Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: StarOfAfrica2 on January 31, 2007, 07:35:16 PM
-
Contact your Senators and ask them to vote for S.388 a national right to carry bill introduced by Sen John Thune. Apparently it's gone through the house and the Senate version will be voted on soon. I don't care how anti-gun your Senators are contact them! Even if you know they wouldnt dream of voting for something like this, if enough people email or write in to support this, it might at least make them sleep less easy at night. :)
Here's a story on it ........
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/01/28/concealed-carry-of-weapons-superior-to-taking-weapons/
-
Cool! About time. Interesting item was:
"Incidentally, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report shows that even though there are about 47,000 shooting deaths annually – mostly crime-on-crime – there are more than 2.5 million incidents of average Joe and Josephine Citizen using their gun to stop a crime, based on reports handed in to the FBI by law enforcement nationwide."
Mark
-
Yeah, it'd be nice to have but; I'd just like to see a "right to use" in the states that already have a "right to carry"
Here in Arkansas we don't even have the "your home is your castle" clause; if you can retreat you are required to do so even if you are retreating from your own home & that my friends is B#!!$%*T.
I have the permit & I carry a .45 or a .410 derringer w/buckshot but before you can defend yourself you better be cornered & shot already. Stabbed won't do it because if you shoot someone armed with a knife you used an unnecessary level of force. Luckily the police & prosecutors in many Arkansas towns will sort of overlook the technicalities of self defense laws if you are in your own home & there was a break in.
-
In Oklahoma you have to the right to shoot any intruder that comes into your home. (breaks window, breaks down door, etc..) No matter what they have in their hand, gun, knife, cell phone, shoe, chainsaw. You have the right to defend yourself and your family. I believe it use to be you can't shoot them in your yard unless they shot at your house, but now I think you can shoot them if there on your yard threating to kill you. I pack a Chinese Type 56 carbin (SKS-47). I have two options on this gun. The 7.62/39mm or my 12inch bayonet. My house is also pack with lots more of guns that my dad and I own.
-
with a dem controlled congress this doesn't have a chance... :furious
-
This really doesn't mean much. For example, it's downright impossible for you to get a permit in maryland. If this passes, people in maryland still get the shaft.
We need a nationwide right to carry law.
-
"Incidentally, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Report shows that even though there are about 47,000 shooting deaths annually – mostly crime-on-crime – there are more than 2.5 million incidents of average Joe and Josephine Citizen using their gun to stop a crime, based on reports handed in to the FBI by law enforcement nationwide."
According to the FBI, there are about 11,000 homicides with firearms per year in the US, and another few hundred "justifiable homicides" with firearms by police and private citizens. So 36,000 of the firearms deaths are nothing to do with crime, and are either suicides or accidents.
As to the claim reports handed to the FBI show 2.5 million crimes stopped by guns*, the FBI has nothing to do with such reports. They only collect data on a subset of crimes in the US, and not on crimes prevented, apart from those where the criminal is killed (justifiable homicide)
I believe the 2.5 million figure is from one of the pro gun writers, either Kleck or Lott. I suppose it makes it look better to claim it's from an official source.
The only official study I've seen into the rate of firearms use in self defence in the US is:
"Guns and Crime: Handgun Victimization, Firearm Self-Defense, and Firearm Theft" which is available on the DOJ website: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/hvfsdaft.htm
That gives figures for the early 90s:
"In 1992 offenders armed with handguns committed a record 931,000
violent crimes."
"On average in 1987-92 about 83,000 crime victims per year used a
firearm to defend themselves or their property. Three-fourths of
the victims who used a firearm for defense did so during a violent
crime; a fourth, during a theft, household burglary, or motor
vehicle theft."
Fwiw, there's a simple reason for the dramatically higher rate of defensive gun uses in surveys such as Kleck's. If a survey finds about 2.5 million such instances a year, it equates to about 1% of the US adult population. Think there's any chance if you phone people and ask if they've defended themselves with a gun, 1 in a 100 might lie?
There's ample evidence that's the case. Kleck, for example, records that 8% of cases resulted in the defender shooting and hitting the criminal. That would be 200,000 wounded or killed criminals a year. The FBI only records about 250 justifiable homicides a year.
*if "guns don't kill people, people kill people" then how do "guns stop crime"?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
We need a nationwide right to carry law.
We have one, and have for over three hundred years. The problem is that the liberal scum pretend that we do not.
-
*if "guns don't kill people, people kill people" then how do "guns stop crime"?
It means people with guns stop crime, believe it or not.
-
The right to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed. Yet local, state & even federal govt. agencies do it all the time.
If we roll over on one right we might as well just put our hands in the air & give up all the rest because that one right is the one that guarantees all the rest.
Just writing a law that gives you a "right to carry" is ridiculous since the constitution already guarantees that right. They need to write laws that throw people in prison who try to "infringe" that right.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
There's ample evidence that's the case. Kleck, for example, records that 8% of cases resulted in the defender shooting and hitting the criminal. That would be 200,000 wounded or killed criminals a year. The FBI only records about 250 justifiable homicides a year.
*if "guns don't kill people, people kill people" then how do "guns stop crime"?
