Everyone is scared, everyone has guns.

[cale]

I find it funny too that while driving to work today two buddies of mine both army, one of which who relied several times on his rifle to save his life and the lives of his friends while in Afghanistan, all shared something in common with me. We all agreed that guns have a place in life, and that they do an excellent job of filling that role. We then all agreed that gun policy in the US was a fucking joke and that thinking a gun is just another tool you need with you in your daily life is a sad sad way of thinking and evidentiary of society with serious issues, issues which cannot simply be band-aid'd with more guns. Grabbing your gun while walking out of your house isn't the logical approach, it's the American approach.

[DaveNorCal]

Is this the beginning of a change?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp=50222624&#50222624&from=en-us_msnhp&snid=18424787?ocid=msnhp

[mrsleeve]

For a second there I almost thought you were advocating bettering the education system to perhaps give children in impoverished neighborhoods or with bad parents a tool to lay the groundwork for a better life, a life where crime and delinquency is not so likely. Silly me. .

Silly me I thought we were talking about firearms in particular with that question. But I totally agree with what your laying down here. That would go just as far if not further than anything else. Speaking of education your not going to read that book I recommended to you are you??

edit: Also kids in those neighbor hoods have access to a decent enough education that they can go on to escape. Its not the fault of the rest of us that they are lured in the easy money and over glorified criminal life style that gets them dead by 22 in a gun fight over a 88 Cadillac Brougham with a set of 24's and 3 kilos of coke in the trunk. Its the thug culture that kills more of those kids than the firearms. How we break this cycle I dont know.

Darrin: Was fuck stick in china trying to kill or just maim?? Do we have his motives or intentions No not that I have seen. Fuck stick in CT wanted to kill not maim. If fuck stick in china wanted to kill he got close enough too, why not kill them and slit their throats. Seems more like he was trying to maim, or was not truly committed to killing said kids. See there is one other difference than just a firearm Actual INTENT.

The logic!
Stop it!

the logic is false and counter intuitive unless you want ignore human nature and the fact that there are bad people that wish to do harm to other out there and the fact that there will always be such people .

lets try this one more time

Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. - Thomas Jefferson (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)

If thats to complicated and old worldly for you let me translate

When you out law guns................(wait for it)..................................only out laws (you know criminals) will have guns.

[MAXELHOFF]

Good watch. -You people are all nuts and I <8 you all!

23:00..., and also 38:00...

[Victell]

- Shooting a shooter only requires minimal effort (assuming you have the balls to do it), and only takes a moment, with much less chance of collateral damage as your suggested analogy.

The likelyhood that another armed person would have the easy opportunity to just shoot the murderer in the back is very low. Killing somebody who is armed and trying to kill everyone else around them is a very hard thing to do. See the North Hollywood bank robbery. I think my analogy stands.

I am all about restricting gun sales to people who have criminal history, violent/irrational tendencies, etc, I think we absolutely ought to do that. The difficulty comes in determining whether or not someone meets that criteria. My personal "best solution" is not to arm everybody, as I mentioned above. My personal solution is to arm me.

And I agree, America won't go for arming everybody. However, I can assure you that America also won't go for disarming everybody either, and I would venture to speculate the attempt to disarm everyone will result in far more bloodshed that the attempt to arm everyone. I have a feeling that people wouldn't be too willing to allow someone to take their guns away at the "permission" of anyone else.

Ok, so you're armed. What about the rest of us? Must we be always armed also to prevent shootings? This rationale says it will be every schoolteacher's job responsibility to be well armed and tactically trained to deal with incoming shooters. They probably should wear a bulletproof vest and helmet to school each day also. Actually we should have little vests for all the kids as well. Is this what we'd rather have than inconviniencing responsible gun owners or disarming crazies?

I can't say I share the same opinion here. I think I would get quite annoyed if I needed to go to annual mental testing and driving testing, and I think breathing into a breathalyzer EVERY time I wanted to drive my car would just drive me crazy. I have never had alcohol in my whole life and I suppose I never will. However, automobile related deaths VASTLY outnumber gun related deaths, that is a well-known fact. However, cars are required to be used every day, whereas guns aren't, making it more difficult to impose the kind of restrictions you mentioned on them. But I diverge off topic here, this thread is about guns.

I agree that breathalyzers and more regular testing would be annoying, take extra time and push the cost of vehicles higher. And while I have never had a DUI either, I'd be willing to make the relatively small sacrafice for the rest of us.

Going further with the car/license thing, I think their should be tiered licences for different driving abilities and safety records. A person that tests high and has a good driving record should be allowed greater highway speeds. At the other end bad drivers should be restricted. No reason gun ownership should be different. Along the same lines, if a gun owner who can regularly prove safe keeping, knowledgeable operation, household mental stability, no criminal history, etc... I'd have no problem with this person having fully automatic rifles with drum magazines. The other end of the spectrum, you get a slingshot.

