Guns in America: Rights vs. Reality

156 posts / 0 new

Here is a video that asks some simple questions about gun rights in America: Guns in America: Rights vs. Reality

Anyone care to answer the last question that the video poses about the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment.

JerryAL's picture
JerryAL
Joined:
Jul. 13, 2012 4:08 am

Comments

"Well regulated" back in those days meant "properly functioning" or "it's ideal state".

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:"Well regulated" back in those days meant "properly functioning" or "it's ideal state".

Yes, but you could also question the terms "properly functioning, it's ideal state" in your defined explanation when guns are used unlawfully in the United States could you not?

In other words, is the Second Amendment "properly functioning, in it's ideal state", if average citizens are killing each other and themselves by the thousands every year?

JerryAL's picture
JerryAL
Joined:
Jul. 13, 2012 4:08 am
Quote JerryAL:

Here is a video that asks some simple questions about gun rights in America: Guns in America: Rights vs. Reality

Anyone care to answer the last question that the video poses about the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment.

There's only ONE constitutional militia and it can be identified by whether it's subject to Article 1 and 2. That militia now is the National Guard. Since it gets its guns FROM the government, the Second is moot and any gun rights we have are covered by the Ninth as an unenumerated right.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

If the Founding Fathers really wanted every American citizen to have the right to keep and bear arms without regulations and limitations the Second Amendment should have read something like this:

"Being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Then their would have been no disagreement on what the Founding Fathers actually intended the Second Amendment to mean. Just my personal opinion, but they really threw a wrench into the works when they included the "well regulated militia" part.

JerryAL's picture
JerryAL
Joined:
Jul. 13, 2012 4:08 am

With today's cities going bankrupt and police budgets cut a lot of people want to own a handgun in case of a home invasion. By the time those happen it is often far too late to call the police. And these home invasions are on the increase as survival becomes more and more difficult.

Gun violence is only a symptom of an increasingly dysfunctional society. Treat the cause not the symptom.

captbebops's picture
captbebops
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

I am all for treating the causes. I am also for suppressing the symptoms and limiting the ravages of the disease.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am
Quote captbebops:

With today's cities going bankrupt and police budgets cut a lot of people want to own a handgun in case of a home invasion. By the time those happen it is often far too late to call the police. And these home invasions are on the increase as survival becomes more and more difficult.

Gun violence is only a symptom of an increasingly dysfunctional society. Treat the cause not the symptom.

I am NOT against the right to keep and bear arms in your home to keep yourself and your family safe. If someone breaks into your home feel free to pump 100 rounds into them, and you will NOT hear me complain one bit.

However, gun rights advocates, many of whom are untrained, lose me when they feel that they need or have the right to walk around in public areas with a gun strapped to their waist.

If you are that afraid to walk out in public without a gun strapped to your waist, then you should just go build yourself a bunker in your backyard and never come out.

JerryAL's picture
JerryAL
Joined:
Jul. 13, 2012 4:08 am

delete

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 8:27 am
Quote JerryAL:

If the Founding Fathers really wanted every American citizen to have the right to keep and bear arms without regulations and limitations the Second Amendment should have read something like this:

"Being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Then their would have been no disagreement on what the Founding Fathers actually intended the Second Amendment to mean. Just my personal opinion, but they really threw a wrench into the works when they included the "well regulated militia" part.

A right with few limits? It would read more like "Congress shall make no law infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms."... no explanation, no context.. just a flat out prohibition.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm
Quote JerryAL:
Quote captbebops:

With today's cities going bankrupt and police budgets cut a lot of people want to own a handgun in case of a home invasion. By the time those happen it is often far too late to call the police. And these home invasions are on the increase as survival becomes more and more difficult.

Gun violence is only a symptom of an increasingly dysfunctional society. Treat the cause not the symptom.

I am NOT against the right to keep and bear arms in your home to keep yourself and your family safe. If someone breaks into your home feel free to pump 100 rounds into them, and you will NOT hear me complain one bit.

However, gun rights advocates, many of whom are untrained, lose me when they feel that they need or have the right to walk around in public areas with a gun strapped to their waist.

If you are that afraid to walk out in public without a gun strapped to your waist, then you should just go build yourself a bunker in your backyard and never come out.

In Texas you're allowed to hunt humans from your house, no need for a bunker. FL passed the same law so people have been hunting humans like game, usually black or brown, but so far they're not allowed to mount them. A taxidermist for humans might be hard to find, for now.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

In the Horn case he didn't know the neighbor. Didn't know whether they were hired by the neighbor specifically for this job at this time when the house would be vacant. The neighbor might be divorcing and taking some stuff before the settlement. Insurance fraud might have been a possibilty. Neither of them were armed, that makes them game the same as Trayvon Martin. Aren't hunters grand?

Dispatch sent plain clothes to catch them carrying a bag in the neighborhood.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote douglaslee:

In the Horn case he didn't know the neighbor. Didn't know whether they were hired by the neighbor specifically for this job at this time when the house would be vacant. The neighbor might be divorcing and taking some stuff before the settlement. Insurance fraud might have been a possibilty. Neither of them were armed, that makes them game the same as Trayvon Martin. Aren't hunters grand?

