Rick Olney said: "How's THAT for a rant ... you bozo's?"

Well, yep, I think you've outdone yourself this time, Rick. Oh, where to begin...

Rick to Seth: "I don't agree with it, as it shows your age..."

Hey, nice out! Young people -- though I'm not sure what the age requirements are -- if you have any opinions, don't share 'em 'cause you just don't have enough life experience yet. Just consider yourselves part of the "ignorant" mentioned below.

"* Get the criminals OFF the streets.
* Treat the addicted.
* Feed the hungry.
* Employ the homeless.
* Educate the ignorant.
* In short, give America back to the people that make it what it is at its best!"

This is apparently your description of "true freedom", but I have to say that I don't understand it at all. What are you talking about? And how does that tear down Seth's statement that "true freedom" would equal anarchy? Who, exactly, are "the people that make [America] what it is at its best!" and what does that mean?

"I mean, we can't ALL work at McDonalds!"

And this one totally lost me. Is working at McDonald's something to aspire to or is this an insult to people who don't have greater aspirations?

"And then - Join the military. ... Serve your government and experience something that will change your life forever. Something good - Discipline!"

Oh, right, the military. Discipline. Yeah, it's all so clear to me now. Then I can cut my hair and be on *their* side. Well, heck, I'm signin' up. I can't wait to take advantage of that 'don't ask, don't tell' system.

Seriously, I got all the discipline I needed growing up. I'm not sure that you'd believe that since I don't agree with you, but what can I do... But, that's okay, because you don't really mean 'discipline'. What you're thinking of is 'dehumanization'.

"NEVER surrender your freedom!"

Okay. So, anarchy, right? Or do you mean never surrender the freedoms we still have? What about the freedoms that have already been surrendered? What about the laws that currently inhibit freedom? Do I disregard them?

"No, not AMENDMENTS to the CONSTITUTION. I meant what I said, exactly as I stated it! There are those at work whose only intention is to mutilate and obscure the way American citizens look at the Constitution."

You mean, like making them think our forefathers intended for us to own semi-automatic weapons? The fiends!

"And re: your distaste for protecting your own freedoms - Am I to understand that if your home was being broken into ... you wouldn't defend the sanctity of it? And what if "they" were coming to rob, rape, or kill your family. Would you still sit and surrender your freedom?"

Kill or be killed, eh? You never know when "they" are going to show up at your door, right? What about those of us who have no desire to shoot another human being, regardless of circumstance? Are we somehow accused of not 'defending' our 'freedom'? Is pacifism a 'freedom'?

"I fought for ideals that were engrained into me from birth. I came back to my homeland to be spat upon, laughed at, and called "baby killer" ... I did what my government told me to do."

So, you went to another country and helped kill innocent people because your government told you to. Congratulations.

"Do yourself a service and skip that crap 'peddled' by the board posters that have no idea the TRUE price of freedom."

What are you saying the "TRUE price of freedom" is? Killing "them"? Or just being prepared for when "they" come?

"IGNORANCE is bliss...
COMPLACENCY is contentment in the face of someone telling you that your freedoms don't exist in small doses of faith."

Again, I have no idea what this means. Is the communication problem on my end?

Seth said: "Military service could have obsured your vision."

Isn't that part of the purpose of the military? To form a singular vision of How Life In America Should Be? Yikes.

One last thing I'm curious about: If the government -- your government -- were to actually do something as ludicrous as outlaw all guns, would you own one? You seem to put quite an emphasis on 'legal' firearms and 'law-abiding' citizens, so I'm wondering, would you no longer abide by the law? Would the US government then become "them"?

--Ricko

Hey, RICK! (And Sam Catalino also.) In case you decide not to read the "Guns don't kill people, Bullets do!" thread, I'll post my reply to your points on this thread also. Enjoy.

*********************************************

An open letter to RICK Olney from TJ/Ken:

First, let me state that despite what you may have heard from others sharing a similar opinion, I have not insulted anyone. The closest I have come is "...it is unreasonable people who fear that each step toward keeping reliably unsafe people away from guns will somehow lead to keeping everyone away from every gun." So please, grant me the same respect I have granted you.

Second, I am not nor have I ever been Kim Thompson's lapdog, plebe, or follower in any
way. One major area of difference between Kim and myself is that he is an Atheist and I
am a Christian. In fact, I am a certified lay speaker in the United Methodist Church.

Third, you seem to think that your military service entitles you to a greater degree of
authority on the subject of guns. Well guess what: I'm a former serviceman myself. I was honorably discharged from the Air Force after 3 1/2 years of active duty (I received an "early out" due to budget constraints). I don't consider myself to be a veteran since I never saw combat but you have spoken quite a bit about military service and I can speak on that subject from experience.

