Judge Sonia Sotomayor [Archive] - Page 2

Sanslines

07-11-2009, 04:20 PM

Packing Heat in Our National Parks: How Did We Let the Gun Fanatics Get Their Way?
By Marie Cocco (http://www.alternet.org/authors/8175/), Washington Post Writers Group. Posted May 26, 2009.

Our national parks are among the safest places in America. So against what, exactly, are the proponents of the new gun law defending themselves?

WASHINGTON -- Hiking boots, check. Sunscreen, check. Water bottles, check.Guns, clips, ammo. Check, check, check.It's enough to make you sick before you've grilled a single hot dog. Just as the National Park Service was kicking off the summer season by reminding us that these public jewels "offer tradition, heritage, recreation and fun for all members of the family," the National Rifle Association was having one heck of a good time. The gun lobby had much to celebrate this Memorial Day weekend. With their usual steely conviction, contempt for the rights and safety of others, and string of nonsensical arguments, gun supporters in Congress managed to accomplish what even President George W. Bush failed to do with a last-minute rule that was blocked in court: They pushed through a law to allow national park visitors to carry loaded weapons -- openly or concealed -- in the millions of acres of wilderness, scenic byways and historic sites that generations of Americans have come to treasure.

It is difficult to calculate which is the more dangerous menace: the disdain the gun lobby shows for the nation's most beloved public spaces, or the gutless Democrats, especially in the Senate, who went along with this abomination. Then there is President Obama, who as a candidate said he supported gun control but who as president has complied with the gun lobby's dictates, and without much protest. In April, Obama reversed a campaign pledge to try to reinstate the Clinton-era ban on assault weapons, turning aside a plea from Mexican President Felipe Calderon to re-enact the ban as part of an effort to quell drug-related violence along the border. Now Obama has signed legislation -- a credit card reform bill he eagerly promotes as part of his economic reforms -- without making a strenuous effort to keep the guns-in-the-parks rule from being brazenly attached to the unrelated consumer measure.

Candidate Obama used to say this sort of legislative trick was symptomatic of Washington's old ways -- the unsavory logrolling that results in bad laws. Now he just rolls right along with it. As with most arguments the gun lobby and its supporters make, the case for toting loaded weapons in parks and historical grounds is phony. It starts with the premise that the Second Amendment right to bear arms always trumps regulatory common sense, when nothing is further from the truth. Legal gun owners are not allowed to carry loaded weapons aboard commercial aircraft, for example, nor into federal courthouses or other federal buildings.

Though supporters, notably Oklahoma Republican Sen. Tom Coburn, claim that gun owners who hold state permits need to have "the right to defend themselves" in national parks, the question must be asked: What, exactly, are they defending against?

The parks are reliably -- in fact, almost unbelievably -- safe. In 2007, according to the park service, there were 382 incidents that fit the FBI's categories of violent crime (murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault). They were spread across 34 million acres of parkland that were visited by 275 million travelers. Coburn and pretty much every other American would be much safer in a park than at home.

Oklahoma, with 3.6 million residents, recorded 18,072 violent crimes in 2007, FBI data show. Before this legislative coup, gun owners were not banned from transporting their weapons into or through the parks. They merely had to keep them put away and unloaded, under rules established during the Reagan administration. Last year, when it became known that the Bush administration wanted to change the regulation, seven former directors of the park service -- dating back to the Johnson administration and including Republicans and Democrats -- opposed it. The former directors said in a letter to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne that the regulation was meant to put gun-owning visitors on notice that "they are entering a special place where wildlife are protected and the environment is respected both for the visitor's enjoyment and the enjoyment of others.

"In the gun lobby's crabbed worldview, the enjoyment of others -- let alone the safety of others -- is of little concern. The right to carry a loaded weapon, concealed or openly, even where families gather to celebrate nature and history is paramount. The parks and various charitable organizations that support them are celebrating their heritage this year in part with the release of a Ken Burns documentary titled "The National Parks: America's Best Idea." It is a tragedy that our political leadership decided to mark the occasion with one of America's worst ideas.

http://www.alternet.org/rights/140237/packing_heat_in_our_national_parks%3A_how_did_we_l et_the_gun_fanatics_get_their_way/

gmoney

07-11-2009, 04:33 PM

If gun associated crime is so minor, then you certainly do not need any guns for protection.

Sorry if the facts got in your way.
The fact is My protection is what keeps gun crimes down.

Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.
* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.3
* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.

Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.
Concealed carry laws are dropping crime rates across the country. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed:
* States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%;10 and
* If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.11
* Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union -- having three times received the "Safest State Award."12
* Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rates in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state.13 FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period -- thus putting the Florida rate below the national average. 14

Do firearms carry laws result in chaos? No. Consider the case of Florida. A citizen in the Sunshine State is far more likely to be attacked by an alligator than to be assaulted by a concealed carry holder.
1. During the first fifteen years that the Florida law was in effect, alligator attacks outpaced the number of crimes committed by carry holders by a 229 to 155 margin.
2. And even the 155 "crimes" committed by concealed carry permit holders are somewhat misleading as most of these infractions resulted from Floridians who accidentally carried their firearms into restricted areas, such as an airport.

nimrod

07-11-2009, 04:50 PM

I never said nor believed that guns primary function is not for killing, but to ban them just because of that is not enough of a reason for me. Put restrictions on them, regulate them yes, but to ban them outright, no. If the killing potential of an object is the reasons for banning something there would be alot of things we would not be able to own or use because of that potential, that is why they are regulated and restricted. Their primary function may not be killing, but the potential for using it as a weapon is still there.

Do guns make it easier to do violence? Yes of course they do, but making things easier to do violence does not make anyone more or less violent. The greater potential for harm that an item has, does not make its owner more or less violent.

I believe that if we focused on what makes people violent and try to make changes there, guns would not be the issue it is today.

Sanslines

07-11-2009, 04:56 PM

Sorry if the facts got in your way.
The fact is My protection is what keeps gun crimes down.

Your so called fact is nonsense. Carrying a conceiled gun does nothing to deter crime. Recklessly showing off a gun is a good way to get you shot and killed. Take the time to study martial arts or get a stun gun (or use a variety of other non lethal crime deterents such as peper spray, etc) if you care at all about human life. Most people are not at all qualified to administer lethal force. What makes you think that you are so different then others? If you are so different and so qualified, then you would be the first to advocate that guns should not be availible for unqualifed individuals. The study of martial arts would do much to alleviate the fear that seems to permeate you to the point that you think that you need a gun to protect yourself.

You seem to have convinced yourself that carry a loaded gun is the only way to ensure self protection. It clearly is not. You also seem to not care about the value of human life and that is the real tragedy here.

gmoney

07-11-2009, 08:39 PM

jon71

07-12-2009, 12:10 AM

LOL I fully understand the need of NOT having a gun in a large city like New York unless it is for protection.
However when you step on toes to get your way than it infringes my rights.
I do believe in my right to arms and Noone has the right to take that away from me.
Any other subject we can discuss easily but this one NOT!

Its obvious to me you know nothing but city life as that's where most of the anti gun crowd comes from.
How about blame poor parenting on the problems, thats a start!
It's sad how in 20 years the usa has gone from taking your guns to school (visibly in your truck) to now students getting expelled and counseling for pocket knives and aspirin...

Who's to blame for this? doubtful its law abiding armed citizens, it's the druggies and the criminals and a few liberals(lol).
Can You all say it C R I M I N A L S......you should be pushing for them to stay in prison instead of debating who has a right to protect themself, their family, and their property.

Also I will say I consider myself an independant, am ok with quite a bit of "leftist" issues but stand my ground on gun rights.

Actually I've never lived in a big city in my life. I've always lived in small towns in the rural south, my entire life. I don't go so far as to call myself country. I've never lived/worked on a farm and I don't listen to country music however a large number of the people I have gone to school with/worked with are DEFINITELY country. You could say I'm country adjacent, I don't miss it by much.
To hit a few points I don't want to take guns away from you. I wish to place certain restrictions on guns. Certain models can and should be outlawed, we can require child safety locks, etc. etc. but I don't favor a total ban. To make this relate I believe strongly in free speech but if someone yells fire in a crowded theater, sells kiddie porn, or gives military secrets to a foreign govt. I would not for one second defend them. Some things are just over the line whether it's kiddie porn or semi-automatic guns.
Also there is no either/or in longer prison sentences (I'm assuming that's the gist of your poorly worded third paragraph) or proper gun control. Of course we can and should do both. You deliberately presented a false choice.

jon71

07-12-2009, 12:15 AM

Sorry if the facts got in your way.
The fact is My protection is what keeps gun crimes down.

Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.
* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.3
* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.

Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.
Concealed carry laws are dropping crime rates across the country. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed:
* States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%;10 and
* If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.11
* Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union -- having three times received the "Safest State Award."12
* Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rates in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state.13 FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period -- thus putting the Florida rate below the national average. 14

Do firearms carry laws result in chaos? No. Consider the case of Florida. A citizen in the Sunshine State is far more likely to be attacked by an alligator than to be assaulted by a concealed carry holder.
1. During the first fifteen years that the Florida law was in effect, alligator attacks outpaced the number of crimes committed by carry holders by a 229 to 155 margin.
2. And even the 155 "crimes" committed by concealed carry permit holders are somewhat misleading as most of these infractions resulted from Floridians who accidentally carried their firearms into restricted areas, such as an airport.

Those "statistics" did not come from "anti-gun Clinton researchers" they were invented from thin air by the N.R.A. Nobody here is gullible enough to believe that, unless you are.

jon71

07-12-2009, 12:26 AM

gmoney

07-12-2009, 02:47 AM

Those "statistics" did not come from "anti-gun Clinton researchers" they were invented from thin air by the N.R.A. Nobody here is gullible enough to believe that, unless you are.

I'm sure "statistics" are made up on both sides. These numbers are not from NRA but elsewhere.

I just don't buy into your side of the debate.
Good parenting is what solves these problems.
Nothing more, nothing less.

This generation has so many single parent households is what is hurting this country.
No role models other than gangsters and sports figures.

Question - if guns don't make people safe, why do police carry them?

also some were FBI stats. I guess those are made up as well...

As the 2005 Justice Department's Crime Victimization Survey from the 1990's revealed, only 3.6% of individuals who defend themselves with a firearm are injured in a violent crime, whereas 55.2% of individuals who passively give in to their attacker are injured
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

Also, sporting uses of firearms is considered one of the safest sports when compared to everyday sports like basketball and football. In fact figures from the National Safety Council, Injury Facts 2008 edition show that while football players suffer 2585 injuries per 100,000 participants, baseball players suffer 1122 injuries per 100,000, and even billiards players suffer 15 injuries per 100,000 participants, the incidence of injuries suffered during hunting activities was only 2 per 100,000.

Question - if guns don't make people safe, why do police carry them?

Sanslines

07-12-2009, 04:02 AM

I like the way you discredit facts. You call them nonsense.LOL
There is no value in a criminals life.
Sad but thats a fact as well.
Its simple if you are willing to do harm to a human you should expect harm to come your way.....

That's the sad part of this discussion, you have no CLUE what to do with your life.One day you will be able to leave that apartment of yours...

LOL.....and you admit to Jon when he challenges your 'facts' that "I'm sure "statistics" are made up on both sides." It is pretty obvious that you will use 'made up statistics' to justify your position. Therefore, you certainly know that your 'facts' are indeed nonsense and you have saved me the time of having to go through line by line to illustrate just how skewed your 'facts' are. Even if I did that you would not accept the real 'facts' as opposed to nonsensical propoganda.

The fact is that you do not value human life - criminal or not. You won't mention that death of innocent people who are killed with guns because you don't want to be bothered with their deaths. Yet your position does indeed make you partly responsible for their deaths. You clearly do not value criminal lives and would rather kill them all off then change the circumstances (as Nimrod stated) as to why people turn to crime.

As for my life, I do not need a gun to hide behind for I do not live in fear. I accept how various groups (including a past government adminstration) has routinely used fear as a means to manipulate people into supporting their positions. Such irrational fear mongering has no real basis in fact.

If you honeslty believed that you are justified to own a gun for ONLY personal protection, then your responses would have been entirely different. You would have been the first person to address the many serious problems with irresponsible gun ownership and have advocated for common sense solutions to deal with those problems. Taking guns away from those who should never have access to guns (such as drunken bubbas or teenagers who think that it is fun to go for joy rides to shoot and kill people's pets and livestock, etc) should be a priority of yours for such individuals certainly discredit your 'rights'.

Your position can easily be summed up as follows: " I am entitled to own as many guns as I chose to own based upon a radical interpretaion of the Second Ammendment. I will never discuss having the Second Ammendment changed or modified, for that may weaken my 'right' to own any weapon that I chose to own - including weapons of war and of mass distruction. I also live in constant fear of attack because I live in one of the most crime ridden and violent nations on earth. Incarceration has not resolved the crime problem for the nation that I live in has one of the highest incarceration rates on earth. Alternatives to guns, such as pepper spray, the study of martial arts, stun guns, etc are poor substitutes for the 'real thing'. Rather then resolving the actual problems that lead to criminal use of guns, I would rather shoot and kill criminals because I do not value their lives. If innocent people are killed along the way, then so be it, for I really do not value their lives either. The only life that I value is my own and it is obvious that I do not care about society in general."

It is pretty obvious that it really is impossible to reach someone who has no value for life. This really is the bottom line.

Sanslines

07-12-2009, 04:14 AM

also some were FBI stats. I guess those are made up as well...

As the 2005 Justice Department's Crime Victimization Survey from the 1990's revealed, only 3.6% of individuals who defend themselves with a firearm are injured in a violent crime, whereas 55.2% of individuals who passively give in to their attacker are injured

Except you forgot to define what exactly is an 'injury'. Unless those injuries are exactly the same, then this is life comparing apples to oranges. Some of us have read the book 'How to Lie With Statistics". Have you?

Also, sporting uses of firearms is considered one of the safest sports when compared to everyday sports like basketball and football. In fact figures from the National Safety Council, Injury Facts 2008 edition show that while football players suffer 2585 injuries per 100,000 participants, baseball players suffer 1122 injuries per 100,000, and even billiards players suffer 15 injuries per 100,000 participants, the incidence of injuries suffered during hunting activities was only 2 per 100,000.

For whom, the person doing the shooting or the person's or animals being shot? Of course you don't value the life of the person or animal being shot as the issue all revolves around you and your 'right'. The rest of society does not count according to your views.

Question - if guns don't make people safe, why do police carry them?[/quote]

Answer - In other nations such as England, the police do not carry guns. The public does not want the average cop on the beat to carry guns. The public feels perfectly safe without resorting to guns. People have very viable person protection alternatives to guns. They are not obsessed with guns as you are.

Also, you again continue to distort for you fully know that the police are trained in the use of lethal force and employ a variety of methods to deal with criminals. Lethal force is the last resort and such force is used only for very restricted circumstances.

The average person has never has such training.

I have mentioned this over and over again in previous posts but you conveniently disregard it because it weakens your argument. This is just another clear example of how you only chose certain aspects of 'facts' to demonstrate your position and yet when confronted with additional supporting information which weakens your position, you suddenly remain silent.

Instead of continuing to ramble on with the same old, tired canards about YOUR rights, you would be far better served by going into in depth explanations as to how you intend to rationally deal with criminals with common sense laws. Your obvious solution (which is basically to shoot them all) is nonsense and will result in no one taking you seriously. You obviously do not see it, but you are your own greatest threat to your 'rights'.

Sanslines

07-12-2009, 04:20 AM

Shooting down the myth of the ‘gun culture’
For all the hysterical claims about ‘teen gun gangs’ holding whole suburbs hostage, gun crime in Britain remains very rare.

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/2877/

Gun crime

Gun-related crime kills, maims and intimidates, and is frequently linked to gang activity and the illegal drugs trade in the UK. We are committed to tackling gun crime to ensure the safety and security of all British citizens.
A snapshot of gun crime

Contrary to public perception, the overall level of gun crime in England and Wales is very low – less than 0.5% of all crime recorded by the police.
Facts & figures

<LI minmax_bound="true">The number of overall offences involving firearms fell by 2% in 2007-08 compared to the previous year <LI minmax_bound="true">Firearms were involved in 455 serious or fatal injuries, compared to 468 the previous year - a drop of 3% <LI minmax_bound="true">Offences involving handguns effectively held steady, those involving shotguns were down 3%
The number of reported crimes involving imitation guns effectively held steady
(Source: Crime in England and Wales 2007-08 (http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708.pdf))

What we’re doing about gun crime

Strengthening the law

We have:
<LI minmax_bound="true">introduced a minimum five-year sentence for people convicted of possessing an illegal firearm <LI minmax_bound="true">made it an offence to possess an air weapon or imitation firearm in public without legal authority or reasonable excuse <LI minmax_bound="true">increased the age limit for possession of air rifles to 17
prohibited certain air weapons that are easily converted to fire live ammunition
The Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006:
<LI minmax_bound="true">targets imitation firearms – by making it illegal to manufacture or sell imitation firearms that could be mistaken for real firearms, strengthening sentences for carrying imitation firearms, and creating tougher manufacturing standards so imitations can’t be converted to fire real ammunition
reduces illegal use of air weapons – by increasing the age limit for buying or firing air weapons without supervision
Targeting illegal firearm supplies

We’re cutting off the supply of firearms into the country by tightening security on import routes and international mail, and monitoring online firearm suppliers.
Tackling the rise in gun culture

We established the Connected (new window) (http://www.connected.gov.uk/) programme to support local community groups in their fight against gun crime.
What you can do about gun crime

Concerned about gun crime? Here’s what you can do:
<LI minmax_bound="true">if you see people using or carrying illegal firearms, report it immediately to the police, or to CrimeStoppers (new window) (http://www.crimestoppers-uk.org/)
visit the Connected (new window) (http://www.connected.gov.uk/) website to find out how you can get involved in community projects to fight gun crime
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/crime-victims/reducing-crime/gun-crime/

Sanslines

07-12-2009, 05:32 AM

Hunting and Illegal Violence Against Humans and
Other Animals: Exploring the Relationship

Hunting has enjoyed a long history of legal and normative support in this country. In the last quarter of a century, however, both hunting and support for hunting have declined (Herzog, Rowan, & Kassow,
2001; Irwin, 2001). As of 1999, there were 15.1 million
paid hunting license holders, compared with17.1 million in 1975 (Irwin).

Some of the factors that have contributed to this decline are structural, such
as less leisure time and less acreage on which hunting is permitted. Yet, normative
support for hunting also has diminished in recent years. Whereas
nearly two-thirds of American adults approved of sport hunting in the 1970s,
a majority now opposes the practice (Irwin, 2001). It probably is not coincidental
that the same period in which hunting’s popularity has suffered is associated with the rise of the modern animal rights movement.

Animal rights activists and many feminists (particularly ecofeminists) have argued that hunting is another form of violence and another example of male domination and oppression (Adams, 1995; Kheel, 1995). Anecdotal data from advocates for battered women suggest a link between woman-battering and hunting (Adams, 1995), reinforcing this view of hunting as not only a recreational activity but also as an act of violence toward nonhuman animals that may be associated with other expressions of violence against humans and other animals.

1. Those who hunted in childhood will be more likely to have committed acts of violence against both humans and other animals.

2. Those who have hunted will have lower levels of empathy than those who have not.

Males also were much more likely to engage in violent actions—both direct and indirect—toward human beings. Male respondents were approximately four times more likely to report damaging or destroying someone else’s property during their last year in high school. A little more than 30% of males (31.25%), but only 7.9% of females, engaged in this form of indirect violence.
Males also were four times more likely to have engaged in physical fights with others during their senior year, with 28.1% of males, but only 7.1% of females, reporting having done so.

The attitudes of hunters toward animals may make it easier to kill them legally—while hunting—as well as illegally. It seems likely that those who kill animals for sport would be more likely to view animals as objects or tools, or at least as inferior to humans, whereas non-hunters may be more willing to view animals in more subjective and individualistic terms. In fact, among this sample, hunters were significantly more likely to disagree with the statement, “Animals should have the same moral rights as human beings do.” Approximately half of hunters (48.8%) either disagreed or strongly disagreed with this statement, compared with only one-fourth of non-hunters (27.4%), x2 (1 df) = 4.57, p = .033. If other animals are viewed in a more impersonal, objectified way, then physically harming or killing them, whether hunting or not, may be more likely.

Hunting has been seen as a way to reinforce masculinity and reinforce the notion of a man's self worth. However, such reinforcements are based upon hunting and killing defenseless animals and are therefore actually baseless reinforcements based upon a factually false base.

NudeTopher

07-12-2009, 08:22 AM

Why???? Guns are allowed in state parks, and virtually everywhere else. What makes National Parks so special?

.

Your blanket statement is blatently false, New York State for one does not allow firearms in state parks.

Sanslines

07-12-2009, 08:33 AM

CEASEFIREPA

BY MIA LIGHT
STAFF WRITER, Hazelton Standard Speaker

Published: Saturday, July 19, 2008 4:24 AM EDT

.................

Randy Garis, 47, of Hazleton, had his 4-year old twins, Hayley and Zachary, at the park this week.

Asked about his feelings on the PFOA’s objection to the park rule that prohibits firearms, Garis said that even constitutionally guaranteed rights have reasonable limits.

“The Constitution guarantees the right to free speech, but you can’t yell ‘fire’ in a theater. It guarantees freedom of the press, but you can’t write something false about someone. That’s libel. They have the right to bear arms and they can have their picnic here. But there are rules to abide by that are not unreasonable rules. We abide by the rules when we come here. Everyone should,” Garis said.

............

“I’d be afraid if I came here and there were people with guns,” she said.

The rules and regulations are posted at the park with a warning that violations can carry a fine of up to $300.

http://www.ceasefirepa.org/node/82

“Under firearms restrictions that have been in place since the Reagan presidency, our parks have remained some of the safest places in this country,” Goldsmith said. “Allowing AK-47s into our national parks, as this legislation would do, places hikers and nature lovers at risk merely to show fealty to a powerful and extremist special interest - the gun lobby. After a raft of mass shootings, and hundreds of Americans dying each week from gun violence, the American people are looking to the White House for principled leadership and sound judgment. It is deeply disappointing that the President and Congress have again ignored the judgment of law enforcement and the safety of Americans, and instead caved in to the gun lobby. “

http://www.ceasefirepa.org/node/112

NudeTopher

07-12-2009, 08:43 AM

Sorry if the facts got in your way.
The fact is My protection is what keeps gun crimes down.

* Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union -- having three times received the "Safest State Award."12
rt.

Saying that the reason for the lack of crime in Vermont is related to firearms illustrates a lack of knowledge about the culture and make-up of VT and is intellectually dishonest. A state that has more cows then people; a state that up unti recently had a minority population of less then 1%; and a state that is among the most homogenious in the nation does not need guns to keep the peace.

In fact, if you look at many of the family - on family crimes reported in the Burlington Free Press (Burlington, VT) you will see that guns were used in the commission of the crime. Funny, reading your posts one would expect that the guns would have been used in the defense and preventon of those very crimes.

Your facts aren't!

jon71

07-12-2009, 12:44 PM

I'm sure "statistics" are made up on both sides. These numbers are not from NRA but elsewhere.

I just don't buy into your side of the debate.
Good parenting is what solves these problems.
Nothing more, nothing less.

This generation has so many single parent households is what is hurting this country.
No role models other than gangsters and sports figures.

Question - if guns don't make people safe, why do police carry them?

also some were FBI stats. I guess those are made up as well...

As the 2005 Justice Department's Crime Victimization Survey from the 1990's revealed, only 3.6% of individuals who defend themselves with a firearm are injured in a violent crime, whereas 55.2% of individuals who passively give in to their attacker are injured
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

Also, sporting uses of firearms is considered one of the safest sports when compared to everyday sports like basketball and football. In fact figures from the National Safety Council, Injury Facts 2008 edition show that while football players suffer 2585 injuries per 100,000 participants, baseball players suffer 1122 injuries per 100,000, and even billiards players suffer 15 injuries per 100,000 participants, the incidence of injuries suffered during hunting activities was only 2 per 100,000.

Question - if guns don't make people safe, why do police carry them?

In England they have proper gun control and the police DON'T carry guns. The public loves that and the police love that. It's entirely conceivable that if we got our laws where they needed to be the police here could stop carrying them as well. We're a long ways from that now but it time, it's possible.
Also good parenting is great but talk about simplistic. For that matter some of the best parents are single parents. To just up and blame them for the entire nations ills is hateful and wrong.

Skinview

07-12-2009, 05:42 PM

Why not state that the homicide rate in the Mojave desert is virtually zero, where there is little gun control and guns are readily availible. Let's leave out all of the important supporting details, such as how the population is also virtually zero, how guns are 'readily availible' (at the one or two guns stores in the entirety of the Mojave desert), and there is little gun control (because of non existant enforcement of laws due to the virtually non existent police).I used a whole state and a whole nation as examples. Your post is a non sequitur.

We can continue to play fast and loose with the facts by never ending spin, or we can post all relevent factual information. Then again, we can't do that because it would prove over and over again just how radical the NRA has become with their lies, distortions, and misinformation.I'm sure that wouldn't stop you. Go ahead and try. And please don't give us a thirty page cut and paste article.

Skinview

07-12-2009, 05:54 PM

Japan is the only exception because of cultural acceptance. It'a about the only place in the world where suicide is not taboo. That's why you pick Japan to "prove" (lol) your point.Do you read my whole posts before you reply to them?? Japan was one of two that I cited, and the other (Russia) was the one with the higher suicide rate. And I posted a link that shows the suicide rates of all nations, and there were something like thirtyeight other nations, many of them European, with higher suicide rates than the US. I ask again, how old are you?

