it is a protected right. Originally it was put in place as a last resort if the government they created became too powerful. The first attempt at a government gave the fed too few powers and was a failure so they increased the feds power but also gave people rights that should help prevent the government becoming too powerful. While many will say that the founding fathers did not mean stuff like automatic weapons, you have to remember these people just fought a bloody war against a government they thought was oppressive. So to be short about it, they gave us rights that should enable us to overthrow any government that becomes abusive.
You do not have to look over your shoulder. you have to watch for rights being removed. But then again sheeple like to think all is ok. Just like the sheep they are named after they don't care as long as they are comfortable now. no worries about the ax up ahead until too late.
When congress is split, as it is now, nothing gets done. When it isn't split, things that the population is against get passed, like Obamacare. The balance, in this case, is for Republicans to become the majority in the Senate and overturn what the democrats did as the majority. We'll know the outcome Nov. 7.
If i get what you are saying you are talking about all the antitrust laws put into effect at the time. It has become so much a part of society that noone even notices this erosion. our current president is even running for reelection on it.
You are talking like a typical sheeple Kathryn. I did not say that is their motive at the moment. You hope for the best and prepare for the worst. And Hearts comment was very valid. During the 1890s and 1900s the government decided to redistribute wealth. this was the partly due to the antitrust laws. zbig was pointing out to you that the system only works when there is a balance. when the same party controls 2 parts of the 3 fully things the people do not want get passed. but you are not listening. you have been brainwashed into hearing only 1 thing. that which you were trained to believe is all you ever will. You are not going to change your mind. But, for now, enough people watch what is happening and work against oppression. so go ahead and blindly munch your grass. there are people keeping you from being harvested for now.
Sheesh, and people say liberals are out of touch with reality...
no gnat. you forget that i discussed the venus project with you. i understand more than you can possibly realize. but i am a realist. and i am not brainwashed by either side.
http://rlv.zcache.com/my_neighbor_wants_to_ban_all_guns_letterhead-p1999169946874837352mgiy_400.jpg if you do not like guns please print this out and give to gun owning neighbors. just so they do not violate your wishes and use a firearm in the case you happen to be in trouble.
Guns have always been part of the culture of the US. It's the type and use of them that is changing in the modern era. So I don't think it's a proliferation of guns, it's a proliferation of violence.
Very well said. Saying guns kill people is like saying tequila causes pregnancy.
Nice...well put cooney55
Exactly, you get it.
At the time the 2nd amendment was written, none of those devices existed. It was meant to asssure that all able bodied men could be counted on if called to military duty. While it did not specify what it could not know at that time, to advocate that it meant anything other than a pistol and rifle, is ludicrous. Somehow, this should be brought before the Supreme Court for their interpetation.
I want a surface-to-air-missile launcher...:D
Because it was our original homeland security. It's how we are. It's what we use to hunt for protection. Some dipshit ******** use them gang banging but they are the idiots of our population.
Not much to explain.....it is our protected right and tens of millions participate in that right.
They are called Beta magazines and are very large and heavy....they would be impossible to conceal and are heavy.
They banned them in the 90's but the ban only stoped the sales of new ones....people could keep and sell the ones purchased before the ban. The law did nothing to keep from building their own( a magazine is not difficult to modify of to build from scratch) The term "assault rifle" is a misnomer because any firearm can be considered a assault weapon. One of my hunting rifles uses the same caliber as a AR-15 (5.56x54 or .223) and is semi-automatic just like the one they sell to the public....the only difference is the stock.
anything with a sear pin can be modified to shoot full auto as well. i had a 1911 that id bought used and then put way too many rounds through since it is a pleasure to shoot. it started going full auto. now i know to check this area.
I believe what the US constitution says about the purpose of arms being to defend our loved ones and way of life from "enemies, foreign and domestic". The only way that you can have a truly free democratic society is with an armed populace; historically, the first step to subjugate any nation from within has always been the banning of privately owned firearms. We just need to take a look at what we're doing with our society, our young people.. Hollywood and technology with no conscience. Greed is the real enemy.