To begin my letter, let me bring up the Second Amendment. RICK, you have stated that
you believe in the entire constitution and are opposed to efforts to change it. Well, what part of the word AMENDMENT don't you understand? The constitution had to be changed to allow for the right to bear arms. If the constitution had never been changed, then your precious second amendment would never have existed. And which of the other changes are you opposed to Rick? Abolition? Suffrage for minorities, women, and 18- to- 20-year-olds? Prohibition? The repeal of prohibition?

You also stated that America "...needs to look inward and remove from office any elected official that does not support the Constitution." Thomas Jefferson changed the constitution to include the Second Amendment, among others. Ronald Reagan wanted to change the constitution to ban abortions. George Bush wanted to change the constitution to ban flag-burning. Are you saying that these men were not fit to be president?

Speaking of Mr. Jefferson, you hold up him and the other "founding fathers" as paragons of wisdom. I quote: "The people that created it were far more than average men of their time. They were guided there by a force greater than all of us." The same Thomas Jefferson who changed the constitution to include the second amendment was a deist who felt he had the right to own human beings -- including his wife's half-sister -- and that he had the right to force them to have sex with him. I hardly think that such a man was guided by the grace of Christ, let alone a "greater force". If the founding fathers were so "great" they would never have allowed slavery.

Now let's look at the second amendment which you hold so dearly: "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." Your precious founding fathers didn't even bother to make this sentence grammatically correct, let alone unambiguous. But the phrase that stands out to me is "well-regulated". That is to say, government (made up of we the people, not just those of us who contribute to politcal-action committees) should regulate the arms kept and born by its citizen-militia. Background checks would certainly meet this constitutional litmus test.

Now RICK, you have said "The NRA has NEVER condoned nor has it ever endorsed the legality of "felons or clinically documented psychopaths" having access to firearms." You
have also said "Nobody condones the illicit sale of LEGAL guns." And you have said that
"America does NOT need a "National Instant Check System... it needs to better protect the average citizen on the streets and in their homes." How then do you and/or the National Rifle Association propose to prohibit the LEGAL sale of LEGAL guns to felons or clinically documented psychopaths without a National Check System? Please don't respond with more jingoistic slogans; the time has come to put up or shut up. If you can't answer with a bonafide attempt at solving this problem, then don't waste anyone's time with another "bumper sticker".

Let me bring up another quote from you RICK. "Let the police concentrate on the ILLEGAL gun trafficing [sic] in the inner areas of the cities in America. Let the DEA and FBI concentrate on keeping ILLEGAL arms out of America. Don't concern yourself with "who" owns a gun. Be more concerned with "who doesn't" own one LEGALLY. THOSE are the people that are either concientious [sic]objectors or criminals already in possession of ILLEGAL firearms."

Where to begin dissecting this jumble of illogic! The public school mass firearm murders over the last two years took place in rural or suburban areas, mostly with guns that were obtained legally. One of the shooters in Arkansas stole their grandfather's legally-owned gun to kill his classmates. Putting all the police in urban areas wouldn't solve that problem, RICK. And I'll set aside the possible bit of prejudice that sentence contains against people who live in inner-cities.

I'll grant you that the second sentence in that paragraph makes sense. The federal government should be greatly concerned with keeping illegal weapons (uzis, etc.) out of the country. But then you say that we shouldn't be concerned with who owns guns legally, just with those who own guns illegally. Well, how can you tell whether or not someone owns a gun legally or illegally? What method would you and/or the NRA propose to tell who owns guns legally and who owns guns illegally? Registration seems to be the method that would be the most effective, but I'd be happy to hear you offer a better one. Again, please offer solutions, not slogans.

And RICK, why exactly do you think conscientious objectors are part of the illegal gun problem? If anything, I would guess that people who didn't want to shoot a gun in combat wouldn't want to shoot a gun anywhere else either. But again, I'd be happy to hear you explain this more.

Speaking of conscientious objectors, RICK, you've also stated that "If I had MY way -
Those of you wishing to deprive me og [sic]my freedoms would be employed by Uncle Sam
for a period not to exceed four years." etc., etc. What part of FREEDOM don't you understand, RICK? You think that waiting five days for a handgun purchase is an unconstitutional infringement upon your freedoms, but forcing people into the military isn't?! Talk about your unconstitutionality; the constitution does not -- anywhere -- give the government the authority to impose a draft! And most of the Vietnam veterans who were still in the service when I was in (1986-1990) were very much OPPOSED to conscription. They knew what it was like firsthand to have to babysit a group of reluctant soldiers and were overwhelmingly in favor of a volunteer military.

You know, from reading your various posts RICK it is apparent that you don't understand the concepts of freedom very well, so let me explain them. To begin, let me point out that there are two kinds of freedoms: positive ("freedom to") and negative ("freedom from"). And I personally believe that while our society should work towards the second (such as freedom from crime, freedom from hunger), the government should be enforcing the first (freedom to say what you like, freedom to own a gun).