[bimma360]

Well I am going to try and make this as brief and as simple as I can.

First, I am not scared and I don't own a gun. But I will most likely own one at some point in my life, probably when I move out of the city.

Second, I really don't care about anyone's opinion or philosophies on guns. If you don't want one or feel the need to own one, great!

What I do care about, is someone telling me I can't own something that does not DIRECTLY (very strong emphasis here) infringe on someone else's rights. To rephrase, MY personal ownership of a gun will not infringe on the rights of others as outlined by our constitution.

Gun control is a necessity and is fine by me, as long as it doesn't contradict my above statement.

[mrsleeve]

^
We have this now (though you in NY are how shall we say infringed upon heavily even Upstate) And I think in a lot of ways you have summed up what I have been trying to get across in this entire thread.

Going further with the car/license thing, I think their should be tiered licences for different driving abilities and safety records. A person that tests high and has a good driving record should be allowed greater highway speeds.

You would be getting pulled over and harassed all the time by police because they have no idea who you are and what you have leveled up to in the game of highway driving. You would always be having to dodge the slow fucks and so on. Your solution creates more hazard and danger on the highways than there is now.

No reason gun ownership should be different. Along the same lines, if a gun owner who can regularly prove safe keeping, knowledgeable operation, household mental stability, no criminal history, etc... I'd have no problem with this person having fully automatic rifles with drum magazines. The other end of the spectrum, you get a slingshot.

Here we go again did you even read my last post to you about this shit? Driving is a privilege owning a firearm is RIGHT there is a very big difference there. You, me, and every other American ( I tend to think more so every human on the planet not just us Americans) have a natural (or god given if you swing like that) RIGHT to own and and bare arms. You dont have a right to drive, you have a right to freedom of travel and driving is the primary means to do so, but you dont have a RIGHT to drive, since you can walk, ride, or use many other methods of transport to get where you need or want to go.

And we have a tiered system many states and the feds let us have Full auto, they are highly regulated by the feds and you have to undergo a very strenuous federal background check and undergo interviews pay some taxes and if all goes well you can then pay a shit pile of money for that full auto weapon. (only 2 crimes in modern history since 1968 have been committed by such owners and weapons and 1 of those was NJ COP with a Department owned weapon). Other state like HI go beyond federal law and outlaw such ownership all together.

Then we have CCW, Most places require you to take a class or 2, demonstrate safe handling and proficiency (normally the same range test cops take) pay fee and undergo a local or federal background check. Now not all states are the same and some of this varies. (not to mention we have 4 states that consider carry a constitutional right and require nothing) . Those CCW holders you know us crazy fucks that carry a gun everywhere we, are responsible for .3% of gun/violent crime with a gun.


SO again in closing those of us that are law abiding citizens deserve to be punished for the deeds of criminals and crazy fucks because why again ????? We are not responsible for these crimes, we dont condone these crimes, and we aim to prevent these crimes. Yet you propose to make us all pay the price and wish to take those RIGHTS from us because of the actions of the very very very very few even though violent and gun crime are on the decline and have been for many many years in the face less stringent gun control laws. Sounds like a good plan to me.

[Victell]

BECAUSE WE HAVE A RIGHT NOT A PRIVILEGE to such things. You know the difference between those 2 words dont you?? The word right it tossed around a lot about many things that are not rights. Driving is a PRIVILEGE, even though free travel is a RIGHT. If you dont understand the difference then please ask we will help clear the nuances of this for you.

Then you can have as many 17th century firearms as you want.

In nearly ever other country in the world, owning a firearm is a Privilege granted to you by the state, and as such can be regulated or revoked at a whim. Yeah the gun bans have done wonders for the UK and Australia huh.

We all (should) know that death by gun is way higher in the US. Australia hasnt had a mass shooting since their ban and buyback program.

Um ok thats fine, but annually really that seems a bit excessive and also you have a giant portion of the population that might be a little under skilled by your definition, but still need to get to work, the grocery store, and so on that live in places where there is no public transit. How do you purpose these people get around if you all the sudden you pull their licenses.

Not everyone is a fucking race car / performance driver nor can everyone be some people just cant, just like some cant spell, and other will never understand which end of a screwdriver to use with out direct supervision.

I do agree with you to a point. I would support a drivers ed program more like the Finns have, and start at any time with the kids. But to revoke everyone else that has been driving for year is lunacy.

