http://medical-technologists.org/articles/gunfreemyth.pdf
The article above is an excellent study done contrasting schools where firearms can be caarried by licensed individuals to schools where firearms carry is not permitted. It would seem to suggest as I have strongly believed for many years that gun control is a failure that by disarming individuals who are legal to carry publicly in other places is equivalent to placing a giant bullseye on public schools.
Yeah, I used that article in my stupid Speech class a while back. It really shuts them up.
Nowadays, they're big on "campus lockdown", though.
"Oh no! An armed assailant raping girls walking to their cars! Better institute the mighty campus lockdown!"
Still... being a war vet, I'm kinda afraid of myself with a handgun. Even had to sell my shotgun and quit my weekends at the skeet range.
Escalation is so.. easy.
I just want my school to allow tasers.
I'm not against guns, I just think no one but a soldier or law enforcement officer should be allowed to have a concealable one (handgun), or carry one in public. Why should soldiers and cops have to wonder whether a handgun is legal or not? If they're all illegal, then anyone who has one is a criminal.
That study, if you look at the first footnote, is hardly objective. It was done by "David Kopel" the "Research Director of the Independence Institute." Hmmm... doesn't sound unbiased to me... He was "an Assistant Attorney General for the [conservative] State of Colorado," and the author of "Gun Control and Gun Rights." He also repeatedly quotes his own articles and books, which most researchers consider gauche at best. He goes so far as to use Antonin Scalia as an example. You have to be kidding me... That's like quoting a priest on the "truth" of the bible. Just to point this out objectively - you're a progun guy, reading an article by a progun guy, who quotes HIMSELF, and another progun guy. That equates to a circle jerk as far as I'm concerned. Who's got the bread right now?
I prefer to point out that the per capita murder rate in some cities in Canada is drastically lower than than in US towns less than 30 miles away. The difference - gun control. That's pretty objective.
Heard of Switzerland? One of the lowest crime rates in the WORLD and they f%$king issue every household a weapon :cookoo:
Perhaps you can't read (don't worry illiterate morons can do great things, we have one as President), but the forefathers thought so much of the right to carry that it's not granted by the constitution. The right to carry in the US is an axiom. Nothing states we have that right, it's accepted as a self-evident right in itself. The second amendment merely protects us from idiots like Holder by stating that the government doesn't have the right to infringe upon this SELF EVIDENT right.
You like Canada so much, f%$king move there.
Quote from: spc on April 07, 2009, 08:24:35 AM
Heard of Switzerland? One of the lowest crime rates in the WORLD and they f%$king issue every household a weapon :cookoo:
A rifle, not a handgun. I have no problems with rifles. Neither did the founding fathers, as handguns back then were big, bulky, one shot, inaccurate jobs.
Quote from: spc on April 07, 2009, 08:24:35 AM
Perhaps you can't read (don't worry illiterate morons can do great things, we have one as President), but the forefathers thought so much of the right to carry that it's not granted by the constitution. The right to carry in the US is an axiom. Nothing states we have that right, it's accepted as a self-evident right in itself. The second amendment merely protects us from idiots like Holder by stating that the government doesn't have the right to infringe upon this SELF EVIDENT right.
I carry a copy of the Constitution in my car door, bub. I have two on the desk in front of me. You're just incorrect... or can't read.
Quote from: spc on April 07, 2009, 08:24:35 AM
You like Canada so much, f%$king move there.
You like Switzerland so much? Bye...
:technical:
The study is the affects of banning guns from school campuses. It's also as unbiased as your likely to find because the guy isn't pushing his agenda. Seriously take the time to read the article, people call republicans knee jerk reactionarys this is the kind of drivel I should have expected
I live in a state where I am legally licensed to carry a firearm. I am also in public education. Your whole premise of law enforcement wondering if the person with a gun is a criminal is not is a moot point. There is required notification to law enforcement anytime contact in an official cpacity is made, it eastablishs that I have gun on my person, and that I have a permit. At which point as soon as an officer see's the permit they relax and ratchet down a step. They're dealing with someone who has passed a local state and national criminal name and fimgerprint background check, they are dealing with a law abiding citizen that does not have a criminal history. Theres no wondering about it. If it's spotted and you don't declare it here you're in a shaZam! pot of trouble.
I should have known the left couldn't stay on topic and would let their personal feelings intrude on a rational subject so carry on f%$king up a potntially good discussion lets tard this f%$king thread and you sheeple can continue to wander around with your heads inserted into your craniums.
62 pages!!! :icon_eek: Cliff notes. I'm pro gun 100% of the time but good god thats a lot to read.
Yep, Switzerland is one of the most crime free nations in the world: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita
It is right behind several countries that outlaw guns (see Ireland).
I know everyone here wants a blanket rule, like the legality of handgun ownership is always good, or gun ownership is always bad. Unfortunately, the world isn't that simple. Different regions, different population densities, and different criminal patterns mean that different gun ownership laws work in different places. What works in rural Kentucky may not work in Compton.
I'm sorry gun and anti-gun hardliners, the world isn't as simple as you'd like it to be.
Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence of crime.
There is no way that mexico has a crime rate as low as 12 per 1000.
Quote from: bombadillo on April 07, 2009, 09:27:00 AM
62 pages!!! :icon_eek: Cliff notes. I'm pro gun 100% of the time but good god thats a lot to read.
Theres part of the problem, pop culture wants single page summaries, blanket statements and buzzword driven policy. Instead of deep thoughtful detailed analysis.
Not picking on you Bombadillo just using your post to highlight an example.
Anyone ever read a book called the bell curve, pretty controversial and some even said racist if you didn't take the time to read and understand the whole book the pop culture inference that was drawn from the book was that skin color made a difference in intellect, which was completely disengenious because the standard deviation within the data sets could explain that shift in the curve the importnat point that everyone missed that was upring education and oppurtunities affected intellect.
Quote from: lawman on April 07, 2009, 09:12:23 AM
Quote from: spc on April 07, 2009, 08:24:35 AM
Heard of Switzerland? One of the lowest crime rates in the WORLD and they f%$king issue every household a weapon :cookoo:
A rifle, not a handgun. I have no problems with rifles. Neither did the founding fathers, as handguns back then were big, bulky, one shot, inaccurate jobs.