They don't all result in a shooting. Count me as one of those. My wife woke me up one night and said "someone is trying to get in the back door. I expected it to be the wind but got my gun anyway and went to the door. There was a guy on the other side when I pulled back the curtain, trying to turn the knob. My wife called 911 and I pointed at the gun and told the guy "Gun I will shoot you" the guy was so high he just looked at me and said "just open the door man" then he started looking around like he was trying to find something to break the window. My wife was on the phone with 911 and I said if he breaks the window I'm going to shoot him she told the operator who didn't seem to have a problem with that. Then she told my wife the officers are in the yard, I guess to make sure I didnt hit them if I shot at him. They ordered him to put his hands up and back toward them. He didn't instead he turned and walked toward them and they slammed him to the ground. It took two of them about five minutes to wrestle his hands behind his back. Then one came back to the house to show us the 10" knife he had on him and to tell us they had also arrested an accomplice trying to get in the front door. Our son was four at the time and thankfully slept through the whole thing. I couldn't help but think about what might have happened if my wife had not woke up and they made it in the house. I'm glad I didn't have to shoot anyone but I'm also glad I had the means to defend my family if I needed to.
-
I agree. More guns. At least 42 each.
hap
-
Most States already have reciprocity laws, have carried all over legally.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Hap
I agree. More guns. At least 42 each.
hap
hap is afraid of guns.
-
Originally posted by bsdaddict
with a dem controlled congress this doesn't have a chance... :furious
Attach it to a spending bill
-
here in florida we can shoot you just for being a chicago bears fan. I like that. it works. even in the worst neighborhoods people mind their own business because they know, oh yes they know.
-
I've used a firearm three different times to prevent crimes. Twice when someone tried to get in my house and once when someone tried to break in my truck. Never fired a shot. Just the sound of that Remington 870 Express Magnum racking a 12 gage round into the chamber was enough to make them change their minds.
I also have a conceled carry permit. I normally carry a Kimber .45 in a waist holster with a spare mag. Of course Virginia also has an open carry law and I do that from time to time as well. Never caused me any problems although I have gotten a few funny looks walking through the local Wal-Mart with a .45 hanging off my hip.
I will say this to the anti gun crowd though.....you want my guns, YOU come and get them from me. Don't send the police or the military. Have the balls to stand behind your convictions like I do and we'll see who has the guns at the end of the day.
-
A bit off topic, but look at this:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/06/Pistol_Browning_SFS.jpg/50px-Pistol_Browning_SFS.jpg)This user opposes gun control for civilians but supports gun control for the military and police forces. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SwitChar)
:eek: :lol
-
I tend to clean my Mossberg 12 Guage Pump shotgun while my Daughters were waiting for their dates on Prom Night.
Combine that with a Vodka bottle full of water and the donutwoods arriving to pick up my girls tend to rethink their evenings.
Daughters were home before set time, untouched and not crying. Love hearing the words "Yes Sir" stuttered several times.
Hey, it works for me.
:aok
Mac
*implied death threat?*
-
Mac, doesn't that eliminate the irreverential but well-adjusted types?
-
Good idea, but not likely to happen.
With my AZ permit I have full reciprocity in AK, AR, TX, KY, OH, and MI. In 17 other states I have limited reciprocity.
The ones I can't carry in, including the one I presently live in which is a pain in the bellybutton to get a CCW, are not likely to go along with a nationwide CCW. They're too liberal.
It's sad that it's harder for law abiding people to legally carry than criminals.
-
Saw on the news this morning the Texas legislature is working to pass a bill that will greatly reduce the chance of prosecution for using lethal force to defend yourself at home or work.
I'd prefer there be no chance... but I'll take it. Good stuff.
-
nashwan hates that statistic. The numbers are by poll and indeed.. they are from 1.5 to 2.5 million crimes a year are prevented with firearms..
Most people who carry don't really do so legally... they are, as you might understand.. a bit hesitant about reporting that they pointed a gun at some thug and chased him away.
I think it is a fair thing to imagine what would have been the result if those people had not had a gun. If even 1% of the crimes stopped using guns would have otherwise ended in a killing... the amount of gangbangers and criminals shooting each other is easily offset by the amount of citizens lives saved by guns.
This bill was put forth by a republican.. it will be voted down by democrats..
This is why you NEVER vote for a democrat... they think only they should be protected by concealed carry (their bodyguards).. to hell wit the peasan.... er, "people".
lazs
-
Originally posted by jigsaw
Good idea, but not likely to happen.
With my AZ permit I have full reciprocity in AK, AR, TX, KY, OH, and MI. In 17 other states I have limited reciprocity.
The ones I can't carry in, including the one I presently live in which is a pain in the bellybutton to get a CCW, are not likely to go along with a nationwide CCW. They're too liberal.
It's sad that it's harder for law abiding people to legally carry than criminals.
Thats the point of this. This bill would force ALL states to recognize and honor your CCW permit. Even states that dont allow concealed carry for their own citizens. The states dont have a choice if this passes.
I'll grant I dont see much of a chance of it passing. But if it did, the repercussions would be phenomenal. Forcing all states to recognize your permit would mean there would have to be a standardisation of CCW laws. "Limited reciprocity" would be a nightmare legal tangle far worse than a state that doesnt allow CC at all allowing you to carry while in their state. Think about it.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
This bill was put forth by a republican.. it will be voted down by democrats..
