Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Tiger on October 24, 2007, 02:36:25 PM
-
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,304806,00.html
I said this about my college campus years ago. Why not just put a big flashing red sign up that says, ATTENTION, NO ONE HERE IS ARMED EXCEPT FOR YOU MR. CRIMINAL, PLEASE DO AS YOU PLEASE.
The reason crime rates drop after CWPs are allowed is because Mr. Robber is a little more picky about when/where he decides to rob. If he thinks the guy at the candy bar rack might be packing heat, he's a little less likely to rob Apu the store clerk.
Here's my favorite quote:
"You don't like the fact that you can't have a gun on your college campus? Drop out of school," said Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.
My response would have been, don't like guns and the 2nd Amendment, drop outta this country.
-
when some sociopath is shooting down the sheeple at will in the hallway... who do you want to be barricaded in the room with... mr Hamm from the brady bunch "guns are ugly and evil" or....
Some guy with a cc permit and a 45 Kimber with 3 dot sights?
The NRA is doing this wrong.. we should be using the tactics of the left and... anyone who is denied the right to carry... anywhere including schools... and then becomes the helpless victim of a sociopath... The NRA should fund a lawsuit for him, or his surviving relatives, against all who made sure the poor bastard was unarmed and helpless.
lazs
-
I like that idea Laz. If Joe Blow can sue the gun company for whacko shooting the place up and him getting iinjured. I should be able to sue the gov't for not letting me legally carry my weapon to protect myself.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
when some sociopath is shooting down the sheeple at will in the hallway... who do you want to be barricaded in the room with... mr Hamm from the brady bunch "guns are ugly and evil" or....
Some guy with a cc permit and a 45 Kimber with 3 dot sights?
The NRA is doing this wrong.. we should be using the tactics of the left and... anyone who is denied the right to carry... anywhere including schools... and then becomes the helpless victim of a sociopath... The NRA should fund a lawsuit for him, or his surviving relatives, against all who made sure the poor bastard was unarmed and helpless.
lazs
Conservatives have always been afraid to fight the battle the way liberals do.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Conservatives have always been afraid to fight the battle the way liberals do.
Not that were afraid we just think men slapping other men and yelling "owe that hurt" is lame.. The perfect visual on that would be Napoleon Dynamite
-
If the NRA would start doing something like that I wouldn't have a problem giving them my money. I quit the NRA about 5 years ago. I believe in what it stands for but I don't agree with the current policies of it.
They should stop paying for lobbyists and start hiring lawyers. Everytime someone is shot in a gun free zone then those lawyers should come out of the woodwork filing law suites againsts every private, local, state, and federal agency that made it a gun free zone.
Maybe when people have to start paying out the nose because they can't control and defend their gun free zone as well as a legally armed citizen can they'll understand just what the second ammendment really means.
If I KNEW that was what my dues were paying for, I'd sign back up in a second. As it is the NRA is a paper tiger with no real teeth.
-
Originally posted by T0J0
Not that were afraid we just think men slapping other men and yelling "owe that hurt" is lame.. The perfect visual on that would be Napoleon Dynamite
All "Liberals are girly men" jokes aside, the Republican party has always been afraid of fighting dirty. As the liberals lie, cheat and slander their way into positions, the republicans try to keep their hands clean of it.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
when some sociopath is shooting down the sheeple at will in the hallway... who do you want to be barricaded in the room with... mr Hamm from the brady bunch "guns are ugly and evil" or....
Some guy with a cc permit and a 45 Kimber with 3 dot sights?
The NRA is doing this wrong.. we should be using the tactics of the left and... anyone who is denied the right to carry... anywhere including schools... and then becomes the helpless victim of a sociopath... The NRA should fund a lawsuit for him, or his surviving relatives, against all who made sure the poor bastard was unarmed and helpless.
lazs
Logic and anti gun people do not mix.
When you fear firearms and freedom, reason can not be your strong point.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
when some sociopath is shooting down the sheeple at will in the hallway... who do you want to be barricaded in the room with... mr Hamm from the brady bunch "guns are ugly and evil" or....
Some guy with a cc permit and a 45 Kimber with 3 dot sights?
The NRA is doing this wrong.. we should be using the tactics of the left and... anyone who is denied the right to carry... anywhere including schools... and then becomes the helpless victim of a sociopath... The NRA should fund a lawsuit for him, or his surviving relatives, against all who made sure the poor bastard was unarmed and helpless.
lazs
That would likely turn into a fight between the NRA and the ACLU (only as friends of the court of course). A fight I would pay to see.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7pGt_O1uM8
this is a satire, but it is exactly what those who support gun free zones think will happen. It really is rather sad.
-
That's pretty funny.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
That would likely turn into a fight between the NRA and the ACLU (only as friends of the court of course). A fight I would pay to see.
My money is on the NRA in this fight..
Them boys are packing heat..
The ACLU is packing Rainbow lollypops:D
I myself would love to see someone file suit for violating their constitutional rights..
Would be interesting to see where this would go..
Just a side note I doubt you would win any suit on school campus but would make for some interesting arguments.
-
tazers should be issued to every schoolteacher in the US.
It'd boost the national grade average up and decrease the school shootings.
Win-win in my book.
-
hornet.. you might want to take a look at what the NRA IS doing not what it is not.
They got the guns of the katrina victims back.. they support all sorts of laws and second amendment candidates.. they lobby for gun rights.
I can see you not wanting to support them if you think they are not doing enough but if you aren't taking the $35 a year you gave them and giving it to some other pro second amendment group then..
your are not helping a bit. you are part of the problem. If the NRA had 70 million members.. or if they had every gun owner.. they would be able to fight more than the cautious fights.. they would have bigger teeth.
you pulling out is making them less effective. sorry.. I am sure that you are passionate and a friend but... if you are doing nothing but a protest pullout of the NRA.. you aren't helping much.
There are several pro second amendment rights groups who are much more aggressive (but less effective) than the NRA that you could support if you don't already.
lazs
-
I think people with ccw permits should be able to go anywhere from a police station, court room or even a school, As long as they can get approved for a ccw there should not be any restrictions.
-
Originally posted by Trell
I think people with ccw permits should be able to go anywhere from a police station, court room or even a school, As long as they can get approved for a ccw there should not be any restrictions.
i agree with that.:aok
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
All "Liberals are girly men" jokes aside, the Republican party has always been afraid of fighting dirty. As the liberals lie, cheat and slander their way into positions, the republicans try to keep their hands clean of it.
lol you have to be joking right. You really must be living in fantasy land if you belive that crap. :rofl
-
Originally posted by Trell
I think people with ccw permits should be able to go anywhere from a police station, court room or even a school, As long as they can get approved for a ccw there should not be any restrictions.
Yea because people with CCW's never shoot anyone or commit crimes.
-
Originally posted by crockett
Yea because people with CCW's never shoot anyone or commit crimes.
Then institute stronger background checks with evaluations of people to get ccws.
If the goverment thinks you are Well enough to walk around town with a gun then they should not worry when the commoners walk into federal other privileged people's buildings With guns
-
Originally posted by crockett
Yea because people with CCW's never shoot anyone or commit crimes.
Considering that you have to be approved by the local sheriff's office, I consider it much less likely that a violent criminal is likely to apply for a CCW. More likely, the criminal will just stick the gun in their jacket and not worry about the CCW.
But hell, the very fact that the criminal is out on the streets is because liberals like you are so concerned with making sure the criminal's rights aren't violated that you have missed the basic point that criminals need to serve time to keep them from hurting law abiding citizens.
-
Wow, a gun thread and as of yet no sign of Midnight Target?
Did you guys forget to wind him up this morning?
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Considering that you have to be approved by the local sheriff's office, I consider it much less likely that a violent criminal is likely to apply for a CCW. More likely, the criminal will just stick the gun in their jacket and not worry about the CCW.
But hell, the very fact that the criminal is out on the streets is because liberals like you are so concerned with making sure the criminal's rights aren't violated that you have missed the basic point that criminals need to serve time to keep them from hurting law abiding citizens.
Not just the Sheriff's office, either (at least not in Colorado). Here in Colorado, your CCW request is also vetted through the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (state equivalent of the FBI). And I agree; there should be no restrictions on where you can carry if you've got a valid CCW permit.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Considering that you have to be approved by the local sheriff's office, I consider it much less likely that a violent criminal is likely to apply for a CCW. More likely, the criminal will just stick the gun in their jacket and not worry about the CCW.
No one is ever a violent criminal, until they commit a violent crime. Take for instance the BTK killer just for example, I don't think he used guns, but he was a everyday common joe. Of course that's the extreeme case, but yea get the idea I hope.
Originally posted by Bodhi
:cry liberals :cry liberals :cry liberals :cry
sorry I'm tired of replying to crying about liberals..
-
Originally posted by Trell
Then institute stronger background checks with evaluations of people to get ccws.
see the pro gun guys (aka NRA) are totally against that. They say that's too much restrictions and it's anti 2nd amendment. Which in short means the gun companies would lose money on sales.
-
Originally posted by crockett
see the pro gun guys (aka NRA) are totally against that. They say that's too much restrictions and it's anti 2nd amendment. Which in short means the gun companies would lose money on sales.
Not really. If you read the second ammendment, it mentions no restrictions or qualifiers on the right of people to bear arms. Now, this doesn't mean that the government can set them, but that specifically they are not allowed to set them.
-
Originally posted by crockett
Yea because people with CCW's never shoot anyone or commit crimes.
i think that's true, at least in florida, unless you want to include CCW's shooting criminals.
-
Originally posted by crockett
see the pro gun guys (aka NRA) are totally against that. They say that's too much restrictions and it's anti 2nd amendment. Which in short means the gun companies would lose money on sales.
Thats the NRA's issue not mine. I believe they should screen ccw people to make sure they are not crazy or have been convicted of violent crimes as well as take a training class. other then that Any nonviolent felon non crazy [person should be allowed guns as well.
But that is only my thoughts
-
Originally posted by Trell
Thats the NRA's issue not mine. I believe they should screen ccw people to make sure they are not crazy or have been convicted of violent crimes as well as take a training class. other then that Any nonviolent felon non crazy [person should be allowed guns as well.