To put it differently, in a capitalist democracy the government should ensure that you have the right to be able to do anything you want to, except infringe upon the rights of others. When the right to own an assault weapon (not shotguns or handguns) interferes with someone else's right to be alive, the government should step in and place necessary restrictions to ensure that one's right to live takes precedence over someone else's right to own a weapon capable of killing them. This does not mean that no one will be allowed to buy guns, and it certainly does not mean that the government will confiscate weapons already in existence.

This is also what is meant when it was said that total freedom equals anarchy. If there is no government to decide whose rights and freedoms will be protected at the expense of others, then the law of the land will be "might makes right". The reason why so many Americans (including myself) are afraid of the militia movement is that there is no democratic check to their authority. In other words, who watches the watchmen? How can I be sure that the militia's weapons or your weapons will only be used for defense, not offense? Again, if you must respond, do so with solutions not slogans.

RICK, you said that "Owning a firearm is a right and a priviledge [sic]." Well, that is an oxymoron. A privilege is something special granted to someone. A right is something inherently given to everyone. Owning a firearm may be either a right or a privilege, but it cannot be both. If you say that anyone can buy a gun, then it is a right. If you say that anyone can buy a gun -- except for convicted felons, clinically documented psychopaths, and minors -- then firearm ownership is a privilege.

RICK, I appreciate both your service to our country and your opinions on the issues
surrounding firearms. But you do yourself a disservice when you fail to present sound, logical arguments supporting your opinions. Please respond. Intelligently.

This just in : On Sunday in Germany a guy shot 2 people in a discotheque and three people after that. He´s on the run now and most likely in France. They do have kinda strict rules regarding gun ownership in Germany if you compare them to America. Sure with an uzi it´d have been more and that´s a good argument to restrict the trading of that stuff. However I really don´t think that nuts like that guy will be stopped by the fact that they now own their weapon illegally.
Detail : On Saturday they showed Terminator 1 on TV. Remember that shooting scene in the discotheque? Nobody´s made the connection so far but it´s not really hard to see. Won´t take long, I guess. No, I don´t think that the movie´s to blame. We as a society are to blame to let member of this society degenerate into human flotsam and jetsam.How long has this guy been drifting out of touch with , yes, LOVE, that´s what it´s kinda all about, isn´t it? Take it away from somebody long enough and you won´t recognize him/her anymore. You get a monster. Maybe not totally beyond repair but it can kill a lot of people in the meantime. The big question is : what do we do to avoid such mutations? I believe we can all be turned inside out and to a high degree we ARE what happens to us. We do not always possess the power to still make a decision.
Fanboy 99 : I think it was you who made the suggestion to let people watch murderers executed live on TV. Those 2 guys who did the massacre in the school...Don´t you think they knew exactly what they were doing? I think they entered the school that day knowing that it was going to be the end. I don´t think watching the fear in someone who dies before would have stopped them in any way. Well, they´ve seen plenty of this on that day. If I were a troubled kid and I´d turn on the TV to see a human being being killed in public I´d conclude :"Well, this whole precious civilization stuff is obviously bullshit. We live in a pretty sick world and I am in a world of killers.Let´s just put an end to it all. I don´t want any part in this."
I guess it was Kim who said that Americans have a terrible reputation here in Europe. Don´t worry. We certainly aren´t any more civilized than you guys (and gals).
Bset regards

This is for all my pro-gun control fans:

While I would dearly love to sit here and compose answers and comments to all your varied questions - Alas, I can not!

Nothing I could say would change how I feel about America, freedom, and above all else - The Right to Keep and Bear Arms. I do not expect you to agree, nor do I harbor any ill will against you for your opinions.

I learned something in the USMC that still stays with me today:

"When you're being shot at ... keep your head down."

It might be evident that I am not the smartest, or most eloquent, upon this topic. I pay people to protect my rights on the subject of GUN CONTROL over LEGAL OWNERSHIP citizens. Most of you NEVER fail to make the exception the rule in hangin' your opinion out to dry.

Nobody, ... and I mean NOBODY that I'm 'aware' of (that belongs to the NRA) wants the mentally ill, or persons formerly convicted of a violent crime to have free access to firearms.

--Although, at what point is that person 'cured' of their illness? At what point does the paroled prisoner get his/her full and equal treatment as a law abiding citizen under the laws that govern our nation?

This debate, while interesting, seems fruitless. So if you'll excuse me? I'll unload my opinion and put it back under lock and key for safekeeping.

Thank you.

------------------
Rick Olney
It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.
--Thomas Sowell, Creators Syndicate

Sounds to me like the Little General's surrendering.

------------------
"Tough shit."

