To Arm or to Disarm.

[zdo 20]

It might sum up the debate for you Zdo ..

 

SIUYA is a word twister!:rofl:

SIUYA is a word twister:rofl:

Dude, I said it sums up this Thread. I didn't say it sums up the "debate" ...

 

 

...but it still does not eliminate other possibilities....

 

... such as ?

[zdo 20]

“Nothing has changed.” SunTrader

“That’s right. This government will never and would never attack its own people” TheDude

“If all the guns were taken, the public would have nothing to worry about. ” Tams adds.

“… all structures are fragile.” Nassim Taleb

“What do you mean, Nassim? I thought you were anti-gun…” SunTrader

 

The White House is ?Judge, Jury and Executioner? of Both Drone and Cyber-Attacks - Washington's Blog

 

[Video] Police Shoot Man 3 Times Immediately Upon Entering House: Hayden?s Note & the Failed War on Drugs | Truth is Treason

[SIUYA 11]

SIUYA is a word twister!:rofl:

SIUYA is a word twister:rofl:

Dude, I said it sums up this Thread. I didn't say it sums up the "debate" ...

 

 

 

 

... such as ?

 

sorry - this thread is this thread and has nothing to do with the debate, this thread is not even a debate, and if thats the best you have left :doh: - my bad used the wrong word.

 

So I will change it -

It might sum up the thread for you Zdo - too bad there are others who might have different opinions.

 

and lets quote me completely....

"like arming yourself - that might diminish the prospects of certain things happening, but it still does not eliminate other possibilities...."

 

and for those with a lack of imagination....other possibilities......

 

- no matter how armed you are it will not eliminate the possibility that you will still be a victim or crime,

- no matter how armed you are it will not eliminate the possibility that you will still not be able to defend yourself or others if that crime occurs

- no matter how armed you are it will not eliminate the possibility that you have introduced other dangers into the home

- no matter how armed you are it will not eliminate the possibility that you or your family become mentally illl enough to go on a rampage, or merely act in the heat of passion and shoot someone just because the best weapon readily available was a gun.

-no matter how armed you are it will not eliminate the possibility that you will still be a victim or crime, and because they know/suspect you have a gun they shoot first.

-no matter how armed you are it will not eliminate the possibility that you are irresponsible

-no matter how armed you are it will not eliminate the possibility that you become a target of the very things you fear

-no matter how armed you are it will not eliminate the possibility that you are not properly trained to deal with the situtation if it arises

-no matter how armed you are it will not eliminate the possibility that you shoot an innocent person in the process

 

.....now of course some of the above could also occur if you were not armed.

 

no laws will guarantee anything, but your answer appears to be to do nothing.

It has been said early on in the thread that if people want to simply accept the situation and the consequences then they should - problem is neither side does. I hope you apply your same bias to those who wish to arm people even further in an effort to do something and the consequences that might come out of that. ....i dont see much response from you about that

 

Even taking the idea of new laws out of the equation.....what about improving the existing ones.....what about making sensible laws that work for all parties......what about trying to do something that might help change the culture or other situations that cause theses mass shootings - or is that your main point.....? There are other causes.

Of course there are do you propose nothing is done here either as it probably wont eliminate the possibilities?

 

sorry if there is too much word twisting for you, but the rest of this is BS if you chose not to use the available tools at your disposal if you think there is a problem to be fixed - or maybe you dont think there is a problem?

[SIUYA 11]

[Video] Police Shoot Man 3 Times Immediately Upon Entering House: Hayden?s Note & the Failed War on Drugs | Truth is Treason

 

Taking away the 'bogey man; of the government ideas - --- This shows that even if the armed and highly trained law enforcement officers cant get it right and the NRAs solution is to have more people armed in the schools etc; is the idea of complete idiots.

Hold the cops accountable of they have done something wrong, or attempt to improve their methods.....of wtf - why bother doing anything.....just let them continue on doing their best to protect themselves while doing their job.

 

as for the other site, everyone knows the government has been killing off people and imprisoning its own folks for years. the real scary thing is that its often done more and more for profit reasons.......hell even Australia was settled as a slave colony pretending to be a penal colony.

Maybe the government should scrap laws -- oh wait - they are.

If the energy on the debate about the 2nd amendment was applied to these other issues maybe there would be less requirement for the 2nd amendment.....but hey - we are all doomed so wtf. Grab the gun, hunker down and wait for the door to be kicked open.