But that is only my thoughts
Well I agree with it, but the fact is, the gun lobby which is basically the NRA and Gun companies. Has "shot" down those very kind of standards and background checks and so on.
They claim it violates the 2nd amendment.
-
First thought: I AM the NRA! I am a member and I seriously consider the NRA politician rating system when I cast my vote. There are very few things I would risk my life for, my right to keep and bear arms is one of those things.
When I applied for my state "License to carry Concealed Pistol" I underwent a FBI background check including fingerprint regime. That should be good enough for those people that hate guns....right?
Last time I heard anything about it, three state LCCP holders have ever been charged with a firearms crime and only one of those was an actual shooting.
-
Originally posted by crockett
Yea because people with CCW's never shoot anyone or commit crimes.
And jusy how many times have you heard of a legal CCW holder going on a killing spree? How many legal CCW holders are out there dealing drugs, jacking cars, robbing stores, and generally violating everyone elses rights?
I'd be willing to bet a months pay you can't find 10 cases of that happening in the entire United States during the last year. You want to know why?? CCW holders don't break the law.
-
it does not take much intelligence to realize that people with carry permits are lawful people in the first place. Thats why they are obeying the law :rolleyes:
-
The NRA is doing this wrong.. we should be using the tactics of the left and... anyone who is denied the right to carry... anywhere including schools... and then becomes the helpless victim of a sociopath... The NRA should fund a lawsuit for him, or his surviving relatives, against all who made sure the poor bastard was unarmed and helpless.
I like that one Lazs :)
-
Originally posted by crockett
Yea because people with CCW's never shoot anyone or commit crimes.
The folks who actually apply and get CCW's are law abiding citizens for the most part. Out of the hundreds of thousands of permits issued nation-wide I think I heard of ONE incident where a weapon was used illegally. That's a pretty darn good track record.
see the pro gun guys (aka NRA) are totally against that. They say that's too much restrictions and it's anti 2nd amendment. Which in short means the gun companies would lose money on sales.
The NRA doesn't fight laws and prospective laws based on gun company sales. They fight them based on whether or not they are constitutional. If it infringes on your right to keep and bear arms you can bet the NRA will be involved.
-
crock-it...
I couldn't disagree with you more. so long as the person is of age and mentally competent... there should be no restrictions on him carrying a firearm... concealed.
I believe that private businesses should have the right to make policy for how you carry... I believe states and cities can tell you if you need to carry openly or concealed.. but that is it.
as for felons? when they get let out of prison... hand em back there gun and say "go with god" If you didn't think they could be trusted with a gun.... what the hell did you let em out for?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
as for felons? when they get let out of prison... hand em back there gun and say "go with god" If you didn't think they could be trusted with a gun.... what the hell did you let em out for?
lazs
i have often thought about that, a ex-con sometimes can't get hired or rent a apt, how are they supposed to "go straight" if they can't work or find a place to live?
no, im' not a bleeding heart liberal, i'm pragmatist.
in florida a ex-felon can petition the gov to have civil rights restored.
-
Originally posted by crockett
Well I agree with it, but the fact is, the gun lobby which is basically the NRA and Gun companies. Has "shot" down those very kind of standards and background checks and so on.
They claim it violates the 2nd amendment.
That's because it does violate the 2nd amendment. Any thing that can stop any citizen from owning and bearing a gun for any reason violates the 2nd amendment.
-
Crockosht should produce some numbers, he may learn something. He wont though, he will just go on being the Mirror image of the fox fanatic he hates.
It's sadly amusing.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
:cry
When you can learn how to reply with out trying to insult other posters, well then I'll maybe give a rat's aruse about your opinion.
-
Originally posted by crockett
When you can learn how to reply with out trying to insult other posters, well then I'll maybe give a rat's aruse about your opinion.
LOL your not worth a reasonable reply, there are for more reasonable and intelligent people on your side of the fence who don't come off like total left wing nutballs. You really are exactly what you hate in the Neocons just the flipside.
The only effort you are worth is in making fun of you. :rofl
-
Originally posted by crockett
sorry I'm tired of replying to crying about liberals..
Well maybe if you liberals would keep your socialistic, PC ways too yourselves and stayed away from my Constitutional Rights you wouldn't have an issue now would you?
-
Originally posted by lazs2
crock-it...
I couldn't disagree with you more. so long as the person is of age and mentally competent... there should be no restrictions on him carrying a firearm... concealed.
I believe that private businesses should have the right to make policy for how you carry... I believe states and cities can tell you if you need to carry openly or concealed.. but that is it.
as for felons? when they get let out of prison... hand em back there gun and say "go with god" If you didn't think they could be trusted with a gun.... what the hell did you let em out for?
lazs
Gotta love it, Larz you really live in a fairytale world.
First it's there should be no "restrictions or qualifiers" for gun ownership. Then you turn around put your own personal "restrictions and qualifiers" that you think are important. Yours seem to only be their "age and if they are mentally competent".
So it's ok to break the 2nd amendment as long as it fits your personal opinion? Is that it? It's ok for "you" to set "restrictions and qualifiers" but I can't because that would break the 2nd amendment?
You can't have it both ways Larz either you agree there are certain people that should never own guns or you think anyone should. So either you agree that the govt does have the right to tailor fit the 2nd amendment and create laws to restrict gun ownership or they can't at all.
So which is it, you can't have it both ways?
Also, I never knew "trust" came into play at any point, when handing down a sentence to someone whom broke the law. A criminal is given a sentence, he "can" get out on parole if he is a good inmate "if" his sentance allows it.
However even if he tells you he will commit the same crime again and again. He still "has" to be released at the end of his full sentence. Unless he commits another crime while in jail. They can not hold him any longer than the sentence he was given in the court of law. The only thing they don't have to do is let him out early.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
Well maybe if you liberals would keep your socialistic, PC ways too yourselves and stayed away from my Constitutional Rights you wouldn't have an issue now would you?
Ahh so it's ok for you Conservatives to blab about what ever you want but no one else can have an opinion if it's different than yours?
Funny how the same guys that are always crying about their gun rights.. Are the same guys that tend to support things like the Patriot Act, wire taps, FCC regulations and so on.
Go figure I guess some of you never read the rest of the constitution or it's amendments. You better start marching on Washington because they let women and minorities vote now. Those damn evil liberals broke the Constitution again.
-
Originally posted by crockett
Ahh so it's ok for you Conservatives to blab about what ever you want but no one else can have an opinion if it's different than yours?
Funny how the same guys that are always crying about their gun rights.. Are the same guys that tend to support things like the Patriot Act, wire taps, FCC regulations and so on.
Go figure I guess some of you never read the rest of the constitution or it's amendments. You better start marching on Washington because they let women and minorities vote now. Those damn evil liberals broke the Constitution again.
It is not that you are a liberal, hell I have many liberal friends( all pro gun liberals from Cali oddly enough). I have been accused of it on this board as well. Liberal is not a dirty word.
See the problem with you is, you have given up reason and logic for your extreme views. You are not worth debating. Others here are far better at getting their point of view out there without coming off as an insufferable ass. You should look into that.
Here is another hint, go learn something about a topic before you try and debate it here. GO back and read the years of gun threads. Charon would pick you apart like smoked chicken at a BBQ contest. Simply because you have no idea what your talking about on this subject.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Liberal is not a dirty word.
I almost took you seriously. :p
-
Originally posted by crockett
Ahh so it's ok for you Conservatives to blab about what ever you want but no one else can have an opinion if it's different than yours?
Funny how the same guys that are always crying about their gun rights.. Are the same guys that tend to support things like the Patriot Act, wire taps, FCC regulations and so on.
Go figure I guess some of you never read the rest of the constitution or it's amendments. You better start marching on Washington because they let women and minorities vote now. Those damn evil liberals broke the Constitution again.
I think you should read the Comstitution and learn what it says. As opposed to actually offering changes that attack the Constitution, offer up ways to support it. You have painted with a broad brush. I have never supported the Patriot Act. I also feel that the government is broken. My only concern is that the Constitution is protected.
I have learned one thing tonight though.... liberals is not the best word to describe a person like you. Like GtoRa2 said, you do not know much about the subjects you "try" to debate, but insist you are right. Instead you spout whatever the current PC bs manifesto that papers like the NY Times and CNN spew out.
A word of advice. Read the Constitution and understand that it was enacted to help protect our citizens, and not tie them up with a multitude of PC laws that suffocate our right to live free.
-
Labels, like political positions, change. Imagine there's no labels, nah, unpossible.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Labels, like political positions, change. Imagine there's no labels, nah, unpossible.
very true.
-
crock-it...
you are comparing not giving guns to mental defectives to the 40,000 gun laws on the books that you support?
that asside... if you knew anything about the subject you would see that these are not my personal restrictions... I didn't make em up.
They are in the federalist papers and literature of the times and the state laws.
To boil it down for you (I know you like soundbites)... the militia shall consist of every able bodied man between the ages of 14 and 60.
This is a defenition that is repeated over and over in works of the times.
now... able bodied means sane in any mans book. "14" would mean that you don't give children the right to bear arms.
Soo.. these restrictions I support and no others. Unless of course you are going to give the old nuke in the backyard silliness... for which the constitution and writings of the times amply explain... "bear arms" means hand held weapons.. grenades and cannon and such were to be stored at central places in the towns.
it is simple and reasonable stuff... the only reason you don't understand it is that you have not bothered to try. you lurk in the far left corners of the internet and... you probly have no personal idea or thoughts on the second at all... you are simply against it because... well... it is the lefty hip thing to be against.
it is tempting to simply dismiss your ilk as airheaded socialists but... I am an optimist. Maybe as you get older you will learn to think for yourself and look at both sides. Liberalism defends on shutting up debate tho... PC.. hate crimes... shut down the media... take away honors for scientists that disagree with MMGW
and.. in this case...simply make up a bunch of stuff about firearms while saying that the second is the only amendment that takes rights away from people.
lazs
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
LOL your not worth a reasonable reply, there are for more reasonable and intelligent people on your side of the fence ...
Hopefully they're intelligent enough to know the difference between "you're" and "your".
-
I don't suppose it occured to anyone to compromise. Allow people who have CCW permits to bring weapons to school if they inform the school authorities.