When a nut case is intent on killing they will kill. He could just as easily have made a homemade bomb or toxic gas and thrown it in there, killling many more people. I'm not saying his shooting people is the lesser of the evils, but guns themselves aren't the problem. <br />
If more of the law abiding citizenry were armed, chances are there would be less crime, as the deterent would be great for criminals. Crime statistics curiously only contain amount of crimes committed with a gun, but don't contain how many crimes are prevented by the victim producing a firearm against the assailant. A common occurance where I live is a criminal breaks into someone's home and the owner kills them. The police come by and say, "Looks like he broke into the wrong house. The coroner will be here soon and we'll send by a team to clean up the mess. Sorry for the inconvenience."
But what is the gun ownership rate? And who is getting killed? Other criminals or lawful citizens? In my state (commonwealth actually), there is no course you have to take for a permit. They ask what the purpose is for the permit is, do a background check and send you the perrmit. Most gun deaths are criminal on criminal, which is actually beneficial to the citizen. At least 1 criminal isn't around to feed on the people.
actually, that's not true. it takes 30 days to obtain a concealed weapons permit. also, the concealed weapons training is a lot longer than 30 minutes. get your facts right.
I don't believe the daddy's gun statistic is accurate. We won't agree on the overall philosophy. I am a gun owner and have a carry permit. I have never pulled my gun on a person. I am no more of a threat to my fellow citizens than Mary Poppins. There is no legitimate reason for me to be disarmed. I am not alone, because there are millions in America just like me. The person you are standing in front of in line at McDonalds may in fact be carrying, but you will never know it. If a lunatic opens up on the crowd in that McDonalds, you will find out who is carrying and be happy that they were.
"deaths and crimes with handguns are higher percentage-wise than in states where it is sort of difficult to obtain similar weapons." Where did you get that data?
"John R. Lott, Jr.: States with the largest increases in gun ownership also have the largest drops in violent crimes. Thirty-one states now have such laws—called "shall-issue" laws. These laws allow adults the right to carry concealed handguns if they do not have a criminal record or a history of significant mental illness. "
If the U.S. made purchasing/owning weapons legal across the board, the public would be more secure! After a couple of upsets following the extirpation of public weapon regulations, the amount of crime that involves weapons will vehemently decrease and/or the success rate of those said crimes will vehemently decrease. Owning weapons for the purpose of self-protection is the response of the private sector to the anæmic security provided by the public sector/government!
No and I am finding it harder to have any sympathy , having to listen to the same old lame justifications for it. Something is morally wrong with such a society.
i also am tired of hearing justifications -- for cars that kill, sometimes purposely -- for foods that we want to eat even though they are known to be unhealthy (according to my judgement, of course) -- and why in the world do we allow children to be bullied to the point of suicide? let's please write some reasonable laws to do away with those things and, ALSO, with the many deaths caused by medical mistakes and, for goodness' sake, we have to outlaw stop lights that are shorter than five minutes so that i have time to cross the street. i demand that, next year, i be the one who decides what is hyped in the news and in public discussion when it comes to our rights or lack thereof.
if we outlaw guns, then only outlaws will have guns. it is our 2nd amendment right gauranteed by our constitution that we can own firearms in this country. also, if you read further into the constitution, all citizens of this country are part of the militia, which means that if our country were to be invaded by an outside source, we are to defend our borders. we are suppose to have the same basic defenses as the military, minus WMD's . a well regulated militia is a well armed militia. that includes the citizens of the U.S. <br />
guns don't kill people....people kill people. a gun or whatever weapon someone uses is just an extension of that person. anything can be considered a weapon, even a frying pan !
Around here we have many cases of knife violence,and really its difficult to tell which are the violent ones. Wondering--Did Stalin, Hitler, Idi Amin, pol pot and others of that infamy insist on gun control, or was people control enough?
those people were controlled by their government. if they had private gun ownership, the people would have been able to stand their ground against tyrants of that nature. but, because they had no such means, that's why they were help prisoners of their own government.
what's the definition of an assault rifle ? any high powered rifle can be an assault rifle, but, according the government, the only thing that makes a rifle an assault weapon is if there's a bayonnet on the end of the barrel. kinda stupid huh ?
My wife notes that they tend to ban "scary-looking" guns.