Duh! So were the Rifles AKA Muskets,Flintlocks,Catapults,Cannons,Sling Shots.ETC,ETC, I don't think they had a Problem with Dueling back then.I'm Sure they would have been Pissed if they tried to have took their Pistols so they couldn't duel.
:wink:
Quote from: bettingpython on April 07, 2009, 09:52:28 AM
Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence of crime.
There is no way that mexico has a crime rate as low as 12 per 1000.
Yep. That is why I mentioned another european city.
As a side note, I'm missing a great beach volleyball tournament in Mexico this year because of the murders going on down there.
Quote from: spc on April 07, 2009, 08:24:35 AM
Heard of Switzerland? One of the lowest crime rates in the WORLD and they f%$king issue every household a weapon :cookoo:
Perhaps you can't read (don't worry illiterate morons can do great things, we have one as President), but the forefathers thought so much of the right to carry that it's not granted by the constitution. The right to carry in the US is an axiom. Nothing states we have that right, it's accepted as a self-evident right in itself. The second amendment merely protects us from idiots like Holder by stating that the government doesn't have the right to infringe upon this SELF EVIDENT right.
You like Canada so much, f%$king move there.
It is an intersting article..I only got halfways thru it. The thread was becoming an interesting debate also
UNTIL outburst like these made me think that pro gun people are all short tempered trigger happy people. :2guns:
i just people would start killing others with bows an arrows so people see that no matter what the weapon is if a person has the intent to harm others it doesnt matter what they use. guns arent bad. guns dont kill people. people kill people. what about a person the uses a peice of rope to strangle someone should we take all rope off the shelves? should we pull all knives off the shelf because people slit someones neck? Im not trying to start a fight just pointing out if someone wants to harm someone they will find a way to do it.
Indeed tehanti gun people think they are correct, so do some of the pro gun people. teh gentleman that said only cops and soldiers. okay lets go on that tangent for a bit. say your house is getting broke into. some would say give em what they want. theyll leave you alone. many times yes. but not ALL of the time. and police arent always there as soon as you call. so what do you do? i WONT draw my service weapon/sidearm, UNLESS i will shoot someone. i dont bluff. bluffing is for fools. anyhoo flame on O0 :thumb: :police:
Here's a couple of real life incidents. These involve people who refused to be a victiim so if your sensibilities are more french in nature and you feel you should throw up the white flag and give violent criminals what they want and hope they don't harm you then these might be offensive to your sensibilities.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_156_26/ai_82533205/
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_162_27/ai_96989868/?tag=content;col1
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_147_24/ai_62655364/?tag=rbxcra.2.a.11
Quote from: bettingpython on April 07, 2009, 12:15:31 PM
Here's a couple of real life incidents. These involve people who refused to be a victiim so if your sensibilities are more french in nature and you feel you should throw up the white flag and give violent criminals what they want and hope they don't harm you then these might be offensive to your sensibilities.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_156_26/ai_82533205/
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_162_27/ai_96989868/?tag=content;col1
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0BTT/is_147_24/ai_62655364/?tag=rbxcra.2.a.11
That's called a case study. Scientists consider case studies almost irrelevant.
Quote from: seamax on April 07, 2009, 11:21:24 AM
UNTIL outburst like these made me think that pro gun people are all short tempered trigger happy people. :2guns:
Just Terry he's a bit passionate.
In each of the case studies I posted, yes lawman I know what they are and I diod not offer them as statistical eveidence either, the argument that if guns were outlawed there would never have been an icident could be used so playing devils advocate let's go wath the rolex dealer in LA.
Handguns are illegal in the entire world so or criminal doesn't have one right? Wrong our violent offenders are violent offenders are criminals they don't care abou tthe legallities of gun ownership but our shop owner does and as such winds up dead because he did not break the law. Suppose our "Law abiding" criminals attacked with ball bats or tire irons instead? How do you expect the average man to fare against multiple oponents? Again a strong case for personel ownership of firearms.
11 year old ices bad dude with knife... okay so the guy was their with the intention of stealing guns, so if guns were illegal he would not have made the attempt to rob the 45 year old grandmother. Wrong again, no one knows why he wanted the guns but most likely result would have been usage to commit a crime to get money for drugs or to sell for drugs. End result steal granny's valuables cut her throat and move on.
The last case study, big guy caps armed robber holding employees at gun point. again outlaw guns no problem if the bad guy is "law abiding"(I love that oxymoron a law abiding bad guy) then to control the siituatuion with a lesser weapon he needs to instill fear in a far more violent and fast manner, beating someones brains out with a bat iis the usual method of inspiring shock awe and fear to stun multitpel people into complying instead of overpowering the sole attacker.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. A gun is a tool like a screwdriver or a wrench. I can loosen parts on your vehicle to kill you with one of those tools too.
Quote from: bettingpython on April 07, 2009, 01:21:12 PM
In each of the case studies I posted, yes lawman I know what they are and I diod not offer them as statistical eveidence either, the argument that if guns were outlawed there would never have been an icident could be used so playing devils advocate let's go wath the rolex dealer in LA.
You want me to post all the ones where the kid shoots himself with parent's gun, or cop shoots kid thinking he has a gun, or family member shoots family member not knowing who it was? Shakespeare once said, using a lot more words, that any "fool in error" can find a passage to support his point. I'm not impressed by any of the studies you've posted. Case study or grossly biased right wing nutjob workup. Doesn't impress me.
Quote from: bettingpython on April 07, 2009, 01:21:12 PM
Handguns are illegal in the entire world so or criminal doesn't have one right? Wrong our violent offenders are violent offenders are criminals they don't care abou tthe legallities of gun ownership but our shop owner does and as such winds up dead because he did not break the law. Suppose our "Law abiding" criminals attacked with ball bats or tire irons instead? How do you expect the average man to fare against multiple oponents? Again a strong case for personel ownership of firearms.
