A Discussion of Rights

LEO 229 · Apr 20, 2007

imported post

People will paint gun violence with the broadest brush.

If the following statement is true:

1 person armed with a gun just killed someone

Then the following must also be true:

100 people armed with guns will kill 100 people.

Even if we all know it is not!!!

AtackDuck · Apr 20, 2007

imported post

Had a little "conversation" with uncjohnny today over the Free Lance Star. He came here, read the fisking of his argument andran away. He did make some puerile comments on the FLS wedsite, in response. I wished him : "My apologies for making you feel inferior and illiberal. I simply invited you into a reasoned discourse of our rights. It is unfortunate that you feel so neutral. Go in peace and may you find your deserved niche in society."

He seemed rather indignant about it. He also seems very insecure about his education, he has a hard time with spelling. Oh well, back to the fun.

638Fitta · Apr 20, 2007

imported post

Attack Duck

Thats too bad. I was really hoping that he would come over and give it an honest try. I have offered to many a trip to the range to give it a try. My wife and I invited her sister and she had a ball! Wants to go again and learn more and may apply for her permit! I informed them that it is not required that they change there mind, only to give it a try so they make an honest, and more educatedchoice. I often wonder how these people would react if a bill was implimented to require by LAW that evreyone is required to to have a handgun on them at all times. (I thinksomething similarhappened out in Utah or ?????) Can ya hear it now! "You don't have the right to tell me what I should and should not have" It's my choice whether or not I want to carry a weapon or not." The 2nd amendment provides for me the right to and NOT to if I so choose." LOL Unreal!

638Fitta · Apr 20, 2007

imported post

I just wanted to point out that a judge has denied John Hinckley Jr. from visiting family in Williamsburg but can have local visits by himself (?) no more than a 50 mile radius from Washington DC., because he has been deemed sane....."IF" he's medicated. (Good Lord!) Don't you think Mr. Brady should have been working on the issue of keeping this screwball locked up? Gun laws? How'bout the criminally insane laws. Wow. We'll have to watch this one real careful like!BTW I don't understand why Mrs. McCarthy and or Mr. Brady have not been exposed for what they are... TRUE VIGILANTE'S. Doesn't the general public realize that they both are just seeking revenge? But for the fact that either one had not suffered their individual events, neither one would be where they are today. I am certainly not meaning to sound insensitive to their loss or residuals, ( Because I have seen video of Mr. Brady while in therapy and it is very heartbreaking to watch),but if these things did not happen there would be no Brady bill and Ms M would be at home making cookies for the grand kids. And on the other hand if the peoples of NY rights were not infringed, and a few people on that train were armed, MR. M might still be here. AAAAAAnd, Where was Mr. Al Sharpton whenSlime-ball Ferguson was shooting and killing only white people on the LI-RR? This is more a question as to the credibility of all of our Representatives and not of a race issue.

uncjohnny · Aug 22, 2007

imported post

AtackDuck wrote:

Had a little "conversation" with uncjohnny today over the Free Lance Star. He came here, read the fisking of his argument andran away. He did make some puerile comments on the FLS wedsite, in response. I wished him : "My apologies for making you feel inferior and illiberal. I simply invited you into a reasoned discourse of our rights. It is unfortunate that you feel so neutral. Go in peace and may you find your deserved niche in society."

He seemed rather indignant about it. He also seems very insecure about his education, he has a hard time with spelling. Oh well, back to the fun.

Wow AtackDuck,

Is this how you make yourself feel important? You take conversations and carry them over to another forum and give one-side of the story...then later make fun of the person for not following you around for a one-sided debate? Did you give me the option to defend myself on my education? Or my alleged inferiority complex? Or being too illiberal? Nice...kind of silly actually. Did you tell everyone how I support the 2nd amendment, and every other amendment in the constitution. Did you tell them how in the discussion you carried over I was not attacking that right? Did you tell them that I support the right to CCW, and that I had not supported VT's choice to ban students carrying guns? You said I was neutral...my real stance?

If you had bothered to do more than listen to yourself talk, you would have been able to gather that I had not formed an opinion, because I have never view the 2nd amendment as being in danger of being repealed. I AM neutral on CCW, because I choose NOT to carry, though I have no problem with others carrying. Yes, my argument was not full fledged when you 'grabbed' this conversation and moved on to this forum, because I was not concerned with the issues in question.

Takes a big guy to come on here and fight with someone in a open forum and make fun of him when that person is not present.

