Fight the U.N. Gun Ban

hamburger wrote:

now all countries could arm themselves in a way to defend any attacker .
would there be anything wrong with that ?

These nations don't have a right to keep and bear nuclear weapons. That makes their situation different from that of US citizens having automatic rifles.

0 Replies

Re: Fight the U.N. Gun Ban
The Assize of Arms, passed in 1181 AD, and part of the legislative history that led to the Second Amendment:

THE ASSIZE OF ARMS (1181) 1. Whoever possesses one knight's fee shall have a shirt of mail, a helmet, a shield, and a lance; and every knight shall have as many shirts of mail, helmets, shields, and lances as he possesses knight's fees in demesne.[1] 2. Moreover, every free layman who possesses chattels or rents to the value of 16m. shall have a shirt of mail, a helmet, a shield, and a lance; and every free layman possessing chattels or rents to the value of 10m. shall have a hauberk, an iron cap, and a lance.[2] 3. Item, all burgesses and the whole community of freemen shall have [each] a gambeson,[3] an iron cap, and a lance. 4. Besides, each of them shall swear to have these arms before the feast of St. Hilary, to be faithful to the lord king Henry -- namely, the son of the Empress Matilda -- and to bear these arms in his service according to his command and in fealty to the lord king and his kingdom. And henceforth no one having these arms shall sell them or pledge them or lend them or alienate them in any other way; nor shall a lord in any way alienate them from his men, either through forfeiture or through gift or through pledge or in any other way. 5. If any one having these arms dies, his arms shall remain to his heir. If, however, the heir is not of age to use arms in time of need, that person who has wardship over him shall also have custody of the arms and shall find a man who can use the arms in the service of the lord king until the heir is of age to bear arms, and then he shall have them. 6. Any burgess who has more arms than he ought to have by this assize shall sell them, or give them away, or in some way alienate them to such a man as will keep them for the service of the lord king of England. And none of them shall keep more arms than he ought to have by this assize. 7. Item, no Jew shall keep in his possession a shirt of mail or a hauberk, but he shall sell it or give it away or alienate it in some other way, so that it shall remain in the king's service. 8. Item, no one shall carry arms out of England except by the command of the lord king: no one is to sell arms to another to carry out of England; nor shall a merchant or any other man carry them out of England. 9. Item, the justices shall have [a report] sworn by lawful knights, or by other free and lawful men of the hundreds and neighbourhoods and boroughs -- as many as they see fit to employ -- as to what persons possess chattels to the amount that they should have a shirt of mail, a helmet, a lance, and a shield according to what has been provided; so that they shall separately name for those [justices] all men of their hundreds and neighbourhoods and boroughs who are worth 16m. in either chattels or rents, and likewise those who are worth 10m. And then the justices shall have written down [the names of] all those jurors and other men, [recording] how much in chattels or rents they [each] have and what arms, according to the value of the chattels or rents, they should [each] have. Then, in their presence and in a common assembly of those men, they shall have read this assize regarding the possession of arms, and they shall have those men swear to have arms according to the value of the aforesaid chattels or rents, and to keep them for the service of the lord king according to this aforesaid assize, under the command of and in fealty to the lord king Henry and his kingdom. If, moreover, it should happen that any one of them, who ought to have these arms, is not in the county during the period when the justices are in that county, the justices shall set a time for him [to appear] before them in another county. And if he does not come to them in any county through which they are to go, and is not in that land [at all], they shall set him a time at Westminster toward the octave of St. Michael; so that, as he loves his life and all that he has, he shall be there for swearing his oath. And they shall command him, before the aforesaid feast of St. Hilary, to have arms according to the obligation resting on him. 10. Item, the justices shall have proclamation made in the counties through which they are to go that, with respect to those who do not have such arms as have been specified above, the lord king will take vengeance, not merely on their lands or chattels, but on their limbs. 11. Item, no one who does not possess 16m. [as specified above] or 10m. in chattels is to swear concerning free and lawful men. 12. Item, the justices shall command through all the counties that no one, as he loves his life and all that he has, shall buy or sell any ship to be taken away from England, and that no one shall carry any timber or cause it to be carried out of England. And the lord king commands that no one shall be received for the oath concerning arms unless he is a freeman. (Latin) Stubbs, Select Charters, pp. 183 f. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [1] That is to say, as many knights as remain charged against his demesne; cf. no. 36. [2] Presumably less elaborate armour than that required of the other group. [3] A padded surcoat. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LINK

