Is this man's sentence fair? gun rights people read.

[Mad_Dog]

check this article (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1000850536930&call_page=TS_News&call_pageid=968332188492&call_pagepath=News/News) out.

Airport security failed to detect two submachine-guns and several boxes of ammunition a 50-year-old man in the midst of a drinking binge had packed in his luggage on flights from Yellowknife, N.W.T., to Vancouver in April.

Chester tossed them in his duffel bag with the rest of his belongings as he left Yellowknife in April while on a drunken binge.

Chester received a 12-month suspended sentence, with conditions that he take counselling for his alcoholism. He was also prohibited from possessing any weapons for 10 years.

it also says this:
The owner of the guns had firearms acquisition certificates for both, court heard.

...so i guess he didn't have ownership for the guns. i assume the owner got them back as well...

So, do you think this kind of sentence is fair, or is it another example of rights being taken away?

[Sidewinder]

in a sense yes, but i think if you're going to get drunk and take sub guns with ammo in a public place planning on who knows what you need more than a slap on the wrist.

[-=SDS=- Lust]

Sounds like he got of easy....Who knows what the fellow was really up to. I've been drunk for most of my life ( ;) ) and I can't think of a time I've been drunk enough to take two automatic weapons into an airport.

[Kuroshio Apocal]

Well, if you are that ****ing drunk and that ****ing stupid, maybe you need to spend 365 days getting intimate with Big Leroy and Company.

o <---------- This is your asshole.
O <---- This is your asshole on jail.

Any questions?

[BlAcK_PlAgUe22]

lmao :lol:

so true.. so true :D

[Trak]

This isn't a case of gun rights, this is a case of criminal behaviour. The guy is a thief and criminally negligent drunk or not. I personally think that he should be going to Alcoholics Anonymous... in prison.

[ShakKen]

Hell yes the idiot deserves it.

Guns and alchohol do NOT mix.

[the vrrc]

Throw his ass in jail for a bit too, perhaps. My friend is lonely. His name is Pappy. He is 45 years old, 8 feet tall, 300 llbs, single and lonely. He needs a buddy. :)

[RogueLeader]

He has a right to take that gun through the airport.

[G-Fresh]

In his hand luggage while he's p*ssed out of his face?

[the vrrc]

So I have a right to take guns into an airport so I can hijack a plane? Guns that aren't even mine?

[RogueLeader]

If people took guns on a plane they wouldn't get hijacked. That's logic. Obviously this man proves a terrorist could bring guns on the plane though, therefore meaning he could take it at will.

[G-Fresh]

Surely the answer is to stop them getting on the plane in the first place?

[RogueLeader]

Obviously this incident proves that it is impossible to stop that from happening.

[Mad_Dog]

He has a right to take that gun through the airport.

i knew you would ignore my actual question. :rolleyes:is the sentence of not being able to own a weapon for 10 years fair?

[RogueLeader]

Well MD, if he was doing something he has a right to do then the implication is he shouldn't be punished at all.

[G-Fresh]

He doesn't have the right to be drunk on an airliner with a duffel bag full of SMGs and ammo, does he?

[RogueLeader]

Right: to own guns.
Right: to be drunk.
Not a right: to kill innocent people (while drunk or otherwise). Note that he did not use the weapons at all.

So to answer you G-Fresh, yes he does have that right.

[funkstylz]

Cmon guys...this is the dumbest argument yet! He was drunk, heavily armed, and got onto a fight?? He's luck he wasn't shot dead for that ****. He has a right to own guns, and yes he has a right to be drunk, but he DOES NOT have to the right to carry lebanons military reserve onto a PUBLIC FIGHT! He was VERY luck to get a slap on the wrist for this.

"If people took guns on a plane they wouldn't get hijacked. That's logic. " - Dumbest quote ever.

Sorry mate, but that one was bad.

[phatcat]

I agree with funky.

you can't just sit by while a man is drunk, and let him on the plane. with firearms

right: own a gun
right: to be drunk
not a right: to be publicly drunk
not a right: brining weapons on planes.

just becasue you won't do something like this, dose not mean joe blow down the street is smart enough not to also. rules are not made for the smart pepople, they are there to save us from the dumb ones :D

[Donnellizer]

Right: To own a gun.
Right: To be drunk.
Fascist Supression of Rights: Forcing someone to not bring guns in a certain area, while placing sky marshall's armed with guns in that same area.