Edited February 8, 2013 by SIUYA

[Patuca 13]

congratulations for that.....but what alternatives are you suggesting if you dont want laws?

 

Now I am not saying that there are not too many laws or more the point - often the laws could be termed inefficient and maybe need to be continually scrapped and rewritten for the times, however - it gets a little confusing when people talk about criminals and laws and then say that we think we are governed by laws when we are not.

 

Patuca - you have already shown in the puzzles page with that riddle that you would prefer to - teach everyone a lesson, wanted to manipulate the scene to your own ways of doing things, could not even be bothered to count the number of uncles registered when you set the rules, release a riddle that does not conform with normal grammar (using Yet instead of yet - a proper name v an adverb or conjunction) and hence in writing it (as opposed to verbal communication) is deliberately deceiving- so its kinda hard to take you too seriously when you say such things and yet do things which a tyrant might do. (or is Yet the tyrant?)

should the call be more effective laws, new laws, no laws, revised laws....

Which is why I ask - what alternatives are you suggesting?

i suggest that only at the grass roots level can this stuff be stopped. No laws will stop it. The police and other authorities can't possibly stop it. I suggest that the law enforcement encourage citizens to arm themselves and take some basic firearm training (at their own expense) as they the police will not be able to respond to stop these sort of criminal activity but an armed public could stop escalation of these sort of crimes. Much like chicagos police chief ..i think it was chicagos police chief...came on the news just the other day and encouraged the public that they might want to look at doing something along the lined i just mentioned as they would not be able to respond in time to help them. At least arm themselves and defend themselves until the police could get to them. That is basically what he said a few days ago. The mayor got pissed off at him. But he is telling it like it really is. I think their response was like over 50 minutes for a sexual crime.. A little less for shooting but not near enough to stop it or keep it from escalating.

 

Also hire..train..at local level armed guards for buses or at the very min. Train and arm bus drivers. This wouldnt have to cost that much. Most any county or state should be able to absorb this cost.

 

The times we live in ..well more laws wont solve a thing but just give a blanket of security to the fearful. But it is a false blanket. These issues have to be met pragmatically on a real life level. Fight fire with fire. We are in lawless times. People dont care. It will be to each his own for self defense at least until police arrive to take over. More laws will not solve these problems as i think zdo has instructed us clearly. And we have the examples where such approaches have failed and do not work.

 

Put armed guards in malls. I know amercans dont like that but in honduras..most dangerous country in world and san pedro sula most dangerous city in the world...in honduras... They have armed guards in mall. They as far as i know have had no mall shootings like we have in usa malls.

[SIUYA 11]

Maybe life can be summed up by beverages....

Creative drinking

[zdo 20]

yep, and way back when, spirited drinks 'created' urban life

 

and btw

 

no killers drink wine or tea

ie

killers drink beer and coffee

[SIUYA 11]

i suggest that only at the grass roots level can this stuff be stopped. No laws will stop it. The police and other authorities can't possibly stop it. I suggest that the law enforcement encourage citizens to arm themselves and take some basic firearm training (at their own expense) as they the police will not be able to respond to stop these sort of criminal activity but an armed public could stop escalation of these sort of crimes. Much like chicagos police chief ..i think it was chicagos police chief...came on the news just the other day and encouraged the public that they might want to look at doing something along the lined i just mentioned as they would not be able to respond in time to help them. At least arm themselves and defend themselves until the police could get to them. That is basically what he said a few days ago. The mayor got pissed off at him. But he is telling it like it really is. I think their response was like over 50 minutes for a sexual crime.. A little less for shooting but not near enough to stop it or keep it from escalating.

 

Also hire..train..at local level armed guards for buses or at the very min. Train and arm bus drivers. This wouldnt have to cost that much. Most any county or state should be able to absorb this cost.

 

The times we live in ..well more laws wont solve a thing but just give a blanket of security to the fearful. But it is a false blanket. These issues have to be met pragmatically on a real life level. Fight fire with fire. We are in lawless times. People dont care. It will be to each his own for self defense at least until police arrive to take over. More laws will not solve these problems as i think zdo has instructed us clearly. And we have the examples where such approaches have failed and do not work.

 

Put armed guards in malls. I know amercans dont like that but in honduras..most dangerous country in world and san pedro sula most dangerous city in the world...in honduras... They have armed guards in mall. They as far as i know have had no mall shootings like we have in usa malls.