Explanation: humans are chaotic little children looking for the bigger stick to rule the playground. <br />
Bullets per minute doesn't mean squat, a man with an idea can do whatever the hell he wants with whatever's in his hands... Give them rocks, there will be stonings; give them metal, there will be blood.
Understanding the beginnings of the country. A extreme, rural, unexplored land of unknown dangers. <br />
You did not go to the corner store to buy dinner. You went hunting for dinner and hopefully for a number of dinners. Self defense was a major concern. As the country expanded so did the need for self defense and to stay alive. The first firearms used in the forming of the country were hunting rifles. Those owned by the local farmers and families. From there the need and respect for firearms grew.<br />
America is not obsessed with firearms. Not everyone owns one. Machineguns are outlawed by the Federal Goverment. Owning one with the the required permits will lead to jail. And jail time will prevent you from owning any firearms by law.<br />
I was a police officer for a number of years. I am law abiding. So why should I not still own my service side arm? I am not going to go out and rob a bank or shoot someone. Far from it. <br />
But then I agree that some people should not own firearms. Some people should not drink beer or other hard drinks. Some people should not drive a car. So how do you suggest that we control all if these people ? Do we go to the extreme by banning all knives, razors, sissors, screwdrivers, ice picks, pencils, pens, sticks with sharp points or any thing else that could be used as a weapon ? That could include cars, trucks or anything that could be used to hurt another. It is sad what happened But we need to be realistic.
it's insanity ...that can't be explained or defended. <br />
98000 Americans are shot each year, either by accident or intentionally ..that's not including the people that are shot by law inforcement.
How about the over 2 million hurt by autos every year?
those for the most part those are all accidents, we're talking about someone coming up to you, sticking a gun in your face and pulling the trigger.
98000?? Where did you get that data from?
google Brady Campaign.org...so far this year over 55000 people have been shot.....these are all gun shot incidents not just murders. I was shocked when I first read that number too.
No, I can't. There is no explanation for people who believe that the average citizen needs to be armed with machine guns and assault weapons.
Exactamente, KT. Even in my sleep-deprived state I must give Abbey kudos (i.e. "big up's") for that statement.
People want their guns, and they believe that, whenever anything like this happens, if THEY'D been there with their trusty gun, they'd have simply shot the gunman and all would've been saved. It doesn't matter what one says, the easy access to guns ARE a factor in this occuring so frequently. I'm not even shocked anymore, I think, "yes, here we go again." I feel sad, but there's nothing that will be done about it; the NRA has people brainwashed. They say we'd be vulnerable if law-abiding citizens couldn't have guns. The people who want guns certainly HAVE them, and yet this keeps happening. I'm almost annoyed when people are shocked about it. What has changed since the last shooting ?
You are pretty ignorant of the facts on guns. That theater prevented people from entering their establishment with firearms. Its their right to do so but if one person would have had side arm then it may have ended up looking like this.
Instead of 12 dead.
You're pretty ignorant of the fact that most of the serious attempts at gun control are shot down (no pun intended) by the gun lobby, the NRA. Anyone can armchair quarterback as to what MIGHT have happened if one person had a sidearm, but who might that person have been ? And why just one person ? People are suggesting that everyone should've be armed---sounds like the O.K. Corral to me. Where I live there was already a shooting outside one of our popular theaters---only five victims, though. So they keep an armed guard inside. Maybe that's the one person you're thinking about. But that is different than everyone, from Grandpa, to Bubba, Soccer Mom, in there, packin'. armed.
I take it you didnt even bother to watch the video. it was a 71 yo man that protected the patrons of that cafe.http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/493636.html
More Guns, Less Crime
Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but a gun represents a much larger change in a woman's ability to defend herself than it does for a man. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about 3 to 4 times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for men.
You're right, it didn't watch it. When people start off a debate by calling me "ignorant", I admit I don't take anything they have to show me that seriously.
Thanks for proving my point on your ignorance and you wanting to stay ignorant.
The only point you've actually proven is that you're more interested in calling names and citing a single event than actually discussing the issues. Not an unusual approach from your side of the aisle, I've found. But I still disagree and my points stand, whatever "statistics" you may dig up.
