|Mess Hall Online Sportsbook Discussion|
| ||LinkBack||Thread Tools|
I'll Never Understand the U.S. Fascination with Guns
KANSAS CITY, Missouri (Reuters) - A Missouri car dealer said on Thursday sales have soared at his auto and truck business since launching a promotion this week that promises buyers a free handgun or a $250 gas card with every purchase.
Max Motors, a small Butler, Missouri dealership that has as its logo a grimacing cowboy wielding a pistol, has sold more than 30 cars and trucks in the last three days, far more than its normal volume. And owner Mark Muller credits his decision to start offering buyers their choice of a $250 gas card or a $250 credit at a gun shop.
"This thing has taken off. Sales have quadrupled," said Muller. The store sells both used and new vehicles including General Motors and Ford products.
Every buyer so far "except one guy from Canada and one old guy" has elected to take the gun, Muller said. Muller recommends his customers select a Kel-Tec .380 pistol.
"It's a nice little handgun that fits in your pocket," he said.
Muller said the promotion was inspired by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who is vying with Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic nominee for the presidential election in November.
"We did it because of Barack Obama. He said all those people in the Midwest, you've got to have compassion for them because they're clinging to their guns and their Bibles. I found that quite offensive."
"We all go to church on Sunday and we all carry guns," said Muller. "I've got a gun in my pocket right now. I have a rifle in my truck. We've got to shoot the coyotes out here, they're attacking our cows, our chickens. We're not clinging to nothing. We're just damn glad to live in a free country where you can have a gun if you want. This is the way it ought to be."
Hartley, its about freedom and rights more than anything. Many people believe the day the gov't. takes your guns away is the day that they will have total control of the people. People do not trust the government and feel that one day, there may be a stand that is necessary because people do not like the government telling them how to live their lives. One example of this is affirmative action. People are sick and tired of having shit shoved down their throat from the government. The government creates laws to protect the criminals. The innocent people's hands are tied and so is law enforcement.
By the way, I wish I could shoot and kill those motherfuckers that sit at red lights with their fucken bass playing. This offense is called disturbing the peace and it is never enforced. So, if Marvin Harrison shot that mofo for playing his bass at the car wash, kudos to him!
Many people believe the day the gov't. takes your guns away is the day that they will have total control of the people
Well it looks like they're getting close even with people able to keep their guns. Canada, the UK, Australia to name just a few are very democratic and each of those countries has gun control laws.
I just find it amazing that the right to carry guns is embedded in your constitution while more obvious rights aren't.
Here's the Text to Part I of Canada's constitution.
CANADIAN CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law:
Guarantee of Rights and Freedoms
Rights and freedoms in Canada 1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Fundamental freedoms 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.
Democratic rights of citizens
3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.
Maximum duration of legislative bodies
4. (1) No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs of a general election of its members. (80)
Continuation in special circumstances
(2) In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Commons may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the House of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be. (81)
Annual sitting of legislative bodies 5. There shall be a sitting of Parliament and of each legislature at least once every twelve months. (82)
Mobility of citizens 6. (1) Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada.
Rights to move and gain livelihood (2) Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right
(a) to move to and take up residence in any province; and
(b) to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province.
Limitation (3) The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to
(a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; and
(b) any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services.
Affirmative action programs (4) Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration in a province of conditions of individuals in that province who are socially or economically disadvantaged if the rate of employment in that province is below the rate of employment in Canada.
Life, liberty and security of person 7. Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Search or seizure 8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
Detention or imprisonment 9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.
Arrest or detention 10. Everyone has the right on arrest or detention
(a) to be informed promptly of the reasons therefor;
(b) to retain and instruct counsel without delay and to be informed of that right; and
(c) to have the validity of the detention determined by way of habeas corpus and to be released if the detention is not lawful.
Proceedings in criminal and penal matters 11. Any person charged with an offence has the right
(a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;
(b) to be tried within a reasonable time;
(c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;
(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;
(e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause;
(f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;
(g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations;
(h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; and
(i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment.
Treatment or punishment 12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
Self-crimination 13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.
Interpreter 14. A party or witness in any proceedings who does not understand or speak the language in which the proceedings are conducted or who is deaf has the right to the assistance of an interpreter.
Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law 15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Affirmative action programs (2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. (83)
Hartley, I believe that criminals commit crimes based on the knowledge of potential punishment they may face, while others believe criminals commit crimes spontaneously and not realizing the possible consequences. I believe most crimes in our society are pre-meditated based on risk/reward vs. punishment. What do you think Hartley?
Hartley, I think you will find this funny but its true. I have 2 friends, that are lawyers, who have ranches outside the city. They both have guns with ammo buried at strategic points on the ranch along with gold and silver in other areas of the property. They really believe there will be a market crash and total chaos one day with riots in major cities and everyone fending for themselves. They believe the survivors will make it out to the countryside where they will intrude on the people of the ranches for food, etc. They are both totally prepared for this "survival of the fittest" day and really believe that it is going to happen in our lifetime. Do you think this could be reality or is this just being paranoid?
I believe most crimes in our society are pre-meditated based on risk/reward vs. punishment. What do you think Hartley?
Well I'd say almost all crimes that involve property are pre-meditated on risk vs. reward but I'm not sure I understand what that has to do with guns.
