Andy Rooneys outlook

[cls12vg30]

Crisis, our Constitution says what it says for several very good reasons, one of which is the belief in the inherent right of an individual to defend himself, his home, and his family against any threat, by the most effective means available, namely a firearm. If someone is breaking into my house, I'll take a gun in the hand over a cop on the phone any day.
The argument that a gun has no other use other than to injure or kill is irrelevent. That's as valid a use as transport, because bad things happen every day and sometimes in order to prevent injury or death to innocents, citizens are forced to inflict injury or death on non-innocents. And they have the inherent right to do so.
Aside from that, I believe that the peoples of the world who have allowed their governments to disarm them are now at the mercy of those governments, and once that happens all it takes is one or two bad apples in positions of power and you've got tyranny. I believe government itself is a necessary evil, to be kept to the absolute minimum possible, and free people must always keep a watchful, wary eye on their government, and never really trust it, if they hope to remain free.

[Misho]

Crisis, our Constitution says what it says for several very good reasons, one of which is the belief in the inherent right of an individual to defend himself, his home, and his family against any threat, by the most effective means available, namely a firearm. If someone is breaking into my house, I'll take a gun in the hand over a cop on the phone any day..

let me use my philosophical brain and try and interpret what you're saying here.

each one has the right to defend himself, his home, his land and all of that. doesnt that mean that any country has the right to do the same ?? shouldnt every government have a valid army to defend the country ?
isnt what u mentioned, exactly the same thing that Iraqis are doing ? they are defending their homes and families using the "most effective means possible" ? then why are they labelled as terrorists ?

Aside from that, I believe that the peoples of the world who have allowed their governments to disarm them are now at the mercy of those governments, and once that happens all it takes is one or two bad apples in positions of power and you've got tyranny. .

how ironic !! isnt that exactly what the US government is doing throughout the world ?!! disarming almost everyone, thus becoming a tyrant with the corrupted people in office.

just read ur post again and think of it on a global governmental scale and not on a local individual case. you will find that i agree with you on many points.
and that ur post is sad but true reflection of what is happening today.



oh boy, i have really raised the bar with this post !!

[cls12vg30]

C'mon now Misho. For your argument to be valid you would have to believe that the insurgents in Iraq believe that the U.S. soldiers intend to rob their houses and kill their families. I think the U.S. forces have gone to great lengths to make it clear that is not their intent. And if they were merely "defending their homes" they would not be setting bombs off at police stations and recruiting centers and killing their own countrymen.

As for the U.S. disarming people I'm not sure who you mean. Certainly people who use weapons to attack United States forces will be disarmed. But I would certainly hope that once an Iraqi government is established, the right of the Iraqi peopls to keep and bear arms would be protected.

[crisis]

Crisis, our Constitution says what it says for several very good reasons, one of which is the belief in the inherent right of an individual to defend himself, his home, and his family against any threat, by the most effective means available, namely a firearm. If someone is breaking into my house, I'll take a gun in the hand over a cop on the phone any day.
The argument that a gun has no other use other than to injure or kill is irrelevent. That's as valid a use as transport, because bad things happen every day and sometimes in order to prevent injury or death to innocents, citizens are forced to inflict injury or death on non-innocents. And they have the inherent right to do so.
Aside from that, I believe that the peoples of the world who have allowed their governments to disarm them are now at the mercy of those governments, and once that happens all it takes is one or two bad apples in positions of power and you've got tyranny. I believe government itself is a necessary evil, to be kept to the absolute minimum possible, and free people must always keep a watchful, wary eye on their government, and never really trust it, if they hope to remain free.

It is pure idealism. As I said, if you are happy for everyone in your society to have lethal firearms, regardless of their mental state or disposition, then not are you entitled to cary them yourself, I suppose you had better.
As far as governments disarming the population in other countries, I will take Australia as an example, we have no reason to take up arms against our government, which as you say are a neccessary evil. If you think that by availing yourself , as a population, to small arms , empowers you in any way to bring lethal force to bare upon your own government to defend your rights, you have got to be joking.