This has a double advantage in that there is anyone thinking of going on a killing spree has to consider the fact that there will be people there to fire back at him and giving peace of mind to other students that there are people who would be in a position to defend them. It probably won't stop the psycho but it might make him more careful leading to less deaths.
Why does it always have to be a confrontation? People are nervous about guns in colleges for very obvious reasons. Given that isn't it insensitive of gun enthusiasts to maintain that their right to bear arms overrides any reasonable or unreasonable fears of the majority. With all rights goes responsibility.
The concept of reasonable compromise to everyones benefit really needs to be explored.
-
Originally posted by Engine
Hopefully they're intelligent enough to know the difference between "you're" and "your".
Yeah, I do, You're a grammar Nazi, your feed back is not welcome.
crockit just isnt worth a proof read either.:D
-
Feedback is just one word, and your punctuation and capitalization is a mess. Kudos on the proper usage of "you're" this time.
-
Originally posted by Engine
Feedback is just one word, and your punctuation and capitalization is a mess. Kudos on the proper usage of "you're" this time.
You missed your calling as a Naggy old teacher.
Spend lots of free time on this? It really doesn't seem like a very fun hobby.
What EVar floats YOUR boat. :rofl
-
is it ok to say "ya'll"?
and by the way, fear of weapons is Hoplophobia.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
Why does it always have to be a confrontation? People are nervous about guns in colleges for very obvious reasons. Given that isn't it insensitive of gun enthusiasts to maintain that their right to bear arms overrides any reasonable or unreasonable fears of the majority. With all rights goes responsibility.
The concept of reasonable compromise to everyones benefit really needs to be explored.
The Constitution of the US, specifically the 2nd Amendment, specifically does not allow for compromise on the rights of a free people to bare arms.
Cpxxx,
You have to read and understand our early history and our Constitution so you can realize why the founding Fathers of this nation outlined it as such. Many say that the 2nd Amendment was an after thought. Yes, it was, as the founding Fathers realized that there were imbeciles who would talk of removing the ability of the citizenry to over throw an unjust and corrupt government. Freedom of Speech was also in the same boat. They added both very quickly to prevent imbeciles from harming the good of the nation.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
It is not that you are a liberal, hell I have many liberal friends( all pro gun liberals from Cali oddly enough). I have been accused of it on this board as well. Liberal is not a dirty word.
See the problem with you is, you have given up reason and logic for your extreme views. You are not worth debating. Others here are far better at getting their point of view out there without coming off as an insufferable ass. You should look into that.
Here is another hint, go learn something about a topic before you try and debate it here. GO back and read the years of gun threads. Charon would pick you apart like smoked chicken at a BBQ contest. Simply because you have no idea what your talking about on this subject.
Then why do you keep quoting me and replying to my posts? If it's not worth your time why do it?
:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by crockett
Then why do you keep quoting me and replying to my posts? If it's not worth your time why do it?
:rolleyes:
It's worth my time to make fun of you. You are always great for a laugh.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
crock-it...
you are comparing not giving guns to mental defectives to the 40,000 gun laws on the books that you support?
First off what makes you think I support the 40k gun laws that are on the books? Just because I support strict rules on who can own a gun, doesn't mean I'm some anti gun guy that thinks no one should have them.
You act as just because I oppose your little idea of how the world should run, that it somehow means I hate the 2nd amendment and hate guns.
that asside... if you knew anything about the subject you would see that these are not my personal restrictions... I didn't make em up
They are in the federalist papers and literature of the times and the state laws..
To boil it down for you (I know you like soundbites)... the militia shall consist of every able bodied man between the ages of 14 and 60.
This is a defenition that is repeated over and over in works of the times.
now... able bodied means sane in any mans book. "14" would mean that you don't give children the right to bear arms.
Soo.. these restrictions I support and no others. Unless of course you are going to give the old nuke in the backyard silliness... for which the constitution and writings of the times amply explain... "bear arms" means hand held weapons.. grenades and cannon and such were to be stored at central places in the towns.
No you didn't make it up, but you seem to be fine with allowing people whom have committed violent crimes to own guns as soon as they get out of prison. I find that rather silly.
I simply pointed out that you are are being hypocritical. You first say there should be no restrictions, but then you turn around and say well these restrictions are ok, but this one isn't because YOU don't agree with it.
Sorry, but with gun ownership comes responability. If you are a viloent criminal then you have shown you are not responable and should lose the right to bare arms.
it is simple and reasonable stuff... the only reason you don't understand it is that you have not bothered to try. you lurk in the far left corners of the internet and... you probly have no personal idea or thoughts on the second at all... you are simply against it because... well... it is the lefty hip thing to be against.
it is tempting to simply dismiss your ilk as airheaded socialists but... I am an optimist. Maybe as you get older you will learn to think for yourself and look at both sides. Liberalism defends on shutting up debate tho... PC.. hate crimes... shut down the media... take away honors for scientists that disagree with MMGW
and.. in this case...simply make up a bunch of stuff about firearms while saying that the second is the only amendment that takes rights away from people.
lazs
It's simple reasonable stuff.. Yea and part of that simple reasonable stuff IMO is to not allow violent criminals the right to bare arms. I also feel it's reasonable to have certian places such as schools to be gun free.
As for your air head and name calling comments, I guess it just shows you have a lot of growing up to do.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
It's worth my time to make fun of you. You are always great for a laugh.
Well I'm glad you have taken great notice of me, because I don't even have a clue who you are nor do I really care. Hope you enjoy.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
it does not take much intelligence to realize that people with carry permits are lawful people in the first place. Thats why they are obeying the law :rolleyes:
Really? There are many loopholes in many states that allow people to obtain CCW permits even with past criminal histories. In Florida alone they found something like 1,400 people whom were approved for CCW's but had committed federal crimes in the past.
There was or still is a loop hole that allowed them to get their past history ignored when applying for the CCW permit.
Again, I'm not against gun or peoples right to carry them, however I do feel there should be stricter regulations for CCW's and there should be places like schools that are gun free.
-
the right to bare arms.
Since the spelling and grammer Nazis are out in force today I thought I'd join in.
It's bear, not bare. :t
-
Again, I'm not against gun or peoples right to carry them, however I do feel there should be stricter regulations for CCW's and there should be places like schools that are gun free.
Virtually every place that has relaxed their CCW laws to allow more folks to carry have seen significant drops in violent crime. If those same laws were made more restrictive again it stands to reason that violent crime rates would go back up. Is this what you want?
-
Really? There are many loopholes in many states that allow people to obtain CCW permits even with past criminal histories. In Florida alone they found something like 1,400 people whom were approved for CCW's but had committed federal crimes in the past.
Source?
I follow the 2nd amendment stuff fairly closely and I've never heard a hint of that.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Since the spelling and grammer Nazis are out in force today I thought I'd join in.
It's bear, not bare. :t
Yes, I think you're right, I'll make note of that. :D
-
Originally posted by Elfie
Source?
I follow the 2nd amendment stuff fairly closely and I've never heard a hint of that.
I originally saw it on the boob tube news, but a quick search brought up this in regards to the Florida issue. This is a news article about the same thing, but it only talks about the problem in Florida as it's a Florida news paper.
In the original news story that I watched, they talked about other states that had similar problems.
http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/florida/sfl-gunmain28jan28,0,2918397.story
btw Something I didn't realize, is the 1,400 is just people whom were given permits the first half of 2006. So it's probably safe to say it's likely more than 1,400 people in Florida alone.
In an investigation of the state's concealed weapon system, the South Florida Sun-Sentinel found those licensed to carry guns in the first half of 2006 included:
More than 1,400 people who pleaded guilty or no contest to felonies but qualified because of a loophole in the law.
-
crock-it.... you find it "silly" that violent criminals should be given the right to keep and bear arms?
I find it "silly" that violent criminals should be released from prison and that you expect them to then not get a gun on the black market... after all.. if you make them a second class citizen and also release em while they are still a threat... it is the problem of the system not the constitution.
And yes... I accept the restrictions of the constitution on the second amendment. I don't want insane people to have guns or children.. the later I could moderate for special cases...
I am quite clear on my views. you don't have to assume or guess. why is it that the left.. never is? they are good at tearing down but they never admit their agenda.
So what to you are reasonable gun laws that would also be constitutional?
lazs
-
Originally posted by crockett
Again, I'm not against gun or peoples right to carry them, however I do feel there should be stricter regulations for CCW's and there should be places like schools that are gun free.
Makes a lot of sense. Obviously, gun free schools is a great idea.
Now just go tell the guys that have committed massacres in schools that reasonably, they should've left their guns outside.
Didn't work then, doesn't work now, will never, ever work.
-
By the way the right to "Bare Arms" is not in the constitution. Maybe we should add an amendment so that we have the gov't telling us we can't wear wife beaters in public.
Laz what I find silly is out legal system in general... I refuse to call it a justice system. There is no Justice, if you've got the money you can get away with anything (OJ anyone?, how about Paris Hilton and Nicole Richie and their DUI jail terms?).
As far as violent crimes, I like the old west approach, tall tree + short rope = no more problems. That's what I like about SC's delf defense laws. You come in my house, I can pop a cap in you and it is completely legal. You come in my yard and present yourself as a threat, Pow- morgue for you, I just have to get the blood stains off the grass. SC even has an 'in their shoes' clause in the law. If you're at my neighbors posing a seriouds threat, and if I were 'in my neighbors shoes' and it would be a justifiable self defense, I can pop a cap in you for my neighbor. I'd even offer to help him clean the blood stains. That's why we have a low level of violent crimes here. Domestic violence, DUI, and heart disease we're #1.
-
tiger...law and government are first of all not about justice except in the abstract... they are about force and power. they are at best, blunt and terrible tools. They are about order more than justice.
for law and government to work they must exercise huge amounts of force and do away with such niceties as justice. The more government you have... the more "order" you have... the more injustice. enough government and law and order... and.. at one time or another... everyone is treated to some injustice.
The trick is to have as little government as possible. The trick is to not listen to the majority when they scream to remove the rights of the minority.
That is why you need a strong bill of rights... the bill of rights is to protect the people from the government.
It is unfortunate that we are ignoring our constitution... it was one of the best documents of its kind ever written. I do not believe that a better one has been written since... nor would it be possible. we are simply ignoring it.
lazs
-
Crock..you are full of it..