11 year old ices bad dude with knife... okay so the guy was their with the intention of stealing guns, so if guns were illegal he would not have made the attempt to rob the 45 year old grandmother. Wrong again, no one knows why he wanted the guns but most likely result would have been usage to commit a crime to get money for drugs or to sell for drugs. End result steal granny's valuables cut her throat and move on.
The last case study, big guy caps armed robber holding employees at gun point. again outlaw guns no problem if the bad guy is "law abiding"(I love that oxymoron a law abiding bad guy) then to control the siituatuion with a lesser weapon he needs to instill fear in a far more violent and fast manner, beating someones brains out with a bat iis the usual method of inspiring shock awe and fear to stun multitpel people into complying instead of overpowering the sole attacker.
These are what's called a "strawman." You just argued a point I didn't try to make, then knocked it down, attributing it to me.
Handguns aren't illegal in the whole world. If they were, it would be a safer world. The shop owner can defend his shop with a shotgun - spread makes it easier to aim even. Why does he need a handgun? Last I checked, shotguns worked against bats and tire irons too... Seems the point I didn't make isn't even a valid point.
I don't even know what your second point is, so I clearly wasn't trying to make it. Why can't granny use a shotgun? Or a rifle?
Third point: Why can't bank security use a shotgun? Or a rifle?
I don't dislike guns, I dislike handguns. Any more strawmen you want to use to show how great the arguments I'm not making aren't? How about aliens? Aliens can't be hurt by shotguns or rifles. We must have handguns to fend off the aliens!!! MORE HANDGUNS!!!
Quote from: bettingpython on April 07, 2009, 01:21:12 PM
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. A gun is a tool like a screwdriver or a wrench. I can loosen parts on your vehicle to kill you with one of those tools too.
If guns are just tools, why do you need them? Why are you spending your entire afternoon arguing points I'm not making to try to show everyone how smart you are to support handguns? I'll trade you an entire craftsman screwdriver set for each of your handguns if they're the same thing. You want handguns because they are portable, lethal, and cheap. That's the same reason a criminal wants them. If I take away just the portable aspect, it becomes a lot harder to use a gun nefariously.
Cheap, you've apparently never heard of H&K.
I think the "just a tool" argument is kind of a copout. A grenade is a tool. A nuclear bomb is a tool. A rocket launcher is a tool. Sarin gas is a tool. Anthrax is a tool.
These things are all weapons. A weapon is a tool meant to kill or maim. As such, it is wise to regulate them differently than one regulates allen wrenches. In areas where a tool is overwhelmingly used to kill animals, great. In areas where that tool is overwhelmingly used to kill people, I have no problems with heavy restrictions on that tool.
a well trained martial artist can kill you with no "tools" except his bare hands. should we cut off everyone's hands too? come on, lets be serious. i can take the largest, most powerful firearm in the world, load said firearm, turn safety off on said firearm and lay it down on my coffee table and it won't harm a soul until said firearm is picked up and the trigger is pulled. i promise. we aren't going to get all the guns off the street. that's a fact, there are too many of them. and guess what, the bad guys have them. and won't hesitate to use them. better to have the right and/or have/own a firearm and never need it, than to need it, and not have it. proper education is vital. i've found that many "anti-gun" people, have themselves never had ANY kind of contact with a firearm, let alone used one. guns aren't going anywhere, get used to it.
I'm Pro-Gun all the way. The right to bear arms is my constitutional right. I have the right to defend my family, myself, my property. Why should only police and soldiers have the right to carry firearms. Take firearms away from good, honest folks and the only ones left to have a gun is the bad guy. How often do you hear of people who have gone through the process of getting a carry permit going out to commit a crime. I'm a supporter of law enforcement and am greatfull to live in this great country our soldiers put their lives on the line so we can have the freedoms we enjoy today. They should have guns. So should we, if we so wish.
This quote rings in my head when people say we shouldn't own or carry legally. "When seconds count, the police are just minutes away"
i have used this site for lots of info while keeping to myself but this thread drives me crazy so i had to reply
as one stated on here a shot gun patterns out more and is easier to hit a target.... thats true but have you ever tried to pull a shot gun out from under your back
seat while a crackhead is hanging halfway in your window of your vehicle telling you to give him your money? all i can say is my shotgun protects my bed room and my
pistol protects my vehicle you people are just indecisive i mean at least the anti gun people have a point they are trying to stand on how can you say shotguns and rifles
are ok but pistols arent? if i am standing in line at a store with a shotgun in my hand and a guy comes in to rob the place he's just gonna go down the street to another
store however if i have my pistol on my side under my jacket along with my governmentally issued license to carry maybe i will be able to save myself and others from
this idiot....
ATLRIDER, would you like me to point out a few places where the constitution says "shall not" and the congress and court have defined that to mean "eh, usually not"? I can go in amendment order if you like... Besides that, did you miss the part where I keep saying guns are fine, just not handguns? Go back and read the rest of the thread, monkeyboy.
aimin low, you're again focusing on anecdotes. How many more times does that other guy blow your brains out with his gun than you defend yourself with yours? An awful, awful lot, according to the murder and unsolved homicide rates.
So are you saying we should wait. and pray that teh bad guy does not kill you? or have the opportunity to defend oneself and those in his/her immediate area, i take it by your username here. youve had some LEO experience? if so you know that a LEO cant be there instantaneously. i have LEO experience. ive trained in the usage of firearms of all types and sizes. im getting my CCW this coming week. so i can carry now. im no longer in law enforcement. so ill be carrying as a civvie. or look at this, prohibition failed miserably. banning guns will as well. it will create a black market for those. as well as ammunition. anyhoo. i know i cant convince an anti gun person of the opposite viewpoint. nor can an anti gun perosn. convince the same. anyhoo Flame on :thumb:
Why do poeple keep referring to the second? under incorporation doctrine the 14th amendment the 2nd was not applied to the states after the civil war, thus we have such huge disparity in gun laws amongst states.