 

thanks for the response....you do see the irony that you have to have armed guards in the most dangerous place in the world - clearly everyone gets shot outside the malls. Great for the retail sector!

 

I agree that a grass roots level of thinking is required.....I dont agree it needs to be with more weapons - thats all. Maybe as some have suggested elsewhere this is a particular situation for the USA - there are to many weapons already out there, the culture is attuned to it, and maybe its a solution.......but stick with me on this one.....

what happens if you are wrong. It is generally easier to pick up a weapon than to put it down.

Even in your own example Honduras, armed guards - not armed citizens are used.

Maybe the US law officers should be taken off solving crimes after they are committed and used more as security guards....

[MightyMouse 12]

i suggest that only at the grass roots level can this stuff be stopped. No laws will stop it. The police and other authorities can't possibly stop it. I suggest that the law enforcement encourage citizens to arm themselves and take some basic firearm training (at their own expense) as they the police will not be able to respond to stop these sort of criminal activity but an armed public could stop escalation of these sort of crimes. Much like chicagos police chief ..i think it was chicagos police chief...came on the news just the other day and encouraged the public that they might want to look at doing something along the lined i just mentioned as they would not be able to respond in time to help them.

 

Vigilantism is maybe a solution for a 3rd world country, but not a real solution for any municipality in the US. In the case of Chicago, the gun bans will work over time. It is naive to think that things would change quickly with a gun ban. In time the gun ban will work like a charm as it has in other metropolitan areas. Yes, lowing the supply of guns will reduce the number of violent crimes committed with guns.

 

 

Also hire..train..at local level armed guards for buses or at the very min. Train and arm bus drivers. This wouldn't have to cost that much. Most any county or state should be able to absorb this cost.

 

Bus drivers get paid 10 an hour to drive busses. What do you think an armed bus driver would cost and who do you think would pay for it? Once again you display your thirst for large government. AKA socialistic beliefs. And, like most conservatives who are really socialists, it is OK for the govt to spend money if it is on programs they want.

 

The times we live in ..well more laws wont solve a thing but just give a blanket of security to the fearful. But it is a false blanket. These issues have to be met pragmatically on a real life level. Fight fire with fire. We are in lawless times. People don't care. It will be to each his own for self defense at least until police arrive to take over. More laws will not solve these problems as i think zdo has instructed us clearly. And we have the examples where such approaches have failed and do not work.

 

The times you describe are probably times in other 3rd world countries. Not the case in the USA. I do not see us heading in the same direction as Honduras. At the same time it would be difficult to convince a teen in Afghanistan that there is more to life than war since they have lived their entire life during war.

[zdo 20]

In the case of Chicago, the gun bans will work over time. It is naive to think that things would change quickly with a gun ban. In time the gun ban will work like a charm as it has in other metropolitan areas. Yes, lowing the supply of guns will reduce the number of violent crimes committed with guns.

 

 

There's a red herring fight in the Traders Lounge! :rofl:

 

Looks like it's time to get word twist ridiculous again -

 

like - the alcohol bans worked "over time"

 

like - the marijuana bans "will work over time"

 

and like - washington dc's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun

control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the

lack of gun control.

 

and - we must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting

spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a

"boogie man" is paranoid. (MM, still waiting for correct definition of 'boogie man' btw)

 

and - the more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

 

and - an intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot

with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you

 

and - guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them

properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn

to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

 

like - police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger

capacity magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone

and therefore need less ammunition.

 

like - we should tighten supply and drive costs up by banning "saturday night specials"

and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

 

like - private citizens don't need a gun for self- protection because the

police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the

police are not responsible for their protection.

 

like - "assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of

people. The police need assault weapons.

 

like - the NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling

guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch"

campaign is responsible social activity.

 

like - guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun

shows. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers

but revert to normal when the weapons are removed.

 

and - the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into

effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates,

which had been started significantly declining in 1991.

 

 

 

Here we go with this odd little pattern again -

Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control

but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

 

Some day it may click for you -

the 'stats' on violent crimes committed with guns rise and fall on their own - independent of gun "supply"

mass atrocicities committed with guns rise and fall on their own - independent of gun "supply"

[MightyMouse 12]

There's a red herring fight in the Traders Lounge! :rofl:

 

Looks like it's time to get word twist ridiculous again -

 

like - the alcohol bans worked "over time"

 

like - the marijuana bans "will work over time"

 

and like - washington dc's low murder rate of 69 per 100,000 is due to strict gun

control, and Indianapolis' high murder rate of 9 per 100,000 is due to the

lack of gun control.