"Schools should be gun free".....Why don't we just make a sign that says "Society is a Crime Free Zone"?
LMFAO..What part of Criminal do you not understand....They do not abide by laws
Reminds me of the signs in the ghetto that say..." Gun and Drug Free Zone"..
lololololo...Leave your dime bag and your .38 on the curb before entering
Why are people liek you so idiotic? It has to be the upbringing...Is it in the genes?..Learned behavior..
Like they were raised without there dad...mommies boy?
I dont know but its sickening
"Society Is Safer When Criminals Do Not Know Who Is Armed"
-
Originally posted by lazs2
crock-it.... you find it "silly" that violent criminals should be given the right to keep and bear arms?
I find it "silly" that violent criminals should be released from prison and that you expect them to then not get a gun on the black market... after all.. if you make them a second class citizen and also release em while they are still a threat... it is the problem of the system not the constitution.
And yes... I accept the restrictions of the constitution on the second amendment. I don't want insane people to have guns or children.. the later I could moderate for special cases...
I am quite clear on my views. you don't have to assume or guess. why is it that the left.. never is? they are good at tearing down but they never admit their agenda.
So what to you are reasonable gun laws that would also be constitutional?
lazs
First off why is it you have to bring politics into this? I think I'm also being very clear that I don't think violent criminals should not own guns. How much clearer do I need to make it?
As far as unreasonable gun laws. IMO I thought the Assault Rifle ban was pretty stupid. I thought it was pretty dumb that a law existed that basically said i can't buy a new M16 with specific items on it. Or better yet I could pick 1 thing out of a list to have but I couldn't have them all.
Yet I could turn around and simply buy a pre-ban lower receiver and build a "pre-ban" M16 with new parts and pretty much anything I wanted on it. That was pretty stupid IMO and I'm glad the law is gone.
You didn't see me bashing Bush because he didn't renew the Assault Rifle ban. I thought it was a stupid law and didn't support it.
I'm not for a bunch of crazy stupid gun laws. However there are certain things that I think should be law and one of those is making it illegal to carry a gun if you have committed certain crimes.
As far as not letting people out of jail if you don't trust them. Well we have already gone over this, I'm not going to do it again. You certainly aren't looking at reality if you think there is some way to ensure that people let out of jail are somehow trustworthy the min the get released.
I think it's pretty easy to see the percentage of people whom are released from jail and end up right back in jail as proof enough that your argument there is extreemly flawed and wishful thinking at best.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
The Constitution of the US, specifically the 2nd Amendment, specifically does not allow for compromise on the rights of a free people to bare arms.
Cpxxx,
You have to read and understand our early history and our Constitution so you can realize why the founding Fathers of this nation outlined it as such. Many say that the 2nd Amendment was an after thought. Yes, it was, as the founding Fathers realized that there were imbeciles who would talk of removing the ability of the citizenry to over throw an unjust and corrupt government. Freedom of Speech was also in the same boat. They added both very quickly to prevent imbeciles from harming the good of the nation.
I think you misunderstood. I wasn't referring to the general right to bear arms. I didn't make it clear to be fair. But strictly in the case of carrying guns on a school campus where they have banned the carrying of guns because of the fear of shootings.
Neither side are serving their cause any good by digging into deeply entrenched positions.
-
Originally posted by crockett
More than 1,400 people who pleaded guilty or no contest to felonies but qualified because of a loophole in the law.[/i]
ahh that damm "loophole".
what loophole was that?
in related news.
fact, more than 200,000 CCW's in florida have not committed any gun crimes.
-
for those who think "gun free" (lol) is a good policy for schools... does that mean that you don't trust the saint like teachers to have ccw permits and carry on campus?
What about cops? FBI? who do you trust and which are the peasants not to be trusted and who are the saints?
Do you think there would be more or less or the same school shootings if teachers for instance were allowed to carry if they had permits (concealed of course)?
lazs
-
The only people who obey the 'gun free zones' are law abiding citizens. The criminals wills till take guns there, hence them being criminals.
Law only hurt those who are willing to obey them. The Criminals will continue to break the law... that's what they do.
-
Originally posted by BiGBMAW
:cry
Do you need a shoulder to cry on? Maybe you can cry on GtoRA2's
-
typical response from a clueless dolt
I now Impose and IDIOT FREE ZONE!!!!
Lets see if it works...corcket.....IF you respond...Its not working
-
Originally posted by BiGBMAW
typical response from a clueless dolt
I now Impose and IDIOT FREE ZONE!!!!
Lets see if it works...corcket.....IF you respond...Its not working
I felt my reply was equal to your post in post quality and content. Sorry about your idiot free zone, maybe you can go watch some Fox news to make up for it. I hear Bill O Reilly is good with that.
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
I think you misunderstood. I wasn't referring to the general right to bear arms. I didn't make it clear to be fair. But strictly in the case of carrying guns on a school campus where they have banned the carrying of guns because of the fear of shootings.
Neither side are serving their cause any good by digging into deeply entrenched positions.
I understood you very well Cpxxx. I still very much feel that the Constitution provides for only one side on this. That is the 2nd Amendment side.
At the very least, the persons enacting the "gun free zone" on that campus should be held accountable for criminal negligence in expecting that a criminal, psychopath, or mentally deranged individual would respect such a law. In my eyes, the persons enacting these "gun free zones" should be further held as accomplices to any gun crime committed in these areas as their (persons enacting the gun free zones) have violated the rights of those who should have the right to carry to protect themselves.
-
See perfect Example..
I made a Law..and you broke it..
Now..How can you not figure out..Because someone sticks a sign in a yard that says Gun Free Zone..That criminals DONT Give a CRApppp
?
Can you answer that???....Dont worry ..I removed the No Idiot Zone sign
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
I understood you very well Cpxxx. I still very much feel that the Constitution provides for only one side on this. That is the 2nd Amendment side.
At the very least, the persons enacting the "gun free zone" on that campus should be held accountable for criminal negligence in expecting that a criminal, psychopath, or mentally deranged individual would respect such a law. In my eyes, the persons enacting these "gun free zones" should be further held as accomplices to any gun crime committed in these areas as their (persons enacting the gun free zones) have violated the rights of those who should have the right to carry to protect themselves.
It would only take a single lawsuit and a win to change the "Gun Free Zone" policy. I'd like to see it done.
-
Originally posted by BiGBMAW
See perfect Example..
I made a Law..and you broke it..
Now..How can you not figure out..Because someone sticks a sign in a yard that says Gun Free Zone..That criminals DONT Give a CRApppp
?
Can you answer that???....Dont worry ..I removed the No Idiot Zone sign
Your law means nothing because you have no way to enforce it. You are not a mod on this forum. So your point is really mute.
It's pretty much the same as you putting up a no dog sign in your grass and having me come along a letting my dog poop on your lawn. You can get upset if you want, but you still have dog doo on your lawn. At the end of the day not much you are going to do about it either.
Btw as far as signs go.. I haven't heard of too many criminals whom really worry much about if there is a "gun free zone" sign up or not. I really don't think too many of them pick and choose their targets based on if it's a gun free zone such as a school or not.
You guys are really grasping at straws on that one.
-
Originally posted by crockett
Btw as far as signs go.. I haven't heard of too many criminals whom really worry much about if there is a "gun free zone" sign up or not. I really don't think too many of them pick and choose their targets based on if it's a gun free zone such as a school or not.
You guys are really grasping at straws on that one.
Yet all the worst massacres occur at gun free zones. That indicates one of two things.
1.) Shooters pick their rampage locations based off of their higher chance of survival.
2.) Shooters pick their rampage locations based off of ease of killing targets.
Nothing else is logical. But then again, what ever is when dealing with a liberal?
-
I think most pick there rampage based on the place that set them off. Children wih guns spend most of their time at school. So when they want to kill people the school is where they go
Just like the postal shooting of years past. those happened where the nut spent most of his time work.
I think gun free zones are stupid, but dont blame them on why the nuts were there. the people were either enroled or employed there for the most part.
-
Originally posted by Bodhi
I understood you very well Cpxxx. I still very much feel that the Constitution provides for only one side on this. That is the 2nd Amendment side.
At the very least, the persons enacting the "gun free zone" on that campus should be held accountable for criminal negligence in expecting that a criminal, psychopath, or mentally deranged individual would respect such a law. In my eyes, the persons enacting these "gun free zones" should be further held as accomplices to any gun crime committed in these areas as their (persons enacting the gun free zones) have violated the rights of those who should have the right to carry to protect themselves.
Very true.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Yet all the worst massacres occur at gun free zones. That indicates one of two things.
1.) Shooters pick their rampage locations based off of their higher chance of survival.
2.) Shooters pick their rampage locations based off of ease of killing targets.
Nothing else is logical. But then again, what ever is when dealing with a liberal?
Yet mass killings account for the smallest amount of gun deaths yearly out of any of the categories. They just get the most news coverage. In fact accidental shootings account for more gun deaths per year than mass killings do.
Most shootings occur where the person whom was shot could have legally carried a gun, yet they didn't carry a gun. So what makes you think that allowing people to carry guns anywhere would somehow make up for the amount of accidental shootings?
You think everyone having guns makes people commit less crimes? Go visit South Africa and see how well that theory holds up.
Read your history books about the wild west, when everyone had a gun. Was it safer then? Societies whom are heavily armed in public have solid histories of being more violent. History it's self speaks against you and disproves your argument.
Not to mention this post has been active roughly 3 days. The average daily death toll in the US is 85 people per day whom are killed by guns. That doesn't take into account wounded, just dead.
So roughly 255 people have been shot to death by guns since this topic was started. What did all the gun carrying vigilantes do to save those 255 people? I bet you would be hard pressed to find one case out of the 255 in the last 3 days where some legal gun carrying citizen saved the day. (other than a public servant as in police officer)
How many times do you hear that a gun carrying vigilante, saved people from getting shot? Might happen on occasion but it damn sure doesn't happen enough to out weigh the risks of accidental shootings, that would occur if irresponsible kids were carrying guns at colleges.
So amuse me... dig up some stats that show how often legal gun carrying good vigilante saved the day.
Oh and btw since we are on the subject of mass shootings. Most mass shootings such as the school shootings and the occasional guy going postal, are carried out with legally bought guns. Most mass shootings are not carried out by the typical "criminal" types.