Dispatch sent plain clothes to catch them carrying a bag in the neighborhood.

Almost every state has a "Castle Dotrine" in place to protect your home. Yet, people aren't blowing anyone and everyone away that steps on their property. You can find a case here and case there and cherry pick your information all you want, then refer to it, not so cleverly, as "hunting humans" to drive home your point, but the fact is the guy killed two drug running, illegal aliens who were already life long criminals and who were robbing the neighbors house.

Do I agree with what he did? No, it seemed he was too eager to use his gun rather than actually stop the crime...but I also don't feel any sympathy for the deceased. If you have the balls to enter someone's home, you deserve whatever is waiting for you on the other end.

Now on top of it, you're going to disparage all hunters as well?

DowntheMiddle
Joined:
Nov. 7, 2011 9:18 am
Quote JerryAL:
Quote captbebops:

With today's cities going bankrupt and police budgets cut a lot of people want to own a handgun in case of a home invasion. By the time those happen it is often far too late to call the police. And these home invasions are on the increase as survival becomes more and more difficult.

Gun violence is only a symptom of an increasingly dysfunctional society. Treat the cause not the symptom.

I am NOT against the right to keep and bear arms in your home to keep yourself and your family safe. If someone breaks into your home feel free to pump 100 rounds into them, and you will NOT hear me complain one bit.

However, gun rights advocates, many of whom are untrained, lose me when they feel that they need or have the right to walk around in public areas with a gun strapped to their waist.

If you are that afraid to walk out in public without a gun strapped to your waist, then you should just go build yourself a bunker in your backyard and never come out.

There are millions and millions of conceal carriers and despite this fact, they haven't turned America into the "wild West". This is the argument that Illinois Democrats keep trying to reiterate, meanwhile, the gangsters are the ones who've turned the streets of Chicago into the Wild West and it's simply ignored and blamed again, on law abiding gun owners. "Guns are the problem", according to Mayor Rahm and Chief McCarthy. No guys...the fact that you cut $290 million out of the police budget and can't get a handle on the crime....that is the problem. The fact, that you idiots in Illinois, have the gall to blame the violence on the hot summer....that is the problem. The fact that you're willing to put the blame everywhere but where it belongs.....that is the problem. The fact that you're not putting money into education.....that is the problem. The fact that you're not cleaning up these violent rotten neighborhoods....that is the problem. The fact that corruption in politics still plagues this city and this state....that is the problem.

The above poster is right.....treat the causes and watch these problems start to disappear. There are other countries that have high rates of gun ownership and yet, don't face the problems we face. There are areas INSIDE THIS COUNTRY with a lot of guns and very low crime. I wonder why that is.

Maybe it's because, the aforementioned is exactly right. We don't address the problems. We go after the "feel good" solution in response to knee-jerk reactions....10 years later...everything is the same.

Americans don't learn from mistakes. They just repeat them and still are dumb enough to expect change.

"Change"....lol.

Obama was smart to use that slogan, because let's face it....we all wanted it. Too bad we haven't seen even a glimpse of it.

DowntheMiddle
Joined:
Nov. 7, 2011 9:18 am

There are millions and millions of conceal carriers and despite this fact, they haven't turned America into the "wild West".

Over 100,000 Americans are killed or injured by guns every year:

* 30,000 Americans are killed by guns every year.

* 70,000 more Americans are injured by guns every year.

It sounds like you feel those numbers are acceptable?

What are concealed carry gun owners so afraid of that they can NOT go out in common public places without a gun strapped to their waste?

JerryAL's picture
JerryAL
Joined:
Jul. 13, 2012 4:08 am

The death penalty for breaking into a house.... the US is a fascinating place to observe....

norske's picture
norske
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote JerryAL:

There are millions and millions of conceal carriers and despite this fact, they haven't turned America into the "wild West".

Over 100,000 Americans are killed or injured by guns every year:

* 30,000 Americans are killed by guns every year.

* 70,000 more Americans are injured by guns every year.

It sounds like you feel those numbers are acceptable?

What are concealed carry gun owners so afraid of that they can NOT go out in common public places without a gun strapped to their waste?

Uh huh....Never said there wasn't a lot of accidents and homicides......are you equating all those to the conceal carriers you were talking about or are we changing the subject?

Why do equate it to fear? I love that tactic of "Oh, anyone with a gun has a small penis"...."Oh, if you need a gun, you must be paranoid and afraid of everything around you.." and so on.

Make an argument against it using some statistics of conceal carriers, but don't use that weak ass tactic of trying to discredit your opponents by trying to insult or ridicule them into submission.

I carried for many years when I lived in Florida. Never had to even think about drawing my firearm, but I'll tell you something that it did give me.....a heightened sense of responsibility to not put myself in situations where it may be needed. But if I had to work the night shift, or my wife did...being a woman, alone at night, would you ridicule her into leaving her firearm at home because she was "so afraid"?