0 Replies

Colonial America had its own gun control laws:
"every...inhabitant of this colony provide for himself and each under him
able to bear arms, a sufficient musket...with [ammunition] and for each default
...forfeit ten shillings." (New Plymouth 1632)

For the sake of safety, in the spirit of today's mandatory seatbelt legislation,
colonial gun control laws prohibited going to work, or to church,
in an unarmed condition. (Virginia 1631) Clergymen checked to make sure
that their congregants were well armed.

These laws were socially paradigmatic as,
since 1512, English boys aged 7 to 17 were required to be armed,
at their fathers' expense, with adapted longbows
(deemed devastating since the 1346 Battle of Crecy;
guns being less accurate, before the invention of rifling)
and "bring them up in shooting". Male adults were required to be armed.
(Statute of Winchester, as amended by King Henry VIII)

0 Replies

The concept of " gun control " is deeply, profoundly, repugnant
to the foundation of Americanism.

It alleges that government was invested
with authority to discriminate as to who can effectively defend his life n property,
and who is supposed to just let predatory criminals, or animals,
kill him, at their option, and within their discretion.

In 1954, the USSC held that the Constitution cannot tolerate
discrimination even for a bad seat on a bus, for a few minutes.
How much more important is it
to be able to rescue your mother or your child
from felonious violence, relative to a few minutes of bad seating on a bus ?

If a man has proven by his violent history that he is dangerous,
that man himself shud be ISOLATED from polite society
( FORGET about his preference in tools ),
either in a secure prison,
or behind 1000s of miles of ocean water
( think like Botany Bay Colony ).
David

0 Replies

Mr David, you are indeed a silly goose.

0 Replies

If u ever need emergency equipment,
I hope that u will have it close at hand.

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID, did you learn to type with your nose? Because I can't see how you can post while wearing one of these...

http://img55.imageshack.us/img55/1729/straightjacketbasix4en.jpg

0 Replies

JustanObserver wrote:

OmSigDAVID, did you learn to type with your nose? Because I can't see how you can post while wearing one of these...

Do either of u believe that some purpose
is served by references to geese or st. jackets ?

Is it that u think I will change my understanding of history,
or of sound reasoning because of such references ?

Maybe u think it has entertainment value.

I take it that neither of u
can effectively address my pro-freedom posts,
but that your innate antagonism to personal freedom
moves u to blindly strike out against it,
since that is the most that u can do;
( i.e., your anti-freedom point of vu
is not supportable ).

David

0 Replies

david wrote :
"I told a lady who was a widow of murders on the LIRR
( who was elected to Congress, as an anti-freedom of self-defense spokesman )
that if I cud,
I 'd reach back in time and put a loaded gun
into her husband 's hands, when he needed it.
My wishes were not well received.
She preferred him to remain unarmed.
David "

david must be convinced that having a loaded gun makes one immune from being killed by some other person .
if that were the case , police-officers wouldn't be killed in the line of duty .
from my limited knowledge , carrying a loaded gun is no assurance of not being killed by someone else .
(just as an aside , how would one defend oneself in a drive-by-shooting ?)
hbg

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

from my limited knowledge , carrying a loaded gun is no assurance of not being killed by someone else .

No assurance, but it sure helps, both by providing a way of taking out an attacker, and if enough people carry, by possibly deterring the attack in the first place.

hamburger wrote:

(just as an aside , how would one defend oneself in a drive-by-shooting ?)

By shooting back.

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Do either of u believe that some purpose
is served by references to geese or st. jackets ?

Yes. The purpose is that I think you may need some sort of psychiatric help.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Is it that u think I will change my understanding of history,
or of sound reasoning because of such references ?

Not in the slightest. If anything, your posts have demonstrated an utter lack of "sound reasoning." It's pretty clear that you have absolutely no desire to look at any argument (no matter how valid) that is less than 100% against restricting gun use. Maybe your not willing to do so. Maybe your not capable. Who knows, who cares.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Maybe u think it has entertainment value.