[funkstylz]

Originally posted by Donnellizer
Right: To own a gun.
Right: To be drunk.
Fascist Supression of Rights: Forcing someone to not bring guns in a certain area, while placing sky marshall's armed with guns in that same area.

Huh? Is common sense having a bloody holiday or something?

Its a sky marshalls job, to protect people through the airport. He's an armed guard...they're quite common you know. Why in gods name should ANYONE without the proper permission be allowed to carry ANY sort of weapon into a friggin airport??? It's totally innapropriate for non authorised person's to be armed in a public facility such as an airport, and I'm sure that a majority of people who travel this way would agree. And the very nature of this case should be more than enough to convince you of this.

I can't believe you guys are even raising this as an issue!!?!?!

[RogueLeader]

Sounds like you just volunteered to explain how you would hijack a plane when everyone on board was armed. :p

[funkstylz]

Originally posted by RogueLeader
Sounds like you just volunteered to explain how you would hijack a plane when everyone on board was armed. :p

ZAH???!? I've entered the ****ing twilight zone. I should have known better than to bother with this.

How do you hijack an airplane when everyone is armed? I can think of lots of ways, but I think that considering the recent tragedy in NYC it would be in extemely poor taste to go into it. And even if that didn't happen (I sincerely wish it hadn't), this is not an argument about methods or techniques.

I honestly don't understand you Rambo types, thinking that guns are the answer to everything. Store gets robbed...guns would have created a better outcome. Planes get hijacked, guns would have created a better outcome. Ozone layer depleting, if only we all carried guns. It's thinking like this that makes the rest of us think your idiots, and is detrimental to your bloody cause.

A responsible gun owner \ collector (Which is what a lot of you claim to be), would be shocked by this drunk guys total lack of responsibility, but you for some reason consider this a stifling of his rights. This moron endangered every person on his flight, and possibly hundreds of others...it's that simple.

Those of you who think differently need to grow up and realise that we live in the real world, not fantasy wild west america.

[ThunderChunky]

Geez. Anybody who performs such an act of stupidity deserves what they get. It's no different than drunk driving. You have the right to drink. You have the right to drive. However, when you are driving under the influence, you are willingly performing a dangerous activity, endangering the lives of others while impaired, and you are punished as such.

Fact is that the ailine industry, while regulated, remains private. That means that they impose they have the option of imposing their own rules which you must follow to user the services they provide.

I am most definitely a supporter of the Second Amendment. I feel that the law-abiding civilian populous should be given the same access to firearms that the government has.

What isn't protected, though, is the ability to carry those firearms wherever you please. If you feel it is, excuse me while I come on to your private property, proceed to pull my pants down, and drop a nice, fat, smelly turd right in the middle of your living room.

When you buy an airline ticket, you not only buy the right to fly from one area to another on a privately owned company, you also agree to a set of rules to follow. If these rules prevent people from carrying submachine guns while intoxicated, so be it.

Such is life. If you don't like this contract you agreed to, take some other means of transportation you might agree with more.

This isn't a knock on the idea of arming airbound passengers to ensure safety. I think that would probably work. It worked for the cold war. People become increasingly hesitant to wield force if they know that everything they do will be met with equal resistance.

[Mad_Dog]

rules are not made for the smart pepople, they are there to save us from the dumb ones

that is a damn good point... the problem i have with people saying there should be no regulations on guns, or very light ones, is that they assume everyone is smart enough to use one responsibly. not everyone is... evidently not this man.

[RogueLeader]

I'll assume funky cannot come up with a response, since the idea of hijacking a plane while 200 people on board could kill you at will would be pure idiocy. And I don't see where he was charged for taking guns on private property. His crime according to this article was having a prohibited weapon and a large capacity magazine. Both are rights.