Last time I checked you had to be mentally fit get a D/L

Breathalyzer in my personal property, when I have not broken any laws FUCK YOU. I know plenty of people that have had to have one of those things. 1/2 the time they dont work and your late to work because it took you 2 hours to get your shit started in the am. Or it wants you to blow while rolling down the highway and if you dont it will shut the thing down on you in 30 sec. that causes more hazards. You cant talk on your phone and drive but you want people fumbling with a breathalyzer, that if it malfunction (which is often) will be shutting your shit down in the middle of the road great fucking plan.

Ummmm You drivers licenses is contingent on you blowing when asked by the constabulary, we have laws against drunk driving, just like we do assaulting other people or killing someone with a firearm with out proper justification. Adding more laws and layers of red tape is going to do nothing but punish the VAST MAJORITY of the rest of us.

Its not excessive to require safe driving. True, licences should not be instantly revoked for bad driving, but programs should be put in place to give those less skilled or attentive additional training and attention to get them up to speed with the rest of us. Convinience be damned, these are deadly projectiles we trust them with. And if you cant, or refuse to drive right, then its your own fault you have to walk to the grocery store.

Current laws against drunk driving still allowed over 10000 people to be killed in 2010 alone. Its unfortunate that today's breathalyzers can be clunky, but if we put some effort into it Im sure we can make them more quick and reliable. And only convicted DUIers should have to use the type that you have to keep blowing to continue driving. Save 10k lives? Sure ill inconvinience myself a little.

[mrsleeve]

Then you can have as many 17th century firearms as you want.

Really???? want to rethink this argument for a minuet before I commence to poking it full of holes ????

Fuck it I am not waiting, This is not what the founder meant or intended with the 2A, the intent is for the citizenry to be armed with as good if not better infantry weapons than any invading army or out of control govt. We have lost that fight with N.F.A. 1934. GCA 1968 and FOPA of 1986. We have given plenty in the form of common sense firearms laws mostly thanks to one of the bloodiest time of peace in US history Prohibition. (yeah banning shit works huh)

here I will expain further how you are wrong and your argument holds water like a Sieve
CtrlV from an old post of MINE

the militia and shall not be infringed.

The feds define all able bodied men 17-45 and not in the military and former military up to age 64 as part of the Militia. There for if shit hits the fan an organization is called every one in that demographic is expected to show up "Bearing ARMS" You must provide your own weapons. And since you have been called up it would not be a good Idea to show up with a fucking musket when the forces you will be facing have modern weaponry to the time. This is why its implied that we have the ability to own what ever is available to the modern foot solider, as during the revolution, the Patriots had arguably better arms than did the British, Rifles in many cases vs the brits and their smooth bore muskets.

Now as to the "regulated" part. This does not mean you go out a play army in the woods of southern MI with your buddies on the week end. Regulated in the instance of the 2a, as written means disciplined in the use of your own arms, or proficient
and know how to use them. ( Regulate 3: to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of <IE regulate the pressure of a tire> - Websters)

So to close "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" Means that Personal gun owner ship is necessary right for with out it there would be no Militia at all, and you argue that a Militia is NECESSARY to a free state so there for personal gun ownership is necessary to the security of a free state right. These provisions go hand in hand for with out one there would not be the other and Vice Versa.



Both historicity and constitutionally the militia argument both you and the gun grabbers are trying to use to quantify the 2a holds no water what so ever, Please try again

Gun control is a example of False Unity, a backwards and irrational approach to crime and prevention that will only make the problem of criminal violence worse. -Thomas Jefferson

[Victell]

^ You think you're the only one who gets to interpret the intent of the 2nd? No.

So far the courts have agreed with your interpretation. It will be a different story if these massacres keep happening. We've changed laws and rights before because it was a good idea for the country as a whole.

You should have kept your house in order better.

[CorvallisBMW]

[mrsleeve]

^

Ummmm. The interpretation. Is correct, its not left to moden interpretation. The term living doument is in reference to the fact the constitution can be amended.

Want to ban guns and change rights. Ok get a 2/3 majority in every legslating body in the country and 2/3 of the states govonors to not veto it and send it back to try again and amend the fucking constitution

[Victell]

^ States rights.

[mrsleeve]

Yup they can set their own regs beyond federal law. But they can't ban possession. Out right, or the ability to carry out right. IL got bitch slapped last week by the 7th circuit for their out right ban on ccw. Or the out right ban on handguns or guns in general in DC, Chicago, or san fran. All told to stepoff by the SCOTUS, individual right to bare arms is not to be infringed this includes state and local govt as well.


Because. Seconed amendment

[Quadrajet]

So you think that the Second Amendment should limit us to flintlocks? Because it only states that we should own what was state of the art in weapons in 1775? So I suppose that the First Amendment is limited to the press, as in how news was spread during the 18th century, with a mechanical press? No free speech on the internet or TV then I guess?