|
Log in to post
|
Print Thread |
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,251
Veteran
|
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,251 |
John,
Please don't use the "c" word to describe your country! It's your country, not mine, so you can do what you want to.
I just think of Canada as a great neighbor. Not the "c" word.
And if you're wondering why I don't use the whole term, it's because I don't want my name linked to the terminology in google or anywhere else.
Bob
Last edited by bobcflatpicker; 03/11/10 08:26 PM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,193
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,193 |
Quote:
Quote:
Very true Marv. I support your right to not want to own a gun.
The question is, do you support my right to own one? Probably not.
So it all boils down to a group of people wanting to take the rights of another group of people away.
Bob
With respect, there are gaping logical flaws in this argument as the two rights in question are very different in nature.
Citizen A claims the right not to bear arms. This choice has no directly lethal or potentially lethal effect on anyone. The citizen who exercises this right represents no threat to anyone.
There is not a single state, regime or government in the world that would challenge a citizen's right not to bear firearms.
Citizen B claims the right to bear arms. This means he could, potentially:
- shoot himself, whether intentionally or by accident
- shoot others, whether intentionally or by accident
- have his firearm (through accidental discovery, sale or, more likely, theft) fall into the hands of someone less prudent -and more trigger happy- than himself
Clearly, these two 'rights' cannot therefore be viewed as being similar.
Marc,
I have to correct this. Our 'Bill of Rights', Article II, allows for gun ownership. Citizen A does not 'claim a right not to bear arms', as there is no 'Right' in our Bill of Rights as such. He may CHOOSE, by his or her own volition not to own or have a firearm, and that is perfectly acceptable. However, it is not a 'Right' not to own one, it is simply a choice. On the other hand, no one is forcing a gun into anyone's hand, either. If that *were* the case, then there may be due and just cause for a Right to Refuse a Firearm. Even you have said 'this choice' and 'choice' and 'right' are two vastly different things. However, since the Prohibition Amendment to our Constitution was repealed, that does allow you the 'right', within prescribed laws, to drink and consume alcohol. So, let us say that a 21 year old, licensed individual in the United States, a person who legally can operate a motor vehicle and a person who can legally consume alcohol, decides to do both at one.
Would you consider that a directly lethal or potentially lethal effect on anyone? I most certainly would.
Now, Citizen A claims the 'right' to consume alcohol and to operate a motor vehicle. Is he outside of the law? Maybe, maybe not. It all depends on his blood alcohol level, but those who fight against drunk driving claim, and I believe rightfully so, that 'impairment begins with the first drink.'
So, let's say that our driver has kicked back a couple, and his BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) is 0.079%. In the state of Washington, he is NOT considered 'Driving under the influence', even though he may be impaired.
He could potentially,
Have an accident and injure or kill himself
Have an accident and injure or kill others
Have his motor vehicle stolen by others who may be more or less impaired them himself and have them potentially injure or kill others.
I'm sorry, for everything you can come up with, I can come up with something else that falls to the same end point but without a gun.
Guns scare people because people don't understand guns, the responsibility of guns, and the care and use of guns. They have seen for most of their life that they are dangerous, loud, lethal, and often used to kill people, and will put you in jail.
There is no, nor can there be, any statistic, but I must wonder out of all the rounds of ammunition fired in a single period of year by civilian and law enforcement (but not military), what percentage of those actually strike and hurt, maim, or kill anyone or anything. The reason for 'anything' is that I would include hunting in that as well. How many things die per year as a total percentage of actual ammunition fired. Then, I would love to see the total number of people hurt, maimed or killed in that same year versus total cars and miles driven per year.
Gary
I'm blessed watching God do what He does best. I've had a few rough years, and I'm still not back to where I want to be, but I'm on the way and things are looking far better now than what they were!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,193
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,193 |
Marc, I'm actually enjoying your responses, because they make me think. Quote:
That’s fine with me, and very much as I suspected – we’re not dealing with rational argument here but something that goes far deeper.
I still don’t altogether see:
- how being able to shoot a small piece of metal at another human being is a synonym for freedom
- how a Right enshrined in an Act passed by the US Congress in 1791 was actually conferred by God
…but I’m working on it.
