Guns save lives

[perseverance]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWQPZ-taYBs

I'm not sure I'd want a fella like this to own a firearm.

As someone who isn't an American it's not my place to preach to Americans about gun control or gun safety. If Americans want to own guns I say let them own guns, but they have no right to whinge, whine and complain when people like Adam Lanza walk into a school and shoot dead innocent men, women and children.

I'm delighted that in the UK there is no such law which allows virtually anybody to own a firearm. Sure we have a problem with violent crime, particularly in places where there are large amounts of non-white people, but that's what happens when the major police forces of the UK are gutless cowards who will happily pushover an innocent bystanders at a protest, but who will run away when a few black people start rioting and of course our joke of a judicial system which sees criminals as victims of circumstance rather than immoral pieces of vermin who ought to be executed in the most brutal fashion.

If the US wants guns I say let them have guns. The United States has proven that it's a nation state that loves violence, so let them have all the violence they want.

 

[perseverance]

I have no issue with guns, just as I have no problems with narcotics, cigarettes or alcohol. If people want to own a gun, that's down to them, if people want to use narcotics that's down to them and so forth. I have no sympathy for people who smoke and get cancer and I have no sympathy for a country that wants a right to bear arms but then cries when someone walks into a school or a college and shoots the place up. My motto in life is simple; you made your bed, so you can lay on it.

 

[speed dawg]

Bible Belt:

I don't care what the law says, I've been there. The simple answer to the cops' first question is, "I felt my life was in danger". Then all your points of law go right out the window.

The cops who showed up after my aunt blew a would be robber/murderer of hers away, demonstrated the law this these few words to us: "If he steps on your property, you shoot, we'll clean up the mess".

End of story.

 

[Mike32ct]

It depends on the state. In the south, you can defend yourself (generally).

In the liberal northeast, you need to be wounded multiple times before you are allowed to fight back lol. Even then, they prefer you try to run or crawl to safety lol.

 

[5string]

All I know is if the Karate Kid or Mr.Miagi try to pull that sh!t on me, they'll be looking at the business end of my .45 Colt Commander.

Seriously though. A person in the US has a right to protect their property, family and life from harm with a gun. Debate what that means all you want. I know it varies from state to state.

The real issue as known by our founding fathers is that if the citizens are armed, they will be able to protect themselves from a tyrannical government.

As Danger alluded....know your history.

 

[goundra]

oh, say, pipe bombs, made from many commonly available ingredients, (ie, gun powder is not needed to make them) Or poison in the food or drinks, at a school. then they get AWAY with it, to do it again. At least when they use guns, they are caught or end up dead.

no, it's NOT the "end of the story", just because the attacker was on your property. Stop spreading bullshyte. that's dangerously ignorant simplification. there has to be fear of attack for one thing, and the ability/intent to execute that attack. You have to be able to convince the prosecutor, jury, or judge that you had a LEGITMATE fear for your life and that your response was that of a "reasonable man" under the same circumstances.

 

[Bible_Belt]

oh, say, pipe bombs, made from many commonly available ingredients, (ie, gun powder is not needed to make them) Or poison in the food or drinks, at a school. then they get AWAY with it, to do it again. At least when they use guns, they are caught or end up dead.

no, it's NOT the "end of the story", just because the attacker was on your property. Stop spreading bullshyte. that's dangerously ignorant simplification. there has to be fear of attack for one thing, and the ability/intent to execute that attack. You have to be able to convince the prosecutor, jury, or judge that you had a LEGITMATE fear for your life and that your response was that of a "reasonable man" under the same circumstances.

(edit) - I was typing the same thing as you made that post. Obviously I agree.

There is always the law as written on the books, but there's also discretion at every level of enforcement. Sometimes cops will do things like catch you with a bag of weed, take it away and dump it on the ground, then tell you to run along and stay away from that stuff. That doesn't make the weed legal. There is also a ton of discretion exercised by the DA in deciding who to prosecute and what charges to bring. After that, the judge can throw it out, or the jury can refuse to convict. All of these are procedural safeguards. But they are all also out of your control; you can't depend on them.

I am no fan of gun control, but from what I read, its association with Hitler is misleading propaganda. Germany had a ban on private firearms, but it was put there by the Allies after they lost World War I as part of the many ideas to punish the Germans, a plan which backfired and created the resentment that allowed Hitler to come to power. Hitler did relax the gun control laws for Nazi party members, but that was just one of the multitude of benefits for party membership. As the Nazi party grew, more and more laws were not applied to them any more.