Go ahead....apply that tactic to women who have to walk alone through a dark parking lot. Go on...point at them and say, "HA HA...what are you, so scared of walking around that you feel the need to actually have some protection?"

Let me know how that works out for ya.

The Chicago police told women that they didn't need firearms because a set of keys will protect them just fine. They told the public that you don't need a firearm because you can just run away and the chances of actually getting hit are 1 in 8...lol. And the chances of those bullets hitting a vital organ are 1 in 4. Superb logic.

Let me ask you a question...

Do you have home owners insurance? Car insurance? Health insurance? Do you insure your valuables? Do you carry an umbrella if it might rain? Do you wear a seatbelt? Do you wear a helmet when doing something where it may save your life?

Why would you have all those things or take those precautions? Is it because you're so afraid to do any of them or is it JUST IN CASE?

I'm not afraid of anything. I have a firearm JUST IN CASE.

DowntheMiddle
Joined:
Nov. 7, 2011 9:18 am
Quote norske:

The death penalty for breaking into a house.... the US is a fascinating place to observe....

Well tell ya what. When someone kicks in your door and your children are upstairs sleeping, you can go ahead and strike up a conversation with the intruder and see how that works out for you and your family.

DowntheMiddle
Joined:
Nov. 7, 2011 9:18 am

No, that is pure and ugly vigilante bs. norske is right, we are amazing, but not wonderful.

drc2
Joined:
Apr. 26, 2012 11:15 am
Quote norske:

The death penalty for breaking into a house.... the US is a fascinating place to observe....

If one makes a consious decision to break into my house that is their decision. How they leave my house becomes my decision.

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 4:12 am
Quote DowntheMiddle:Well tell ya what. When someone kicks in your door and your children are upstairs sleeping, you can go ahead and strike up a conversation with the intruder and see how that works out for you and your family.

Well... the case in question was the Horn matter. No kids involved, not even his house. Killing people for breaking into a house. Fascinating...

I'm fortunate to live out in the boonies and we have several highly trained dogs... not likely people will be breaking in anytime soon. Nothing we own is worth the life of a human being.

norske's picture
norske
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote Redwing:

If one makes a consious decision to break into my house that is their decision. How they leave my house becomes my decision.

You are one tough hombre. How many people have you actually killed?

The personal traits that people are willing to divulge on this site continue to amaze me to no end....

norske's picture
norske
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote DowntheMiddle:
Quote douglaslee:

In the Horn case he didn't know the neighbor. Didn't know whether they were hired by the neighbor specifically for this job at this time when the house would be vacant. The neighbor might be divorcing and taking some stuff before the settlement. Insurance fraud might have been a possibilty. Neither of them were armed, that makes them game the same as Trayvon Martin. Aren't hunters grand?

Dispatch sent plain clothes to catch them carrying a bag in the neighborhood.

Almost every state has a "Castle Dotrine" in place to protect your home. Yet, people aren't blowing anyone and everyone away that steps on their property. You can find a case here and case there and cherry pick your information all you want, then refer to it, not so cleverly, as "hunting humans" to drive home your point, but the fact is the guy killed two drug running, illegal aliens who were already life long criminals and who were robbing the neighbors house.

Do I agree with what he did? No, it seemed he was too eager to use his gun rather than actually stop the crime...but I also don't feel any sympathy for the deceased. If you have the balls to enter someone's home, you deserve whatever is waiting for you on the other end.

Now on top of it, you're going to disparage all hunters as well?

Hunters of humans are your clients? That's precisley what I find disgusting. I don't think you have the right to shoot a shoplifter either.Everything in that neighbor's house should have been covered by homeowners Insurance and the 911 call and police report would have an adjuster replace everything. I just don't like killing people, I know it's a TX hobby.

TN has the humans being hunted problem, too.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote DowntheMiddle:
Quote norske:

The death penalty for breaking into a house.... the US is a fascinating place to observe....

Well tell ya what. When someone kicks in your door and your children are upstairs sleeping, you can go ahead and strike up a conversation with the intruder and see how that works out for you and your family.

The guys weren't in his house he had to go hunting them against the 10 warnings the police gave him to stay inside. Hunters after human game is the only way to explain it.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote norske:
Quote Redwing:

If one makes a consious decision to break into my house that is their decision. How they leave my house becomes my decision.

You are one tough hombre. How many people have you actually killed?

The personal traits that people are willing to divulge on this site continue to amaze me to no end....

In most states trap gun laws used to prevent you from killing someone unless you were there. How do arange your trap guns to allow you to cover it up and pretend it was self defense? I am curious..Did you make sure the glass shards were on the inside all the time when the set your trap? Did you cut the dead guys hands with the glass, too?

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Are we now just resorting to Hartmann type gotcha questions?

