Gun threads

[synergy_jim]

there are evil people in the world. Take my guns away. They won't hand theirs in. If you do get their guns, they will find new ways to kill....

then ban knives

then baseball bats

then ice picks

then pipes

then rocks

then heavy things.


where do you stop???

 

[fmg]

Another way of looking at banning guns

 

[WildWestDesigns]

where do you draw the line? Why do people own 500hp cars? are they mentally ill?

Hold on now. I have a 508HP DRW. I like to think I'm not mental (although I'm sure my family would debate that point).

 

[Techman]

..then you prove my point about the mentally ill ..........OWNING GU

And thus when the discussion gets above the level of emotional confrontation and into the lofty altitude of logic,, out comes the derision, ridicule and name calling.

 

[Techman]

Maybe so, but realistically a "better fight" just means more people dead on both sides with no results other than that.

If more people of Norj had lots more guns and lots more with the ability to slow the nazi machine,,, Hitler would have had a very difficult time killing millions in other war torn places of Europe.

 

[SignosaurusRex]

....... BTW if you want some facts about civilian losses in ww2 in Norway, about 3000 lives were lost during the whole war (5 years), mostly from the Norwegian Resistance groups (Milorg and Sivorg). Or about the same losses as you have in (peacetime) gun killings in about 3 months over there now.

Sorry Charger, your stats are off by about 30%. In 2011 here in the U.S. there were 8,583 killings that involved firearms of any type. The greatest percentages per state were in those that have the strictest (or denial) of firearm legal ownership laws and the lowest percentages were recorded in states with less stringent ownership laws. The stats I give are from the F.B.I. and State/local law enforcement.

 

[Flame]

BTW if you want some facts about civilian losses in ww2 in Norway, about 3000 lives were lost during the whole war (5 years), mostly from the Norwegian Resistance groups (Milorg and Sivorg). Or about the same losses as you have in (peacetime) gun killings in about 3 months over there now.

We also have an insanely larger amount of people over here. The US grossly dwarfs Norway in area and population. We have almost 5x more deaths per 100,000 people in the US, however 65% of those are suicide! One thing people don't notice is our suicide rates are the scary ones, we have a pretty high one (I blame it on Oprah). Our actual murder rate, pales in comparison to many countries.

We may have trigger happy cowboys here, but I think we do pretty good keeping things in check. We have weapons we can freely purchase WITH a background check, and criminals are not allowed to purchase them. You get caught with an illegal weapon, you DO get in trouble, and our police force all carry firearms, but rarely do they abuse the power. We can whine and panic about current events, but if you look at the big picture I think the US has a pretty decent structure on how it manages citizen firearm laws.

 

[Scott Reynolds]

that might have worked back in 1776 as what the army had for equipment and what you could have was about the same. have you seen what the army has for equipment? do you really think a bunch of wingnuts with guns could fight off our military if the country turned on us?

Your assuming that everyone in the military would follow orders to shoot and kill US citizens on US soil. Plus the military works on a 4:1 ratio, 4 people supporting every one fighting on a front line. They are out numbered 70:1, and thats BEFORE the ones that would honor their oath dropped out or fought back. (I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic) Yes, I will be keeping my guns.

 

[Bly]

So if you get a government you don't like you will shoot them all?

I guess that would more satisfying than getting off your butt and voting.

 

[Bigcat_hunter]

So if you get a government you don't like you will shoot them all?

I guess that would more satisfying than getting off your butt and voting.

If you are a law abiding gun owner in the U.S.A. the chances are you vote.

"if you get a government you don't like you will shoot them all? "....

I think this mentality is part of the problem with the "anti's" mindset.

 

[OldPaint]

bigcat, you again take a perfectly good post ..........to the bottom((((

 

[bob]

So if you get a government you don't like you will shoot them all?...

That possibility certainly exists. What do you do when you find the government that is supposed to serve your needs aggressively not doing so? Vote? That may or may not be effective. When the apparatus egregiously oversteps its charter should you wait for the next election? What if the apparatus pays no heed to that election? Do you merely bend over and accept the situation? Do you use harsh language? Do you shoot them? What do you do?

For there to be slavery requires the cooperation of at least two individuals.

 

[Marlene]

there are those who keep guns in case they need to defrend themselves. there are those who keep guns in case they need to fight off the government and there are people who keep guns as a collection. the problem isn't in any of that. the problem is these shootings aren't being done by bad guys. they were just guys, your neighbor, friend, family member, co-worker up until they took out there semi-auto with a ton of high cap clips and killed. the real bad guys, criminals will always have guns because they are criminals. if assault rifles were banned today, I would have no clue where to go to get one. where I could buy a high cap clip if none were out there to buy and I think most regulart people wouldn't know either. criminals would because that is what they are. when Lanza wanted to go kill, he didn't have to look very far to find all the equipment he needed to do the job. I blame Nancy Lanza as she pruchsed this equipment and had it availible for use in a home with a person who had mental issues. that is not being a responsible gun owner. yes, she had the right to own those guns but had she self-policed she wouldn't have had those guns. do we really want to get to the point where we have to have laws so these people who don;t think for themselves won't have the choice to? that is what my problem in all this is about. it isn't about ownership but intelligent owership and responsiblity.

