PDA

View Full Version : New Yorkers may defy the state's new anti-gun law



pjohns
01-26-2013, 07:20 PM
It now appears quite possible that New York's new anti-gun law, pushed through the legislature hurriedly in the wake of the Newtown, Connecticut shootings, may be widely defied by the citizenry.

From The New American:


After Democrats in New York rammed a sweeping assault on the right to keep and bear arms through the legislature that failed to exempt police officers from the draconian restrictions, gun owners and even some lawmakers are planning what has been dubbed potentially the largest act of civil disobedience in state history. According to news reports, gun rights activists are urging everyone to defy far-left Governor Andrew Cuomo’s new registration mandate while daring authorities to “come and take it.”

Analysts say the legislation, passed in a frenzy last week in the wake of the Newtown shooting, represents the most brazen infringement on the right to keep and bear arms anywhere in the nation. Among other points, the so-called SAFE Act seeks to limit magazines to just seven bullets, require virtually all of the estimated one million semi-automatic rifles in the state to be registered with authorities, mandate reporting of patients who express indications that they may have thoughts about hurting themselves or others by doctors, and more.

Aside from being unconstitutional, experts on gun violence also point out that the draconian schemes are a bad idea: Studies have repeatedly shown that more guns lead to less crime, and the phenomenon is obvious across America — just compare Chicago or D.C. to Alaska or Wyoming. The mandated reporting requirements for doctors, meanwhile, have come under fire from across the political spectrum. Whether it will even be possible to enforce the bill, however, remains to be seen.

Preparations are already being made for mass resistance. “I’ve heard from hundreds of people that they’re prepared to defy the law, and that number will be magnified by the thousands, by the tens of thousands, when the registration deadline comes,’’ said President Brian Olesen with American Shooters Supply, among the biggest gun dealers in the state, in an interview with the New York Post.

Here is the link: Gun Owners Refuse to Register Under New York Law (http://thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/14322-gun-owners-refuse-to-register-under-new-york-law)

Peter1469
01-26-2013, 07:32 PM
Stay tuned. The State can only abridge the peoples rights so far, before the people wake up.

zelmo1234
01-26-2013, 07:39 PM
Make sure as the deadline aproaches that these groups know that the rest of the countries gun owners stand behind them.

It should be a warning shot for the federal government that the people have had enough, especially with the liberal DC court saying that Obama violated the constitutions with his labor Board none recess appointments.

And So it Begins!

Peter1469
01-26-2013, 07:44 PM
So it begins....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iQ7ZDUutU4

ptif219
01-26-2013, 09:51 PM
The same thing will happen nation wide if Obama and Feinstein try to do it on a federal level

Chloe
01-26-2013, 11:15 PM
I still think a lot of the arguing against a lot of the gun control ideas is just out of a fear that somehow you are going to have your guns taken away from you, which just isn't true. I think that being able to buy and own a gun should be a difficult thing to do due to the dangers involved with weapons. If someone really wants a gun then they should have to work with the system, follow the rules, and then they can have their gun, but having guns all over the place and of all varieties is just asking for trouble in my opinion. It should be more important to all of is to want to live in a society that does not have to rely on an abundance of guns in order to be considered safe than to live in a society where guns are necessary in order to be considered safe. Most people would not see their lives changed at all if guns were reduced or restricted in my opinion.

Chloe
01-26-2013, 11:27 PM
Stay tuned. The State can only abridge the peoples rights so far, before the people wake up.

But the right still exists

Ivan88
01-26-2013, 11:45 PM
1371 Could also be people who did not obey gun laws.

2 examples of armed people working to "well" regulate the "militia":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tS20n2dZgs


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5ut6yPrObw&feature=player_embedded

I don't advise this option as the militia has everyone out gunned by leaps and bounds. In other words, we're had dads.

Chloe
01-26-2013, 11:48 PM
There will not be a holocaust in this country because you can't own as many guns as you want in as many varieties as you want.

Ivan88
01-26-2013, 11:51 PM
There will not be a holocaust in this country because you can't own as many guns as you want in as many varieties as you want.
We had Waco. That was a holocaust. Why not have a bigger one?

50,000 young American males died on suicidal bombing attacks to fire bomb their relatives in Germany just 70 years ago. That was a holocaust too.

Peter1469
01-27-2013, 12:02 AM
There will not be a holocaust in this country because you can't own as many guns as you want in as many varieties as you want.

History teaches us that only governments commit a holocaust.

Honest citizens in the US are not a danger.

Chloe
01-27-2013, 12:03 AM
History teaches us that only governments commit a holocaust.

Honest citizens in the US are not a danger.

I'm just saying that I think the drama around the talk and efforts around gun control is just a little exaggerated.

Peter1469
01-27-2013, 12:06 AM
I'm just saying that I think the drama around the talk and efforts around gun control is just a little exaggerated.

Oh sure, they are.

And nothing will happens because to many people on the left agree with honest citizens about the 2nd Amendment.

Chloe
01-27-2013, 12:11 AM
Oh sure, they are.

And nothing will happens because to many people on the left agree with honest citizens about the 2nd Amendment.

I know we have two completely different opinions on this and on the 2nd amendment but I just don't that a few limitations on something as dangerous and easily abused as guns is as bad as people are trying to make it out to be

Peter1469
01-27-2013, 12:15 AM
I know we have two completely different opinions on this and on the 2nd amendment but I just don't that a few limitations on something as dangerous and easily abused as guns is as bad as people are trying to make it out to be

I agree. I think that most people don't understand the 2nd amendment and what it does.

zelmo1234
01-27-2013, 03:39 AM
I still think a lot of the arguing against a lot of the gun control ideas is just out of a fear that somehow you are going to have your guns taken away from you, which just isn't true. I think that being able to buy and own a gun should be a difficult thing to do due to the dangers involved with weapons. If someone really wants a gun then they should have to work with the system, follow the rules, and then they can have their gun, but having guns all over the place and of all varieties is just asking for trouble in my opinion. It should be more important to all of is to want to live in a society that does not have to rely on an abundance of guns in order to be considered safe than to live in a society where guns are necessary in order to be considered safe. Most people would not see their lives changed at all if guns were reduced or restricted in my opinion.

Which is great and very logical thinking? the only problem is, it is not supported by facts.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-576422.html This was a study that was funded to prove that gun control works, and they proved just the opposite, but did say that more study is needed.

It also stands to reason, that if you tack guns off the street and regulate them then it should be a much safer place to live. But if we look at Chicago, the city with the most restrictive gun laws, until NY, it should be great places to live right?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/chicago-grim-milestone-500-murders-2012-article-1.1229420

But we have another case that we can check DC the city that once had the most restrictive laws, had it/s gun control laws stripped by the supreme court. and the people of that dangerous city now had the right to protect themselves. now with more guns is should ahve been a real slaughter house right?

http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/11/dc-more-legal-guns-far-fewer-murders-des

Fewer murders than any time since 1963?

So while we all would like to see an American with no violent crime, that is not reality. So we need to recude that crime to the losts levels possible.

And while we may be avle to look at cun control laws as being compasionate and keeping people safe, the facts show a far different story.

Even the mass shootings, only the Gabby Gifford shooting ws in an are that allowed for the possibility of a legal gun. All others were in gun free zones and the shooters knew it. the Colorado shooter actually drove to the Movie House that advertized that is was a gun free zone. passing others on the way.

So the question is. do we want to feel good about restricting the ownership of firearms, or do we want violent gun crimes to go down, becasue the two do not match!

zelmo1234
01-27-2013, 03:47 AM
I know we have two completely different opinions on this and on the 2nd amendment but I just don't that a few limitations on something as dangerous and easily abused as guns is as bad as people are trying to make it out to be

It depends on if your goal is to make it safer, or if you goal is to make people think that you are doing something because you are compasionate and care!

If you want to seem compasionate and carring, then you would seek to restrict the law abiding citizens rights to own and carry certain types of firearms. which should great. however studies and fact show that more people will be killed by firearms when you do this! So while this seems compasionate, more people die

If however you make the punishment stronger and actually have a President and administration that inforces these gun laws. And you allow those that do obey the laws to have and carry weapons, then the guns deaths will go down. but you do not sound very compassionte, you sound like you want gun fights in the street

The same thing happens when you cut taxes on the wealthy, you get more jobs, and more revenue, but it sounds so wrong! So you rasie taxes on the rich and unemployment goes up, and revenue almost always goes down. but it sure sounds compasionate

zelmo1234
01-27-2013, 03:49 AM
I know we have two completely different opinions on this and on the 2nd amendment but I just don't that a few limitations on something as dangerous and easily abused as guns is as bad as people are trying to make it out to be

By the way, what is your understanding of the second amendment! I am a little courious?

Peter1469
01-27-2013, 10:19 AM
Which is great and very logical thinking? the only problem is, it is not supported by facts.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-201_162-576422.html This was a study that was funded to prove that gun control works, and they proved just the opposite, but did say that more study is needed.

It also stands to reason, that if you tack guns off the street and regulate them then it should be a much safer place to live. But if we look at Chicago, the city with the most restrictive gun laws, until NY, it should be great places to live right?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/chicago-grim-milestone-500-murders-2012-article-1.1229420

But we have another case that we can check DC the city that once had the most restrictive laws, had it/s gun control laws stripped by the supreme court. and the people of that dangerous city now had the right to protect themselves. now with more guns is should ahve been a real slaughter house right?

http://reason.com/blog/2012/12/11/dc-more-legal-guns-far-fewer-murders-des

Fewer murders than any time since 1963?

So while we all would like to see an American with no violent crime, that is not reality. So we need to recude that crime to the losts levels possible.