And as much as I don't like to admit it, I don't think the 2nd Amendment was ever meant to be about gun control. The 2nd Amendment was meant to be a prevention of keeping standing armies. They thought that having a military would incite new wars. The people had to bear arms so that they could man a volunteer army to defend the country if attacked. To argue that they intended it to be about gun control is kind of ridiculous, because gun control didn't exist as a concept. If we could resurrect the founders today and ask them, I think they would be against gun control. But they would be even more against abortion, especially Roe v Wade which reads that right into their Constitution. The phrase "right to life" is actually in the Declaration of Independence. Intent of the founders doesn't mean much these days.

The bullsh!t that NY state is about to pull after the "registration" process for all the assault weapons is to start requiring an annual tax to be paid. Then they will keep raising the tax until no one will pay it. I don't think there's anything unconstitutional about that, either. The only way to reverse a law like that would be to get a referendum on the next ballot and hope the ban isn't popular.

 

[goundra]

they wouldn't agree with blacks being free or women having the vote, either. I've read that there were "anti concealed carry" regs in some towns in revolutionary era US. There's a fairly new book about it. the issue, really, is are we going to stay ready to shoot wannabe tyrants (and their all too willing and ready minions in various uniforms) if we need to, to maintain freedom, or are we going to let Big Bro run our lives, even more than he does already?

rights come out of the barrel of a gun. We all agree that a rabbit has the "right" to kick a fox in the teeth, right? well, humans just found a way to kick teeth from further away, that's all. The only rights you REALLY have are those which you PROVE you are willing/able to KILL wouldbe usurpers for subverting. that is the ONLY thing that such people have EVER been limited by, DEATH. Rights are not given to you by a piece of paper or by some "ghost=god". Rights are to be EXTRACTED and maintained by lethal force, or at least, the THREAT of such force. within a generation or 2 of your having lost the ability/willingness to kill tyrants for infringing your rights, you can COUNT on those rights not being yours anymore. history teaches this vital lesson, but the sheep/wussies and tyrant wannabes are always trying to get other suckers to give up and submit to their rule, for the sake of "peace and security". I say SHOVE THAT, and i'll take care of myself, just fine, thanks.

 

[goundra]

show me where the constitution prohibits, or even DEFINES "excessive taxation".

 

[Bible_Belt]

Bible,

Couldn't one challenge a law on the basis that subverts their ability to exercize their constitutional rights?

I mean, by the tax example you use, what if we put such a high tax on voting machines that Counties could no longer afford to allow voting?

There's no specific "right to vote" directly in the Constitution, but several amendments prohibit discrimination toward who may vote and who may not, regarding race and gender. The supreme court respects voting a lot more than they respect assault weapons. The court has ruled repeatedly that there is no individual right to bear arms, or else cities and states couldn't have any gun control at all.

There's no tax limit in the Constitution. There is a prohibition on "takings." The government is not supposed to take your property with compensation, but they can certainly tax the hell out of it.

 

[twentee]

u r full of it, dude, 2x in the past 3 years, Heller in Washington DC and another case in Chicago, the Supreme court has said that the right to keep and bear arms IS an individual right.

 

[Bible_Belt]

It's these two cases:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

The court did use the language "individual right" in regard to the 2nd Amendment, but in both those cases only parts of a larger gun control law were struck. Most legal scholars agree that it will be very difficult to use those two cases as precedents to get more gun control laws thrown out. It's been a few years now, and those rulings don't seem to have affected the law very much.

 

[bonie]

Switzerland has many thousands of actual full auto assault rifles, by law one must be kept in each home. there is no problem with them there, because they don't suffer idiots to immigrate or to breed there. You get your stuff together, and keep it that way or you get out of their country or locked up forever. They are small enough, homogenous in thought enough and rich enough to enforce having a decent life. US should be broken up into 8-10 smaller, more homogenous countries, each with a few backpack nukes, for defense, and nobody with aircraft carriers, ICBMS, or missle subs

 

[twentee]

they aint kids YET, if aborted. POTENTIALITY is NOT the same thing as actuality,wtf would we have DONE with 30 million UNWANTED kids, that were aborted in US since Roe Vs Wade was decided, hmm? you WANT your taxes increased by 25%,? And those against abortion are typically ALSO against birth control, and without Bc, we'd have had ANOTHER 100 million unwanted kids, with your taxes beind at least tripled. EVERY problem is made worse by having more people, wake UP. we have 10 as many humans as the resources of the earth can give a decent living to. and it's getting worse, EVERY day.