Skinview

07-12-2009, 06:13 PM

The NRA will follow their usual and well documented pattern of promoting lies and misleading distortions in order to mislead a guillible people. The NRA can hardly be considered an objective fountain of factual information.I don't consider the NRA to be objective, but they do get their facts straight. I have found them to be much less misleading than the general press is.

Your rebuttal is full of holes, inplications...I hope my posts have implications. If that is what you mean by "inplications".

As en example "Guns that weren`t traced to the U.S. are far more likely to have come from the international black market, or even from some of the estimated 14,000 Mexican soldiers who desert each year. "

Then again ,guns that weren't traced at all could still have come from the USA, rendering the quoted statement irrelevent. Just another examle of NRA spin at work.No doubt many of the untraced guns came from the US. But if they knew a gun was from the Mexican Army, they wouldn't try to do a US trace on it. So we don't know what percent comes from the US, but it is almost certainly less than 90%.

The real fact is that if the 90 percent number is not valid, it is because the NRA has opposed any form of gun registration which would clearly indicate where the guns have originated from. Your rebuttal failed to mention that, but then again why would the NRA ever admit that they are the reason why it is so hard to trace guns.Now you are not making sense. Obviously, we don't need gun registration to trace guns, because we do trace guns and we don't have national gun registration. If a gun was made in the US, it can be easily traced, at the very least, to the manufacturor.

Skinview

07-12-2009, 06:21 PM

How many police officers must be killed by cop killer ammunition before changes are demanded?There is no such thing as "cop killer ammunition". Its a propoganda term. Expanding bullets are what cops used in their guns and what hunters use to take game with. Its what bullets are supposed to do.

Skinview

07-12-2009, 06:30 PM

When the non-partisan factcheck.org documents BLATANT LIES in the NRA's characterizing of Obama's voting record was it really the voting record that is scaring the nuts?We went over that in another thread. Factcheck.org confirmed many of the NRA's charges as true, and some others that it said weren't, were factually true even if they might have suggested some intent of Obama's that was really just ineptness or indifference on his part. As I wrote, Obama has a clear anti gun voting record. Some here would like to claim that if he doesn't want to confiscate every gun in the country, that makes him a defender of gun rights. That's nonsense.

Skinview

07-12-2009, 06:55 PM

Guns aren't allowed in California's State or National Parks Skinview, unless you're a cop or have a concealed carry permit which is relatively difficult to get. You're as wrong about thisThat's California. There are 49 other states, you know, and most of them are less restrictive of guns. Most automatically issue a carry permit to anyone who isn't unqualified. Vermont requires no permits at all.

as you were in a previous post where you stated you can't get a DUI unless the car moves. You most certainly can in California, thank gawd.I'm not a DUI lawyer, but I do know that the "D" in DUI stands for "driving". If the car isn't moving, how can you be driving? Please, give us a link if I am wrong.

What makes parks a special concern is that alcohol is allowed and law enforcement is thinly scattered through the vast numbers of square miles in western state parks, national parks and BLM lands.That is true for a bizillion square miles of Federal land outside of National Parks. Ever hear of the National Forests? People hunt there. Again, what makes National Parks so special?

You want to believe and argue that gun owners are responsible and law-abiding. I disagree that all are.Nothing is "all", but by far most are responsible.

In fact, Calif. law assumes that some are not, and thus restricts many of the rights for all that you want to proclaim and expand.That is reprehensible.

I'll just say "Oh Brother" to myself and ignore your extreme right-wing whackaloon fantasys about there being a civil war if Obama takes your guns away...so please don't tell us about your "cold, dead, hands."You have heard of the militias, haven't you? You have heard of the Oklahoma City bombing of the Federal building there?

Do you really think guns are allowed "virtually everywhere else"? Guess what would happen if you tried carrying your gun into the Burningman Festival in the remote wilderness of Nevada's Black Rock Desert which is administered by a Federal Agency called the Bureau of Land Management or BLM. If someone reported seeing your gun, the Rangers and Sheriff's would have you on your face in the dirt, handcuffed and shackled, so fast...
The White House is a National Park also. Guess what will happen to you in that National Park if you assert your "rights".I didn't say guns were allowed everyplace else. You listed two, very small places, where guns are no allowed. I can walk from one end of my state, across the next, and to the Canadian border with a concealed gun and be perfectly legal.

gmoney

07-12-2009, 07:37 PM

.
Also good parenting is great but talk about simplistic. For that matter some of the best parents are single parents. To just up and blame them for the entire nations ills is hateful and wrong.

I Didn't say single parenting....YOU DID!

jon71

07-12-2009, 11:54 PM

There is no such thing as "cop killer ammunition". Its a propoganda term. Expanding bullets are what cops used in their guns and what hunters use to take game with. Its what bullets are supposed to do.

Cop killer ammunition are the bullets designed specifically to penetrate a bullet proof vest. Ther are specifically manufactured to be bought by criminals to kill police officers and security guards and the N.R.A. sees nothing wrong with this.

jon71

07-12-2009, 11:56 PM

Do you read my whole posts before you reply to them?? Japan was one of two that I cited, and the other (Russia) was the one with the higher suicide rate. And I posted a link that shows the suicide rates of all nations, and there were something like thirtyeight other nations, many of them European, with higher suicide rates than the US. I ask again, how old are you?

I didn't bother with the link because I already knew that America has the second highest suicide rate in the world. Japan is first. If your link says otherwise they simply got it wrong.

jon71

07-13-2009, 12:03 AM

[QUOTE=gmoney;233351]I'm sure "statistics" are made up on both sides. These numbers are not from NRA but elsewhere.

I just don't buy into your side of the debate.
Good parenting is what solves these problems.
Nothing more, nothing less.

This generation has so many single parent households is what is hurting this country.
No role models other than gangsters and sports figures.

You said (in post 277) I was the one who brought up single parents. Apparently not.

Sanslines

07-13-2009, 02:45 AM

I used a whole state and a whole nation as examples. Your post is a non sequitur.

Oh please. You fool no one with your carefully selected whole nation and whole state. My post clearly illustrates how you bias and skew your 'facts' with carefully selected nations that have been subsequently disputed and discounted by other posters with valid arguments.

I'm sure that wouldn't stop you. Go ahead and try. And please don't give us a thirty page cut and paste article.

I see. You can't dispute what is in the article so you now resort to the old tactic of attacking the lenght of the article (or some others such irrelevent aspect). If you actually bothered to read some of the links that were previously posted and address those posts, then posting 'thirty page cut and paste articles' would not be necessary to get your attention. Given that you have steadfastly refused to do so, and have now resorted to rather (obviously) irrelevent tactics, it appears that you can't dispute the real facts with any form of validity.

Sanslines

07-13-2009, 02:56 AM

I don't consider the NRA to be objective, but they do get their facts straight. I have found them to be much less misleading than the general press is.

Did you follow the link that was posted to factcheck, whcih exposes on e lie after another that the NRA vociferously used against Obama? If there is any criticism of Obama, it is that he has bee far too accomodating towards certain radical fanatics.

No doubt many of the untraced guns came from the US. But if they knew a gun was from the Mexican Army, they wouldn't try to do a US trace on it. So we don't know what percent comes from the US, but it is almost certainly less than 90%.

Why is it that you do't acknowledge that the reason the percentage is in dispute is because the NRA opposes any meaningful modern gun registration?

Now you are not making sense. Obviously, we don't need gun registration to trace guns, because we do trace guns and we don't have national gun registration. If a gun was made in the US, it can be easily traced, at the very least, to the manufacturor.

Now you are being deliberately obtuse. If clear gun registration records existed, then the gun could be traced not only to the manufacturer, but also to the list of gun owners. This is extremely important in determining the ownership history of individual guns and is a necessary requirement for effective law enforcement. You know very well that tracing a gun to a US manufacturer is not sufficient. Why on earth would you oppose clear and accurate gun registration procedures is beyond me.

Sanslines

07-13-2009, 02:58 AM

Sanslines

07-13-2009, 03:04 AM

I'm not a DUI lawyer, but I do know that the "D" in DUI stands for "driving". If the car isn't moving, how can you be driving? Please, give us a link if I am wrong.

You are wrong. In some jurisdictions, all that is necessary to charge someone with dui is an open alcoholic beverage container in the vehicle.

Wiki: "Driving while consuming alcohol may be illegal within a jurisdiction. In some it is illegal for an open container (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_container) of an alcoholic beverage to be in the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle or in some specific area of that compartment."

Sanslines

07-13-2009, 03:13 AM

I didn't say guns were allowed everyplace else. You listed two, very small places, where guns are no allowed. I can walk from one end of my state, across the next, and to the Canadian border with a concealed gun and be perfectly legal.

Try walking across New York State with a conceiled handgun and see what happens.

If you are so convinced that the majority of gun owners, including yourself, are so responsible, then why on earth would you ever oppose new laws that are more effective in dealing with those wo are not responsible? Laws are constantly updated and reworded to reinforce their intended purpose? Why should guns be exempt from this universally accepted process? What does your ilk actually fear from such actions? Why does your ilk respond to any proposals for meaningful changes and common sense laws with emotional hysteria and an orchestrated campaign of outright lies, distortions, and deliberate misrepresentations in order to mislead a guillible and misinformed people?

BinCo

07-13-2009, 07:14 AM

You are wrong. In some jurisdictions, all that is necessary to charge someone with dui is an open alcoholic beverage container in the vehicle.

Wiki: "Driving while consuming alcohol may be illegal within a jurisdiction. In some it is illegal for an open container (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_container) of an alcoholic beverage to be in the passenger compartment of a motor vehicle or in some specific area of that compartment."

True. In Colorado you can be given a DUI or DWI for driving any means of transportation but your own two feet. People have been given tickets for bikes, horses, atv's and lawn mowers.

BinCo

07-13-2009, 07:21 AM

If you are so convinced that the majority of gun owners, including yourself, are so responsible, then why on earth would you ever oppose new laws that are more effective in dealing with those wo are not responsible? Laws are constantly updated and reworded to reinforce their intended purpose? Why should guns be exempt from this universally accepted process? What does your ilk actually fear from such actions? Why does your ilk respond to any proposals for meaningful changes and common sense laws with emotional hysteria and an orchestrated campaign of outright lies, distortions, and deliberate misrepresentations in order to mislead a guillible and misinformed people?

Sanslines, What laws would YOU want to see, if you had your way? There are thousands of laws on the books about guns and the legal and illegal use of them. How many more do you think it will take to get to the utopia that you think is possible?

If you want registration, will any more policemen who steal citizen's guns be tried and convicted? During Katrina many Parrish officers stole citizen guns from people in their own homes. The guns were then beatup and stored in a container where they rusted to a non-functioning stick of steel. These people have still not gotten any restitution and the officers who stole the guns have not been prosecuted. How would you propose to break down the blue wall? Maybe we can make a police database and make sure that ANY cop who breaks the law is removed from police service nationwide? Of course, if his brother is the Sheriff, nothing will usually happen. Oh, and the police union would not stand for it.

BinCo

07-13-2009, 07:37 AM

Now you are being deliberately obtuse. If clear gun registration records existed, then the gun could be traced not only to the manufacturer, but also to the list of gun owners. This is extremely important in determining the ownership history of individual guns and is a necessary requirement for effective law enforcement. You know very well that tracing a gun to a US manufacturer is not sufficient. Why on earth would you oppose clear and accurate gun registration procedures is beyond me.

Incorrect. The issue is WHO has access to the records. When I buy a gun in Colorado I have to submit to a CBI background check. That is supposed to be destroyed, but the gun transfer from the dealer to me is supposed to be kept on record forever. If my gun is stolen and used in a crime, and recovered, the following will happen. The police will go to the manufacturer, they will show that the gun was sold to BASS Pro Shops, they will show that they sold the gun to me, I will have to show that I have a police report showing that the gun was stolen. END OF TRAIL. If I sell my gun, or die and my son gets it and moves to Texas, or anywhere, the trail is lost. My problem with registration is that it leads to confiscation, and there is NO SECURE WAY TO KEEP THE INFO OUT OF THE WRONG HANDS!! Yes, I say that loudly to make a point. If info like that was available to anyone without a court order it would be used against people. Some companies would not hire someone who owns 8 guns. Some landlords would not rent to someone who owns a gun. Some ex-husbands would use that against the ex-wife in court to show that he should have the kids. It would be used as another means of descrimination. Every group would cry that they should have access to that database. It's called privacy, period.

Can you imagine what YOUR registration would cost? It could be an excellent source of revenue for cities and counties and states that want to make owning a gun the right of the wealthy. I can imagine that Illinois would charge $50 a year, Cook County another $75 and Chicago another $100. Wow, what a great thing.

MoonShadow

07-13-2009, 07:53 AM

Guns do not make anyone safe. Those who think so are confused by a false sense of security. If you have to carry or have guns to be safe or feel safe, you have some serious issues of your own, not to mention you are living in fear or paranoia and as such you are not free at all. Living in fear of attack or aggression is not living free.

Sanslines

07-13-2009, 08:09 AM

Sanslines, What laws would YOU want to see, if you had your way? There are thousands of laws on the books about guns and the legal and illegal use of them. How many more do you think it will take to get to the utopia that you think is possible?

If you want registration, will any more policemen who steal citizen's guns be tried and convicted? During Katrina many Parrish officers stole citizen guns from people in their own homes. The guns were then beatup and stored in a container where they rusted to a non-functioning stick of steel. These people have still not gotten any restitution and the officers who stole the guns have not been prosecuted. How would you propose to break down the blue wall? Maybe we can make a police database and make sure that ANY cop who breaks the law is removed from police service nationwide? Of course, if his brother is the Sheriff, nothing will usually happen. Oh, and the police union would not stand for it.

Are you aware of the concentrated efforts of certain radical organizations to repeal ALL gun laws? Are you aware of just how many laws have been repealed or blocked? The assault weapon ban laws existed through both Repub and Dem administrations until they were allowed to expire during the second Bush administration. We now have guns in national parks. We also have a very haphazard set of state laws which vary tremendously from state to state. We have an out of control radical NRA that continues in their never attempt to destroy existing gun laws in spite of common sense and public safety.

The problems of the 'blue shield' obviously will not be solved by repealing more gun laws.

BinCo

07-13-2009, 08:12 AM

Moonshadow:

I disagree with you, but respect your opinion. Many years ago, before I had any guns, I was awoken with a knock on the front door. I figured my dumb kid lost his key again and was locked out. He seemed to be rather adept at this. So I got up and popped open the front door. There was a drunk Mexican with my screen door open and he tried to push his way inside. I could not understand what he was saying but finally managed to push him out after he noticed that the living room was not what he remembered and looked confused. He left and walked next door, where he was staying with the rest of his family. I got lucky. If he was a guy looking for trouble we would have been in a fight and the police would have been called. I've since moved and now if someone knocks at the door in the middle of the night I go to the door with my .40 and can look thru the side window to see who it is. If it's someone I don't want I can call the cops, if they decide to start breaking into the windows I can take care of it.

I'm sorry, but if you break into my house, you really do put your life in my hands. If I point my gun at you and you decide that you are disinclined to acquiesce to my demands that you lie on the floor and put your hands over your head than you are likely to be shot and killed for your crime.

Moonshadow, you might chose to phone the cops, keep a baseball bat (like my Mom), own a dog, have an alarm, or any one of a number of things to help you out. When I am traveling, I am comforted knowing that my wife can handle someone breaking in. She can chose to have the alarm, call the cops, or shoot the SOB. The choice is HERS, not someone who is scared to guns.

Sanslines

07-13-2009, 08:15 AM

Incorrect. The issue is WHO has access to the records. When I buy a gun in Colorado I have to submit to a CBI background check. That is supposed to be destroyed, but the gun transfer from the dealer to me is supposed to be kept on record forever. If my gun is stolen and used in a crime, and recovered, the following will happen. The police will go to the manufacturer, they will show that the gun was sold to BASS Pro Shops, they will show that they sold the gun to me, I will have to show that I have a police report showing that the gun was stolen. END OF TRAIL. If I sell my gun, or die and my son gets it and moves to Texas, or anywhere, the trail is lost. My problem with registration is that it leads to confiscation, and there is NO SECURE WAY TO KEEP THE INFO OUT OF THE WRONG HANDS!! Yes, I say that loudly to make a point. If info like that was available to anyone without a court order it would be used against people. Some companies would not hire someone who owns 8 guns. Some landlords would not rent to someone who owns a gun. Some ex-husbands would use that against the ex-wife in court to show that he should have the kids. It would be used as another means of descrimination. Every group would cry that they should have access to that database. It's called privacy, period.

Can you imagine what YOUR registration would cost? It could be an excellent source of revenue for cities and counties and states that want to make owning a gun the right of the wealthy. I can imagine that Illinois would charge $50 a year, Cook County another $75 and Chicago another $100. Wow, what a great thing.

Your statement of my being 'incorrect' is incorrect! LOL.

Wiki: "Gun laws in the United States vary from state to state and are independent of, though sometimes broader or more limited in scope than, existing federal firearms laws. Some U.S. states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._state) have also created so-called assault weapon bans that are independent of, though often similar to, the expired federal assault weapons ban (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_assault_weapons_ban). The state level bans vary significantly in their form, content, and level of restriction.

Specifically concerning Colorado:

Colorado

<TABLE class=wikitable style="FONT-SIZE: 85%" width="95%"><TBODY><TR><TH>Subject/Law</TH><TH>Long guns</TH><TH>Handguns</TH><TH>Relevant Statutes</TH><TH>Notes</TH></TR><TR><TD>State Permit to Purchase?</TD><TD>No</TD><TD>No</TD><TD>None</TD><TD>No</TD></TR><TR><TD>Firearm registration?</TD><TD>No</TD><TD>No</TD><TD>None</TD><TD>No</TD></TR><TR><TD>"Assault weapon" law?</TD><TD>No</TD><TD>No</TD><TD>None</TD><TD>No</TD></TR><TR><TD>Owner license required?</TD><TD>No</TD><TD>No</TD><TD>None</TD><TD>No</TD></TR><TR><TD>Concealed Carry permits issued?</TD><TD>Yes</TD><TD>Yes</TD><TD>CRS 18-12 (http://cbi.state.co.us/ccw/relatedstats.asp)</TD><TD>No</TD></TR><TR><TD>Open carry without a permit?</TD><TD>Yes*</TD><TD>Yes*</TD><TD>CRS 18-12 (http://cbi.state.co.us/ccw/relatedstats.asp)</TD><TD>Technically legal in most areas unless local laws exist (City of Denver), in which case signs must be posted. May be interpreted as disturbing the peace by law enforecement.</TD></TR><TR><TD>Concealed within a vehicle?</TD><TD>Unloaded Only**</TD><TD>Loaded or Unloaded*</TD><TD>CRS 18-12, 33-6-125</TD><TD>**Loaded without a round chambered only.</TD></TR><TR><TD>State Preemption of local restrictions?</TD><TD>Yes*</TD><TD>Yes*</TD><TD>CRS 18-12</TD><TD>*Open carry and unlicensed car carry of a loaded firearm is prohibited in city and county of Denver, otherwise, local ordinances are preempted by state law</TD></TR><TR><TD>NFA weapons restricted?</TD><TD>No</TD><TD>No</TD><TD>None</TD><TD>No</TD></TR><TR><TD>Peaceable Journey laws?</TD><TD>Yes</TD><TD>Yes</TD><TD>CRS 18-12-105.6 (http://cbi.state.co.us/ccw/Statutes/18-12-105.6.asp)</TD><TD>Denver's restrictions on transport/possession of firearms in vehicles do not apply to persons travelling to or from other jurisdictions; see Trinen v. City & County of Denver, 53 P.3d 754</TD></TR><TR><TD>Castle Doctrine?</TD><TD>Yes</TD><TD>Yes</TD><TD></TD><TD>A legal resident of a property has the right to defend himself, other occupants, and property using deadly force from intruders, whether they are armed or not.</TD></TR><TR><TD>"Make My Day" Law?</TD><TD>Yes</TD><TD>Yes</TD><TD></TD><TD>A person may defend himself or others with deadly force if necessary.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)

As for the argument 'keeping information out of the wrong hands', this argument doesn't hold water as there are many far more damaging aspect of a person's personal history that can create extensive damage if allowed to fall into the wrong hands. Numerous safeguards have already been established to protect sensitive personal information such as financial information and medical records that can do far more damage to an individual then a record of gun ownership. Why should gun purchase information be singled out as being any different.

As for gun registration fees, speculation about the cost is also spurious and irrelevent.

MoonShadow

07-13-2009, 08:53 AM

Moonshadow, you might chose to phone the cops, keep a baseball bat (like my Mom), own a dog, have an alarm, or any one of a number of things to help you out. When I am traveling, I am comforted knowing that my wife can handle someone breaking in. She can chose to have the alarm, call the cops, or shoot the SOB. The choice is HERS, not someone who is scared to guns.

Thanks BinCo. I don't live in fear of being attacked. If someone is breaking into my house with me there, I am out the door quick and up the road with my cell phone in hand, hopefully. I am not going to "stand up" to any fool breaking into my house. They can steal whatever the hell they want. I have insurance. I am not shooting someone breaking into my house. How ridiculous!

Yes, I understand choices are up to individuals but I live alone a lot and do not fear anyone breaking in or fear the possibility. I will not live in fear.

And why would your wife live in fear that someone might break in if she is alone?

MoonShadow

07-13-2009, 08:56 AM

If he was a guy looking for trouble we would have been in a fight and the police would have been called. I've since moved and now if someone knocks at the door in the middle of the night I go to the door with my .40 and can look thru the side window to see who it is. If it's someone I don't want I can call the cops, if they decide to start breaking into the windows I can take care of it.

But he wasn't; he was drunk and at the wrong house. Coulda's, woulda's, what if's are non-issues.

In all honesty, I don't care whether people want to own/carry guns. I just find it sad that individuals have this need. And I find those who own or carry guns who speak of their freedoms are just the opposite. If you have a need to carry and own, you are not free but in fear of whatever. This isn't freedom.

I think people confuse freedom with power. With a gun in hand you have POWER to pull the trigger and take another's life. That isn't freedom at all.

BinCo

07-13-2009, 10:14 AM

Your statement of my being 'incorrect' is incorrect! LOL.

Really, Perhaps you should know that to sell a firearm as a licensed dealer you need to have an FFL license. This is the record keeping portion of that requirement. To sell a personal firearm is completely different.

Record keeping
FFL holders are required to keep a registry of firearms sales in an ATF-approved Bound Book, or a computerized equivalent using ATF-approved software. They must also maintain file copies of Form 4473 or eForm 4473 "Firearms Transaction Record" documents, for a period of not less than 20 years after the date of sale or disposition. When retiring or otherwise relinquishing a license, these records are sent to the BATFE's Out-of-Business Records Center. The ATF is allowed to inspect, as well as request a copy of the Form 4473 from the dealer during the course of a criminal investigation. In addition, the sale of two or more handguns to a person in a five business day period must be reported to ATF on Form 3310.4.

So, what I said about the scenario of there being a traceable record of sale is completely correct. For at least 20 years. Manufacturers of firearms a known to keep them forever.

As for the argument 'keeping information out of the wrong hands', this argument doesn't hold water as there are many far more damaging aspect of a person's personal history that can create extensive damage if allowed to fall into the wrong hands. Numerous safeguards have already been established to protect sensitive personal information such as financial information and medical records that can do far more damage to an individual then a record of gun ownership. Why should gun purchase information be singled out as being any different.

I disagree. Your argument that people should not fear a database has been proven to be wrong in cases across the country involving all kinds of data, from home loans to car loans to business licenses to medical records. If someone wants to use that database as a means of profit or a reason to discriminate it will happen.

As for gun registration fees, speculation about the cost is also spurious and irrelevent.

To think that anti-gun states will use a registration fee as a means of control is completly logical for things that states are against. I could also assume that Texas would have as minimal a fee as required to have the program implemented. Mass would also have high fees.

Sanslines

07-13-2009, 10:59 AM

Really, Perhaps you should know that to sell a firearm as a licensed dealer you need to have an FFL license. This is the record keeping portion of that requirement. To sell a personal firearm is completely different.

Record keeping
FFL holders are required to keep a registry of firearms sales in an ATF-approved Bound Book, or a computerized equivalent using ATF-approved software. They must also maintain file copies of Form 4473 or eForm 4473 "Firearms Transaction Record" documents, for a period of not less than 20 years after the date of sale or disposition. When retiring or otherwise relinquishing a license, these records are sent to the BATFE's Out-of-Business Records Center. The ATF is allowed to inspect, as well as request a copy of the Form 4473 from the dealer during the course of a criminal investigation. In addition, the sale of two or more handguns to a person in a five business day period must be reported to ATF on Form 3310.4.

So, what I said about the scenario of there being a traceable record of sale is completely correct. For at least 20 years. Manufacturers of firearms a known to keep them forever.

Yes, just like the person I talked with last week who went to a local gun store and purchased a rifle. He was asked for his name and address with no request for any sort of verification. He could have told the sales clerk that he was Mickey Mouse. Is this the type of 'accurate' registration that you are talking about? Also, a transfer or sale of a firearm between two individuals has no record of sale. There is no equivalent vehicle title that goes along with the firearm. The point is that the process is too deliberately sloppy and full of loopholes. Some obviously prefer it that way.

I disagree. Your argument that people should not fear a database has been proven to be wrong in cases across the country involving all kinds of data, from home loans to car loans to business licenses to medical records. If someone wants to use that database as a means of profit or a reason to discriminate it will happen.

The obvious solution is to create a database that is safeguarded from such breaches. The alternate is to have no databases with any personal information. Such a request is not reasonable as there must be databases in order to secure loans, do online banking, etc. Firearms deserve no special consideration as far as databases are concerned.