 

and - we must get rid of guns because a deranged lunatic may go on a shooting

spree at any time and anyone who would own a gun out of fear of such a

"boogie man" is paranoid. (MM, still waiting for correct definition of 'boogie man' btw)

 

and - the more helpless you are the safer you are from criminals.

 

and - an intruder will be incapacitated by tear gas or oven spray, but if shot

with a .357 Magnum will get angry and kill you

 

and - guns are so complex that special training is necessary to use them

properly, and so simple to use that they make murder easy.

A handgun, with up to 4 controls, is far too complex for the typical adult to learn

to use, as opposed to an automobile that only has 20.

 

like - police operate with backup within groups, which is why they need larger

capacity magazines than do "civilians" who must face criminals alone

and therefore need less ammunition.

 

like - we should tighten supply and drive costs up by banning "saturday night specials"

and other inexpensive guns because it's not fair that poor people have access to guns too.

 

like - private citizens don't need a gun for self- protection because the

police are there to protect them even though the Supreme Court says the

police are not responsible for their protection.

 

like - "assault weapons" have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of

people. The police need assault weapons.

 

like - the NRA's attempt to run a "don't touch" campaign about kids handling

guns is propaganda, but the anti-gun lobby's attempt to run a "don't touch"

campaign is responsible social activity.

 

like - guns cause violence, which is why there are so many mass killings at gun

shows. Ordinary people in the presence of guns turn into slaughtering butchers

but revert to normal when the weapons are removed.

 

and - the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban, both of which went into

effect in 1994 are responsible for the decrease in violent crime rates,

which had been started significantly declining in 1991.

 

 

 

Here we go with this odd little pattern again -

Statistics showing high murder rates justify gun control

but statistics showing increasing murder rates after gun control are "just statistics."

 

Some day it may click for you -

the 'stats' on violent crimes committed with guns rise and fall on their own - independent of gun "supply"

mass atrocicities committed with guns rise and fall on their own - independent of gun "supply"

If will always be difficult to explain to a gun lover that guns are dangerous. Guns do lead to people getting shot and that less guns does equal less gun violence and gun murder.

 

Something in your mind prevents you from understanding the intuitive aspect of such a simple thing. I suppose if I wanted that badly for something to be false, then i too would be blinded, looking for anything no matter how ridicules to support my point of view. hopefully, you never have to learn how dangerous a gun can be.

 

Tighter gun controls will certainly lead to less gun murder/

 

A person who owns a gun is 250% more likely to be murdered by a gun than by any other means. Does that sound to you like you are safer with a gun?

 

A boogie man or woman doesn't exist in my life so I can't possibly tell you what it is.

[zdo 20]

If will always be difficult to explain to a gun lover that guns are dangerous. Guns do lead to people getting shot and that less guns does equal less gun violence and gun murder.

 

Something in your mind prevents you from understanding the intuitive aspect of such a simple thing. I suppose if I wanted that badly for something to be false, then i too would be blinded, looking for anything no matter how ridicules to support my point of view. hopefully, you never have to learn how dangerous a gun can be.

 

Tighter gun controls will certainly lead to less gun murder/

 

A person who owns a gun is 250% more likely to be murdered by a gun than by any other means. Does that sound to you like you are safer with a gun?

 

A boogie man or woman doesn't exist in my life so I can't possibly tell you what it is.

 

re "boogie man"

If you can't tell me what it is, then how can you possibly attribute it others?

 

re "A person who owns a gun is 250% more likely to be murdered by a gun than by any other means. Does that sound to you like you are safer with a gun?"

 

Conceding that banning handguns would not disarm terrorists,

or assassins, the anti-gun argument portrays those people as

exceptions to the generality, which is "previously law-abiding

citizens committing impulsive gun-murders while engaged in

arguments with family members or acquaintances. " The anti-gun

crusaders claim most murders result from gun ownership among

ordinary citizens: "That gun in the closet to protect against

burglars will most likely be used to shoot a spouse in a moment

of rage . . . The problem is you and me--law-abiding folks."

