JOHN KERRY CLAIMS ARMS TRADE TREATY WILL NOT “DIMINISH FREEDOM”

Again, this is a thread on 2nd Amendment rights. You brought automobile deaths into the discussion and I don't think is is an applicable comparison. I was simply responding to a post on one person's opinion that there should be no gun control or minimal gun control. I disagree and point out how many homicides by handgun we have in the U.S., far more per capita than any similar country and yet we have far more guns per capita.

Your last sentence presents the problem we have IMHO. Handgun homicides in the U.S. are ridiculously high. Agree or disagree? So what can be done to reduce that number? The simple answers are more gun control or more guns on the street, depending on which side of the fence you sit. To me neither will work. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

speedy are you a gun control advocate? ___yes ___no

speedy are you a gun control advocate? ___yes ___no Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Definitely YES, depending on your definition of "gun control advocate". I don't think 5-year olds should be allowed to carry handguns. I think I have the right to ban guns from my home and other establishments have the right to ban handguns from their premises. I think that people who wish to carry handguns in public should know the laws pertaining to when they can be used and show a minimum knowledge of how to use the handgun without injuring themselves or others.

That's pretty much the basics. It's up to you to decide whether or not that makes me a gun control advocate. I believe my basic gun control beliefs are pretty much in line with the majority of Americans.

I still believe in stronger car control, after all cars kill too !

Definitely YES, depending on your definition of "gun control advocate". I don't think 5-year olds should be allowed to carry handguns. I think I have the right to ban guns from my home and other establishments have the right to ban handguns from their premises. I think that people who wish to carry handguns in public should know the laws pertaining to when they can be used and show a minimum knowledge of how to use the handgun without injuring themselves or others.

That's pretty much the basics. It's up to you to decide whether or not that makes me a gun control advocate. I believe my basic gun control beliefs are pretty much in line with the majority of Americans. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

OK, here are the seven types of "gun control advocates".




http://jpfo.org / filegen-a-m / jp_seven.htm

The Seven Varieties of Gun Control Advocate

Share/Bookmark

by
By Gus Cotey, Jr.

A Publication of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
"Intellectual Ammunition to Destroy Gun Control"



The right of decent private citizens to personally possess, transport, and responsibly use arms without government interference is the ultimate freedom and the main pillar supporting all other liberties. Few cultures have allowed their general population access to weapons, the tools of power, to the same degree as the United States. Instead, most societies have restricted the keeping and bearing of arms to a select few power brokers and their agents, often resulting in oppression on a grand scale.
Despite a massive amount of historical evidence to the contrary, there is a substantial body of Americans, many occupying positions of influence, who contend that the abrogation of the Second Amendment is the quickest path to domestic tranquility. Since this is as absurd as advocating blood-letting as a cure for anemia, it would seem advisable to question the motives and mentalities of the gun control advocates themselves.
In my observation, weapon prohibitionists can be broken down into seven major categories. Even though their motives may vary they all pose a mortal threat to liberty.



ELITISTS
Many of those in favor of oppressive firearms legislation are are best classed as elitists. Elitists frequently identify with a peer group based on wealth, power, rank, social status, occupation, education, ethnic group, etc. and perceive themselves and their peers as inherently superior to and more responsible than the "common people", thus more deserving of certain rights. Since elitists practically consider those outside their class or caste as members of another species, that most anti-elitist list of laws, the Bill of Rights is viewed by them as anathema. Naturally, the Second Amendment is their first target as it serves as the supporting structure for other nine amendments.



AUTHORITARIANS
Another type of individual who favors the restriction of private gun ownership is the authoritarian. Authoritarian personalities are characterized by their belief in unquestioning obedience to an authority figure or group and a disdain for individual freedom of action, expression, and judgement. Those with authoritarian personalities function well in symbiosis with elitists occupying positions of power. Because authoritarians repress their desires for autonomy they harbor a deep resentment toward free and independent thinkers. Of course authoritarians do not want firearms in the hands of the general population as this constitutes a major obstacle to fulfilling their pathological and obsessive desire to control people.



CRIMINALS
It goes without saying that career criminals would like to see the public disarmed for obvious reasons. A well-armed population makes crimes such as assault, robbery, and burglary hazardous for the perpetrator and this is bad for "business." Also, it would seem that even non-violent or "white collar" criminals live in constant fear of retribution from the public that they financially bleed and would therefore prefer that the public be disarmed. Evidence supporting this hypothesis can be gathered by studying the Second Amendment voting records of those legislators who have been convicted of willful misconduct.