-
South Africa isn't the USA, wild west isn't today, . Apples to apples Crockett..
The USA's history is bloody, but what country's history isn't? What country has striven for everything the USA stands (or is meant to anyway) for without some bloody conflict at some point?
Amuse everyone else Crockett, what is your better alternative to the second amendment?
There's more wrong with the man than with the guns in just about everything you denounce.
Red Herring, dark side of the moon, non sequitur.. take your pick:
Not to mention this post has been active roughly 3 days. The average daily death toll in the US is 85 people per day whom are killed by guns. That doesn't take into account wounded, just dead.
Just bleeding heart maybe? In that case you're adding your share to the complications, creating problems where there are none.
-
Originally posted by lasersailor184
Yet all the worst massacres occur at gun free zones. That indicates one of two things.
1.) Shooters pick their rampage locations based off of their higher chance of survival.
2.) Shooters pick their rampage locations based off of ease of killing targets.
Nothing else is logical. But then again, what ever is when dealing with a liberal?
You forgot the correct answer:
3.) Shooters pick their rampage locations based off of the people they want to shoot.
It's not political. It's psychological.
We're talking about kids with guns. Not AlQueda snipers.
-
Originally posted by rpm
You forgot the correct answer:
3.) Shooters pick their rampage locations based off of the people they want to shoot.
It's not political. It's psychological.
We're talking about kids with guns. Not AlQueda snipers.
That may be so, but it doesn't make #1 and #2 any less true.
-
nice dodge crock-it.. of course school shootings are rare.. you would not think so tho by the coverage they get from your lefty media. They don't mention however that fully a third are stopped eventually by a citizen with a gun... more guns.. more stopping of shooters.
You said that criminals don't care... you are again.. of course.. wrong. Interviews with hardened criminals prove every time that they fear citizens with guns more than even cops.
But..it is not just anecdotal.. it is real cause and effect. Very few burglaries are done in America "hot" like in your socialist paradise your-0p.
the other point you make is not well thought out either...those who would kill will kill even if they get what they want. they will also have the drop on people.. the real facts tho are that law abiding gun owners don't kill.. not in the vast majority of cases.. the real truth is that according to FBI stats... people with firearms stop between 1.5 and 3 million crimes a year. They don't kill or even wound but they prevent those things from happening.
Do us all a favor and get educated on the subject so we don't have to do all the work.
Please read "more guns less crime" it is very detailed and heavily footnoted and amoung the thousands of facts in it.. so far only one or two very minor ones have been found to be in error... an economist wrote it so it is anal.
If that is too much to read... (lots of facts and footnotes) then read "the seven deadly myths about gun control" this is a shorter more lively version with less hardcore data but speaks to every left wing myth about guns and gun control.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
nice dodge crock-it.. of course school shootings are rare.. you would not think so tho by the coverage they get from your lefty media. They don't mention however that fully a third are stopped eventually by a citizen with a gun... more guns.. more stopping of shooters.
You said that criminals don't care... you are again.. of course.. wrong. Interviews with hardened criminals prove every time that they fear citizens with guns more than even cops.
But..it is not just anecdotal.. it is real cause and effect. Very few burglaries are done in America "hot" like in your socialist paradise your-0p.
the other point you make is not well thought out either...those who would kill will kill even if they get what they want. they will also have the drop on people.. the real facts tho are that law abiding gun owners don't kill.. not in the vast majority of cases.. the real truth is that according to FBI stats... people with firearms stop between 1.5 and 3 million crimes a year. They don't kill or even wound but they prevent those things from happening.
Do us all a favor and get educated on the subject so we don't have to do all the work.
Please read "more guns less crime" it is very detailed and heavily footnoted and among the thousands of facts in it.. so far only one or two very minor ones have been found to be in error... an economist wrote it so it is anal.
If that is too much to read... (lots of facts and footnotes) then read "the seven deadly myths about gun control" this is a shorter more lively version with less hardcore data but speaks to every left wing myth about guns and gun control.
lazs
Funny Fox News always seems to be one of the most "dramatic" about covering these kinds of things. When did they join the lefties? I must have missed that.
Books are nice, but we all know books can be twisted to fit their own agenda. I have no clue who the authors are or what their stand on the subject is. However I don't need a book to know that something is wrong in this county.
When death by gun is the 8th leading cause of death in this country, I think it's pretty clear that easier access to Hand Guns and putting legal guns in the hands of criminals are not really the answers. (remember you suggested criminals should have guns)
Lets not forget it's 85 people on average each day whom "die" from guns. However it's three times that many each day whom are shot and wounded. Call it bleeding heart or what ever else you can think of, but facts are facts.
So that's 340 people each day whom lives are changed by the barrel of a gun. Sorry something tells me that the easy access to guns we have, isn't working very well.
Over half the shootings are done committing a crime. Was roughly 52% of them. The other half was mostly suicides and about 3% were accidental shootings.
-
Originally posted by moot
South Africa isn't the USA, wild west isn't today, . Apples to apples Crockett..
The USA's history is bloody, but what country's history isn't? What country has striven for everything the USA stands (or is meant to anyway) for without some bloody conflict at some point?
Amuse everyone else Crockett, what is your better alternative to the second amendment?
There's more wrong with the man than with the guns in just about everything you denounce.
Red Herring, dark side of the moon, non sequitur.. take your pick:
Just bleeding heart maybe? In that case you're adding your share to the complications, creating problems where there are none.
I'm not for a bunch of extra laws but I do think hand guns should be tracked. If you want to go to K-Mart and buy a hunting rifle be my guest I have nothing against that.
Rifles and shotguns are not so easily concealed so they pose less of a threat in public. (assuming it's not a short tactical style shot gun).
Hand Guns are the problem, they are cheap, easy to get and easy to hide. We already have a law on the books which apparently isn't unconstitutional as it's held up for quite some time. You already have to have a federal firearms license to buy a full automatic gun.
I think the same kind of rule should be put in place for hand guns, but of course be a little easier to get. I simply think all HG's should be titled just like a car is.. Each sale should be tracked. Each HG at time of manufacture should have a ballistic test on file.
If you want to buy a HG then you should have to have a license for it. Just like you have to pass a test to drive a car, you should also have to pass a gun safety test to be able to carry a hand gun.
Would this solve every gun crime.. No it sure wouldn't, but it would go a long way towards making it harder for criminals to get legal HG's. If they get caught with a unregistered HG or without a HG license then it should be a mandatory sentence just like getting caught driving drunk.
I'm not against law abiding citizens owning guns, as I said I own guns myself. However it's time people face the facts that guns are deadly and require responsibility in ownership. It's time gun owners are made to be responsible.
In short I think a CCW is pretty dumb. The reason I say that is because any HG is easily concealable, regardless if you have a licence to conceal it or not.
So I say why not treat all HG's as a concealed weapon and extend the CCW to "all" HG ownership. So yes maybe you give up a little on the ease of buying a HG, however once you legally obtain your license you are free to carry it, assuming it's not at a "gun free zone" :D.
Now sure as I said, it doesn't do away with gun crimes, however it does make it much harder for criminal to get legal guns. If they get caught then the legal system has another tool to work with to maybe prevent a crime.
If a crime takes place, well it's going to be easier for police to track the gun used in that crime, because of the ballistic tests that are on file and the gun transfer records. In the end the people whom are carrying legal HG's would at the very least have proven themselves competent enough to have passed a gun training and safety class.
You guys think just because I appose your thoughts on guns that it somehow makes me against guns. That's far from the truth. I'm for the right to own guns, but I think owning that gun requires responsibility and I think we should be doing everything we can to keep the guns out of the hands of the wrong people.
So in short I'm not a anti gun nut.. I'm a nut whom believes in responsible gun ownership.
-
:eek:
Let's take a moment and pause for the victims of gun violence.
Okay, now......
I have grown up around guns all my life. Deer hunting in my home town, not only is necessary to reduce the population (probably near all time high), but also supplements the local meat consumption for many residents (some work in the seasonal seafood industry).
I agree that every man has the right to protect his home against violent criminal action. I believe those who are able to obtain permits, bear the responsibilty to act accordingly. The fact is, that weapons are left unsecured, owners brandish firearms in instances to intimidate or protect property, not life or limb, and too often, used to settle domestic troubles.
Sorry, but I don't believe in arming the masses and let them police themselves. Strict gun laws should put guns in the hands of those ready to accept that responsibilty and taken away from those who cannot.
I absolutely do not want my daughter with a college roomate w/ gun under her pillow firing off rounds at her trying not to wake her after a late night study session. Besides, how many people at VT would have been mistaken about who the bad guy was.
This guy had some real problems and a firearm and cryptic video tape speaking for him. A whole police force with firearms wasn't able do what you suggest lax gun control would. It is just not that simple - - wake up and smell the gunpowder.
-
explain "responsible gun ownership" for me please.
All the drama does not obscure the facts... only about 10% of the population would arm themselves concealed no matter what.. the facts are that 1.5 to 3 million crimes a year are prevented... innocent people protected by firearms in this country.
The fact is that no gun law has ever reduced crime.. yep..not one. But... the more guns the less crime.
The fact is that suicide does not require guns nor does murder..
The fact is that if the school shooters had used bombs or fire they would have killed more.
The fact is that the homicide rates that are the highest are in countries with strict gun control.. some of the lowest rates are in countries with lax gun control.
The fact is that more than half of the gun crimes in this country are committed by one small minority.
chili... I find your attitude even more disgusting than even crok-its or beetles... your idea is that guns are fine in your hands but you reserve the right to restrict your fellows... that only you can be trusted with the second amendment rights given all men.
And.. the fact is.. you don't have the right to disarm me. You may have the might someday.. but you don't have the right.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
explain "responsible gun ownership" for me please.
All the drama does not obscure the facts... only about 10% of the population would arm themselves concealed no matter what.. the facts are that 1.5 to 3 million crimes a year are prevented... innocent people protected by firearms in this country.
The fact is that no gun law has ever reduced crime.. yep..not one. But... the more guns the less crime.
The fact is that suicide does not require guns nor does murder..
The fact is that if the school shooters had used bombs or fire they would have killed more.