The heller decision was a very narrowly crafted case that upholds gun rights and the second amendment but applies only to the federal district of columbia. I look forward to seeing montana's challenge to federal firearms laws under states rights. It could well mean a booming new industry in pro RKBA states. Basicallly we have federal gun regulations because of the feds abuse of..... anyone... anyone... bueller... anyone...?
The interstate commerce act. So if a wepon is manufactured in a state and is never offered for sale to anyone but residents of the state of it's manufacture and is never transported to another stste then federal laws including the NFA do not apply. In essence newly manufactured full auto rifles SMG's etc could be owned by residents of a state.
I suspect lawman is a law student.
okay, how bout this. making handguns illegal WILL NOT TAKE THEM AWAY!!!!! it won't cut down violent crime. it won't cut down homicide etc. it won't. case in point, WASHINGTON, D.C!!!! they had a ban on civilians owning handguns for a long time. and also, had one of the highest murder rates in the country. FACT. why can't you "anti-gun" or "anti-handgun" people see that? i mean, it's common sense really. just because you make a law against something does not mean that it solves any problems or even that you'll get full complience. THE BAD GUYS DON'T CARE ABOUT THE LAW!!!!
Quote from: bettingpython on April 08, 2009, 06:21:44 AM
I suspect lawman is a law student.
PD for life. Liberal lawyers get stuck there.
lawman, does this sound familiar?
..............in order to prevent misconstruction of abuse of its' powers, the further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.........
............Amendment II A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.........
I'm not sure how you can construe that as anything other than protecting the people's SELF EVIDENT right from the government. It does not say 'the people shall be permitted to carry arms. It says the government shall not infringe on that right. The forefathers worded these first ten amendments very purposefully. Anything the government has the right to give it can take away, thus having the government allow the carry of weapons would permit them also to ban the carry of weapons. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. The forefathers saw the right to defend ones self and home as an inalienable right and merely wanted to ensure the government would never get any ideas about abusing it's power so they removed ALL power in this aspect.
I don't care how many copies of the constitution you own, I'm sure there are a few in the oval office, READING, COMPREHENDING, AND FOLLOWING are the problems at hand. f%$k, time to send DC back to kindergarten.
This may surprise some of my conservative friends on the board, but I support the right of individuals to own guns. I differ from some of you in that I think some people should not be able to own them. And I'm still not sure what the framers meant when they prefaced the Second Amendment with "A well regulated militia." That is another can of worms and is beside the point since millions of guns are out there already. We won't change that!
We have to get a drivers license and have proof of insurance to drive a car, yet to own a gun we don't have any such requirements. That is a common sense issue. I also don't want the mentally unstable to own guns. And there are some weapons (hand grenades, machine guns, etc) that we all agree that individuals should not own.
I think a bigger problem in our country is that some people think violence is an acceptable way to solve problems, and often a first line solution. It should be the last resort, always. This is true whether it is gun violence, fisticuffs, or a knife fight.
Your liberal buddy,
Trumpetguy
I'm all for ensuring firearms are in safe hands, BUT they need to amend the constitution with a detailed outline. The forefathers put the amendment process in place for a reason.
On counterpoint, I've never had to pass an NCIC check for my drivers license.
Nah TG you didn't surprise me, and I have no issues with exclusions for felons and the mentally ill, I have never argued they should have guns. Oklahoma democrats are more conservative than many states republicans...LOL.
I have run into an issue though I have a hired hand who helps my wife and I in our lawn business part time and because he is a convicted felon under title 21, 1289 he can't be in the vehicle with me when I am carrying even if I keep the pistol in it's holster.
Lemme ask you TG since we're in the same state and you work on a college campus how do you feel about changing our states SDA to allow campus carry? I feel particularly insulted that because I work in K12 I can't even park in my office buildings parking liot. FYI if you're on OSA my screen names the same over there.
My reading skill ssuck today, gun licensing equating to car licensing.
What part of this is not clear ...", the right of the people to keep amd bear arms shall not be infringed."
Of course first we need a 14th ammendment case for this to apply.
We have a background check system for purchases of new fireams from FFL dealers. Don't push your luck for licensure. Tracking who owns guns and where they are is just a step towards attempting to control a population unlawfully Anyone can own a car, theres no license needed to owna car and operating a vehicle on your property requires no license, only when you drive it on public roads. And your talking apples and oranges anyway since driving is legally defined as a priveledge. And fortunately the Oklahoma Constittution guarantees the RKBA.
My dirtbike bought in 2007 has no title, yes it's supposed to be titled, if I operate it on public land. Since I ride membership only private ORV trails I don't have to title it.
Let's adress the full auto statement you made. It was a 11th hour backdoor additon to the firearms owners protection act that was slipped in by an unrecorded voice vote that prohibits FA weapons made after may 1986 from being owned by non government entities. It's a very slippery slope and creates an us VS. them menatllity when you establish civillian law enforcement as somehow above or superior to the citizens they are supposed to serve. I wholly disagree witih that law. As far as greandes they are DD and can be obtained with the appropriate application for and payment of federal tax. Same with supressors short barreled shotguns/rifles and pre 5/86 full auto firearms. I currently have an application in to make a short barreled rifle out of 1 of my AR15's and am preparint to Apply for a tax stamp for a supressor for that rifle.
Doesn't anyone here think that the second amendment could have been intentionally left vague as to get everyone to agree to it? It would have been easy to phrase it unambiguously.
Why are the founding fathers considered infallible? Yes, they did a pretty good job, but the constitution can be improved. Heck, they institutionalized slavery with the document, so don't tell me the constitution and the founding fathers were perfect! Don't tell me that gun ownership is a good idea simply because some smart guys living in the 18th century thought it was a good idea in their day.
I don't think you can solve the violent crime problems in the ghettos of Detroit, slums of Baltimore or dregs of Dallas by handing out guns to the non-felons. At the same time, crime may increase in Montana, North Dakota or Arkansas if gun ownership among non-felons were to decrease. Different gun laws work in different areas.
Bringing us to a very widely abused amendment, the 10th.
the biggest problems are lack of communication, unwilling to compromise and people seeing everything in black and white. we'are adults, we should be able to approach this with common sense and find a common ground on it. Education is vital when talking about firearms. no matter where you are, who you are etc. proper education about firearms will go along way for everyone on both sides of this debate. the problem is that everyone must be willing to take that first step and be educated.
spc- is this the whole, "who has more rights, the state or the feds" debate you're refering to?