'Freedom', at least to MY POINT OF VIEW, varies by situation. While I have the ABILITY to drive 100 mph through town, my freedom would be drastically curtailed if I did it in front of a police officer, since the speed limit is 35 mph. I would be in violation of the law, and certain freedoms which I take for granted would be suspended for a period of time while I spent some of my old age in the county lockup.
On the other hand, if people like Winston Churchill had not stood up against an oppression of tyranny, and sent millions of small pieces of metal against other human beings, would you be 'free?' Likewise, how 'free' would I be if I were knifed, or beat up, or otherwise harmed and injured if someone were to move from our 'civilized' societal norms and were to violate me and my person? By the way, I *have* been assaulted a few times, robbed a few times, and had that 'freedom' removed from me. I've made a decision that I won't allow it to happen again. Could Churchill and the House of Commons simply have sat back and said 'oh, it doesn't matter, we don't want to hurt them;' and if so, where would you be today? A German citizen? Look outside your window and think what that might look like if a Swastika flew outside your yard.
Secondly, our Constitution begins with 'We the people....' and I may be missing it, but I see no reference to a RIGHT being conferred by God that citizens have the right to bear arms. 'We the people....'
Surprisingly enough...or may not, is this. This is taken from the Wikipedia article on the United States Constitution, and is under the section about The Bill of Rights.
Quote:
The United States Bill of Rights consists of the ten amendments added to the Constitution in 1791, as supporters of the constitution had promised critics during the debates of 1788.[15] The English Bill of Rights (1689) was an inspiration for the American Bill of Rights. Both require jury trials, contain a right to keep and bear arms, prohibit excessive bail and forbid "cruel and unusual punishments." Many liberties protected by state constitutions and the Virginia Declaration of Rights were incorporated into the Bill of Rights.
Please note the bold face and italicized text. Please explain to me where the U.K. changed that.
I hope I'm helping in your understanding.
I am NOT trying to take sides, I simply am stating what I understand to be true, as applies to the United States of America
Gary
I'm blessed watching God do what He does best. I've had a few rough years, and I'm still not back to where I want to be, but I'm on the way and things are looking far better now than what they were!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,193
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,193 |
John, Quote:
I re-iterate that the US is becoming a fortress. OK, why?
God, I wish I knew. My biggest answer would be 'FEAR.' But, that is simply an easy answer, and there is no easy answer.
A lot of boils down to common sense, or lack thereof.
/me bows head and whispers 'Rest In Peace, you are missed.'
Funny? Well, it was supposed to be some sort of levity, but the truth is that I do believe that whatever that thing that we used to call 'common sense' or 'horse sense' or whatever has galloped out of the pasture and hiding, grazing, on the other side of the hill, waiting for people here to get their heads out of their arses and back on their shoulders where they belong.
Then, along with the lack of common sense, you have the rebel-rousers, and fear-mongers who will tell you that every terrorist is going to bring a nuke bomb in from Canada, packed in inexpensive drugs and wrapped in maple leaves...or maple sugar. At that same instance, they're also telling you that the terrorists are coming in across the Rio Grande, or under it, or under the border in Arizona, and then have videos to prove it.
Hey, maybe if there wasn't a huge demand from illegal drugs, then we wouldn't have this issue! Let's find a way to stop illegal drug use, and no, I don't mean by legalizing it.
Whatever it is, paranoia, people with IQs that are the inverse of the decibels they can reach with a bull horn, or just plain 'I don't give a damn' attitudes, we are driving ourselves insane...or, are allowing ourselves to be driven that way.
How many years does it take an established society to go from the top of the heap to the bottom of the pile? Two hundred, three hundred, maybe four?
How long was The British Empire (where the sun never set) in place? How long from when Britian was at it's glorious peak to have fallen to where it is today? How long for the U.S.? I would say that our country peaked in the mid 1950's and early 1960's, and from there, we have been going downhill all the way. Who will be the next power to rise up to be the big person on the street? Not China, at least as she is now, not until she has true Democracy, but she will make a run for it. Canada is tied too closely to the U.S., in mores and ethics, no South American country with their petty squabbles. Japan has passed her prime, Russia is in worse condition than China for many reasons, mostly corruption. India? I don't think so. The Middle East? Not likely.