According to your posts, above there already exists a crude form of registration database. No doubt your solution would be to get rid of even that database. the fact is that there are too many abuses of firearms and there must be an accurate and comprehensive database from which to track the abusers. You should be advocating for such a database instead of claiming that the government is going to take away your guns. Such a claim is baseless as the present vehicle registration system means that the government can effectively deal with abusers. The govenrment has not taken away your vehicle or anyone else's who uses their vehicle in an appropriate manner and would not be able to do so even if they wanted to. The same applies to guns (if not more so as guns can and would be hidden from government confiscation).

To think that anti-gun states will use a registration fee as a means of control is completly logical for things that states are against. I could also assume that Texas would have as minimal a fee as required to have the program implemented. Mass would also have high fees.[/quote]

Sanslines

07-13-2009, 11:01 AM

To think that anti-gun states will use a registration fee as a means of control is completly logical for things that states are against. I could also assume that Texas would have as minimal a fee as required to have the program implemented. Mass would also have high fees.

Have vehicle registration fees stopped people from owning vehicles? Speculating as to how high or low registration fees is pointless. Firearms owners would always find the money to register their guns. They seem to have plenty of money to purchase the firearm in the first place.

BinCo

07-13-2009, 12:23 PM

Have vehicle registration fees stopped people from owning vehicles? Speculating as to how high or low registration fees is pointless. Firearms owners would always find the money to register their guns. They seem to have plenty of money to purchase the firearm in the first place.

No, but here in Colorado new cars are high enough, and the fines low enough, that many people (enough to make the nightly news) just never bother to register their car. Why bother spending $1200 to get plates on a new car when the ticket is $30? Is there any other item that you need to register with the state? I can't think of anything but a vehicle. How would you visualize a registration system? Would I need to bring my guns to a babysitter every year and prove that I have them? Would I need to go to range and prove that I can safely use them? There is a record of firearm sales. It is required by the BATF. If you know someone who bought a gun and did not provide proof of identity, than you need to turn in that gun salesmen. They are required to do it. Try to buy a gun online and you will see the same thing over and over, sales are only permitted to IFF licensed dealers. You can't buy one from the Denver Post, E-Bay or Craigslist. You might be able to find one for sale, as a hidden item, but they are absolutely forbidden items.

Face it, we disagree. But, as it is written, the Constitution permits me, as a default, to be able to own a gun. I don't have to have permission from some jerk Sheriff who hates guns owners to own one. I don't have to have the right contacts with the President or Governor to own one. I don't have to justify my gun ownership to anyone. That's what the founding fathers wanted, and that is what it is. You can argue all you want. It's pointless. If I commit a crime I can lose my right to own a gun. But as a default I can own one.:p

Sanslines

07-13-2009, 01:18 PM

No, but here in Colorado new cars are high enough, and the fines low enough, that many people (enough to make the nightly news) just never bother to register their car. Why bother spending $1200 to get plates on a new car when the ticket is $30? Is there any other item that you need to register with the state? I can't think of anything but a vehicle. How would you visualize a registration system? Would I need to bring my guns to a babysitter every year and prove that I have them? Would I need to go to range and prove that I can safely use them? There is a record of firearm sales. It is required by the BATF. If you know someone who bought a gun and did not provide proof of identity, than you need to turn in that gun salesmen. They are required to do it. Try to buy a gun online and you will see the same thing over and over, sales are only permitted to IFF licensed dealers. You can't buy one from the Denver Post, E-Bay or Craigslist. You might be able to find one for sale, as a hidden item, but they are absolutely forbidden items.

Face it, we disagree. But, as it is written, the Constitution permits me, as a default, to be able to own a gun. I don't have to have permission from some jerk Sheriff who hates guns owners to own one. I don't have to have the right contacts with the President or Governor to own one. I don't have to justify my gun ownership to anyone. That's what the founding fathers wanted, and that is what it is. You can argue all you want. It's pointless. If I commit a crime I can lose my right to own a gun. But as a default I can own one.:p

Here is another hypothetical scenario. Person A is unemployed and desperate for money. Person B is an illegal alien or deranged or a felon who can not directly obtain a firearm. Person B offers to pay Person A $100 for him to go to a gun dealer and purchase a firearm for him. Of course the weapon is registered in Person A's name. Once the firearm is delivered to Person B, the chain of registration is broken. Hence why we need a much better registration system that requires that the chain never be broken 'under penalty of law'. We also need a much better way of tracing weapons that can not ever be altered or removed unless the weapon is completely destroyed.

Now for my arguments.....you may think that they are pointless but I assure you that common sense laws wll eventually return to better regulate firearms. People understand that freedom requires responsibility. Given the lack of responsibility and abuses that permeate so many aspects of our nation, more and more people will demand better regulation of firearms. It's coming sooner then you think. You can either ignore dealing with those who recklessly use firearms, or you can deal with them now before the rest of society deals with them for you in ways that you will not like. Guns kill and are not to be treated as just another consumer product.

As far as the founding father's are concerned, they lived in a very different age when muskets ruled the land. Wars were fought by a group of farmboys with muskets. The fouding father's were cleaver enough to understand that they could not anticipate life in this country in the future. Hence why they allowed for the possibilities to modify, create new, and retire old ammendments. Attempting to live in the past is an irrelvent justification for not modifying laws.

Another false justification on your part is to assume that you will someone save the nation by fighting with your trusty rifle. Try fighting off your local police department (SWAT team), state national guard, or the US military and see how far you will get. I just do not think that your rifle is going to be much of a match against a B-52 that drops a 'bunker buster' bomb on top of you.

gmoney

07-13-2009, 05:39 PM

Now for my arguments.....you may think that they are pointless but I assure you that common sense laws wll eventually return to better regulate firearms. People understand that freedom requires responsibility. Given the lack of responsibility and abuses that permeate so many aspects of our nation, more and more people will demand better regulation of firearms. It's coming sooner then you think. You can either ignore dealing with those who recklessly use firearms, or you can deal with them now before the rest of society deals with them for you in ways that you will not like. Guns kill and are not to be treated as just another consumer product.

.

260.000.000 guns in USA.
less than 30,000 die a year. Your claims are way off base.
A very small percentage of guns are used in violence.
a High percentage of those guns are stolen.
Explain how your registration process will solve that?(the chain is broken)

Also your "FEAR" of a drunk bubba shootin up the state park is way off base.
I don't think the columbine or VA tech shooters were "bubbas"
Drunk Bubbas would be there for your defense more than anything else.
Again I still beleive you are the one truly living in fear.
I refuse to be a victim. nothing more/nothing less

Naturist Mark

07-13-2009, 06:27 PM

jon71

07-14-2009, 12:09 AM

jon71

07-14-2009, 12:10 AM

Judge Sotomayor's confirmation hearings began today with introductory remarks by a number of Senators and from Sonia Sotomayor. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgimID6nsNI)

Glenn Beck (tool) exposed the perfidy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lS5tsxYJ_ys) of the event by noting that the Senators only asked softball questions of Sotomayor ... no hard questioning at all.

Yo Glenn ... today was all prepared remarks. Speeches. There were no questions. None. Maybe they can start pitching the soft balls tomorrow.

Glad to see this getting back on track.

jon71

07-14-2009, 12:14 AM

http://baldocomics.com/blog/303/07122009/

I hope I did this right. If I didn't everyone can go to Baldo comics for Sunday the 12th and check out their comic. It's not really political but it is very nice and on point.

Sanslines

07-14-2009, 03:40 AM

260.000.000 guns in USA.
less than 30,000 die a year. Your claims are way off base.
A very small percentage of guns are used in violence.
a High percentage of those guns are stolen.
Explain how your registration process will solve that?(the chain is broken)

Also your "FEAR" of a drunk bubba shootin up the state park is way off base.
I don't think the columbine or VA tech shooters were "bubbas"
Drunk Bubbas would be there for your defense more than anything else.
Again I still beleive you are the one truly living in fear.
I refuse to be a victim. nothing more/nothing less

We have already been through this and yet you continue to ignore the fact that you obviously are willing to write off a certain number of deaths as acceptable losses. Obviously, 260,000,000 guns are not owned by 260,000,000 unique individuals. Obviously 30,000 killed each year with guns represents a sizeable number of human lives - something that you fail to acknowledge and offer any solutions to resolve. If 30,000 american lives were killed in war, you can be assured that there would be a large public outcry (especially if there was a draft and everyone was equally vulnerable to being sent to war and killed). Yet 30,000 americans are killed year after year and there is no outcry. Instead, firearms lobbyists ignore the facts and offer no discussions or solutions about this very serious problem. You may be willing to write off 30,000 american lives, but I am not.

My registration proces is a step in the direction of refining laws to make it easier to trace guns directly to all of the individuals responsible for the exchange of deadly weapons. Why are you so consistently against any efforts to regulate the irresponsible among your ranks? Why don't you care about human life?

As for drunken bubbas, your statement is baseless and bizarre. Next, you will claim that criminals will protect me in parks with their guns. Obviously you have either not been around any drunken bubba, or are being deliberately misleading. I would not want to be around any drunken bubba anymore then I would want to be a passenger in a vehicle driven by a drunken bubba. We have laws to deal harshly with drunken drivers. We should be equally as harsh with those who are in no condition to handle a deadly weapon.

You claim that I am the one who lives in fear is baseless and without merit. I will try one last time to explain why you are the one who lives in fear and why I do not. Think about this carefully. Fear is a basic and prehistoric based reaction to a circumstance or event that threatens a person. If a sabre tooth tiger apprached a caveman, the caveman reacted to remove himself from the fear of that creature. He either ran or fought ie fight or flight. These types of reactions are based in each and every one of us.

You claim that do you not live in fear. Yet why did you buy a gun in the first place? Was it not because you were afraid of crime and wanted to protect yourself from crime? Were you not fearful of crime? Are you still not fearful of crime and this is why you continue to own a firearm? Obviously if the threat of crime no longer existed then you would no longer need a gun. Obviously if that threat never existed inthe first place, then the justification to own a gun because of fear of crime would not be a valid justification.

Obviously those individuals who are fearful will do something to remove the feelling of fear. Fear is not a pleasant feeling. It is human nature to pursue that which is pleasurable and avoid that which is painful. Fear is painful. People who live in constant fear of crime will attempt to do something to change their circumstances. Some will buy guns and will live with guns in order to protect themselves from the fear of crime. You have done this. You live in fear. Purchasing a gun was your reaction to fear. Continued ownershp of your gun is a consequence of your fear.

There is also another important consideration concerning fear. Those who value life may actually live in fear of inflicting pain or suffering or death upon another. There may be many justifications for inflicting such pain, suffering, death upon another yet the compassionate and feeling person will always feel remorse for doing so. Police officers will routinely have such feelings. Even after shooting and kililng a known criminal, in most cases, it is standard procedure for the police officer to be given counselilng in order to come to terms with his feelings about taking another human life. Police officers have compassion and empathy for all life - including criminals. Most do not want to kill anyone and will only do so as a very last resort after all other measures have been taken.

Those who have no real regard for human life will attempt to promote all kinds of justifications about the taking of another human life. In reality, then have no sensitivity to life and therefore place no real value upon the lives of others. They will therefore have no hesitation about taking another life. Why should they as such a life has no real value or meaning. Those who have compassion for the lives of others will not want to take life unless it is absolutely necessary. For such individuals, owning a lethal weapons (such as a firearm) is more of a burden and responsibility. The thought of killing is repulsive and they would actually live in fear of owning a firearm and having the potential to use it.

Isn't is also amazing how some who have such tunnel vision concering gun ownership never discuss or advocate for real, common sense solutions to resolve some of the crime problems that they believe justifies their ownership of a firearm. Why would they as it again weakens their arguments for owning a firearm in the first place. Remove or eliminate the threat and you remove the justification for a weapon

Instead of consistently ignoring the dark side of gun ownership, you should be advocating for refined laws and demanding that those laws be rigorously enforced which will deal with those irresponsible among your ranks in a very harsh manner. You should be advocating for solutions to crime that involve gun usage instead of consistently attempting to minimize the loss of human life. If you honestly want to protect your rights and the rights of the truly responsible, then you should stop stonewalling common sense laws that deal with the irresponsible and problem gun owners and work to get rid of them. Otherwise, as with anything else, your rights will eventually suffer because of a bunch of irresponsible gun owners - owners that you attempted to protect rather then eliminate from your ranks. Instead of living with tunnel vision and claiming that your rights are the only rights that matter, you would also be well advised to start acknowledging and having consideration for the rights of those who do not want guns and killing to be a part of their lives.

Sanslines

07-14-2009, 03:44 AM

Croydon

07-14-2009, 04:32 AM

She will not be asked any 'hard' questions. The decision to nominate her has already been made. No one is intent on disqualifying her or tripping her up. What is occuring now is just a formality and a show for the public.

And the public doesn't care. Gallup, if I am correct, did a poll on whether Americans believe Sotomayor should be confirmed. 64% of respondents believed she should be confirmed. There is no story here and republicans are making a mountain out of nothing and the media is falling right into it yet a circus is being made out of this confirmation hearing.

Continuous attack on Sotomayor from Republicans is NOT helping their cause. They are further alienating and angering Latino voters. These voters will not forget these attacks and comes 2010 and 2012 when politicians are up for re-election, Republicans will have a very hard time courting the Latino vote. Serious trouble will arise in the southwest states.

This is just another situation where Republican party has NO IDEA what is going on. They are tacking nonsense issues that aren't important.

MoonShadow

07-14-2009, 05:26 AM

.
I don't think the columbine or VA tech shooters were "bubbas"
Drunk Bubbas would be there for your defense more than anything else.

Yes, they were bubbas. Typically too.

MoonShadow

07-14-2009, 05:29 AM

Drunk Bubbas would be there for your defense more than anything else.
Again I still beleive you are the one truly living in fear.
I refuse to be a victim. nothing more/nothing less

Sorry, gmoney, but those of us who don't own guns or want them are not the ones living in fear. Those who own them "for safety" are. Let's not confused the two lines.

And drunk bubbas are not there for anyone's defense. I have encountered too many "drunk bubbas" in my time and they would be the first to take your lights out.

MoonShadow

07-14-2009, 05:30 AM

I am waiting for Sotomayer's confirmation. All this dog and pony show going on now is just costing more tax dollars when she is a sure thing for the Court. She qualifies, put her on!!!

jon71

07-14-2009, 05:37 AM

She will not be asked any 'hard' questions. The decision to nominate her has already been made. No one is intent on disqualifying her or tripping her up. What is occuring now is just a formality and a show for the public.

Unfortunately that won't be the case. Hard questions are fine (and she's prepared) but some Rep. Senators will just attack her in the guise of asking a question. They won't all do this but the ones from the redder states will. They'll look at is as bolstering their cred with Rep.s back home and a few are looking at the Republican primary for 2012 already. Also a few who plan to vote to confirm feel they have to let her have it first to placate the Republicans back home. Ironically I think a few of the most obvious "no" votes will phone it in during the hearings because they don't have to prove how hostile they are to anything Pres. Obama does, including his nominees. The good news is she will be confirmed. Every Democrat will vote for her and 1/3 to 1/2 of Republicans will as well.

Sanslines

07-14-2009, 06:03 AM

Unfortunately that won't be the case. Hard questions are fine (and she's prepared) but some Rep. Senators will just attack her in the guise of asking a question. They won't all do this but the ones from the redder states will. They'll look at is as bolstering their cred with Rep.s back home and a few are looking at the Republican primary for 2012 already. Also a few who plan to vote to confirm feel they have to let her have it first to placate the Republicans back home. Ironically I think a few of the most obvious "no" votes will phone it in during the hearings because they don't have to prove how hostile they are to anything Pres. Obama does, including his nominees. The good news is she will be confirmed. Every Democrat will vote for her and 1/3 to 1/2 of Republicans will as well.

I think that is it fairly obvious that Obama is being more then accomodating to the Repubs in so many different ways. If they continue to resist him just for the sake of resisting and with offering no viable solutions then they will be seen as nothing more then obstructionists who will continue to isolate themselves and become even more alientated from mainstreet.

Fitz1980

07-14-2009, 06:45 AM

I think that is it fairly obvious that Obama is being more then accomodating to the Repubs in so many different ways. If they continue to resist him just for the sake of resisting and with offering no viable solutions then they will be seen as nothing more then obstructionists who will continue to isolate themselves and become even more alientated from mainstreet.

Some Republican's idea id bi-partisanship.

http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh132/jentrant/trap-door-tt090319.gif

BinCo

07-14-2009, 11:52 AM

BinCo

07-14-2009, 12:02 PM

Yes, they were bubbas. Typically too.

Define "bubbas" please. My definition is a redneck who has little regard for anything, is a hick, can't read hard-lee at all, drinks a six pack for dinner, loves his truck, beats his wife, kicks the dog and thinks that Bocephus should be made president. If you don't know who Bocephus is you certainly ain't no bubba.

By many definitions, these 3 morons were not "bubbas". Kelbold and Harris were punk students, outcasts, but not bubbas. They hated country music loving bubbas. The fellow from VT was a mental case, not a bubba.

gmoney

07-14-2009, 12:32 PM

We have already been through this and yet you continue to ignore the fact that you obviously are willing to write off a certain number of deaths as acceptable losses. Obviously, 260,000,000 guns are not owned by 260,000,000 unique individuals. Obviously 30,000 killed each year with guns represents a sizeable number of human lives - something that you fail to acknowledge and offer any solutions to resolve. If 30,000 american lives were killed in war, you can be assured that there would be a large public outcry (especially if there was a draft and everyone was equally vulnerable to being sent to war and killed). Yet 30,000 americans are killed year after year and there is no outcry. Instead, firearms lobbyists ignore the facts and offer no discussions or solutions about this very serious problem. You may be willing to write off 30,000 american lives, but I am not.

My registration proces is a step in the direction of refining laws to make it easier to trace guns directly to all of the individuals responsible for the exchange of deadly weapons. Why are you so consistently against any efforts to regulate the irresponsible among your ranks? Why don't you care about human life?

As for drunken bubbas, your statement is baseless and bizarre. Next, you will claim that criminals will protect me in parks with their guns. Obviously you have either not been around any drunken bubba, or are being deliberately misleading. I would not want to be around any drunken bubba anymore then I would want to be a passenger in a vehicle driven by a drunken bubba. We have laws to deal harshly with drunken drivers. We should be equally as harsh with those who are in no condition to handle a deadly weapon.

You claim that I am the one who lives in fear is baseless and without merit. I will try one last time to explain why you are the one who lives in fear and why I do not. Think about this carefully. Fear is a basic and prehistoric based reaction to a circumstance or event that threatens a person. If a sabre tooth tiger apprached a caveman, the caveman reacted to remove himself from the fear of that creature. He either ran or fought ie fight or flight. These types of reactions are based in each and every one of us.

You claim that do you not live in fear. Yet why did you buy a gun in the first place? Was it not because you were afraid of crime and wanted to protect yourself from crime? Were you not fearful of crime? Are you still not fearful of crime and this is why you continue to own a firearm? Obviously if the threat of crime no longer existed then you would no longer need a gun. Obviously if that threat never existed inthe first place, then the justification to own a gun because of fear of crime would not be a valid justification.

Obviously those individuals who are fearful will do something to remove the feelling of fear. Fear is not a pleasant feeling. It is human nature to pursue that which is pleasurable and avoid that which is painful. Fear is painful. People who live in constant fear of crime will attempt to do something to change their circumstances. Some will buy guns and will live with guns in order to protect themselves from the fear of crime. You have done this. You live in fear. Purchasing a gun was your reaction to fear. Continued ownershp of your gun is a consequence of your fear.

There is also another important consideration concerning fear. Those who value life may actually live in fear of inflicting pain or suffering or death upon another. There may be many justifications for inflicting such pain, suffering, death upon another yet the compassionate and feeling person will always feel remorse for doing so. Police officers will routinely have such feelings. Even after shooting and kililng a known criminal, in most cases, it is standard procedure for the police officer to be given counselilng in order to come to terms with his feelings about taking another human life. Police officers have compassion and empathy for all life - including criminals. Most do not want to kill anyone and will only do so as a very last resort after all other measures have been taken.

Those who have no real regard for human life will attempt to promote all kinds of justifications about the taking of another human life. In reality, then have no sensitivity to life and therefore place no real value upon the lives of others. They will therefore have no hesitation about taking another life. Why should they as such a life has no real value or meaning. Those who have compassion for the lives of others will not want to take life unless it is absolutely necessary. For such individuals, owning a lethal weapons (such as a firearm) is more of a burden and responsibility. The thought of killing is repulsive and they would actually live in fear of owning a firearm and having the potential to use it.

Isn't is also amazing how some who have such tunnel vision concering gun ownership never discuss or advocate for real, common sense solutions to resolve some of the crime problems that they believe justifies their ownership of a firearm. Why would they as it again weakens their arguments for owning a firearm in the first place. Remove or eliminate the threat and you remove the justification for a weapon

Instead of consistently ignoring the dark side of gun ownership, you should be advocating for refined laws and demanding that those laws be rigorously enforced which will deal with those irresponsible among your ranks in a very harsh manner. You should be advocating for solutions to crime that involve gun usage instead of consistently attempting to minimize the loss of human life. If you honestly want to protect your rights and the rights of the truly responsible, then you should stop stonewalling common sense laws that deal with the irresponsible and problem gun owners and work to get rid of them. Otherwise, as with anything else, your rights will eventually suffer because of a bunch of irresponsible gun owners - owners that you attempted to protect rather then eliminate from your ranks. Instead of living with tunnel vision and claiming that your rights are the only rights that matter, you would also be well advised to start acknowledging and having consideration for the rights of those who do not want guns and killing to be a part of their lives.
How about getting rid of crime then I'll rethink my gun ownership position. 1st off I never bought a gun for self defense so I don't live in fear. I have one to put food on my table. It can be used for defense if necessary.
You surely live in a different world than I.

Sorry, gmoney, but those of us who don't own guns or want them are not the ones living in fear. Those who own them "for safety" are. Let's not confused the two lines.

And drunk bubbas are not there for anyone's defense. I have encountered too many "drunk bubbas" in my time and they would be the first to take your lights out.
You still will never get what fear means. You are afraid of bubba's.lol

Some Republican's idea id bi-partisanship.

http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh132/jentrant/trap-door-tt090319.gif

jon71

07-14-2009, 01:15 PM

I think that is it fairly obvious that Obama is being more then accomodating to the Repubs in so many different ways. If they continue to resist him just for the sake of resisting and with offering no viable solutions then they will be seen as nothing more then obstructionists who will continue to isolate themselves and become even more alientated from mainstreet.

I hope you're right and people do recognize how out there Republicans are. I'm only 38 but they're more obstructionist than anything I ever imagined I would see in my lifetime.

gmoney

07-14-2009, 01:43 PM

I hope you're right and people do recognize how out there Republicans are. I'm only 38 but they're more obstructionist than anything I ever imagined I would see in my lifetime.

Only because there are socialist in the mix!
When you see someone lieing thru their teeth what would you do?

gmoney

07-14-2009, 01:48 PM

I think that is it fairly obvious that Obama is being more then accomodating to the Repubs in so many different ways. If they continue to resist him just for the sake of resisting and with offering no viable solutions then they will be seen as nothing more then obstructionists who will continue to isolate themselves and become even more alientated from mainstreet.

I live on Mainstreet and it's NOTHING like you describe...

What planet are you on?
Also where is this coming from? Who is OBAMA to accomadate anybody?
What right does he have for that?
What's up with "resist"?
you act like he is a dictator. Nevermind you are right lol!

Sanslines

07-14-2009, 02:22 PM

How about getting rid of crime then I'll rethink my gun ownership position. 1st off I never bought a gun for self defense so I don't live in fear. I have one to put food on my table. It can be used for defense if necessary.
You surely live in a different world than I.

You still will never get what fear means. You are afraid of bubba's.lol

I have attempted on numerous ocassions to define 'fear' for you. If you belive that I do not get what fear means, then please define it for me. If you do not define it for me, they you are obviously not able to do so. If your definition differs from mine, then indicate how it differs.

I certainly must live in a very different world from yours. I live in the 21st century. How is life in the 18 th century? Just to bring you up to date, since the 18th century we have something very wonderful which is called a food store. Such stores stock fresh foods from all over the world that were not availible in the 1700's. People no longer have to hunt for food if they chose not to. We also have such a wonderful selection of food that many people have turned to a 'vegan' lifestyle.

Sanslines

07-14-2009, 02:28 PM

I live on Mainstreet and it's NOTHING like you describe...

What planet are you on?
Also where is this coming from? Who is OBAMA to accomadate anybody?
What right does he have for that?
What's up with "resist"?
you act like he is a dictator. Nevermind you are right lol!

I must live on a very different planet. I live on the planet Earth and in the 21st century. We have access to a wide variety of information sources that did not exist in the 1700's. We have a new president right now who is attempting to work with a wide variety of people from both parties. However, some narrow minded or closed minded political diehards are attempting to discredit him and actively wish that he fails in his numerous pursuits of dealing with some rather difficult national problems. He has chosen to tackle problems rather then continue to past trend of neglecting problems and allowing them to continue to get worse. He certainly is no dictator. He is actually a highly intelligent and articulate man and this is something that the bubbas very much detest. Honestly now, who would ever vote for a decent man with a real brain - right?

gmoney

07-14-2009, 02:45 PM

I must live on a very different planet. I live on the planet Earth and in the 21st century. We have access to a wide variety of information sources that did not exist in the 1700's. We have a new president right now who is attempting to work with a wide variety of people from both parties. However, some narrow minded or closed minded political diehards are attempting to discredit him and actively wish that he fails in his numerous pursuits of dealing with some rather difficult national problems. He has chosen to tackle problems rather then continue to past trend of neglecting problems and allowing them to continue to get worse. He certainly is no dictator. He is actually a highly intelligent and articulate man and this is something that the bubbas very much detest. Honestly now, who would ever vote for a decent man with a real brain - right?

funny how you have ignored his history.
I didnt like McCain either but he was certainly the lesser of 2 evils.
Biggest problem is how much money is he gonna spend.
It can not be sustained any longer.
This country will be a 3rd world one at best.