Quote from: bettingpython on April 08, 2009, 09:07:28 AM
What part of this is not clear ...", the right of the people to keep amd bear arms shall not be infringed."
Of course first we need a 14th ammendment case for this to apply.
THAT part is crystal clear, but it is preceded by a modifying clause that isn't so clear. Individuals by definition are not a "well regulated militia." If the part you quoted was ALL that they intended, they would have written only that! But, it is a flexible and amendable document, so we can make it say what we want (by passing an amendment!).
I don't support the campus carry laws as proposed. I have seen too many students come back from Iraq or Afghanistan with PTSD (whether diagnosed officially or not). Under the laws as proposed so far, they'd be eligible to carry (with a CCL) but I don't want to be on the same campus with them if/when they snap. As far as staff and professors carrying, I'm OK with that if the training and background checks are good. But again, there are some kooks out there...even among the staff and professors.
How do you feel about individual ownership of nuclear or chemical weapons -- isn't the prohibition of that a slippery slope as well? As you might guess, I'm not buying the "slippery slope" argument, as it is generally employed to preclude
any reasonable regulation.
instead of trying to create new laws to ban guns etc, why don't we work on harsher punishments and better enforcements of the current gun laws? :dunno_white:
Quote from: jserio on April 08, 2009, 11:11:32 AM
instead of trying to create new laws to ban guns etc, why don't we work on harsher punishments and better enforcements of the current gun laws? :dunno_white:
Harsher punishment has been the trend over the last 20 years, but I don't think that is the ultimate solution. The USA's 5% of the world's total population yet 25% of the world's prison population stat suggests my intuition isn't completely misplaced.
Better enforcement means either a restriction on citizen rights (more search and seizure powers for the police), higher taxes for police and equipment, or both. I'm all for the both option in very specific areas. I think you'll find the law abiding citizens of the Baltimore slums will gladly trade their rights for security. Such a trade has turned Compton around.
by harsher penalties i did not mean longer prison sentances. our other laws need looking into as well. not just guns. prison isn't the deterent for many crimes as some would like to think.
What do you have when you disarm citizens? Subjects.
"Gun-Free" zones are a mistake. They too often get targeted by killers and the people inside are left defenseless.
We have high incarceration rates because we jail people for some of the stupidest stuff around wanna decrease our inmate popultions by a signifigant percentage? End this silly war on drugs legalize it regulate it's manufacture and tax it for governmental revenue, you have just knocked organized crime out of a huge portion of it's business, reduced the cost of drugs a signifigant amount so fewer crimes are committed to come up with the cash to buy drugs , created a source of funding for the .gov and treatment programs which are effective and do work for those who have addiction problems cost less than incarceration which does not work.
Outside of Muslim nations we have some of the worlds goofiest f%$king alcohol laws. No wonder we have so many criminals in jail that did stupid shaZam! when they were drunk, our entire lives we're told growing up we can't drink and whats the first thing a huge majority of post tennagers do on their 21st bday? Drink to excess, at that point though it's okay because now their of legal age, we don't teach responsible behavior and moderation.
For christs sake most states don't even teach drivers ed anymore nimrod parents that can barely drive are teaching their idiot kids how to drive and I bet you over 50% of them lie on when they sign off on the hours of instruction because they want to be friends with their kids not parents.
There's a comma in the second ammendment between the militia portion and the shall not infringe that means both portions of that sentance are equal, a militia is necessary and the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no vaugeness about it.
Personel ownership of nukes and chemical/biological wepons, is a bit disingenous
There is no such thing as reasonable gun control, and I feel sorry for you TG but you do realize one of these former vets that snaps won't be prevented from carrying on campus by the current law right? Alsio the last bill introduced only allowed faculty staff and students who were currenlty commisioned law enforcemnt officers attending class off duty to carry not me as a visitor or the avergae student.
Quote from: bettingpython on April 08, 2009, 12:10:50 PM
1. Personel ownership of nukes and chemical/biological wepons, is a bit disingenous
2. There is no such thing as reasonable gun control...
3. There's a comma in the second ammendment between the militia portion and the shall not infringe that means both portions of that sentance are equal, a militia is necessary and the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no vaugeness about it.
1. How is it disingenuous? All of the items discussed are arms. The second amendment gives the right to bear arms, not guns. How is that disingenuous?
2. And some think there is no such thing as reasonable gun freedom. Do you have any reasoning to back up your completely subjective statement?
3. No vagueness? Is the constitution addressing state militias (what is now the National Guard), or the ability of citizens to form their own militias at any given time? Is membership in some sort of militia necessary? Why not just clearly say "Everyone has a right to bear arms"? District judges were mixed in their opinions on this subject until a recent S.C. ruling, which tells me it isn't as clear as it could be.
Quote from: lawman on April 07, 2009, 08:39:45 PM
ATLRIDER, would you like me to point out a few places where the constitution says "shall not" and the congress and court have defined that to mean "eh, usually not"? I can go in amendment order if you like... Besides that, did you miss the part where I keep saying guns are fine, just not handguns? Go back and read the rest of the thread, monkeyboy.
aimin low, you're again focusing on anecdotes. How many more times does that other guy blow your brains out with his gun than you defend yourself with yours? An awful, awful lot, according to the murder and unsolved homicide rates.
monkeywha? Name calling... What the heck is that. Anyways, goes to show the mentality. Sheesh
So how are we planning to get rid of all the guns that aren't registered with the govt? Like a bunch that I own. Are we going to send a UHaul around for me to go give them away out of the goodness of my heart? Even the pistols passed down from my grandfather? How about the guy who bought his 38Sp from a guy in a back alley with the numbers pinned off it? As you can tell, I don't think banning guns or even just banning handguns will work. You'll never be able to get them all w/o searching each and every house top to bottom, and you'll still fail.