And while we may be avle to look at cun control laws as being compasionate and keeping people safe, the facts show a far different story.

Even the mass shootings, only the Gabby Gifford shooting ws in an are that allowed for the possibility of a legal gun. All others were in gun free zones and the shooters knew it. the Colorado shooter actually drove to the Movie House that advertized that is was a gun free zone. passing others on the way.

So the question is. do we want to feel good about restricting the ownership of firearms, or do we want violent gun crimes to go down, becasue the two do not match!

That is why the hard left does not want gun regulation. They want a total ban.

Chloe
01-27-2013, 10:31 AM
By the way, what is your understanding of the second amendment! I am a little courious?

For me when it says "regulated militia" I think of the national guard, and when it says right to keep and bear arms to me it means you can have a gun in your house. In my opinion though I don't think that it means that there should be an abundance of guns and gun varieties every where or that it means anything really beyond basic self defense of your property or family. I also think that we should consider when it was written and what was going on at the time too. I also don't think that it's beyond change or some untouchable right.

Peter1469
01-27-2013, 10:50 AM
For me when it says "regulated militia" I think of the national guard, and when it says right to keep and bear arms to me it means you can have a gun in your house. In my opinion though I don't think that it means that there should be an abundance of guns and gun varieties every where or that it means anything really beyond basic self defense of your property or family. I also think that we should consider when it was written and what was going on at the time too. I also don't think that it's beyond change or some untouchable right.

The constitution provides for ways to change it.

Agravan
01-27-2013, 10:51 AM
For me when it says "regulated militia" I think of the national guard, and when it says right to keep and bear arms to me it means you can have a gun in your house. In my opinion though I don't think that it means that there should be an abundance of guns and gun varieties every where or that it means anything really beyond basic self defense of your property or family. I also think that we should consider when it was written and what was going on at the time too. I also don't think that it's beyond change or some untouchable right.

Chloe, your opinion of what the 2nd Amendment means is almost word-for-word what I have heard from liberal educators all my life. Ionce got kicked out of a history class for arguing with the instructor over the definition of "militia".
Do you understand what the term "to bear" means, as in "to bear arms"?
It does not mean to keep them in a safe in your basement. It means "to carry".
The 2nd Amendment was not written for self defense or home defense or even for hunting. It was put in place as a detterrent for whn government again became hostile towards it's citizens, which they knew would happen and is currently happenning.
You have been indoctrinated whether you believe it or not. Do some independent reading. Read the Federalist papers. Get a different point of view.

GrumpyDog
01-27-2013, 10:52 AM
A solution for school, and for the economy, is to bring all our soldiers back home, and use them as government supplied workforce, with on the job training for the tasks assigned.

Guard schools, public places.
Guard borders
Build biofuel refineries
Build solar panel production factories
Build vertical stack farming buildings for Biofuel supply
Roads and Bridges, Parks and Forest managment

In short, for that 1 Trillion military budget, we get a whole army of workers to rebuild America, rather that be destroying, then rebuilding foriegn countries and proping up dictators and Kings for future conflicts.

Once we transform USA into an advanced society, with distribution of resources that will end poverty, and increase the standard of living for everyone, then we can revisit all the non issues like 16 vs 32 oz soft drinks, killing and eating animals vs killing and eating vegetation, guns, abortion, gays, womens reproductive needs, mens hair loss, SUV's, Smart phones addiction, and China.

Pete7469
01-27-2013, 11:28 AM
I still think a lot of the arguing against a lot of the gun control ideas is just out of a fear that somehow you are going to have your guns taken away from you, which just isn't true. I think that being able to buy and own a gun should be a difficult thing to do due to the dangers involved with weapons. If someone really wants a gun then they should have to work with the system, follow the rules, and then they can have their gun, but having guns all over the place and of all varieties is just asking for trouble in my opinion. It should be more important to all of is to want to live in a society that does not have to rely on an abundance of guns in order to be considered safe than to live in a society where guns are necessary in order to be considered safe. Most people would not see their lives changed at all if guns were reduced or restricted in my opinion.

Chloe are you even reading and considering these arguements? I can not understand how someone, in the face of all the facts, logic, and reason, could still sit there and act like it's little more than the paranoid ramblings of malcontents. I don't understand how you can still have these opinions knowing full well that criminals don't obey laws, they won't give up their weapons, and they won't stop killing.

In fact it's obvious from the facts on the ground in places like South Africa, the UK and Austrailia, the people who obeyed the law are being abused by those who didn't.

Regardless of that I'm glad the majority of people disagree with you, and any further restrictions are unlikely to pass. I just thought you were smart enough to think about the things you've read about the futility of gun control, and modify your opinion. Yet you still choose to be wrong.

Chloe
01-27-2013, 11:46 AM
Chloe, your opinion of what the 2nd Amendment means is almost word-for-word what I have heard from liberal educators all my life. Ionce got kicked out of a history class for arguing with the instructor over the definition of "militia".
Do you understand what the term "to bear" means, as in "to bear arms"?
It does not mean to keep them in a safe in your basement. It means "to carry".
The 2nd Amendment was not written for self defense or home defense or even for hunting. It was put in place as a detterrent for whn government again became hostile towards it's citizens, which they knew would happen and is currently happenning.
You have been indoctrinated whether you believe it or not. Do some independent reading. Read the Federalist papers. Get a different point of view.

I don't understand why everything has to be indoctrination just because I don't agree with pro-gun people. The 2nd amendment is open to interpretation just like all of the other rights.

Chloe
01-27-2013, 11:50 AM
Chloe are you even reading and considering these arguements? I can not understand how someone, in the face of all the facts, logic, and reason, could still sit there and act like it's little more than the paranoid ramblings of malcontents. I don't understand how you can still have these opinions knowing full well that criminals don't obey laws, they won't give up their weapons, and they won't stop killing.

In fact it's obvious from the facts on the ground in places like South Africa, the UK and Austrailia, the people who obeyed the law are being abused by those who didn't.

Regardless of that I'm glad the majority of people disagree with you, and any further restrictions are unlikely to pass. I just thought you were smart enough to think about the things you've read about the futility of gun control, and modify your opinion. Yet you still choose to be wrong.

I just don't believe that we are in any danger of giant groups of criminals taking over neighborhoods just because its harder for regular people to buy guns. I fully understand that criminals won't give up their guns just because of new regulations, but that doesn't mean we should base our country or gun laws around their lack of conscience and inability to follow rules

Agravan
01-27-2013, 11:54 AM
I don't understand why everything has to be indoctrination just because I don't agree with pro-gun people. The 2nd amendment is open to interpretation just like all of the other rights.

It's not indoctrinatation because you don't agree with people. It's indoctrination because these are the same exact points being spewed by the leftist media and school system for years. You are being taught what to think by the government sponsored educational system. Believe me, in my highshool and early higher education years, I heard the same exact statements you have made. I did my own research, reading (The Federalist Papers) and soon found that I was being fed BS. That and my naturally conservative views lead me to see what is happening in the school system. Indocrinated people don't see themselves as indoctrinated, neither do brainwashed people. What you see as "sensible", I see as dangerous, and vice-versa. One of us is right, I would love for it to be you, but years of experience and life have taught me differently.

Agravan
01-27-2013, 11:57 AM
I just don't believe that we are in any danger of giant groups of criminals taking over neighborhoods just because its harder for regular people to buy guns. I fully understand that criminals won't give up their guns just because of new regulations, but that doesn't mean we should base our country or gun laws around their lack of conscience and inability to follow rules
Just because you don't believe it does not make it any less of a fact. You still have a long way to go before you are hit with reality. I hope it treats you kindly. Those of us in the real world know that man is a savage animal and needs to be dealt with on equal footing. Enjoy your vision of Utopia while you can, Chloe.

Chloe
01-27-2013, 01:34 PM
Just because you don't believe it does not make it any less of a fact. You still have a long way to go before you are hit with reality. I hope it treats you kindly. Those of us in the real world know that man is a savage animal and needs to be dealt with on equal footing. Enjoy your vision of Utopia while you can, Chloe.

I'm sorry but what kind of reality am I going to be hit with? Like a gun crime?

Chloe
01-27-2013, 01:40 PM
I don't think that I have a utopian point of view I just think that people are kind of being too sensitive around limiting certain aspects of guns and weapons. Nobody is talking about taking guns away from you or anybody they are just trying to find safer ways to have them exist. Criminals are criminals and will do criminal things regardless, but that does not mean that we need guns everywhere all of the time for the off chance that a crime may happen or that the government is going to do some dictator type oppression of us.. It's like people think we are living in an old wild west movie and everybody is carrying a gun waiting to have a gun fight

Agravan
01-27-2013, 01:48 PM
I'm sorry but what kind of reality am I going to be hit with? Like a gun crime?
Reality. Life. The fact that the real world is not like academia. There is evil in the world and there are evil men that like nothing better than to hurt people. At his point in life, IMO, you have been sheltered, Have never had to provide for yourself and a family. have never seen the face of evil that is out there. You can live in your Utopian world where everybody loves and respects each other. But yes, gun crime, knife crime, baseball bat crime, etc. is real and a fact of life. You will never stop the violence despite the wishy-washy liberal indoctrination out there. As long as there are at least 2 men left alive on this planet, there will be conflict. It's in our nature. That is the danger of leftism. It teaches peace, love and harmony without teaching of the dangers of reality. It leaves young people, such as yourself, totally unprepared to face life when it hits them full on in all it's uncensored glory.
But, as all young people are wont to do, you will call me an old fogey, dinosaur, cynical old fart, and then continue to tell us old farts just how much things have changed since our day. The only way to learn about life is to live it. So you still have a lot tolearn. As i have said though, I do admire your youthfull enthusiasm for our future. I just don't see it going the way you think it will.