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 4:12 am

Unhinged "Load Your Damn Mags and Get Ready to Fight" Guy May Have Gone Just A Wee Bit Too Far

Citing a "material likelihood of risk of harm to the public," Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security officials have suspended the handgun carry permit of James Yeager, who went online this week to rant somewhat scarily that he'd "start killing people" if Obama and his commie cronies move ahead with gun control measures. Yeager is the CEO of Tactical Response, which offers training in weapons but has reportedly iffy credentials. Given that Mr. Yaeger is likely some unhappy with the state's move, we can't help but wonder what comes next. Other than the usual gun-related tragedies, that is; in the latest, a 12-year-old in Alabama accidentially shot and killed his cousin with the shotgun he got for Christmas.

http://www.commondreams.org/further/2013/01/11-1

norske's picture
norske
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote norske:

Unhinged "Load Your Damn Mags and Get Ready to Fight" Guy May Have Gone Just A Wee Bit Too Far

Citing a "material likelihood of risk of harm to the public," Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security officials have suspended the handgun carry permit of James Yeager, who went online this week to rant somewhat scarily that he'd "start killing people" if Obama and his commie cronies move ahead with gun control measures. Yeager is the CEO of Tactical Response, which offers training in weapons but has reportedly iffy credentials. Given that Mr. Yaeger is likely some unhappy with the state's move, we can't help but wonder what comes next. Other than the usual gun-related tragedies, that is; in the latest, a 12-year-old in Alabama accidentially shot and killed his cousin with the shotgun he got for Christmas.

http://www.commondreams.org/further/2013/01/11-1

When someone is threatening to murder others, suspending his handgun permit is woefully insufficient. I think Yaeger should have ALL his guns confiscated until he is cleared of mental health issues... AND he should have an ankle bracelet to his whereabouts can be monitored.

Pierpont's picture
Pierpont
Joined:
Feb. 29, 2012 1:19 pm

I clearly stated I don't agree with what he did and that he seemed, obviously, overeager to use his weapon. In my opinion, he should have been charged with premedidated murder.

I just said I didn't feel sorry for the lifelong criminal, drug running, burglarizing, illegal aliens either.

DowntheMiddle
Joined:
Nov. 7, 2011 9:18 am

I hear he is moving to TX. One of the first human hunters was in TX. He used a hunting stand like for deer or moose. A stand has to blend in so the game don't think it out of place. The Texas tower blended right in, and gave him free and clear shots for his targets.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm
Quote douglaslee:

I hear he is moving to TX. One of the first human hunters was in TX. He used a hunting stand like for deer or moose. A stand has to blend in so the game don't think it out of place. The Texas tower blended right in, and gave him free and clear shots for his targets.

"Sniper" by Harry Chapin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NB5_N-D5sv0

norske's picture
norske
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Reality: The Horses Are Out of the Barns

Quote Michael Cooper:Gun dealers and buyers alike said that the rapid growth in gun sales — which began climbing significantly after President Obama’s re-election and soared after the Dec. 14 shooting at a school in Newtown, Conn., prompted him to call for new gun laws — shows little sign of abating. ...

“If I had 1,000 AR-15s I could sell them in a week,” said Jack Smith, an independent gun dealer in Des Moines, referring to the popular style of semiautomatic rifle that drew national attention after Adam Lanza used one to kill 20 children and 6 adults at a Newtown school. “When I close, they beat on the glass to be let in,” Mr. Smith said of his customers. “They’ll wave money at me.”

Once those 30-round magazines leave the store, they can never be recovered.

Also from the "The path to hell is paved with good intentions" category.

Sales of Guns Soar in U.S. as Nation Weighs Tougher Limits

stuff's picture
stuff
Joined:
Nov. 24, 2012 3:59 pm
Quote stuff:

Reality: The Horses Are Out of the Barns

Quote Michael Cooper:Gun dealers and buyers alike said that the rapid growth in gun sales — which began climbing significantly after President Obama’s re-election and soared after the Dec. 14 shooting at a school in Newtown, Conn., prompted him to call for new gun laws — shows little sign of abating. ...

“If I had 1,000 AR-15s I could sell them in a week,” said Jack Smith, an independent gun dealer in Des Moines, referring to the popular style of semiautomatic rifle that drew national attention after Adam Lanza used one to kill 20 children and 6 adults at a Newtown school. “When I close, they beat on the glass to be let in,” Mr. Smith said of his customers. “They’ll wave money at me.”

Once those 30-round magazines leave the store, they can never be recovered.

Also from the "The path to hell is paved with good intentions" category.

Sales of Guns Soar in U.S. as Nation Weighs Tougher Limits

This is misleading though because it is the same people who already own guns who go out and buy more guns. It is NOT like everyone in the country all of a sudden decided to go buy a gun.

American households with guns is actually way down, compared to historical norms, to only about 32%.

JerryAL's picture
JerryAL
Joined:
Jul. 13, 2012 4:08 am

Check your facts. Every state in the US has recorded record NEW applications for purchase. If you already have a permit to carry or a permit to buy you do not need to get another. I just left work, and our range has had the largest three weeks in our ten year history with 30% being new owners. I know that number because we document new shooters for our records. The NRA has recorded 100,000 NEW members, not donations but NEW members. You have to be careful what you wish for.