In the next 25 years, probably a lot less, I see our civilization going through a huge change, a new world order, but not the shining star that so many talk about. We will see a ruthless, cruel and powerful dictatorship on a world level, with individual countries falling in line. Freedoms that we've spoke of in this thread, gone for everyone. Oh, it may get better with time, absolute power corrupts absolutely, but it won't be for a while, and out of the smoke and rubble of that disaster, we'll either have a new and better world, or we'll have darkness unimaginable.
I pray that I am not here to see it.
Gary
I'm blessed watching God do what He does best. I've had a few rough years, and I'm still not back to where I want to be, but I'm on the way and things are looking far better now than what they were!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 22,150
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 22,150 |
Gary - Wow
I was going to respond to your comments on Nazi flags in English neighborhoods as being offensive, but then you posted another post..
To John; asking why we are turning into a fortress.. umm we have been a focus of attacks, some pretty well orchestrated..and many from within. Be glad we have the right to defend ourselves. We live next door.
I don't worry about the doors being locked here either. Part of that is because of how remotely we live. Facts be told, my town has had one murder in 80 years and it didn't involve a gun. So statistics can work a lot of ways.. doesn't mean I shouldn't pay attention.
I do not work here, but the benefits are still awesome
Make your sound your own!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,193
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,193 |
Bob,
The question wasn't supposed to be offensive, nor was the following post. If the English people had not done the things necessary to prevent a totalitarian dictator from moving into the United Kingdom, even though that regime had already moved through all of Western Europe, then in fact Marc might very well be looking out his window, as a German citizen, under a Nazi regime. Also, had what I said actually happened, it would not have been 'an English neighborhood', it would have been a German neighborhood. Even though Marc lives in France now, it is still the same. In the early 1940s, France was, for all intents and purposes, within Germany, considered a part of Germany. In reality, no different than what the Russians put up with after the Czars were ousted until the fall of the U.S.S.R. It could have been the Sickle and Hammer, too.
BUT, Marc was asking "I still don’t altogether see: - how being able to shoot a small piece of metal at another human being is a synonym for freedom." It was an illustrative answer to that question. We, the Brits, the French, and even the Germans, all have FREEDOM today because a small piece of metal, or literally, millions of them, were shot at human beings, and many millions of human beings died from those small pieces of metal to bring about FREEDOM.
I only chose to illustrate a POSSIBLE, and yes, offensive, outcome.
As to the other post, that is the way I see it, and have seen it for 30 some years now. Nothing has changed my mind, or is likely to, since I see it getting worse each day.
Gary
Last edited by Gary Curran; 03/11/10 10:30 PM.
I'm blessed watching God do what He does best. I've had a few rough years, and I'm still not back to where I want to be, but I'm on the way and things are looking far better now than what they were!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,075
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,075 |
Quote:
Again, you’re missing the point big time.
The citizen who does not wish to carry a gun and does not do so represents no sort of threat to the gun carrier. The reverse is not true for the reasons I listed above. (post #266720)
On the contrary, I fully understand that point; but I respectfully disagree with the way you are driving the point to a conclusion. This is one of those "difference in kind/difference in degree" discussions. You appear to be offering DEGREE arguments, whereas the rest of us are making KIND arguments. Your observations about HOW MANY murders and HOW MANY guns erroneously leads to the conclusion that lots of guns lead to lots of shootings. We disagree. You further contend that if guns were controlled then people would be safer. We disagree. We contend that THE VAST MAJORITY of gun owners are responsible and safe. To argue that responsible people should not be able to own the guns they enjoy is a knee jerk response to misapplied statistics.
We believe that passing laws against guns would simply result in only bad and irresponsible people having guns. And they are the only ones who are likely to shoot people now. So changing the law would not change the degree of safety AT ALL, except possibly for the worse. If a crook thinks you have a gun, he might think twice before he breaks in.. but if he is sure you DON'T have a gun (and he does have a gun) what's to stop him?
Quote:
The stats quoted below show unequivocally and irrefutably that, in terms of intentional homicides, the USA is well over 3 times more dangerous than the UK.
What exactly is your argument? that without the private citizens’ right to bear arms you would not be at 5.4, per 100,000 but somewhere around the Mexican level (10) or higher perhaps?
You may be right, but to my way of thinking it is an argument which defies rationality.