Agravan
01-27-2013, 01:50 PM
I don't think that I have a utopian point of view I just think that people are kind of being too sensitive around limiting certain aspects of guns and weapons. Nobody is talking about taking guns away from you or anybody they are just trying to find safer ways to have them exist. Criminals are criminals and will do criminal things regardless, but that does not mean that we need guns everywhere all of the time for the off chance that a crime may happen or that the government is going to do some dictator type oppression of us.. It's like people think we are living in an old wild west movie and everybody is carrying a gun waiting to have a gun fight

When seconds count, Police are only minutes away.

zelmo1234
01-27-2013, 04:52 PM
I don't think that I have a utopian point of view I just think that people are kind of being too sensitive around limiting certain aspects of guns and weapons. Nobody is talking about taking guns away from you or anybody they are just trying to find safer ways to have them exist. Criminals are criminals and will do criminal things regardless, but that does not mean that we need guns everywhere all of the time for the off chance that a crime may happen or that the government is going to do some dictator type oppression of us.. It's like people think we are living in an old wild west movie and everybody is carrying a gun waiting to have a gun fight

Chloe,

The Security business that I sold was to keep people from being hurt, while in Irag, and Afganistan we had a 6 man teem and the fee was 55,000 per week including transprtation. And I am sure you can see why governments and business people, entertainers would want to pay this as it was very dangerous.

but When president Obama was elected, it became very clear that he would not stand behind the contractors, and we wer a small company, so we sold out ot the big boys.

But back here at home when the occupy movement was going on and the union protests were going on, it became very violent and we were subcontracted by the company that I sold to for 25,000 per week to escort political leaders and workers. It was here that I got a knife ran through my hand, was hit by a person trying to run me over to get to a congress person! Not over seas!

We have a President and administration, not to mention the opposition that have decided that they are all or nothing, they refuse to work together, and the President is promoting class warfare as a coverup for his failed economic policies. I hope very much taht I am wrong, but it was my business for a lot of years to identify dangerous situations, the country is a powder keg waithing for a spark.

I thought that this gun control thing might be it, but it appears that for most of the country cooler heads are going to prevail. but unforrtunatly violence may be coming to a campus near you. as with the race riots many happened on collage campus. Again I hope that I am wrong, but it appears that no politition wants to tackle the big problems, and we keep sliding toward a conflict with the government.

Look at the increase in gun and ammunition sales, I assure you that this was not by people stocking up for next hunting season. Half of the people do not trust the government any longer, and are preparing for the worst, and that is not a good sign for the future.

ptif219
01-27-2013, 06:10 PM
I still think a lot of the arguing against a lot of the gun control ideas is just out of a fear that somehow you are going to have your guns taken away from you, which just isn't true. I think that being able to buy and own a gun should be a difficult thing to do due to the dangers involved with weapons. If someone really wants a gun then they should have to work with the system, follow the rules, and then they can have their gun, but having guns all over the place and of all varieties is just asking for trouble in my opinion. It should be more important to all of is to want to live in a society that does not have to rely on an abundance of guns in order to be considered safe than to live in a society where guns are necessary in order to be considered safe. Most people would not see their lives changed at all if guns were reduced or restricted in my opinion.

You do not know Obama's history. If people actually knew about Obama they would not vote for him

http://www.speroforum.com/a/16427/Obamas-guncontrol-history-in-the-Illinois-Senate



Although Obama claims to be an advocate for the 2nd Amendment, his voting record in the Illinois Senate paints a very different picture. While a state senator, Obama voted for a bill that would ban nearly every hunting rifle, shotgun and target rifle owned by Illinois citizens. That same bill would authorize the state police to raid homes of gun owners to forcibly confiscate banned guns. Obama supported a bill that would shut down law-abiding firearm manufacturers including Springfield Armory, Armalite, Rock River Arms and Les Baer. Obama also voted for a bill that would prohibit law-abiding citizens from purchasing more than one gun per month.

Without a doubt, Barack Obama has proven himself to be an enemy of the law abiding firearm owner. At the same time, Obama has proven himself to be a friend to the hardened criminal. While a state senator, Obama voted 4 times against legislation that would allow a homeowner to use a firearm in defense of home and family.

Morningstar
01-27-2013, 06:10 PM
I still think a lot of the arguing against a lot of the gun control ideas is just out of a fear that somehow you are going to have your guns taken away from you, which just isn't true. I think that being able to buy and own a gun should be a difficult thing to do due to the dangers involved with weapons. If someone really wants a gun then they should have to work with the system, follow the rules, and then they can have their gun, but having guns all over the place and of all varieties is just asking for trouble in my opinion. It should be more important to all of is to want to live in a society that does not have to rely on an abundance of guns in order to be considered safe than to live in a society where guns are necessary in order to be considered safe. Most people would not see their lives changed at all if guns were reduced or restricted in my opinion.

Having more legal guns all over the place almost always coincides with less crime.

So I wonder how you formed your opinion that more guns all over the place is asking for trouble?

Chloe
01-27-2013, 06:21 PM
Having more legal guns all over the place almost always coincides with less crime.

So I wonder how you formed your opinion that more guns all over the place is asking for trouble?

The more guns there are out in the world the higher the probability that a gun could end up in the hands of someone that will use it to do bad things.

Morningstar
01-27-2013, 06:23 PM
I don't think that I have a utopian point of view I just think that people are kind of being too sensitive around limiting certain aspects of guns and weapons. Nobody is talking about taking guns away from you or anybody they are just trying to find safer ways to have them exist. Criminals are criminals and will do criminal things regardless, but that does not mean that we need guns everywhere all of the time for the off chance that a crime may happen or that the government is going to do some dictator type oppression of us.. It's like people think we are living in an old wild west movie and everybody is carrying a gun waiting to have a gun fight

Limiting my ability to defend my life is limiting my life itself.

I won't accept that.

I actually believe, in fact, that I have the right to own machine guns, hand grenades, tanks, jetfighters, and nuclear bombs...

Morningstar
01-27-2013, 06:24 PM
The more guns there are out in the world the higher the probability that a gun could end up in the hands of someone that will use it to do bad things.

Do you have any proof of this?

ptif219
01-27-2013, 06:25 PM
But the right still exists

The problem is democrats do not have the democrat vote

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-25/assault-weapons-ban-lacks-democratic-votes-to-pass-senate.html


At least six of the 55 senators in the Democratic caucus have expressed skepticism or outright opposition to a ban, the review found. That means Democrats wouldn’t have a 51-vote majority to pass the measure, let alone the 60 needed to break a Republican filibuster to bring it to a floor vote.

ptif219
01-27-2013, 06:28 PM
The more guns there are out in the world the higher the probability that a gun could end up in the hands of someone that will use it to do bad things.

Take guns away from law abiding citizens and the criminals will still have guns as will the terrorists

Chloe
01-27-2013, 06:29 PM
Limiting my ability to defend my life is limiting my life itself.

I won't accept that.

I actually believe, in fact, that I have the right to own machine guns, hand grenades, tanks, jetfighters, and nuclear bombs...

Is your life constantly in danger? Do you often find yourself in a situation where you defending yourself? Does having to have a background check and perhaps a decently long waiting period for your to walk out of a store with a gun take years off of your life? Does your selfish attitude towards wanting to own dangerous and unnecessary weapons enhance your life? You know, having a radical desire for weapons is just as bad as those that use those weapons for bad things.

Chloe
01-27-2013, 06:30 PM
Take guns away from law abiding citizens and the criminals will still have guns as will the terrorists

As will the police and the military

zelmo1234
01-27-2013, 06:37 PM
The more guns there are out in the world the higher the probability that a gun could end up in the hands of someone that will use it to do bad things.

Now I am with you on this one ! I think that a gon owner is responsible for the security of his or her weapon, not all can afford a safe for storage, but there are other ways to secure and disable weapons when not in use, and I beleive that it is the responsibility of the owner to take these steps!

ptif219
01-27-2013, 06:38 PM
As will the police and the military

You want my right taken away to protect my family. You will not take that right away. Next you will say I must also get rid of my Mastiff

I notice you do not address what I showed about democrats not having the votes or Obama's history of being against people's right to protect themselves. Typical of not wanting to admit the truth just spin stories that fit your false agenda

Chloe
01-27-2013, 06:43 PM
You want my right taken away to protect my family. You will not take that right away. Next you will say I must also get rid of my Mastiff

I notice you do not address what I showed about democrats not having the votes or Obama's history of being against people's right to protect themselves. Typical of not wanting to admit the truth just spin stories that fit your false agenda

I don't want to take away your rights.

I didn't address it because I don't agree with going door to door to take guns away from people, I didn't vote for president Obama, and I am not a registered democrat.

Chloe
01-27-2013, 06:44 PM
Do you have any proof of this?

Are you being serious? It's probability.

Morningstar
01-27-2013, 06:48 PM
The problem is democrats do not have the democrat vote

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-25/assault-weapons-ban-lacks-democratic-votes-to-pass-senate.html

Yeah. It's going nowhere.

zelmo1234
01-27-2013, 06:50 PM
Is your life constantly in danger? Do you often find yourself in a situation where you defending yourself? Does having to have a background check and perhaps a decently long waiting period for your to walk out of a store with a gun take years off of your life? Does your selfish attitude towards wanting to own dangerous and unnecessary weapons enhance your life? You know, having a radical desire for weapons is just as bad as those that use those weapons for bad things.

If you knew when and where you were going to need to defend yourself? would you go there?

The reason that I got into the security business, is because I was the victom of an armed robbery when I was in my 20's working at a Rite Aid pharmacy as store manager. In the safe little town of Carson City MI? It only took the police 43 min to respond to the 911 call.