For civilians not being able to carry concealed, I'm against that. My carry pistol is licensed and I'm licensed to carry it. So if I'm out hiking or on a river bank and a couple guys think they're going to take all I own and leave me for dead, they're mistaken. It'll be a short confrontation. Kinda hard to wade fishing with my Mini-14 strapped to my back so the pistol goes with me. Rifle/shotgun gets caught on too many limbs. I work in a pharmacy. Many people I know carry in pharmacies because we get robbed, a lot. All that I know who carry aren't the trigger happy crazies like CCW holders are made to appear. Just people who want to see their kids at the end of a day. If you come in and rob them, they're the nicest people you've ever robbed. Put it in a bag and give you all you want. Just don't try hop the counter and hurt them or their friends/coworkers. And yes, I know pharmacists who've been injured at work by robbers. Guy was stabbed in the stomach after he gave the crook what he wanted. He came across the counter because he thought they had more oxycodone.
Don't get me started on the prison system since it was brought up. Let's just say it'd be far less comfortable if it was ran they way I'd like to see it done.
Sorry for my rant, but I just don't think you can tell everyone you can't carry/own a weapon. Weapons have a reason, and are great when used in the hands of a trained person. It's when used by untrained people they're bad. I've been around firearms all my life. I have a deep respect for them and their uses. I make it a duty of mine to teach any friend I have who wants one about them and how to handle them safely.
Thanks for you time,
Chris
Well put.
I think part of the problem here is everyone takes anecdotes from the areas in which they reside, and assume it is the same throughout the country. Weapons are fine in some areas. In other areas, you want as few as them around as possible.
which, sounds nice in fairy tale land, but it's not gonna happen. as someone else stated, YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GET ALL THE GUNS OFF THE STREET!! it won't happen. not even if the govt tried to go house to house and take them by force. it won't happen. you'd have civil war on your hands. i'm not saying that because i'm some trigger-happy hippy. it's fact. and let's not forget, it's the CRIMINALS who are mis-using firearms, not law-abiding citizens. and the criminals don't care about the law. they don't go to walmart and purchase their weapons. they buy them out of the back of some dudes van. they don't obtain them legally so why should they worry about using them legally? and pretty much any machinist with the right amout of time and materials can make a firearm in their shop..........
Quote from: bettingpython on April 08, 2009, 12:10:50 PM
We have high incarceration rates because we jail people for some of the stupidest stuff around wanna decrease our inmate popultions by a signifigant percentage? End this silly war on drugs legalize it regulate it's manufacture and tax it for governmental revenue, you have just knocked organized crime out of a huge portion of it's business, reduced the cost of drugs a signifigant amount so fewer crimes are committed to come up with the cash to buy drugs , created a source of funding for the .gov and treatment programs which are effective and do work for those who have addiction problems cost less than incarceration which does not work.
+1000 -- We agree on this one!!!
Quote from: bettingpython on April 08, 2009, 12:10:50 PM
Outside of Muslim nations we have some of the worlds goofiest f%$king alcohol laws. No wonder we have so many criminals in jail that did stupid oh my goodness when they were drunk, our entire lives we're told growing up we can't drink and whats the first thing a huge majority of post tennagers do on their 21st bday? Drink to excess, at that point though it's okay because now their of legal age, we don't teach responsible behavior and moderation.
Germany has this down. You can drink at sixteen, but you cannot get a drivers license until AT LEAST 21. Even then, it costs you thousands for school and testing, which is more than can you freaking steer a car.
Quote from: bettingpython on April 08, 2009, 12:10:50 PM
There's a comma in the second ammendment between the militia portion and the shall not infringe that means both portions of that sentance are equal, a militia is necessary and the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. There is no vaugeness about it.
I disagree. A period would make them equal. A comma means the first clause MODIFIES the second, even takes precedence over it.
Quote from: bettingpython on April 08, 2009, 12:10:50 PM
Personel ownership of nukes and chemical/biological wepons, is a bit disingenous
There is no such thing as reasonable gun control, and I feel sorry for you TG but you do realize one of these former vets that snaps won't be prevented from carrying on campus by the current law right? Alsio the last bill introduced only allowed faculty staff and students who were currenlty commisioned law enforcemnt officers attending class off duty to carry not me as a visitor or the avergae student.
The current law (in OK) allows institutions to ban concealed weapons by posting a sign on building entrances. We have those signs, so it is NOT legal to have weapons on our facilities. I have not kept track of every bill -- there have been a few with various provisions.
I do not believe that all gun control is unreasonable. I don't believe you should be able to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. I do not believe that EVERY abortion should be legal, either. No issue is 100% black or 100% white. To say that it is is to completely eliminate discussion and to close of your mind from considering any alternative but your own. A miserable way to live, IMHO!
Quote from: jserio on April 08, 2009, 06:47:35 PM
which, sounds nice in fairy tale land, but it's not gonna happen. as someone else stated, YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GET ALL THE GUNS OFF THE STREET!!
Cash for guns programs have been very successful in Compton, where violent crime rates have plummeted. In all fairness, the cash for guns program was combined with a massive police outreach program.
You are right, you can't get ALL the guns off the street. However, you just need to get enough guns off the street to improve certain communities.
Disclaimer: Remember, I have no qualms with guns in most areas, just areas where gun crimes are a problem.
Gun buy back programs...LOL that's funny right there. $100 gun any gun no questions asked, I wonder what happened to the burglary rate statistics. Criminals sell back stolen or extremely cheap POS firearms in exchange for cash becauses they have no money in the gun and can always go steal another one later. In the mean time law enforcement gives criminals amnesty when they should be arrested for poseesion of stolen property and the numbers should be checked and the property returned to it's rightful owner. Sorry I despise gun buy back programs rewarding criminals is assinine. Just getting law enforcement into that community and getting them to to do their damned jobs had more effect than gun buy back programs.
I remember compton from the mid to late 80's yeah it was bad and cops wouldn't go there, what'd they finally do to get the police into compton?