This is why you NEVER vote for a democrat... they think only they should be protected by concealed carry (their bodyguards).. to hell wit the peasan.... er, "people".
lazs
Lazs, it so happens that one of our most active pro-gun 2nd amendment supporters here is a Democrat. There are more out there. They just have to be elected. Writing off all Democrats just assures that the anti-gun, take-away-your-rights crowd WILL get elected. For example, we have a bill coming up for debate that will remove Hawaii's ban on "high capacity" magazines for pistols, and allow you to use any magazine approved by the manufacturer for use in their gun. Sponsored by a Democrat. We had a bill up for vote last year that would ease restrictions on getting concealed carry permits issued here. Sponsored by a Democrat. We have our share of weenies here too, more than our share. But we are doing our best to get them voted out and reps that want to listen to us voted in.
-
Thats the point of this. This bill would force ALL states to recognize and honor your CCW permit. Even states that dont allow concealed carry for their own citizens. The states dont have a choice if this passes.
It's really not as all encompassing as you think it is. There are still states that won't give their citizens CCW permits. So it doesn't matter if other states honor your permit if you can't get one in the first place.
-
Up until about 3 weeks to a month ago there was a rash of "home invasions" on the South side of Tucson. There weren't any viable suspects but the MO was 4 to 5 suspects kicked in the front door, weapons (guns and knives) out and put everyone on the ground in a single room with the usual threats of death for non compliance. They then ransacked the house stealing money, demanding drugs and stealing cars.
This kept up for several attacks in spite of increased Police patrols. This is a large area and borders the City and County.
Then they hit one house where one person was not in the main part of the house, he was near the bedroom. When the door went down and the screaming started he went inside the bedroom and locked / blocked the door as well as getting a shotgun. The suspects saw the door and started to take it down. When the door came off the resident firde and killed the first guy through who was already firing at him. The second suspect also tried to come in and was "seriously wounded". At that point he left the door and the remaining suspects left. The wounded one was dropped at a local hospital and did survive. The rest were arrested during the nexrt week. From what I recall they were a mix of illegal aliens and US citizens. The home invasions seemed to come to a screaching halt for some reason.
The County attorney was interviewed by one of the more "liberal" TV news crews and came out saying there was nothing illegal about the shooting. Homeowners were and are allowed to defend themselves from home invasion, assault, homicide and robbery, particularly inside their homes.
-
That's great news! In Texas we have a CCL but for the most part if you have a gun in the car and get pulled over most cops will run you lic and if nothing comes back then they will say good day. I dont have a CCL because for the most part i have never ever had a need fr one. I do carry my pistol in my range bag 50% of the time because i like to go to the range on my way home. I do take it out if i am going to be downtown at night because i would understand if a cop pulled me over and i had my STI ready to go with 500 rounds in my bag. Good people with common sense should have the right to defend themselves..
I am teaching a class at UT this spring for students to learn proper gun safety and range rules. We have a nice 25 yard indoor range on campus that the students can shoot .22 rifle and pistols. Last spring we had over 500 students that learned to shoot. Next generation of gun owns and they know have the skill needed to protect themselves and their families.
-
They don't all result in a shooting.
The problem with Kleck's figures is what they do say.
According to Kleck, there were 2,500,000 crimes prevented by people with guns a year.
However, according to Kleck's figures, in 24% of those incidents the person defending themselves fired their gun, which means about 600,000 fired.
Further, according to Kleck, 8% of the 2,500,000 incidents resulted in the defender shooting at, and hitting, the criminal. That's 200,000 criminals shot.
However, the FBI records justifiable homicides, and says about 250 occur each year by private citizens. That means that only 1 in 800 of the criminals shot according to Kleck died, and that's a ridiculous figure.
There are other inconsistencies with Kleck's figures. For example, he reported 2,500,000 defensive gun uses in the year up to his survey. But at the same time he asked people about the previous 5 years as well. According to the responses, the yearly rate for the previous 5 years was half that, about 1,250,000 a year.
It's unlikely the figures actually doubled in a year. It's far more likely that respondents reported more recent incidents to increase the drama.
All Kleck did was telephone people at random, and ask them questions. If any of them lied, and claimed to have defended themselves with a gun when they hadn't, it increased the reported rate. If just 1 in 100 lied, it accounts for almost all Kleck's reported incidents. Hasn't this board recently seen an example of that? (I can't recall the details of the thread, but I think someone claimed to have killed an attacker, and been wounded themselves).
There are people who will lie about such things everywhere. Telephone a few thousand people at random and you will probably find 2,500,000 Americans were Navy Seals active in Gulf War I or II.
(note I'm not suggesting you are lying about your incident, just that asking people at random will uncover a certain proportion who will lie.)
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
It's really not as all encompassing as you think it is. There are still states that won't give their citizens CCW permits. So it doesn't matter if other states honor your permit if you can't get one in the first place.
One problem is some states don't honor out of state sworn officers CCW.
-
Second Amendment:
" 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. "
This is a "Right", under the Constitution of the United States, not a "privilege"; I shouldn't need a "license" to Bear Arms.