Real proud of you there "Sally"

uncjohnny · Aug 22, 2007

imported post

638Fitta wrote:

Attack Duck

Thats too bad. I was really hoping that he would come over and give it an honest try. I have offered to many a trip to the range to give it a try. My wife and I invited her sister and she had a ball! Wants to go again and learn more and may apply for her permit! I informed them that it is not required that they change there mind, only to give it a try so they make an honest, and more educatedchoice. I often wonder how these people would react if a bill was implimented to require by LAW that evreyone is required to to have a handgun on them at all times. (I thinksomething similarhappened out in Utah or ?????) Can ya hear it now! "You don't have the right to tell me what I should and should not have" It's my choice whether or not I want to carry a weapon or not." The 2nd amendment provides for me the right to and NOT to if I so choose." LOL Unreal!

As for your statement...you already clarified that all I was saying was be careful of such an 'absolute' statement such as people with CCW's don't commit handgun crimes. There are no'absolutes'with crime. I never held the view that they are the ones that commit the crimes.

Can ya hear it now! "You don't have the right to tell me what I should and should not have" It's my choice whether or not I want to carry a weapon or not." The 2nd amendment provides for me the right to and NOT to if I so choose." LOL Unreal!

See statements such as these are what cause the needless debates. The 2nd amenedment is meant to work for all...so your ingenuous statement is quite true, rather you laugh.

uncjohnny · Aug 22, 2007

imported post

AtackDuck wrote:

Uncjohnny:"I am not advocating disarming your average citizen, but this letter writer would have us all walking around with guns on our hip, slinging at the drop of a dime, like the old west. To arm our average citizen so loosely as this writer as infered we would most definately see on influx of gun crime, examples; road rage, neighbor dispustes, domestic violence, and possibly more deranged and frustrated people like VT. Removing guns is not the answer, but arming everyone is ridiculous. "

"thank you atackduck.. (posted by uncjohnny, Apr. 18, 2007 12:36 pm)
for dragging me into your political mumbo jumbo! I never said that citizens should be denied their rights. As a matter of fact I said I do not advocate removing firearms, I just don't think we should loosely arm every citizen. Why don't you try to read what I said before you spew your remarks in my direction. And next time you want to accuse me of being to cowardly to protect myself, you should better aquaint yourself with your target."

"but because you did drag me in... (posted by uncjohnny, Apr. 18, 2007 1:07 pm)
What about the rights of the people that choose not to carry firearms on their hips like cowboys? Do you think we should use the 9th amendment, which allows for future amanedments, to protect their rights? Or maybe the 14th (equal protection) or the 2nd amendment (right to bare)? We do NOT have the right to deny people their rights to bare arms, but we DO have the RIGHT to REGULATE that right to bare arms to those that have a purpose to PROTECT the State. "

AtackDuck: "Wild west (posted by AtackDuck, Apr. 18, 2007 11:20 am)
Thank you uncjohn and kinnywayne for getting the standard "there will be blood in the streets with CCW" and "Americans can not trusted" arguments out the way. Neither is true. Just because neither of you is willing or can be trusted to defend yourselves, does not mean the rest should be denied their rights. (See Amend. 2, U.S. Constitution, writings of Jefferson, Madison, Coxe, Monroe, etc) "

With that out of the way, I welcome uncjohnny to a reasoned discussion of the rights of Virginians and Americans, to defense of self, others and community.

Atackdud-

You forgot to add what I said prior to your nice little lead in here:

I am not advocating disarming your average citizen, but this letter writer would have us all walking around with guns on our hip, slinging at the drop of a dime, like the old west. To arm our average citizen so loosely as this writer as infered we would most definately see on influx of gun crime, examples; road rage, neighbor dispustes, domestic violence, and possibly more deranged and frustrated people like VT. Removing guns is not the answer, but arming everyone is ridiculous.

that was the first thing I said on the forum...and my use of the word "loosely" was key to my statement....because the letter writter (I am now assuming was you) made me picture all citizens being required to wear a side arm...such as the "wild west".

My next comment was this:

the problem...Nicksmama is.. we have those people, they are called police and security. I am amazed that everyone is looking for a solution to this problem. The truth of the matter is this man went psychotic and killed people. There is no solution to the mental breakdown of an individual. So what if one or two people were armed, who knows if they could have used their weapon to disable this guy, or if it would have caused him to kill more. He is to blame, and anyone using this incident to platform their political beliefs is an ass!