[Trak]

I am a gun rights supporter, and believe that in most cases and places guns can be safely carried by the majority of the population. I don't think this holds true on airplanes though. Sky Marshalls go through extensive training to be able to use their weapons on airliners without endangering the lives of the passengers or the integrity of the airliner. Don't forget that these vessels travel at thousands of feet of altitude where the pressure is very low and the passengers are in a pressurized cabin. If the hull integrity is compromised it could easily cause the death of everyone on board. Your average citizen just dosn't have what it takes to protect themselves with a firearm onboard an airliner. Also don't forget that some passengers experience anxiety while on board a flight, sometimes more extreme than others and this anxiety has been expressed as violence before towards other passengers and/or the crew of the plane. That person should definitely not have a gun.

[RogueLeader]

Trak, that same argument has been made against CCW licenses. It is claimed it will result in shootouts over traffic accidents if people can carry guns in cars. Yet in reality only one CCW owner ever shot and killed a man, and it was ruled self defense.

[funkstylz]

No your wrong again Rogue. Mate I don't want this to become a flame war, especially over such a retarded argument. Also, out of respect for the dead, I'm not going to go into details.

Christ, if what your saying is true, then arming everyone in a prison would cut down on violent acts. It's the same premise, it's the same theory. Think that'll work?

I won't say that Trak is 100% on the hull integrity issue, and I won't say that airbourne fatalities would rise dramatically if your half baked ideas were put in motion...what I will do however, is leave you to wallow in your adolescent, mental instability.

That is all.

[AtomicAxis]

Plus what has been shown in the last week is that the people who hijack plans really don't care about their own lives. Plane flying over a city. Very easily sit up the front of plane (they can afford that). Go to the bathroom up the front of the plane. Pull out there gun that they are allowed to carry onto the plane. Shoot the pilots dead. Hijackers get shot by passengers who are also allowed to carry weapons. Plane still crashes.

Good work Rogue.

As much as it pains my principles I have to agree with Funk (it has to be a first).

[RogueLeader]

No your wrong again Rogue. Mate
So more than 1 person has been killed by man carrying a concealed weapon? So established fact has been convoluted by an evil conspiracy? So far all evidence has supported that armed citizens make an area safer and I havn't seen any argument as to how a plane is somehow different than any other place on Earth.

Plus what has been shown in the last week is that the people who hijack plans really don't care about their own lives.
Then what does it matter, everyone will die either way. At least this way the people have a chance.

Hijackers get shot by passengers who are also allowed to carry weapons. Plane still crashes
It actually is not hard to basically pilot a plane. Someone with no experience could at the very least steer it out of the city.

[Zundfolge]

...is the sentence of not being able to own a weapon for 10 years fair?

No.

Gun ownership is a right not a privilege. ( I understand this happened in Canada, but read my sig...I believe the "rights" enumerated in the constitution exist for all of humanity, not just Americans ... its just evil governments that usurp those rights)

It bothers me that people are so quick to take the basic human rights of individuals away as a "punishment" for committing a crime.

So should his right to go to whatever church he wants be "revoked" for committing some crime. Should his right to write a letter to the editor of his local news paper or otherwise speak his mind in public be "revoked" for some other crime. Maybe since he screwed up once, his right to trial by jury and protection from cruel and unusual punishment should be revoked for next time too.

Now I don't think he should have been let on the airplane ... not because he's a danger, but because there are rules about such things (I am one who thinks those rules should be changed, but at the time he got on the plane the rules existed). I also could see fining him and maybe impounding his weapons (he'd just have to go get them from the impound office later).

But revoking a basic human right is not an appropriate option.

Additionally it bothers me that just the act of possessing something is a crime...so now we punish people for what they might do? That's one of the basic tenants of totalarianism folks.

But that's an entire thread on it's own ;)

[Trak]

In this case he stole those guns from his boss while rifling through his stuff for money to continue a drinking binge. In my book this makes this person a criminal. Criminals are not responsible members of society and should not be treated as such in my opinion. In America if you are a felon, you lose certain rights, and I think this is proper. Should criminals be allowed to put people in office? Or carry weapons? I don't think so, and I would hope that the majority of citizens out there wouldn't either. The line has to be drawn some where.