 

If this portrayal of murderers were true, a gun ban might

drastically reduce murder because the primary perpetrators (law-

abiding citizens) might give up guns even though hardened

criminals, terrorists, and assassins would not. Unfortunately

for this appealingly simple nostrum, every national and local

study of homicide reveals that murderers are not ordinary

citizens--nor are they people who are likely to comply with gun

laws. Murderers (and fatal gun accident perpetrators) are

atypical, highly aberrant individuals whose spectacular

indifference to human life, including their own, is evidenced by

life histories of substance abuse, automobile accident, felony,

and attacks on relatives and acquaintances.

 

1. Prior Felony Record of Murderers

The FBI's annual crime reports do not regularly compile data

on the prior criminal records of murderers, and no such data are

otherwise available on a national basis. But in a special data

run for the Eisenhower Commission, the FBI found that 74.7

percent of murder arrestees nationally over a 4-year period had

prior arrests for violent felonies or burglaries.4 In another 1-

year period 77.9 percent of murder arrestees had priors.5 Over

yet another 5-year period nationally, arrested murderers had

adult criminal records showing an average prior criminal career

of at least 6 years duration, including four major felony

arrests; 57.1 percent of these murder arrestees had been

convicted of at least one prior adult felony; and 64 percent of a

national sample of convicted murderers who had been released were

rearrested within 4 years.

 

These data have been confirmed by numerous local studies

over the past 40 years. For instance, a profile showed that a

typical murderer in Washington, D.C., had six prior arrests,

including two for felonies, one for a violent felony. Note that

these data do not begin to reflect the full extent of murderers'

prior criminal careers--and thus cannot illustrate how different

murderers are from the ordinary law-abiding person. Much serious

crime goes unreported. Of those crimes that are reported, a

large number are never cleared by arrest; of those so cleared,

many are juvenile arrests that are not included in the data

recounted above. At the same time we know that most juvenile,

unsolved, or unreported serious crimes are concentrated in the

relatively small number of people who have been arrested for

other crimes.

 

2. Prior Violence History of Wife Murderers

Intrafamily murderers are especially likely to have engaged

in far more previous violent crimes than show up in their arrest

records. But because these attacks were on spouses or other

family members, they will rarely have resulted in an arrest.

So domestic murderers' official records tend not to show their

full prior violence, but only their adult arrests for attacking

people outside their families. Therefore, only about "70 to 75

percent of domestic homicide offenders have been previously

arrested and about half previously convicted." As to how many

crimes they perpetrate within the family, even in a relatively

short time, "review of police records in Detroit and Kansas City"

shows that in 90 percent of the cases of domestic homicide,

police had responded at least once to a disturbance call at the

home during the two-year period prior to the fatal incident, and

in over half (54 percent) of the cases, they had been called five

or more times.

 

A leading authority on domestic homicide notes: "The day-to-

day reality is that most family murders are preceded by a long

history of assaults . . ." Studies (including those just cited)

"indicate that intrafamily homicide is typically just one episode

in a long-standing syndrome of violence." Nor is "acquaintance

homicide" accurately conceptualized as a phenomenon of

previously law-abiding people killing each other in neighborhood

arguments. The term "acquaintance homicide" covers, and far more

typically is exemplified by, examples such as a drug addict

killing his dealer in the course of robbing him; a loan shark or

bookie killing a nonpaying customer; or gang members, drug

dealers, and members of organized crime "families" killing each

other.

 

3. Non Sequitur and Fabrication in Labeling Murderers as Ordinary

Citizens

In contrast to these evaluations, neither of the data sets,

which are cited as supporting claims that murderers "are good

citizens who kill each other," is persuasive. the National

Coalition to Ban Handguns' assertion that "most murders are

committed by a relative or close acquaintance of the victim" is

conceptually unpersuasive because it is a non sequitur: it simply

does not follow that because a murderer knows or is related to

his victims, he must be an ordinary citizen rather than a long-

time criminal. The conclusion would make sense only if ordinary

citizens differed from criminals by neither knowing anyone nor

being related to anyone.