The fact is that the homicide rates that are the highest are in countries with strict gun control.. some of the lowest rates are in countries with lax gun control.
The fact is that more than half of the gun crimes in this country are committed by one small minority.
chili... I find your attitude even more disgusting than even crok-its or beetles... your idea is that guns are fine in your hands but you reserve the right to restrict your fellows... that only you can be trusted with the second amendment rights given all men.
And.. the fact is.. you don't have the right to disarm me. You may have the might someday.. but you don't have the right.
lazs
I'd really love to know where you get your "more guns = less crime stats".
Is that from the NRA handbook?
The highest homicide rates occur in big cities.. Big cites tend to have big populations and tend to have more gun control than say hicks ville Alabama.. as we said before Apples and Oranges..
Larz you also seem to be pointing to the races issue over and over in several posts I've seen. You seem to be trying to insuniate that certain people are better than others. While I don't want to call you a racist but I think it is starting to become pretty clear.
Since you seem to be so big on the mass shootings subject, maybe you should know that most mass shootings are carried out by white males.
Suicide isn't a reason for gun control, nor did I give it as a reason. I simply stated the facts on the stats.
-
Originally posted by crockett
I'd really love to know where you get your "more guns = less crime stats".
Is that from the NRA handbook?
Scenario
Ok your a thief. Where do you want to set up shop?
A. Place where nobody has guns.
B. Place where a % of the population carries.
Be honest.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Scenario
Ok your a thief. Where do you want to set up shop?
A. Place where nobody has guns.
B. Place where a % of the population carries.
Be honest.
How many thieves rob colleges? They going to steal school books?
-
read the book.. look at crime rates for places where they passed lax concealed carry laws.
as for murder rates per 100,000... bettle/ocean is lying to you...
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_mur_percap-crime-murders-per-capita
as you can see.. the US is number 24 on the list behind such countries as mexico with very strict gun laws..
really..you need to research.. I don't care what books you read but "more guns less crime" is heavily footnoted.. you can check the footnotes.. I don't know how you get better info than that... why do you think your opinion is based on fact but books are worthless? where do you get your info?
I have linked you to nation master.. hardly right wing.
also, as for the NRA.. why would that be a bad source of info? it has been shown to be consitently correct while such left wing sources as the brady bunch have been shown to be shameless in their lying.
Where do you get your information?
lazs
-
Originally posted by crockett
How many thieves rob colleges? They going to steal school books?
Did you take tap lessons as a kid?
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Scenario
Ok your a thief. Where do you want to set up shop?
A. Place where nobody has guns.
B. Place where a % of the population carries.
Be honest.
C. The place that is easy to steal from.
Other then gypsies I doubt most thieves move around to the places with the strictest gun control.
-
Originally posted by Trell
C. The place that is easy to steal from.
Other then gypsies I doubt most thieves move around to the places with the strictest gun control.
Yup can't even be honest with yourself ehh.
-
So in short crockett is not a anti gun nut, he just wants "reasonable" gun laws.
like in pre nazi germany , to prevent crime it was reasonable to have all german citizens register their guns. So when the nazis took over they had all the gun lists and just went around and collected the guns.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Yup can't even be honest with yourself ehh.
Ohh so all these thieves move around the country to the states with the strictest gun controls???
Most thieves I think live and die within the same state they grew up in.
-
Originally posted by Trell
Ohh so all these thieves move around the country to the states with the strictest gun controls???
Most thieves I think live and die within the same state they grew up in.
Believe what you want. But if I were a were a thief. I'd be more inclined to go where my targets have least chance to defend themselves.
Once again you're free to believe as you wish.
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Believe what you want. But if I were a were a thief. I'd be more inclined to go where my targets have least chance to defend themselves.
Once again you're free to believe as you wish.
We will have to agree to disagree.
If thieves were smart they would not be thieves.
-
Originally posted by Trell
We will have to agree to disagree.
If thieves were smart they would not be thieves.
it seems the criminal shooters always go to a place of business or a school (gun free zones), i have never heard of one going to a gun range to kill people.
but i state the obvious, bad guy start shooting people at a gun range, bad guy will be dead very quickly.
-
I think that this data here :
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_bur_percap-crime-burglaries-per-capita
could also indicate that nations with less gun ownership have higher chances of crime per capita.
By this graph alone, it indicates that Australians (with some of the strictest gun control in the world) are three times more likely to be the victims of a burglars than in the US. Almost two times as likely to be a victim in the UK as well.
Arguing gun control with any one from another country is pointless. They have no right to tell you how to do it in your country, and we have no right on how to tell them to do it in theirs....
BTW, Hi again Beatle.
-
Someone is safe till Monday I'm guessing.
-
Originally posted by Ocean27
I'm not talking about "gun control". I'm talking about "armed societies" versus "unarmed societies".
switzerland is a "armed society", i think you should look for other factors for the cause of high crime.
-
beet.. not sure what you are driving at.. if restrictive gun laws don't stop people from killing each other then what does?
mexico has strict gun laws but they are ignored.. you have strict gun laws but... your sheeple won't even eat or drink in a car if the queen tells em not to... it is the people not the gun laws... as I have said over and over... anyone in any country that wants a gun can get one.. anyone with the skill to open a bottle of wine can make one.. The small percent of the population who are committing most of the homicides here will ignore any law.
It was not guns that were mentioned... only homicides. We are far from the worst.. countries with very strict gun laws are worse... some with very lax gun laws are very low.
Same for suicides... the US is far down on the list yet... half our gun deaths are simple suicides.. yet Japan has almost twice as many... UK is about the same with some places more and some less... Sweden, finland, france... all have much higher rates. lack of guns does not seem to deter suicide... not to mention some former soviet states with real ugly gun laws and suicides in the stratosphere.
It may not say much for us that we have a larger percent of violent people here than maybe england but... we are a much more diverse and vibrant society... I would say a few more homicides per 100,000 than a bland and lifeless socialist country is a small price to pay... not to mention... it is immoral to take away anyones right to defend himself.
lazs
-
yep... and no minorities. It simply proves our case and not yours. It is indeed possible to allow people to have firearms without them going crazy on killing sprees with said firearms...
It is also possible (as the stats show) to have very restrictive gun laws and have the society be the most murderous on the planet...
In our case.. we have a small portion of people who are murderous.. like the same type of people in other countries... they will kill... guns are convienient but.. they will either get them illegally or.. simply kill some other way. just like in the countries I have shown.
Soooo.. for a US citizen.. we have the choice..
us unarmed vs them armed.. we lose
Us armed vs them unarmed... we win
Us unarmed them unarmed... most likely.. they win.
Have you seen the video of our gone to feral minorities during flood fire famine or... bad result for a basketball game?
It is only sensible that we be prepared for such things.. It is essential that we be able to defend ourselves. the stats don't lie... the FBI realizes that we have to do this millions of times a year.
I shudder to think what some of those confrontations would have been like had not the bad guy confronted an armed citizen.
It simply works for us... your laws work for you.... for now.
As your population gets more diverse and less hidebound by sheeple brit tradition.. it simply will not work for you anymore. the bad guys will walk all over you and you will be powerless.
lazs
-
Society IS Safer When Criminals Do NOt Know who is Armed.....
Crok...I never said ARM all citizens...Becuase we know the Limp wristed Linguini spine types...are scared and rely on Gov to save them
-
ahh beet... so you were their once in a few places and never seen a gun so.. it must be true that they don't exist.
the shooting sports are very big there.. during such times I believe that guns are everywhere including resteraunts.. but.. that aside.. anyone who had wanted to bump off a brit tourist with a full auto assault rife would not have had much trouble putting their hands on one now would they?
lazs
-
Originally posted by john9001
So in short crockett is not a anti gun nut, he just wants "reasonable" gun laws.
like in pre nazi germany , to prevent crime it was reasonable to have all german citizens register their guns. So when the nazis took over they had all the gun lists and just went around and collected the guns.
Honestly point out what I suggested that would be unreasonable? I didn't say hunting rifles or even assault rifles should be tracked. I left those out of the equation just for this simple fact.
1) Rifles no matter if they are hunting or Assault are not the cause of most gun related crimes. Hence the reason they don't need any special conditions IMO. Other than of course no full auto.
2) I believe that citizens should have arms that a govt doesn't know about. I don't think the govt needs to know about every gun. A citizen run militia is one of the building blocks of the 2nd amendment that I fully support.
I spoke of restriction for hand guns only. Simply because IMO a hand gun should always be considered a concealable weapon. HG's are also the most common fire arm used in crimes.
Hence the reason I say they should be tracked and require a license. HG's are the main problem when it comes to gun deaths.
Now lets just assume it's Nazi Germany all over again in.. You think you are going to take down the evil storm troopers with your HK45 or Glock 19? No if it came down to fighting against a rogue govt or an invasion you would be fighting with Assault rifles and hunting rifles.
So assuming the evil gvt came around to take away all the HG's that were licenced. Well they still wouldn't have a clue as to how many Hunting or Assault rifles that were out there. The people could still defend themselves.
-
As your population gets more diverse and less hidebound by sheeple brit tradition.. it simply will not work for you anymore. the bad guys will walk all over you and you will be powerless.
lazs2
Sorry to break it to ya Laz, but thats happening here already (or maybe I'm just too cynical or something) The sooner I get out of this country, the better.
Wurzel
-
Originally posted by john9001
it seems the criminal shooters always go to a place of business or a school (gun free zones), i have never heard of one going to a gun range to kill people.
but i state the obvious, bad guy start shooting people at a gun range, bad guy will be dead very quickly.
Yes they seem to go to places where they spend most of their time as well as the place that hosts a lot of emotion for them
Dont know anyone that spends many hours a day interacting with people at a gun range...
I didnt know that business places are gun free zones, guess I missed the sign.
-
Originally posted by Trell
Yes they seem to go to places where they spend most of their time as well as the place that hosts a lot of emotion for them
Dont know anyone that spends many hours a day interacting with people at a gun range...
I didnt know that business places are gun free zones, guess I missed the sign.
then you agree that anyone with a CCW should be able to carry a gun anywhere.
-
Originally posted by john9001
then you agree that anyone with a CCW should be able to carry a gun anywhere.
I said that earlier here. Read back a few pages
And i do mean everywhere. Court houses, goverment buildings, police stations. schools.