THE FEARFUL
Cowards by definition are easily or excessively frightened by things and situations that are recognized as dangerous, difficult, or painful. It therefore stands to reason that the mere thought of guns and the circumstances in which they are employed causes them abnormal amounts of stress. Rather than admit their weakness to themselves or others, some fearful types jump on the anti-gun bandwagon and purport moral superiority to those "barbaric"enough to employ lethal force against armed assailants by claiming various humanitarian and pragmatic motives for allowing evil to remain unchecked. In reality, many of these individuals harbor an envy induced resentment toward anyone with the means, skill, and will to successfully stand up to criminal aggression.
The desire to assert oneself exists in nearly everyone, wimps included, so cowards seek out tame enemies against whom they can ply their pitiful brand of machismo. Instead of the sociopaths who commit acts of wanton aggression with guns, guns themselves and responsible gun owners are the main targets of their attacks. After all, real criminals are dangerous, so cowards prefer doing battle with inanimate objects that do not have a will of their own and decent law-abiding people whose high level of integrity and self discipline prevent them from physically lashing out against mere verbal assailants, however obnoxious they may be.



IDEOLOGICAL CHAMELEONS
Ideological chameleons follow the simple social strategy of avoiding controversy and confrontation by espousing the beliefs of the people in their immediate vicinity or advocating the philosophy of those who scream the loudest in a debate. Quite a few supposedly pro Second Amendment public officials have shown themselves to be ideological chameleons when they supported restrictions on the private possession of military style semiautomatic rifles following recent atrocities in which such firearms were employed. Like their reptilian namesake, people who merely blend in with the ambient philosophical foliage seem to have little insight into the moral and social ramifications of their actions. Political and/or economic gain along with avoidance of confrontation are their only goals.



SECURITY MONOPOLISTS
Security monopolists are those members and representatives of public and private security providing concerns who want the means of self protection out of private hands so that they can command high fees for protecting the citizenry against the rising tide of crime. These profiteers stand to loose a great deal of capital if citizens can efficiently defend themselves. To the security monopolist, each criminal who enters and exits the revolving door of justice is a renewable source of revenue providing jobs for police, social workers, victim counsellors, judges, prison employees, security guards, burglar alarm installers, locksmiths, and others employed by the security monopolies or their satellite organizations. No wonder it is so common for an honest citizen to be more ruthlessly hounded by the authorities when he shoots a criminal in self defense than a criminal who shoots honest citizens.



THE DYSFUNCTIONALLY UNWORLDLY
Just as a limb will weaken and atrophy if not used, so will aspects of the mind fail to develop if nothing in one’s environment exists to challenge them. People who have led excessively sheltered lives tend to have a difficult time understanding certain cause and effect relationships and an even harder time appreciating just how cruel the world can be. These dysfunctionally unworldly types are truly perplexed at the very notion of firearms ownership with regard to defense. To them, tyranny and crime are things that happen in other places far removed from their "civilized" universe. Also, they do not understand the value of private property and why some people would fight for theirs since they never had to work hard to acquire what they possess. While those suffering from dysfunctional unworldliness are most often people who have been born into considerable wealth, this condition is also common in members of the clergy, academicians, practioners of the arts, and others who have spent much of their lives cloistered in a safe and pampering environment. While many of these people may be quite talented and intelligent in some ways, their extreme naivety makes them easy prey for the tyrants who use them for the financial support and favorable advertisement of their regimes. Needless to say, the anti-gun movement is well represented and financed by the dysfunctionally unworldly.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and it behooves all vigilant lovers of liberty to know and be able to recognize the various types of arms prohibitionists and understand their differing but equally dangerous motives. Acquiring knowledge of one’s foes is the first step toward defeating them. We must never forget that a threat to private firearms ownership is a threat to all freedoms.

The inalienable and fundamental right to keep and bear arms which is enumerated by (but actually predates) the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not about hunting, gun collecting, or target shooting. Its purpose is to insure that every responsible American personally possesses the means to defend the Republic from all forms of tyranny, within and without. It is what permits the other nine Amendments in the Bill of Rights to be more than mere hollow phrases on a piece of paper. Its free exercise is the antithesis of serfdom and the only meaningful form of holocaust insurance known to man.