Fitz1980

07-14-2009, 03:11 PM

This country will be a 3rd world one at best.

That's Reagen/Bush(s) and the Republicans who have been setting us down a path to become 3rd world. 3rd world countries have a small group of very wealthy who control most of the nations wealth and power. Labor unions have little power, there are few regulations of the economy and few social welfare programs. Does that sound like one party's platform?

Sanslines

07-14-2009, 04:58 PM

funny how you have ignored his history.
I didnt like McCain either but he was certainly the lesser of 2 evils.
Biggest problem is how much money is he gonna spend.
It can not be sustained any longer.
This country will be a 3rd world one at best.

I haven't ignored his history but have studied it instead. I do not patently reject the man or fail to give him a chance to succeed in office. I do not believe that McCain would have tackled important issues such as health care. Perhaps you are willing to allow Wall Street to continue to run the health care system and ultimately decide who lives and who dies but I am not. Perhaps you enjoy spending your health care dollars on outrageous premiums that make CEO's of health care companies multi millionaires many times over at the expense of delivering health care to people but I am not. I am concerned as to how much money Obama will spend and how that money will ultimately be used but I am going to give Obama a chance - something that you appear not willing to do so. It appears that you have already made up your mind and condemned him after only 6 months in office. How sad. Give the man a chance.

BinCo

07-14-2009, 05:10 PM

funny how you have ignored his history.
I didnt like McCain either but he was certainly the lesser of 2 evils.
Biggest problem is how much money is he gonna spend.
It can not be sustained any longer.
This country will be a 3rd world one at best.

I tell you what Gmoney, when your choice is elected in the future and inherits a nice sized surplus, generated by a Democratic President who inspired people to do more, we can all see if he squanders it with tax cuts and ignores the national debt or actually works to pay it down.

If he works to pay it down I'm afraid he will be a one term Republican. Their agenda is less taxes. Somehow we are all expected to live within our means and pay down our debt and yet when a Repub gets in office he loses sight of paying down the debt and give out generous tax breaks to help him get re-elected.

It's a sad and viscious truth.

Also please keep in mind that the TARP money by Bush had NO STRINGS ATTACHED, while the Fed Stimilus changes from OBAMA has all kinds of strings attached to help spread out the spending across the nation and across the various industries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troubled_Asset_Relief_Program

gmoney

07-14-2009, 05:21 PM

Never said either was my choice but when confronted with 2 that are bad for America you choose the lesser of the 2 evils. That was all I was stating.

More money in my pocket is whats important to me as well. Way too many people in this country have not paid dues for anything they have. I see it everyday.
Hard work should bring rewards not punishment to give to slackers.
I am also referring to middle class people not the ceos of these companies. yes they are out of control.

BinCo

07-14-2009, 05:48 PM

Hard work should bring rewards not punishment to give to slackers.
I am also referring to middle class people not the ceos of these companies. yes they are out of control.

I could not agree more. It is why I left the Republican party. They lost the way when they starting selling themselves off to corporations and blew off the little guy. Who do you think laid the groundwork for the great exodus of good paying blue collar jobs in this country? I'll give you a hint, he told Gorbochev to tear down this wall.

I hate people who don't want to pull their own weight too. But I also hate companies that treat their employees as just another replacable human resource. It's why I refuse to shop at WalMart.

MoonShadow

07-14-2009, 05:55 PM

Define "bubbas" please. My definition is a redneck who has little regard for anything, is a hick, can't read hard-lee at all, drinks a six pack for dinner, loves his truck, beats his wife, kicks the dog and thinks that Bocephus should be made president. If you don't know who Bocephus is you certainly ain't no bubba.

By many definitions, these 3 morons were not "bubbas". Kelbold and Harris were punk students, outcasts, but not bubbas. They hated country music loving bubbas. The fellow from VT was a mental case, not a bubba.

Your definition is one type of bubba; bubbaism is a way of thinking, behaving, and acting. They can drive pick up trucks with gun racks, chew tobacco, or they can wear three piece Brooks Brothers suits and head up mega-corporations. They are narrow-minded thinking people. They wear blinders; they are not objective in their thinking, but subjective within their narrow scope of thinking.

Sanslines

07-15-2009, 02:42 AM

Your definition is one type of bubba; bubbaism is a way of thinking, behaving, and acting. They can drive pick up trucks with gun racks, chew tobacco, or they can wear three piece Brooks Brothers suits and head up mega-corporations. They are narrow-minded thinking people. They wear blinders; they are not objective in their thinking, but subjective within their narrow scope of thinking.

The world is flat and I refuse to be convinced otherwise regardless of any and all valid information to the contrary! lol

Sanslines

07-15-2009, 02:49 AM

I tell you what Gmoney, when your choice is elected in the future and inherits a nice sized surplus, generated by a Democratic President who inspired people to do more, we can all see if he squanders it with tax cuts and ignores the national debt or actually works to pay it down.

The Repub party used to stand for something. Now, they seem to be a party adrift with no real stand on anything that makes sense. Yes, they talk about reducing taxes but then also have demonstrated fiscal irresponsibility by out of control deficit spending. They then turn around and blame Dems for their large stimulus spending. The 'new' Repubs have a lousy record on environemtal protections, and on common sense social spending - such as meaningful health care reform. Instead of reaching out to all of the people, they seem to have become a party that only represents special interest groups, such as corporate america, to the exclusion and detrement of the common person.

BinCo

07-15-2009, 06:43 AM

Your definition is one type of bubba; bubbaism is a way of thinking, behaving, and acting. They can drive pick up trucks with gun racks, chew tobacco, or they can wear three piece Brooks Brothers suits and head up mega-corporations. They are narrow-minded thinking people. They wear blinders; they are not objective in their thinking, but subjective within their narrow scope of thinking.

ROFLMAO.:rofl: "Narrow minded thinking people"..Like thinking that guns should be banned?

BinCo

07-15-2009, 06:44 AM

The 'new' Repubs have a lousy record on environemtal protections.

They seem to forget that their Prince Nixon created the EPA.

MoonShadow

07-15-2009, 07:56 AM

ROFLMAO.:rofl: "Narrow minded thinking people"..Like thinking that guns should be banned?

Whoa now, I am not one who thinks guns should be banned. I simply do not see any need for them and if you will note, I also stated that I don't care whether people own guns or not; MY opinion is that there is no need for any.

Sanslines

07-15-2009, 08:11 AM

They seem to forget that their Prince Nixon created the EPA.

Yes they do and that's why I stated "new" Repubs. Nixon actually did not understand the environment or what all of the fuss was about from those 'radical' environmental protesters who held such events such as Earth Day. He did understand that there were large groups of people who demanded change and he did respond to them with the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and EPA.

Sanslines

07-15-2009, 08:14 AM

Whoa now, I am not one who thinks guns should be banned. I simply do not see any need for them and if you will note, I also stated that I don't care whether people own guns or not; MY opinion is that there is no need for any.

A narrow minded thinking individual will not comprehend what you just said. They will continue to reply that 'you want to take away their guns' in spite of the fact that you clearly have said otherwise. It is the same response that is endlessly directed towards Obama. Anything that Obama mentions about firearms results in a chorus of "Obama wants to take away our guns" in spite of the fact that Obama has clearly stated the opposite.

Fitz1980

07-15-2009, 09:03 AM

Never said either was my choice but when confronted with 2 that are bad for America you choose the lesser of the 2 evils. That was all I was stating.

That's why I support the Democrats when they are a moderate, pro-business party and this country is lacking a real left-wing liberal party.

More money in my pocket is whats important to me as well. Way too many people in this country have not paid dues for anything they have. I see it everyday.
Hard work should bring rewards not punishment to give to slackers.
I am also referring to middle class people not the ceos of these companies. yes they are out of control.

The Republican party's economic and tax policy has been waging a war on the middle class for 30 years but because they have better rhetoric many middle class people vote against their own economic best interest because facts and positions have become so twisted around.

The Repub party used to stand for something. Now, they seem to be a party adrift with no real stand on anything that makes sense. Yes, they talk about reducing taxes but then also have demonstrated fiscal irresponsibility by out of control deficit spending. They then turn around and blame Dems for their large stimulus spending. The 'new' Repubs have a lousy record on environemtal protections, and on common sense social spending - such as meaningful health care reform. Instead of reaching out to all of the people, they seem to have become a party that only represents special interest groups, such as corporate america, to the exclusion and detrement of the common person.

Gore Vidal recently said that the Republicans aren't even a legitimate political party anymore. They are a mindset composed of people who don't like certain things, be it gays or abortion or taxes or ethnic minorities.

ROFLMAO.:rofl: "Narrow minded thinking people"..Like thinking that guns should be banned?

I certainly don't think that guns should be banned. I own a Smith & Wesson .357 magnum that used to belong to my Dad.

Yes they do and that's why I stated "new" Repubs. Nixon actually did not understand the environment or what all of the fuss was about from those 'radical' environmental protesters who held such events such as Earth Day. He did understand that there were large groups of people who demanded change and he did respond to them with the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and EPA.

And the funny thing is that today Nixon couldn't even get elected President as a Democrat. He'd be seen as too pink, too liberal. The EPA, the earned income tax credit. Oh and I'm quoting David Gergen, adviser to 4 different presidents from both parties on that one.

gmoney

07-15-2009, 05:33 PM

A narrow minded thinking individual will not comprehend what you just said. They will continue to reply that 'you want to take away their guns' in spite of the fact that you clearly have said otherwise. It is the same response that is endlessly directed towards Obama. Anything that Obama mentions about firearms results in a chorus of "Obama wants to take away our guns" in spite of the fact that Obama has clearly stated the opposite.

It certainly would not be positive to those who are closed minded, prejudiced, intolerant, and hateful. Rather then look inside themselves, they demand that the rest of society change to accomodate their personal problems and hangups.

sound familiar?
And I feel you tend to believe everything you are told or read...
Just because someone says something doesnot mean they are not lieing thru their teeth.

jon71

07-15-2009, 06:58 PM

Yes they do and that's why I stated "new" Repubs. Nixon actually did not understand the environment or what all of the fuss was about from those 'radical' environmental protesters who held such events such as Earth Day. He did understand that there were large groups of people who demanded change and he did respond to them with the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and EPA.

Didn't congress do that over his veto after that river in Pennsylvania caught fire for the second time?

Navigator

07-16-2009, 06:07 AM

I'm not a DUI lawyer, but I do know that the "D" in DUI stands for "driving". If the car isn't moving, how can you be driving? Please, give us a link if I am wrong.

This is the definition of "driving" in California:

"Driving"

"For court purposes, driving may be proved through circumstantial evidence if not directly observed. Examples of this circumstantial evidence include a car's hood that is warm to the touch, keys in the ignition, car in desolate area with no one else around, car in an accident and no one else around, or similar facts."

http://www.1800duilaws.com/california-dui-attorney/index.asp?state=CA

Skinview

07-16-2009, 08:27 PM

Wrong again!

"Cop-killer" Bullets:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvcopk.html

Not wrong, although this time I won't blame you for thinking I am. For starters, as I said, "cop killer bullet" is a propoganda term. It is used to describe any ammunition that gun control fanatics want to ban at the moment. As the NRA describes it:

"COP-KILLER BULLET
An inflammatory phrase having neither historical basis nor legal or technical meanings."

True, lately it has been ammunition that is "designed" to penetrate soft body armor. But in the 1990's., when I started following gun control issues, the anti gun propagandists were using the term "cop killer bullet" to describe hollowpoint Black Talon ammunition, which is ammunition that is about the least capable for penetrating body armor that I can think of.

"The ammunition was targeted by those opposed to handguns and eventually the Talons became to be known by the moniker "cop-killer" bullets."
- Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Talon

And apparently the connection between the phrase "cop killer bullets" and expanding hollowpoint ammo became synonymous in people's minds. I have a book on my shelf titled The Right to Bear Arms: The rise of America's New Militias, written by Jonathan Karl. On page 127 he wrote of a gun, "It was also loaded with hollowpoint 'cop killer' bullets."

I wrote that "cop killer bullets" is a propoganda term, and as your own link concludes:

""Cop-killer" bullets are a myth born from media hype and nurtured by unrealistic Hollywood portrayals and the deliberately misleading claims of the anti-gun lobby."

So no, I was not wrong.

Skinview

07-16-2009, 08:59 PM

Your blanket statement is blatently false, New York State for one does not allow firearms in state parks.I didn't say all state parks. They are allowed in state parks in Virginia, for instance, and my native Vermont, so they are allowed in state parks. Some states don't allow you to carry a handgun anywhere.

Skinview

07-16-2009, 09:17 PM

Cop killer ammunition are the bullets designed specifically to penetrate a bullet proof vest. Ther are specifically manufactured to be bought by criminals to kill police officers and security guards and the N.R.A. sees nothing wrong with this.
"Cop killer ammunition" doesn't exist. The NRA helped write the legislation that bans handgun ammunition that contains certain materials that would help them penetrate body armor. This also goes to show that your repeated assertion that the NRA opposes all gun control is BS.

Skinview

07-16-2009, 09:42 PM

I didn't bother with the link because I already knew that America has the second highest suicide rate in the world. Japan is first. If your link says otherwise they simply got it wrong.

Ok, you have reached a new definition of closed mindedness. Possibly bordering on madness.

Here are some other links. They make it clear that what you think you know is false. I suppose in your fantasy world, they must all be wrong as well...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

http://www.haciendapub.com/stolinsky.html

http://www.aneki.com/suicide.html

http://guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html

Japan ranks tenth: http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1856917

Skinview

07-16-2009, 10:10 PM

Oh please. You fool no one with your carefully selected whole nation and whole state. My post clearly illustrates how you bias and skew your 'facts' with carefully selected nations that have been subsequently disputed and discounted by other posters with valid arguments.In your own mind. I could list many states with little gun control and low homocide rates. Studies have been done showing that less gun control correlates with lower homocide rates, although I think the correlation is pretty weak. I think that has already been posted on this thread. But it is more clearly the case that gun control has been utterly useless in lowering homocide rates. You rant on and on about how defenders of gun rights don't care how many die. The fact is, gun restrictons and bans simply don't save lives. People kill one another for many reasons, but they don't just decide to kill someone because they happen to have a gun.

I see. You can't dispute what is in the article so you now resort to the old tactic of attacking the lenght of the article (or some others such irrelevent aspect). If you actually bothered to read some of the links that were previously posted and address those posts, then posting 'thirty page cut and paste articles' would not be necessary to get your attention.They don't get my attention, they put me to sleep.

Skinview

07-16-2009, 11:16 PM

Did you follow the link that was posted to factcheck, whcih exposes on e lie after another that the NRA vociferously used against Obama?
I did, and it said the following NRA claims were not false:
Obama wants to increase Federal taxes on guns and ammunition by 500%
Obama wants to ban millions of semi-auto firearms.
Obama wants to pass Federal legislation to eliminate our right to carry concealed firearms.
Obama wants national gun registration.
Obama voted to allow towns with handgun bans to prosecute people who use one to defend their lives. Better dead than armed, it would seem.

One thing that Factcheck says is false, and isn't, is that Obama favored a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns. Obama tried to deny it, but its on a survey that Obama took with his handwriting all over it. Factcheck loses a lot of credibility on this one.

Another "false" NRA claim that isn't, is that Obama favors legislation that would ban rifle hunting ammo. It wasn't Obama's intention, but that is what the effect of the legislation would have been.

Yes, I read it, and I see that Factcheck is about as misleading as it says some NRA claims are. One thing is clear: Obama is anti gun, and he doesn't want us to know it.

If there is any criticism of Obama, it is that he has bee far too accomodating towards certain radical fanatics.Like Bill Ayers?

Why is it that you do't acknowledge that the reason the percentage is in dispute is because the NRA opposes any meaningful modern gun registration?Of course it is the reason. Its a good reason. And whatever the reason, that doesn't change the facts about that percentage. Attacking motive in an argument is very bad form, and logically unsound.

Now you are being deliberately obtuse. If clear gun registration records existed, then the gun could be traced not only to the manufacturer... You know very well that tracing a gun to a US manufacturer is not sufficient.No, that is sufficient if all you are trying to do is determine what country the guns come from, which is what we were talking about.

...but also to the list of gun owners. This is extremely important in determining the ownership history of individual guns... Why on earth would you oppose clear and accurate gun registration procedures is beyond me.Because that is the step before gun confiscation. It has happened several times before, most recently in the UK. Now if the Supreme Court overtuns Sotomayor's ruling, and incorporates the 2nd into the 14th Amendment, so it applies to the states, then we might, maybe, be able to have gun registration, although I doubt that would be all that useful. But certainly not while we have a wannabe gun banner as President and someone like Sotomayor headed for the Supreme Court.

Skinview

07-16-2009, 11:23 PM

You are wrong. In some jurisdictions, all that is necessary to charge someone with dui is an open alcoholic beverage container in the vehicle.Am I? Was the vehicle moving or not? Thats the critical question that needs to be answered.

Skinview

07-16-2009, 11:32 PM

Try walking across New York State with a conceiled handgun and see what happens.Nothing, if I have a New York carry permit. My cousin has one.

If you are so convinced that the majority of gun owners, including yourself, are so responsible, then why on earth would you ever oppose new laws that are more effective in dealing with those wo are not responsible?Because we have all the laws we need.

Laws are constantly updated and reworded to reinforce their intended purpose? Why should guns be exempt from this universally accepted process?Because the intended purpose is often bad. But I'm all for updating the laws right off the books.

What does your ilk actually fear from such actions?I fear a loss of freedom, I fear my government...

Why does your ilk respond to any proposals for meaningful changes and common sense laws with emotional hysteria and an orchestrated campaign of outright lies, distortions, and deliberate misrepresentations in order to mislead a guillible and misinformed people?That's not what we do, that's what you do.

Skinview

07-16-2009, 11:50 PM

Yes, just like the person I talked with last week who went to a local gun store and purchased a rifle. He was asked for his name and address with no request for any sort of verification. He could have told the sales clerk that he was Mickey Mouse.If ACORN can register Mickey Mouse to vote, then he ought to be able to own a gun. ;)

Skinview

07-16-2009, 11:58 PM

As far as the founding father's are concerned, they lived in a very different age when muskets ruled the land. Wars were fought by a group of farmboys with muskets. The fouding father's were cleaver enough to understand that they could not anticipate life in this country in the future. Hence why they allowed for the possibilities to modify, create new, and retire old ammendments. Attempting to live in the past is an irrelvent justification for not modifying laws.Switzerland is not living in the past.

Another false justification on your part is to assume that you will someone save the nation by fighting with your trusty rifle. Try fighting off your local police department (SWAT team), state national guard,... and see how far you will get.No need, they are part of the militia.

I just do not think that your rifle is going to be much of a match against a B-52 that drops a 'bunker buster' bomb on top of you.The rifle won't, but my F-15 will.

Skinview

07-17-2009, 12:19 AM

This is the definition of "driving" in California:

"Driving"

"For court purposes, driving may be proved through circumstantial evidence if not directly observed. Examples of this circumstantial evidence include a car's hood that is warm to the touch, keys in the ignition, car in desolate area with no one else around, car in an accident and no one else around, or similar facts."
This doesn't seem like a definition of driving, but as a list of things that are evidence that someone was driving. If someone is drunk, and sleeping in their car outside a bar, there is none of the above evidence that he was driving. That is behaviour that should be praised, not prosecuted.

Sanslines

07-17-2009, 04:05 AM

Not wrong, although this time I won't blame you for thinking I am. For starters, as I said, "cop killer bullet" is a propoganda term. It is used to describe any ammunition that gun control fanatics want to ban at the moment. As the NRA describes it:

"COP-KILLER BULLET
An inflammatory phrase having neither historical basis nor legal or technical meanings."

True, lately it has been ammunition that is "designed" to penetrate soft body armor. But in the 1990's., when I started following gun control issues, the anti gun propagandists were using the term "cop killer bullet" to describe hollowpoint Black Talon ammunition, which is ammunition that is about the least capable for penetrating body armor that I can think of.

"The ammunition was targeted by those opposed to handguns and eventually the Talons became to be known by the moniker "cop-killer" bullets."
- Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Talon

And apparently the connection between the phrase "cop killer bullets" and expanding hollowpoint ammo became synonymous in people's minds. I have a book on my shelf titled The Right to Bear Arms: The rise of America's New Militias, written by Jonathan Karl. On page 127 he wrote of a gun, "It was also loaded with hollowpoint 'cop killer' bullets."

I wrote that "cop killer bullets" is a propoganda term, and as your own link concludes:

""Cop-killer" bullets are a myth born from media hype and nurtured by unrealistic Hollywood portrayals and the deliberately misleading claims of the anti-gun lobby."

So no, I was not wrong.

Your statement "It is used to describe any ammunition that gun control fanatics want to ban at the moment." is misleading and NOT correct. Cops wear bullet proof vests for a reason. Cop Killer bullets are certain types of bullets that can and will pierce bullet proof vests. The term NEVER applied to just any bullet that a bunch of 'gun control fanatics' wanted to have banned. The term always applied to specific types of ammunition. Granted that the means to designate or not designate ammunition as 'cop killer' bullet has been disputed and debated since the early 1980's (when the term 'cop killer' bullet was first used). I notice how you use the phrase SOFT body armor. Do you really expect the police to wear titanium (hard) body armor to satisfy your unrealistic need to own any kind of ammunition that exists. You are being completely unreasonable and impracticle.

Your statement "An inflammatory phrase having neither historical basis nor legal or technical meanings." is also completely wrong. Without going into too much cut and paste detail, this is the brief history and technical basis of the 'cop killer' bullet:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teflon_coated_bullet

"In the 1960s, Paul Kopsch (an Ohio coroner), Daniel Turcos (a police sergeant), and Donald Ward (Kopsch's special investigator), began experimenting with special purpose handgun ammunition. Their objective was to develop a law enforcement round capable of improved penetration against hard targets, such as windshield glass and automobile doors. Conventional bullets, made primarily from lead, often become deformed and less effective after striking hard targets, especially when fired at handgun velocities. The inventors named their company "KTW," after their initials.

After some experimentation with steel rounds, the officers settled on a brass (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brass) core. Unlike lead, which is relatively malleable, brass wore out barrels far more quickly than normal jacketed rounds, since the brass did not reform to fit the rifling. For this reason, the bullets were then coated with a layer of Teflon to reduce barrel wear.
In 1982, NBC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBC) ran a special on the bullets and argued that the bullets were a threat to police. Gun control (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States) organizations in the U.S. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S.) labeled Teflon-coated bullets "cop killers" because of the supposedly increased penetration the bullets offered against ballistic vests (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistic_vest), a staple of the American police uniform. Supporters of gun control believed that the Teflon coating was responsible for this increased penetration<SUP class=reference id=cite_ref-Gun_restrictions_a_sensible_move_toward_safety_0-0>[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teflon_coated_bullet#cite_note-Gun_restrictions_a_sensible_move_toward_safety-0)</SUP> despite the fact that the material is only an outer coating for the brass penetrator and usually peels off during its trajectory through the air."

As for the so called 'ban' on such ammunition : "This “so-called” ‘ban’ is on the manufacturing and on importation of armor piercing (AP) ammunition –– not the sale and transfer. Manufacturing AP ammunition requires a Federal Firearms License of the “Manufacturer of Destructive Devices, Ammunition for Destructive Devices, and Armor Piercing Ammunition” Type-10 FFL. Importation of AP ammo requires an “Importer of Destructive Devices, Ammunition for Destructive Devices, and Armor Piercing Ammunition” Type-11 FFL. Both three-year licenses cost $3000.00, and require the additional yearly paid $1000.00 Special Occupational Tax Stamp."

Given the real facts, it is clear that such facts void the NRA backed propoganda and deliberately misleading distortions that you have posted.

Sanslines

07-17-2009, 04:11 AM

In your own mind. I could list many states with little gun control and low homocide rates. Studies have been done showing that less gun control correlates with lower homocide rates, although I think the correlation is pretty weak. I think that has already been posted on this thread. But it is more clearly the case that gun control has been utterly useless in lowering homocide rates. You rant on and on about how defenders of gun rights don't care how many die. The fact is, gun restrictons and bans simply don't save lives. People kill one another for many reasons, but they don't just decide to kill someone because they happen to have a gun.

Yes people kill one another for many reasons. Each and every reason should be addressed including the gun aspect. For some strage reason, you seem to promote the belief that since there are other ways that people kill each other beyond guns, that the focus upon guns and their associated damage is somehow mitigated. In YOUR dreams.

They don't get my attention, they put me to sleep.

Then drink some coffee, wake up, and start paying attention to the facts.

Sanslines

07-17-2009, 04:42 AM

I did, and it said the following NRA claims were not false:
Obama wants to increase Federal taxes on guns and ammunition by 500%
Obama wants to ban millions of semi-auto firearms.
Obama wants to pass Federal legislation to eliminate our right to carry concealed firearms.
Obama wants national gun registration.
Obama voted to allow towns with handgun bans to prosecute people who use one to defend their lives. Better dead than armed, it would seem.

One thing that Factcheck says is false, and isn't, is that Obama favored a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns. Obama tried to deny it, but its on a survey that Obama took with his handwriting all over it. Factcheck loses a lot of credibility on this one.

Another "false" NRA claim that isn't, is that Obama favors legislation that would ban rifle hunting ammo. It wasn't Obama's intention, but that is what the effect of the legislation would have been.

Yes, I read it, and I see that Factcheck is about as misleading as it says some NRA claims are. One thing is clear: Obama is anti gun, and he doesn't want us to know it.