When I said we have those people referring to police and security I was not saying that they should be the only people, I was referring to her comments about "requiring a few people on campus to carry firearms".

and you somehow left all my comments from the rest of the forums that day....:

this is what your frined on here was talking about, he said:

Education is key. If you do some research sir, you will find that the law abiding citizens/ permit holders in this country are not involved in any illegal activity,

my only response was this...:

Wow, I cannot believe you just said that? Every citizen is law abiding UNTIL they break the law...but not all permit holders are law abiding; are they? If so, I would love for you to show me those numbers. Now, I am not absolutely positive, but I thought that I heard from the 'talking heads', that this lunitic bought his firearms LEGALLY over a month ago...so...? Pray for those that lost so much in this massacre and stop carrying a torch for the politics

I never said anything about people with CCW being law breakers. He got offended, not my fault.

I'm sorry I was not aware that you were this threads referee. Thats correct sir, until they break the law. "so....." why take it out on the citizens who have not? I don't need you to tell me when to pray sir, Jesus and I are on daily speaking turms.

So I clarified:

really am glad that you have your daily talks. I was not telling you what to do, that was a broad STATEMENT to all. Now, if you can adress what I actually said, which was that not all permit holders are law abiding, which is what you said. I also asked if what I heard about him buying the gun is true? Yor statement was not relevant, that is all I said. You make a statment that "all law abiding citizens/permit holders in this country are not involved in illegal activity"

and some more of my response:

to the first I say "of course", to the second I ask, where are the numbers that not one of the permit holders have committed crimes. Are you saying BEFORE they receive the permit, or are you making a broader statement? If it is the first, I ask, how does that protect us from atrocities such as VT? I do NOT advocate the retraction of the 2nd amandment. I just thought since you said "education is key" and asked him to "do research", then you must have educated yourself and done the research.

Here is another link with more comments on firearms from that sameday that you left out.

http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2007/042007/04182007/276470?displayAll=1&MaxComments=12

To bad you have to leave out the details when you want an open forum for discussion. Kind of low AtackDuck..

But I guess that's just your nature.

AtackDuck · Aug 22, 2007

imported post

Wow, uncjohnny! I was hoping for areasonedattempt to discuss the constitutional issuesof the 2nd Amendment months ago, but you didn't show. Thus the sport at your expense.With 5 months to work up a response, this is best you can do?

Go back to the FLS comments area. I'm afraid your ignorance and illiberal (it means not well read) attempts won't be appreciated here, and will only embarrass you.

uncjohnny · Aug 23, 2007

imported post

AtackDuck wrote:

Wow, uncjohnny! I was hoping for areasonedattempt to discuss the constitutional issuesof the 2nd Amendment months ago, but you didn't show. Thus the sport at your expense.With 5 months to work up a response, this is best you can do?

Go back to the FLS comments area. I'm afraid your ignorance and illiberal (it means not well read) attempts won't be appreciated here, and will only embarrass you.

I have no need for a response, duck, I never opposed the 2nd amendment as you have stated here on this board. Sorry your letter was so poorly written that you had some negative feedback. But usually your comments on FLS are poorly expressed. If you want to compare educational credentials, I am fairly positive I will stand up to the test.

Discussing an argument it's not about the person it's about the topic. Clearly, in your first post to me you made it about the person. That, my friend, isa sign of your inability to reason logically. We see that here again, matter of fact on most of the discussions on FLS, that's all you do. There are many topics on there that you opened up the floor to questions with your 'illiberal' remarks, but when confronted you somehow never returned for comment. Is that because it wasn't about the 2nd amendment? Are youignorant to other topics?

You also need to look up the meaning of "illiberal" again my 'closed-minded', 'knee-jerked' friend. You might find it reflects your actions and persona more than mine.

I was hoping for areasonedattempt to discuss the constitutional issuesof the 2nd Amendment

Is that so? Then why take a discussion from an open forum, on neutral ground such as FLS and move it to an 'open carry' forum? Seems a bit weighted to me, don't you think? Worse than that you carried over a 'lead in' from FLS that did not represent my opinion in 'fair' regard. What you managed to do AtackDud, is cut me and throw me to the sharks. Had people on here had the ability to see my true intentions and opinion of the second amendment, maybe then it would have been a true discussion of the "Constitution".

The reason I am on here 5 months later is that I did a search of my 'handle' looking for a certain page, and saw that you are on here as you say, "having a little fun at my expense". Kind of cowardly in my opinion.

AtackDuck · Aug 23, 2007

imported post

It wasn't my letter. Your supposition is inaccurate.