 

The other data set that supposedly shows murderers as

ordinary citizens is Lindsay's assertion that "most murders (73

percent in 1972) are committed by previously law-abiding citizens

committing impulsive gun-murders while engaged in arguments with

family members or acquaintances." While there is nothing

conceptually wrong with this statement, it is empirically

unpersuasive because it is simply a fabrication. Lindsay claims

his figures are from the FBI 1972 Uniform Crime Report. But that

report offers no such statistic; rather it and other FBI data

diametrically contradict the statement. Far from showing that 73

percent of murderers nationally were "previously law-abiding

citizens," the report shows that 74.7 percent of persons arrested

for murder had prior arrests for a violent felony or burglary.

 

As the abstract to the NIJ Evaluation18 concludes:

It is commonly hypothesized that much criminal violence,

especially homicide, occurs simply because the means of

lethal violence (firearms) are readily at hand and, thus,

that much homicide would not occur were firearms generally

less available. There is no persuasive evidence that

supports this view.

….

The fact that murderers are "real criminals" with life histories of violence,

felony, substance abuse, and auto accident highlights the danger

in such people having handguns--or guns of any kind! But it is

very misleading when homicide statistics that are idiosyncratic

to gun misusers are presented as arguments for banning guns from

the whole populace. Idiosyncratic statistics provide no basis

for the claim that precautionary gun ownership by average

citizens seriously endangers their friends or relatives.

Don B. Kates

 

[underlining at end mine]

 

 

MM, you should drop what you're doing and start up the MightyMouse Labeling Machine, Inc. You would succeed beyond your wildest dreams. I bet the first test of your first prototype would output a label that says "gun lover"...

 

:helloooo:

as I've said multiple times in here, I don't like guns at all. Yet you keep running around trying to stick that label on me.

...

[MightyMouse 12]

re "boogie man"

If you can't tell me what it is, then how can you possibly attribute it others?

 

re "A person who owns a gun is 250% more likely to be murdered by a gun than by any other means. Does that sound to you like you are safer with a gun?"

 

 

Don B. Kates

 

[underlining at end mine]

 

 

MM, you should drop what you're doing and start up the MightyMouse Labeling Machine, Inc. You would succeed beyond your wildest dreams. I bet the first test of your first prototype would output a label that says "gun lover"...

 

:helloooo:

as I've said multiple times in here, I don't like guns at all. Yet you keep running around trying to stick that label on me.

...

 

The NRA Civil Rights Defense Fund hosted the Next Generation RKBA Scholars Seminar in Washington, D.C., on January 6, 7, and 8, 2012. Twenty-five select scholars heard, among others, Professor Randy Barnett, Professor Robert Cottrol, Professor Nicholas Johnson, Professor Joyce Malcolm, Dr. Stephen Halbrook, and Don Kates.

 

I won't bore you with the hundreds of other references that I could locate about Don and the NRA. I am sure that if I tried hard enough I could match Kate's work and come up with BS research if I were funded by the NRA to do so.

 

You want to believe and therefore you do.

[MightyMouse 12]

This is the research that made Kates famous. It is his, and, hence, the NRA's, interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Foreign nationals might appreciate this. American's know it all so they don't have to read it.

 

HANDGUN PROHIBITION AND THE ORIGINAL MEANING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT

[SunTrader 10]

“Nothing has changed.” SunTrader ...

Yeah you're still not making sense.

 

But thanks for putting me at the top of your post. Saves me from bothering with the rest.

[Tams 20]

[MightyMouse 12]

 

I wouldn't arm myself if she was the boogie woman. Shit you want that coming over in the middle if the night. " Honey, Kids, quickly, leave the house and stay away. The boogie woman is coming. I need to deal with the boogie woman alone".

[Tams 20]

!

[Vince50 10]

Yeah you're still not making sense.

 

But thanks for putting me at the top of your post. Saves me from bothering with the rest.

 

 

Sun, not that MM needs any help from me to stick up for him. I have a question for you? Has MM if yiou look thru every single thread he posted here, has he said one thing that was devoid of logic, common sense, and a calm stance of standing back and looking at the facts?

 

He has not responded to insults, cursed at or put anyone down in any way. These are all earmarks of a very intelligent forward thinking man who is open to new thought but makes decisions based on what he feels will work best, not on what supports his opinion. I doubt 2% of people in general have all those skills. And I will bet money that if you could show statisitcs or barring that, any kind of REAL proof that arming a citizen will indeed keep that person safer, I believe mighty mouse would change his mind.