Obama has created the biggest gun sales boom in history.

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 4:12 am

I can't help but wonder how many of those "new" gun owners will die because of that decision to buy one. Some will be accidental,, some will be due to a mixture of alcohol and access,, some will be due to allowing them into the wrong hands. If those 100,000 new members didn't feel the need before then the need now is a false one. Just more sheep following false sheperds.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am
Quote norske:
Quote DowntheMiddle:Well tell ya what. When someone kicks in your door and your children are upstairs sleeping, you can go ahead and strike up a conversation with the intruder and see how that works out for you and your family.

Well... the case in question was the Horn matter. No kids involved, not even his house. Killing people for breaking into a house. Fascinating...

I'm fortunate to live out in the boonies and we have several highly trained dogs... not likely people will be breaking in anytime soon. Nothing we own is worth the life of a human being.

No, and I agree on THAT. I'm not going to shoot anyone if, say, I saw them stealing my car. THINGS are replaceable. People are not.

I also reiterated that I didn't agree with Horn and that he seemed all to eager to use his weapon, which to me, constituted premeditated murder. Which is the point you kinda conveniently ignored in my post. I was specifically referring to protecting your family in your home.

DowntheMiddle
Joined:
Nov. 7, 2011 9:18 am

I agree 100%. I can only do my best to make sure my students understand the safety and responsibility of firearms ownership. I find myself becoming a lawyer as well as a trainer.

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 4:12 am
Quote Bush_Wacker:

I can't help but wonder how many of those "new" gun owners will die because of that decision to buy one. Some will be accidental,, some will be due to a mixture of alcohol and access,, some will be due to allowing them into the wrong hands. If those 100,000 new members didn't feel the need before then the need now is a false one. Just more sheep following false sheperds.

As I said in another post, I saw A LOT of people in those stores that frankly, scared the hell out of me. Not because they looked dangerous or shady, but because I was listening to them talk and their inexperience and stupidity was just alarming.

Are they "sheep" or are they people who may have thought of buying a gun and the prospect of those guns no longer being available rushed them into making that decision? False need or not, you have pundits on both sides of this debate filling peoples' heads with false information, and that includes Thom, Ed Schultz, Alex Jones, Limbaugh and others. People are being scared to one side or the other due to the reckless flow of fear mongering.

More than anything, the thought of the government making something that is now legal, but may not be legal to buy in another month or so, may force a lot of people to buy something they don't need, regardless of the product. Doesn't make them sheep.

If I found out tomorrow that motorcycles were going to be outlawed, even though I don't want or need one now (had plenty in the past), I might buy one just so that I can have one. I was always planning on buying one again later in life.

Face it. Obama, Biden and Feinstein are responsible for the biggest panic and mass purchase of firearms in history. Instead of reducing "assault rifle" numbers, they just increased by millions.

DowntheMiddle
Joined:
Nov. 7, 2011 9:18 am
Quote DowntheMiddle:

No, and I agree on THAT. I'm not going to shoot anyone if, say, I saw them stealing my car. THINGS are replaceable. People are not.

I also reiterated that I didn't agree with Horn and that he seemed all to eager to use his weapon, which to me, constituted premeditated murder. Which is the point you kinda conveniently ignored in my post. I was specifically referring to protecting your family in your home.

Middle of the night, and you hear breaking glass at your walkout lower level sliding door. After you dial 911, what then?

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 4:12 am
I can't help but wonder how many of those "new" gun owners will die because of that decision to buy one.

I ask the same thing about people who buy cars.

stuff's picture
stuff
Joined:
Nov. 24, 2012 3:59 pm

We need a higher percentage of responsible gun owners and a lower percentage of irresponsible ones. If any debate can come away with that goal attained then it's worth the debate and it's worth extra regulations,,, if they make sense.

Bush_Wacker's picture
Bush_Wacker
Joined:
Jun. 25, 2011 6:53 am

Rights vs. Reality?

What are our rights? Do the American people even know anymore? Judging from America's leaders, we have the right to be criminals as long as the crime is big enough.

Do Americans really want to talk about reality? The reality is that the world has documented American war crimes in Afghanistan, Iraq and several other nations. The US Federal government (under a Democrat this time, not a Republican) has granted unimaginable leniency to international banking criminals who fund terrorism against our soldiers. This is reality. So what is the 2nd Amendment for if not to hold government accountable to the People?

Protests mean nothing and American voters are limited to choose between one of two corporate parties. The majority of gun owners do not want to see reality. George W. Bush is wanted for ordering Muslim prisoners of war to be tortured like American POWs were in Vietnam. That is reality. George W. Bush faces prosecution if he goes to another country that will actually enforce the international ban on torture. He's staying in the US to avoid prison like Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy. That is also reality.