We must never insult and degrade the spirits of our Founding Fathers by permitting the Second Amendment, the pillar of freedom, to be destroyed by the cold flame of legislative ink.

"Here are the seven kinds of 'gun control advocates,'" he says, not having read a word of the cut and paste article from that large and growing organization of Jewish people for guns!

You never read what you post. Just as long as you get to blast some Ozombies along the way. Read the story you posted, moron.

You are the one poster who is true to his stated purpose here on ECCIE. Pity you're such a drooling moron, Simple Jack!

Oh yeah, and what the fuck does this have to do with Kerry's treaty, SLOBBRIN?

"Here are the seven kinds of 'gun control advocates,'" he says, not having read a word of the cut and paste article from that large and growing organization of Jewish people for guns!

You never read what you post. Just as long as you get to blast some Ozombies along the way. Read the story you posted, moron.

You are the one poster who is true to his stated purpose here on ECCIE. Pity you're such a drooling moron, Simple Jack!

Oh yeah, and what the fuck does this have to do with Kerry's treaty, SLOBBRIN?
Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

You are just pissed because I pointed out that 10-15 percent of the Jews are right minded... Keep eating SHIT or watch. I really don't care... Shit Eater

I still believe in stronger car control, after all cars kill too ! Originally Posted by rioseco

Great. what stronger car control legislation are you proposing?

As said before, almost all deaths caused by cars are ACCIDENTS. Most deaths caused by handguns are NOT accidental.

OK, here are the seven types of "gun control advocates".




http://jpfo.org / filegen-a-m / jp_seven.htm

The Seven Varieties of Gun Control Advocate

Share/Bookmark

by
By Gus Cotey, Jr.

A Publication of Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership
"Intellectual Ammunition to Destroy Gun Control"



The right of decent private citizens to personally possess, transport, and responsibly use arms without government interference is the ultimate freedom and the main pillar supporting all other liberties. Few cultures have allowed their general population access to weapons, the tools of power, to the same degree as the United States. Instead, most societies have restricted the keeping and bearing of arms to a select few power brokers and their agents, often resulting in oppression on a grand scale.
Despite a massive amount of historical evidence to the contrary, there is a substantial body of Americans, many occupying positions of influence, who contend that the abrogation of the Second Amendment is the quickest path to domestic tranquility. Since this is as absurd as advocating blood-letting as a cure for anemia, it would seem advisable to question the motives and mentalities of the gun control advocates themselves.
In my observation, weapon prohibitionists can be broken down into seven major categories. Even though their motives may vary they all pose a mortal threat to liberty.



ELITISTS
Many of those in favor of oppressive firearms legislation are are best classed as elitists. Elitists frequently identify with a peer group based on wealth, power, rank, social status, occupation, education, ethnic group, etc. and perceive themselves and their peers as inherently superior to and more responsible than the "common people", thus more deserving of certain rights. Since elitists practically consider those outside their class or caste as members of another species, that most anti-elitist list of laws, the Bill of Rights is viewed by them as anathema. Naturally, the Second Amendment is their first target as it serves as the supporting structure for other nine amendments.



AUTHORITARIANS
Another type of individual who favors the restriction of private gun ownership is the authoritarian. Authoritarian personalities are characterized by their belief in unquestioning obedience to an authority figure or group and a disdain for individual freedom of action, expression, and judgement. Those with authoritarian personalities function well in symbiosis with elitists occupying positions of power. Because authoritarians repress their desires for autonomy they harbor a deep resentment toward free and independent thinkers. Of course authoritarians do not want firearms in the hands of the general population as this constitutes a major obstacle to fulfilling their pathological and obsessive desire to control people.



CRIMINALS
It goes without saying that career criminals would like to see the public disarmed for obvious reasons. A well-armed population makes crimes such as assault, robbery, and burglary hazardous for the perpetrator and this is bad for "business." Also, it would seem that even non-violent or "white collar" criminals live in constant fear of retribution from the public that they financially bleed and would therefore prefer that the public be disarmed. Evidence supporting this hypothesis can be gathered by studying the Second Amendment voting records of those legislators who have been convicted of willful misconduct.