If I had not convinced the assailant that I was going up to get him money, as he was looking for drugs, I would not be writing to you, becasue this was his third offence and he was not about to leave witnesses.

Plus the police are so restricted that they can;t reall help you until you are assulted or shot, then they will happily kill the person that killed you. but other than that they can talk to the person. They ahve NO rights, that ACLU has stripped them of the right to proctect people.

This is why many of the police are in favor of concealed carry. it take the safty zone for criminals away. Most that are in favir of gun control when they talk to me and see my training are not opposed to me having and carring weapons, my local police actually are trained by me! and know tht if we are ever in the same location they can not only count on bet expect my support.

but I am only one person. and it is much better to have a would be criminal wondering if anyone else has a gun. This is the deterant. I beleive that it has already been posted, but when seconds count, the police are only minutes away, assuming that there is someone to call them.
,
So at least give the other side a look, statistics do not favor those that want more gun control, though I think that almost all of us do not mind the background checks. but doing what feels compasionate does favor those that want restrictions and controls up to and including banning certain types or all weapons. The problem is this produces those gun free zones that criminals like becasue it gives them an advantage!

Morningstar
01-27-2013, 06:51 PM
Is your life constantly in danger? Do you often find yourself in a situation where you defending yourself? Does having to have a background check and perhaps a decently long waiting period for your to walk out of a store with a gun take years off of your life? Does your selfish attitude towards wanting to own dangerous and unnecessary weapons enhance your life? You know, having a radical desire for weapons is just as bad as those that use those weapons for bad things.

No. It's not a radical desire, and it's certainly not as bad as what bad people do. What the hell?!?

I've only caused serious harm to maybe 25 or 30 people in my entire 4 decades on this planet, and they were all "bad people"...

Or, at least they seemed to be at the time...

Morningstar
01-27-2013, 06:52 PM
Are you being serious? It's probability.

No, it's not. Because it doesn't bear out. The probabilities, in fact, suggest the exact opposite!!!

zelmo1234
01-27-2013, 06:53 PM
I don't want to take away your rights.

I didn't address it because I don't agree with going door to door to take guns away from people, I didn't vote for president Obama, and I am not a registered democrat.

Just make sure that you vote, it can be troublesome at times especially in those local elections, but always make the time to vote, even if you vote against the way that I or anyone else wants you too, it is a right that many have fought and died so you could have. I look at it as an honor to them! a way of saying Thank You

Chloe
01-27-2013, 06:55 PM
No. It's not a radical desire, and it's certainly not as bad as what bad people do. What the hell?!?

I've only caused serious harm to maybe 25 or 30 people in my entire 4 decades on this planet, and they were all "bad people"...

Or, at least they seemed to be at the time...

Only caused serious harm to maybe 25 or 30 people? only? and they "seemed" bad?

Chloe
01-27-2013, 06:55 PM
Just make sure that you vote, it can be troublesome at times especially in those local elections, but always make the time to vote, even if you vote against the way that I or anyone else wants you too, it is a right that many have fought and died so you could have. I look at it as an honor to them! a way of saying Thank You

Oh I voted

zelmo1234
01-27-2013, 06:58 PM
Oh I voted

:thumbsup20:

Chloe
01-27-2013, 07:02 PM
Limiting my ability to defend my life is limiting my life itself.

I won't accept that.

I actually believe, in fact, that I have the right to own machine guns, hand grenades, tanks, jetfighters, and nuclear bombs...

I'm sorry but I seriously doubt that when they sat down to write the 2nd amendment that they had it in their heads that in 2013 people should be able to own machine guns, tanks, jets, and nuclear bombs, especially since all of those things were so invented already and well known during the time it was written.

Agravan
01-27-2013, 07:07 PM
As will the police and the military

Will the police or military be there when someone breaks into your home at gunpoint? How about when that van pulls up next to you and they drag you into it? Will the Police be there to stop it? (This actually happened to my older daughter, I found out years later)
Where were the Police in Aurora? Sandy Hook? Columbine?
The police are not there to protect you, they are there to write reports after the fact. Your self defense is YOUR responsibility. Should you wait until you have an armed man standing in front of you before you purchase a handgun? This is the naivete I am talking about, Chloe. This kind of naivete will get people killed.

Morningstar
01-27-2013, 07:09 PM
I'm sorry but I seriously doubt that when they sat down to write the 2nd amendment that they had it in their heads that in 2013 people should be able to own machine guns, tanks, jets, and nuclear bombs, especially since all of those things were so invented already and well known during the time it was written.

Yeah, but I don't care. Forget the 2nd Amendment.

Chloe
01-27-2013, 07:13 PM
Will the police or military be there when someone breaks into your home at gunpoint? How about when that van pulls up next to you and they drag you into it? Will the Police be there to stop it? (This actually happened to my older daughter, I found out years later)
Where were the Police in Aurora? Sandy Hook? Columbine?
The police are not there to protect you, they are there to write reports after the fact. Your self defense is YOUR responsibility. Should you wait until you have an armed man standing in front of you before you purchase a handgun? This is the naivete I am talking about, Chloe. This kind of naivete will get people killed.

I'm sorry but I should not have to carry a gun with me while i am jogging, walking between classes, or passing by a starbucks. I understand that bad things can happen at any moment but I do not want my life to revolve around that possibility. I also do not want to, nor should I have to in my opinion, walk by person after person carrying weapons because they are afraid to walk down the street. I know you and probably everybody here thinks I am naive and sheltered and obviously I must be if everybody keeps telling me that, but I can't get it out of my head that life should not be lived in constant fear of someone else. Carrying weapons every where we go reinforces that fear in my opinion.

I am sorry about your daughter. I'm sure that was extremely scary for her.

zelmo1234
01-27-2013, 07:17 PM
I'm sorry but I seriously doubt that when they sat down to write the 2nd amendment that they had it in their heads that in 2013 people should be able to own machine guns, tanks, jets, and nuclear bombs, especially since all of those things were so invented already and well known during the time it was written.

While I am not for the average citizens owing true weapons of war like Tanks and Jet Fighters, and Nucs.

the founding fathers would ahve wanted the public to have ways of defending themselves from these weapons of war.

Many that oppose personel gun ownership trye and tell the people that the Second amendment is for hunting and home defense?

It is a false statment and they are uninformed at best, but most likely lying through their teeth to promote an agenda.

The truth is the founding fathers would be scared to death of how powerful the federal govenrment has become, and how the states have lost much of what they once had in the form of rights

The second amendment was designed so the people could throw off an opressive government, and unfortunatly if the politicians are not very carful this may be tested in our lifetime! there are those in Washington that favor an all powerful governement, and few in washington that oppose it!

This is coming in contrast to the will of the people in the country. So it is this, that has people standing in line at the guns stores to purchase weapons and ammunition! lst us hope that they heed the warning and tread softly as we reform our governemnt once again!

Agravan
01-27-2013, 07:24 PM
I'm sorry but I should not have to carry a gun with me while i am jogging, walking between classes, or passing by a starbucks. I understand that bad things can happen at any moment but I do not want my life to revolve around that possibility. I also do not want to, nor should I have to in my opinion, walk by person after person carrying weapons because they are afraid to walk down the street. I know you and probably everybody here thinks I am naive and sheltered and obviously I must be if everybody keeps telling me that, but I can't get it out of my head that life should not be lived in constant fear of someone else. Carrying weapons every where we go reinforces that fear in my opinion.

I am sorry about your daughter. I'm sure that was extremely scary for her.
Chloe, you're right, you should not have to. But that's what I mean about the real world. It's not about what should be, it's about what is. I warned by daughter (step-daughter, actually) about being out walking the streets after dark, but she thought I was just being paranoid. I found out about the rape years later because neither she, nor her mom, wanted to tell me. She also did not go to the Police, not that that would have done a lot of good. I was FURIOUS! But she understood why I had warned her. She now realizes the need for some sort of self protection. I hope to God you don't learn your lesson the same way.

zelmo1234
01-27-2013, 07:24 PM
I'm sorry but I should not have to carry a gun with me while i am jogging, walking between classes, or passing by a starbucks. I understand that bad things can happen at any moment but I do not want my life to revolve around that possibility. I also do not want to, nor should I have to in my opinion, walk by person after person carrying weapons because they are afraid to walk down the street. I know you and probably everybody here thinks I am naive and sheltered and obviously I must be if everybody keeps telling me that, but I can't get it out of my head that life should not be lived in constant fear of someone else. Carrying weapons every where we go reinforces that fear in my opinion.

I am sorry about your daughter. I'm sure that was extremely scary for her.

See this comes back to right vs opnion again. I think it is great that you have the right to go out jogging and to Starbucks and walking around campus and you choose not to carry a weapon! this is your choce and right to do so?

however: I do not feel it is your right to decide what others choose to do. it is there right and choice to carry a weapon and if you are deciding that for them you are infringing on their rights. Does that make any sense.

Agravan
01-27-2013, 07:31 PM
I'm sorry but I seriously doubt that when they sat down to write the 2nd amendment that they had it in their heads that in 2013 people should be able to own machine guns, tanks, jets, and nuclear bombs, especially since all of those things were so invented already and well known during the time it was written.
Do you belive that freedom pf the press should be limited only to handset newspapers and not to television, Radio or the internet? Obviously the Founding Fathers would not have had it in their heads since major newpapers, radio, tv and the internet were not invented or even thought of then.
They meant for people to be able to withstand or throw off an oppressive government. You can't do that unless you are similarly armed. Thus, your stated 2nd Amendment knowledge is indoctrinated leftist propaganda.

