News

Second Amendment saves lives-AGAIN!!!

Discussion in 'Other Off Topic Forum' started by Horsefly, Nov 24, 2003.

  1. Horsefly

    Horsefly F1 Veteran
    Rossa Subscribed

    May 14, 2002
    6,929
    Here's a story HOT off the press. An Arkansas doctor and his wife are kidnapped by a fugitive, forced to drive to Texas, then the doctor manages to pull out a hidden pistol and delivers 3 shots of HOT LEAD to the kidnapper.

    http://www.katv.com/news/stories/1103/111559.html

    Gee, I wonder if the good doctor and his wife broke a law in Texas for carrying a concealed weapon? Maybe if they had been passive, law abiding citizens who followed the preachings of Feinstein, Schumer, Brady and all the other gun haters, they would be dead right now.
    THAT'S WHAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS ALL ABOUT,...PROTECTING YOURSELF!!!

    So what say, gun haters? Here's the perfect case.
     
  2. ART360

    ART360 Guest

    Arlie:

    What does this have to do with keeping nuts cases from getting guns? The only difference is that the doctor would have had to get a permit. If he isn't crazy, why wouldn't he have had a gun anyway?

    Art
     
  3. Mark(study)

    Mark(study) F1 Veteran
    Silver Subscribed

    Oct 13, 2001
    5,878
    Clearwater, FL
    Full Name:
    Mark
    I don't hate guns. If you live in the country ( like I did for a while) you need a gun and a dirt bike to have some fun. If you live in the big city, a gun is seems silly. I'd rather call security in my complex, or the police if my alarm goes off.


    For every one gun hero story..... you get thousands of gun crime and gun victum stories. Our news doesn't even cover gun shooting and acident cases anymore....too common. They don't have enough time everyday on a 22min news cast. Most are with-in the household and kids playing, or spouses in fights... not news worthy anymore.

    Yet if a guy saves himself with a gun. It is sooo rare it gets a story for a few days on the news and even a post on a car chat site.
     
  4. Gilles27

    Gilles27 F1 World Champ

    Mar 16, 2002
    13,337
    Ex-Urbia
    Full Name:
    Jack
    3 shots into the chest? Why waste two bullets and not just split his head in half with a single shot?
     
  5. Horsefly

    Horsefly F1 Veteran
    Rossa Subscribed

    May 14, 2002
    6,929
    Art, correct me if I am wrong, but there are already laws against murder. In this particular case, the kidnapper had already MURDERED two old people. Do you think he would have balked at the idea of STEALING a gun if he had to? He wouldn't have thought twice about ignoring any stupid Brady Bill law because he was already a known law breaker and a MURDERER!!!

    As for your last question: "If he isn't crazy, why wouldn't he have had a gun anyway?" I don't even understand the question.
     
  6. Mark(study)

    Mark(study) F1 Veteran
    Silver Subscribed

    Oct 13, 2001
    5,878
    Clearwater, FL
    Full Name:
    Mark
    Chris Rock has the best ideas..


    DON'T control guns. You can't control guns!!
    (you have to say this the way Chris Rock talks "yells" )

    "But I'll tell you what" If you make bullets cost $5,000 each....

    -you won't have anymore inocent by-standers ever getting shot again.
    -you won't have 7/11's robbed when the bullet cost more then the cash in the drawer.
    -guys will have to hate each other way way way more before they pull that triger and spend $5k

    Chris Rock made this bit very funny. Sorry I can't write as funny as he preformed this.
     
  7. Horsefly

    Horsefly F1 Veteran
    Rossa Subscribed

    May 14, 2002
    6,929
    "Yet if a guy saves himself with a gun. It is sooo rare it gets a story for a few days on the news and even a post on a car chat site."

    That's what the gun control crowd always says. The fact they ignore is this: Most of the time when a gun is used to ward off crime, the whole incident is a NON-INCIDENT. Meaning: some guy waves a shotgun in the face of a would-be burglar or car thief and the would-be thief runs off without a shot being fired, or at the least, a warning shot is fired to scare the guy off. Nobody is hurt, nothing was stolen or destroyed, therefore the incident is never reported because the presence of a firearm caused NOTHING TO HAPPEN. Of course the newscasts don't report on NON-incidents. You can't make ratings with that. Of course if the gun haters weren't so anti-NRA, they would read the monthly column in the American Rifleman magazine that deals with citizens who successfully defend themselves with firearms. They list dozens of cases every month with a reference to the original newspaper that published the incident.

    But of course the gun haters wouldn't want to let the facts get in the way of their agenda, which is the destruction of the Second Amendment.
     
  8. Mark(study)

    Mark(study) F1 Veteran
    Silver Subscribed

    Oct 13, 2001
    5,878
    Clearwater, FL
    Full Name:
    Mark
    "That's what the gun control crowd always says."

    Because its true.

    The NRA thinks the media and the people of this land are out to get them.

