mph? It won't happen and cars are not protected by the constitution. When was the last time you saw a kid mowed down by a drunk driver? Yesterday? The day before?

Your ignorance is amazing, as you equate all gun rights activists with redneck guys banging their sisters & watching Jerry Springer. Why would you ban assault weapons from militias? That is why they are there!!!!!!

You are clearly a little bit light upstairs but if you are such a big proponent of banning guns why don't you put a big sign in front of your house proclaiming it a "gun-free household and proud of it"?

Toad734 said...

RE Brave Anonymous:

I love people who try to give weak rebuttals but never reveal their identity; I guess that so the wont be embarrassed by what they just said. Maybe you should read this post through again because you reading comprehension skills require a lot work.

1. Ok, go ahead and arm yourself and go keep the government in check. Ill roast some marshmallows outside your compound after the ATF burns it down. Anyone who uses the "defend against the government" argument clearly hasn't thought things through. The US government spends 400 billion dollars per year on their military and weaponry and you spend about $400 a year on yours; who do you think is going to win that battle? When you think the government needs to be put in its place by your militia let me know, I will polish my Darwin award and have it ready upon your death.

Yes, other countries (a very few) would like to overthrow us; that is why we have an army. That is why we don't need Jed showing up in his truck with its gun rack and poaching light to defend us. Come to think of it Bush isn't doing all that good of a job either.

Genius, I thought I would let you know that there are bans and restrictions on pornography, movies and news papers; that is my point. If I can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, if I can't print that you had sex with George Bush then you can't have an Abrams tank. It's that simple. All of our constitutional rights have limits. What do homosexuals and Jews have to do with 1st and 2nd amendment rights?

There are plenty of limits on the constitutionally protected product of alcohol. Apparently you have never driven through the south and wondered why you can't buy alcohol at all, or through the Midwest and wondered why you can't buy alcohol on Sundays or why liquor stores aren't allowed to be open 24 hours. And as mentioned driving while under the influence of alcohol is illegal because it is dangerous; the same reason assault rifles are illegal in Chicago.

Yes, statistically cars are more dangerous than guns. Just as ball point pens are statistically more dangerous than pitbulls but no one is banning ball point pens but there are several cities who ban pitbulls. And no, out right bans generally don't work. If you would have read my post I wasn't calling for an out right ban on guns. I was saying that gun nuts tend to take the 2nd amendment, something that never once mentions guns, machine guns, rocket launchers or AK-47s, and act as if it is all or nothing. As I am pointing out, all of our constitutional rights come with limits. Alcohol can only be sold in certain areas, at certain times of the day and you are not allowed to operate machinery or drive while drinking alcohol. Speech is protected under the same constitution that "arms" are protected yet I can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre. Since we have applied common sense to all of the other amendments isn't it time we apply the same logic to the 2nd amendment?

By the way, how many BMWs in NYC do you see that have NRA stickers on them as opposed to how many rusted pick up trucks in small towns down south? If the shoe fits...

Anonymous said...

""I love people who try to give weak rebuttals but never reveal their identity; I guess that so the wont be embarrassed by what they just said.""

Hmmm, I guess my reading comprehension is bad because I couldn't understand what the "f" you wrote here!

Hmmmm, "toad" is not anonymous?

It is clear you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to the 2nd amendment. On one hand you say that 90 million gunowners wouldn't have a chance against the gov't (do you know how many that is?) and then you say Bush & the military are not doing a good job defending us. 90 million gun owners would slaughter any army in the world. Look what 10,000 iraqis are doing to us. Who is "Jed". And if we have an army to defend us from being overthrown-why is it in Iraq? I think the greatest army in the world in 1775 felt that a bunch of farmers with deer rifles wouldn't be able to stand up to them as well.

Idiot, you CAN look at pornography, movies & newspapers-nobody is stopping you-I should be able to have an abrams tank if I can afford one. You can't say I had sex with GW because it's false-not true!

It's clear you want to ban all arms. You want people to be "safe" and "secure". It's not your right to take things away from me.

And again-since you're slow. The fact is you can drink alcohol anytime you want. Because you can't buy it on Sundays or in dry counties doesn't infringe on your right.

Please explain to me why if cars are more dangerous than guns we don't ban cars?!? Or at least force them to conform to the law. And if pens are more dangerous than pitbulls, we don't ban them?

You say we ban assault rifles in chicago because they are "dangerous". Ok do we ban knives? unprotected sex? scooters? McDonalds, eating hotdogs, parachuting, bungee jumping, & bike riding? All of these things are more "dangerous" than guns.

You seem to have a real problem with the difference between yelling fire in a theatre and guns. You can't yell "fire" in a theatre but you can yell it at home, you can say anything else that doesn't hurt anyone and many things that do. Nobody has taken your right to free speech away. I can have any weapon (arms) I want. Because I can't shoot nuns with it doesn't mean my right has been infringed. Take away my "arms"-anything I want-and you have infringed on my right. The equivalent of free speech would be to cut out your tonugue.

I'm not sure what you mean by BMW's in NYC? Maybe you are talking about all of the rich folk there who hire bodygaurds so they don't need protection? Or maybe you are reffering to the drug dealer there who wants his opponents unarmed so that he can rob & kill with no fear of retribution? I would wager that there are a lot more people in NYC banging their sisters than any other city down south.

Finally, I feel sad for you. You are clearly not very bright and you are afraid as well. You know the gov't cannot disarm the criminals but you want to disarm the law-abiding citizens. You know the police cannot protect you but you don't want regular folk to be able to protect themselves.
Your ability to talk about the ATF burning down a house because a person owns a gun is symptomatic of your ilk. We'll see how much you are laughing when they start burning down houses because you spoke out against the government or worshipped at the wrong church.

Anonymous said...

It is not necessary to insult each other to get your points across. It is also not necessary to present skewed statistics to "beef up" your arguments. The simple fact of the matter is that we, as citizens of the United States of America, only have the rights that we are willing to recognize and defend. Those most able to defend their positions(verbally or forcefully) are the ones who determine policy. I'm happy to be squarely on the side of the founding fathers in defense of our second ammendment freedoms. They devoted a lot of time and effort to "idiot proofing" our Constitution. Ideas and movements are kept somewhat in check by the speed at which things get done in this country. And, while it's not as fast as some would like it to be, our system does evolve. After a tremendous amount of research on the subject, I can state with a high degree of certainty that the founding fathers penned the second ammendment to counter the effects of tyranny, not for hunting purposes. It is every persons right to do as they please until those actions infringe on the rights of others. Some people in this country would like to disregard those who fought and died to provide their freedoms. I am not that forgetful, and I will not relinquish those rights or freedoms ever. I hunt. I shoot for fun. I have a concealed weapons license. I would happily give my life in defense of my home, country, or freedom. I do not sleep with my sister or live in a compound. Anyone wishing to sincerely discuss this issue should delete those kinds of idiotic statements from their repertoire, and interject humility and responsibility in their stead.