Oh yes... I find it quite entertaining. Very Happy

OmSigDAVID wrote:

I take it that neither of u can effectively address my pro-freedom posts, but that your innate antagonism to personal freedom moves u to blindly strike out against it, since that is the most that u can do; ( i.e., your anti-freedom point of vu is not supportable ).

Is that what you call your comments? "Pro freedom posts"? Laughing

No dice. Your comments demonstrate a very selective reading of constitutional caselaw and a very selective understanding of the constitution.
I'm just taking a stab in the dark here, but it seems like you frequent gun sites and get your supreme court cases and talking points from them, without the benefit of understanding them in context, or general concepts of constitutional law. Then you go into "replay" mode and just regurgitate it wherever possible. It makes sense, though. If I throw enough crap on the wall, some of it is sure to stick.

That you continually refer to anyone who thinks contrary to as "anti-freedom" further shows what I'm talking about.

On another note, I'm just curious...what's up with the style of your posts? The constant bolding I guess I can understand, but the text box wraps the text for you. It looks like you randomly hit "enter" while you type, and your posts wind up with some sort of new age poetry vibe to them. Seriously, I'm just curious.

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

david wrote :
"I told a lady who was a widow of murders on the LIRR
( who was elected to Congress, as an anti-freedom of self-defense spokesman )
that if I cud,
I 'd reach back in time and put a loaded gun
into her husband 's hands, when he needed it.
My wishes were not well received.
She preferred him to remain unarmed.
David "

david must be convinced that having a loaded gun makes one immune from being killed by some other person .
if that were the case , police-officers wouldn't be killed in the line of duty .
from my limited knowledge , carrying a loaded gun is no assurance of not being killed by someone else .
(just as an aside , how would one defend oneself in a drive-by-shooting ?)
hbg

U exagerate my position.
( Reductio ad absurdum, huh ? )

Immunity overstates the case,
but being armed in your own defense
gives u a fighting chance of survival.

The alternative is putting your life into
the predator 's hands ( maybe begging n groveling ? )
to be extinguished, at his discretion.
I don 't favor that.
David

0 Replies

OmSigDAVID wrote:

U exagerate my position.
( Reductio ad absurdum, huh ? )

No more than how you eggagerate ours.
"Reductio ad absurdum," indeed. How ironic that you challenge someones comment on that basis.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

The alternative is putting your life into
the predator 's hands ( maybe begging n groveling ? )
to be extinguished, at his discretion.
I don 't favor that.
David[/b]

Oh PLEASE

Save the drama for your momma. Is your "alternative" scenario the only other scenario? Of course not. It's just the only one that you'll recognize.
Yeah, I suppose you could "put your life into the predator's hands."

But you could also miss, then get killed by the criminal,
or you could miss and accidentally kill an innocent bystander
or you could be attacked before you could properly get to your gun, then they take it and use it against you or against others,
or you could get a little trigger happy and shoot someone who you mistake to be a criminal who isn't...

The list goes on and on.

0 Replies

(justan : for your eyes only !
david must live in a warzone , perhaps a few hand-grenades would come in handy ?
hbg)

0 Replies

hamburger wrote:

(justan : for your eyes only !
david must live in a warzone , perhaps a few hand-grenades would come in handy ?
hbg)

[size=7]Wouldn't that be a "worr zown"?[/size]

0 Replies

No war zone is as weird as the reality that seems to inform OSD's posts. It's more like one of those ultra-violent video games...

0 Replies

That's exactly how i see the gun nuts. They have a fantasy world inside their heads in which they get to be the hero of their very own first-person shooter game--with the scarey truth being that they secretly long to go out onto the real streets of the real world to shoot it out with the criminals and the government--between whom they are either unable or unwilling to make a distinction.

They just wanna shoot somebody . . .

0 Replies

The onion (www.theonion.com) is always good for a few laughts when it comes to people completely obsessed with guns...

http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/5423/guns2rk.jpg

Click here for rest of article, lol

0 Replies

That picture's worth a thousand words...

0 Replies

Another favorite...

http://img163.imageshack.us/img163/4228/guns25kt.jpg

0 Replies

Fight the U.N. Gun Ban

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know