    So here's a suggestion. Screw the press and the statistics. We go down to the Emergency Room on a Friday night ( in Tampa, LA, Miami, Boston, ) pick a city....

    We can count how many gun shot victums come in.
    Maybe 40 a night if you're in a big city (Fri or Sat night).
    We can ask them how many are accidents or domestic problems.
     
  9. bobafett

    bobafett F1 Veteran

    Sep 28, 2002
    9,193
    Arlie: moderation and UNDERSTANDING what the other side is saying isn't going to kill you. NO ONE said to abolish the 2nd amendment. Get over it.

    Good points by Mark and Art (Mark - I did see the bit. Very amusing :D ).

    --Dan
     
  10. Horsefly

    Horsefly F1 Veteran
    Rossa Subscribed

    May 14, 2002
    6,929
    "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

    Spoken by Barry Goldwater at the Republican National Convention in 1964.

    Barry had it right, that's why his words are WELL remembered. The pethetic preachings of the whining liberal gun haters who would destroy the Second Amendment will ring hollow with each passing year.
     
  11. JimSchad

    JimSchad Guest

    too bad they didn't kill him. now he will find a sympathetic attorney to defend him as the couple was "too aggressive" in their retalliation.
     
  12. ART360

    ART360 Guest

    Nonsense. There was nothing wrong about what the doctor did. Unfortunately it had absolutely nothing to do with this argument. The argument is about keeping lunatics from acquiring guns. Typical of gun nuts: take a case where use of the gun is ok, then use distorted logic to make it apply to a commen sense alternative to allowing people to acquire guns in crazy circumstances.

    Art
     
  13. Horsefly

    Horsefly F1 Veteran
    Rossa Subscribed

    May 14, 2002
    6,929
    That sounds just like Henry Ford. You can have a Ford in any color that you want, as long as it's black!

    You can own any gun that you want, as long as the government approves of it and you purchase it in a manner that the government approves of.

    You can attend any church that you want, as long as your religion is on the government approved list.

    "commen sense alternative to allowing people to acquire guns in crazy circumstances."

    Why don't we engage in some word substitution in the above statement.

    "commen sense alternative to allowing people to WORSHIP THEIR RELIGION in crazy circumstances." or maybe

    "commen sense alternative to allowing people to EXERCISE THEIR RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH in crazy circumstances.

    SARCASM SWITCH to ON POSITION:
    If we don't put some constraints on these Constitutional freedoms, the next thing you know, the citizens will start actually thinking that they are free people. But as we know, some "animals are more equal than others" (George Orwell's Animal Farm)
     
  14. ART360

    ART360 Guest

    Arlie:

    Deal with the issues: why is it wrong to make sure that crazies don't get guns?

    Don't get off topic, don't get crazy, deal with that simple proposition. If you can't deal with it, let someone else deal with it.

    Your call:

    Art
     
  15. Horsefly

    Horsefly F1 Veteran
    Rossa Subscribed

    May 14, 2002
    6,929
    "Deal with the issues: why is it wrong to make sure that crazies don't get guns?"

    Because one should not "throw the baby out with the bathwater".
    In other words, don't constrain the Second Amendment rights of honest law abiding citizens in your zeal to keep the crazies from getting their guns. Pardon the pun, but isn't that a SHOTGUN defense? Since it's so hard to get each individual crazy, let's just pass a bunch of oppressive, constraining, anti-gun laws against EVERYBODY and somewhere among all those people, the crazies will also be prevented from getting their guns. But that approach won't work, because most of those "crazies" are just low life criminals who will NOT obey the law in the first place. So the end result is: You've missed your target completely. (another pun.) The "crazy" was your target that you wanted to keep from getting guns, but in the end, all that you accomplished was preventing honest people from getting guns, and you have nothing to fear from them in the first place.

    It's also what I call a "speedbump" defense. (I hate speedbumps). Just because ONE guy out of a hundred will drive across a parking lot in a hurry, the parking lot paver installs a speedbump to inconvenience NINETY NINE other people for no reason.
     
  16. rcallahan

    rcallahan F1 Rookie
    Owner

    Jul 15, 2002
    3,307
    Santa Barbara
    Full Name:
    Bob Callahan
    Arlie,

    Does the city you live in have a water tower? :)
     
  17. randall

    randall Formula 3

    Nov 2, 2003
    1,352
    Portsmouth, VA
    Full Name:
    Randall
    Arlie,
    That article is a pretty trivial exmple. Maybe you should post the other ten articles where innocent people were accidentally shot. Where six year old kids took guns to school for show and tell and accidentally shot another kid.

    I'm against idiots owning guns. And the only thing that protects people from idiots is some amount of gun control. You're right that criminals will find a weapon, but what about the dumbass that knows nothing about guns, buys a pistol for protection that will shoot through two wall and lives in an apartment. Could a required safety course teach that guy that maybe that pistol isn't the best choice?
     