THere is an old saying in business that 90% of your problems come from 10% of your customers. I submit that a relatively small number of repeat offenders are responsible for most of those statistics.
Why? because our system fails to exact penalties for lawlessness.
Why? because the same bleeding hearts who protest guns also protest justice.
Why? Because they don't really believe in absolute right and wrong
why? because they themselves don't want to be accountable
why? because they are reprobate
why? because they value their own opinion more than they value the law
why? because they think they are smarter than everybody else, and not subject to law
...but until they can get the guns away from the gun owners, they are afraid to disregard the law to the degree necessary to shove their point of view down everyone else's throat.
Which is why many people see discussions like this as a power play to change the laws under the guise of "enlightenment" ( But I digress...)
Quote:
But this is not at all what was said, which was that no discussion should be permitted on this subject.
actually, what I tried to say was that the question of whether the right to bear arms exists does not need to be discussed, because the right clearly does exist.
Quote:
If you’re mind is not altered by the weight of factual argument (US intentional homicides per 100,000 of the population vs. those in other western countries), then –I’m afraid for you anyway- there has been little point to the discussion.
are you suggesting that the only valid point that could have been derived from this discussion is agreement with your perspective? And barring that the discussion is pointless? Assuming that the data itself is valid, the conclusion you derive from it is arguably not what you hold it to be. Guns are the secondary player if not tertiary player in the stats. The problem with American Crime begins with a system that is (for a variety of reasons) unable to keep the bad guys off the streets.
Last edited by Pat Marr; 03/12/10 01:08 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,426
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,426 |
"Outlaw guns and only the outlaws will have guns."
That's PRECISELY the situation here in the UK. Law-abiding citizens had their handguns confiscated in 1997 and since then armed crime has almost doubled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 8,333
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 8,333 |
As the English judge said to the criminal who stole a horse and was convicted, and question the sentence:
"I am not hanging YOU for stealing a horse, I am hanging you so someone else does not steal a horse."
An old story, might be folklore, but I heard it from a conservative lawyer.
John Conley
Musica est vita
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,426
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,426 |
The same judge maybe that listened to the accused pleas: "As God is my judge, your honour, I'm not guilty!" and replied: "He's not. I am. You are." 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 22,150
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: May 2000
Posts: 22,150 |
Quote:
"Outlaw guns and only the outlaws will have guns."
That's PRECISELY the situation here in the UK. Law-abiding citizens had their handguns confiscated in 1997 and since then armed crime has almost doubled.
Thank you skyline.
I mentioned this statistic much earlier and was told I was wrong, even though I cited the stats..
I do not work here, but the benefits are still awesome
Make your sound your own!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,251
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,251 |
Skyline, Quote:
"Outlaw guns and only the outlaws will have guns."
That's PRECISELY the situation here in the UK. Law-abiding citizens had their handguns confiscated in 1997 and since then armed crime has almost doubled.
It's hard for me to understand why so many people find this to be a difficult principle to grasp. It's so basic.
The criminals, aka "outlaws", will always have guns. Period.
Why ANY government would want their citizens to to be easy prey for the criminals is a mystery to me.
A couple of years ago, 2 young thugs decided to break in on old woman not far from where I live. They knew she had gotten her welfare check and cashed it.
Easy pickin's for them. They kicked her door in, and she "greeted" them with a 12 gauge pump shotgun. She killed one of them. She wounded the other and he went to prison after he got out of the the hospital.
They were both armed. As most criminals are.
Unfortunately, someone died that day.............................Fortunately, it wasn't the "helpless" old lady.
If she hadn't been able to "respond", she wouldn't have been their last victim.
Bob
Last edited by bobcflatpicker; 03/12/10 09:21 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,693
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,693 |
Quote:
"Outlaw guns and only the outlaws will have guns."
That's PRECISELY the situation here in the UK. Law-abiding citizens had their handguns confiscated in 1997 and since then armed crime has almost doubled.
Can you post a credible link showing that? I thought I did earlier but was told the link is a tabloid blog with no credibility at all. Also exactly what was the mechanism used to confiscate your guns? Did Parliament simply pass a new law and if so what law? Someone mentioned the original English Common Law had the right to bear arms in it, is that true?