Chloe
01-27-2013, 07:33 PM
The thing is though, and I don't know if this is going to make sense outside of my head, that when someone has a gun there is this instant decrease in their level of fear, and if someone is less afraid to get involved in something happening in public because they have a gun then it can put others in danger in my opinion. If I am walking down the street and I see a crime taking place if I have a gun with me then I am probably going to be more likely to try and do something because of that instant adrenaline and increased bravery due to that gun. I don't like the idea of regular people, even if a piece of paper says that they are cool, walking around with things that are meant for killing while at the same time having a false sense of bravery and justification to get involved in something because of that gun. I'm fine with guns in houses, to a limit of course, but not out in public unless they are trained police. That's just my opinion and what I wish could be more than an opinion.

Chloe
01-27-2013, 07:38 PM
Do you belive that freedom pf the press should be limited only to handset newspapers and not to television, Radio or the internet? Obviously the Founding Fathers would not have had it in their heads since major newpapers, radio, tv and the internet were not invented or even thought of then.
They meant for people to be able to withstand or throw off an oppressive government. You can't do that unless you are similarly armed. Thus, your stated 2nd Amendment knowledge is indoctrinated leftist propaganda.

I understand your first point but do you have to keep calling me indoctrinated and that my opinion is propaganda just because my opinion isn't as pro-gun as you? I get it that my view on this falls in line with a lot of what people consider to be far left stuff, but that doesn't mean that I can't freely agree with certain parts of both sides of the argument. I don't want to abolish the 2nd amendment, I don't want to go door to door getting guns, I don't want people to be defenseless at home or anything like that, I just want it to be harder to own and carry such a dangerous thing in public and to keep certain guns only in the hands of the military that would actually need them for the defense of our country.

Agravan
01-27-2013, 07:43 PM
The thing is though, and I don't know if this is going to make sense outside of my head, that when someone has a gun there is this instant decrease in their level of fear, and if someone is less afraid to get involved in something happening in public because they have a gun then it can put others in danger in my opinion. If I am walking down the street and I see a crime taking place if I have a gun with me then I am probably going to be more likely to try and do something because of that instant adrenaline and increased bravery due to that gun. I don't like the idea of regular people, even if a piece of paper says that they are cool, walking around with things that are meant for killing while at the same time having a false sense of bravery and justification to get involved in something because of that gun. I'm fine with guns in houses, to a limit of course, but not out in public unless they are trained police. That's just my opinion and what I wish could be more than an opinion.

Well that is the mentality of the, so called, compassionate left. If you see a crime being commited (rape, murder, etc) you would rather walk away that try to help. And you guys call us hard hearted? Let me ask you, put yourself in the victim's shoes. Would you want someone to watch you being raped or murdered and just say "well, i don't want to get involved, so she's on her own."
you should read about the Kitty Genovese murder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese.
She was murdered outside of her home while 38 eye-witnesses did nothing. Where were the police then, Chloe? Might she have stood a chance if she had been armed? It was attitudes like yours that led to her death. The "I don't want to get involved." attitude so common in liberals. Chloe, I thought you were better than that, but, obviuosly, you have the liberal disease in full force.
Again, i hope to God that you are never in that situation. If you are, I hope there is someone around that is not liberal and will attempt to help you. I know, I would give my life to help someone in that situation. Armed or not.

Chloe
01-27-2013, 07:48 PM
Well that is the mentality of the, so called, compassionate left. If you see a crime being commited (rape, murder, etc) you would rather walk away that try to help. And you guys call us hard hearted? Let me ask you, put yourself in the victim's shoes. Would you want someone to watch you being raped or murdered and just say "well, i don't want to get involved, so she's on her own."
you should read about the Kitty Genovese murder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Kitty_Genovese.
She was murdered outside of her home while 38 eye-witnesses did nothing. Where were the police then, Chloe? Might she have stood a chance if she had been armed? It was attitudes like yours that led to her death. The "I don't want to get involved." attitude so common in liberals. Chloe, I thought you were better than that, but, obviuosly, you have the liberal disease in full force.
Again, i hope to God that you are never in that situation. If you are, I hope there is someone around that is not liberal and will attempt to help you. I know, I would give my life to help someone in that situation. Armed or not.

That's not very fair. I never said that i wouldn't try to help someone that needed help. If I saw someone getting raped or something like that then I wouldn't just walk away and so that she is on her own. All I was trying to say was that when someone has a gun in public then they are more likely to get involved in something.

zelmo1234
01-27-2013, 07:49 PM
You are correct again that people tend to be more brave when they have a gun, but this is also true of a criminal mindset

Here is a little article from some police chiefs

http://www.pjstar.com/news/x1730895291/Police-say-concealed-carry-law-would-deter-criminals

Now also understand that people that concel carry are held to a higher standard, and can be prosicuted for federal and state firearm infractions much more easily. I do not know if their are pthers that concel carry on this forum or not, but it is a bit of a burden. you have to be aware of your surroundings at all times. walk into a store or business that has a no weapons sign posted and you have just comitted a felony.

But the truth is there are people that will run toward danger 100% of the time weather they are armed or not, and there are people that will run away from danger 100% of the time. the ones that will go to help putting themselves in harms way, will train and be of use when the arrive on the seen, those that will run, never will bare the burder, becasue fear is part of their nature.

Thise in the center are the ones that can be a problem. And I wish that we did have some stronger training for those that wish to carry concealed. but if you look at the actual prosicutions of those that have permits to carry, they are very, very small suggesting that this group are largely very responsible people.

By the way, most of your police force is not trained to be able to help in an actie shooter situation, they wing it just like the private citizen.

Agravan
01-27-2013, 07:50 PM
I understand your first point but do you have to keep calling me indoctrinated and that my opinion is propaganda just because my opinion isn't as pro-gun as you? I get it that my view on this falls in line with a lot of what people consider to be far left stuff, but that doesn't mean that I can't freely agree with certain parts of both sides of the argument. I don't want to abolish the 2nd amendment, I don't want to go door to door getting guns, I don't want people to be defenseless at home or anything like that, I just want it to be harder to own and carry such a dangerous thing in public and to keep certain guns only in the hands of the military that would actually need them for the defense of our country.
I'm sorry if I offend you by pointing out that your talking points are, in fact, propaganda nd have no basis in actual fact. They are points that are continously brought up by the far left ans they are the points being pushed on students in the educational system. Therefore, they are being indoctrinated into our children. look up the meaning of indoctrination, Chloe. you have been told many times what the purpose and meaning of the 2nd Amendment are, but you keep repeating your talking points. You have every right to your opinions, and you have every right to try to sway us to your side. But that works both ways. Your opninions are not more valid than ours because you, and the rest of the liberal left, disagree. If you wish to cease this discussion with my, just let me know and 'i will drop the subject.

pjohns
01-27-2013, 07:51 PM
I think that being able to buy and own a gun should be a difficult thing to do due to the dangers involved with weapons.

The Founders evidently did not think it should be "difficult" to own a gun.

Please re-read the Second Amendment...

Chloe
01-27-2013, 07:54 PM
The Founders evidently did not think it should be "difficult" to own a gun.

Please re-read the Second Amendment...

So you think it should be as easy as just walking in a store and picking a gun like you would a new jacket?

zelmo1234
01-27-2013, 07:54 PM
That's not very fair. I never said that i wouldn't try to help someone that needed help. If I saw someone getting raped or something like that then I wouldn't just walk away and so that she is on her own. All I was trying to say was that when someone has a gun in public then they are more likely to get involved in something.

No if you are not armed you call 911 and run do not walk run away. if that person is intent on doing bodily harm, they will do it to you as well.

You do not yell or startl the person they might just kill the person and turn on you. this is the things that people do not take into consideration. If you are concealed and behind cover. cover a bullet will not penitrate, and you are not able to be heard you call 911 and stay on the line giveing intel to the police opperator. making sure that hey know where you are and what you are wearing.

but never as an unarmed person should you confront an armed attacker, unless you are involved in an active shooter situation then you are going to die if you do nothing so the groupd should in fact rush the shooter. hard decission to make if you mind is moving 100 miles an hour

Chloe
01-27-2013, 07:57 PM
I'm sorry if I offend you by pointing out that your talking points are, in fact, propaganda nd have no basis in actual fact. They are points that are continously brought up by the far left ans they are the points being pushed on students in the educational system. Therefore, they are being indoctrinated into our children. look up the meaning of indoctrination, Chloe. you have been told many times what the purpose and meaning of the 2nd Amendment are, but you keep repeating your talking points. You have every right to your opinions, and you have every right to try to sway us to your side. But that works both ways. Your opninions are not more valid than ours because you, and the rest of the liberal left, disagree. If you wish to cease this discussion with my, just let me know and 'i will drop the subject.

you don't need to drop the subject

Morningstar
01-27-2013, 08:05 PM
Only caused serious harm to maybe 25 or 30 people? only? and they "seemed" bad?

Yeah, it would be a bit judgemental to say they were "bad people", but they were certainly advertising themselves as such, at the time...

Morningstar
01-27-2013, 08:06 PM
I'm sorry but I should not have to carry a gun with me while i am jogging, walking between classes, or passing by a starbucks. I understand that bad things can happen at any moment but I do not want my life to revolve around that possibility. I also do not want to, nor should I have to in my opinion, walk by person after person carrying weapons because they are afraid to walk down the street. I know you and probably everybody here thinks I am naive and sheltered and obviously I must be if everybody keeps telling me that, but I can't get it out of my head that life should not be lived in constant fear of someone else. Carrying weapons every where we go reinforces that fear in my opinion.

I am sorry about your daughter. I'm sure that was extremely scary for her.

No one is saying that you have to carry a gun.