 

[goundra]

those laws are stupid, too. of course. double standards are always a sign of irrationality or powermad/*******ry.

 

[Bible_Belt]

Missouri Sheriffs Pledge To Not Enforce Obama’s Gun Control Laws

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2013/01...ledge-to-not-enforce-obamas-gun-control-laws/

Missouri house bill (HB 170). The bill, introduced last week, would make criminals of any law enforcement official, local, state or federal, who tried to enforce any of President Obama’s gun control initiatives

http://www.house.mo.gov/billtracking/bills131/biltxt/intro/HB0170I.htm

The link above is the full text of the bill. It's just a bill right now and not a law, but it would direct state police to arrest Federal police if they enforce Federal gun law within the state. It's like The Civil War all over again.

 

[twentee]

FAR more importantly, it's a right worth killing for, as many as need be and WHOMEVER need be killed. nobody cares if you'll die for it, what they ARE FORED TO CARE ABOUT is that you can kill THEM, lots of them, and get away with it to kill more of them. THEN you have a "right". That is why animals have no rights, they can't kill enough of us to enforce their rights. they can't even declare their rights, actually.

 

[Down Low]

they wouldn't agree with blacks being free or women having the vote, either. I've read that there were "anti concealed carry" regs in some towns in revolutionary era US. There's a fairly new book about it. the issue, really, is are we going to stay ready to shoot wannabe tyrants (and their all too willing and ready minions in various uniforms) if we need to, to maintain freedom, or are we going to let Big Bro run our lives, even more than he does already?

rights come out of the barrel of a gun. We all agree that a rabbit has the "right" to kick a fox in the teeth, right? well, humans just found a way to kick teeth from further away, that's all. The only rights you REALLY have are those which you PROVE you are willing/able to KILL wouldbe usurpers for subverting. that is the ONLY thing that such people have EVER been limited by, DEATH. Rights are not given to you by a piece of paper or by some "ghost=god". Rights are to be EXTRACTED and maintained by lethal force, or at least, the THREAT of such force. within a generation or 2 of your having lost the ability/willingness to kill tyrants for infringing your rights, you can COUNT on those rights not being yours anymore. history teaches this vital lesson, but the sheep/wussies and tyrant wannabes are always trying to get other suckers to give up and submit to their rule, for the sake of "peace and security". I say SHOVE THAT, and i'll take care of myself, just fine, thanks.

If you care to read up on your history, you'll see that the idea was to have two-sided pincers against slavery. In 1805, it would become illegal to import new slaves. For existing slaves, the idea was to defeat slavery laws in the state houses and state courts. The Founding Fathers understood that only an informed and active citizenry could make any meaningful laws. Slavery in Georgia couldn't be dismantled from Pennsylvania.

Nowadays, we correctly ascribe most of America's social ruin to the greed of a few hundred rich families. So was the case of the post-Colonial South. The Impending Crisis In The South showed that the value of New York State's hay crop alone in 1860 was greater than the value of the whole South's cotton. Slavery never was a great producer of wealth. Up until the last decade of slavery, there were legal inroads made against harsh treatment of slaves. Really, it was the political fight by a very tiny elite of big plantation owners that kept slavery after the Revolution, and fought tooth and nail at its end. It was never correct to say the Founding Fathers avoided Federal solutions because they were protecting slavery.

 

[twentee]

good info, buy why quote me in your post? My commentary was not about our past, but about why we need to keep the autorifles for our futer.

 

[5string]

Perhaps the greatest irony of the whole "ban guns" theme is......

We need it to "protect the children", yet we demand the right to abort them.

The absolute best post in this thread. Great irony here. Would rep if I could.

The issue is not so much guns. They do not need to be banned. The real issue is that of mental illness. Mental illness should be addressed and treated.

Access to guns by crazy folk is an entirely different debate. Chime in on that.

And here is one for you. Why does a female school teacher allow access to her AR 15 by her kid who she knows is unstable? Lastly, maybe she was unstable as well?