 

I myself own handguns. I am not happy that I have to do so. My own very strong opinion I "believe" would be borne out by statisitics is that GUNS WILL KEEP YOU SAFER IN SOME PARTS OF THE COUNTRY. IN OTHER PARTS IT WILL INCREASE THE ODDS OF YOU BEING MURDERED.

 

How could this not be true when the difference of opinio and vaues of Americans vary sooooo much from city to city and even neighborhood to neighborhood. I can almost assure you, that placing guns in the hands of working class people who by chance wound up living in a gang and crime infested area is going to have a completely different result than placing several handguns and/or rifles in the home of a middle class man who goes hunting every week with his sons, which will differ from the result of movie starts like Sylvester Stallone keeping guns in his house as he is always worried about nuts trying to seek him out and "test " him.****

 

 

****What a concept. Issuing guns with different classes or levels of rules per person. A movie star with constant death threats but has a drug problem should not be given the same permit or license as say a man who is an attorney, a community leader, has no drug or alcohol usage and has shown responsibility with his gun ownership....by never firing his gun! Also, should a man who has been on prozac be given the exact same rights withy guns as a man who lives in a gang infested area and is jumpy every day he walks outside his house? Who is more at risk? And at risk for what!!!!!? This merry-go-round never ends does it? And does a man who lives in a ghetto with a high murder rate, is he likely to be more responsible or less in owning a handgun?

 

Here is the problem: I dont really know which group would benefit and which would not by carrying weapons, or keeping them in their home. But I wont shoot my mouth off claiming one way or another is a fact.

 

I do have sympathy for people who live in ghettos and claim-How dare they try to stop us from owning guns when every other person in my neighborhood is carrying , the only dofference is he doesnt care if he gets prison time for carrying illegally. And you want me to depend on the police to protect me when they themselves are scared to come into my neighborhood." THIS GUY HAS A POINT! But what do the stats say, And.............

 

drum roll please................WHETHER WE FIND OUT LATER ON, THAT EITHER REDUCING OR INCREASING GUN OWNERSHIP WAS THE ANSWER...IT CAN NEVER BE THE COMPLETE ANSWER.

So.....................what else needs to be done to stop crime besides dealing with it at a gun ownership level. To me doing that, is putting ourselves in a Confederate America 1863 mentality. There are far too many other factors on what we NEED to do to reduce violence than making it harder or easier to buy guns. I think while I cant prove that...its a fact! Anyone disagree?

 

I think the bigger problem is we dont have enough people in govt who are willing to say....the answer we come up with will never satisfy both sides. One group of Americans will feel threatened no matter what laws we pass. "WE DONT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT" Maybe we can fund a task force and/or organization who can do the research and find out a-what is better, more or less guns b-what will make all Americans "feel" safer aside from gun issues. Gee...yuh think having community leaders that actually lead might be a good start. Bye bye Mr Sharpton. Until we get rid of civil rights leaders, govt officials and others who lead with their mouth and not with proof, stats, and facts and especially caring................all the guns in the world wont save us.

[Vince50 10]

!

 

This video needs to be sent to the NRA and many congrssmen and people who could use their influence to help this video make a difference. Thanks a bunch for this!

 

This is a perfect example of responsible, hardworking,good people who almost lost their lives and they were all veteran gun users or under the guidance of one. It makes a good case for much more proper training.

 

How about this:Every gun owner who wants a "special CWP and "unrestricted gun use" must pass a fulll 2 day course and the govt would pick up most of the cost, the gun buyer to show he is serious would pay maybe $100.

 

That automatically leaves out all criminals with records, most rednecks and definitely people who have an IQ under 80(sadly they pose the greatest threat of gun violence,no? lol)

 

SEND THIS PUPPY OFF TO THE NRA AND MR OBAMA ASAP. -)

 

As an aside, gun ownership IS going to increase regardless of laws passed, the mfrs like Rueger and Glock are going to become even wealthier but I predict that mistakes likie we saw here on this video,will turn into tragedies that will daily be on the 6 o click news. Hey wait a sec, why arent we seeing more of these on the news? dONT TELL ME THE nra BOUGHT OFF THE MEDIA ALREADY? And to this degree????? I pray not, boys.

[SunTrader 10]

Sun, not that MM needs any help from me to stick up for him. I have a question for you? Has MM if yiou look thru every single thread he posted here, has he said one thing that was devoid of logic, common sense, and a calm stance of standing back and looking at the facts?

 

.......

Re-read my post and who it was quoting.