LOL so ignore the facts your mind (LOL) is made up!
yea being from Montana owning and shooting all types of guns since I was 10 years old does probably make me ignorant about guns. Hey the only problems I have with guns is military style semi automatic weapons with more than 5 round clips. That and the fact that criminals can get a gun easier than buying a six pack of beer.
And save your remarks about my intelligence, you don't know me.
You haven't provided any, just random stats and one incident. But since you like statistics here are a couple, courtesy of the pew research center,
childrensdefense.org, bradycampaign.org: only 35% of African Americans, 29% of Latinos support gun rights, possibly because we have a higher statistical possibility of becoming gun violence victims. I realise the mainstream doesn't worry that much as long as we only kill each other, but this I would wager: if things ever turned around where blacks and Latinos started purchasing and stockpiling firearms at the same rate as whites, the 2nd Amendment would be repealed so quickly your head would spin, LOL !
Number one misconception of the second amendment, that it only pertains to self defense of the home from a criminal or for sport activities. That is not why it was written. It was written for the people to arm themselves and form militias to counter a tyrannical government. What does the government have in terms of arms? Tanks, missiles, machine guns, helicopters, etc. All of which make whatever that idiot used to take out a bunch of unarmed civilians look pathetic. Bottom line Katie, you believe the government is benevolent and will always be out for your best interest. Many do not. the founding fathers responsible for creating the very governments we have today explicitly did not believe that governments, even the one they created, were immune to tyranny. The second amendment is already so violated as to be almost removed from its original intent by gun control laws. I do not expect to change anyones opinion about guns in America, the split is total, like abortion. Don't ask why Katie, don't try and understand something that is so far removed from the overall worldview you have created for yourself, cause you never will. Just do what you believe is right, vote your conscience, be an advocate against gun violence, donate funds to the Brady campaign, vote to reelect obama, etc. But don't try and understand something that is not in your capacity to understand. Not because you are stupid, but because you have far to much invested in the current predominant liberal philosophy of governance. Simply put, you have far to much skin in the game to be ob<x>jective. This was a moot question btw and I only answered because friendship shoukd always supersede differences of opinion.
Copper, I am appalled by your response. The first part was good, getting to answering the question and being in support of the 2nd amendment.
We, as citizens, have the right to protect our 10 amendment rights. They have supported us throughout the years, and they are the basis of this country.
But yes, it is people, like the man, in the Aurora, Colorado shootings that take our rights away from us. It is one man's bad doing.
Why do we as people then go on saying "guns should not be allowed, etc" You know, if we were allowed to carry guns, people could have stood up against him to stop this incessant act that breaks my heart. Instead, we have placed such a fear on guns and on crime. It's going to happen. There's just no stopping it from happening, so why wouldn't we want to arm and protect the good hearted citizens surrounding us.
People will always find a way to ruin things for others, to ruin laws, to question everything. For many, owning guns, shooting them, and taking care of them is a hobby, why would we want to take that away from others?
A hobby for them is like being a photographer for me. How would you feel if someone tried to take away your rights from taking a picture, etc. Or taking away the internet.
We stand up for what we believe in, and everyone around is sadden by the incident that happened in Aurora, Colorado.
I'm more afraid by what will be taken away from us next because of this horrible incident.
And I realize I never really answered why I was appalled. In my response, alls I have is this, "would a liberal minded person be able to write the response above?" By your logic shown in the response above, it appears that our mind wouldn't be able to comprehend such a thing." Well, this very liberal minded girlfriend just proved you wrong.
One word: "Envy."
I take it you have never read any of the founding fathers of the US on the subject of guns. I suggest you read this .http://www.godseesyou.com/2nd_amendment_quotes.html<br />
Here are some "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950]) <br />
"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244) <br />
"The Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms" (Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 86-87) <br />
"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms, and be taught alike especially when young, how to use them." (Richard Henry Lee, 1788, Initiator of the Declaration of Independence, and member of the first Senate, which passed the Bill of Rights, Walter Bennett, ed., Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican, at 21,22,124. <br />
No one is forcing anyone to have a fire arm. But they sure have perverted the constitution to prevent "WE THE PEOPLE" from protecting themselves. <br />
University of Chigaco study on guns.<br />
Murder rates decline when either more women or more men carry concealed handguns, but a gun represents a much larger change in a woman's ability to defend herself than it does for a man. An additional woman carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for women by about 3 to 4 times more than an additional man carrying a concealed handgun reduces the murder rate for men. <br />
If you choose to not carry that's fine, just dont force the rest of us not to. If one person would have been armed in that theater it may have looked like this. <br />
Well said, Kathryn1985.