The US Federal government started and still continues an unjust international conflict that has made the world less safe, the world economy less secure, and the reputation of the US even less admirable. That is reality. There is no accountability. There is no justice. The police answer to the US government and the US government will not police itself. That is reality.

So what is the 2nd Amendment if not the ultimate measure of justice for the People?

JTaylor's picture
JTaylor
Joined:
Mar. 19, 2012 1:04 pm
Quote Redwing:
Quote DowntheMiddle:

No, and I agree on THAT. I'm not going to shoot anyone if, say, I saw them stealing my car. THINGS are replaceable. People are not.

I also reiterated that I didn't agree with Horn and that he seemed all to eager to use his weapon, which to me, constituted premeditated murder. Which is the point you kinda conveniently ignored in my post. I was specifically referring to protecting your family in your home.

Middle of the night, and you hear breaking glass at your walkout lower level sliding door. After you dial 911, what then?

I shoot..........if someone is coming into my home while I'm there or while my family is there. No question. No questions. No warnings.

I may have worded my last post a little off. I'm talking about if I walked out in my driveway and saw someone yanking my stereo or something out of my car. I'm not killing someone over something like that. I'd do my best to keep them there until the cops got there, and if my life was threatened, a different matter, but I'm not killing over something that's easily replaceable.

DowntheMiddle
Joined:
Nov. 7, 2011 9:18 am
Quote JTaylor:

Rights vs. Reality?

What are our rights? Do the American people even know anymore? Judging from America's leaders, we have the right to be criminals as long as the crime is big enough.

Do Americans really want to talk about reality? The reality is that the world has documented American war crimes in Afghanistan, Iraq and several other nations. The US Federal government (under a Democrat this time, not a Republican) has granted unimaginable leniency to international banking criminals who fund terrorism against our soldiers. This is reality. So what is the 2nd Amendment for if not to hold government accountable to the People?

Protests mean nothing and American voters are limited to choose between one of two corporate parties. The majority of gun owners do not want to see reality. George W. Bush is wanted for ordering Muslim prisoners of war to be tortured like American POWs were in Vietnam. That is reality. George W. Bush faces prosecution if he goes to another country that will actually enforce the international ban on torture. He's staying in the US to avoid prison like Julian Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy. That is also reality.

The US Federal government started and still continues an unjust international conflict that has made the world less safe, the world economy less secure, and the reputation of the US even less admirable. That is reality. There is no accountability. There is no justice. The police answer to the US government and the US government will not police itself. That is reality.

So what is the 2nd Amendment if not the ultimate measure of justice for the People?

Yeah...we know. White collar crimes, corruption in government, etc.

What are you proposing? A complete overthrow? You want all us gun owners to get together and start enforcing some "accountability"?

You keep parroting the same shit over and over, saying no one really knows what the 2nd Amendment is for.....tell us sir...what do you propose we all do and what is the 2nd Amendment for?

DowntheMiddle
Joined:
Nov. 7, 2011 9:18 am

It's a hard lesson for soldiers to admit that the orders given were wrong. It is every soldier's duty to maintain their humanity so war crimes are not committed. Torturing prisoners and pissing on charred corpses is not humane, honorable or legal under UCMJ or international law.

A determination that an order is illegal does not, of itself, assign criminal responsibility to the person following the order for acts done in compliance with it. Soldiers are taught to follow orders, and special attention is given to obedience of orders on the battlefield. Military effectiveness depends upon obedience to orders. On the other hand, the obedience of a soldier is not the obedience of an automaton. A soldier is a reasoning agent, obliged to respond, not as a machine, but as a person. The law takes these factors into account in assessing criminal responsibility for acts done in compliance with illegal orders.

The acts of a subordinate done in compliance with an unlawful order given him by his superior are excused and impose no criminal liability upon him unless the superior's order is one which a man of ordinary sense and understanding would, under the circumstances, know to be unlawful, or if the order in question is actually known to the accused to be unlawful.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/MYL_uscma.htm

From the Bush White House to the secret CIA torture rooms to the Apache pilots spraying journalists with bullets, the orders given were wrong. Americans did not maintain their humanity, proven by the fact that Americans are unwilling to prosecute their American leaders for ordering war crimes. Instead, Americans ardently defend those leaders and attempt to justify the war crimes. It is a problem of misguided pride.

If the United States expects to be taken seriously by other nations, and especially by ourselves, then we must as a People live up to the ideals of freedom and justice that are so nonchalantly ignored by our leaders today. The American Revolution was supposed to have given the People freedom from an oppressive government. To ensure that future generations would have the means of protecting their national freedom, the 2nd Amendment was written into the Constitution.

If the 2nd Amendment does not intend that the People have a right to bear arms to secure a free state, then why does anyone have a gun? Hunting? Home defense? What is "home defense" when the government can disappear anyone without charges and torture them indefinitely? What is the purpose of allowing every individual in the US to own a firearm if not to hold government accountable? The 2nd Amendment would make no sense.