I also believe that if people with ccw license and some basic training were at the schools and workplace there would be less deaths in these rampages.
But i also believe that these crazys would still have gone there for the attempted rampage. As we have seen with the school and workplace shooting death is not a deterrent for these nuts.
-
Know a few People from Switzerland that never touched guns,
From what they told me other then military training they do not really shoot them for fun. its just not done there.
But Us in the states seem to have more hobbies then other countries.
-
Originally posted by Trell
Know a few People from Switzerland that never touched guns,
From what they told me other then military training they do not really shoot them for fun. its just not done there.
But Us in the states seem to have more hobbies then other countries.
do not confuse shooting a gun for fun with carrying a gun for protection.
-
That is what I am getting at, they dont seem to get the whole carry one with them at all time. They think of them for military use only. and keep one at the house for that reason.
Not to carry around while in public.
But maybe the people i know over there are different.
-
trell and beetle/ocean... I have never been to switzerland.. I have seen pictures of their shooting events... would you deny that over 60,000 people participate? Would you deny that they do have full auto weapons at home?
crock-it... I don't know what your reasoning is on the whole firearm thing...you seem to feel that any gun you like is ok for us to have but feel free to restrict anything else. "no full autos" why not? what is the problem with em?
Why no full autos? there are lots of em around.. no one seems to be going nuts with em... except for a few gangsters in the 30's.. no one ever did. Even in the SC miller case of the the 30's one of the judges had a full auto in his closet at home.. the swiss have em in theirs.
Handguns? If you want to defend yourself from the bad guys.. a rifle is a little cumbersome wouldn't you say? The only people who cause problems with handguns are criminals and nuts... why punish everyone else?
And.. in warsaw.. the first guns the jews had were simple handguns. give me a handgun and I can get any other gun I need. No major army does away with handguns.
The point is.. that if schools allowed ccw holders.. even if it were just the teachers... the cowardly whack jobs would not even try to kill there.. and if they did.. everyone would have a better chance.
As for most of the people... the vast majority of the people being killed with handguns? they have long records and we are pretty much better off without em.. I certainly don't want to confront em without a handgun.
Some in england are starting to get it... some are starting to grow a pair and opening their eyes and looking around em.
No socialist wants the sheeple to be armed. gun control ALWAYS goes along with more socialism and less individual rights... you can tell when a country is about to crack down on it's citizens individual freedoms when it starts to make more and more gun laws "for your own good"
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
trell and beetle/ocean... I have never been to switzerland.. I have seen pictures of their shooting events... would you deny that over 60,000 people participate? Would you deny that they do have full auto weapons at home?
The point is.. that if schools allowed ccw holders.. even if it were just the teachers... the cowardly whack jobs would not even try to kill there.. and if they did.. everyone would have a better chance.
No socialist wants the sheeple to be armed. gun control ALWAYS goes along with more socialism and less individual rights... you can tell when a country is about to crack down on it's citizens individual freedoms when it starts to make more and more gun laws "for your own good"
lazs
Dont know enough about the shooting events to comment on that.
But i do know enough to know that on average people dont carry around the guns in public it is different then here where we have people with ccw.
And yes a large % of the population are Trained and armed at home.
I completely completely disagree that these so called wack jobs would not go to schools or workplaces to go on a rampage if they knew it was not a gun free zone. . Look at All of the rampages and you will find that in most cases the nuts kill them selves in the end either by shooting them selves or death by cop. They are not afraid of Death....
I also believe that if Teachers or other people at the school if wanted.
Were trained and had ccws, the shootings would be over quicker.
On the same note I would want penalty harsher for anyone brandishing a gun in school even if they had a ccw. (automatic firing of any teacher brandishing)
No student should know if a teacher is carrying a gun or not, only that there is a chance.
-
Crock
What is an assault rifle?...What you think it is
What is a handgun?..what size is it not considered .."Concealable?"
YTour only rational is to ban things you can hide?..How is that going to stop a CRIMINAL?
How about you penalize criminals and not law abiding citizens..people like you are why we have crime...You blame everyone else..You are a true Oprah "man"
You are truly the Oprah generation..along with the wife beater here
-
Originally posted by BiGBMAW
What is a handgun?..what size is it not considered .."Concealable?"
Florida's CCW law says the gun should not noticed by the average citizen.
-
Originally posted by john9001
Florida's CCW law says the gun should not noticed by the average citizen.
I think Texas has the same prudish law. So much for intimidating other rude drivers. ;)
-
Originally posted by lazs2
explain "responsible gun ownership" for me please.
chili... I find your attitude even more disgusting than even crok-its or beetles... your idea is that guns are fine in your hands but you reserve the right to restrict your fellows... that only you can be trusted with the second amendment rights given all men.
And.. the fact is.. you don't have the right to disarm me. You may have the might someday.. but you don't have the right.
lazs
Dude,
I don't feel the need to take anything from you. I don't find your post either informing or intimidating. Maybe you shold chill and listen to someone else's opinion. Better yet why don't you take 2 minutes and research the other side of your arguement.
Sorry, I thought my explaination was clear:rolleyes:
Originally posted by Chilli
I agree that every man has the right to protect his home against violent criminal action. I believe those who are able to obtain permits, bear the responsibilty to act accordingly. The fact is, that weapons are left unsecured, owners brandish firearms in instances to intimidate or protect property, not life or limb, and too often, used to settle domestic troubles.
Sorry, but I don't believe in arming the masses and let them police themselves. Strict gun laws should put guns in the hands of those ready to accept that responsibilty and taken away from those who cannot.
Where do you live anyway? No shortage of guns here. Richmond, Virginia was once known as the murder capitol. We both know the guns are already owned by the majority of folks who want them. So, either way the law goes, I don't see gun sales sky rocketing anytime soon. Laws will make it a prosecutible offense when someone has not acted responsibly (see above for further explanation if needed)
-
Here, I will help you out. A 2 minute google search on "Richmond Gun Control" came up with this event.
http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2007-10-21-0283.html (http://www.inrich.com/cva/ric/news.apx.-content-articles-RTD-2007-10-21-0283.html)
-
While it is true that the school shooters most often die... and know they are going to.. they all want it to "count" they want to run up the highest score they can to get the most publicity... if their "madskilz" as killers ended before they got more than one or two... by a milktoast teacher no less... imagine the humiliation!! no sense taking that chance.
chili.. handguns are the only thing sensible for self defense in public... and.. I agree with most experts that it is both more effective and safer if the guns are concealed on the bearer. brandishing causes problems at this point.. in a society that is frieghtened of itself. that was not always the case... but it is now.
Also.. it works best when the criminal does not know who is armed... just like they won't burglarize a home with people in it here unless they are nuts.. because... THEY DON'T KNOW
That is the point...you would destroy that safeguard.
I would like it if every person who carried would take safety courses I would like it if every driver took a real course in high speed and evasive driving.. if every person who swam learned how to swim first.. not my call tho.
not sure what your point was with the article.. can't get what you are driving at.
lazs
-
Originally posted by BiGBMAW
Crock
What is an assault rifle?...What you think it is
What is a handgun?..what size is it not considered .."Concealable?"
YTour only rational is to ban things you can hide?..How is that going to stop a CRIMINAL?
How about you penalize criminals and not law abiding citizens..people like you are why we have crime...You blame everyone else..You are a true Oprah "man"
You are truly the Oprah generation..along with the wife beater here
Do you really need me to answer that question, or are you just trying to dodge the point I made? You know what a Assault Rifle is and you know what a HG is.
Don't pretend to be stupid.
-
............................. ............................. ....................
Originally posted by BiGBMAW
Crock
What is an assault rifle?...What you think it is
What is a handgun?..what size is it not considered .."Concealable?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
crockett
Do you really need me to answer that question, or are you just trying to dodge the point I made? You know what a Assault Rifle is and you know what a HG is.
Don't pretend to be stupid.
__________________
he was asking YOU what you thought they were.
-
we already have laws that prohibit machine guns (full auto) assault rifles.. the semi auto versions we have are only "assault rifles" in some democrats head.
they were never a big deal anyway..they simply were never used in that many crimes.
lazs
-
My concern with just giving people concealed firearms is many don't know how to shoot them safely around others, or become victims of their own firearm because they weren't prepared or practiced enough with it to defend themselves when the time came.
When it comes to the CCW issue, one thing I don't understand is for the areas that allow it, there is no 'test' or qualification for the people who apply and carry a CW.
If Wisonsin allowed CCW, I would be first to line up to get one. But what make me uneasy, is a lot of people (not all) get one, but rarely if ever actually go to the range and practice, practice, practice. I think many people carry just to say they are.
I would really like to see in people have to qualify with their handgun of choice (like a drivers license) and have to requalify every 12 months (or something) in order to keep said CCW license.
-
Originally posted by Modas
When it comes to the CCW issue, one thing I don't understand is for the areas that allow it, there is no 'test' or qualification for the people who apply and carry a CW.
i don't know about other states, but there is in florida.
-
I wish to make my last post here. If you have anymore reasons why relaxing gun control should help make me feel safer or more manly. Please, forward them to the fathers of the VT victims.
In case you really missed the point of that link, the point was there are two sides to your arguement. Nobody, including a father of one of Cho's victims, wants to take anything away from you. What they want is for you to act responsibly and if you really want to make them safe keep your gun out of the hands of those who wish them harm.
Just don't pretend that a bunch of do good, armed college boys would have popped around the corner and put and end to the assault. If everybody is carrying how do they know who the mass murderer is? Oh, that's right, they were given a portable police radio with their CCW permits and Safety Patrol badge.
If you didn't read that far in the article, the gun control protesters were bringing attention to a "loophole" in Virginia gun control law that allowed for Cho to purchase a weapon used in that violent crime.
-
Have no problem with guns, what we should focus on is guns that are illegal and people that have them :(
-
Originally posted by Chilli
I wish to make my last post here. If you have anymore reasons why relaxing gun control should help make me feel safer or more manly. Please, forward them to the fathers of the VT victims.
In case you really missed the point of that link, the point was there are two sides to your arguement. Nobody, including a father of one of Cho's victims, wants to take anything away from you. What they want is for you to act responsibly and if you really want to make them safe keep your gun out of the hands of those who wish them harm.