 

[WildWestDesigns]

the problem is these shootings aren't being done by bad guys. they were just guys, your neighbor, friend, family member, co-worker up until they took out there semi-auto with a ton of high cap clips and killed. the real bad guys, criminals will always have guns because they are criminals.

There is usually that one definitive criminal moment that caused the "real bad guys" to become career criminals. They too were someone's friend, neighbor, family member and/or co-worker at one time as well.

I had a couple of friends that went bad during the college years. It wasn't like they grew up in a criminal family or anything like that.

I would argue that they became bad doing an act like that (different if its for survival, but this wasn't that case), regardless of what they were before. Pretty much what happens to what you call "the real bad guys".

 

[FrankW]

We have almost 5x more deaths per 100,000 people in the US, however 65% of those are suicide!

It's the same in switzerland too. In comparison to the neighbours, switzerland has very liberal laws about guns, but one of the highest suicide rates in the world.

If you're mentally ill, e. g. depressed, your survival may depend on as simply you could get a "tool" to kill yourself. The way to the next pharmacy to get sleeping pills or to the next railway to let a train runs over you could be to hard to manage, the people don't have the "drive" to do anything. Regularly, suicide about depression is not planned, its spontanous.

In my family, we had one with a psychosis which makes him dangerous for him and others. If you ask him today, he shakes his head about his thoughts during this period, total paranoia. With a clear head he would not even think about killing himself, but in the clinic he have to be fixed on his bed to avoid that.

 

[Bigcat_hunter]

bigcat, you again take a perfectly good post ..........to the bottom((((

How is that? I vote, everyone that I know that owns firearms votes.

And most of the people that I know that have Hoplophobia are irrational about firearms. They think at any moment we are going to just start shooting people. The thought of personal responsibility is a foreign concept to many unfortunately.

 

[mnapuran]

What I find amusing about the arguments against guns is that of all gun related deaths (including accidental) the numbers don't remotely touch deaths by doctors, cigarettes, drug abuse, auto accidents, etc separately.

 

[CES020]

Anyone following the random act of stupidity done by the New York Journal? They posted the names and addresses of all registered gun owners in the area.

My very first thought when I saw it (and it's posted on a map, not just a list) is "Now the criminals know who doesn't have registered guns". You just took their chances from 50/50 to something way higher.

So the intent was to name and shame gun owners and now the result will more than likely be that those not on the list will experience a higher than normal count on crimes.

Nice job, morons!

 

[Gino]

Back in the writing of the Constitution days, if I'm not mistaken, 'bearing arms' meant going to war against an opposing force..... be it your own government or some foreign oppressor.

When they talk of right of the people.... are they actually referring to each and every individual or as the people of the state ?? Here is a sentence from other conversations along the same lines as this thread. "In late-eighteenth-century parlance, bearing arms was a term of art with an obvious military and legal connotation. ... As a review of the Library of Congress's data base of congressional proceedings in the revolutionary and early national periods reveals, the thirty uses of 'bear arms' and 'bearing arms' in bills, statutes, and debates of the Continental, Confederation, and United States' Congresses between 1774 and 1821 invariably occur in a context exclusively focused on the army or the militia."

Some of the more common references I believe would be......

'Present, Arms'
'Order, Arms'
'Right/Left Arms'
'Port Arms'
​

All which are military based. So, does it all really mean for us, as civilians.... or are we taking poetic license in making this into something it's really not ??

 

[Fred Weiss]

Back in the writing of the Constitution days, if I'm not mistaken, 'bearing arms' meant going to war against an opposing force..... be it your own government or some foreign oppressor.

When they talk of right of the people.... are they actually referring to each and every individual or as the people of the state ?? Here is a sentence from other conversations along the same lines as this thread. "In late-eighteenth-century parlance, bearing arms was a term of art with an obvious military and legal connotation. ... As a review of the Library of Congress's data base of congressional proceedings in the revolutionary and early national periods reveals, the thirty uses of 'bear arms' and 'bearing arms' in bills, statutes, and debates of the Continental, Confederation, and United States' Congresses between 1774 and 1821 invariably occur in a context exclusively focused on the army or the militia."

Some of the more common references I believe would be......

'Present, Arms'
'Order, Arms'
'Right/Left Arms'
'Port Arms'
​

All which are military based. So, does it all really mean for us, as civilians.... or are we taking poetic license in making this into something it's really not ??

From Wikipedia

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.

The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution is the part of the United States Bill of Rights that protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It was adopted on December 15, 1791, along with the rest of the Bill of Rights.
In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions concerning the Second Amendment. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. In dicta, the Court listed many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]