Here we go again with the misleading NRA backed propoganda. Can you not see how your own posts use such simplistic and highly misleading statements in order to fool the gullible in believing that which is not true? You then come out with a blanket statement that states that Obama is 'anti gun' when you know that if Obama was really anti gun, then he would ban all guns and be done with it. You know that it is much too highly simplistic to label anyone who proposes so much as one piece of common sense legislation that attempts to close loopholes in existing gun regulations as 'anti gun'. Where shoud I start in exposing your mileading, NRA backed propoganda? Let's start with this : " Obama wants to ban millions of semi-auto firearms." This is a false statement. "Obama is not proposing "bans on all semi-automatic guns."Such a ban would cover a wide range of rifles, shotguns and handguns, including many common hunting rifles. We find no instance of Obama calling for such a ban at any time during his presidential campaign, much less promising to bring one about during his first year as president."

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_obama_promise_last_year_to_ban.html

Of course it is the reason. Its a good reason. And whatever the reason, that doesn't change the facts about that percentage. Attacking motive in an argument is very bad form, and logically unsound.

It does when the NRA backed argument is based upon false or misleading information. Motive leads to intent. It is the reason why such false and misleading NRA propoganda is endlesssly promoted. Many people are not going to bother with researching all of the facts and then forming their own conclusions. They will believe highly sensationalized and simplistic slogans regardless of whether such statements are based in fact. Intelligent readers will want to know the intent of any party up front for the understanding of such intent will illustrate the bias of any party and why such a party selects half truths in order to prove their point.

No, that is sufficient if all you are trying to do is determine what country the guns come from, which is what we were talking about.

No, we want to know the complete ownership history of a gun. You are still being obtuse. As an example, if Mexicans are using Americans to purchase guns in America that were originally manufactered in Brazil, and if all that existed was a requirement for a record of gun origin, then it could be validly claimed that the gun came from Brazil, thereby lowering the tally of guns that are claimed to have come from the USA. Ambiguous laws need to be eliminated and a complete and accurate history of gun ownership from point of manufacture onwards should be a basic requirement. The only reason for having ambiguous laws is for one side to be justified in making misleading statements based upon their own interpretations.

Because that is the step before gun confiscation. It has happened several times before, most recently in the UK. Now if the Supreme Court overtuns Sotomayor's ruling, and incorporates the 2nd into the 14th Amendment, so it applies to the states, then we might, maybe, be able to have gun registration, although I doubt that would be all that useful. But certainly not while we have a wannabe gun banner as President and someone like Sotomayor headed for the Supreme Court.

I do not think that you will ever understand that continued stonewalling of common sense laws, promoting lies and false and misleading propoganda, and promoting a highly unreasonable position that ignores society's concerns will actually bring much harsher controls and restrictions that you would ever want. Instead of cooperation and agreement, your side continues to be defiant and resists anything and everything that is based in common sense. Such a position will ultimately result in court rulings against your position.

Sanslines

07-17-2009, 04:45 AM

Am I? Was the vehicle moving or not? Thats the critical question that needs to be answered.

You obviously did not read Navigator's post which clearly indicates the very clear conditions under which a person can be charged with DUI in the state of California. The critical condition that needs to be answered is what are the specific conditions under which a state can charge a person with DUI. In California, circumstantial evidence is sufficient for such a charge. Such circumstatial evidence clearly does not involve first hand witnessing of an intoxicated person physically driving a vehicle.

Sanslines

07-17-2009, 05:03 AM

Nothing, if I have a New York carry permit. My cousin has one.

Plenty if you are not a New York State resident.

"A non-resident citizen may possess a rifle or shotgun in New York, as long as it is unloaded while being transported. No person may carry, possess or transport a handgun in or through the state unless he has a valid New York license. New York does not issue licenses to non-residents nor does it recognize licenses issued by other states."

Because we have all the laws we need.

A convenient fact that you fail to mention is that laws are contantly reviewed and reworded to reflect societal beliefs at a particualr time. There still are laws on the books in New York State which make it illegal for three native americans to meet in a public place, for that is designated as a 'war party'. Clearly such laws no longer apply today and should be eliminated. As you have demonstrated so many times, ambiguous laws are routinely used to establish 'loopholes' that can be used to circumvent the real menaing of the law. Such ambiguities should be closed with new laws which superceed old, vague laws.

Because the intended purpose is often bad. But I'm all for updating the laws right off the books.

The intented purpose is to elimintate ambiguities. Such a purpose is not 'bad' unless such a purpose rules against a certain party's position. Then, that party will automatically claim that it is 'bad' regardless of whether it truly is 'bad' or not.

I fear a loss of freedom, I fear my government...

If you are suspicious of the intents of your government, then you should be promoting better laws which protect your honets intentions while also protecting the rights of those who do not share your view. You continue to refuse to acknowledge all of the facts concerning gun control laws, and fail to acknowledge the misuse of guns and society's overall concerns about those misuses. Such an unreasonable position will ultimately result in your being unable to influence the final outcome of gun control laws.

That's not what we do, that's what you do.

It is exactly what you do and you do it over and over again. In spite of endless fact presention, you continue to promote a fanatical position based upon lies and false and misleading information that ignores a large cross section of american society.

What you should really fear about Obama is that he is an intelligent and articulate man who has the ability to reach out to the american people to explain and expose the endless lies and distortions against his position.

Sanslines

07-17-2009, 05:06 AM

Switzerland is not living in the past.

I do not live in Switzerland.

No need, they are part of the militia.

A militia is a thing of the past.

The rifle won't, but my F-15 will.

You don't own an F-15, and never will. You claim to be afraid of your government and imply that your posession of a rifle will somehow protect you from your government. Do you realize that your government could stomp you out like a pesky fly and no rifle is going to stop that. No rational person is ever going to believe the argument that a gun or any sort is going to protect them from their own government - no one!

Navigator

07-17-2009, 09:04 AM

This doesn't seem like a definition of driving, but as a list of things that are evidence that someone was driving. If someone is drunk, and sleeping in their car outside a bar, there is none of the above evidence that he was driving. That is behaviour that should be praised, not prosecuted.

What California law "seems like" to you isn't something that California courts concern themselves about Skinview.

In fact, if you're drunk and sleeping in your car outside a bar you might very likely be charged with a DUI. You can also be charged with a DUI in California for riding a horse drunk or for sailing a sailboat drunk or even, if you're under 21, waterskiing with a blood alcohol level of just .01. And guess what..you can lose your drivers license for sailing drunk. Your view that a DUI "seems like" it must have something to do with actually driving has no merit in California.

California takes drunks seriously if they even remotely have a chance of endangering other lives or property....just as does Calif law with respect to gun owners.

I just got back from the trip to the Big Sur coast with the grandkids that I mentioned on an earlier post. It turns out that guns are illegal in each of the several state parks along the Big Sur coast and they're illegal outside of parks in all areas between highway 1 and the beach due to the numerous wildlife preservation areas along that coast.

I'm guessing that the state has had problems in the past with "responsible" gun owners plinking away at wildlife as well as waving guns around state park campgrounds.

Now that we have the new Federal law allowing guns in National Parks if state laws allow it...watch for more and more states to pass laws that follow Californias lead on banning guns in all parks.

Skinview

07-17-2009, 10:41 AM

What California law "seems like" to you isn't something that California courts concern themselves about Skinview...

In fact, if you're drunk and sleeping in your car outside a bar you might very likely be charged with a DUI. You can also be charged with a DUI in California for riding a horse drunk or for sailing a sailboat drunk or even, if you're under 21, waterskiing with a blood alcohol level of just .01. And guess what..you can lose your drivers license for sailing drunk. Your view that a DUI "seems like" it must have something to do with actually driving has no merit in California.Every example you gave involves driving something. I'm not saying I know you are wrong, but you have presented no link or evidence or quote of the law that simply being in a parked car while drunk is illegal.

Now that we have the new Federal law allowing guns in National Parks if state laws allow it...watch for more and more states to pass laws that follow Californias lead on banning guns in all parks.I very much doubt that. It makes no sense. The new law merely extends to the Federal Parks that which is already legal in the surrounding state. If the state is already happy with their gun laws, why would they change them just to make the National Parks more restrictive? Again what makes the National Park so special?

jon71

07-17-2009, 11:03 AM

Skinview

07-17-2009, 11:04 AM

Your statement "It is used to describe any ammunition that gun control fanatics want to ban at the moment." is misleading and NOT correct. Cops wear bullet proof vests for a reason. Cop Killer bullets are certain types of bullets that can and will pierce bullet proof vests.No bullet from a handgun has EVER penetrated a bullet resistant vest worn by a policeman.

The term NEVER applied to just any bullet that a bunch of 'gun control fanatics' wanted to have banned. The term always applied to specific types of ammunition.I gave an example of one completely different type of ammo in my post! What, are you turning into another Jon now??

I notice how you use the phrase SOFT body armor. Do you really expect the police to wear titanium (hard) body armor to satisfy your unrealistic need to own any kind of ammunition that exists. You are being completely unreasonable and impracticle.I wrote "soft", because that is what they wear. And regular hunting ammo will go through even the toughest ceramic plate armor that soldiers wear. There is no such thing as a "bullet proof vest".

Your statement "An inflammatory phrase having neither historical basis nor legal or technical meanings." is also completely wrong.Its not mine, it is an NRA statement. They know far more about ammunition than either of us put together.

Without going into too much cut and paste detail, this is the brief history and technical basis of the 'cop killer' bullet:I read this before I posted.

As for the so called 'ban' on such ammunition : "This “so-called” ‘ban’ is on the manufacturing and on importation of armor piercing (AP) ammunition –– not the sale and transfer.So? What are you going to sell if you can't get any?

Given the real facts, it is clear that such facts void the NRA backed propoganda and deliberately misleading distortions that you have posted.Its not NRA propoganda. Just google "Balck Talon" and read. Stop accusing me of making "deliberatly misleading distortions". I'm presenting plain facts and my honest opinions. Everything that conflicts with your point of view is not a conspiracy. Usually its just true.

jon71

07-17-2009, 11:07 AM

Conservative Senator Richard Luger (R. Ind.) has officially endorsed Judge Sonya Sotomayor for the Supreme Court. Senators Mel Martinez (R. Fla.), Olympia Snowe (R. Maine), and Sen Arlan Specter (D. Penn.), have as well. Sen Mitch McConnell (R. Kent.) is opposed but it looks like he's howling at the wind on this one.

Navigator

07-17-2009, 11:09 AM

Every example you gave involves driving something. I'm not saying I know you are wrong, but you have presented no link or evidence or quote of the law that simply being in a parked car while drunk is illegal.

I very much doubt that. It makes no sense. The new law merely extends to the Federal Parks that which is already legal in the surrounding state. If the state is already happy with their gun laws, why would they change them just to make the National Parks more restrictive? Again what makes the National Park so special?

I've never said that just being drunk in a parked car is illegal in California. But...if you're drunk in a parked car...even in the back seat...and also meet any of the examples of circumstantial evidence listed under the definition of "driving" I provided, you are likely to get charged with a DUI in California.

Remember...I'm responding to YOUR issue that a DUI seemed to you like it had to have something to do with driving or moving a car.

Please don't pretend I said something I didn't.

As to why a state would (will) change it's gun laws to make them more restrictive in National Parks...the reason is that Federal law just changed to make gun possession less restrictive...meaning legal...in National Parks.

I'm just predicting states will change their laws to go back to not allowing guns in National Parks by passing laws to not allow guns in any of their state parks if they don't already have those laws.

And...once again...the reason parks are singled out is because people drink alcohol in them and drunken gun nuts can not be counted on to act responsibly.

I see Tennesee just passed a law allowing guns in bars. CNN interviewed a Tennesee bar owner yesterday who was appalled and emphasized, repeatedly, that rednecks and guns and alcohol do not mix.

But...hey...at least Tennesee legislators made a strong statement in support of the right-wing culture wars which you're defending and which the Republicans are so set on fueling to maintain any small base they may still have.

Skinview

07-17-2009, 11:10 AM

A militia is a thing of the past.The Swiss have a militia national defense system, and we also currently have a militia. You have heard of the National Guard?

You don't own an F-15, and never will.True, but many individuals do own jet fighters. But my point is that our militia operates F-15s.

You claim to be afraid of your government and imply that your posession of a rifle will somehow protect you from your government. Do you realize that your government could stomp you out like a pesky fly and no rifle is going to stop that. No rational person is ever going to believe the argument that a gun or any sort is going to protect them from their own government - no one!Not one rifle, but millions with rifles.

Skinview

07-17-2009, 11:14 AM

I'm just predicting states will change their laws to go back to not allowing guns in National Parks by passing laws to not allow guns in any of their state parks if they don't already have those laws.

And...once again...the reason parks are singled out is because people drink alcohol in them and drunken gun nuts can not be counted on to act responsibly.

I see Tennesee just passed a law allowing guns in bars. CNN interviewed a Tennesee bar owner yesterday who was appalled and emphasized, repeatedly, that rednecks and guns and alcohol do not mix.

But...hey...at least Tennesee legislators made a strong statement in support of the right-wing culture wars which you're defending and which the Republicans are so set on fueling to maintain any small base they may still have.Thats sort of the opposite direction from your prediction, wouldn't you say?

Navigator

07-17-2009, 11:20 AM

Thats sort of the opposite direction from your prediction, wouldn't you say?

Let's see how quickly Tennesee changes that law back and makes their gun laws even more restrictive.

A few wingnut legislators in a redneck state do not make a trend.

How long do you think it will be before somebody gets killed in a Tennesee bar gunfight?

Skinview

07-17-2009, 11:31 AM

Let's see how quickly Tennesee changes that law back and makes their gun laws even more restrictive.

A few wingnut legislators in a redneck state do not make a trend.

How long do you think it will be before somebody gets killed in a Tennesee bar gunfight?Eventually everything happens, but I doubt this will happen soon. When I lived in Pennsylvania, after pistol club monthly meetings, we went to a bar and had beers. Or the other guys did, as I don't drink. Were were pretty much armed to the teeth. I've never heard of someone getting shot in a Pennsylvania bar, although it must have happened if you go far back enough.
every time some gun law is liberalized, there are dire predictions of shootings, and they don't materialize. Vermont has no gun control, and its very peaceful.

Skinview

07-17-2009, 11:35 AM

I've never said that just being drunk in a parked car is illegal in California...

Remember...I'm responding to YOUR issue that a DUI seemed to you like it had to have something to do with driving or moving a car.

Please don't pretend I said something I didn't.

You're as wrong about this as you were in a previous post where you stated you can't get a DUI unless the car moves. You most certainly can in California, thank gawd.That seems to be what you said.

Sanslines

07-17-2009, 12:23 PM

No bullet from a handgun has EVER penetrated a bullet resistant vest worn by a policeman.

Please stop posting nonsense. Please research the facts and stop posting deliberately misleading information. You can start by admitting that handguns are not the only guns in question. You obviously do not want to ban ANY guns, including handguns, rifles, assault weapons. Research the facts and ask yourself if ANY of they types of weapons that you advoccate for, including the above mentioned list has EVER penetrated a bullet resistant vest and killed a police officer.

http://www.afscme.org/resolutions/1996/r32-032.htm

I gave an example of one completely different type of ammo in my post! What, are you turning into another Jon now??

And your point is exactly what? That you can pick and chose certain types of ammo that prove your point and ignore all of the rest that dismiss yor point? Is this what you are saying?

I wrote "soft", because that is what they wear. And regular hunting ammo will go through even the toughest ceramic plate armor that soldiers wear. There is no such thing as a "bullet proof vest".

And your point is exaclty what? There are different grades of bullet resistance vests based upon the threat from different types of ammunition. My point is to limit the threat to police officers by eliminating certain types of ammuntion that have no place ni the hands of civilians. You really need to stop being so deliberately misleading and resorting to pick and chose in order to skew information to support your out of touch points. I can just as validly write 'hard' because this is what SWAT teams wear and SAWT teams are police officers too. I don't exclude soft vests worn by police officers. Why do you deliberately exclude 'hard' vests. Is it because it proves the danger to police officers?

Its not mine, it is an NRA statement. They know far more about ammunition than either of us put together.

So what? That doesn't make them a fair and objective fountain of completely factual information. They know plenty but they will conveniently ignore that factual information which weakens their radical stance and emphasize to the point of outright lies any information that prmotes their radical agenda.

I read this before I posted.

Then you obviously don't understand circumstancial evidence or the points that such post was making. A person does NOT need to be caught driving while intoxicated to be legally charged with driving while intoxicated. I do not know how anyone can make this point any clearer.

So? What are you going to sell if you can't get any?

Can't get any what? According to your logic, individuals should be able to own just about any kind of ammunition that is manufactured. Why not just sell bazookas and M-16 rifles to deranged individuals and be done with it. Of course there is a BIG difference among certain types of ammunition ie a 'standard' 22 caliber bullet versus teflon coated bullets. What need to you have for anything other then 'standard' types of bullets? Why do you want free access to any type of bullet? You actually bring up another valid point as to the real need to modify the second ammendment to clarify to the allowance of gun ammuntion. To be fair and accurate, if the second ammendment is to stand, then the ONLY type of ammuntion that should be allowed is that type which existed when the second ammendment was created. Doing so will eliminate many classes of modern ammunition that did not exist during that time. Perfect - the second ammendment at work.

Its not NRA propoganda. Just google "Balck Talon" and read. Stop accusing me of making "deliberatly misleading distortions". I'm presenting plain facts and my honest opinions. Everything that conflicts with your point of view is not a conspiracy. Usually its just true.

How about you stop picking and chosing one type of ammuntion and conveniently ignoring the other types which contradict your point? To refuse to acknowledge that there are many types of ammunition availible and by picking one type of ammuntion to prove one side or the other is to be deliberately misleading and a distortion of all of the facts.

What you are doing is equivalent to someone polling 100 people to determine a fair result and then deliberately chosing certain answers that prove the point that you want to prove while ignoring the other answers that do not prove your point.

The fair and honest thing to do is to consider all 100 answers and then to reach a valid conclusion based upon all responses weighing both the pros and cons.

Sanslines

07-17-2009, 12:31 PM

The Swiss have a militia national defense system, and we also currently have a militia. You have heard of the National Guard?

What the Swiss have or do not have is irrelevent. The modern day National Guard is nothing like the collection of farm boys who gathered with their muskets in the 1700's.

[quote]True, but many individuals do own jet fighters. But my point is that our militia operates F-15s.

You said this: "The rifle won't, but my F-15 will."

You clearly are not talking about any other individuals or any militia having anything to do with F-15's. You are talking only about yourself owning an F-15. Why are you now talking about something else?

Not one rifle, but millions with rifles.

Give me a break! Do you really believe that millions are going to get off ther butts and fight the US Government? Are you crazy? Heck, we can't even get millions to get off their lazy butts, come to DC and protest for meaningful health care reform. This isn't the 1960's when there were scores of movements. In today's world, apathy rules.

nimrod

07-17-2009, 12:53 PM

Okay people to get the DUIs in California thing straightened out, yes you can be charged with a DUI if you are drunk in a parked car, but there are circumstances that have to be in evidance to be charged. Where the car is parked is the biggest piece of evidance, outside the bar, probably not, anywhere on the side of the road or even in a parking lot, not right outside a bar, chances increase. They do take into consideration where the keys are also, in your pocket, glove box, or in the ignition and if the hood is warm or not, and if there are open containers near the vehical, and where you are in the vehical also.

I learned this from a lawyer and a police officer that would make an apperance on a radio show almost every St. Patricks Day. They would do an entire show on the dangers and laws pretaining to DUIs. The hosts would drink and get drunk during the show and take breath tests and the lawyer or police officer would say what the laws where for each level that they were at for differing professions, ie; truck driver, buss driver, limo, etc. untill they reached .08 when it effected everyone behind the wheel. Not only was it educational about the laws, but also showed how stupid people can behave while they are intoxicated.

Sanslines

07-17-2009, 01:43 PM

Sobriety Checkpoints

DUI roadblocks (http://www.roadblock.org/) or sobriety checkpoints (http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/people/injury/alcohol/saturation_patrols/index.html) are a common tool used to detect the drunk driver. Law enforcement agencies modeled this approach on the success of roadside safety checks and license/registration inspections. In this process the police agency will set up a roadblock on a highway and if the selected driver's speech sounds slurred or his breath smells of alcohol, he will be asked to leave the car and perform a field sobriety tests (http://www.duicentral.com/evidence/field_evidence.html) at the scene.

In 1990, the United States Supreme Court reversed a state supreme court decision that declared DUI sobriety checkpoints unconstitutional. In Michigan Department of State Police v. Sitz (http://caselaw.duicenter.com/sitz01.html), 496 U.S. 444 (1990), the Court held that the checkpoint operation in question did not violate the Fourth Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html)'s prohibition against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The Court's 6-3 decision authored by Chief Justice Rehnquest was not an unexpected result. The ruling recognized that roadblocks do constitute a "seizure" within the bounds of the Fourth Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html), but the Chief Justice reasoned that the intrusion on individual liberties must be weighed against the need and effectiveness of the roadblock. In the end, the interests in reducing alcohol-related fatalities outweighed the intrusion on human privacy rights and sobriety checkpoints were deemed constitutionally acceptable.

http://www.duicentral.com/evidence/sobriety_checkpoints.html

A similar argument can be made against the Second Ammendment. That argument is that the intrusion of individual liberties MUST be weighed against the safety of the average citizen. In the end, the interests of reducing firearms related fatalities can be shown to outweigh the intrusion on human rights privacy and further firearms restrictions can be deemed constitutionally acceptable.

2004 alcohol related fatalities: 16,919

2004 firearms fatalities: 38,505

If firearms fatalities are so much higher then alcohol related fatalities, then changes to the Second Ammendment are certainly justifiable based upon weighing the Fourth Amendment versus public safety and concluding that public safety outweighs protection under the Fourth Ammendment.

Imagine how utterly irresponsible to allow drunken bubbas to openly brandish firearms. If alcohol and driving do not mix and specific laws exist to address this particular issue, then way are there not more specific laws to address the problem of drinking and brandishing firearms. Allowing drinking and loaded firearms into national parks is a receipt for disaster.

Sanslines

07-17-2009, 04:43 PM

Enough of guns! Next month is the 40th aniversary of Woodstock '69. It's time to go back to Yasgur's Farm and experience a gun free environment of peace, love, and rock and roll. Long live Hendrix!

Back to Yasgur’s farm

40 years later, memories of the difficult birth and the iconic (if drug-addled) triumph of Woodstock

http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Original_Photo/2009/07/17/woodstock__1247853633_7583.jpg

Naturist Mark

07-17-2009, 05:22 PM

<center>http://photos.upi.com/topics-Jeff-Sessions/812bda4d7b5fcd56ee32e19d7ba84aff/Jeff-Sessions_7.jpg</center>

In an interview on NPR (http://www.npr.org/templates/player/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=106747485&m=106748034) Senator Jeff Sessions reiterated his problem with statements Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor made in a 2001 speech.

<blockquote>It was a speech that reflected a judicial philosophy that a person's background, sympathies and prejudices (those were her words) can impact your ruling. She said her background could affect the facts she choses to see as a judge. That's ... I believe that is a disqualifying thing, frankly.</blockquote>

This statement includes direct quotes from Sotomayor's 2001 Berkeley speech which included the now infamous "wise latina" remark. In fact, they are from a passage that expanded and explained that remark:

<blockquote>Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which i am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. but I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

...

I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that i reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.</blockquote>

Note that in context the quotes that Sessions made from Sotomayor's statements mean exactly the opposite of what he is claiming they mean when he states that they represent a disqualification for the appointment.

The fact that Sessions was directly quoting from those statements, and admitted that he was, proves that he was perfectly aware of what she actually said in context.

His mischaracterization is nothing less than a deliberate lie - which should disqualify him from any standing to pass judgment.

jon71

07-17-2009, 06:30 PM

gmoney

07-17-2009, 06:36 PM

Here we go again with the misleading NRA backed propoganda. Can you not see how your own posts use such simplistic and highly misleading statements in order to fool the gullible in believing that which is not true? You then come out with a blanket statement that states that Obama is 'anti gun' when you know that if Obama was really anti gun, then he would ban all guns and be done with it. You know that it is much too highly simplistic to label anyone who proposes so much as one piece of common sense legislation that attempts to close loopholes in existing gun regulations as 'anti gun'. Where shoud I start in exposing your mileading, NRA backed propoganda? Let's start with this : " Obama wants to ban millions of semi-auto firearms." This is a false statement. "Obama is not proposing "bans on all semi-automatic guns."Such a ban would cover a wide range of rifles, shotguns and handguns, including many common hunting rifles. We find no instance of Obama calling for such a ban at any time during his presidential campaign, much less promising to bring one about during his first year as president."

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_obama_promise_last_year_to_ban.html

No, we want to know the complete ownership history of a gun. You are still being obtuse. As an example, if Mexicans are using Americans to purchase guns in America that were originally manufactered in Brazil, and if all that existed was a requirement for a record of gun origin, then it could be validly claimed that the gun came from Brazil, thereby lowering the tally of guns that are claimed to have come from the USA. Ambiguous laws need to be eliminated and a complete and accurate history of gun ownership from point of manufacture onwards should be a basic requirement. The only reason for having ambiguous laws is for one side to be justified in making misleading statements based upon their own interpretations.

I do not think that you will ever understand that continued stonewalling of common sense laws, promoting lies and false and misleading propoganda, and promoting a highly unreasonable position that ignores society's concerns will actually bring much harsher controls and restrictions that you would ever want. Instead of cooperation and agreement, your side continues to be defiant and resists anything and everything that is based in common sense. Such a position will ultimately result in court rulings against your position.

