Second Amendment saves lives-AGAIN!!!

Hank! Call Dale, Boom-hower and Bill. I just saw 30 Rapters flying into our neck of the woods. Grab the shot guns. We'll show the government not to mess with our Anti Government Survival group. This will show those Rapter- heat seeking, GPS laser guide bomb dropping jockeys... this buck-shots for you!

I think after 200 years, we've proved voting might work better than shot-guns. I just have a better feeling after 200 years of success with this voting thing... then the Framers probably had when they where just trying to get it started.

You guys are going to need a bigger gun

 

Then use the word "mean' not 'crazy'. However, I think it is 'mean' of us (here in the USoA) to dump people who used to be sequestered in mental institutions onto the streets. E.g. the ones who really qualify as crazy not the ones who simply don't want to abide by the laws of the land.

BTW: I have nothing against people using guns to defend themselves, I just wish more of the defense actions resulted in dead bodies than living criminals with the ability to sue the defending persons.

BTW2: I would not last 0.2 seconds as a cop anywhere, even though I admire those who take up this kind of responsibility.

 

For all you guys wimpering about people who are hurt by guns and need to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people... Why don't you try to keep cars out of the hands of idiots like the guy who is pissed that he can't drive 180 mph on the freeway in Georgia. Cars are the real threat not guns. Outlawing things works really well if you haven't noticed... Works for drugs doesn't it?

I would bet if all you gun controlers who responded took an honest look at yourself you would be first in line fighting to protect speech at the first hint of infringment of that right. Art, I am pretty sure that would be you.

And BTW we have had peaceful elections for 200 years in some part due to the people having power, in other words able to protect against the tyranny of the state by having guns. Hitler and Stalin wasted no time confiscating guns when they took power. That is FACT and not some antiquated notion form 200 years ago. This happens even today. So be thankful for our founders and all the rights not just the 1st, 4th and 14th ammendment.

 

"Outlawing things works really well if you haven't noticed..."

Hate to break it to you, but laws mean noting without punishments. It's not the laws that keep people in line, it's the punishments. Our society will never want to punish lawbreakers, so laws rarely have that much meaning.

As far as the framers of the constitution go; they had no idea what the future would hold. Look at who the constitution was meant to apply to? We're lucky that things weren't left as they were originally planned.

 

Although the jury is still out as to weather the framers, when referring to a 'well armed militia' meant the citizenry at large or some form of official group, when looking at the history of laws through the last 200 years, we can imply they meant the citizenry at large. From the time the Amendments were written until just a few decades ago, there has been to discernable effort to ban or otherwise limit the access or ownership of firearms at the Federal level. This includes the period at the end of the Civil War when President Lincoln allowed Confederate soldiers to keep their privately owned firearms.

I fall into the category of those who believe, at the time it was written, the 2nd Amendment was intended to give citizens the ability to resist tyrannical governments, both domestic and foreign.
With modern technology this ideological concept is a bit far-fetched, but not totally ludicrous, as the Afghan resistance to the Soviets showed the world.

Although I initially opposed the easing of CCW permits by some states, including mine (Colorado) in the belief it would result in untrained citizens shooting innocent people, this has not turned out to be the case. Although I spent 13 years in uniformed patrol and have extensive training, both physical and legal, in use of deadly force, I do not have a CCW.

 

I'm just looking at how things have changed in the last 200 years.
I don't grow my own food or need a gun anymore.

When I lived in Bloomington Indiana I enjoyed my gun and my dirt bike.

My last three homes (Detroit, Miami, New York) all offer so much to do...but when you live in the big city guns are seen as a problem.

When you live in the country Guns are fun.

 

Posse Comitatus Act of 1878

 

MarkPDX, I'm sure that they would just be providing "technical assistance".

 

This argument is verbal wheel-spinning, as it has arisen before and I'm sure we'll visit it again. The pattern seems to be that those raised around guns and often generally rural areas vehemently defent 2nd ammendment rights and fear any sort of proposed limitations as an effort to take away the firearms of every American. Not only are the guns for sport, but for the defense of their families and homes.

The other side, from which I come, tends to associate guns more with their ugly, lethal side commonly seen in more urban areas. We don't want to rid the country of guns, we just want a little institutional control on the dispersion of firearms in this nation. Carreaper suggests that it's difficult to obtain a handgun these days. Sure it is--if you're one of the responsible citizens above. The problem is the millions of unaccounted-for weapons readily available on the street, from handguns to various grades of assault weapons, that end up in the hands of criminals and gangs.