Just don't pretend that a bunch of do good, armed college boys would have popped around the corner and put and end to the assault. If everybody is carrying how do they know who the mass murderer is? Oh, that's right, they were given a portable police radio with their CCW permits and Safety Patrol badge.
If you didn't read that far in the article, the gun control protesters were bringing attention to a "loophole" in Virginia gun control law that allowed for Cho to purchase a weapon used in that violent crime.
Chillie,
The only thing you are saying here is you are afraid of people with wheapons. Don't hide behind the fathers of the shooting victoms at VT. Your personal fear seems more the point of your posts. Many citizens in this country have fears like yours. Their response to that is to go through the CCW process. They have much more to loose than you do by making that much of a public effort to address their fear.
Is your fear great enough to vote against the god given right of all men to defend thier lives and family? Schools in most of the U.S. are open air lamb pens in wolf country with PETA members as gaurdians. Seems the definition of insanity is repeating the same thing over and over agian looking for a different outcome. Now that our schools are rape and murder smorgasbourgs....why do we/you insist on making it safer for the eaters than the members of the main meal?
-
Originally posted by crockett
Ahh so it's ok for you Conservatives to blab about what ever you want but no one else can have an opinion if it's different than yours?
Funny how the same guys that are always crying about their gun rights.. Are the same guys that tend to support things like the Patriot Act, wire taps, FCC regulations and so on.
Go figure I guess some of you never read the rest of the constitution or it's amendments. You better start marching on Washington because they let women and minorities vote now. Those damn evil liberals broke the Constitution again.
EXCUSE ME????????????????????
I did NOT want the Patriot Act enabled, or the wire taps, or the FCC regs.........
"Government never stops where you want it to. You don't get to write the laws or administer them. When you give the government the power to do what you want it to do, it will expand that power into areas where you don't want it to go." -
"The greater the power, the more dangerous the abuse." -- Edmund Burke,
political philosopher (1729-1797)
"You do not examine legislation in light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in light of the wrongs it would do and the harms it would cause if improperly administered.”
"Dangerous laws created by well intentioned people today can be used by dangerous people with evil intentions tomorrow." - Alan Eppers
"We lost many of our rights when we asked government to control our neighbors for our benefit -- or simply looked the other way when others did so."
"What government can do to our neighbor, it can -- and will -- do to us. Freedom is something that we must give to others if we wish it for ourselves."
I am a firm believer in the right to keep and bear arms......
"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington
"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that the people preserve the spirit of resistance?" - Thomas Jefferson, 1787
"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
As Thomas Paine once asked, —¦If a thief breaks into my house, burns and destroys my property, and kills or threatens to kill me, or those that are in it, and to 'bind me in all cases whatsoever' to his absolute will, am I to suffer it?" To say one must allow such destruction of one's life, liberty and property, and to not allow for the means to protect such rights, is to say that the individual does not hold these natural rights, and that whoever holds the power shall decide what "rights" will be granted. Such an idea is preposterous.
"The generality of men are naturally apt to be swayed by fear rather than reverence, and to refrain from evil rather because of the punishment that it brings than because of its own foulness."
Aristotle (384-322 bc)
Greek philosopher
As to a political leaning, I'm not a Dem, nor a Rep, the closest any political party that comes to my views would be the Libertarians.
I've read several of your post so far and find IMHO I must agree with the statement made earlier that much of what you have posted SEEMS to be the flip side..............
-
Originally posted by cpxxx
I don't suppose it occured to anyone to compromise. Allow people who have CCW permits to bring weapons to school if they inform the school authorities.
This has a double advantage in that there is anyone thinking of going on a killing spree has to consider the fact that there will be people there to fire back at him and giving peace of mind to other students that there are people who would be in a position to defend them. It probably won't stop the psycho but it might make him more careful leading to less deaths.
Why does it always have to be a confrontation? People are nervous about guns in colleges for very obvious reasons. Given that isn't it insensitive of gun enthusiasts to maintain that their right to bear arms overrides any reasonable or unreasonable fears of the majority. With all rights goes responsibility.
The concept of reasonable compromise to everyones benefit really needs to be explored.
Whenever anyone makes a compromise on anything that is THEIRS, they have just given up that which is THEIRS. It is GONE.
The left is always saying compromise when it really means GIVE IT UP. SADLY that is their TRUE GOAL. CHIP, CHIP, CHIP, take things away a little at a time and APPEAR to be doing it in a REASONABLE fashion. Or for the children. Or etc. etc. etc. But they always have a REASONABLE (to them and SEEMINGLY so to others) argument.
How can I say this? Simple, I've watched the politicians for over 50 years and that is whats been going on.
They aren't actually interested in REASONABLE COMPROMISE! To them there is NO SUCH concept. It is just some words they're using to get what they want.
-
"To ban guns because criminals use them is to tell the innocent and law-abiding that their rights and liberties depend not on their own conduct, but on the conduct of the guilty and the lawless, and that the law will permit them to have only such rights and liberties as the lawless will allow... For society does not control crime, ever, by forcing the law-abiding to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of criminals. Society controls crime by forcing the criminals to accommodate themselves to the expected behavior of the law-abiding." —Jeff Snyder
"The defense of one's self, justly called the primary law of nature, is not, nor can it be abrogated by any regulation of municipal law." - James Wilson, The Works of James Wilson, 1896
-
chili.. the others have answered you quite well but I will add... many school shootings were stopped exactly in the way you describe it could not be done...In an almost identical case in another technical school.. a whacked out gunman was stopped by a "college kid" with a gun. in fully one third of all school shootings a civilian stops the fight.
This would be higher if more teachers (when the children are young) and students (when they are of age) had permits to carry.
for those of you who worry... the fact is that it is unfounded. CCW holders simply don't cause problems.. they have prevented and even killed criminals but are rarely if ever criminals and have never killed in an unjustified manner. we are talking tens of thousands of holders now.
Not only that but.. at the most.. only ten percent of the population would have the guts and the sense of duty to carry.. it would not be everyone.
In the end tho... I should never have to suffer the whim of criminals because I can't defend myself.. I should never have to hide under the bed like the brits while my house is being ransacked. I should never have to chose between watching a rape or mugging and being killed in an unarmed attempt to stop it.
Yes... perhaps it does have something to do with "manliness" something that maybe chili has forgotten or.. that he maybe doesn't see as a problem. but men... real moral men.. do not let themselves or others be tyranized.
lazs
-
reading my post.. I may have been to harsh on good people who simply aren't thinking things through or haven't really gotten good info.
I do realize that youth tends to feel invincible... that some of you are young and feel that you don't need a firearm to defend yourself.. that you can "take care of yourself"
Of that I believe you are correct to an extent.. criminals will avoid the young and strong to prey on the old and the weak and women.
I have no doubt that some of you would be very brave in a school shooting situation.. many teachers were.. they died shielding kids...
I have no doubt some of you would die bravely too.. I just ask that you think of your older relatives and friends and mothers and sisters living alone or... home alone or on the road. even if they choose to not have a gun.. would you not like to know a responsible person with one would step up to help them?
That is what it is all about. don't look at your neighbors as the enemy.. they are not... the criminal is the enemy.. they sociopath.. he will always be armed.. Don't look to the police or the government to protect you from him...they can't.. they never do... you need to look to yourself and your neighbors.
In the end.. it always occurs to me that I have an optomistic view of people and those who would disarm us have a fear and distrust of their own neighbors and friends.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Chilli
I wish to make my last post here. If you have anymore reasons why relaxing gun control should help make me feel safer or more manly. Please, forward them to the fathers of the VT victims.
In case you really missed the point of that link, the point was there are two sides to your arguement. Nobody, including a father of one of Cho's victims, wants to take anything away from you. What they want is for you to act responsibly and if you really want to make them safe keep your gun out of the hands of those who wish them harm.
Just don't pretend that a bunch of do good, armed college boys would have popped around the corner and put and end to the assault. If everybody is carrying how do they know who the mass murderer is? Oh, that's right, they were given a portable police radio with their CCW permits and Safety Patrol badge.
If you didn't read that far in the article, the gun control protesters were bringing attention to a "loophole" in Virginia gun control law that allowed for Cho to purchase a weapon used in that violent crime.
First off is that loophole isn't really a loophole, but a basic right. It says that anyone can sell anything they own to anyone else. You call that a loophole. In the real world, it is called:
PRIVATE ****ING PROPERTY.
The government has NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to tell two citizens what they can or cannot sell to each other.
Besides your David Blaine act to try to convince us otherwise, Cho did NOT purchase his guns through this means. He bought two guns a month apart in a gun shop. Neither time did the background check bring up that he was institutionalized. This, in itself has been since corrected.
-
yep.. insane people should not be allowed to buy guns. children should not be allowed to buy guns.. people while in prison should not have rights or guns.
see? simple gun control stuff.. just like the constitution intended.
lazs
-
Yes..I believe you do now know what an assault rifle is.
-
Anyone looked this over??????????
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/10/30/the-empty-holster-protest-what-america-didnt-see-is-whats-newsworthy/
-
In Florida alone they found something like 1,400 people whom were approved for CCW's but had committed federal crimes in the past.
====
Sounds like Florida has some serious problems. My state requires an FBI background check. The cost of the background check is part of the license fee.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
In Florida alone they found something like 1,400 people whom were approved for CCW's but had committed federal crimes in the past.
====
Sounds like Florida has some serious problems. My state requires an FBI background check.
florida requires a background check by the state and then by the federal government, they did not tell me what branch of the fed govt that checked me.
but i passed.
BTW, that's 1400 out of about 250,000. and you might want to tell us exactly what "federal crimes" they committed.
-
yeager.. do you have a link? how many of these "criminals" have abused their right to carry? what were their "crimes". If your wife... or even girlfriend... says you hit her.. never mind if you did or not.. you can't have a firearm... what the hell is up with that?
I would like to see the link and list of 1400 and the crimes they committed and... the crimes they have committed with firearms since they got ccw's
As I said.. I think that any person not in jail and not insane and not a child should be allowed to bear arms.. I don't care if he robbed people at gunpoint before. If he is free... he should.
Also... how many criminals are carrying that never even bothered to try to get a permit?
lazs
-
oops...I messed up
Crok et I believe You DO NOT know what an assault rifle is