Have you ever thought of just teaching people to not be afraid like you. To live like you. If you just get your friends to be without guns our problems will be sovled much quicker.

Don't try to take my guns(which is what you want) speak to people about peace instead and let them start acting like you every way except with your anti gun stance.
How do you feel about abortion? I would hope you are 100% against it since you have such a pro life stance here with guns. You know the one about Value to a human life you speak of.
Tell me how you feel about abortion because if your not anti-abortion then it shows just how assinine your position on gun control is.

gmoney

07-17-2009, 07:08 PM

This is fantastic!

<script src="http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/.element/js/2.0/video/evp/module.js?loc=dom&vid=/video/us/2009/07/17/am.muller.truck.ak47.cnn" type="text/javascript"></script><noscript>Embedded video from <a href="http://www.cnn.com/video">CNN Video</a></noscript>

Sanslines

07-18-2009, 03:54 AM

<CENTER></CENTER>His mischaracterization is nothing less than a deliberate lie - which should disqualify him from any standing to pass judgment.

The hearings are nothing but a show to entertain the public and to go through the motions. It is true that many who are passing judgment upon others are in no position to do so. The questions about her using her personal background and experiences to influence her decisions are a bit strange. Everyone's background and life's experiences do influence their decisions to a certain extent, regardless of how hard they try to suppress those influences. If the Senators want someone who will rigorously apply the law without interpretation or any personal background bias, then they need a supercomputer instead of a human being.

Fitz1980

07-18-2009, 04:26 PM

The hearings are nothing but a show to entertain the public and to go through the motions. It is true that many who are passing judgment upon others are in no position to do so. The questions about her using her personal background and experiences to influence her decisions are a bit strange. Everyone's background and life's experiences do influence their decisions to a certain extent, regardless of how hard they try to suppress those influences. If the Senators want someone who will rigorously apply the law without interpretation or any personal background bias, then they need a supercomputer instead of a human being.

The best part of the whole thing is that every one of those elected officials trying to pass judgment on her build their careers on "hey look at me, I came from a background of (insert background here) and for that reason I'm the best to represent you."

Fitz1980

07-18-2009, 07:27 PM

Tell me how you feel about abortion because if your not anti-abortion then it shows just how assinine your position on gun control is.

That's interesting? It's what cademics call a non-sequitur; talking about something totally different and trying to compare the two.

I can play that game too. How do you feel about nuclear arms control? If you believe that any American citizen with a clean record should be able to own a gun how do you feel about them owning an F-16, Battleship or a nuclear weapon? How about if the citizen's name is Mohammid Marfani, he's a third generation US citizen and a devout fundamentalist Muslim who opposes Zionism but has never been arrested a crime in his life?

Now the point is that giving some random non-sequitur means nothing? I neither think that we should allow WMDs to Mohammid or Bubba. But I don't oppose gun ownership either. I own a gun myself. There's a middle ground that we've lost here; and that includes you Sanslines. DUI roadblocks target social drinkers had a few beers with dinner and don't drive any different from most sober people. Not only that but they commit the bulk of the night's traffic cops to finding out if a guy who came from TGIFriday's (who was driving fine but happened to run into a road block) can complete some silly "tests" that most people can't do sober instead of looking for random plastered people weaving all over the road.

Sanslines

07-19-2009, 03:44 AM

There's a middle ground that we've lost here; and that includes you Sanslines. DUI roadblocks target social drinkers had a few beers with dinner and don't drive any different from most sober people. Not only that but they commit the bulk of the night's traffic cops to finding out if a guy who came from TGIFriday's (who was driving fine but happened to run into a road block) can complete some silly "tests" that most people can't do sober instead of looking for random plastered people weaving all over the road.

Just last night there was another handgun shooting in the same local bar. Seems a man went to the bar, got drunk, got into a fight with someone, pulled out his handgun, shot the person he was fighting with, and then ran away. There was also another report of some bored teenagers who decided to grab a gun and go out and kill other people's pets. Imagine that - shooting dogs and cats for fun - how sick is that.

Yes it can certainly be argued that people are doing all of these terrible things to others and to animals. So many people just do not care today. We live in such a throw away society and that includes people. It's sad.

The point of all of this is that there are some very serious problems that includes a certain group of people who are gun fanatics. Those fanatics refuse to consider that points that others have that they do not want loaded guns anywhere and everywhere. Believe me, such fanatics would bring loaded guns to churches, on planes, to court, anywhere and everywhere if they could change the laws to allow themselves to do so. This nation is already awash in guns. How many more guns do we need? What is this fanatical obsession all about Why can't we find the will to pass common sense laws to keep them out of the hands of those who are not responsibile enough to own a lethal weapon? Why do we react after the fact, when someone is dead or injured, rather then before with common sense laws? Why do the gun fanatics turn a blind eye to the irresponsible among their ranks? Have they ever been shot? Do they even know what it feels like to be shot or have a family member killed by gun violence?

I am grateful to know many kind and decent people who are actually doing something to improve a very bad situation. Numerous people have started animal rescue operations that save so many of the unwanted dogs and cats that people are presently giving up. We have dogs coming from shelters in Kentucky where they would be routinely killed in the shelters one day per week. Rather then allowing them to be killed, people have started numoerous 'backyard' refuges to save as many as they can. Of course such people are called 'tree hugging Liberals' in derogatory fashion by those who don't care. Well, the 'tree hugging Liberals' are standing up and speaking out for their rights. They have rights too!

The real point of all of this is that there are groups of 'tree hugging Liberals' who are actively involved in improving situations, such as planting trees and saving animals. They contribute to the earth and improve situations. There are also groups of individuals who do nothing but take and take from this planet and obviously do not care about the mess that they leave behind. How does this digression relate to the topic of guns? It points out that there are individuals among us who have equally vaild rights and opinions. The gun fanatics want to discount and silence those rights and opinions, but they will not be able to do so.

I also does get very tiring whenever Obama tries to bring up the subject of guns and the fanatics immediately start screaming "Obama wants to take your guns away' regardless of what Obama intends. It's just another example of fanaticism at work.

Fitz1980

07-19-2009, 06:15 AM

I also does get very tiring whenever Obama tries to bring up the subject of guns and the fanatics immediately start screaming "Obama wants to take your guns away' regardless of what Obama intends. It's just another example of fanaticism at work.

That is true. Check this woman out.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/paeuC-i8E1o&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/paeuC-i8E1o&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en&feature=player_embedded&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowScriptAccess="always" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

"We have the chance to fight this battle at the ballot box before we have to resort to the bullet box… But that's the beauty of our Second Amendment right. I am glad for all of us who enjoy the use of firearms for hunting, but make no mistake, that was not the intent of the Founding Fathers. Our Second Amendment right was to guard against tyranny."

Sounds like the mentality of the IRA in the 80s. "If we can win at the ballot box great, if we are unhappy with the results of a democratic election than we are justified in resorting to violence."

And lets not even get into the irony of those same people spouting that mentality are the same ones who blasted Obama for having served on a board with Bill Ayres who was once part of a group that had that mentality in the 1960s.

Sanslines

07-19-2009, 06:50 AM

"We have the chance to fight this battle at the ballot box before we have to resort to the bullet box… But that's the beauty of our Second Amendment right. I am glad for all of us who enjoy the use of firearms for hunting, but make no mistake, that was not the intent of the Founding Fathers. Our Second Amendment right was to guard against tyranny."

Sounds like the mentality of the IRA in the 80s. "If we can win at the ballot box great, if we are unhappy with the results of a democratic election than we are justified in resorting to violence."

And lets not even get into the irony of those same people spouting that mentality are the same ones who blasted Obama for having served on a board with Bill Ayres who was once part of a group that had that mentality in the 1960s.

Just another irrational militant who MUST have her own way or else she will resort to using her guns to kill people. She obviously enjoys killing just for the sake of killing. Most compassionate people would find that totally bizarre. She really sounds like a sociopath. Exactly the type of person who should never be allowed to own a firearm.

It is obvious that it would be futile to enter into any rational conversations with such a wacko. Too bad Obama has to deal with such wackos. I think that the point will be reached when Obama will stop trying to be so accomodating to such wackos, solidify his support base, and become much more aggressive with pushing his legislative agenda into law.

ki4kxq

07-19-2009, 07:34 AM

Sanslines

07-19-2009, 08:50 AM

This whole disussion about firearms points out that liberals just don't get it. It is the 2nd amendment that guarantees every other amendment. You folks refer to "crazy gun owners waving guns around like madmen". Are you kidding? All of you need to back away from the TV and take a look at real life.

My husband and I both have concealed carry permits. We carry our guns everywhere unless it is prohibited, and that is not many places. You would never know that we are armed because that is what CONCEALED means. If I were to start waving my pistol around, that would be stupid on several levels. First, it would be breaking the law and that would get my conceal and carry permit revoked. Second, the reason it is concealed is so that people don't know that you have it. In other words, if there is trouble on an unimaginable scale, I don't want to be the first person targeted because they know I am armed. Third, as a responsible gun owner, I only pull my weapon for one reason, that is to shoot and kill. I don't take that phrase lightly and neither do the majority of folks with carry permits. If I am in a fight or argument, that is no reason to pull a weapon. The only time to pull that weapon is if my life or other's lives are in immediate danger. If I have to pull that gun, it is time to fire, Period. That is not a moment that I look forward to and I hope it NEVER happens.

As far as living in fear as Moonshadow and others like to assert, I don't live in fear just because I choose to carry a weapon. I also don't fear a car accident, but I do carry insurance on my vehicles. I don't fear that I will die anytime soon but my husband and I both have sizeable life insurance policies. The gun I carry is nothing more than an insurance policy.

As far as the militia goes and the assertion that my rifle (an AR-15) would not work against a B-52, well I was in the military. Maybe you all would find it interesting that as soldiers, we took an oathe to protect and defend the Constitution. Not the President, not the Congress, but the Constitution. That means the military can't be used to carry out the whims of a President or Legislature that are going against the Constitution.

The point of this whole thread was to determine if Ms Sotomayor was fit to serve as a Supreme Court justice. She has shown with her speeches and rulings that she has a problem with following the law and not trying to rewrite it from the bench. Justice is supposed to be blind. It's not supposed to have "feelings" or empathy for one side or the other. The firefighter ruling was a huge red flag about her intentions. However, she should be confirmed as that is how our system is set up. Elections have consequences! At least she is replacing a justice that is just as much an activist, maybe more so.

Please show us where the Second Ammendment guarantees every other ammendment? The Second Ammendment specifically states "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". What does this have to do with any other ammendment? Are you trying to say that if a group of people do not like the outcome of a free election because it infringes upon their perceptions of their rights, then they will take to arms and overthrow the US government? Is this your 'guarantee'?

The problem with the Second Ammendment is that it was written in the 1700's when the availible arms were muskets. There is no specific guarantee in that ammendment that anyone can own any future weapon that did not exist in the 1700's regardless of the potential for destruction - none. The justification to own AK-47's based upon the Second Ammendment does not exist because AK-47's did not exist.

Without going into endless detail, the solution to the Second Ammendment, as with any other ammendment is to update it to modern times. Gun fanatics absolutely do not want this to happen for they fear that the ammendment will no longer allow them to force their own interpretation upon the rest of society.

Another very important point is that you must look beyond your own attitudes towards guns and acknowledge that there are many irresponsible individuals in society who should not be allowed to carry loaded firearms. Our society is full of problems that irresponsible individuals created. Refusing to acknowledge this very fundamental problem and deal with the aftermaths weakens your arguments about guns very substatially.

Another point is that everyone has rights in this nation. The gun fanatics fail to recognize that those who do not believe as they do have rights too.

Concerning the military, everyone who has served took the same oath. It is completely ludicrous to assert that such individuals would ever need arms in private life (after military service) to fight the government. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding as to how our system works. People vote and then live with the consequences. They do not go insane, take up arms, and start fighting the government because they don't like the outcome of the election. In our system, the government represents the people. (Don't start on how corporations rule the nation for corporations are run by people too).

As for Sotomayor, the argument about empathy and feelings is a bunch of obvious nonsense. Each and every justice on the Supreme Court has their own personal opinions, feelilngs, background , etc and those do influence how justices rule. Why on earth would this not be apparent to anyone who can clearly see that this is exactly why there are disagreements and dissent on the Supreme Court? Decisions are never robotically unanimous as each and every justice reads and interprets laws differently based upon their unique background.

nimrod

07-19-2009, 09:45 AM

ki4kxq

07-19-2009, 10:00 AM

How on earth does my owning a firearm and exercising my second amendment rights, interfere with your rights under the constitution in any way shape or form? However, the passing of inane gun laws does infringe on my constitutional rights.

Why do we need overwhelming gun laws? DC had the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. They also had one of the highest murder rates to go along with those laws. Go figure. Criminals do not follow the law, that is the nature of being a criminal. We need to start enforcing the laws we have. If you murder someone, you should go to prison for life. Same if you do bodily harm to someone, or threaten them with a weapon of any kind, you should be in prison. We have gotten to caught up in trying to figure out why this person did what they did and giving light sentences, then we are shocked and amazed when these same folks go out and harm again.

Who are you to say what I need or what I don't need as long as I am a law abiding citizen harming no one. We have an AR-15, which you say we don't need. How dare you decide what I can have and what I can't. If someone is misbehaving, whether it's with a gun or a knife or a car, punish that person. Taking away the rights of the innocent is no way to solve a crime problem. Guns are illegal in England, yet they are having a proglem with knife crimes now. So much so that they are considering making certain knives illegal. That is what happens when you treat the symptoms and not the disease.

We have plenty of gun laws now. If you buy a gun for someone that cannot legally purchase one, you get jail time. That is how it should be. If you kill or injure someone, and it was not justifiable, the law says you should go to prison. Same as if you kill or injure someone with something other than a gun. Why have you people not noticed that ridiculous gun laws don't lower the homicide rates? Again, look at DC before the Heller decision. How about Chicago. Illinois has very strict gun laws, yet look at the murder rate in Chicago. By your logic, there should not have been any murders committed by guns in DC. Guns were illegal.

Btw, it's not tyranny just because you don't like the outcome of an election. Tyranny has a very distinct definition. I find it very ironic that you live in a country that exists because the settlers took up arms and fought against a tyrannical goverment, yet you think the constitution should be "changed". No the contitution doesn't need to be changed, you need to live and let live. I'm all for punishing folks that use any item for harm. That doesn't mean I want to take guns, cars, poison, knives, hammers, clubs, baseball bats, prescription drugs, etc away from those that use these items correctly and legally.

ki4kxq

07-19-2009, 10:09 AM

I wish you would not generalize. I lean liberal and I do get it, just because I might disagree does not mean that I do not understand your side. I do not generalize all gun owners as crazy and waving guns around like conservitive madmen. There is no reason to be degrading to those whos view points are different then yours and then lump all those people into that same "liberal" group. Should I call you a fundementalist Islamic because people like you want everone else to think and act the way you do.

I do not want you to act like me. I only want you to butt out of my business and not infringe on my rights by taking away the constitutional protections that I enjoy.

Nowhere in my post did I say that everyone should own a firearm. It was the left leaners in this discussion that tried to portray everyone that owns a gun as fearful, or crazy, or threatening. They are also the side that wants to take freedom away from law abiding citizens instead of punishing wrong doers to the full extent of the law. I am not going to tell you what you should or should not own or enjoy. Please refrain yourself from trying to inflict your beliefs on me and my family by telling us what we should be able to have. (That is not directed at one single individual, but to anyone that thinks that taking away the rights of others is the answer to any problem.)

Sanslines

07-19-2009, 04:14 PM

How on earth does my owning a firearm and exercising my second amendment rights, interfere with your rights under the constitution in any way shape or form? However, the passing of inane gun laws does infringe on my constitutional rights.

What you refuse to accept is that it is you are interpreting your Second Ammendment rights from a vaguely worded second ammendment that was written over 200 years ago. Why do you steadfastly refuse to allow this ammendment to be updated and clarified as other ammendments have been? Is it bceause you are afaid that such a clarification will render your interpretations void and illegal?

Why do we need overwhelming gun laws? DC had the most restrictive gun laws in the nation. They also had one of the highest murder rates to go along with those laws. Go figure. Criminals do not follow the law, that is the nature of being a criminal. We need to start enforcing the laws we have. If you murder someone, you should go to prison for life. Same if you do bodily harm to someone, or threaten them with a weapon of any kind, you should be in prison. We have gotten to caught up in trying to figure out why this person did what they did and giving light sentences, then we are shocked and amazed when these same folks go out and harm again.

Why do we need overwhelming numbers of guns? How many is enough? Should not some types of weapons be banned due to the catastrophic death that the improper use of such weapons cause? Why do you want treat guns as toys that should be readily availible to anyone who wants one?

Who are you to say what I need or what I don't need as long as I am a law abiding citizen harming no one. We have an AR-15, which you say we don't need. How dare you decide what I can have and what I can't. If someone is misbehaving, whether it's with a gun or a knife or a car, punish that person. Taking away the rights of the innocent is no way to solve a crime problem. Guns are illegal in England, yet they are having a proglem with knife crimes now. So much so that they are considering making certain knives illegal. That is what happens when you treat the symptoms and not the disease.

Society will ultimately decide wht you can and can not have. Society does that right now. Why should guns receive special consideration? Why are your laws immune from clarification or change? So let's see according to your logic we should allow individuals to have flame throwers, tanks, and nuclear weapons and only punish them when they misues such weapons. According to your logic , we should also punish those who abuse guns after they have misused such weapons. So in other words, you would be perfectly happy if someone who killed your husband with a gun was punished after the fact even though you know that such a murder could have been prevented beforehand.

We have plenty of gun laws now. If you buy a gun for someone that cannot legally purchase one, you get jail time. That is how it should be. If you kill or injure someone, and it was not justifiable, the law says you should go to prison. Same as if you kill or injure someone with something other than a gun. Why have you people not noticed that ridiculous gun laws don't lower the homicide rates? Again, look at DC before the Heller decision. How about Chicago. Illinois has very strict gun laws, yet look at the murder rate in Chicago. By your logic, there should not have been any murders committed by guns in DC. Guns were illegal.

This the same old and tired NRA rhetoric that keeps getting repeated over and over again. I am not even sure why anyone even bothers to respond to such a recording as it obviously makes no difference at all. Why do you oppose better laws that are updated and clarified? We do this will all other laws. What makes your guns laws so special and immune from that which applies to all other laws?

Btw, it's not tyranny just because you don't like the outcome of an election. Tyranny has a very distinct definition. I find it very ironic that you live in a country that exists because the settlers took up arms and fought against a tyrannical goverment, yet you think the constitution should be "changed". No the contitution doesn't need to be changed, you need to live and let live. I'm all for punishing folks that use any item for harm. That doesn't mean I want to take guns, cars, poison, knives, hammers, clubs, baseball bats, prescription drugs, etc away from those that use these items correctly and legally.

Right, let's go back and void all of the changes that were ever made to the constitution. We can reinstate slavery against blacks, and remove the right for women to vote for a start. The Constitution is meant to be a living thing that changes with the times to reflect societal changes. You just want to throw all of that out because you do not want any challenge to your own personal interpretatoin of the second ammendment. Forget anyone else who has a different opinion about the second ammendment. They don't count. Can you not see how selfish and self centered such as yours represents? it's all about you and you alone. No one else's opinion counts.

Your attitude is just plainly out of sync with mainstream society. You may not care one bit what others believe, but I can assure you that in the end, like it or not, you will have to live with what they decide.

ki4kxq

07-19-2009, 07:07 PM

Naturist Mark

07-19-2009, 08:11 PM

The Supreme Court has determined that the 2nd amendment is a constitutional right that belongs to the individual. But it did not grant an absolute right, indeed the same decision upheld the power of States (and DC) to highly regulate arms - just not to the point of a complete ban.
Again, you didn't answer why with all the restrictive gun laws that DC had, why the homicide was one of the highest in the nation. It's not rhetoric, it is a fact that is easily looked up if you only care to. Why is Massachusetts - with among the most restrictive gun laws among the lowest crime rates? And why is Arizona with very nearly the most permissive gun laws the most violent State?

The permissiveness or restrictiveness of gun laws seems to have little to do with crime rates. In the United States the strongest correlation with the violent crime rate is median household income. The lower the median income, the higher the violent crime rate. It just happens that those states with among the lowest median incomes also tend to have the most permissive gun laws and highest violent crime rates - such as Georgia, Florida, Louisiana, Texas, Arizona and Arkansas. They also tend to be southern - but I don't think you can argue that having permissive gun laws will relocate your state to the south.

-Mark

Sanman

07-19-2009, 10:24 PM

First of all... watch this video about gun rights...
http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/60509/detail/
No comments until you've watched the whole thing.
(warning... contains some offensive "language")

And for those who spout "constitutional rights"... you are soooooo missing the point. For a real understanding of the constitution, you need to watch Michael Badnarik's video of his Constitution seminar. The whole thing is about 7 hours long (broken down in 1 hour parts), so watch when you have time... here's a link to part 1. I'm sure everyone can find parts 2-7 from there.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5085838350268647159&hl=en

Sanslines

07-20-2009, 03:09 AM

My husband and I both have concealed carry permits. We carry our guns everywhere unless it is prohibited, and that is not many places. You would never know that we are armed because that is what CONCEALED means.

I somehow do not believe that when you are travelling interstate in your trucks, you just stop at state borders to check your conceiled, handguns. Are you even aware of all the myriad of state and local laws which pertain to handguns? I somehow really doubt it. No doubt that you have been to New York State with your deliveries. Do you check your loaded handguns at the state line because you are fully aware that, being a non state resident, it is illegal for you to carry your handguns into New York State. I sincerely doubt that you really comply with the state law and leave your handguns in another state.

Your fellow gun advocate, Skinview, believed that he could just walk across New York State with his handguns. He believed wrong and no doubt violated New York State law in the past.

I fully agree with you that existing laws should be enforced to the maximum. Given your violations what should we do with you? Perhaps life imprisonment in Ossining or Attica State Prisons? Remember, ignorance of the law is no excuse and you clearly refuse any stronger or clearer federal laws that would simplify or eliminate the existing myriad of haphazard state and local laws that presently exist.

Your ilk also always likes to proudly state over and over again abuot being "Law Abiding Citizens". Does picking and chosing which laws that you want to follow and ignoring others that you do not wish to follow represent the new definition of 'law abiding'?

No doubt you will reply that you are aware of all federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to all of your guns. Somehow, I just don't believe that. Somehow, I just do not believe that you check your handguns at state borders that prohibit them. You just roll right into town with your guns conveniently conceiled. Keep on trucking. The state police awaits. Ossining awaits.

Sanslines

07-20-2009, 03:29 AM

Giving rights to blacks and voting rights to women are far different than what you are talking about. These actions expanded rights. What you are talking about would take away rights. Huge difference.

The Supreme Court has determined that the 2nd amendment is a constitutional right that belongs to the individual. Again, you didn't answer why with all the restrictive gun laws that DC had, why the homicide was one of the highest in the nation. It's not rhetoric, it is a fact that is easily looked up if you only care to.

So very wrong! You really need to review the Constitution and supporting ammendments.

Amendment 13 (adopted 1865) abolished slavery. There is no mention of expanding any existing right.

Section 1: "Neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime wherof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction".

Amendment 19 (adopted 1920) established the right of women to vote. This ammendment was really an enhancement to Amendment 15 which specified voting rights that can not be denied based upon race, color, or previous condition or servitude. Amendment 19 established that the right to vote can not be denied based upon sex. Prior to Amendment 19, the right to vote could be (and was) denied to women. Hence, Amendment 19 was not an expansion of any existing right for women to vote for that right did not exist prior to amendment 19.

Your above statements clearly show that you have not read and fully understood what the Amendments to the Constitution actually mean. Your interpretations of amendments are so far removed from the actual worded meaning as to be completely and totally incorrect. You are also incorrectly applying your own personal biases and interpretations of the second amendment as to also be completely and totally incorrect. In short, you are reading into amendments, that which does not exist and using obviously false basis for your arguments.

MoonShadow

07-20-2009, 05:18 AM

The gun I carry is nothing more than an insurance policy.

Interesting. An insurance policy? Hmmmm, let's see you carry car insurance because you might be in an accident and insurance would cover you; you carry life insurance in the event one or the other of you dies. So, you carry guns in the event of ????? what? an attack? Sounds like fear to me. You obviously fear something is/will/might happen.

The Second Amendment is archaic and should be amended as we no longer need militias since we now have the United States Armed Forces.

MoonShadow

07-20-2009, 05:27 AM

So very wrong! You really need to review the Constitution and supporting ammendments.

Amendment 13 (adopted 1865) abolished slavery. There is no mention of expanding any existing right.

Section 1: "Neither slavery, nor involuntary servitude, except as punishment for crime wherof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction".

Amendment 19 (adopted 1920) established the right of women to vote. This ammendment was really an enhancement to Amendment 15 which specified voting rights that can not be denied based upon race, color, or previous condition or servitude. Amendment 19 established that the right to vote can not be denied based upon sex. Prior to Amendment 19, the right to vote could be (and was) denied to women. Hence, Amendment 19 was not an expansion of any existing right for women to vote for that right did not exist prior to amendment 19.

Your above statements clearly show that you have not read and fully understood what the Amendments to the Constitution actually mean. Your interpretations of amendments are so far removed from the actual worded meaning as to be completely and totally incorrect. You are also incorrectly applying your own personal biases and interpretations of the second amendment as to also be completely and totally incorrect. In short, you are reading into amendments, that which does not exist and using obviously false basis for your arguments.

Thank you for posting facts here.

This Second Amendment has been blown out of proportion and warped by the NRA and similar radical groups. Their propaganda is amazing and even more amazing are those who believe in what they claim. It is like shades of White supremacy parties forming back in the day; the original terrorists of our times and still today. Reading all the pro-gun owners posts is scary that people think this way.