The reason I suggested OCDO is that it is not limited in the posting of the messages. You can be assured, I'm not your friend, but Iwas hoping for better from you. you have not responded to any of the points made against you postings, other thanI misrepresented your stance andyousupport the 2nd Amendment.

I see no reason to further this, as you have not come to discuss the issues but to whine about how badly you have beentreated.

uncjohnny · Aug 23, 2007

imported post

AtackDuck wrote:

It wasn't my letter. Your supposition is inaccurate.

The reason I suggested OCDO is that it is not limited in the posting of the messages. You can be assured, I'm not your friend, but Iwas hoping for better from you. you have not responded to any of the points made against you postings, other thanI misrepresented your stance andyousupport the 2nd Amendment.

I see no reason to further this, as you have not come to discuss the issues but to whine about how badly you have beentreated.

and what is there to discuss from this? --

Thank you uncjohn and kinnywayne for getting the standard "there will be blood in the streets with CCW" and "Americans can not trusted" arguments out the way. Neither is true. Just because neither of you is willing or can be trusted to defend yourselves, does not mean the rest should be denied their rights. (See Amend. 2, U.S. Constitution, writings of Jefferson, Madison, Coxe, Monroe, etc) "

You never had a point, you were clearly just attacking me for not holding your 'exact' view on the 2nd Amendment.

Read all of my statements... ALL of them, where do I say that:

"Americans can not trusted"

or where do I say:

"there will be blood in the streets with CCW"

Once you have done that, read ALL of my post again, and tell me where or how many times I agree with the right to CCW by American citizens.

The reason I suggested OCDO is that it is not limited in the posting of the messages.

FLS has a message forum called FREDTALK...you brought it here so you could bring a "lamb to the slaughter". You cannot handle yourself in a true 'open forum' so you tried to carry it over to a less balanced environment. Your past behavior on FLS is obvious to your intentions.

You can be assured, I'm not your friend, but Iwas hoping for better from you.

No, we aren't friends...I was being 'disingenuous'. I had a bit of respect for you until I found this crap. Now, well now I have no problem with calling you out on your crap.

you have not responded to any of the points made against you postings, other thanI misrepresented your stance andyousupport the 2nd Amendment.

Why can't I say you misrepresented my stance if you did? You felt you could attack me foran 'opinion' that isn't even mine, doesn't the road go both ways?

I see no reason to further this, as you have not come to discuss the issues but to whine about how badly you have beentreated.

What? You started it, now you can't back up your argument? I'm not whining, I’m calling you out on your fallacy!

--The 2[suP]nd[/suP] Amendment limits the government from infringing on the peoples right to own and bear arms. Therefore the government cannot force you to bear arms. So you are safe from having to emulate a cowboy.

The "wild west" comment is tied to the intepretation of the letter. It's holds no relevance in my intepretation of the 2nd amendment.

--As I explained above, their rights are protected, unless you can show what rights are not being protected.

They are if you hold the assertion that some do; such as this:

I often wonder how these people would react if a bill was implimented to require by LAW that evreyone is required to to have a handgun on them at all times. (I thinksomething similarhappened out in Utah or ?????) Can ya hear it now!

--First, it is BEAR: to carry. Your rights are equally protected: the police have no more duty to protect you than a person with a gun. Just what rights do you not have equally with others?

I am not sure what I meant by this statement. I guess that comes from having to defend myself on an issue that I am not concerned with. If I was to take a guess at my intentions with the statement, it would be a citizens concern to know who owns a gun in their community if they wanted to know. Registering FA's. Not sure though.

“ We do NOT have the right to deny people their rights to bare arms, but we DO have the RIGHT to REGULATE that right to bare arms to those that have a purpose to PROTECT the State."

Click to expand...

--You don’t have a right to regulate squat. It’s called authority & if you don’t know the difference I’m sure I can give you a dissertation on that too.

Click to expand...

Your right, I don't have the right! But this Amendment, being one of the most debated ones is very open to interpretation. So, my point was, just as you say:

it is meant that you should be able to go out and buy whatever weapon (arm) you want, without regulation (destructive power), registration/permit, or any other limitation.

There are those that can interpret it differently. Example being:

those that consider the National Guard the only citizens to carry (other than law enforcement). As well as those that think that the writers were not forward thinking in the ability of creating weapons that should not be in the possesion of your average citizen

You never asked me what I thought I had the 'right' to do. My response to you was nothing more than reactionary to being attacked for an opinion which was not mine.