[crisis]

let me use my philosophical brain and try and interpret what you're saying here.

each one has the right to defend himself, his home, his land and all of that. doesnt that mean that any country has the right to do the same ?? shouldnt every government have a valid army to defend the country ?
isnt what u mentioned, exactly the same thing that Iraqis are doing ? they are defending their homes and families using the "most effective means possible" ? then why are they labelled as terrorists ?

The Iraqis who are involved in the current violence are not defending thier homes from the invading US forces. Despite a few bad examples we have seen recently, I imagine the soldiers would be largely keen to see Iraq in a position to rule themselves and thus be able to return home. In any case if the US really wanted to invade the general population the job would already be finished.
The people who are currently fighting with , not only the US, but the Iraqi administration, are those who see an opportunity to force their minority, extremist views on the Iraqi population as a whole. If it were indeed the majority of the Iraqi population who felt this way, the violence would have to be more wide spread.

[megotmea7]

they are defending their homes and families using the "most effective means possible" ? then why are they labelled as terrorists ?

i did not label the iraqi army terrorists, it was a simple matter of war. their side vs. our side. it just so happenes our side is bigger, well equiped, and more capable of winning that war. who are the terrorists are as cls12 said the people who are told to become human bombs walk into the biggest population with the highest number of americans possible and kill as many as possible are. they arnt soldiers nor are they fighting any war, the war is over, they are like spoiled kids that just had their toy taken away and are throwing a tantrem but on a much more serious and deadly level. i do not judge them nor do i have a right to judge them as the same thing probly would happen if any country were invaded by outside forces(including the US) there would be resistance everywhere trying to get their licks in where ever possible, but i dont think americans would resort to killing their own people to get 2 enemy soldiers or killing civilians period...

how ironic !! isnt that exactly what the US government is doing throughout the world ?!! disarming almost everyone, thus becoming a tyrant with the corrupted people in office.

yes i admit that is a bit tyranical but you have to look a it from the american perspective, what better way to protect america and its interests than to disarm any nation that isnt on board with its cause or is a potential threat. any this could be taken together with what crisis was saying, he would rather not have weapons than to worry about someone havng their hands one one with a dangrous mindset or sinister plans, what about a nation with the ability to produce NBC weapons, a history of tyrany and slaughtering their own people, and refusing to submit to inspections? if a police officer tries to search a person who has a violent history and is known to carry a firearm but they resist he's going to take them down no questions asked. yes i know iraq allowed weapons inspection b4 the war but i guess his initial resistance gave the bush administration an itch in their nose and they felt it needed a good scratching, its up to you to decided if what was done was teh right or wrong thing. but that is a topic for another thread and were getting off the matter at hand...

if you are happy for everyone in your society to have lethal firearms, regardless of their mental state or disposition, then not are you entitled to cary them yourself, I suppose you had better

the attainability of firearms in the US isnt as easy as you make it seem. one must submit background checks go thru a waitng period and can only buy one weapon in a certain time period. its the people who have weapons and arnt suposed to that cause the majority of gun related problems. not joe smo with his hunting rifle locked in the closet and his 9mm in the drawer with the trigger lock. were there is a will there is a way no matter the means available to the person. i do belive the comparison to cars is valid, another example: someone who has a performance vehicle and drives it sanely on the street and takes it out for the ocasional track day as oposed to someone who has a performance vehicle and drives on the street like he's a racecar driver "hitting the apexes" at every street light... if driver #2 crashes and happens to take out 2 pedestrians while racing someone just like him does that mean cars should be restricted and modifications banned? should driver #1 be punished for #2's ignorance/stupidity/instability? should driver #1 be looked down apon because he is "part of the problem" simply because he has the same type of vehicel as #2? i mean as you said vehicles were concieved as a means of transportation not all out performance, so should the performance aspect be restricted because some liberal turd doesnt see the point?

anyway nice too see some differing opinions

[crisis]

the attainability of firearms in the US isnt as easy as you make it seem. one must submit background checks go thru a waitng period and can only buy one weapon in a certain time period. its the people who have weapons and arnt suposed to that cause the majority of gun related problems. not joe smo with his hunting rifle locked in the closet and his 9mm in the drawer with the trigger lock.