Why would the second right listed in our most important founding document mention guns above anything else? It is because the First Amendment grants the People the right to religion (and from religion), speech and press, free assembly and to hold government accountable. The Framers knew from personal experience that when diplomatic attempts to resolutions with authority were ineffective, the People would need the means to ensure their freedom from encroaching tyranny. So the 2nd Amendment enabled the People to maintain their weaponry and to form militias to secure their free state from despotic rule, foreign or domestic.

Anyone who is unwilling to accept that responsibility needs to give up their guns.

JTaylor's picture
JTaylor
Joined:
Mar. 19, 2012 1:04 pm

[/quote]

Middle of the night, and you hear breaking glass at your walkout lower level sliding door. After you dial 911, what then?

[/quote] Down the middle

I shoot..........if someone is coming into my home while I'm there or while my family is there. No question. No questions. No warnings.

I may have worded my last post a little off. I'm talking about if I walked out in my driveway and saw someone yanking my stereo or something out of my car. I'm not killing someone over something like that. I'd do my best to keep them there until the cops got there, and if my life was threatened, a different matter, but I'm not killing over something that's easily replaceable.

[/quote]

I totally agree on both counts.

All of the four rules must apply,

1."You must be a reluctant participant."

2. "You must be reasonably in immediate fear of death or great bodily harm."

3. "No lesser force will serve, making deadly force necessary."

4. "Retreat is not practical."

Those on this board that are busy painting all gun owners as crazies should have seen the husband/wives & familys we had at our range today. The interesting part is that shooting guns covers all political spectrums. We get far more hourly workers than big monied individuals. The left has no idea the hornets nest they are stirring up when they push knee jerk agendas. I cannot tell you how many people have gone through or womens only and couples firearms classes. These are not a bunch of republican women, they are mons and wives of lower and middle class workers that are concerned about becoming a victim. They finish skilled, confident, and very safety minded when they graduate. They also vote, and for the last three weeks they are all pissed at Washington, D.C. and it isn't about the fiscal cliff. If you think the Tea Party was a big deal...

Good on them.

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 4:12 am

Two things,

1. Your post is spot on.

2. Thanks for your heads up on Java. I had not heard that, and I just removed Java from both my home computers. Can I do it on my android, or do I have to have a rooted phone?

Redwing's picture
Redwing
Joined:
Jun. 21, 2012 4:12 am
Quote JTaylor:

It's a hard lesson for soldiers to admit that the orders given were wrong. It is every soldier's duty to maintain their humanity so war crimes are not committed. Torturing prisoners and pissing on charred corpses is not humane, honorable or legal under UCMJ or international law.

I never tortured a prisoner, nor did I ever piss on a charred corpse.

A determination that an order is illegal does not, of itself, assign criminal responsibility to the person following the order for acts done in compliance with it. Soldiers are taught to follow orders, and special attention is given to obedience of orders on the battlefield. Military effectiveness depends upon obedience to orders. On the other hand, the obedience of a soldier is not the obedience of an automaton. A soldier is a reasoning agent, obliged to respond, not as a machine, but as a person. The law takes these factors into account in assessing criminal responsibility for acts done in compliance with illegal orders.

The acts of a subordinate done in compliance with an unlawful order given him by his superior are excused and impose no criminal liability upon him unless the superior's order is one which a man of ordinary sense and understanding would, under the circumstances, know to be unlawful, or if the order in question is actually known to the accused to be unlawful.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/MYL_uscma.htm

From the Bush White House to the secret CIA torture rooms to the Apache pilots spraying journalists with bullets, the orders given were wrong. Americans did not maintain their humanity, proven by the fact that Americans are unwilling to prosecute their American leaders for ordering war crimes. Instead, Americans ardently defend those leaders and attempt to justify the war crimes. It is a problem of misguided pride.[/quote]

Yes, those journalists who were within the area of heavy combat who were palling around with armed individuals, peeking around corners....

Fog of war....shit happens. You want to be an embedded journalist, you take the risks. We've lost plenty ourselves.

If the United States expects to be taken seriously by other nations, and especially by ourselves, then we must as a People live up to the ideals of freedom and justice that are so nonchalantly ignored by our leaders today. The American Revolution was supposed to have given the People freedom from an oppressive government. To ensure that future generations would have the means of protecting their national freedom, the 2nd Amendment was written into the Constitution.

If the 2nd Amendment does not intend that the People have a right to bear arms to secure a free state, then why does anyone have a gun? Hunting? Home defense? What is "home defense" when the government can disappear anyone without charges and torture them indefinitely? What is the purpose of allowing every individual in the US to own a firearm if not to hold government accountable? The 2nd Amendment would make no sense.

Why would the second right listed in our most important founding document mention guns above anything else? It is because the First Amendment grants the People the right to religion (and from religion), speech and press, free assembly and to hold government accountable. The Framers knew from personal experience that when diplomatic attempts to resolutions with authority were ineffective, the People would need the means to ensure their freedom from encroaching tyranny. So the 2nd Amendment enabled the People to maintain their weaponry and to form militias to secure their free state from despotic rule, foreign or domestic.

Anyone who is unwilling to accept that responsibility needs to give up their guns.

lol....come get em.

Look man, either put up or shut up. As usual, like everyone else, you put the reponsibility on everyone to enact the changes you want....and what do you do? Sit here on the internet calling everyone else out.

Pick up a gun and lead the charge or quiet down.

DowntheMiddle
Joined:
Nov. 7, 2011 9:18 am
Quote JTaylor:Instead, Americans ardently defend those leaders and attempt to justify the war crimes. It is a problem of misguided pride.
Quote DowntheMiddle:Yes, those journalists who were within the area of heavy combat who were palling around with armed individuals, peeking around corners....
Quote JTaylor:Instead, Americans ardently defend those leaders and attempt to justify the war crimes. It is a problem of misguided pride.

---

Quote DowntheMiddle:lol....come get em.

You really don't understand, do you? It won't be me or any other private citizen that will take your guns. It will be police and Federal agents under the command of one of the two parties that you voted for. They will kill you, take your guns, destroy your home, and you will only be ridiculed in a news broadcast as a crazy militant engaged in domestic terrorism. This goes for you and every NRA member who doesn't know why they have a right to bear arms. The government will take your rights and you will not do anything to stop them. That isn't the will of Liberals or Democrats. It's the will of the US Federal government which has been wrenched from the People's control.

Quote DowntheMiddle:Look man, either put up or shut up.

No, that's my point. You are the gun owner. You and everyone like you needs to put up or shut up. The United States of America is to the point now where the government and corporate leaders act entirely without regard for law or order. You want the right to bear arms? Fine. Learn what that right is for or shut up. It's not to protect your television. It's to protect the rights of all Free People from the greed and abuses of power.

Quote DowntheMiddle:Pick up a gun and lead the charge or quiet down.

Again, one person is not an army. This is why the 2nd Amendment speaks of militias. But as long as the majority of gun-owning Americans are sedated by a warped sense of patriotism, they will never revolt against a tyrannical American government. So the tyranny will continue. What tyranny? Warrantless surveillance, secret torture prisons, riot police blocking off "free speech zones," unwinnable, illegal war over lies, armed guards in schools violating American students' Fourth Amendment rights, banking conglomerates funding terrorism with immunity, protecting war criminals from prosecution and numerous other examples of a totalitarian government. That is reality.

Whoever can't handle the responsibility of bearing arms against the government to secure a free state shouldn't have firearms.

JTaylor's picture
JTaylor
Joined:
Mar. 19, 2012 1:04 pm
Quote Bush_Wacker:

We need a higher percentage of responsible gun owners and a lower percentage of irresponsible ones. If any debate can come away with that goal attained then it's worth the debate and it's worth extra regulations,,, if they make sense.

With a gun ownership rate of 88 per 100 people, the US has the highest rate of gun ownership in the world. The murder rate is less than 3 per 100,000 people. So one might conclude from those numbers that 99.997% of legal gun owners ARE responsible. In fact that percentage is probably even higher because most gun homicides are committed with guns owned illegally. You can pass all the gun contol laws that it takes to make the anti-gun nuts, especially idiot politicians, feel good, but criminals do not obey laws. Most, as evidenced in the past, gun regulations,gun bans, and/or restrictive laws have had little to no effect on crime rates.

In your logic alcohol should still be illegal and certain types of cars should be banned because plenty of people are NOT responsible users of alcohol OR cars especially fast ones.Would banning all so-called fast cars stop speeders and drunk driving?

darlinedarline1@aol.com's picture
darlinedarline1...
Joined:
Aug. 29, 2012 8:27 am

In all the gun conversations that are going on I am amazed that nobody is talking about two things that I think would help clarify the conversation.

First, it is often mentioned that we have over 30,000 gun deaths per year in the US. Many of them are suicides which may or may not have happened if a gun wasn't available. Mostly our focus has been on one person (or several persons) killing (or wounding) others. I think it would be instructive to analyze (categorize) these incidents in order to think about prevention. How many deaths have been from assuault weapons? How many from handguns? Illegal guns? Shootings by crazy people? With answers to these and other questions we could ask other questions. If a murder was committed by a deranged person, can we imagine any program that might have identified that person ahead of time? If we could decide that something was wrong with Adam Lanza the week before the shooting, what would we do with him - lock him up? Are we prepared to lock up everyone judged by someone as deranged?

Second, we have a horrific gun death rate compared to other countries. Why aren't we looking at their regulations to see what they allow or don't allow? It would at least give us some framework to consider.

As far as I am concerned, we should weigh all of the good that having guns do vs. all the bad. It seems to me that there is no real justification for any device that blows big holes in human beings.

lefaivre's picture
lefaivre
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 3:01 pm

Currently Chatting

The world we're leaving for today's teens...

Without immediate global action on climate change, today's teenagers will be forced to live with the consequences of our inaction. The World Bank has issued their third report of climate change, and it says that global temperatures could rise by as much as 4 degrees Celsius by the time today's teens hit their 80th birthday.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system