Of course in my opinion our whole nation would benefit if the big one ever hits and Kommiefornia falls off in the ocean. Screw spending money on that state erect a wall around it and let it become it's own little island nation.
what it took to get police into compton was the murder/shooting of a 3 year old girl by a gang member. the family took a wrong turn. wrong place, wrong time. Former president clinton made a speech about it actually. within weeks, there was a massive raid on that area. they took down close to 100 people if i remember right. it was about as close to martial law as you can get i suppose.
Quote from: trumpetguy on April 08, 2009, 07:57:18 PM
I do not believe that all gun control is unreasonable. I don't believe you should be able to yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater. I do not believe that EVERY abortion should be legal, either. No issue is 100% black or 100% white. To say that it is is to completely eliminate discussion and to close of your mind from considering any alternative but your own. A miserable way to live, IMHO!
What do you define as reasonable? As far as shouting fire in a crowded theater theres nothing preventing you from doing it, you can if you want to it's free speech but their are legal consequences to doing so after the fact. There is no law abridging your right to free speech. But there's laws against causing a public panic. There should be no law abridging gun ownership in the US but there should be, and in fact there are laws with legal consequences to pulling a wepon in public improperly.
I won't discuss WMD's after all this is the interwebz and big brother is always watching.
Quote from: jserio on April 09, 2009, 06:02:00 AM
what it took to get police into compton was the murder/shooting of a 3 year old girl by a gang member. the family took a wrong turn. wrong place, wrong time. Former president clinton made a speech about it actually. within weeks, there was a massive raid on that area. they took down close to 100 people if i remember right. it was about as close to martial law as you can get i suppose.
I vaugely remember that now thanks dude.
Quote from: bettingpython on April 09, 2009, 06:08:33 AM
What do you define as reasonable? As far as shouting fire in a crowded theater theres nothing preventing you from doing it, you can if you want to it's free speech but their are legal consequences to doing so after the fact. There is no law abridging your right to free speech. But there's laws against causing a public panic. There should be no law abridging gun ownership in the US but there should be, and in fact there are laws with legal consequences to pulling a wepon in public improperly.
You yourself said guns should not be available to the mentally unstable. That's "abridged" ownership for them. Aren't they citizens? And you do agree that the unabridged right to bear "arms" should not include bombs or chemical weapons, so you can't be too sanctimonious about ANY infringement of rights.
What do I consider reasonable? I don't think .50 sniper rifles or larger caliber weapons should be available to the general public (terrorists would disagree, of course). I don't think full auto weapons should be, either. I think all new handguns should be equipped with technology that allows only their owner to fire them -- they would never be stolen nor would they ever be used in a suicide of someone else in the home or accidental shooting by a child.
I'm far more concerned (as I alluded earlier) about the CULTURE of violence in America than I am the number of guns. In
Bowling for Columbine, Michael Moore points out that several other countries have as many guns in private hands (per capita) as the US, but none have the gun violence rate that we do. Why?
Quote from: bettingpython on April 07, 2009, 10:01:16 AM
Quote from: bombadillo on April 07, 2009, 09:27:00 AM
62 pages!!! :icon_eek: Cliff notes. I'm pro gun 100% of the time but good god thats a lot to read.
Theres part of the problem, pop culture wants single page summaries, blanket statements and buzzword driven policy. Instead of deep thoughtful detailed analysis.
Not picking on you Bombadillo just using your post to highlight an example.
Anyone ever read a book called the bell curve, pretty controversial and some even said racist if you didn't take the time to read and understand the whole book the pop culture inference that was drawn from the book was that skin color made a difference in intellect, which was completely disengenious because the standard deviation within the data sets could explain that shift in the curve the importnat point that everyone missed that was upring education and oppurtunities affected intellect.
Aw, come on now. I read more than most here and am on a gun forum 10x as much as I'm on here. I read so much more than most ever would about firearms but that is just a ridiculous amount to post on something like this. I am too busy working and stocking up on ammo to go through all that crap.
Quote from: jserio on April 09, 2009, 06:02:00 AM
what it took to get police into compton was the murder/shooting of a 3 year old girl by a gang member. the family took a wrong turn. wrong place, wrong time. Former president clinton made a speech about it actually. within weeks, there was a massive raid on that area. they took down close to 100 people if i remember right. it was about as close to martial law as you can get i suppose.
You do give us a nice little narrative, but that single police action isn't what turned Compton around.
Compton wasn't changed overnight, check the crime statistics there. Change has been gradual. Check Newsweek's feature on the multifaceted approach that has worked there.
Quote from: spc on April 08, 2009, 07:34:07 AM
Quote from: bettingpython on April 08, 2009, 06:21:44 AM
I suspect lawman is a law student.
PD for life. Liberal lawyers get stuck there.
We'll add that to the list of things you're wrong about.
Quote from: spc on April 08, 2009, 07:34:07 AM
lawman, does this sound familiar?
..............in order to prevent misconstruction of abuse of its' powers, the further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added.........
............Amendment II A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.........
I'm not sure how you can construe that as anything other than protecting the people's SELF EVIDENT right from the government. It does not say 'the people shall be permitted to carry arms. It says the government shall not infringe on that right. The forefathers worded these first ten amendments very purposefully. Anything the government has the right to give it can take away, thus having the government allow the carry of weapons would permit them also to ban the carry of weapons. THIS IS NOT THE CASE. The forefathers saw the right to defend ones self and home as an inalienable right and merely wanted to ensure the government would never get any ideas about abusing it's power so they removed ALL power in this aspect.
I don't care how many copies of the constitution you own, I'm sure there are a few in the oval office, READING, COMPREHENDING, AND FOLLOWING are the problems at hand. f%$k, time to send DC back to kindergarten.
:bs:
I'm unimpressed by both your selection of points and your argument. The Supreme Court backed away from Heller within months.
The "self-evident" right is abridged left and right. From restrictions on sales and background checks to limits on certain weapons and restrictions on where you can bring them.
I don't believe in shaking my fist at the sky - I'm not going to argue with an opinionated idiot who self-selects to support his argument. At this point, you're right only because of the present conservative bent of the country. I expect you will be wrong within my lifetime. I am convinced the present interpretation of the law is wrong now.