Since you are offering, I'll take that dissertation. Do you know how to do one? I've done two of my own; I can help.

Who is the state? We the People.

Where does the government of the commonwealth (look it up) get its authority? We the People delegate that authority, but we do not relinquish it.

Who has the duty to protect the commonwealth? We the People; which is another reason why we have the right to own and bear arms. The police are simply citizens who have been GRANTED authority by the People to enforce OUR laws. Thus we can effect a citizen’s arrest of felons. So, who are you going to regulate?

I don't have to look anything up. You're arguing a point that I agree with and have agreed with since I could understand the Constitution of the United States. Had you taken time to understand my POV, and my methods you might have known that. I put scenerios out there for you in a reactionary method because of an unwarranted attack.

Now, I have addressed your 'points', go ahead and explain to me what your effin point was, and why you think you set-up an equal and fair back drop for this sort of debate...could it maybe have been a cowardly move?

You like being called a coward? Neither did I:

Just because neither of you is willing or can be trusted to defend yourselves

But that's typical of you, the name calling and bold assertions about someone, just because they choose to exercise their right to NOT carry a gun.

AtackDuck · Aug 23, 2007

imported post

uncjohnny, my effin' point is that I invited you here to a forum on the Right to Own and Bear Arms to discuss that right. I wanted you here because many on this site are very knowledgeable and would have contributed much to the discussion; but you never showed up to discuss anything! You didn't show until 5 months later and now want to have a pissing contest because you are late to the discussion. Have youhad anyone attack you, other than me, on this site? No, so your assertion of a "slaughter" is in error and you have had the chance to defend your opinions and callme names.

I capitulate. You win. :monkey

uncjohnny · Aug 23, 2007

imported post

AtackDuck wrote:

uncjohnny, my effin' point is that I invited you here to a forum on the Right to Own and Bear Arms to discuss that right. I wanted you here because many on this site are very knowledgeable and would have contributed much to the discussion; but you never showed up to discuss anything! You didn't show until 5 months later and now want to have a pissing contest because you are late to the discussion. Have youhad anyone attack you, other than me, on this site? No, so your assertion of a "slaughter" is in error and you have had the chance to defend your opinions and callme names.

I capitulate. You win. :monkey

I am sure many on here are very knowledgeable on the issue, but I can assure you that it would have been an attack on my view, or lack of full agreement with yours. Who would they have contributed to? You?

What was my motivation for showing up here? You were far from polite on FLS, your opening comment to me was to incinuate that I was a coward because you believed I didn't want to protect myself or my family. Your lead-in to the discussion here was only part of the story, and you reflect my opinion as a left-wing anti-gun fanatic.

My showing up 5 months later was not intentional, so you can stop painting it as if I waited for the smoke to clear. Furthermore, my pissing contest is not due to me showing up late, it's because of this:

Had a little "conversation" with uncjohnny today over the Free Lance Star. He came here, read the fisking of his argument and ran away. He did make some puerile comments on the FLS wedsite, in response. I wished him : "My apologies for making you feel inferior and illiberal. I simply invited you into a reasoned discourse of our rights. It is unfortunate that you feel so neutral. Go in peace and may you find your deserved niche in society." He seemed rather indignant about it. He also seems very insecure about his education, he has a hard time with spelling. Oh well, back to the fun.

You called me a coward again, then you called me dumb, and made a little reference to an immature comment.

No, so your assertion of a "slaughter" is in error and you have had the chance to defend your opinions and call me names.

Really, how would have been 5 months ago?

Name calling? I called you "AtackDud" one time through all this...but you:

...ignorance and illiberal (it means not well read) attempts...

Lol...did you ever look up illiberal?

and:

...neither of you is willing or can be trusted to defend yourselves...

sounds to me like you are calling me a coward...doesn't it? True to your nature.

Now, how come you can't answer my questions?

where do I say that: "Americans can not trusted"

where do I say: "there will be blood in the streets with CCW”

Did you find out where or how many times I agree with the right to CCW by American citizens?

Why can't I say you misrepresented my stance if you did? You felt you could attack me foran 'opinion' that isn't even mine, doesn't the road go both ways?

A Discussion of Rights

LEO 229

Regular Member

AtackDuck

Regular Member

638Fitta

Regular Member

638Fitta

Regular Member

uncjohnny

New member

uncjohnny

New member

uncjohnny

New member

AtackDuck

Regular Member

uncjohnny

New member

AtackDuck

Regular Member

uncjohnny

New member

AtackDuck

Regular Member

uncjohnny

New member