Morningstar
01-27-2013, 08:07 PM
While I am not for the average citizens owing true weapons of war like Tanks and Jet Fighters, and Nucs.

the founding fathers would ahve wanted the public to have ways of defending themselves from these weapons of war.

Many that oppose personel gun ownership trye and tell the people that the Second amendment is for hunting and home defense?

It is a false statment and they are uninformed at best, but most likely lying through their teeth to promote an agenda.

The truth is the founding fathers would be scared to death of how powerful the federal govenrment has become, and how the states have lost much of what they once had in the form of rights

The second amendment was designed so the people could throw off an opressive government, and unfortunatly if the politicians are not very carful this may be tested in our lifetime! there are those in Washington that favor an all powerful governement, and few in washington that oppose it!

This is coming in contrast to the will of the people in the country. So it is this, that has people standing in line at the guns stores to purchase weapons and ammunition! lst us hope that they heed the warning and tread softly as we reform our governemnt once again!

Who can afford a tank? Or a nuke?!?

Chloe
01-27-2013, 08:08 PM
No one is saying that you have to carry a gun.

I know, what I am saying is that I (everyone really) shouldn't have to carry a gun in order to be safe or feel safe. If our society is so crappy that we need more and more guns to keep criminals away from us while out in public then something is very wrong with this country and guns are not the actual answer to that problem.

pjohns
01-27-2013, 08:09 PM
So you think it should be as easy as just walking in a store and picking a gun like you would a new jacket?

I think it should be no more difficult than the Founders intended it to be...

Morningstar
01-27-2013, 08:10 PM
The thing is though, and I don't know if this is going to make sense outside of my head, that when someone has a gun there is this instant decrease in their level of fear, and if someone is less afraid to get involved in something happening in public because they have a gun then it can put others in danger in my opinion. If I am walking down the street and I see a crime taking place if I have a gun with me then I am probably going to be more likely to try and do something because of that instant adrenaline and increased bravery due to that gun. I don't like the idea of regular people, even if a piece of paper says that they are cool, walking around with things that are meant for killing while at the same time having a false sense of bravery and justification to get involved in something because of that gun. I'm fine with guns in houses, to a limit of course, but not out in public unless they are trained police. That's just my opinion and what I wish could be more than an opinion.

You're wrong. Totally wrong.

When I carry a gun, I am far less likely to get involved in bullshit. Because my level of responsibility is so much higher.

You can't go around streetfighting when you are carrying a firearm. It doesn't work that way.

Chloe
01-27-2013, 08:10 PM
I think it should be no more difficult than the Founders intended it to be...

What does that mean to you though? I am giving my opinions openly and honestly on here and getting my ass kicked. I think you can also give your actual opinion as well.

Morningstar
01-27-2013, 08:12 PM
I know, what I am saying is that I (everyone really) shouldn't have to carry a gun in order to be safe or feel safe. If our society is so crappy that we need more and more guns to keep criminals away from us while out in public then something is very wrong with this country and guns are not the actual answer to that problem.

Oh? Then what is the answer?

zelmo1234
01-27-2013, 08:14 PM
What does that mean to you though? I am giving my opinions openly and honestly on here and getting my ass kicked. I think you can also give your actual opinion as well.

did I mention that I am proud of you for standing up for what you beleive!

Trinnity
01-27-2013, 08:15 PM
As will the police and the militaryWhen seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Why worry?

I think Detroit, Chicago, and Philly should be declared gun free zones. That'll fix it. It's so simple, a moron can see it.

Chloe
01-27-2013, 08:19 PM
Oh? Then what is the answer?

I don't know. But I do know that more weapons certainly is not the answer to our problems when it comes to violence, crime, bigotry, hate, and all of the other stuff that hurts our society. Violence against violence equals violence. If regular people walk around with guns then criminals certainly will continue to do the same thing as well, and that just means that the guns will get bigger, more violent, and more prevalent as time goes on in my opinion.

Pete7469
01-27-2013, 08:38 PM
I don't know. But I do know that more weapons certainly is not the answer to our problems when it comes to violence, crime, bigotry, hate, and all of the other stuff that hurts our society. Violence against violence equals violence. If regular people walk around with guns then criminals certainly will continue to do the same thing as well, and that just means that the guns will get bigger, more violent, and more prevalent as time goes on in my opinion.

I'm glad you acknowledge that you're getting your ass kicked in this arguement. The next step is to accept the possibility you're wrong, and use the information you've recieved to argue against other moonbats and see how easily they're crushed. You'll quickly see very close friends and mentors turn on you simply for questioning the dogma. That's how I escaped liberalism.

Your equation is wrong too. Violence Vs. Violence equals THE END of the violence. Regardless of the righteousness of the two parties in the conflict, once it escalates to the use of lethal force it's quickly over. My only experiences with the use of force in the US ended with the mere display of my weapon, and the drug addicted idiot's understanding that they would likely not survive unless they moved on.

If good people with guns on the street outnumber the bad people on the street, they'll prey on each other rather than risk dying over a rape or mugging.

I hope you're aware that Phoenix AZ is one of the kidnapping capitals of the world. Illegal immigrants are usually the victims, because they're... wait for it... DISARMED!!! When we have international criminal syndicates coming out of war torn Central and South American countries who are only kept in check by the weaponry held by the LAC, I'm glad your oppinons are held by a minority.

Though I do hope you can be pursueded to join the rest of us in reality.

roadmaster
01-27-2013, 08:44 PM
We older ones can look back and see just how much the world has changed. When people told us things would never happen it did even in our time. Are they wanting a full ban on guns, yes. They will do it little by little just like they did other things. Just like back then it seemed harmless and for the good of the people but it wasn't. If you are against them then they will tell you that your reasons are unheard of and without merit. They run on emotions and hope you don't see the big picture.

Morningstar
01-27-2013, 08:46 PM
I don't know. But I do know that more weapons certainly is not the answer to our problems when it comes to violence, crime, bigotry, hate, and all of the other stuff that hurts our society. Violence against violence equals violence. If regular people walk around with guns then criminals certainly will continue to do the same thing as well, and that just means that the guns will get bigger, more violent, and more prevalent as time goes on in my opinion.

If that were true, then why has there never been a nuclear war?

The only time nuclear weapons were ever used was when only one side had them...

pjohns
01-27-2013, 08:55 PM
What does that mean to you though? I am giving my opinions openly and honestly on here and getting my ass kicked. I think you can also give your actual opinion as well.

I did give my opinion.

To reiterate: It is my opinion that firearms should be no more difficult for the average American to obtain than the Founders intended for them to be.

And I have no knowledge of the Founders' attempting to restrict the availability of firearms to the citizenry.

Do you have any knowledge to the contrary?

zelmo1234
01-27-2013, 08:56 PM
I don't know. But I do know that more weapons certainly is not the answer to our problems when it comes to violence, crime, bigotry, hate, and all of the other stuff that hurts our society. Violence against violence equals violence. If regular people walk around with guns then criminals certainly will continue to do the same thing as well, and that just means that the guns will get bigger, more violent, and more prevalent as time goes on in my opinion.

The reason that you are using works if you start from a position that all people are good

When you factore into account that some people are evil then it does not work so well.

The criminals will infact excalate faster if there is not resistance, but good people can't believe a heart can be so evil

This is the problem with rational thought, Some are not rational

Morningstar
01-27-2013, 08:57 PM
Peace through strength.

Chloe
01-27-2013, 09:00 PM
I'm glad you acknowledge that you're getting your ass kicked in this arguement. The next step is to accept the possibility you're wrong, and use the information you've recieved to argue against other moonbats and see how easily they're crushed. You'll quickly see very close friends and mentors turn on you simply for questioning the dogma. That's how I escaped liberalism.

Your equation is wrong too. Violence Vs. Violence equals THE END of the violence. Regardless of the righteousness of the two parties in the conflict, once it escalates to the use of lethal force it's quickly over. My only experiences with the use of force in the US ended with the mere display of my weapon, and the drug addicted idiot's understanding that they would likely not survive unless they moved on.

If good people with guns on the street outnumber the bad people on the street, they'll prey on each other rather than risk dying over a rape or mugging.

I hope you're aware that Phoenix AZ is one of the kidnapping capitals of the world. Illegal immigrants are usually the victims, because they're... wait for it... DISARMED!!! When we have international criminal syndicates coming out of war torn Central and South American countries who are only kept in check by the weaponry held by the LAC, I'm glad your oppinons are held by a minority.

Though I do hope you can be pursueded to join the rest of us in reality.

I didn't say I was losing the argument I just said I was getting my assed kicked :wink:. It's like five vs one.

Chloe
01-27-2013, 09:01 PM
I did give my opinion.

To reiterate: It is my opinion that firearms should be no more difficult for the average American to obtain than the Founders intended for them to be.

And I have no knowledge of the Founders' attempting to restrict the availability of firearms to the citizenry.

Do you have any knowledge to the contrary?

So you believe that a person should be able to walk into a store, pick a gun off the rack like they would a new jacket, pay, and walk out with it same day? No restrictions at all because a sentence written in the 1700's doesn't mention it?

Chloe
01-27-2013, 09:05 PM
The reason that you are using works if you start from a position that all people are good

When you factore into account that some people are evil then it does not work so well.

The criminals will infact excalate faster if there is not resistance, but good people can't believe a heart can be so evil

This is the problem with rational thought, Some are not rational

I don't disagree that I do believe that most people are inherently good, but I do also understand that there is also evil in the world and that it can be taken out on good people.

Pete7469
01-27-2013, 09:08 PM
I didn't say I was losing the argument I just said I was getting my assed kicked :wink:. It's like five vs one.

Yet you're stubbornly refusing to consider you're wrong, and don't have the ability to argue with the rest of the post. That means you lost the arguement.