[Mad_Dog]

It actually is not hard to basically pilot a plane. Someone with no experience could at the very least steer it out of the city.

i'm sure that would make me feel a whole lot better.:rolleyes:

Right: to own guns.
Right: to be drunk.


two rights doesn't mean you shouldn't get punished... try this scenario:

Right: to drive a car. (i think it't a responsibility, not a right, but we'll call it one for now.)
Right: to be drunk.

doesn't this mean you have a right to DUI, and you shouldn't be punished? i don't think so...

[Zundfolge]

Right: to drive a car.
Right: to be drunk.


Driving a car on public roads has always been considered a privilege

I think the same goes for drinking alcohol.

But Free speech, Religion, Self Defense (ie. gun ownership) are all rights.

The problem here in the US, and in much of the world is that there is a tendency for governments to treat rights like they are state granted privileges (and too many people are willing to let them).

[Zundfolge]

In this case he stole those guns from his boss while rifling through his stuff for money to continue a drinking binge.

Ok, I missed the part where the guns where stolen...I was under the impression that these where his lawfully owned guns.

Well, that's different. He should have the book thrown at him for being a thief.


However, I don't agree that your human rights should be null and void just because you commit a felony. Unless the felony is a violent one I don't think one's right to own firearms should even come into question.

[Farouk]

Zundfolge how do you want to punish anyone without infringing his rights ever?

the suggested fine - what's with the right on property?
prison - where is the freedom in prison?

And to say that my right to defend myself automatically includes the right to bear all kind of weapons would also mean that my right to travel includes piloting all kind of vehicles myself.
So far to your car driving previlege.
It doesn't matter how long one thing was called a right or a previlege. If you doesn't measure by the same means you can scrap your whole system anyway.

My believe: With every right there comes a responsibility / duty. You f*ck up the latter one, you lose the first one at least for some time. Taking and giving.

[funkstylz]

I'm going nuts from reading this...really.

Why is everybody here so bloody suspicious of everything. The guy broke the law, showed the courts that he was too irresponsible to own a firearm, and was punished accordingly. Farouk is absolutely right. Punishment through law is essentially the removal of certain rights and privaledges. You steal a car, for the third time, you go to prison. No more freedom for the next 6 months, and big dicks up ya.

So the guy, whilst pissed, stole some sub machine guns and ammo and then proceeded to catch a public flight. Is this your idea of a responsible firearms owner? You don't think the sentence was fair? Maybe they should have hit him repeatedly with a fluffy, pink, stuffed bunny rabbit? Or would that be going over the top. Oh hang on...I know! Lets take away his right to wear shoes! YES! Theres the ultimate in let the punishment fit the crime! He endangers peoples lives by mixing 6 parts rum, 2 parts automatic bullet shooting things, 1 part public air travel, and 1094352398 parts ****ing idiocy, the judges ruling? Remove his shoes baliff! I hereby sentence you to seven years of bare footedness! Please pick up your stolen Mac10's and your bonus NRA Gold Membership card as you leave...BARE FOOTED!

It's a simple, simple logic here guys. He broke the law, firearms were involved, the seriousness of the crime led to a ban of him buying more firearms for 10 years. It's the A, B, and ****ing C of the legal system.

[the vrrc]

I go on a plane with some smgs. I go to the front and then kill the pilots,and then begin to rain fire into the passengers from the front. By the time they are able to kill me, many of them are dead already. Well, as long as I die, right?

I bring guns onto a plane while very drunk. And mad. Who knows what I will do? So what is my punishment? Well, we cannot take away any rights, so, lets slap his wrists and give him 5 years in jail?

[ChROmE13]

Since when was owning a firearm a "basic" human right. Basic human rights, according to the United nations, such as the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of press etc. do not include "the right to possess automatic firearms on their person, whereever, and when ever they want."

It really frightens me that you people cannot use your own judgement, but need to constantly spout "but its my right to have a gun" whenever you hear of someones firearms being taken away. A drunken man brought CONCEALED AUTOMATIC WEAPONS ONTO A COMMERCIAL AIRLINER. PERIOD.

He knew the rules. He broke the rules. He payed the consequences. Obviously this person is not responsible enough to own firearms. He shuold not be able to have them. What is not to understand or disagree with here?