Quote from: Juan1 on April 09, 2009, 11:33:20 AM
Quote from: jserio on April 09, 2009, 06:02:00 AM
what it took to get police into compton was the murder/shooting of a 3 year old girl by a gang member. the family took a wrong turn. wrong place, wrong time. Former president clinton made a speech about it actually. within weeks, there was a massive raid on that area. they took down close to 100 people if i remember right. it was about as close to martial law as you can get i suppose.
You do give us a nice little narrative, but that single police action isn't what turned Compton around.
Compton wasn't changed overnight, check the crime statistics there. Change has been gradual. Check Newsweek's feature on the multifaceted approach that has worked there.
i'm sorry if i'm implying that the change to compton was "immediate" following this incident. but it's hard to argue that this incedent is not what preceded the change, motivated it so to speak. without this incident, i doubt we'd see the change in compton today.
Here you go, http://cnnwire.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/08/poll-fewer-american-support-stricter-gun-control-laws/
Whats more scientific and democratic than a Gallup poll and a liberal news media poll.
Sorry Anti's but the worlds changing it's time to wake up. Or maybe nobody read about the recent protest march in the UK where citizens are calling for action to derestrict gun control and tort reform which strips the ability of a criminal engaged in criminal actions to seek and receive restitution from the victim of their activities if they're injured.
derestrict gun control - They wanted more gun control?
Quote from: Juan1 on April 10, 2009, 11:44:08 AM
derestrict gun control - They wanted more gun control?
• DERESTRICT (verb)
The verb DERESTRICT has 1 sense:
1. make free from restrictions
Familiarity information: DERESTRICT used as a verb is very rare.
Dictionary entry details
• DERESTRICT (verb)
Sense 1 derestrict [BACK TO TOP]
Meaning:
Make free from restrictions
Classified under:
Verbs of political and social activities and events
Hypernyms (to "derestrict" is one way to...):
exempt; free; relieve (grant relief or an exemption from a rule or requirement to)
Sentence frame:
Somebody ----s something
Antonym:
restrict (place under restrictions; limit access to)
I think he's pointing out it's a double negative -- i.e. removing restrictions on CONTROLLING guns. Whatever.
I'm still more interested in why we're so damned violent, regardless of how many guns or how controlled they are.
Quote from: trumpetguy on April 10, 2009, 02:06:31 PM
I think he's pointing out it's a double negative -- i.e. removing restrictions on CONTROLLING guns. Whatever.
I'm still more interested in why we're so damned violent, regardless of how many guns or how controlled they are.
The term for restricting firearms is gun control so though proper english would appear to be a double negative it is correctly used in the context of allowing citizens to have firearms with less government control.
As to the violence I can answer that one at least my theory, boredom. I have several co workers that like to watch UFC etc. We have a very high standard of living for the amount of work we do in our nation as such we have idle time. And violent pursuits are entertaining. But if you think U.S. violence is bad think about the football riots european stadiums have had to endure. We don't have dallas cowboys fans rushing cross the field to trounce KC Chiefs fans. I actually do believe the amount of violence in TV programming and movies and the failure of parents to accept responsibility for raising and educating children is a problem. Teachers know your children better than you parents do. We have abdicated control of raising our children to the government and as such kids don't feel the connections to family and self they would have if parents took a more active role in their lives. As we spend less time with our kids we spend more time pursuing other interests. Anyway just my 2 cents, I have my son this weekend so ya'll have fun...
I love good ol' VA. No permit required to carry openly. I carry almost everywhere. Going next week to take my qualification test for concealed carry (people in NoVA are a bit squeamish about firearms).
Here's another interesting tid-bit. There have been (to my recollection) quite a bit of bank robberies at BB&T and Wachovia banks lately. Why? Because these two banks specifically prohibit carrying firearms (concealed or not) into their branches. This way, criminals know exactly which banks have unarmed people inside. Other banks, while I'm sure they don't want you to whip it out in the lobby, are ok with concealed carry guns.
Anyway. I love my firearm. You will have to kill me to get it out of my hands. However, I do hope that in my lifetime I never have to use it to defend myself or my loved ones. If the situation demands, I will have no hesitation about taking another persons life to save my own, but I hope I never have to.
Quote from: Merritt on April 14, 2009, 11:43:40 AM
I love good ol' VA. No permit required to carry openly. I carry almost everywhere. Going next week to take my qualification test for concealed carry (people in NoVA are a bit squeamish about firearms).
Here's another interesting tid-bit. There have been (to my recollection) quite a bit of bank robberies at BB&T and Wachovia banks lately. Why? Because these two banks specifically prohibit carrying firearms (concealed or not) into their branches. This way, criminals know exactly which banks have unarmed people inside. Other banks, while I'm sure they don't want you to whip it out in the lobby, are ok with concealed carry guns.
Anyway. I love my firearm. You will have to kill me to get it out of my hands. However, I do hope that in my lifetime I never have to use it to defend myself or my loved ones. If the situation demands, I will have no hesitation about taking another persons life to save my own, but I hope I never have to.
+1 for VA but if you carry in your car i would recommend just getting the CC permit. There are so many technicalities that you could get stung on, that's why i got my CC.
As soon as I have a free weekend I'm going to get me CCW permit for here in TN. Then maybe pick up at Kahr CW9.
Merritt, I agree with you completely. I've carried in WV, and soon will be here in TN. I can only hope and pray I'm never put in a situation where I must use it. But if I have to, there will be no hesitation on my part.
That was a nice point you made about those banks, I'd not heard anything about that yet.
Actually the Wachovia around me just got robbed.
Im glad here in Australia we have tough gun control.
If I had a gun at home I am sure I would have popped a cap in my wife years ago :kiss3: :flipoff: >:( :2guns:
I grew up on a farm where we lived with guns all the time and respected them. Now that I have moved from the country and live in the city I am glad only the farmers and law enforcement carry fire arms.
People are crazy and do crazy things when upset, on drugs, angry, depressed, DRUNK....etc etc etc.
I love and respect all guns I am just glad that not everyone here in Australia has one.
Am not taking sides it is just my 2 cents :thumb: