Guns

[actionman98]

When I was 5 years old someone broke into the house while my Dad was gone. My Mom called the cops while the guy was breaking through the back door then we ran and locked ourselves in the bathroom. We heard him moving through the house for a while before he started kicking in the bathroom door. My Mom shot once through the door with a .38, and then he ran away. We sat in the bathroom for what seemed like forever before we even heard sirens. They never caught the guy, and I shudder to think what would have happened if she hadn't been armed. Anyone who thinks the cops will arrive in minutes is sadly deluded in my opinion. Live your life however you like, but please don't tell me how to live mine.

[unagi]

None of the gun control measures would have any effect on a person being able to have a gun in their home for protection. Not sure why people don't get this.

I just read an interesting piece by gun owner and musician James McMurty: http://blurt-online.com/features/view/1309/.

You should read the whole piece, but he makes a good point about high capacity magazines:

"what's to stop him from carrying a satchel full of extra mags with which he can shoot all day? Nothing's to stop him, of course, but he will have to re-load more often, and here is where that silly old gun bill might finally have a practical application due to the evolution of police tactics. I was reading a gun magazine in a supermarket the other day. There was an ad for a company that makes extended high capacity rifle magazines. The ad said, "If you're reloading, you're not in the fight." If a school shooter is not extremely well trained and has to change magazines under duress, he's out of the fight for a second or two, and the highway patrolman, or the deputy sheriff, or the city constable who just happened to be there will have a second or two to fire at the shooter without risking return fire. If I were any kind of a cop in that situation, I would sure appreciate those seconds. The tragedy would still have happened, but the body count might be lower.

Might.... might be the best we can do."

[Carl]

Hey, let's all be honest. How many of us pop boners when Red Dawn comes on late at night on cable? I know I jizz in my pants whenever I hear "WOLVERINES"! I love Patrick Swayze. But not in a gay way. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by actionman98

Live your life however you like, but please don't tell me how to live mine.

Who so far in this discussion has even hinted at telling you how to live your life? So far an excellent, thoughtful exchange of opinions and ideas. Your life, your decision on how to protect it.

[Mike Vronsky]

I bet all you guys who are against guns WILL NOT put a sign in front of your house that says "GUN FREE HOUSE". And when a situation occurs where you need a gun you call someone with a gun (police) to come and help you.

In Warren v. District of Columbia, two women who were repeatedly raped at knife point and beaten in their own home - over the course of fourteen hours by two assailants - sued the DC police department. Their multiple calls to the cops reporting the crime in progress were misrouted by dispatchers and poorly investigated by the cops on patrol.
The court’s conclusion was sobering: despite the carelessness and ineptitude of the police in this particular case, the police cannot be held liable if they fail to provide adequate protection because there is no duty for the police to protect citizens. The case was dismissed.

All liberals can't debate this issue - all they do is promote propaganda. We are not Japan, Australia, England, etc. We are the U.S.A. The second amendment was passed to protect ourselves form our government. It specifically states our rights to own a gun WILL NOT BE INFRINGED!

If your so happy you don't own a firearm - put a sign in your front lawn that states so!

[winemaker]

Originally Posted by Little Monster

Except, that driving is a privilege and gun ownership is a RIGHT.

Huge difference.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by dante0322

I bet all you guys who are against guns WILL NOT put a sign in front of your house that says "GUN FREE HOUSE". And when a situation occurs where you need a gun you call someone with a gun (police) to come and help you.

In Warren v. District of Columbia, two women who were repeatedly raped at knife point and beaten in their own home - over the course of fourteen hours by two assailants - sued the DC police department. Their multiple calls to the cops reporting the crime in progress were misrouted by dispatchers and poorly investigated by the cops on patrol.
The court’s conclusion was sobering: despite the carelessness and ineptitude of the police in this particular case, the police cannot be held liable if they fail to provide adequate protection because there is no duty for the police to protect citizens. The case was dismissed.

All liberals can't debate this issue - all they do is promote propaganda. We are not Japan, Australia, England, etc. We are the U.S.A. The second amendment was passed to protect ourselves form our government. It specifically states our rights to own a gun WILL NOT BE INFRINGED!

If your so happy you don't own a firearm - put a sign in your front lawn that states so!

You do realize that the NRA outspends all anti-gun groups by a 10-1 margin. But I guess you're going to tell me that the NRA doesn't use propaganda to get its points across. "It can happen to you." "Even if you live in a safe neighborhood, crime is mobile." "Handguns don't kill people."

I am not happy I don't own a firearm. I don't need one. That single fact makes me happy. While I don't have a sign telling people there are no handguns in my house, my company and my bank, to cite 2 locations that I frequent, have such signs and guess what -- neither location has been victimized by crime. Do you feel the need to put a sign up in front of your home telling people you have a gun (or guns)? Why not?
Seems to me it would be helpful to let crooks know what might happen to them if they try to break into your house.

[Mike Vronsky]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

You do realize that the NRA outspends all anti-gun groups by a 10-1 margin. But I guess you're going to tell me that the NRA doesn't use propaganda to get its points across. "It can happen to you." "Even if you live in a safe neighborhood, crime is mobile." "Handguns don't kill people."

I am not happy I don't own a firearm. I don't need one. That single fact makes me happy. While I don't have a sign telling people there are no handguns in my house, my company and my bank, to cite 2 locations that I frequent, have such signs and guess what -- neither location has been victimized by crime. Do you feel the need to put a sign up in front of your home telling people you have a gun (or guns)? Why not?
Seems to me it would be helpful to let crooks know what might happen to them if they try to break into your house.

Having a sign that says "no guns allowed" does NOT prevent crime. In fact, it lets the criminal know where they will meet least resistance. Gun Free zones have NEVER deterred crime. Gun control works so well in Chicago that it has the highest murder rate of any state. In fact as of to date as many or more people have died in Chicago than in Newtown!

If you do not want to own a gun that is your prerogative. Your prerogative should not impede the desire of others who want to own a gun.

It is apparent that you have not read through all the citations that I posted which shows how guns save lives and negates ALL liberal propoganda. The purpose of owning a firearm is to have it for protection IN CASE if you need it. Better to have and not need than to need and not have.

Again, when this country was formed our fore-fathers put into the constitution the right for all Americans to bear arms NOT to be infringed.

Liberalism - the removal of logic, common sense and reasoning!

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by dante0322

Having a sign that says "no guns allowed" does NOT prevent crime. In fact, it lets the criminal know where they will meet least resistance. Gun Free zones have NEVER deterred crime. Gun control works so well in Chicago that it has the highest murder rate of any state. In fact as of to date as many or more people have died in Chicago than in Newtown!

If you do not want to own a gun that is your prerogative. Your prerogative should not impede the desire of others who want to own a gun.

It is apparent that you have not read through all the citations that I posted which shows how guns save lives and negates ALL liberal propoganda. The purpose of owning a firearm is to have it for protection IN CASE if you need it. Better to have and not need than to need and not have.

Again, when this country was formed our fore-fathers put into the constitution the right for all Americans to bear arms NOT to be infringed.

Liberalism - the removal of logic, common sense and reasoning!

I love it when people use the "L" word to seemingly put down others who disagree with them. Personally, I have no idea what constitutes a liberal and a non-liberal.

No where, at any time, have I EVER said anything that would take away your freedom to own a gun. Since you have accused me of doing so, I'm sure you can cite something I've said that supports your claim. The problem, as I see it, is that while I fully support your owning a gun, or guns, for your protection, you find it hard to understand that I don't feel the same way.

Your statement: "Liberalism - the removal of logic, common sense and reasoning." I have logically looked at all the information, used common sense and reasoning, and come to the conclusion that I have absolutely no need for a handgun. If that is how you define a "liberal" then I guess I am.

[LordBeaverbrook]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I love it when people use the "L" word to seemingly put down others who disagree with them. Personally, I have no idea what constitutes a liberal and a non-liberal.

Most conservative ideas (democracy, equal rights, liberty for all, pursuit of happiness, etc...) were all liberal or radical ideas not so long ago. A conservative is just a liberal who is late to the party.

[LordBeaverbrook]

Originally Posted by winemaker

Except, that driving is a privilege and gun ownership is a RIGHT.

Huge difference.

OK, free speech is a right and has limits (all rights have limits) and voting is a right yet we have to register and renew our registrations regularly.

How about registering gun owners and making them renew and show they aren't crazy (and maybe that they are securing their deadly arms and ammo) rather than guns?

Having a right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights too. Rights that can be instantly taken away by a gun or even the negligence of a gun owner. Something reasonable and effective should be done about this. No right is unlimited.

[Smokin Joe]

From Wiki:

There are several versions of the text of the Second Amendment, each with slight capitalization and punctuation differences, found in the official documents surrounding the adoption of the Bill of Rights.[5] One version was passed by the Congress,[6] while another is found in the copies distributed to the States[7] and then ratified by them.
As passed by the Congress:

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.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

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.[8]

The original hand-written copy of the Bill of Rights, approved by the House and Senate, was prepared by scribeWilliam Lambert and resides in the National Archives.
The Second Amendment is the only amendment to the Constitution with a stated purpose.

Handguns, rifles, etc., hardly seems armed when put in the context of the 2nd ammendment. Seems to me that from a militia standpoint one would need missles, tanks, jets, ships, and things like that to truly be armed. I don't think anyone's going to make much of a stand against an army with a handgun. I don't see how the 2nd ammendment protects the right to own handguns or rifles. They no longer enable a well regulated militia.

[Sidewinder]

Originally Posted by unagi

None of the gun control measures would have any effect on a person being able to have a gun in their home for protection. Not sure why people don't get this.

Flat-out wrong, dude.

DC v. Heller was specifically about the right to have a gun in one's home for self-protection, in Washington DC.

McDonald v. Chicago was specifically about the right to have a gun in one's home for self-protection, in Chicago IL.

You really need to pay more attention.

[endurance]

I see this argument so often, but it usually just shows that some people don't understand how resistance movements and asymmetric warfare work. Look at places like Afghanistan and the middle east at large - if their people have the will to defend themselves, even with just small arms, it is very difficult to control large amounts of territory.

Sadly, there are relatively few in this country that have that will anymore.

This whole casting the "well regulated militia" as only referring to the national guard presumes that there is still a balance between the state powers and federal. It's pretty easy to argue that is not safeguarding our liberties anymore. Tyranny is tyranny and trying to interpret the 2nd amendment to favor your argument without keeping big picture in mind is arguing just for the sake of arguing.

Originally Posted by Smokin Joe

From Wiki:


Handguns, rifles, etc., hardly seems armed when put in the context of the 2nd ammendment. Seems to me that from a militia standpoint one would need missles, tanks, jets, ships, and things like that to truly be armed. I don't think anyone's going to make much of a stand against an army with a handgun. I don't see how the 2nd ammendment protects the right to own handguns or rifles. They no longer enable a well regulated militia.

[Smokin Joe]

Originally Posted by endurance

I see this argument so often, but it usually just shows that some people don't understand how resistance movements and asymmetric warfare work.

You are absolutely correct that I don't understand how resistance movements and asymmetric warfare work. I'm just reading the 2nd ammendment as written.