Also someone asked "why should having guns on aireliner be any diferent than any other place on earth." Well, people don't make these rules to ruin your automatic weapon toting fun you konw. If a stray round, fired by accident or on puropse, were to pierce the hull of a pressurized aircraft at 30000 feet, the results could be quite catastrophic. Not to mention that a commercial airliner has to consider the comfort and safety of its other customers. The airline has the right to place those rulesss. You are allowed to check registered firearms at the airport with the proper equipment and documentation. This person chose to ignore the procedures in place and he paid for it.

Thats all there is to it folks. This isn't a horrendous act of injustice or even an infringment on this mans rights.

Cheers,

ChROmE

[Trak]

Originally posted by ChROmE13
Since when was owning a firearm a "basic" human right. Basic human rights, according to the United nations, such as the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of press etc. do not include "the right to possess automatic firearms on their person, whereever, and when ever they want."

Uh, since being born in America. We have the Second Amendment that guarantees us the right to keep and bear arms. The rights stated in the Bill of Rights are considered basic human rights that are inalienable. And don't even get started with the UN, some of us consider the UN wrongheaded, and others consider it a dirty word ;)

[RogueLeader]

The UN also considers it a crime against humanity to teach someone that the UN is bad. That's why you never hear how the Korean War was a UN operation that has split the country apart for 50 years. Reality sure is a bitch aint it.

And don't make me smack down the idea that human rights are defined by the UN. Human rights are defined by nature, not by any government or IGO.

[the vrrc]

Duck and cover, here comes rouge with his Anti-UN robar rounds!


And yes, I beleive owning a gun is a right, and a privrilage(sp?).

Edit: But how is owning a gun a NATURAL born right?

[funkstylz]

The second ammendment (although a ridulous, and out dated piece of excuse) does state that it's your right to bear arms. But this is the 21st century lads, and there are laws in place around that 'right', to keep the rights overs in tact. Now I know that for a lot of you, the right to continue breathing, not be shot to ****, not to have to eat next to a howitzer in your favourite restaurant, and not to have your kids disintergrated before your very eyes, comes a distance second to the right the be able to shoot stuff, but for a lot of people it's the other way around.

As for the UN stuff...I don't know much about its history or politics. But, I do know that the same country who has this ammendment garbage is the biggest player involved with it. So if you hate the UN so much, you must also hate the US, thus you must hate the second ammendment, as the founding fathers of that country came up with the now rediculous notion.

I've got a headache now...somebody put me to bed please.

[RogueLeader]

funk, considering guns save 2.5 million people in the United States a year, please explain how you can possibly justify using "safety" as an excuse to do something that kills 2.5 million more people? I always thought safety was the term used to represent a state in which death is prevented, but maybe I was wrong...

[Mad_Dog]

proof please...

[RogueLeader]

National Self Defense Survey

[funkstylz]

Originally posted by RogueLeader
funk, considering guns save 2.5 million people in the United States a year, please explain how you can possibly justify using "safety" as an excuse to do something that kills 2.5 million more people? I always thought safety was the term used to represent a state in which death is prevented, but maybe I was wrong...

LOL! Nice statistic you got there, cereal box? NRA Monthly Magazine? Do you actually believe that to be true? If that includes police officers and the military, then perhaps, but I've never had a problem with them using firearms. I'm certaintly not going to waste time with statistics from <i>either</i> side of the debate, simply because they are bull****. Let me give you an example:

"Guns cause elephant fetus's to rebel against their mother, and thus cause great discomfort to pregnant elephants, and their close family."

See...they cause more harm than good! Think of your Elephant friends and neighbours, and the pain your bringing into their innocent lives!

[RogueLeader]

Ah, the rather sadening "conspiracy" comeback. Since I offered proof from a distinguished and accepted scientific study, I must assume that this response means you have no evidence on your side.

[funkstylz]

Originally posted by RogueLeader
Ah, the rather sadening "conspiracy" comeback. Since I offered proof from a distinguished and accepted scientific study, I must assume that this response means you have no evidence on your side.

Your accusing me of bringing up conspiracy theories? Pot Kettle Black, Che. There is no conspiracy in the coersion of statistics. It's a common political and business practice, used world wide. Common...knowledge.