Bob
Biab/RB latest build, Win 11 Pro, Ryzen 5 5600 G, 512 Gig SSD, 16 Gigs Ram, Steinberg UR22 MkII, Roland Sonic Cell, Kurzweil PC3, Hammond SK1, Korg PA3XPro, Garritan JABB, Hypercanvas, Sampletank 3, more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,426
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,426 |
Bob, In late 2009 the Daily Telegraph published figures supporting the horrendous growth in gun crime since they were 'done away with'. The BBC quoted in 2007: "The number of people injured by firearms in England and Wales has more than doubled since 1998." Two credible sources there, one Right and one Left. The sorry tale of UK legitmate firearms ownership is dealt with quite well here: Wiki - UK Firearms Legislation. Yes, the right to bear arms was in the English Bill of Rights of 1689, much of which was copied by the Founding Fathers into the US Bill of Rights: Wiki - The English Bill of Rights.Blackstone, the definitive authority on English Common Law declared in his four volume treatise in the 1760s: "The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression." Perfectly put. Interestingly, our Bill Of Rights is still in force so I guess in theory the relevant clause could be evoked by us: "Freedom for Protestants to have arms for their own defence, as suitable to their class and as allowed by law." I'm no lawyer so I don't know if Parliamentary statutes override my 1689 rights? I could go for a test case, but the minimum sentence for illegal possession of a handgun here is five years!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,075
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,075 |
here's a link with more references than the first one I posted http://www.rkba.ca/gun_control_and_genocide.htmlBe sure to Scroll down to the very last sentence on the page and read that before you exit the site. (FWIW. this is taken from a Canadian web site)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,426
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,426 |
Bob, in answer to your other question:
It was the 1997 Firearms Act and the mechanism for confiscation was as follows, bearing in mind this was probably the first time legislation had been passed to make ownership of legitmate personal possessions retroactively illegal.
The Home Office prepared a comprehensive catalogue of all items we pistol shooters might own, including all known types of pistol, ammunition, reloading equipment, holsters, etc. The catalogue showed surrender prices. We had to fill in a form, send it off and then were sent an appointment to go to our local Police HQ. It was conducted in a terribly British fashion - we even had a reserved car parking space to pull into! I then had to take my stuff inside to a private room, sat down and a very courteous policeman (a member of my local club) made things as gentle as possible. Items were checked, put in an individual cardboard box for each shooter. There was an enormous wall of boxes behind me.
I must confess I had a tear in my eye at the time due to the sheer injustice of it all and sadness that the sport I loved so much was now at an end. A few days later a compensation cheque arrived from the government and that was that. I kept one item in order to show it to my grandchilden ('we used to be trusted to by our government to own these, son') as you could keep guns but only if you had them deactivated. So I still have my Beretta 92F auto (standard US army), albeit in an inert form. (Note to self: I have a feeling that even da-acts might have been made illegal since, but sod 'em...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,693
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 7,693 |
Thanks, Skyline.
Alright guys, this seems pretty definitive to me. Take away honest citizens guns and look what happens.
Bob
Biab/RB latest build, Win 11 Pro, Ryzen 5 5600 G, 512 Gig SSD, 16 Gigs Ram, Steinberg UR22 MkII, Roland Sonic Cell, Kurzweil PC3, Hammond SK1, Korg PA3XPro, Garritan JABB, Hypercanvas, Sampletank 3, more.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 812
Expert
|
|
Expert
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 812 |
Wow.....someone please stick a fork in this thread, I think it's a tad overdone.......
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 6,706
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 6,706 |
Quote:
OK so if we extract the gang bangers from the shooting things in Canada, 2 or 3 people die of gunshots every year. And a dozen with knives.
John,
I enjoyed the debate from the sideline but the statement above prompted me to do a little research. Now unless you are saying, or believe every homicide is a gangbang, your numbers are a bit off, still low but not 2-3 per year. Here is what I found directly from the Royal Canadian Mounted Police website:
Firearm Deaths In Canada
• From 1970 to 1996, approximately 37,399 individuals died or were killed as a result of gun shot wounds. This accounts for an average of 1,385 deaths per year over 27 years.
Not sure why but I could not find figures later than 1996 but unless the trends depicted on the accompanying charts on this site did a complete 180 I would only imagine the numbers to be considerably higher. So just a head's up . . . you might want to think about locking that screen door in the not too distant future.