THE FEARFUL
Cowards by definition are easily or excessively frightened by things and situations that are recognized as dangerous, difficult, or painful. It therefore stands to reason that the mere thought of guns and the circumstances in which they are employed causes them abnormal amounts of stress. Rather than admit their weakness to themselves or others, some fearful types jump on the anti-gun bandwagon and purport moral superiority to those "barbaric"enough to employ lethal force against armed assailants by claiming various humanitarian and pragmatic motives for allowing evil to remain unchecked. In reality, many of these individuals harbor an envy induced resentment toward anyone with the means, skill, and will to successfully stand up to criminal aggression.
The desire to assert oneself exists in nearly everyone, wimps included, so cowards seek out tame enemies against whom they can ply their pitiful brand of machismo. Instead of the sociopaths who commit acts of wanton aggression with guns, guns themselves and responsible gun owners are the main targets of their attacks. After all, real criminals are dangerous, so cowards prefer doing battle with inanimate objects that do not have a will of their own and decent law-abiding people whose high level of integrity and self discipline prevent them from physically lashing out against mere verbal assailants, however obnoxious they may be.



IDEOLOGICAL CHAMELEONS
Ideological chameleons follow the simple social strategy of avoiding controversy and confrontation by espousing the beliefs of the people in their immediate vicinity or advocating the philosophy of those who scream the loudest in a debate. Quite a few supposedly pro Second Amendment public officials have shown themselves to be ideological chameleons when they supported restrictions on the private possession of military style semiautomatic rifles following recent atrocities in which such firearms were employed. Like their reptilian namesake, people who merely blend in with the ambient philosophical foliage seem to have little insight into the moral and social ramifications of their actions. Political and/or economic gain along with avoidance of confrontation are their only goals.



SECURITY MONOPOLISTS
Security monopolists are those members and representatives of public and private security providing concerns who want the means of self protection out of private hands so that they can command high fees for protecting the citizenry against the rising tide of crime. These profiteers stand to loose a great deal of capital if citizens can efficiently defend themselves. To the security monopolist, each criminal who enters and exits the revolving door of justice is a renewable source of revenue providing jobs for police, social workers, victim counsellors, judges, prison employees, security guards, burglar alarm installers, locksmiths, and others employed by the security monopolies or their satellite organizations. No wonder it is so common for an honest citizen to be more ruthlessly hounded by the authorities when he shoots a criminal in self defense than a criminal who shoots honest citizens.



THE DYSFUNCTIONALLY UNWORLDLY
Just as a limb will weaken and atrophy if not used, so will aspects of the mind fail to develop if nothing in one’s environment exists to challenge them. People who have led excessively sheltered lives tend to have a difficult time understanding certain cause and effect relationships and an even harder time appreciating just how cruel the world can be. These dysfunctionally unworldly types are truly perplexed at the very notion of firearms ownership with regard to defense. To them, tyranny and crime are things that happen in other places far removed from their "civilized" universe. Also, they do not understand the value of private property and why some people would fight for theirs since they never had to work hard to acquire what they possess. While those suffering from dysfunctional unworldliness are most often people who have been born into considerable wealth, this condition is also common in members of the clergy, academicians, practioners of the arts, and others who have spent much of their lives cloistered in a safe and pampering environment. While many of these people may be quite talented and intelligent in some ways, their extreme naivety makes them easy prey for the tyrants who use them for the financial support and favorable advertisement of their regimes. Needless to say, the anti-gun movement is well represented and financed by the dysfunctionally unworldly.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance, and it behooves all vigilant lovers of liberty to know and be able to recognize the various types of arms prohibitionists and understand their differing but equally dangerous motives. Acquiring knowledge of one’s foes is the first step toward defeating them. We must never forget that a threat to private firearms ownership is a threat to all freedoms.

The inalienable and fundamental right to keep and bear arms which is enumerated by (but actually predates) the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is not about hunting, gun collecting, or target shooting. Its purpose is to insure that every responsible American personally possesses the means to defend the Republic from all forms of tyranny, within and without. It is what permits the other nine Amendments in the Bill of Rights to be more than mere hollow phrases on a piece of paper. Its free exercise is the antithesis of serfdom and the only meaningful form of holocaust insurance known to man.

We must never insult and degrade the spirits of our Founding Fathers by permitting the Second Amendment, the pillar of freedom, to be destroyed by the cold flame of legislative ink.



Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

That is one person's viewpoint on the subject, which I find is hardly all-encompassing. Probably a pro-gun activist who deems anyone who wants any gun control at all to be the reincarnation of the Devil.

Is there something wrong with limiting gun ownership to people who are at an age when they can, for the most part, make educated decisions in using a handgun?