  18. thecarreaper

    thecarreaper F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Sep 30, 2003
    15,227
    Savannah
    Full Name:
    name
    i want all of the naysayers to go to a gun shop and try to buy a gun.( especially a handgun) its not that easy anymore. and dont start the " gun show" BS with me either. you cannot buy a gun at a public or private show or auction unless you fill out all the many forms and pass a background check. now if you buy more than one or two guns a year you HAVE TO get a state issued permit / license or you will sit there waiting for ???? how long for the " government " to say its ok. i have seen police officers and military personnel be forced to wait for hours and they carry firearms " on the job". as far as " 6 year olds / children getting killed" yes that is terrible. but the parents are to blame not the " gun". i hope to God that i never have to use a weapon of any type on anyone. but i would rather have it and never never need it.... than NEED! it and not have it. from your local police... to the ATF the problem is the lack of enforcement of exsisting laws.
     
  19. Kds

    Kds F1 World Champ

    It has nothing to do with preventing crazy people getting weapons IMHO. It's a "canard" meant to prevent the sane people from defending themsevles against a certain form of government.

    "That" argument, namely, that we can't let guns fall into the hands of crazy people is the only argument the left wing has. Problem is, crazy people "generally" do not buy their weapons and fill out the paperwork all the while waiting patiently for days, like 99% of the law abiding gun owning population does. They merely buy a gun on the street.

    Here in Canada we have more knife crime than gun crime, because criminals will be criminals and use whatever they can get, whenever they can get it. So I guess we can be held as a model for gun control........but not for crime prevention. There is enough logic out there like "this" to defeat the argument about crazy people getting guns.

    In any event, gun crime here in Calgary is on the rise and the cause of that in and of itself is a topic for another thread about why the right is right and the left is wrong on this issue.

    It has everything to do with "those" who wish to implement "communism lite".....currently marketed under the brand name of "socialism" as the preferred form of government. With a disarmed society they can do whatever they please. Call me crazy.....but before I start pulling up the historical quotes to support that statement, which BTW have already been posted here before, consider that the framers of your constitution were wise enough to put the "right to bear arms" content of the second amendment directly after the content of the "right to free speech" in the first.

    Too bad the guy lived......what did he shoot him with anyways.......a .22 ?
     
  20. ART360

    ART360 Guest

    You can buy a gun at a show. The background checks take 48 hours. You fill out the form, and the run the check. However, the check doesn't come back, you still get the gun. Stupid law, lets people get guns that shouldn't.

    As to those who are against any control. They're a fringe, and should be dealt with accordingly. Moderate regulation is favored by 60 -70% of our population, and we should have it. If it wasn't for the bribery of the gun lobby, we would. What this country needs is a strong lobby against that gun lobby, and effective use of the money to make things happen. Or, we should find a way to outlaw money being used to buy votes.

    Art
     
  21. Mitch Alsup

    Mitch Alsup F1 Veteran

    Nov 4, 2003
    6,337
    We'll lets see,

    a) we make it (basically) impossible for them to hold a job (check),
    b) we cast them out on the street because they can't pay the rent (check),
    c) they have no place to obtain edible food (check)

    Thats why we shoud prevent them from getting guns!

    I think the issue is something other than guns here. The issue is "what kind of society we want to live in". Is it one with compassion and support, or one of dog-eat-dog? I see a lot of the later and little of the former.
     
  22. DrStranglove

    DrStranglove FChat Assassin
    Rossa Subscribed Owner

    Oct 31, 2003
    24,716
    Google Maps
    Full Name:
    DrS
    Go get'em Doc!!!!!! I hope he dies!!!! Be a good lesion for the others!!!!!!


    Mitch, you should try being a cop in a big city sometime. Its a real eye opener. 9/10ths of those I had to deal with were decidedly not crazy, just mean.

    DrS
     
  23. Kds

    Kds F1 World Champ

    Interesting that someone here views the framers of your constitution as being on "the fringe" and that they should be "dealt with accordingly".

    Maybe they can elaborate if that was who they were talking about, since I do not see any reference to "control" in the Second Amendment......if anything they should look up the word "infringed" since that word is present in it's place.
     
  24. Mark(study)

    Mark(study) F1 Veteran
    Silver Subscribed

    Oct 13, 2001
    5,878
    Clearwater, FL
    Full Name:
    Mark
     
  25. Tyler

    Tyler F1 Rookie

    Dec 19, 2001
    4,274
    dusty old farm town
    Full Name:
    Tyler
    "The framers of the constitiution where "farmers".
    You need a gun to shoot at crows in the corn patch, foxes in the chickens coop, and keep the rabbits away from the greens.

    Today less then 4% of the people are farmers.
    Funny thing about the passage of 200 years time.... things change."

    Mark, plinking at rabbits is not what they had in mind. Neither was putting food on the table. The central idea was the ability to resist a tyrannical government. You have to remember that while some things do change, many do not. Governments have a long history of taking rights and property no matter how well intended their beginnings. The framers knew this and central to their thinking was the last line of defense againt a government out of control.
     

Share This Page