Rights and Privileges are different and need to be understood. For example, under the Second Amendement to the Constitution of the United States (1791), I have the "Right" to keep and bear arms. Nowhere in the Constitution of the United States do I have the "Right" to drive an automobile, and thus, States may require an individual to obtain a "License" in order to operate a motor vehicle within the State. This "license" is a privilege, not a Right.
Rights are Guaranteed under the Constitution of The United States.
Privileges may require Licenses and are not guaranteed under the Constitution of The United States.
So, why do I need to petition the State to obtain a license to carry a conceled arm when the Constitution guarantees my Right to bear said arm?
By the way, just what does "a well regulated militia" have to do with "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"?
Patches
-
Originally posted by Patches1
Second Amendment:
" 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. "
Patches, what militia are you part of? Is it also well regulated?
militia
/milish/
• noun 1 a military force raised from the civilian population to supplement a regular army in an emergency. 2 a rebel force opposing a regular army.
— ORIGIN Latin, ‘military service’.
Hope the Day Goes Well,
hap
-
hap... I know you fear firearms but... what part about "the people" don't you understand? Do you think that "the people" means something different in the second than in any other part of the constitution? Are you willing to use such a loose definition on the rest of document when it comes to "the people"?
How are you gonna form a militia out of citizens who are not armed?
Are you saying the second gives the military the right to be armed? that is silly.. why would they need the right to be armed? Are you saying the second is there to give the government rights?
The amendment says that in order to assure that you can raise a well regulated (well armed and good shots) militia (every able bodied man IS the militia)... that in order to assure that... THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
nashwan.... thinking you hit someone is not the same as hitting them. If that were not true then in wars there would be about 50 times more casualties... the planes shot down in WWII would equal about 10 times more than were ever built. I know you have never been shooting so you wouldn't understand how it is possible to think you hit something when you didn't...
simple stuff really.
lazs
-
*if "guns don't kill people, people kill people" then how do "guns stop crime"? [/B][/QUOTE]
Well let's see.... you pull in your driveway like a fella here did the other night. A car pulled in behind him and trapped him....... he had no gun... the crook did.... the crook killed the guy. The guy with no gun had no chance. He did not put up a fight or resist... the crook just shot him. It may not stop crime... but it evens the odds to carry.
I care enough about my family to have a licensed carry, my wife does too.
If it comes down to it... I WILL have a CHANCE to live and so will my family.
My regular carry is a Springfield XD Tactical in .45 with 2 13 rnd clips.
My Wife's carry is either her XD .40 4 inch or her little S&W 38 wheel gun
-
Originally posted by Hap
Patches, what militia are you part of? Is it also well regulated?
militia
/milish/
• noun 1 a military force raised from the civilian population to supplement a regular army in an emergency. 2 a rebel force opposing a regular army.
— ORIGIN Latin, ‘military service’.
Hope the Day Goes Well,
hap
Yep by reading the following quotes by Jefferson, Washington, Madison and Adams it's pretty clear they didn't mean the "Average Joe" should have the right to own a gun...right.
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”
Thomas Jefferson quotes (American 3rd US President (1801-09). Author of the Declaration of Independence. 1762-1826)
“Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government...”
Thomas Jefferson quote
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
Thomas Jefferson quote
“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.”
Thomas Jefferson quote
“A bill of rights is what the people are entitled to against every government on earth, general or particular, and what no just government should refuse, or rest on inferences”
Thomas Jefferson quote
“It is to secure our rights that we resort to government at all.”
Thomas Jefferson quote
“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good.”
George Washington quote
“When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour.”
George Washington quote
“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.”
George Washington quote
Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms”
James Madison quote
“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country.”
James Madison quote
“Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion... in private self-defense.”
John Adams quote
-
Gunston, are you and Patches the same person?
Where'd that other stuff come from?
I've never met anyone who is member of a Militia. Maybe some of you are.
That's one reason I was asking. The other was to discover if Militias generally or specifically try to form themselves along Constitutional lines.
Gunston, do you consider yourself "tyrannized" by America's government?
Regards,
hap
-
Originally posted by Hap
Gunston, do you consider yourself "tyrannized" by America's government?
QUOTE]
Occasionally, and more and more with each passing year, though I can't speak for Gunston. I'll give you an example with just three letters: "IRS"
-
LOL! This stuff is so often repeated by those that haven't studied the 2nd and who have just listened to the "anti" side of it.
Hap, you may well be part of the militia! Scary, eh?
US CODE
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311 Prev | Next
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
So, along Constitutional lines, there's one heck of a lot of people in the militia, isn't there?
However, the whole gotta be in a militia argument is a red herring.
The Second Amendment's two clauses complement each other: guaranteeing the right of the people to keep and bear arms ensures that a well regulated militia will be available.
Like all of the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights, the 2nd is an individual right. In our Constitution, only individuals have "rights," and only governmental units have "powers." The 2nd is clearly in the Bill of Rights.
Also, check the history of the writing of the 2nd. You'll find the first version was
The original text[12] of what was to become the Second Amendment, as brought to the floor to the first session of the first congress of the U.S. House of Representatives was:
“ The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
There's absolutely no doubt about the intent of the 2nd; there's only people who try to twist it into something it is not.