And your proof of this high dodgy statement, is "National Self Defence Survey". You made the statement, that's how you back it up, and your asking me for proof? Why would I get out the research gear for something that is obviously false, UNLESS as I said above, it included the military and Police. If that is the case, then it wouldn't suprise me if it was close to accurate.

If however your claiming that Guns owned by the general public are responsible for the prevention of death for 2.5 million lives, then I wish there was a smiley for making rasberry's in your direction. Do you have a statistic for how many lives guns are responsible for taking? I'd ignore that too mind you, because the agenda of the sponsor of that survey, would decide the out come before a question would've been asked.

Blah blah blah! Stuff pants...we're off topic here, and this is a waste of el timo.

[RogueLeader]

There is no conspiracy in the coersion of statistics
Then we can establish that the anti-gun lobby is just stupid, not a conspiracy. The gun contro lobby says that 12 children die a day from guns. That includes "children" in their 20's. That isn't a good start for your accusation that the supporters of human rights are the ones that bend the statistics.

Now let's look at some real dipwads who outright lie to the people.

From Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence:

For several years now, the nation's crime rate has fallen - but the drop in crime has not been spread equally throughout the country. As a group, states that chose to fight crime by loosening their concealed weapons laws had a significantly smaller drop in crime than states which looked to other means to attack crime in their communities
John Lott's study of gun violence and CCW laws, which was the largest crime study in the history of mankind, established exactly the opposite. I also noted that Brady Campaign didn't post any facts to back this up. This is most likely due to the fact that are lying scum.

Violent crime actually rose in 3 of 11 states (27%) that relaxed CCW laws prior to 1992 over the six years beginning in 1992, compared to a similar rise in violent crime in only 4 of 22 states (18%) which had restrictive CCW laws or did not permit the carrying of concealed weapons
Again, they post no facts to back this up, because there are none. John Lott has proven that crime dropped 2% per year in states that passed shall issue CCW laws.

Since enactment of the Brady Law in 1994, crimes with firearms are dropping faster than violent crime overall
That is because CCW licenses are being issued. However John Lott's study proves that states that did not have shall issue CCW laws but did have Brady Bill style background checks experienced rises in crime or reduction in crime below national average.

The most rediculous statistic I found on their web site was a claim that 11.9% of the United States population was killed by a gun. Total gun deaths last year was about 30,000. That's .01% of the population. Over half were suicides and studies have consistently proven suicide rates are not affected by gun laws. That means the number of non-voluntary gun deaths, i.e. thoughs that were real crimes, was actually about 12,000, which is .004% of the population. Most of those were engaging high risk activity, esp. gang activity, and you have already said that people deserve to be punished for stupid things, so I can only conclude you support that.

it included the military and Police.
1) I hope you don't really have military involved in police activities in Australia.
2) Police are part of those criminals guns are meant to stop.

If however your claiming that Guns owned by the general public are responsible for the prevention of death for 2.5 million lives, then I wish there was a smiley for making rasberry's in your direction
Note that when I offered scientifically verifiable information that used a proven and unbiased study, you, having no information to back your side up, resorts to random attempts to throw off the fact you are wrong.

Do you have a statistic for how many lives guns are responsible for taking?
It usually remains at around 30,000. I believe last year it was 32,000.

Back to the main point:
what the man ought to be punished for is theft; taking the guns onto a plane should not a crime. Obviously stealing someone else's is. As for not owning guns for 10 years, criminals regain all natural rights when their prison sentence is over. Including the natural right to own guns. He probably should be sentenced to get help with alchohol abuse though.

[funkstylz]

I don't know why you bothered posting that mate, it simply added proof to my statement. Perhaps you didn't understand what I was trying to express to you. Lets make it simple shall we:

Statistics given from <b>either</b> side of the debate, are worthless bull****. The reason is because the studies leading to them are either directly, or covertly funded by one side of the argument. This is not something that is found in this debate alone, it spans across a very distant field of issues.

Thus, you just successfully proved my argument on this subject, by providing some fantastic examples of exactly what I was getting at.

BOTH the pro and anti gun lobbies are full of ****. They are both doing whatever it takes to get what they want, for reasons that are their own. I myself USED to be very anti gun, but I was open minded enough to go and have a go, and found that in a SAFE AND PROFESSIONALLY RUN, LEGAL establishment, they were a lot of fun. BUT! I was also reminded of the fact that they are dangerous ****ers, and should not be toted around like it was the old west...or miami vice.