Thank you, RICK, Kim, Seth, and everyone else who has participated in the debate. It seems that those debaters who are against any form of gun control have, to use a military metaphor, staged a tactical retreat on this subject. This of course does not mean that their side is wrong or even that they "lost" the debate. Just because one is not a skilled debater does not make the inherent rightness of one's position any less or more valid.

But I would like to offer a few final thoughts on the subject. First, the issue is not -- as the NRA would have it -- either absolutely no federal restrictions on firearm ownership or total firearm confiscation. Second, the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution clearly uses the phrase "well-regulated militia"; this is the only place in the U.S. Constitution that the phrase "well-regulated" appears. Third, if reasonable people accept that there can be certain restrictions on the freedom of speech -- such as laws against perjury, libel, slander, copyright infringement, child pornography, yelling "bomb", etc. -- without endangering our First Amendment rights, then I believe reasonable people can also accept a few federal laws regulating firearm ownership without our Second Amendment rights being infringed upon.

If anyone would like to continue to debate this issue, I am ready, willing, and able. However, it seems to me that it would be in everyone's interests to move away from this topic and back to the subject we all love...

COMIC BOOKS!

.....................THE.....END............

------------------
*************************

"I still have that comic, only now it's in liquid form!"

Rick Olney said: "While I would dearly love to sit here and compose answers and comments to all your varied questions - Alas, I can not!
Nothing I could say would change how I feel about America, freedom, and above all else - The Right to Keep and Bear Arms."

Rick, I don't think you understand what's happening here. We UNDERSTAND how you feel about America, freedom and the right to bear arms. You've made that perfectly clear and I don't think anybody is confused on that matter. The thing is, you seem to have really strong opinions on the subject of gun control, yet you can't back them up with any sort of reasoning. The only thing I'm led to believe is that you hold your beliefs about this country simply because you happened to be born here and later join its armed forces. Other than that, you have no information that supports your beliefs. Your 'solutions' to all the deaths by guns are ambiguous statements like "Treat the addicted", "Feed the hungry" and the like. You say the police (therefore, the government) are not doing enough to keep illegal guns off the street (because, Heaven knows, only the illegal ones are involved in crime and murder), yet you still offer no solutions or suggestions for this to happen to your satisfaction.

I believe I can speak with confidence when I say that those you consider your opponents in this debate are not sticking around simply to antagonize you or make you look like a fool. WE want to discuss this matter. Debate, in my mind, is a tool that should be used to obtain enlightenment. One should go into debate (as I do) fully realizing that he/she *may not* know everything there is to know. I'm looking for new information to process. I'm asking questions in order to get that information.

Rick, you're not answering questions. Well, okay, you are, but the answers are always rehashes of things you've already said. You can't seem to answer a direct, specific question unless you've already memorized a slogan that seems to apply.

Ken Walters wrote what I believe to be the most coherent, level-headed, easy-to-read, non-condemning post thus far. Yet, you refuse to answer it.

Perhaps this statement truly does say it all: "While I would dearly love to sit here and compose answers and comments to all your varied questions - Alas, I can not!"

You also said: "Most of you NEVER fail to make the exception the rule in hangin' your opinion out to dry."

What exceptions? Accidental deaths? The Columbine incident? Do you see what I mean by ambiguity?

I'm disappointed that you're giving up. It would have been interesting to get some actual information out of you.

And, for the record, despite differing opinions -- and despite the sarcasm (frustration) of my previous post -- I think you seem to be a pretty swell guy. And I have to say that it's something of a credit to you that you stayed in this debate at all. There are several people on this board who will post apparently strong, firm opinions, but never stick around to back them up (even though they're posting elsewhere on the board). I can only consider the beliefs they won't defend invalid. At least you stuck around and tried.

--Ricko

Ken,


Thought you were a bit long winded in your first response, I thought the way you concluded your second post quite admirable.

I will NEVER retreat from the debate of those people who believe that additional laws will solve the problem or alleviate it.

What is a well regulated militia? Do we apply the standards of the 18th Century? If so, then many of the comics produced today would be banned. The second is like the first, please don't tinker with either one of our freedoms. If you can pass something which affects the second, there is Tipper Gore just dying to attack the first. Not to mention that plastic husband of hers.

As for BF, I dismiss its' comments as those of someone who has yet to arrive to puberty.

Let's not write long dissertations on this Ken. I am not in Congress.

Still respectfully disagree with you,

Sam

GUN-NUTS GOT SPELLCHECKERS!!!

Ken --
I think I'll move my responses to the gutter. It seems like the right place to take this topic of gun control.

Ricko -- Ditto, amigo ... see you in the gutter.

Hey, BF!
I got your "little general" hanging...
Drag that dog ass of yours to the gutter. You, of all people, are going to get what you really need - EDUCATION!


------------------
Rick Olney
It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance.
--Thomas Sowell, Creators Syndicate