But then maybe they have a point ---- with people like them out there maybe we should all be armed in the event we come face-to-face with them!!! Scary people

Sanslines

07-20-2009, 05:33 AM

Who are you to say what I need or what I don't need as long as I am a law abiding citizen harming no one. We have an AR-15, which you say we don't need. How dare you decide what I can have and what I can't. If someone is misbehaving, whether it's with a gun or a knife or a car, punish that person. Taking away the rights of the innocent is no way to solve a crime problem. Guns are illegal in England, yet they are having a proglem with knife crimes now. So much so that they are considering making certain knives illegal. That is what happens when you treat the symptoms and not the disease.

Just to clarify a few things here, the First Amendment gives me the right to speak out for what I believe. It is the same right that applies to you as well as to ALL Americans. I uphold your right to present your opinions and arguments for your interpretation of your rights to own any gun that you so chose without restriction. However, you appear to want to deny my right to dispute your interpretations and opinions. You appear to be afraid that my logical and rational arguments may indeed superceed your hysterical interpretations and misleading information (starting with a complete misunderstanding of the Constitution - which indeeds forms the basis for any meaningful debate) and that obviously scares you. Your NRA minority ilk therefore resort to making threats about 'armed insurrections', and promoting the usual scare tactics based upon outright lies and misleading distortions of fact instead of accepting that others have rights to their opinions too and the expression of such rights will lead to certain changes in how firearms are treated in this nation.
Your ilk obviously can not argue with sufficient fact, common sense logic, and reason, so your ilk resorts to scare and propoganda - how sad.

Skinview

07-20-2009, 07:28 AM

Please stop posting nonsense. Please research the facts and stop posting deliberately misleading information.If you think my facts are wrong, then produce some references that refute them if you can, rather than posting childish insults.

You can start by admitting that handguns are not the only guns in question.
Different types of firearms involve different issues. Armor piercing ammo is a handgun issue.

You obviously do not want to ban ANY guns, including handguns, rifles, assault weapons. Research the facts and ask yourself if ANY of they types of weapons that you advoccate for, including the above mentioned list has EVER penetrated a bullet resistant vest and killed a police officer.That would be irrelevant to the issue. As I have written several times before, common hunting ammo will go through bullet a resistant vest like it was tissue paper. Do you want to ban deer hunting ammo too?

http://www.afscme.org/resolutions/1996/r32-032.htmThis is the "performance based" ban that would ban hunting ammo. This was the type of ban that was rejected by Congress when they decided to ban ammo based on the construction materials, which made much more sense.

And your point is exactly what? That you can pick and chose certain types of ammo that prove your point and ignore all of the rest that dismiss yor point? Is this what you are saying?Sigh. Yes, if you argue that "cop killer bullets" are specifically armor piercing bullets, and I maintain that "cop killer bullets" are whatever ammo that anti gun fanatics want to ban, and I produce an example of a non-armor piercing hollow point ammo that got labeled as "cop killer bullets", then, yes, I've proven my point. There logically can not be an "all the rest" that dismisses my point, because my point is anti gun fanatics will label ANY ammo they don't like as "cop killer". A counter example to my point is not logically possible. If you say "all birds are white" and I say "not so", and I produce a black bird, then I have carried the burden of proof and shown your statement to be false. There is no possible counter example to my position. More white birds proves nothing. End of story. Get it now?

And your point is exaclty what? There are different grades of bullet resistance vests based upon the threat from different types of ammunition. My point is to limit the threat to police officers by eliminating certain types of ammuntion that have no place ni the hands of civilians. You really need to stop being so deliberately misleading and resorting to pick and chose in order to skew information to support your out of touch points. I can just as validly write 'hard' because this is what SWAT teams wear and SAWT teams are police officers too. I don't exclude soft vests worn by police officers. Why do you deliberately exclude 'hard' vests. Is it because it proves the danger to police officers?What good does it do for your argument to look at hard vests? If you want to ban ammo that can penetrate a bullet resistant vest, then using a soft armor standard would lead to a more comprehensive ban. If you want to use a hard vest standard, then your brass handgun bullets wouldn't be banned. I'm not trying to exclude hard vests. I just didn't include them because it was pointless to the discussion. It seems that you have become so focused on throwing around accusations that you have lost track of your train of thought.

Then you obviously don't understand circumstancial evidence or the points that such post was making. A person does NOT need to be caught driving while intoxicated to be legally charged with driving while intoxicated. I do not know how anyone can make this point any clearer.You are missing my point. I don't think just getting into a car while drunk is illegal. You have to have driven the car while drunk. I know that there can be evidence that a drunk person was driving a nonmoving car. In that case he DID DRIVE the car, which is not what I am talking about.

Can't get any what? According to your logic, individuals should be able to own just about any kind of ammunition that is manufactured. Why not just sell bazookas and M-16 rifles to deranged individuals and be done with it. Of course there is a BIG difference among certain types of ammunition ie a 'standard' 22 caliber bullet versus teflon coated bullets. What need to you have for anything other then 'standard' types of bullets? Why do you want free access to any type of bullet?I DON'T. The NRA helped write legislation that banned handgun bullets constructed with certain types of materials, and I am fine with that.

You actually bring up another valid point as to the real need to modify the second ammendment to clarify to the allowance of gun ammuntion. To be fair and accurate, if the second ammendment is to stand, then the ONLY type of ammuntion that should be allowed is that type which existed when the second ammendment was created. Doing so will eliminate many classes of modern ammunition that did not exist during that time. Perfect - the second ammendment at work.If only the type of ammo that was around in 1789 was allowed, then virtually all hunting ammo would be banned. I take it that you don't know much about ammo.

How about you stop picking and chosing one type of ammuntion and conveniently ignoring the other types which contradict your point? To refuse to acknowledge that there are many types of ammunition availible and by picking one type of ammuntion to prove one side or the other is to be deliberately misleading and a distortion of all of the facts.

What you are doing is equivalent to someone polling 100 people to determine a fair result and then deliberately chosing certain answers that prove the point that you want to prove while ignoring the other answers that do not prove your point.

The fair and honest thing to do is to consider all 100 answers and then to reach a valid conclusion based upon all responses weighing both the pros and cons.If this has something to do with Black Talon ammo, than I've addressed that above. This complaint of yours is illogical.

tinhfwv

07-20-2009, 09:44 AM

Interesting. An insurance policy? Hmmmm, let's see you carry car insurance because you might be in an accident and insurance would cover you; you carry life insurance in the event one or the other of you dies. So, you carry guns in the event of ????? what? an attack? Sounds like fear to me. You obviously fear something is/will/might happen.

The Second Amendment is archaic and should be amended as we no longer need militias since we now have the United States Armed Forces.

All insurance is arguably based on fear something might happen.

Whether the Second Amendment should be amended is up to the people, through their representatives, to decide. There is a defined process for amending the Constitution and it must be followed. Under no circumstances should the unelected, unaccountable tyranny of the courts circumvent this process.

nimrod

07-20-2009, 12:04 PM

I do not want you to act like me. I only want you to butt out of my business and not infringe on my rights by taking away the constitutional protections that I enjoy.

Just trying to make a point about generalizations with one.

Sanslines

07-20-2009, 12:09 PM

If you think my facts are wrong, then produce some references that refute them if you can, rather than posting childish insults.

I have posted numerous links and have disputed your opinions ad infinitum. I have pointed out how you selectively use information to bias, skew, and spin the real facts. You have conveniently ignored one link after another that I have posted and this is very evident by your baseless replies. When you post nonsense I called you out on it. If you believe that it is a childish insult to call you out on posting NRA backed nonsense, then don't post such nonsense. Plain and simple.

Different types of firearms involve different issues. Armor piercing ammo is a handgun issue.

Armor piercing ammo is not restricted to any particular class of weapon. As a simple example, it applies to high powered sniper firearms as well. You should know this.

That would be irrelevant to the issue. As I have written several times before, common hunting ammo will go through bullet a resistant vest like it was tissue paper. Do you want to ban deer hunting ammo too?

It really is getting very tiresome to correct your constant misrepresentations. You are either deliberately uninformed of the real facts, or you are deliberately posting false and misleading information. If you ever bothered to read my previous posts, you would clearly know that there are different types of ammunition AND different types of bullet 'resistant' vests. The average police officer on the street does not wear the same type of much heavier vest that a SWAT officer would wear. Such a heavy duty vest would be far too cumbersome. Common hunting ammo can be anything from a short 22 caliber cartridge to a 30-06 and beyond (there is no real consensus as to what is common hunting ammo). There is an ENORMOUS difference in penetration between these two cartridges alone. You must know this. So please do us all a favor and refrain from posting such statements such as " common hunting ammo can go through a bullet resistant vest like it was tissue paper ". Such a statement ONLY applies under the very limited circumstances of a very specific type of ammo and a very specific type of vest. Overall, this statement is NOT representative of all cartridges and vests.

This is the "performance based" ban that would ban hunting ammo. This was the type of ban that was rejected by Congress when they decided to ban ammo based on the construction materials, which made much more sense.

What exactly is 'hunting ammo'? Given that certain states ban certain types of ammo that would be readily classified as hunting ammo in other states, there is no universal agreement as to what constitutes hunting ammo. Furthemore, it would be intuitely obvious that there are other types of ammo that are common but might not be considered 'hunting ammo'. AK-47 cartridges are one example.

Sigh. Yes, if you argue that "cop killer bullets" are specifically armor piercing bullets, and I maintain that "cop killer bullets" are whatever ammo that anti gun fanatics want to ban, and I produce an example of a non-armor piercing hollow point ammo that got labeled as "cop killer bullets", then, yes, I've proven my point. There logically can not be an "all the rest" that dismisses my point, because my point is anti gun fanatics will label ANY ammo they don't like as "cop killer". A counter example to my point is not logically possible. If you say "all birds are white" and I say "not so", and I produce a black bird, then I have carried the burden of proof and shown your statement to be false. There is no possible counter example to my position. More white birds proves nothing. End of story. Get it now?

Sigh.....does it not make sense that a bullet that penetrates a bullet 'resistant' vest can 'kill a cop'? Does it also make sense that a bullet that does not penetrate a bullet 'resistant' vest does not kill a cop?
What you maintain is the highly misleading allegation "all ammo is cop killing ammo" based upon uninformed hysteria by a certain percentage of anti gun fanatics. Such hysteria is equally as uninformed as so much of what the NRA promotes.

Obviously, just about any bullet can kill an unvested cop. Hence why cops wear bullet resistant vests. Beyond this, there are also bullets that can pierce the typical types of bullet resistant vests that cops wear. What do you think most ammom is designed to do? It obviously is designed to kill something.

I can certainly play your game too. i can find an example of an armor piercing hollow point ammunition that did indeed pierce a bullet proof vest. I can then state just as validly as you do that: "Hollow point ammuntion must be classified as cop killing ammunition" . Of course I leave out all of the relevant supporting details that would make such an assertion ludicrous. Information such as (as a theoretical example) out of 10, 000 vests of varying grades, only one vest was penetrated, out of countless rounds of a wide variety of types of hollow point ammunition, only one bullet penetrated the vest, etc. Now, given the supporting evidence does not the statement that I have made appear ludicrous given all of the facts? Yet, because I found one demonstrated case of one hollow point bullet piercing one vest, I certainly can make such a statement and you can not dispute it. This is, in effect what you are saying. I many not be bale to dispute your exact statement, but I can use further supporting information to place proper persepctive upon what you have said. Such perspective can and will render your statement not representative and therefore meaningless to a fully factual debate.

I think that I should start playing your game. Let's see....how about "Gun fanatics are criminals". "Gun fanatics rape old ladies". The list can go on and on and you can not dispute the fact that there is at least one gun fanatic who is a criminal or one gun fanatic who raped one old lady. Therefor my statement is valid. However, does this mean that such a statement is a fair representative of the whole ie all gun fanatics? Not at all. Yet, such misrepresentative statements are routinely used to bias or mislead people. Obviously the vast majority of gun fanatics do not rape old ladies. However, such a statement can influence gullible people into believing that they do because I never used specific and qualifying adjectives. This is how you play your game. Got it now? You routinely make vague statements without qualifiers. The entirety of facts demonstrate over and over again that your blanket statements do not represent 'mainstreet'.

What good does it do for your argument to look at hard vests? If you want to ban ammo that can penetrate a bullet resistant vest, then using a soft armor standard would lead to a more comprehensive ban. If you want to use a hard vest standard, then your brass handgun bullets wouldn't be banned. I'm not trying to exclude hard vests. I just didn't include them because it was pointless to the discussion. It seems that you have become so focused on throwing around accusations that you have lost track of your train of thought.

You certainly are entitled to select the most powerful type of availible ammo that can even be remotely considered 'common gun ammo' (whatever that is) and then select the thinnest bullet resistant vest to prove your point. I am entitled to call you out on the specific details and to show that what you is carefully selected information that is NOT representative of the whole.

You are missing my point. I don't think just getting into a car while drunk is illegal. You have to have driven the car while drunk. I know that there can be evidence that a drunk person was driving a nonmoving car. In that case he DID DRIVE the car, which is not what I am talking about.

You obviously do NOT understand circumstantial evidence in spite of the explanations of numerous individuals.

I DON'T. The NRA helped write legislation that banned handgun bullets constructed with certain types of materials, and I am fine with that.

So now you do want to limit certain types of ammuntion. Yet, in past posts, you demanded the right to own whatever gun you chose, including assault weapons and beyond. What will you state next.....that you want the freedom to own a howitzer and leave out the details 'ONLY if the howitzer is disabled and can never be made functional'.

If only the type of ammo that was around in 1789 was allowed, then virtually all hunting ammo would be banned. I take it that you don't know much about ammo.

When the Second Amendment was written, most present day hunting ammo did not exist. It certainly is just as valid to assert that the Second Amendment ONLY allows for that ammo which existed when the amendment was written. Hence, you are correct that it can be vaildly asserted that just about all modern hunting ammo is not protected by the Second Amendment and can be banned. Since you steadfastly refuse any modifications or clarifications to the Second Amendment and demand that YOUR interpretation of a nebulous statement written over 200 years ago is the ONLY valid interpretation, then the nebulous aspects of the Second Amendment can and will be used against your interpretation. Do you not understand that in legal contract disputes, poor and vague wording of contracts allow courts to generally rule against the originator of the contract?

If this has something to do with Black Talon ammo, than I've addressed that above. This complaint of yours is illogical.

Why do you continue to cling to this Black Talon ammo when it is only one type of ammon in a vast sea of ammo? Are you again trying to make broad and sweeping generalizations based upon one very specific type of ammo?

I honestly do not think that you really understand how fair decisions or conclusions are reached in life. Many people would readily agree that in order to reach the best, fairest, most representive conclusion for a particular issue, ALL data, opinions, facts, and details should be represented. What some will attempt to do is to use one or two pieces of data and then continue to generalize by using non specific language as a means to influence guillible and uninformed people into forming conclusions that are not valid or representative of the whole. I just do not think that you will ever understand that posting one obscure and isolated opinion or 'fact' can ever be used to form a sound and just conclusion.

BinCo

07-20-2009, 12:38 PM

So very wrong! You really need to review the Constitution and supporting ammendments.

Your above statements clearly show that you have not read and fully understood what the Amendments to the Constitution actually mean. Your interpretations of amendments are so far removed from the actual worded meaning as to be completely and totally incorrect. You are also incorrectly applying your own personal biases and interpretations of the second amendment as to also be completely and totally incorrect. In short, you are reading into amendments, that which does not exist and using obviously false basis for your arguments.

Wow, Is that the pot calling the kettle black.

Sanslines, you are putting your own personal interpretation of the 2nd ammendment into this entire thread and you have the nerve to accuse someone else of doing that? The founding fathers wrote the 2nd into the constitution because they saw what out of control governments do to the people. They saw how out of control governments use their power to strip the people of the ability to defend themselves and then dominate them. You see the 2nd as ONLY applying to YOUR interpretation of a militia. You seem to have forgotten your history that the militia was made up of average people being able to be on call if the need arose. Remember our fledgling country was surrounded by French and Spanish property and still had a large following of English supporters who wished to see the British regain the power over the US. Granting the legal power for all American's to bear arms allowed other nations to see that we would not be an easy target. They would not just have to defeat the ships gaurding the port, they would have to defeat the population too.

Flash to modern day and you believe that the modern Army, Navy, Air Force, Natl Guard and Police should defend us against all enemies and that the 2nd only applies to them. You believe that we should be neutered and unable to defend ourselves. Katrina proved exactly what the problem is when the police get out of hand, they confiscate the guns from law abiding citizens and then admit that they do not have the resources to protect everyone. The best course of action for people like you is to run and hide. Let someone else die defending your rights, let someone else stand up against the tyranny. Just call 911.....and hope that they have enough cops to come save your butt in the next natural disaster.

I'm not posting anymore on this subject, you are a rabid anti-gun nut who wishes to neuter anyone else into being unable to defend themselves. You talk and talk about sensible gun laws and registration when you clearly want an outright ban. You have no clue how to have it happen and don't believe that anti-gun city councils would use registration as a means of controlling guns by financial hardship, rendering the rich able to defend themselves while the poor can be offered up as prey. You refuse to see how the amazing amount of existing gun laws do not lower crime. You refuse to believe the facts about how gun control is a waste of time and money. You don't seem to get that guns don't kill people, other people kill people, and will kill them if they are determined enough. You can't magically wave your wand and get rid of the guns, so you want to have the legislators do it for you. You can go on and on about other countries, but it does not matter because we have the guns here now and you can't get them back. Millions and millions of Americans believe that they have to right to defend themselves. You, sadly, don't. Perhaps you are part of the out of control government I mentioned above and are secretly working on disarming the populace? Either way, this post is proving to be a waste of time as you will keep posting as many things against guns and the rest of us are posting in favor of them.

Sanslines

07-20-2009, 02:24 PM

Binco,

You obviously are far too emotional to read and understand any of what I had posted. You have obviously resorted to an emotional and personal rant against me. That's too bad.

As for my own personal interpretation of the Second Amendment, the point that I have made over and over again is that everyone has their own personal interpretation of that document. You seem to believe that I am not entitled to expressing the idea that there are numerous interpretations and just because an interpretation does not agree with your interpretation does not make any less valid or wrong. Instead of accepting that at face value you launch into an attack against me for daring to express that idea. That's to bad and demonstrates that you do not want to consider other opinions. You certainly do not want anyone to vociferously dispute yours.

If you really think that I am such a rabid anti gun nut, then guess again. There are far more radical individuals out there who will fight much more forcefully for their beliefs in a time and place where it matters. Resorting to rants and personal attacks against those individuals will accomplish nothing. Presenting compelling and foreceful arguments will. The battles that matter will be fought in the real world and not in a forum.

The gun issue is a highly emotional subject for many. You have your opinions and others have theirs. Others may not agree with your opinions, but respect your right to express those opinions. Why do you express such intolerance towards theirs. My interpretations of the Second Amendment are mine. Yours are yours. I believe that mine are just as valid as yours. If you believe that my opinions are completely off base for you then so be it. I can accept that. Obviously you can not tolerate my opinions.

You go on and on about what you perceive as the positives about guns. I have gone on and on about what I perceive to be the negative about guns. You have your justifications for doing so and I have mine. The truth is that there are two sides to the coin - both positive and negative. Sadly, a certain group wishes to silence those who speak about the negatives and only dwell on the positives. You obviously do not wish to accept the negative aspects of guns. Fair enough. However, there are millions upon millions who do.

If any sensible decision about guns is ever going to be reached, then it will be based upon considering both sided of coin. Emotional tirades launced from one side against the other will have no place at this table.

As for your final statement about my posting as many things against guns as you post for guns, it is apparent that you wish to have the monopoly on posting positives and can not tolerate the negatives. That's really too bad as anyone should post whatever they wish - both positive and negative.

In the end, absolutely nothing that is said here will make any difference on a national level. It will be up to each and every person to vote as they see fit and promote what they honestly believe in.

When heated debates and discussions start to break down into emotional tirades, then it is time to end them. You have shown that it is time.

We should all agree to disagree and then move forward. Everyone is entrenched in their opinions and it is obvious that further discussions are futile. We have not had a really heated debate in this forum for a very long time. It is somewhat doubtful that we will have another one as vanilla topics appear more appropriate. Back to the vanilla topics.

jon71

07-20-2009, 04:55 PM

ki4kxq

07-20-2009, 04:59 PM

I somehow do not believe that when you are travelling interstate in your trucks, you just stop at state borders to check your conceiled, handguns. Are you even aware of all the myriad of state and local laws which pertain to handguns? I somehow really doubt it. No doubt that you have been to New York State with your deliveries. Do you check your loaded handguns at the state line because you are fully aware that, being a non state resident, it is illegal for you to carry your handguns into New York State. I sincerely doubt that you really comply with the state law and leave your handguns in another state.

Your fellow gun advocate, Skinview, believed that he could just walk across New York State with his handguns. He believed wrong and no doubt violated New York State law in the past.

I fully agree with you that existing laws should be enforced to the maximum. Given your violations what should we do with you? Perhaps life imprisonment in Ossining or Attica State Prisons? Remember, ignorance of the law is no excuse and you clearly refuse any stronger or clearer federal laws that would simplify or eliminate the existing myriad of haphazard state and local laws that presently exist.

Your ilk also always likes to proudly state over and over again abuot being "Law Abiding Citizens". Does picking and chosing which laws that you want to follow and ignoring others that you do not wish to follow represent the new definition of 'law abiding'?

No doubt you will reply that you are aware of all federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to all of your guns. Somehow, I just don't believe that. Somehow, I just do not believe that you check your handguns at state borders that prohibit them. You just roll right into town with your guns conveniently conceiled. Keep on trucking. The state police awaits. Ossining awaits.

We own our truck, therefore we can choose whether or not to visit the lovely northeastern part of the US. We choose not to, in part because of their assinine gun laws.

We have full knowledge of gun laws of the states that we do travel through. Those laws are given in detail at handgunlaws.us, if you care to take a look. A good portion have recipical arrangements with ccw holders. The rest have provisions to disassemble your weapon and lock it in a safe. When we are in those states, we do just that.

Again, spouting off at the mouth when you don't have a clue in the world makes you look foolish.

MoonShadow

07-20-2009, 07:06 PM

NudeTopher

07-20-2009, 07:46 PM

We own our truck, therefore we can choose whether or not to visit the lovely northeastern part of the US. We choose not to, in part because of their assinine gun laws.

We have full knowledge of gun laws of the states that we do travel through. Those laws are given in detail at handgunlaws.us, if you care to take a look. A good portion have recipical arrangements with ccw holders. The rest have provisions to disassemble your weapon and lock it in a safe. When we are in those states, we do just that.

Again, spouting off at the mouth when you don't have a clue in the world makes you look foolish.

You can't be serious.

On the one hand you say that you want your guns for your protection. You want them as insurance from harm which one can only deduce would be violence. Yet the Northeast is the most violent free part of the United States, particularly in contrast to the South. So,clearly you wouldn't need your guns here for self-protection. Yet, you won't visit since your guns are not welcome. That means something else is going on.

If not being able to carry arms to a safe part of the nation is enough to keep you away then it isn't your safety and well being for which you carry arms.

Clearly something else is going on!

Sanslines

07-21-2009, 04:19 AM

The second amendment applying to militias is the established precedent and understanding of how the amendment works. The claim that it means anyone can have any weapon for any or no reason is a modern "interpretation". Prior to some point in the 20th centuty no one would have imagined such an interpretation of it and now some people want to scam us into thinking it's the only way to see it. That's revisionism.

Jon,

You will never get certain individuals to even agree with you that the Second Amendment is a document that is open to different interpretations. According to such individuals, their interpretation is the only valid interpretation that exists. Given this fact, you will never get such individuals to enage in any form of open minded discussion. They just can not do it and that is sad! As you know, you can lead a horse to water, but you can not make that horse drink.

Sanslines

07-21-2009, 04:24 AM

We own our truck, therefore we can choose whether or not to visit the lovely northeastern part of the US. We choose not to, in part because of their assinine gun laws.

We have full knowledge of gun laws of the states that we do travel through. Those laws are given in detail at handgunlaws.us, if you care to take a look. A good portion have recipical arrangements with ccw holders. The rest have provisions to disassemble your weapon and lock it in a safe. When we are in those states, we do just that.

Again, spouting off at the mouth when you don't have a clue in the world makes you look foolish.

What a convenient answer! It is the answer that I expected and there is no way to verifiy your answers. Of course you would deny that you travel to New York State. Would anyone really expect that you would openly admit to entering New York State with loaded handguns?

What is so odd is that your obsession with guns is so strong as to influence your employment vis a vis where you claim that you do and do not drive. Something else is going on here. No one can possible be THAT addicted to guns as to limit their employment opportunities - or can they? Now who looks folish.

All truck drivers that I know are very hard working individuals who are hard pressed to make delivery and drop off schedules. They are in business to make money, and this has become more difficult as time has gone on. They must keep accurate log books concerning their drive times and do no thave the luxury of taking pleasure trips to gun drop off points to have their beloved guns disassembled by strangers. I also somehow do not believe that certain gun lovers would ever allow a stranger to even touch their beloved weapon.

Something just doesn't make sense with this story.

Sanslines

07-21-2009, 04:25 AM

Clearly something else is going on!

Yes clearly something else is going on and we will never know what it truly is.

Sanslines

07-21-2009, 04:28 AM

Gun-totin', gun-lovin' Bubbas United!

Now everyone is getting their frames bent. Can't anyone have heated discussions without getting knarly?

Sanslines, you won't get them to see anything but their own pov. Your posts have been very thoughtful and well written but it isn't what they want to hear.