 

MM is making the MOST sense.

 

But I have to admit your post is too wordy as well as zdo's and I didn't get much beyond what I quoted above.

 

I try to K I Short S as much as I can.

[Ingot54 13]

I stopped commenting here some time back, because I had nothing left to say of value.

 

The problem still remains that people are taking matters into their own hands out of fear.

They want everyone else to obey the law, but want to keep a law that they interpret as

meaning they can "blow someone else away" if they make a judgement a certain way,

but don't want "to be blown away themselves."

 

No one recognises an authority outside of themselves any more, and if they do

recognise it, they do not trust it. Love won't work for many, because they won't try that

either, so they take option B which is the fear/hate red pill.

 

This is very close to anarchy ... the worst kind of anarchy - not the "good" kind, with a

Libertarian bent.

 

Anyway - I have given up taking a point of view in the discussion per se. But this

morning I found this in my email box, and thought I'd toss it in to feed the chickens. I

have not read it ... at least past the first paragraph - and do not intend to.

 

But it is from a book written by an Intellectual on the topic, and discusses why the

Constitutional "Right to Bear Arms." You will see, I believe, he discusses both sides,

and agrees and disagrees with both.

 

Read with an open mind, and be prepared to be surprised at your own position, and

how you might have been manipulated to hold the views you do:

 

The Daily Bell - Edwin Vieira on His New Book, 'The Sword and Sovereignty,' and Where the US Went Wrong

 

An early excerpt:

 

But now, with all of the brouhaha over new, draconian "gun-control" legislation in

the States as well as in Congress, the very slow sale of, and dearth of commentary

about, the CD is more than surprising. It is shocking, even appalling. Especially

so when more and more commentators, bloggers, and others on the Internet are

recognizing, and correctly so, that the ultimate purpose of the Second Amendment

is not to protect hunters or target shooters, or even to enable individuals to protect

themselves against common criminals but instead to enable common Americans to

resist the political crimes of usurpation and tyranny. Which, I believe, the historical

record proves beyond peradventure cannot be accomplished through the exercise

of an "individual right to keep and bear arms," but rather demands collective action

through "the Militia of the several States."

[MightyMouse 12]

 

 

Read with an open mind, and be prepared to be surprised at your own position, and

how you might have been manipulated to hold the views you do:

 

 

It was an interesting read until I got to the "birther" part of the article. Obama is a US citizen. He may have indicated otherwise for the benefit of financial aid here or abroad, but that doesn't change his citizenship, nor is it a crime that negates his ability to govern no more than a dui 40 years prior negated Bush's ability to govern now. Incidentally, Cheney had 2 dui's.

 

I now become suspicious that vieira is on the NRA payroll.

[zdo 20]

I "believe" would be borne out by statisitics is that GUNS WILL KEEP YOU SAFER IN SOME PARTS OF THE COUNTRY. IN OTHER PARTS IT WILL INCREASE THE ODDS OF YOU BEING MURDERED.

 

.

 

Treating yourself like a statistic is the great way to end up being one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

But what do the stats say, And.............

 

drum roll please................WHETHER WE FIND OUT LATER ON, THAT EITHER REDUCING OR INCREASING GUN OWNERSHIP WAS THE ANSWER...IT CAN NEVER BE THE COMPLETE ANSWER.

.

 

I argue that instead of approaching "COMPLETE ANSWER" to murders,

instead of being a major factor,

guns are hardly a factor at all.

Murder events and ‘stats’ rise and fall on their own. ... with or without guns

...somewhat like in wars, etc. K.Ferdinand, the (his) story’s precipitating events are not the REAL precipitating events...

False narratives repeated often enough may become accepted as truths... but they are still false.

 

lies, damn lies,and statistics * 250

http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf

[MightyMouse 12]

Treating yourself like a statistic is the great way to end up being one.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I argue that instead of approaching "COMPLETE ANSWER" to murders,

instead of being a major factor,

guns are hardly a factor at all.

Murder events and ‘stats’ rise and fall on their own. ... with or without guns

...somewhat like in wars, etc. K.Ferdinand, the (his) story’s precipitating events are not the REAL precipitating events...

False narratives repeated often enough may become accepted as truths... but they are still false.

 

lies, damn lies,and statistics * 250

http://gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf

 

Wow! That is the gun nut work book! Awesome. It should come with tear out pictures that the gun nuts can color with crayons.