The Columbine high school massacre was made possible by the encouragement of the perpertrators parents for him to have guns and the availablity of appropriate(!) ammo from KMart. I think a lot of the people who go "postal" have legal firearms. They are just not ideally suited to own them. No amount of vetting can ensure someone will not loose it.
I cant agree with the car analogy. There are neccesary evils that modern society can not do with out. Cars are one of them (did I just say that on a car web site?!). Society could continue perfectly well (utopia style) without firearms. Without automobiles, not only transport wise, but economy wise, think manufacturers, parts, associated industry, simply devastating. Its a worry really.

[megotmea7]

yes but those ppl that go postal can just as easily get behind the wheel and kill just as many people AND their already in their gettaway vehicle and it does happen. and columbine should not be blamed entirly on gun either. the parent encouraged the availability of weapons to the kids. i dont belive you should be able to buy a glock at the paper stand, or pick up a new shotgun while your taking your kid for a soda. weapons should be restricted.. tightly, because of the questionable nature of people. but fearing what someone COULD do with their gun, or knife, or car, or raincoat does not justify removing these items from their posession. do we throw people in jail because they dont like someone and COULD commit a murder, or someone is low on cash so they COULD rob the nearest AmPm?

[Ferrari Tifosi]

The Columbine high school massacre was made possible by the encouragement of the perpertrators parents for him to have guns and the availablity of appropriate(!) ammo from KMart. I think a lot of the people who go "postal" have legal firearms. They are just not ideally suited to own them. No amount of vetting can ensure someone will not loose it.
I cant agree with the car analogy. There are neccesary evils that modern society can not do with out. Cars are one of them (did I just say that on a car web site?!). Society could continue perfectly well (utopia style) without firearms. Without automobiles, not only transport wise, but economy wise, think manufacturers, parts, associated industry, simply devastating. Its a worry really.

Wrong, some 80% of firearm homicides here in the United States are committed by people who obtained their guns illegally (Street Buys or stealing). And not any random guy can obtain a gun here, that's what the Brady laws were made for, to keep guns out of conficts and mentally unstable people's hands.

[crisis]

Wrong, some 80% of firearm homicides here in the United States are committed by people who obtained their guns illegally (Street Buys or stealing). And not any random guy can obtain a gun here, that's what the Brady laws were made for, to keep guns out of conficts and mentally unstable people's hands.

Well they dont seem to be having much success.

[Ferrari Tifosi]

Please offer statistics or some proof to back this statement, please.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Guns are never a good thing to have in the house. i think that if the police were actually doing their job and using the money they get from funding to get off their butts and actually stop crime places like America would be a whole lot safer. In Australia a person being shot is cause for headline news, from what i've heard it's a near everyday occurance in some American towns and cities.

I am not denying your right to freedom of protecting property, but if the governments and police were actually doing their job, you'd have nothing to worry about.........

[Ferrari Tifosi]

True, crime is rampant here in some cities. I used to live in Detroit which has the highest homicide rates in America. However, this cannot be blamed on police officers. They work hard at keeping us safe and in my view they do the best the can possibly do, but population overflow in some cities prevents the police from being there to stop crime all times. And as far as guns in homes doing more harm than good, this is a false statement. Towns and communities that encourage their residents to keep firearms at home, statistics have shown,have reduced crime.

[megotmea7]

its not an everyday occurance, living just east of LA dbatedly one of the most violent citys in america i see more hit and runs, high speed chases, arsons, etc. than shooting. shootings occur mabe 1-2 times a month or less on average.

I am not denying your right to freedom of protecting property, but if the governments and police were actually doing their job, you'd have nothing to worry about

the problem with this is the police cant be everywhere nor can they respond to your call in time if you are able to make it, esp. in the large citys of southern california. they just dont have the funding to have a officer near every neihborhood. if someone breaks into your house shure you call the cops if you can but if you feel your in danger, you have evry right to pull out your gun and stop them, or use lethal or preferably nonlethal force if nessesary(only if their actually in your house, the cop shows up and their a person laying in your yard with a bullet in his back your going to jail nomater what the circumstances). then when the cops show up 5-10 minutes later they can arrest them and "do their job"

[megotmea7]

Towns and communities that encourage their residents to keep firearms at home, statistics have shown,have reduced crime.

understandable, if a criminal knows every house in this neihborhood is likely to have armed occupants they're gonna go somewhere else