Is there something wrong with allowing individuals to not allow handguns or other similar weapons in their homes/establishments, for whatever reason? If you feel unsafe by not being allowed to carry your weapon into such homes/establishments, you are free to stay out. Just as I am free to stay out of those homes/establishments where handguns are present.

Is there something wrong with wanting people who carry handguns into public areas to have shown a minimum level of competency with the weapon and know when they are legally allowed to use it and when they can't use it?

That is one person's viewpoint on the subject, which I find is hardly all-encompassing. Probably a pro-gun activist who deems anyone who wants any gun control at all to be the reincarnation of the Devil.

Is there something wrong with limiting gun ownership to people who are at an age when they can, for the most part, make educated decisions in using a handgun?

Is there something wrong with allowing individuals to not allow handguns or other similar weapons in their homes/establishments, for whatever reason? If you feel unsafe by not being allowed to carry your weapon into such homes/establishments, you are free to stay out. Just as I am free to stay out of those homes/establishments where handguns are present.

Is there something wrong with wanting people who carry handguns into public areas to have shown a minimum level of competency with the weapon and know when they are legally allowed to use it and when they can't use it? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Here is a conceal carry map that could help you out with your questions... http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_ca...formation.html

That is one person's viewpoint on the subject, which I find is hardly all-encompassing. Probably a pro-gun activist who deems anyone who wants any gun control at all to be the reincarnation of the Devil.

Is there something wrong with limiting gun ownership to people who are at an age when they can, for the most part, make educated decisions in using a handgun?

Is there something wrong with allowing individuals to not allow handguns or other similar weapons in their homes/establishments, for whatever reason? If you feel unsafe by not being allowed to carry your weapon into such homes/establishments, you are free to stay out. Just as I am free to stay out of those homes/establishments where handguns are present.

Is there something wrong with wanting people who carry handguns into public areas to have shown a minimum level of competency with the weapon and know when they are legally allowed to use it and when they can't use it? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

CHL Texas... http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RSD/CHL...CHLStatute.pdf

Here is a conceal carry map that could help you out with your questions... http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_ca...formation.html Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Really does not help that much. A "Shall-issue"state such as Texas still requires a number of hours in the classroom with a test at the end and then a competency test at a firing range. Some "Shall-issue" states such as Wyoming require nothing.

All my questions remain unanswered by the website. I know for Texas you can't carry a handgun into a home or establishment that has the required sign stating it is unlawful to do so.

And the questions were addressed to YOU. I wasn't asking what was legal or illegal in a state. I wanted YOUR opinion as to whether or not there should be age requirements for carrying a handgun, whether ANY home/establishment should have the right to ban handguns, and whether or not a person should show a minimum level of competence and law knowledge before being allowed to carry a concealed handgun.

Really does not help that much. A "Shall-issue"state such as Texas still requires a number of hours in the classroom with a test at the end and then a competency test at a firing range. Some "Shall-issue" states such as Wyoming require nothing.

All my questions remain unanswered by the website. I know for Texas you can't carry a handgun into a home or establishment that has the required sign stating it is unlawful to do so.

And the questions were addressed to YOU. I wasn't asking what was legal or illegal in a state. I wanted YOUR opinion as to whether or not there should be age requirements for carrying a handgun, whether ANY home/establishment should have the right to ban handguns, and whether or not a person should show a minimum level of competence and law knowledge before being allowed to carry a concealed handgun. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

All you need to know about me is... that I am not a "Domestic Enemy of the Constitution".

All you need to know about me is... that I am not a "Domestic Enemy of the Constitution". Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

That's rather evasive. Seems like I answered your questions with total honesty and you do not extend the same courtesy to me. That's okay by me. Does not show much integrity on your part though.

Do you consider Supreme Court Justices "Domestic Enemies of the Constitution" when they support gun control laws?

That's rather evasive. Seems like I answered your questions with total honesty and you do not extend the same courtesy to me. That's okay by me. Does not show much integrity on your part though.

Do you consider Supreme Court Justices "Domestic Enemies of the Constitution" when they support gun control laws? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Great. what stronger car control legislation are you proposing?

As said before, almost all deaths caused by cars are ACCIDENTS. Most deaths caused by handguns are NOT accidental. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

A gun is an instrument or tool
A car is a instrument or tool.
Both can and have killed. Dead is dead, no matter how you slice it.