(we no longer need to count on a "well-armed militia", the intent of the amendment), Wrong again! it wasnt the intent of the FF to make the militia well armed. it is to keep the PEOPLE well armed. "No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Thomas Jefferson, Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950])
"...to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." (George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380). Would you say the same thing if the government was trying to limit your first ammendment rights?
"shall not be infringed". You shoud look that up in a dictionary. You are incorrect they are not 2 different arguments you just dont like the former and dont want to have the latter infringed. If you allow the former to be infringed what will prevent the government from infringing upon the latter. The second ammendment is " The last form of defense against tyranny”
Per Rapper Ice-T.
White americans who were scared of black people, brown people, and other white people decided it had to be a right to own a gun because murder was a popular american pastime then. It used to be legal to shoot an indian if they were in the road, blacks were prohibited from owning guns, and women weren't supposed to own them.<br />
Since a revolution was how we carved out country out of England, the possibility of a revolt by the people was a real fear...for about sixty years. The longer a government is in control the less likely a successful revolt is, especially when half of the people in the country don't wish to join in. Infighting and mutinies are common among groups and revolutionary militias are no different. Most of them hate each other, otherwise they'd have banded together and tried to revolt by now.<br />
What it comes down to is some americans are convinced and terrified of global conspiracies, communist/fascist plots, non-white people and other religions. They allay this fear by stockpiling weapons for a war that will most likely NEVER come to pass. As if sixty men and women armed with assault rifles and pipe bombs could even stand up to the Army for more than a day before running like mice.<br />
The issue at large is that "self-defense" is used for everything from mace to illegally obtained mortars and RPGs. Any attempt to prevent ownership of explosives or military grade hardware (assault rifles/Uzis/sniper rifles) is seen and referenced as further proof of the Liberal conspiracy to enslave all of us under the rainbow flag or communist party, often blaming Jews, or Islam in the process. As a result the vocal minority of Americans who own assault weapons/are active in the militia tend to scare the NRA members who just want to hunt and sport shoot into thinking the federal government wants to keep you defenseless.
where are you from ? it sure as hell don't sound like you're from here in the U.S. btw your info is sooo wrong, I don't even know where to begin to correct your mistakes.
I read American history and everything I've said is true. I can back it up with books. Also, name one Militia group that isn't religious, racist, or afraid of the Federal government or NWO (run by "international bankers" or freemasons of course). I have no problem with hunting and sporting weapons, however there is something wrong when you can buy an assault rifle, a few thousand rounds of ammunition, and body armor in one day and place without a background check, permits, or registering your guns. Lastly, I'm from New Hampshire, USA. Where the law about murdering an indian if he's in the road was actually on the books, so don't tell me I'm wrong when you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
Thanks for the belly laugh! thats too funny. white americans who were scared of ... LOL Its killing me ! Who turns on your computer for you in the morning? do you wear a drool bib?
So you know the name of every milita group in the USA?
Start naming them!
Yes, respond to facts with insults, that will show me you know what you're talking about. Also, I said every militia group in america is either racist or on the extreme right of politics, isn't it your duty to prove me wrong? I've never seen an American militia that has anything but white members who identify as conservative making up it's members. I could be wrong, but I consider militias laughable to begin with so I'm not gonna waste my time looking to see if there are any that are exceptions to my general statement. Lastly, anyone terrified enough to carry a gun in public, obviously is a coward, I've been all over the country and several parts of the world. This is the only 1st world country where citizens feel the need to carry lethal weapons in order to feel safe. Sounds like a pretty good example of fear dominating common sense.
fighting fire with fire, not overly effective but, federally protected.
Not without getting shot.