-
Well researched, Toad!
The Second stands on its own.
-
People who carry tend to carry themselves in a way that most criminals can sense it's better not to mess with them. Alot of times when you carry your life was saved and you never even knew it.
-
Originally posted by Hap
Gunston, are you and Patches the same person?
Where'd that other stuff come from?
I've never met anyone who is member of a Militia. Maybe some of you are.
That's one reason I was asking. The other was to discover if Militias generally or specifically try to form themselves along Constitutional lines.
Gunston, do you consider yourself "tyrannized" by America's government?
Regards,
hap
No I'm not Patches
I assume by other stuff you mean the quotes. If so there are lots of websites where you can find quotes those came from here
http://thinkexist.com/
I am not a member of an organized militia, but as presented earlier all able bodied men should be ready to come to the defense of the country should they be needed. And I would say that should be viewed as "from all enemies foreign or domestic"
I don't quite think I would say "I'm tyrannized" yet but I do believe the government has shown steady movement in that direction. I can tell you with 100% certainty that I am less free than my father was at my age and my 12 year old son is less free than I was at his age. I shudder to think how far the nanny state will have progressed by the time he is my age (I think Orwell was only off by about 30 years)
-
“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.”
George Washington quote
Which is ironic given that GW lost his and had false teeth.
-
Originally posted by Curval
“Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth.”
George Washington quote
Which is ironic given that GW lost his and had false teeth.
this is how ugly rumors always start. GW knew exactly where all his natural teeth were, they just weren't in his gums.
-
We can only shoot intruders here if they pose a threat or something. In other words you can't put a spray of buckshot in their back because they aren't posing a threat, they are running away. I know they have a new law called the "Make My Day Better" law, it allows you to use the same reasoning as a house but with a business or a car. Opponents are against the use of firearms for protecting a car though...
-
Guess I cant carry, I'm too old for the milita.
shamus
-
Originally posted by Benny Moore
We have one, and have for over three hundred years. The problem is that the liberal scum pretend that we do not.
While that's all good and clear, it makes no difference until the supreme court chooses to hear a second ammendment case.
One of the problems with the supreme court is they can pick and choose the cases they wish to judge. And for the past many years, they have outright REFUSED to even take a second ammendment case. This is because of the ramifications of such.
The supreme court is just as much part of the government as the legislative and presidential branches. A threat to the government by guns is equally a threat to them.
And because they know that there's only one way the ruling on a second amendment case can go, they will forever refuse to even let it get through.
So we're stuck with over throwing the government illegally.
-
Maybe a constitutional amendment is in order. Something like granting to all citizens the right to bear arms. Whaddaya think?
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
So we're stuck with over throwing the government illegally.
I won't rule out the possibility, as Tom said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure."
However, I think our current gov't is doing a pretty good job of bankrupting itself. That house of cards can't stand forever...
-
Originally posted by lukster
Maybe a constitutional amendment is in order. Something like granting to all citizens the right to bear arms. Whaddaya think?
funny. I'd like to see one that says "The constitution is not a "living document". It means what it says."
-
So in other words those pesky ammendments that are commonly referred to as the bill of rights are in your way. Is that what you are saying?
-
I stated it incorrectly. The second amendment does not grant the right to bear arms. It states that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The purpose of the second amendment then is to acknowledge the right of citizens to bear arms and prohibt the government from infringing upon that right. How far we have fallen.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
So we're stuck with over throwing the government illegally.
You advocate sedition, Lasersailor?
Regards,
hap
-
Originally posted by Hap
Gunston, are you and Patches the same person?
Where'd that other stuff come from?
I've never met anyone who is member of a Militia. Maybe some of you are.
That's one reason I was asking. The other was to discover if Militias generally or specifically try to form themselves along Constitutional lines.
Gunston, do you consider yourself "tyrannized" by America's government?
Regards,
hap
If you are an American Citizen between the age of 14 and 60............. ( I think it's 14 to 60 but ???)
you are IN the militia!
Army regs state this. It has been so for YEARS! It was set up this way YEARS ago!
Further if YOU honorabley served in the military you are now a OFFICER in the militia until the porper military shows up and releaves YOU.
Looks it up!!! The information is out there! The NET makes it easy to find!
-
Originally posted by Shamus
Guess I cant carry, I'm too old for the milita.
shamus
If that's what you think, you misunderstand the 2nd.
The right to bear arms shall not be infringed; age isn't a factor.
By US Code the militia is age specific. You might be too old for the militia.
That in no way infringes your right to bear arms.
Again, the two clauses in the 2nd are complimentary, not dependent.
-
Provided you're not legally prohibited from ownership (felony or domestic violence for example), it's an individual choice. Do it or don't do it and live a happy, healthy productive life. What's the big deal?
-
Originally posted by VOR
Provided you're not legally prohibited from ownership (felony or domestic violence for example), it's an individual choice. Do it or don't do it and live a happy, healthy productive life. What's the big deal?
I agree, however, it is typical politics for a small group to want to press their idea of what is right on to the masses.
If I want to carry... no problem, if you don't want to carry... no problem. Eventually the criminals who will carry regardless of the constitution and what you think..... will find you. Then you can argue your point with them.
-
Thanks toad.. very good explanation... much better than the way I said it...
We are saying the same thing tho... the second is an individual right and, like all the other amendments it is there to guarentee rights for individuals not for government.
laser is correct about the supreme court.. they have avoided the second like the plague and... for the reasons he stated... there is only one conclusion that they could come to and that it is an individual right and that almost all of our current firearms laws are unconstitutional.
No serious constitutional scholar does not believe that the second, like all the others, simply acknowledges an intrinsic and individual right of the people against the tyranny of government.
Tyranny is, as Washington said (if you read closely) not only by governments but by thugs or bands of thugs who would try to take your rights away by force.
A burglar is a tyrant for instance as is a carjacker or a gang of muggers or just thugs bent on violent assault.
The sad part is that the SC does not need to be afraid of a ruling... making all forms of firearms legal for all people would not deter the government from passing laws with strict penalties for criminal misuse.
Look at our hand wringing brit friend nashwan and others... In their countries I could get a firearm in no time... a day... a week at most. The law does not stop me... it is the penalty that stops me.
In America... any criminal can get any gun in a few hours.... Yet... less and less criminals are using guns in crimes. Why is that? The penalties are increasing for tyranizing fellow citizens with firearms.
The answer is, and always has been... every person armed and able to protect himself and others and... everyone polite with firearms because of the penalties for not being polite with em. Criminals afraid to use guns for crime and citizens having guns to stop crime... Win/win.... just as the founders envisioned in their infinite wisdom.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Shuffler
If I want to carry... no problem, if you don't want to carry... no problem.
Herein is the problem with our whole society.
There is a faction that doesn't care what the other guy does. They believe the freedom to swing one's arms is only regulated by how close you come to someone else's nose.
Then there's the faction that is intensely interested in what the other guy does and seeks to regulate every aspect of what the other guy does.
We all need to decide which side we're on.
-
Originally posted by Hap
You advocate sedition, Lasersailor?
Regards,
hap
I have been for months. It's not like I try to hide it.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
It's really not as all encompassing as you think it is. There are still states that won't give their citizens CCW permits. So it doesn't matter if other states honor your permit if you can't get one in the first place.
Get one from Florida.
Go here: Florida Division of Licensing Forms page (http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/license/forms.html)
Order:
1 - Concealed Weapon or Firearm Application
2 - Fingerprint Card - Firearm licenses (qty: 2 -- backup in case first one get smudged...)
3 - How to be licensed to Carry a Concealed Firearm pamphlet
4 - Questions and answers pertaining to the use of deadly force
Get yourself trained according to the "how to be licensed pamphlet"
Send your money, application, training certificate, and $$$ and 45-60 days later you get your CCW from Florida. And bingo you will be able to carry in any state, if this legislation passes.
Terror
-
What do you advocate Hap? Time for you to state your position I'd think.
-
Originally posted by x0847Marine
One problem is some states don't honor out of state sworn officers CCW.
Again, "limited reciprocity" is going to have to go out the window if they sign something like this. Whether you are a private citizen with a CCW or a sworn police officer of any level. Even retired police officers have the right to carry thanks to Bush.
Originally posted by lasersailor184
It's really not as all encompassing as you think it is. There are still states that won't give their citizens CCW permits. So it doesn't matter if other states honor your permit if you can't get one in the first place.
And again, thats the beauty of forcing states that dont allow concealed carry to honor those from other states. Many of the minority of states that still have no CCW permit of any type vote on it fairly regularly and have a large percentage of people who vote FOR it. Having a federal law in place that says you have to honor the permits of every other state is going to rather put a damper on the arguments keeping concealed weapons out of the hands (and pockets) of their own citizens. If by some miracle this law did come to pass, I can see at least 3 states that currently have no CCW options passing laws to change their status shortly after. This law may not be all encompassing, but it will help to establish precedent for people carrying concealed weapons in those states and give more ammo (sorry, couldnt resist) to the folks lobbying to get a CCW law passed.
-
Look at our hand wringing brit friend nashwan and others... In their countries I could get a firearm in no time... a day... a week at most. The law does not stop me... it is the penalty that stops me.
Can I give you a sample case that shows how hard it is to get a gun in the UK if you don't have serious connections?
There's a woman called Dawn Fields. Lived in London, her boyfriend was an American criminal. He sent her £400,000 ($600,000 at the time) cash for her to launder. The money went missing.
Fields believed she knew who had taken it, and flew over 3 thugs from New York. They went to get the money from the man they believed had stolen it, but he was out. Fields had ordered them to kidnap his 10 year old son if he was out, which they did. They held him for 2 days and threatened to kill him if the £400,000 wasn't returned. The police eventually rescued him.
They were all convicted on firearms charges, kidnapping, false imprisonment and blackmail. Fields got 15 years, the leader of the New York gang got 13 years, his two gang members got 12 years each and Fields' brother, the getaway driver, got 10 years. These are all substantial sentences, far more than you get for possession of a gun.
The "guns" they used were 3 replica pistols, incapable of firing anything more than a plastic bb. In a dispute over $600,000 of illegal money, with criminals flown in from the US, abduction of a child etc, and all they could come up with was 3 toy guns.
In the eyes of the law in the UK, there is no difference between a replica gun used in a crime and a real gun. They attract the same penalties. Indeed, the law regards anything the criminal portrays as a gun as a firearm, with the same penalties. The only reason to use a toy gun instead of a real one is cost or availability.
The Home Office recently concluded a study into firearms availability amongst criminals. They interviewed 80 men serving sentences for crimes involving firearms.
Shotguns were fairly cheap, and fairly easily available (shotguns have a much more relaxed licensing regime in the UK).
Handguns started at £400 - £800 ($800 - $1600) for converted toys and replicas, usually firing 22 LR. They are not liked because they are frequently dangerous to the user, aren't very reliable, and of limited effectiveness.
New genuine handguns started at about £1000 - £1400 ($2000 - $2800).
Ammunition was reported as even harder to get than the guns themselves.
The prices are high, but unless you have the right contacts, you can't even find a gun for sale. Both these factors keep guns out of the hands of the vast majority of criminals.
-
<>
i bet the smugglers love them prices.
-
They couldn't get guns but worse than that, they got caught. Sounds like some stupid thugs Nashwan. Perhaps not the best example.
-
Originally posted by Nashwan
Can I give you a sample case that shows how hard it is to get a gun in the UK if you don't have serious connections?
The prices are high, but unless you have the right contacts, you can't even find a gun for sale. Both these factors keep guns out of the hands of the vast majority of criminals.
Not trying to be argumentative, but you could have just posted the facts about the costs of the guns without the story (which, btw, did not seem to have anything to do with trying to acquire guns). I understand when you say its expensive, but that doesnt necessarily mean "difficult". Also, how was the story you gave a "sample case" showing how difficult it is to buy guns in the UK?
Last, what does buying guns in the UK have to do with an American right to carry law?
-
Not long ago here a man shot a house burglar with a .270 deer rifle from a hundred yards away. The burglar was a repeat offender on that property and the shooter shot him in his car as he was driving away. He went to court and he was exonerated by the trial. Everyone was defending him and his actions.
I'm not saying it's right. Dunno if I would do that, probably not unless I was protecting a loved one. Thing is, everyone in that neighborhood wanted him to not be punished for that, and that's mainly why he was exonerated. Everyone was so fed up with that one burglar they pretty much adopted a stance of taking the law into their own hands...and the court agreed with them!!!
Mobile is like Dodge City, there are lots of homicides in this town. I'm not gonna say whether I carry or not. I have a permit though and have had it for 20 years thereabouts. Never had to shoot, though I did point at someone trying to get in my car (gun still in holster, I did not unholster the gun.) He was trying to kick in my right rear passenger window at a traffic deadlock (I was at a bus stop.) Guy came up like I was his cab and tried the passenger door first but it was locked. Thankfully traffic moved on and I think I ran over the guys foot because he was screaming as I drove off. He was trying to get in my car. Complete stranger, probably nuts.
Les
-
jury nullification. a good and decent person commits a questionable act of violence under trying circumstances against a wanton felon. if that person is living in a red state no jury will convict him (or her)
-
i bet the smugglers love them prices.
No, it's still too cheap to make much money smuggling them. Remember, that's the end user price, the dealer has to make his money out of that price as well. A kilo of the cheapest drug (cannabis) goes for a lot more than that, and the penalties for cannabis are quite light. Guns attract the same sort of penalties as hard drugs, and you can get £20,000 - £50,000 a kilo for those.
They couldn't get guns but worse than that, they got caught. Sounds like some stupid thugs Nashwan. Perhaps not the best example.
Most serious criminals do get caught, and most are very stupid. Not many give up medical school or law school for a life of armed robbery and kidnapping.
Their biggest mistake is that they thought the mother of the boy they kidnapped wouldn't go to the police because she was involved in stealing the money. She wasn't, and did go to the police.
Not trying to be argumentative, but you could have just posted the facts about the costs of the guns without the story (which, btw, did not seem to have anything to do with trying to acquire guns). I understand when you say its expensive, but that doesnt necessarily mean "difficult".
No, it doesn't. But if guns are easily available, the price would be a lot lower. The intrinsic value of a handgun is nothing like £1000+.
Also, how was the story you gave a "sample case" showing how difficult it is to buy guns in the UK?
Because they couldn't get guns. They had to settle for toys instead. (and they got the same sentence for carrying the toys as they would real guns)
Last, what does buying guns in the UK have to do with an American right to carry law?
I don't know. Ask Lazs, who brought it up.
-
Here in Arkansas shooting someone that is not a clear & present threat to your life is illegal. Even inside your own home the use of deadly force will land you in court. If you use deadly force against someone inside your home here....there better be evidence of a break in, simple illegal entry won't do it. You'll be convicted & go to prison, of course there are always local exceptions where the police & prosecutor just shrug it off & call it justified.
The problem comes in with the individuals involved from the attacker/attacked to the judge & jury & the vagueness of the laws. We currently have bills up for votes in our state congress that they call "stand your ground" & "your home is your castle" laws. With the stand your ground law, it's pretty self explanatory, you can stand your ground wherever you are & you need not flee for your life; with the, your home is your castle law, you would be able to use deadly force inside your home to defend yourself even if there was no break in.
Here are two examples that stand out in my mind that occurred here in Arkansas, what would you do in these two situations:
A guy was driving on a remote stretch of highway, he passes a truck driving erratically. A short distance down the road the truck he passed comes up fast & passes him & then slows down. This goes on for a bit, them passing each other with the truck always catching up going around & slowing down. Eventually the guy runs from the guy in the truck & it turns into a high speed chase. Then the guy in the truck starts slamming into the guy in the car with his truck trying to run the guy off the road. The guy in the car decides if this keeps up he is going to wreck so he pulls over; the guy in the truck pulls up behind him & gets out, walks up to the car & attacks the guy in the car through the window. The guy in the car has had enough & shoots the guy attacking him & kills him. The jury says he should have continued to flee when the guy got out of his truck & they sent him to prison for murder.
I would have shot the S.O.B. too! Only I learned a lesson from this; "Your honor, my car died & I guess it was flooded because it wouldn't restart"
Then there was the case of the old man who was having coffee in a small restaurant, you know the type where old men gather in the mornings to talk trash for hours over coffee. Well, he gets into a heated argument over politics with a younger man, apparently much younger something like nearly half his age. He decides enough is enough when the younger guy challenges him to a fight outside. He pays for his coffee & leaves. The younger man follows him outside & attacks him. He falls to the ground where the younger man begins to kick him in the head (remember, the old guy is in his 80's) & he draws his concealed weapon & kills the younger man who is attacking him. The jury said he aggravated the situation by leaving (I call that fleeing, don't you?) when the man told him to go outside to fight. They convicted the old guy for murder because his assailant was unarmed (I guess they think being kicked in the head couldn't be fatal) & he went outside instead of staying in the restaraunt & calling police.
That one is different for me because; if I have a weapon on me I will try to avoid confrontations. If you get into a scuffle & your weapon falls out or your attacker gets it, then your screwed. You can't use it before that point & after that point, he's armed & you aren't. I'm 220 pounds & 6'1" & I love a good brawl so if anything the weapon keeps me OUT of fights. But I'm afraid if I were 80 & being kicked in the head after already having my butt handed to me; I'd have shot the S.O.B. in that situation too.
-
It's against the law in SC for the courts to charge you for defending yourself in your home.
-
nashwan... you don't know they couldn't get guns... You have no way of knowing.
You have sidestepped the question. I could get a handgun in your country in a day... week at most. I could get a shotgun even faster and cut it to about 18" overall length in 5 minutes and have a far more deadly weapon than a handgun.
I could make a firearm in any home in england in less than a day. I can make ammo... I am not any kind of gun genius or supercriminal but I was raised in a country that understands firearms.
you don't... your people don't... watching your movies is laughable when it come to guns....
But.. the real crux of the whole thing is.. your people can get all the guns they want... why don't they do it?
No matter how you wiggle... they don't do it cause they are afraid of the penalties.
The exact same results (or close enough) could be obtained by making guns readily available to citizens but harsh penalties for use in crimes.
Really.. you don't know anything about guns or our country.... when I read your posts I see an appologist for the people in your country who have taken away the god given right of your citizens to protect themselves. I see someone who is justifying his fear of firearms and his willingness to nanny others by attacking a country that remains free.
You haven't made your crime or even homicide rate go down with all your stupid gun laws... you never had a high homicide rate in the last few centuries... even when guns were common.
Your people are not the same as ours... if you lived here for a while you would know that. You would be as shocked by us as I was of your people.
lazs
-
Spotted this link and followed up with reading it. As a Vet and a patriotic individual, I'm truly concerned with where this country is going. And I don't see any alternative with the other side of the isle either. Is this really where we want this country to go? Honestly? Can we even turn the tide as it seems impossible to get any kind of consensus to even declare where it went wrong. Or if it really is wrong. Are we going to continue to debate the facts ad naseum until we're faced with a suspention of our Constitution and our Bill of Rights? Obviously, our elected officials are NOT keeping faith with the will of our Founding Fathers, and obviously they are NOT concerned with the Will of the People they are sworn to serve. When it comes right down to it, THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO WORK FOR US, NOT AGAINST. If an employee doesn't perform adequately in their position, they are fired. Period. I think it's more than time to take OUR Government to task for the obvious lack of concern over the overall welfare of the Union.
(http://www.populistamerica.com/countdown_to_dictatorship)
-
I also would like to point out that using fake guns is not the sole pervue of the limeys.
If nashwan is using the number of fake guns used by criminals as proof that they can't get or, it is very to difficult to get the real thing then...
If I could show that more fake guns are used by criminals in the U.S. than in england then... by his logic... it would mean that guns are harder to get here than there.
nashwan... since you don't like or want firearms...you probly should stay in england... if you are only ever around law abiding citizens...you will probly never have to even see one in real life.... not even if you wished you or another citizen did have one... I am pretty sure that in your lifetime you will see the police and military on your street with guns tho and that guns in the hands of criminals will be a real threat in your life.
Your hiding from them all this time will be seen as the folly it is.
lazs