Chloe
01-27-2013, 09:09 PM
Yet you're stubbornly refusing to consider you're wrong, and don't have the ability to argue with the rest of the post. That means you lost the arguement.

I was just trying to make a joke. It's been pretty serious the last few pages. I'll respond to what you said I promise.

Chloe
01-27-2013, 09:28 PM
I'm glad you acknowledge that you're getting your ass kicked in this arguement. The next step is to accept the possibility you're wrong, and use the information you've recieved to argue against other moonbats and see how easily they're crushed. You'll quickly see very close friends and mentors turn on you simply for questioning the dogma. That's how I escaped liberalism.

Your equation is wrong too. Violence Vs. Violence equals THE END of the violence. Regardless of the righteousness of the two parties in the conflict, once it escalates to the use of lethal force it's quickly over. My only experiences with the use of force in the US ended with the mere display of my weapon, and the drug addicted idiot's understanding that they would likely not survive unless they moved on.

If good people with guns on the street outnumber the bad people on the street, they'll prey on each other rather than risk dying over a rape or mugging.

I hope you're aware that Phoenix AZ is one of the kidnapping capitals of the world. Illegal immigrants are usually the victims, because they're... wait for it... DISARMED!!! When we have international criminal syndicates coming out of war torn Central and South American countries who are only kept in check by the weaponry held by the LAC, I'm glad your oppinons are held by a minority.

Though I do hope you can be pursueded to join the rest of us in reality.

Yes I am getting my ass kicked. I am getting my ass kicked because my opinion is unpopular and there are more of you than there are of me on here talking about this topic. I do accept the possibility that I could be wrong, however, I don't believe that I am wrong just because my opinion is not popular with you all or that I am not swayed by some of you by making me feel guilty for having a very liberal opinion on guns. I'm obviously not a conservative. I think if you look at most of my comments and opinions on here they aren't very conservative in any real way, so it shouldn't be a surprise that i'm not just going to float with the wind and change my mind in one afternoon on a topic that I have been pretty passionate about since I was a freshman in high school. You guys need to be a little more fair to me I think. I am not criticizing any of you for not changing your minds over to my view. I am just giving my opinion in the way that I see it. I don't disagree with everything that you all are saying and I've even acknowledged that from time to time, but it seems like you all want me to abandon some of my strong beliefs and just cross over, but yet you guys aren't really trying that hard to see my point of view in return. I doubt you, or others, will agree with that, and you'll just think that I am whining, but it's just my opinion.

Moving on though...

I don't believe that more good people with guns will make any real impact. Right now if you walk down the street there is no way of knowing who has a gun and who is a good person. The assumption is that with more good people out and about with guns then the criminals will be scared to do crime, however, unless you walk around yelling that you are a good person and showing off your gun a criminal will still commit crimes until confronted in my opinion.

You mentioned that illegal immigrants are being kidnapped because they are unarmed. Are you saying then that you want illegal immigrants armed in this country? You don't want them to have drivers licenses, jobs, healthcare or anything like that, but let them be armed so it can justify the right to carry????

Peter1469
01-27-2013, 09:43 PM
Who can afford a tank? Or a nuke?!?

You can't use the 2nd Amendment as an argument for owning an armed tank or nuke. That is silly.

The 2nd Amendment did not make any changes to the then existing Militia Acts.

This stuff isn't hard, if you know history.

Morningstar
01-27-2013, 09:49 PM
You can't use the 2nd Amendment as an argument for owning an armed tank or nuke. That is silly.

The 2nd Amendment did not make any changes to the then existing Militia Acts.

This stuff isn't hard, if you know history.

I wasn't using the 2nd. I was stating what I believe.

zelmo1234
01-27-2013, 09:56 PM
Yes I am getting my ass kicked. I am getting my ass kicked because my opinion is unpopular and there are more of you than there are of me on here talking about this topic. I do accept the possibility that I could be wrong, however, I don't believe that I am wrong just because my opinion is not popular with you all or that I am not swayed by some of you by making me feel guilty for having a very liberal opinion on guns. I'm obviously not a conservative. I think if you look at most of my comments and opinions on here they aren't very conservative in any real way, so it shouldn't be a surprise that i'm not just going to float with the wind and change my mind in one afternoon on a topic that I have been pretty passionate about since I was a freshman in high school. You guys need to be a little more fair to me I think. I am not criticizing any of you for not changing your minds over to my view. I am just giving my opinion in the way that I see it. I don't disagree with everything that you all are saying and I've even acknowledged that from time to time, but it seems like you all want me to abandon some of my strong beliefs and just cross over, but yet you guys aren't really trying that hard to see my point of view in return. I doubt you, or others, will agree with that, and you'll just think that I am whining, but it's just my opinion.

Moving on though...

I don't believe that more good people with guns will make any real impact. Right now if you walk down the street there is no way of knowing who has a gun and who is a good person. The assumption is that with more good people out and about with guns then the criminals will be scared to do crime, however, unless you walk around yelling that you are a good person and showing off your gun a criminal will still commit crimes until confronted in my opinion.

You mentioned that illegal immigrants are being kidnapped because they are unarmed. Are you saying then that you want illegal immigrants armed in this country? You don't want them to have drivers licenses, jobs, healthcare or anything like that, but let them be armed so it can justify the right to carry????

You actually make a very good point here when you are walking down the street you do not know who has a gun and who does not, and which person is good and which is not! This is the idea behind conceal carry!

And I certian do see your point of view, it is very logical, and seem like there is no possible way that it could fail!

If you take guns off the street it should be safer for everyone. And I have no doubt that you are a compassionate person that would not want to see anyone hurt.

But Conceal carry uses the 80 - 10-10 rule.

10% of the people are honest. they can find $100.00 on a trail in the middle fo nowhere, and they will take it to the local police station and turn it in, even if they have no money and bills to pay.

10% of the people are dishonext and they will steal, kill, and take advantage of their fellow man no matter what you do!

The you have the 80% in the middle that will be honest most of the time if they feel that there is a chance of being caught

Conceal Carry uses this to keep 90% the 10% that would be honet no matter what and the 80% that will be honest if they are being watched from comitting violent crime. And then it seeks to stop some of the 10% by the use of force.

However this defies logic and reasoning, because it puts more guns and more bullets into the public sector, but it puts doubt into the criminal mind. If he or she is going to rob a store, they have to worry that not only the store owner is armed, but any or all of the customers could be armed as well.

while it seems that there would be more violence, and yet the places that have it are usually less violent?

So you have to ask yourself if you want less violence, or fewer guns? which does not mean that you have to loose your argument.

Now if you detirmine that you want less violence, then you can make logical choices.

First you can say that everyone that buys a gun should have a background check, this is logical and will reduce some bad people from getting guns the easy way.

Next you can say that if a person desires to carry a gun they should go through a more intensive background check and they shoudl have a reasonable amount of training so they could be useful and not dangerous in a crisis situation.

And then you could make it so those that own firearms get some training on safe storage and care, including keeping guns away from children, and inact some laws that incourage owners to be safe and sucure with the firearms tha tthey purchase. You might even suggest that since we have a gun culture, we teach everyone gun safty, so there are less and less accidential shootings and more respect for firearms?

This is standing for others rights and then trying to change behaviors?

So it is really not 5 against one, more like 4.5 vs 1.5

Peter1469
01-27-2013, 10:02 PM
I wasn't using the 2nd. I was stating what I believe.

At the time of our Founding, and after, crew served weapons were not owned by individuals.

roadmaster
01-27-2013, 10:03 PM
I don't believe that more good people with guns will make any real impact. It has in the south. Most know that farms have guns locked loaded and ready if they should try to enter to harm or steal something. Did they shoot the person, no. Just shooting up in the air will get most running. Many guns are not registered and that's a known fact, from the mafia taking off the serial numbers to the many that are stolen or illegal. The truth is even with the legal guns they can transform them into illegal ones that will hold a clip.

Morningstar
01-27-2013, 10:05 PM
At the time of our Founding, and after, crew served weapons were not owned by individuals.

I don't care. I believe that if people that work for me can own a weapon that I pay for, then I can certainly own the same.

Peter1469
01-27-2013, 10:07 PM
I don't care. I believe that if people that work for me can own a weapon that I pay for, then I can certainly own the same.

OK. But the 2nd Amendment does not allow you to own an armed M1 tank or an F-16.

Chloe
01-27-2013, 10:11 PM
OK. But the 2nd Amendment does not allow you to own an armed M1 tank or an F-16.

He doesn't care about the 2nd amendment though. His motto is "speak softly, show compassion, and have the will to kill, immediately." If a tank can kill immediately then that's what will have to be

zelmo1234
01-27-2013, 10:12 PM
He doesn't care about the 2nd amendment though. His motto is "speak softly, show compassion, and have the will to kill, immediately." If a tank can kill immediately then that's what will have to be

using a persons own words against them, nice touch!

Chloe
01-27-2013, 10:17 PM
using a persons own words against them, nice touch!

Thanks. He flat out says he doesn't care about the 2nd amendment and thinks it's ok to own a tank, yet I get beat up for disagreeing with someones ability to wear a gun in a coffee shop. :dontknow:

pjohns
01-27-2013, 10:39 PM
So you believe that a person should be able to walk into a store, pick a gun off the rack like they would a new jacket, pay, and walk out with it same day? No restrictions at all because a sentence written in the 1700's doesn't mention it?

I believe the US Constitution is inviolable--regardless of when it was written--unless it is either (1) altered by way of constitutional amendment (which has happened some 27 times--including passage of the Second Amendment); or (2) changed by way of a second constitutional convention (which has never yet been attempted).

No exceptions.