I think the biggest difference between the U.S. and most other countries is that in the United States the right to protect property is paramount. In other countries the right to protect property is second to the right to life - even for the criminal. In the United States if someone shoots a burglar taking his tv set he is given a pat on the back. In Canada or Britain if someone shoots a burglar taking his tv set he goes to jail for manslaughter.
Franky Hartley, the simplest way I can think of to explain it to you is this.....
Your inability to understand the necessity of an armed citizenry as a last defense against the tyrannical tendancies of virtually every governement in the history of the world does not mean that the concept is flawed, it only proves your lacking in the mental capacity to understand it.
There is a reason why some men are great, and some men aren't. What is clear to me, is this... That if Hartley was charged with the formation of the a document that would ensure freedom and liberty from tyranny....we'd be fucked.
We have failed as a society with rehabs, etc. Our prisons are full of these people. As a society, we have become too politically correct about everything. There is a simple and inexpensive way to change people and that is give them a good ass kicking!
What 'Right to Bear Arms'?
By DANIEL ABRAMS; DANIEL ABRAMS, A RECENT GRADUATE OF DUKE UNIVERSITY, WILL ATTEND LAW SCHOOL IN THE FALL.
Published: July 20, 1989
LEAD: ''It must be remembered that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right given by the United States Constitution.'' This statement, from a 1973 Federal appeals court case may come as a surprise to many Americans. No right to keep and bear arms? After everything we have heard about the Second Amendment of the United States
''It must be remembered that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right given by the United States Constitution.'' This statement, from a 1973 Federal appeals court case may come as a surprise to many Americans. No right to keep and bear arms? After everything we have heard about the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution?
There is a legal answer to the question of what the Second Amendment means. It is clear, plain and unarguable. In case after case, since the mid- 1800's, people have attempted to defend their right to bear arms by citing the Second Amendment. Time and again, the courts have said one thing - just what the 1973 ruling said. Yet today, amid a national debate over this issue, it seems that many who should know better have either forgotten or are ignoring the law.
Recent advertisements by the National Rifle Association depict bloodied Chinese students and claim that had these students had ''the Second Amendment right'' to bear arms, they might have been able to fight against the tyrannical Government. These ads have once again brought the Second Amendment into the limelight and once again gave the legal community a missed opportunity to correct definitively and publicize widely the N.R.A.'s fallacious interpretation of the Second Amendment.
Recently, I came upon a reference book containing summaries of every single Second Amendment case in American history - and there aren't many of them. The Amendment itself is startingly clear: ''A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.''
The Amendment says nothing about the ''right to bear arms'' outside the context of state militias, and, not surprisingly, every case interprets the Amendment to refer only to the right of the militia to bear arms.
Does the Amendment mean that one has the right to carry a concealed weapon? No, say the courts.
Does the Amendment bar Congressional regulation of the possession of firearms? No, say the courts.
Is there any constitutional right to ''bear an arm for a lawful purpose''? No and no. And is there any Second Amendment right at all of any individual to bear arms? No - again and again -says case history.
The Supreme Court has only once directly addressed the rights granted by the Second Amendment. In a 1938 case, two men defended their right to transport unregistered firearms across state lines by citing their supposed Second Amendment rights. Justice James C. McReynolds wrote, in a unanimous opinion, that the Amendment does not guarantee a right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have ''some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.''
The N.R.A.'s ads have been criticized on a number of grounds. Some have argued that the Framers' sole intention in adopting the Second Amendment was to protect the states from a powerful national government. Others have criticized the ''lunacy'' of the advertisement for comparing oppressed societies to our own. These criticisms are valid, but could be debated; case history and the definitive interpretation of the Amendment by our judges cannot.
I am irritated at the N.R.A.'s recent campaign, but I am more concerned about the lack of public outcry from lawyers and judges over this issue. It is not just that the law is clear in this area. It is so clear that it is simply ridiculous to claim that individuals, outside of a collective militia, have a constitutional right to bear arms.
Legal precedents matter. Or they should. On an issue as publicized as this one, they become much less significant when so few people know that they exist. The N.R.A.'s publicity department should be proud of its success at making an issue where one did not exist. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas wrote in 1971: ''A powerful lobby dins into the ears of our citizenry that these gun purchases are constitutional rights protected by the Second Amendment . . . .'' But, said Justice Douglas, the Second Amendment was simply ''designed to keep alive the militia.''
American lawyers should be ashamed of their inability to transmit this to the public.
''A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.''
"The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state" Article 1 Section 32
State constitutional provision.
In light of current events I'm relieved my state disagrees with the writer of the article.
He can claim whatever he wants but that does not make it accurate.
We must remember who these Americans are - Decendants of persecuted people: Hugenots, Puritans, Irish etc as well as misstreated/starved in their country of origin... No wonder they are paranoid, with ancestry like that. If it is not in their genes - it is in their upbringing...
|Thread||Thread Starter||Forum||Replies||Last Post|
|Young guns||Dirtyfeet||The MW Entertainment Forum||8||05-06-2008 12:50 AM|
|What is this new Fascination with Piss?||Bostongambler||Mess Hall||9||05-05-2004 05:06 PM|
|Girls and more guns than they know what to do with!||kiwi steve||The MW Entertainment Forum||1||03-11-2004 10:05 PM|
|Why Does Everyone Carry Guns In CR???||jjgold||Mess Hall||1||12-21-2003 07:50 PM|