Those of you that hail from and reside in more rural areas don't understand the concerns of those in a city. It isn't about owning a gun to protect your family from intruders. It's about the randomness of bullets hitting and killing innocent people--be they on their porch, inside their house or at a bus stop--because of drive-by shootings or gang-related activities.

We have issues that need addressing, and some of them pertain to the ridiculous number of guns that are readily available on the streets. We couldn't give a f**k about the guy down the street with his hunting rifles, provided he's responsible about them. We don't want his guns, we want the ones that are killing innocent people.

 

Arlie,
You're a real disappointment to debate with. No one on this chat group wants to ban guns, but yet you keep referring to all these people that want to ban them. I've never met a person that wants to ban them, although I've heard there are people like that out there.

You like the comparison to drunk driving. That's a great comparison, because the laws on that are equally f*cked up and worthless. And there is some amount of education regarding the effects of alcohol, it's on the TV all the time, on the boxes it comes in and usually on the bottles themselves. It clearly states "impairs your ability to drive a car". Why do you fear educating stupid americans that want to own guns about the capability of guns?

Gun education for owners should be mandatory. And when a gun owner screws up, they should NEVER be allowed to own a gun again. Someone uses a gun in a crime, they should be locked in an 8'x8' cell and never let out again. People should fear using guns irresponsibly, and that would help eliminate this debate in the first place.

 

The great thing about Hawaii is that there is a decent amount of gun control. All guns must be registered, all sales (new and used) must go through a gun dealer and safety courses and waiting periods are required. I hear the gun lovers cry about it all the time. But the funny thing is they still get to own their guns, but there's a lot less blackmarket guns available. And "hot" guns here cost more than legally purchased ones. So it seems that gun control in Hawaii is good, and it works.


Maybe if we had things your way there would be vending machines with pistols in it. Instead of the gum dispenser at the bottom there could be an ammo dispenser. No safety course, no registration and no age limits. Because that's how Arlie likes it.

 

You're right, Arlie. On Dec. 7, 1941, there WERE lots of people running for their guns in Hawaii. And they were all members of the U.S. military, who had decided to put a major strategic military base on a chain of islands we really have no reason to "own" in the first place, other than for military positioning. A little off topic, but Pearl Harbor is a pretty lame example to use in defense of the 2nd Ammendment.

 

I am wholehartedly in favor of the regulation and limitation of distribution of guns, just like any dangerous took (eg Dynamite, a car, an airplane, etc).

However I do not want our government to be involved to avoid a simple potential conflict of intrest. Sounds silly, 'why would they care' yadda yadda... untill you read some of Hitler's quotes...


Art- as you likely know in California, to purchase ANY gun, including a bolt-action hunting rifle, one adheres to the following:

A) 10day waiting peroid
B) Give up your Social Security number
C) Provide a right hand thumbprint
D) Pass a criminal background check

Additionally; to purchase a handgun, one must also have attended a Handgun Safety Course (and show an HSC certificate, that must be peroidically renewed) and provide an in-store Safe Handling Demonstration.

I would actually like this all to be taken furthur.

I would like to see every gun owner trained in the SAFE defensive useage of their weapons in urban and other situations. Learn how to check their backgrounds, and how to shoot to eliminate a threat and minimize collateral damage.


However I think our own government should have no part of any of it.

Unfortunately, I see no easy solution.

I want to live in a society where the responsible, trained, and honorable citizens are armed. And criminals don't exist or at least fail to act.

Best!
Ben.

PS: Arlie, your arguments here not only reflect poorly on your intelligence and tact, but on that of gun owners in general. Please stop.

 

When reading the updated story, we discover the Doctor fired 9 shots at the kidnapper, hitting him a few times without much damage. The kidnapper then shot at the Doctor point blank but his gun misfired.....

If you choose to buy a firearm for protection there are 3 things you need to do:

1. learn HOW to shoot the Damn thing!

2. learn WHEN you can legally shoot someone

3. psych yourself out from the day you buy it that you may have to actually kill someone - this will make #1 go much more smoothly

 

Do a little research on the subject, you will find that one of the biggest complaints from pro-gunners is that the NRA is a political beast that compromises too much.

 

Wrong. At least in VA, the vendor at a gun show calls a State Police number set up expressly (lawyers love that word) for the purpose of background checks. In minutes the seller has the answer right there at the gun show. My dad just bought a handgun last week at a show.

This your side and my side agree on. But what our sides never do agree on is what is the quantitative definition of "moderate?" It's just like when you ask a liberal what % of taxation is enough. Drives 'em crazy.

 

These are the only guns I like....
Image Unavailable, Please Login