Chloe
01-27-2013, 10:41 PM
I believe the US Constitution is inviolable--regardless of when it was written--unless it is either (1) altered by way of constitutional amendment (which has happened some 27 times--including passage of the Second Amendment); or (2) changed by way of a second constitutional convention (which has never yet been attempted).

No exceptions.

Ok so then that is a yes to both of my questions?

RightWingExtremist
01-27-2013, 10:59 PM
OK. But the 2nd Amendment does not allow you to own an armed M1 tank or an F-16.

Because neither one of them had been invented yet. Still if it isn't in there, it's probably safe you shouldn't own one.

RightWingExtremist
01-27-2013, 11:02 PM
So you believe that a person should be able to walk into a store, pick a gun off the rack like they would a new jacket, pay, and walk out with it same day? No restrictions at all because a sentence written in the 1700's doesn't mention it?

I think it would be unreasonable to allow gun ownership without some type of restrictions. The founders intended the Constitution to be Amended, not to be taken as is. To say otherwise is to be irrational.

ptif219
01-27-2013, 11:06 PM
I don't want to take away your rights.

I didn't address it because I don't agree with going door to door to take guns away from people, I didn't vote for president Obama, and I am not a registered democrat.

Yet you are defending the democrats trampling the second amendment instead of addressing the problem of the mental health problem types doing this. look at the facts the recent massacres happened by mentally disabled or those on psychiatric drugs or in care of the mental health community. Guns and magazines are not the problem but people and society is. Notice nothing is being said about the war zone in Chicago

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/01/27/at-least-5-die-in-shootings-on-bloody-chicago-day/

RightWingExtremist
01-27-2013, 11:32 PM
Yet you are defending the democrats trampling the second amendment instead of addressing the problem of the mental health problem types doing this. look at the facts the recent massacres happened by mentally disabled or those on psychiatric drugs or in care of the mental health community. Guns and magazines are not the problem but people and society is. Notice nothing is being said about the war zone in Chicago

Whoa there pardner!

Advocating some type of restriction is not defending what the far left is doing. But then again, what criminal obeys these restrictions? Still an effort must be made.

Pete7469
01-27-2013, 11:55 PM
Yes I am getting my ass kicked. I am getting my ass kicked because my opinion is unpopular and there are more of you than there are of me on here talking about this topic.

It's not about popularity or numbers, it's about right vs. wrong my dear young lass...

I do accept the possibility that I could be wrong, however, I don't believe that I am wrong just because my opinion is not popular with you all or that I am not swayed by some of you by making me feel guilty for having a very liberal opinion on guns.

That's a good start, but the issue isn't about you having a "liberal" opinion on guns. We're hoping you develop and EDUCATED opinion on guns.

I'm obviously not a conservative. I think if you look at most of my comments and opinions on here they aren't very conservative in any real way, so it shouldn't be a surprise that i'm not just going to float with the wind and change my mind in one afternoon on a topic that I have been pretty passionate about since I was a freshman in high school.

You don't need to be a conservative to have a more positive attitude towards gun ownership. Lots of liberals out there are scared to death that us conservatives will become the dominant political party and come along to purge them. (In spite of the fact that every great political mass murder was done by leftists) There are also plenty of liberals who carry for defense against criminals, and enjoy the recreational shooting sports, some of which I participate in and we use "assualt weapons" during these endeavors.

You guys need to be a little more fair to me I think. I am not criticizing any of you for not changing your minds over to my view. I am just giving my opinion in the way that I see it.

You're entitled to that opinion, please don't take my criticism personally. I just question whether or not you're actually sitting back and mulling over these counter arguements and would be willing to at least experimentally argue as a devils advocate with people who share your "liberal" stance on guns.

I don't disagree with everything that you all are saying and I've even acknowledged that from time to time, but it seems like you all want me to abandon some of my strong beliefs and just cross over, but yet you guys aren't really trying that hard to see my point of view in return. I doubt you, or others, will agree with that, and you'll just think that I am whining, but it's just my opinion.

If I thought you were just whining I'd tell you to get some tissue and STFU. I was a liberal at your age myself. I had your point of view. I still have some "liberal" points of view. I don't think of them as "liberal" anymore because liberals have hijacked the term.

Moving on though...

I don't believe that more good people with guns will make any real impact. Right now if you walk down the street there is no way of knowing who has a gun and who is a good person. The assumption is that with more good people out and about with guns then the criminals will be scared to do crime, however, unless you walk around yelling that you are a good person and showing off your gun a criminal will still commit crimes until confronted in my opinion.

That's funny to me. When I'm in a public place such as a mall I'm constantly obeserving people. I can tell who's likely to be carrying, and who's obviously carrying. I can tell who's oblivious to their surroundings, and I can tell who's scanning the surroundings as I am. I can just as easily profile potential criminals as a LEO because I've done the training. The criminals do the same profiling themselves. They see vulnerable people, follow them, and if no one seems to be around that can thawrt their agenda they attack. It might just be reaching into an open purse, or following them into a parking lot and mugging them.


You mentioned that illegal immigrants are being kidnapped because they are unarmed. Are you saying then that you want illegal immigrants armed in this country? You don't want them to have drivers licenses, jobs, healthcare or anything like that, but let them be armed so it can justify the right to carry????

Yes, I am saying even illegal immigrants should be allowed to defend themselves. The rest of that arguement is a non sequiter.

Pete7469
01-28-2013, 12:07 AM
OK. But the 2nd Amendment does not allow you to own an armed M1 tank or an F-16.

Not to be a wiseass, but a devil's advocate... What prevents an individual fro owning an F16 or an M1?

Morningstar
01-28-2013, 05:38 AM
You can't use the 2nd Amendment as an argument for owning an armed tank or nuke. That is silly.

The 2nd Amendment did not make any changes to the then existing Militia Acts.

This stuff isn't hard, if you know history.

I wouldn't mind hearing more about this.

For instance, weren't there privately owned cannons at that time?

There were definitely privately owned warships.

Peter1469
01-28-2013, 06:00 AM
Not to be a wiseass, but a devil's advocate... What prevents an individual fro owning an F16 or an M1?

Talking about armed; the 2nd Amendment.

If they are de-miled, no problem.

Peter1469
01-28-2013, 06:07 AM
I wouldn't mind hearing more about this.

For instance, weren't there privately owned cannons at that time?

There were definitely privately owned warships.

Read the militia acts of the colonies and later the states. The second amendment didn't change them.

Abled bodied males (generally 15-45) were required to own and maintain the common infantry weapons of the day along with ammo. Villages and towns were required to maintain and store cannons and ammo.

That is the context that the 2nd Amendment was written in.

patrickt
01-28-2013, 07:33 AM
Make sure as the deadline aproaches that these groups know that the rest of the countries gun owners stand behind them.

It should be a warning shot for the federal government that the people have had enough, especially with the liberal DC court saying that Obama violated the constitutions with his labor Board none recess appointments.

And So it Begins!

On three separate occasions I got attorneys and fought with my employer. On every occasion the other employees loudly cheered me and said they were being me...in private. Publicly, they didn't want to be seen talking to me. The shit I was in might rub off on them. When I eventually got fired I got a lot of phone calls of support but when I walked into the building no one would say hello. I sued and won but that didn't matter.

After I went back to work, a man who worked for me said, "We need to go to lunch, Pat." "I don't think so. When I was out the door you'd walk around the block to avoid me. I don't see what's changed except we have to work together."

So, those people standing behind you, just remember, they're waaaaay behind you. When you choose to stand up, you're on your own.

ptif219
01-28-2013, 10:29 AM
I know, what I am saying is that I (everyone really) shouldn't have to carry a gun in order to be safe or feel safe. If our society is so crappy that we need more and more guns to keep criminals away from us while out in public then something is very wrong with this country and guns are not the actual answer to that problem.

Taking away guns will make it worse. I have a carry and conceal license and carried to chuch and in the grocery store yesterday

ptif219
01-28-2013, 10:31 AM
When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Why worry?

I think Detroit, Chicago, and Philly should be declared gun free zones. That'll fix it. It's so simple, a moron can see it.

Even law enforcement wants us to be able to defend ourselves

http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/sheriff-clarke-urges-residents-to-arm-themselves-with-guns-o38h47h-188375091.html

ptif219
01-28-2013, 10:34 AM
Whoa there pardner!

Advocating some type of restriction is not defending what the far left is doing. But then again, what criminal obeys these restrictions? Still an effort must be made.

The problem is mental health not guns or legal citizens. As always the democrats do the wrong thing and ignore the real problem

Pete7469
01-28-2013, 11:35 AM
Talking about armed; the 2nd Amendment.

If they are de-miled, no problem.

OK, but where is it written in law that owning fully functional tanks and aircraft isn't legal? I happen to know there are private compaies that own some pretty heavy stuff.

Peter1469
01-28-2013, 02:14 PM
OK, but where is it written in law that owning fully functional tanks and aircraft isn't legal? I happen to know there are private compaies that own some pretty heavy stuff.

It is not written. Our Constitution is 4 pages long because it is not a micro-management document. I also know companies that own Soviet military aircraft (really everything).

We are talking about the 2nd Amendment and what weapons the Founders' intended individuals own.

pjohns
01-28-2013, 05:16 PM
Ok so then that is a yes to both of my questions?


I don't think I was at all ambiguous.

So I am confident that you can figure it out...

pjohns
01-28-2013, 05:19 PM
The founders intended the Constitution to be Amended...

The operative word here is "amended."

That means altered by way of constitutional amendment--not changed by mere legislation...

Chloe
01-28-2013, 06:28 PM
I don't think I was at all ambiguous.

So I am confident that you can figure it out...

I still don't understand why you just can't use plain words and say yes or no, but fine.