Later,
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Off-Topic
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,193
Veteran
|
|
Veteran
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 10,193 |
The problem with taking guns away, in my opinion, is that it not only allows the criminals to have free reign, it also allows for the possibility of a government to impose a will beyond the desires of the people. http://goldandgrains.blogspot.com/2009/09/worldwide-history-of-gun-confiscation.htmlNot an 'authoritative list', but something worth looking at: WORLDWIDE HISTORY OF GUN CONFISCATION Found this today. Something to think about. You may not want a gun in your house, but you might be glad you neighbor has one in his. In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. —————————— In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. —————————— Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. —————————— China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. —————————— Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. —————————— Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. —————————— Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. http://www.google.com/search?q=gun+confi...ved=0CC4Q5wIwCwAnyway, I need to get ready, I'm 'under the gun' as it were, as I have multiple MRIs today for my back, and I need to get ready to go. Have a great day, folks. Openly sharing opposing views, and being accepting of others beliefs, is the first step to understanding. Gary
I'm blessed watching God do what He does best. I've had a few rough years, and I'm still not back to where I want to be, but I'm on the way and things are looking far better now than what they were!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ask sales and support questions about Band-in-a-Box using natural language.
ChatPG's knowledge base includes the full Band-in-a-Box User Manual and sales information from the website.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Band-in-a-Box 2025 Italian Version is Here!
Cari amici
È stata aggerate la versione in Italiano del programma più amato dagli appassionati di musica, il nostro Band-in-a-Box.
Questo è il link alla nuova versione 2025.
Di seguito i link per scaricare il pacchetti di lingua italiana aggiornati per Band-in-a-Box e RealBand, anche per chi avesse già comprato la nuova versione in inglese.
Band-in-a-Box 2025 - Italiano
RealBand 2025 - Italiano
Band-in-a-Box 2025 French Version is Here!
Bonjour à tous,
Band-in-a-Box® 2025 pour Windows est disponible en Français.
Le téléchargement se fait à partir du site PG Music
Pour ceux qui auraient déjà acheté la version 2025 de Band-in-a-Box (et qui donc ont une version anglaise), il est possible de "franciser" cette version avec les patchs suivants:
BIAB 2025 - francisation
RealBand 2025 - francisation
Voilà, enjoy!
Band-in-a-Box 2025 German Version is Here!
Update Your Band-in-a-Box® 2025 to Build 1128 for Windows Today!
Already using Band-in-a-Box 2025 for Windows®? Download Build 1128 now from our Support Page to enjoy the latest enhancements and improvements from our team.
Stay up to date—get the latest update now!
Update to RealBand® 2025 Build 5 Windows Today!
Already using RealBand® 2025 for Windows®? Download Build 5 now from our Support Page to ensure you have the latest enhancements and improvements from our team.
Get the latest update today!
PowerTracks Pro Audio 2025 for Windows is Here!
PowerTracks Pro Audio 2025 is here! This new version introduces many features, including VST3 support, the ability to load or import a .FLAC file, a reset option for track height in the Tracks window, a taller Timeline on the Notation window toolbar, new freeze buttons in the Tracks window, three toolbar modes (two rows, single row, and none), the improved Select Patch dialog with text-based search and numeric patch display, a new button in the DirectX/VST window to copy an effects group, and more!
First-time packages start at only $49. Already a PowerTracks Pro Audio user? Upgrade for as little as $29!
www.pgmusic.com/powertracks.htm
Video: Summary of the New Band-in-a-Box® App for iOS®
Join Tobin as he takes you on a tour of the new Band-in-a-Box® app for iOS®! Designed for musicians, singer-songwriters, and educators, this powerful tool lets you create, play, and transfer songs effortlessly on your iPhone® or iPad®—anytime, anywhere.
Band-in-a-Box® for iOS® :Summary video.
Check out the forum post for more information.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums58
Topics84,141
Posts775,697
Members39,584
| |
Most Online25,754
Jan 24th, 2025
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dansk
Deutsch - Windows
Español
Français - Windows
Italiano - Windows
Nederlands
Polski
Português
Svenskt
русский
Japanese
Simplified Chinese
Traditional Chinese
Korean