One of these extremely innapropriate places for a firearm to be allowed, is in a public aircraft. I for one would refuse to board a plane full of your cowboy buddies, and I can tell you know, I would NOT be alone.

[RogueLeader]

John Lott is not a member of the gun lobby. His study was not meant to prove things one way or the other.

[the vrrc]

I still want to know why guns are considered "natural" bron with rights.

[AtomicAxis]

Originally posted by RogueLeader

Sounds like you just volunteered to explain how you would hijack a plane when everyone on board was armed.


and then

Originally posted by RogueLeader

So more than 1 person has been killed by man carrying a concealed weapon? So established fact has been convoluted by an evil conspiracy? So far all evidence has supported that armed citizens make an area safer and I havn't seen any argument as to how a plane is somehow different than any other place on Earth.


Sorry about the delayed reply to this. The airline that I work for in Australia has just gone into receivership. Needless to say things are busy.

Getting back to this. Rogue - you asked liver lips..I mean Funk to show how a plane could be hijacked when everyone was armed. I did that and then your reply is completely off tangent. You ask a question, I answer the question and then you try to deflect the attention away from original question. I wasnt trying to say that citizens are or are not safer with guns arounds. I just answered a simple question that you asked. Period.

As for you Funk - what you been taken the smarts drugs or something. These posts are the smartest thing I have heard from you in the 4 or 5 years I have known. Usually you just say "P<b><b>iss off Milky Licker" or "get a dog up ya, foghat".



edit: for spelling mistakes.

[Trak]

Originally posted by the vrrc
I still want to know why guns are considered "natural" bron with rights.

Guns aren't born they are made. :p

The idea behind the right to bear arms is the right to defend yourself. In order to defend yourself you must be able to match force with an equal force. In todays world the force weilded by criminals and tyrants is the firearm. The second amendment in part is there to protect us from our own military and police forces, we need the same arms as them for this concept to be effective.

[AtomicAxis]

You know what I find funny about the gun debate. People from the Anti Gun Control camp paint the Pro Gun Control people as brainless idiots who only want to take away people's right to bear arms. And the Pro Gun Control camp paint the anti gun control lobbyists as redneck scum who only want guns so they can go and blow the **** out of a stack of Teddy bears out the back of the caravan park.

I dont know why I posted this. I just find it amusing I guess. Cuz really they are both wrong.

How do I know this? I am ominpotent. :) Or stoned. I dont know which yet. :)

[RogueLeader]

Getting back to this. Rogue - you asked liver lips..I mean Funk to show how a plane could be hijacked when everyone was armed. I did that and then your reply is completely off tangent. You ask a question, I answer the question and then you try to deflect the attention away from original question.
You might try reading a little more carefully. I already pointed out that the people could kill the terrorists and fly the plane to safety. Even if they didn't have that ability, your argument is a non sequitur. You are trying to say that guns should be banned on planes because they will die anyway. So either they face certain doom or have a chance to live.

I still want to know why guns are considered "natural" bron with rights.
1) Guns are a necessity to overthrow the government. If a government no longer represents the will of the people it is their right and obligation to dispose of it. Since the government has a military that is well armed the people must be equally well armed.
2) Buying a gun does not hurt anyone.
3) Every person has the right to self defense. Since, as humans, our only natural means of defense is our brain's ability to comprehend use of tools, then we have a right to use those tools we have created for the purpose of self defense.

[&quot;Sp!ke&quot;]

Rogue: Do you seriously belive those stories about people that say that they can easily fly a plane because: "I have Flight sim 2000 so I can fly a real plane..." Do you have any idea how hard it is to fly a plane which is about to crash down into a city?!!?
An experienced pilot would probably not make it.

Civilians with guns JUST DONT WORK! I dont really think you will pull out youre gun if somebody sneaks up on you and puts a gun to youre head and ask you for youre wallet. and in any case, goverments going against its people isnt happening much these days. And if it happens: Then you wont go after youre goverment with a 9mm pea shooter, then you use the black market and get youre self a good old AK...