Thank you Moonshadow. Obviously not and it is sad when discussions and debates resort to tantrums. Those who promote their opinions with fanaticism obviously can not tolerate getting a taste of their own medicine.

While we are at it............let's give loaded AK-47's to babies:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31952727/ns/us_news-life

So what if some 4 year old shot and killed you....why it is nothing more then a tragic mistake.

NudeTopher

07-21-2009, 05:12 AM

[quote=ki4kxq;234060]This whole disussion about firearms points out that liberals just don't get it. It is the 2nd amendment that guarantees every other amendment. You folks refer to "crazy gun owners waving guns around like madmen". Are you kidding? All of you need to back away from the TV and take a look at real life....

Nice try, unfortunately you don't understand the Second Amendment. The Second Amendment in no way guarantees any other amendment.

After reading your subsequent posts, I am fairly positive that you don't fully understand either the Bill of Rights or the Constitution. If everyone did understand the concepts then the Supreme Court would have a much lower caseload.

With specific regard to allowing the military to not follow those orders which they believe to be unconstitutional; I must say that with your understanding of the Constitution you would be court martialed, or worse, due to your mis-understandings.

Lastly, with specific regard to your comments about "crazy gun owners" and their behaviors: since you are much closer to the crazy gun culture, and you are comfortable with that term, then once must deduce - where there is smoke, there is fire.

nimrod

07-21-2009, 12:18 PM

Wow, the hypocrisy here. So it is okay to call someone a gun nut, gun lovin' bubba, and question their understanding. If they call you a "liberal", scardy cat, and question your understanding then they are the ones that are not being calm and thoughtful in their posts. Either side will agrue their side, and neither will see the others, it is not one sided.

Name calling happens on both sides, I would rather not see it done, but it happens. I tried to make a point about generalizations, and though it seemed to be aimed at one side, I ment it for both.

nimrod

07-21-2009, 12:35 PM

Just to clarify things for me I looked up the definition of militia.

Militia; As constituted by the Federal Constitution and an early act of Congress, those citizens, collectively, who are enrolled and drilled in military organizations other than the regular military forces.

From where I sit, both sides are right, and both are wrong. I would seem to me that a private citizen can have a gun as long they are in a militia, and a militia is not part of the groups of army, navy, air force, marines, national guard, etc..

So to me the question is who recognizes when it is a militia and not just a group of people with guns, private citizens, the federal government, or state government?

Naturist Mark

07-21-2009, 06:19 PM

This thread seems to have been completely taken over by gun issues and is ignoring Sotomayor.

C'mon Birthers! Don't cede ground to the gun nuts! Let's demand Sonia's position on Obama's fake birth certificate!

ki4kxq

07-21-2009, 07:27 PM

What a convenient answer! It is the answer that I expected and there is no way to verifiy your answers. Of course you would deny that you travel to New York State. Would anyone really expect that you would openly admit to entering New York State with loaded handguns?

What is so odd is that your obsession with guns is so strong as to influence your employment vis a vis where you claim that you do and do not drive. Something else is going on here. No one can possible be THAT addicted to guns as to limit their employment opportunities - or can they? Now who looks folish.

All truck drivers that I know are very hard working individuals who are hard pressed to make delivery and drop off schedules. They are in business to make money, and this has become more difficult as time has gone on. They must keep accurate log books concerning their drive times and do no thave the luxury of taking pleasure trips to gun drop off points to have their beloved guns disassembled by strangers. I also somehow do not believe that certain gun lovers would ever allow a stranger to even touch their beloved weapon.

Something just doesn't make sense with this story.

I'm so happy to see that you know so much about trucking. I would bet a dollar to a donut that you have never so much as set foot in a truck or know anything about the industry.

Here's a little lesson for you. We don't get paid unless the wheels turn. Every expense comes out of our pockets, including tolls. Let's look at the map shall we and see how many tolls there are in New Jersey and New York alone. Some of those turnpikes can cost upwards of $100 in a big truck.

Now let's look at time. Again, if the wheels aren't turning, the truck isn't getting paid. To many live loads and unloads, congestion, rudeness, crime, and numerous other things to mention. Most of our freight is expedited running coast to coast on 40, 20 or 10. With a few loads on 80.

As I said, one of the reasons were their assinine gun laws, I never said it was the only reason. The better half will tell you he would rather slam vital parts of his anatomy in a sliding glass door than go to the northeast.

Btw, northeast for us is New York, New Jersey, Connecticutt, and Massachusetts. They also give you hazardous duty pay if you do decide to take a load up there. Why, because no sane person wants to go.

ki4kxq

07-21-2009, 09:07 PM

What a convenient answer! It is the answer that I expected and there is no way to verifiy your answers. Of course you would deny that you travel to New York State. Would anyone really expect that you would openly admit to entering New York State with loaded handguns?

What is so odd is that your obsession with guns is so strong as to influence your employment vis a vis where you claim that you do and do not drive. Something else is going on here. No one can possible be THAT addicted to guns as to limit their employment opportunities - or can they? Now who looks folish.

All truck drivers that I know are very hard working individuals who are hard pressed to make delivery and drop off schedules. They are in business to make money, and this has become more difficult as time has gone on. They must keep accurate log books concerning their drive times and do no thave the luxury of taking pleasure trips to gun drop off points to have their beloved guns disassembled by strangers. I also somehow do not believe that certain gun lovers would ever allow a stranger to even touch their beloved weapon.

Something just doesn't make sense with this story.

Why in the world would we have to drop off a gun with anyone to have it disassembled? I can break down my 45 in less than 5 minutes. Again, you show your ignorance of the subject.

Furthermore, you have done everything but come out and called me a liar. My husband searched the DOT rule book for a month to make sure there were no laws against carrying a firearm in a commercial vehicle. Contrary to popular opinion, it is not illegal. Next, he spent the time researching gun laws to find out that in addition to our ccw permit in Texas we could apply for non resident ccw permits in a couple of other states, adding even more reciprocal states. OOIDA is now backing a bill in congress that would make any ccw holder legal to carry in all states. No, OOIDA is not a gun lobby, it is the Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association. But gee, you knew so much about trucking, I'm sure you knew that already as well.

We do support those who support our 2nd Amendment rights. We have turned around at a restaurant door and gone somewhere else to eat because they did not allow firearms. That doesn't happen much in Texas, but occasionally it does.

You and your friends here have been the name callers in this discussion. I used the word liberal, which is a political term. You and a few others have called folks, Bubba's, Gun Nuts, Crazy, and in my case, inferred that I was a liar. It seems that your side is the closed minded side. And as Mama always said (sweet southern woman that she was), when someone can't win the argument on facts, they resort to name calling. Hmmm.

Sanman

07-21-2009, 11:13 PM

The second amendment applying to militias is the established precedent and understanding of how the amendment works. The claim that it means anyone can have any weapon for any or no reason is a modern "interpretation". Prior to some point in the 20th centuty no one would have imagined such an interpretation of it and now some people want to scam us into thinking it's the only way to see it. That's revisionism.

Actually, you have it perfectly backwards. The "modern interpretation" is to believe that the right to bear arms is only to the militia. The clear reading of the 2nd amendment is that the "right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be INFRINGED". Every single "gun law" that exists today is unconstitutional, and therefore invalid.

Before anyone else comments on what they think the constitution says, this is your homework assignment... go watch this video series on the Constitution.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5085838350268647159

This link is to part 1 of 7, if you can't find the other 6, I'll post individual links.

gmoney

07-22-2009, 12:07 AM

What you refuse to accept is that it is you are interpreting your Second Ammendment rights from a vaguely worded second ammendment that was written over 200 years ago. Why do you steadfastly refuse to allow this ammendment to be updated and clarified as other ammendments have been? Is it bceause you are afaid that such a clarification will render your interpretations void and illegal?

Why do we need overwhelming numbers of guns? How many is enough? Should not some types of weapons be banned due to the catastrophic death that the improper use of such weapons cause? Why do you want treat guns as toys that should be readily availible to anyone who wants one?

Society will ultimately decide wht you can and can not have. Society does that right now. Why should guns receive special consideration? Why are your laws immune from clarification or change? So let's see according to your logic we should allow individuals to have flame throwers, tanks, and nuclear weapons and only punish them when they misues such weapons. According to your logic , we should also punish those who abuse guns after they have misused such weapons. So in other words, you would be perfectly happy if someone who killed your husband with a gun was punished after the fact even though you know that such a murder could have been prevented beforehand.

This the same old and tired NRA rhetoric that keeps getting repeated over and over again. I am not even sure why anyone even bothers to respond to such a recording as it obviously makes no difference at all. Why do you oppose better laws that are updated and clarified? We do this will all other laws. What makes your guns laws so special and immune from that which applies to all other laws?

Right, let's go back and void all of the changes that were ever made to the constitution. We can reinstate slavery against blacks, and remove the right for women to vote for a start. The Constitution is meant to be a living thing that changes with the times to reflect societal changes. You just want to throw all of that out because you do not want any challenge to your own personal interpretatoin of the second ammendment. Forget anyone else who has a different opinion about the second ammendment. They don't count. Can you not see how selfish and self centered such as yours represents? it's all about you and you alone. No one else's opinion counts.

Your attitude is just plainly out of sync with mainstream society. You may not care one bit what others believe, but I can assure you that in the end, like it or not, you will have to live with what they decide.

Just to clarify a few things here, the First Amendment gives me the right to speak out for what I believe. It is the same right that applies to you as well as to ALL Americans. I uphold your right to present your opinions and arguments for your interpretation of your rights to own any gun that you so chose without restriction. However, you appear to want to deny my right to dispute your interpretations and opinions. You appear to be afraid that my logical and rational arguments may indeed superceed your hysterical interpretations and misleading information (starting with a complete misunderstanding of the Constitution - which indeeds forms the basis for any meaningful debate) and that obviously scares you. Your NRA minority ilk therefore resort to making threats about 'armed insurrections', and promoting the usual scare tactics based upon outright lies and misleading distortions of fact instead of accepting that others have rights to their opinions too and the expression of such rights will lead to certain changes in how firearms are treated in this nation.
Your ilk obviously can not argue with sufficient fact, common sense logic, and reason, so your ilk resorts to scare and propoganda - how sad.

I object to those who spit in the street. Yet I tolerate it rather then demand that laws be passed which prohibit each and every thing that I find objectionable. You resort to the law to punish nudists instead of finding tolerance within yourself for something that you find objectionable. It's your phobia at work again which makes you not at all representative of mainstream beliefs about nudity and nudism.

It's a non issue for many reasons. The law is certainly no excuse to make it an issue for a very simple reason. Everyone knows that there are enormous numbers of laws on the books which make everything illegal. In so many cases laws contradict each other. Hence no matter what a person does, the person is breaking a law. Therefore, why should anyone be concerned about breaking some indirect law that is force applied to punish nudity. It's a non issue that no one cares about.
It certainly would not be positive to those who are closed minded, prejudiced, intolerant, and hateful. Rather then look inside themselves, they demand that the rest of society change to accomodate their personal problems and hangups.

Sound Familiar inSANelines?
You still don't get it...

MoonShadow

07-22-2009, 05:12 AM

You and your friends here have been the name callers in this discussion. I used the word liberal, which is a political term. You and a few others have called folks, Bubba's, Gun Nuts, Crazy, and in my case, inferred that I was a liar. It seems that your side is the closed minded side. And as Mama always said (sweet southern woman that she was), when someone can't win the argument on facts, they resort to name calling. Hmmm.

Hmmm, name calling isn't any different than making sarcastic and condescending statements which "your" side has done throughout the entire topic of guns. The pot calling the kettle black here.

Sanslines

07-22-2009, 05:13 AM

I'm so happy to see that you know so much about trucking. I would bet a dollar to a donut that you have never so much as set foot in a truck or know anything about the industry.

Here's a little lesson for you. We don't get paid unless the wheels turn. Every expense comes out of our pockets, including tolls. Let's look at the map shall we and see how many tolls there are in New Jersey and New York alone. Some of those turnpikes can cost upwards of $100 in a big truck.

Now let's look at time. Again, if the wheels aren't turning, the truck isn't getting paid. To many live loads and unloads, congestion, rudeness, crime, and numerous other things to mention. Most of our freight is expedited running coast to coast on 40, 20 or 10. With a few loads on 80.

As I said, one of the reasons were their assinine gun laws, I never said it was the only reason. The better half will tell you he would rather slam vital parts of his anatomy in a sliding glass door than go to the northeast.

Btw, northeast for us is New York, New Jersey, Connecticutt, and Massachusetts. They also give you hazardous duty pay if you do decide to take a load up there. Why, because no sane person wants to go.

Sorry you would lose your bet. What you posted about what you consider to be the Northeast also pertains to any major metropolitan area. If you think that the Northeast is so terrble, then you obviously have not be to the Los Angeles basin.

Given your statement about 'no sane person wants to go to the Northeast' with the fact that all of the major roads in the Northeast are clogged with semi's, it would appear that you beieve that there are plenty of 'insane' truck drivers. You probably know that semi's are banned from entering Manhattan during daylight hours because the roads are already clogged with traffic. The semi's therefore converge on special 'waiting areas' in New Jersey during the day and then make their mad dash to Manhattan during the few hours that they are allowed to enter the city during the night. If you have ever been to the semi 'waiting areas' you would know just how many 'insane' drivers are there. I am sorry that feel the need to resort to insulting truck drivers who operate in the Northeast. I, in no way, shape or form, agree with your statement. They are not 'insane' at all. They are decent and hard working people.

As for your little lesson about "we don't get paid unless the wheels turn", this is rather obvious. The same applies to the airline industries: "we don't make money unless the planes are in the sky".

jon71

07-22-2009, 05:35 AM

Actually, you have it perfectly backwards. The "modern interpretation" is to believe that the right to bear arms is only to the militia. The clear reading of the 2nd amendment is that the "right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be INFRINGED". Every single "gun law" that exists today is unconstitutional, and therefore invalid.

Before anyone else comments on what they think the constitution says, this is your homework assignment... go watch this video series on the Constitution.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5085838350268647159

This link is to part 1 of 7, if you can't find the other 6, I'll post individual links.

Until Heller muddied the water (not overturned it as some claim) there was a 200 year precedent that the second amendment established a COLLECTIVE right to own arms (well regulated militia) and not an individual right, the modern claim of the N.R.A. and it's lackeys. The idea that it's for anything other than a militia is very modern and very revisionist. That's about as true the colonials riding Harleys and carrying 9 mils.

Sanslines

07-22-2009, 05:42 AM

Why in the world would we have to drop off a gun with anyone to have it disassembled? I can break down my 45 in less than 5 minutes. Again, you show your ignorance of the subject.

Now we have resorted to nasty name calling have we? Did you not say these exact words: "The rest have provisions to disassemble your weapon and lock it in a safe. When we are in those states, we do just that." Did you specifically state that YOU were the one who disassembles and locks up your gun? Are you aware that there are authorities in some parts of this nation that would associate trusting gun owners to self regulate themselves is just like allowing mortgage lenders to self regulate their industry?

Furthermore, you have done everything but come out and called me a liar. My husband searched the DOT rule book for a month to make sure there were no laws against carrying a firearm in a commercial vehicle. Contrary to popular opinion, it is not illegal. Next, he spent the time researching gun laws to find out that in addition to our ccw permit in Texas we could apply for non resident ccw permits in a couple of other states, adding even more reciprocal states. OOIDA is now backing a bill in congress that would make any ccw holder legal to carry in all states. No, OOIDA is not a gun lobby, it is the Owner Operator Independent Drivers Association. But gee, you knew so much about trucking, I'm sure you knew that already as well.

You are again misinformed. OOIDA can back all of the bills that they wish. They bill will not superceed New York State law. The handgun laws of New York State are clear. I have already posted the facts. Since you know so much about gun laws, I am certain that you already know the outcome and effect of OOIDA law in New York State - it will have no effect. Therefore, please stop with the condescending remarks and then denying that you make such remarks. You are not the gun law genius that you think you are.

We do support those who support our 2nd Amendment rights. We have turned around at a restaurant door and gone somewhere else to eat because they did not allow firearms. That doesn't happen much in Texas, but occasionally it does.

Why on earth would you need to bring a loaded firearm into a restaurant? What kinds of restaurants do you eat in that you believe requires you to do so?

You and your friends here have been the name callers in this discussion. I used the word liberal, which is a political term. You and a few others have called folks, Bubba's, Gun Nuts, Crazy, and in my case, inferred that I was a liar. It seems that your side is the closed minded side. And as Mama always said (sweet southern woman that she was), when someone can't win the argument on facts, they resort to name calling. Hmmm.

Nice try! You keep stating how I have implied that you are a liar. That is your implication. I have stated that there is more to the story then you are revealing. Perhaps you are not even aware of how others interpret what you are saying. Have you considered that? It is somewhat revealing that you come right out and state that you belive that others think that you are lying. You must have a guilty conscious. Just remember, a wise man once said "a guilty conscious needs no accuser". You don't need me to accuse you of anything - you are doing a fine job of doing that yourself. It's all rooted in psychology.

I certainly have posted one fact after another. You ignore them all. You don't discuss them. Perhaps you can't. You are too entrenched in your beliefs to consider anything that may threaten your beliefs. Such is the classic definition of a closed minded individual. You wil not consider any clearly rational discussion. You have now resorted to name calling. You have routinely used the word "Liberal" in a derogatory and insulting fashion. That is obvious to all. This particular issues is not a "Liberal" or "Conservative" issue - it is an American issue stop stop with the usual derogatory statements against Liberals. Also, please do us all a favor and stop playing the innocent routine. It fools no one here. Your mama was right. You can't address or win the argument on facts alone so you have routinely resorted to derogatory statements such as "Again, you show your ignorance of the subject."

The fact is that you have demonstrated over and over again that you are intolerant of other's opinions. Guess what. The other side is tired of playing nice and wil become just as radical and hard nosed as your side. If your side wants to start being considerate of those who do not believe as you do, then you will receive consideration in return. It is past time that your side gets a real taste of how it feels to deals with real radical fundamentalists. Doesn't feel really good now does it? Guess what, our side has been dealing with this for far too long. Our side is changing fast and will play you at your own games.

The fact is that New York State is going to go through another round of tightening their gun laws. This is in response to a majority of people who want this done and it shall be done. I already told you that if you do not deal with the irresponsible within your own ranks, then society will in ways that you will not take into consideration your best interests. Society is in the process of doing exactly that in certain parts of this country. Your lack of consideration for others has brought this down upon you and you have absolutely no one to blame but yourself. You certainly can blame all of the 'Liberals' that you want for this but the fact is that both "Liberals" and moderate "Conservatives" have come together to achieve this. Then again since you talk so much about 'personal responsibility' you obviously will step up and accept partial responsibility for creating the situation in the first place.

Sanslines

07-22-2009, 05:50 AM

Hmmm, name calling isn't any different than making sarcastic and condescending statements which "your" side has done throughout the entire topic of guns. The pot calling the kettle black here.

Moonshadow, they will never see it. It is obvious that they have resorted to a series of personal attacks but will continue to deny doing so. It really is sad when topics degrade to this but just goes to show what we are up against when we face this issue in real life.

This topic has sadly drifted so far away from anything resembling an intelligent discussion and is now nothing more then a series of childish insults. How utterly sad.

MoonShadow

07-22-2009, 06:21 AM

MoonShadow

07-22-2009, 06:23 AM

Sound Familiar inSANelines?

Aren't you're being a smart*** here

gmoney

07-22-2009, 07:21 AM

MoonShadow

07-22-2009, 07:41 AM

gmoney

07-22-2009, 08:07 AM

LOL

Such an easy mark to upset. Talk about their guns and it's fireworks.

I don't care if you have or carry guns, gmoney. What I don't understand is the need to have them or to carry them all the time. It makes no sense in a civilized society for either, actually.

Because of the wackos in society. A gun is instant protection from them.
Its not the gun toting drunk bubbas wackos that you refer to that are a problem.
Its CRIMINALS. Sanslines refuses to accept that fact, refers to drunks bubbas as his danger.
He does not get it.
Take away my gun, take away my freedom.
Deal with the criminals not law abiding american citizens.
Any gun laws only affect law abiding citizens not the CRIMINALS.
Instead of him stepping up and fighting for more punishment for criminals, in his mind to take my rights away are the solution.
We would be on COMMON GROUND if he fought to keep criminals behind bars.

MoonShadow

07-22-2009, 08:30 AM

Because of the wackos in society. A gun is instant protection from them.
Its not the gun toting drunk bubbas wackos that you refer to that are a problem.
Its CRIMINALS. Sanslines refuses to accept that fact, refers to drunks bubbas as his danger.
He does not get it.
Take away my gun, take away my freedom.
Deal with the criminals not law abiding american citizens.
Any gun laws only affect law abiding citizens not the CRIMINALS.
Instead of him stepping up and fighting for more punishment for criminals, in his mind to take my rights away are the solution.
We would be on COMMON GROUND if he fought to keep criminals behind bars.

Oh, but it is the gun totin' drunk bubbas that are a problem. I have been around enough of them to know but I am not resorting to carrying a gun. Carrying is about power; nothing to do with freedom. If you have to carry a gun to feel free, you are not free at all. You are confusing freedom with power. You are confusing freedom with fear and the need to carry a gun. If you have no fear, gmoney, you would have no need to carry.

Sanslines doesn't want to take your rights away. You haven't listen to anything he has posted.

Now you are talking about criminals which is another whole topic in itself.

Sanslines

07-22-2009, 08:57 AM

Moonshadow,

This certainly has been a very interesting thread. Now to let the cat out of the bag and point out some obvious observations. Certain individuals (and they know who they are) were pressed on this issue to the point where they broke down into very emotional and angry tirades. They obviously do not understand what they have done - lol.

What they have done is to demonstrate that they can be pusheded to the point where they lose control of themselves and resort to highly emotional responses. Such lose of self control can lead to gun violence.This is exactly what happened the other day around here in a local bar. An argument grew to the point where one person lost control of hiself, took out his gun, and shot the other person to death. The death could have been avoided.

What certain individuals here do not understand is that they have demonstrated the capacity to do the same. They are certainly not aware of their anger and emotional outbursts, but others in society are watching and will take action.

The fact is that there is a growing number within society who will no longer stand for 'after the fact' laws that deal with unecessary gun deaths. Look at what happened to drinking laws, when people had enough of drunk driving deaths and passed much harsher laws to deal with the problem.

The actual truth of the matter is that I personally know some very responsible gun owners who (unlike some in this forum) would never lose control of themselves. They use their guns in a proper and responsible manner. Even if the law allowed, they would never take a loaded weapon into a restaurant (as an example) out of consideration for others. This is what makes the difference - consideration for others. Such individuals also do not support the radicals within their ranks. They know that it will be they who suffer from radical and dismissive beliefs. I certainly am not for taking guns away from RESPONSIBLE gun owners (the word responsible obviously means different things to different people). What I am for is protecting those gun owners who are mature enough to face reallity, understand that there are those in society that abuse gun ownership, and are dealing with those individuals in a constructive manner. Life is important but sadly certain individuals here don't seem to be able to comprehend that.

Whatever is said in this forum actually makes no real difference in the real world. Regardless of what some wish to believe about their 'own personal rights', it is actually up to society to decide what those rights are. Those rights will be based upon acknowledging everyone's point of view and not just a few radicals from either side of the issue. This is how a democracy works. I think that this is what scares some here hence why they resort to emotional outburts and anger.

If someone wishes to demonstrate that they are truly responsible gun owners, then they first thing that they can do is to refrain from childish attacks agains those with a differing viewpoint. In the end , they will only hurt themselves and will have no one else to blame.

gmoney

07-22-2009, 09:19 AM

Radicals--LOL

I have not seen one on here for guns that is a radical. Everyone posting appears to be law abiding citizens following the law.
I do not carry(concealed) anywhere. I keep one in my truck for various reasons, stay out of high crime areas and pay attention when in certain 1s.

You have no clue what is happening in the real world do you?
If you do not pay attention to your surroundings you can become a victim.
I must say being a white male 40's I am not a typical victim. However I do look out for others that can be one.
The criminals know I may be packing.

The only irresponsible ones are you who refuse to address the most important issue/
CRIMINALS- deal with them 1st and your problem is solved.
Why must you attack someones rights with your radical and assinine view?

I read a debate with you and STU on here and you argued just the opposite way you are here. I even posted your exact qoute several times in this thread and you still don't get it.
You need help with your issues for sure...

Navigator

07-22-2009, 09:33 AM

Radicals--LOL

I have not seen one on here for guns that is a radical. Everyone posting appears to be law abiding citizens following the law.

Like this.:D:D:D

When I lived in Pennsylvania, after pistol club monthly meetings, we went to a bar and had beers. Or the other guys did, as I don't drink. Were were pretty much armed to the teeth.

Sanslines

07-22-2009, 10:05 AM

Nav,

I think that it is time that we extend another warm welcome to Harold - lol.

FireProf

07-22-2009, 10:19 AM

A friendly reminder to all.......

Open adult discussion is all well and good here but please refrain from making accusations that one person or another is either....."an idiot, moron, stupid, insane, needs mental help....etc.

You can keep it civil or the topic be shut down cuz you can't play nice with each other.

Thank You.....

The Management! (FP) :D

gmoney

07-22-2009, 10:43 AM

Like this.:D:D:D

I might have missed that comment or forgot about it.

I see the irony...

Skinview

07-22-2009, 10:52 AM

The Second Amendment is archaic and should be amended as we no longer need militias since we now have the United States Armed Forces.

So how are we supposed to protect ourselves from our armed forces? That was the main reason for the Second Amendment. We were supposed to have a strong milita so we didn't need a standing army, which was considered to be dangerous.

MoonShadow

07-22-2009, 11:10 AM

So how are we supposed to protect ourselves from our armed forces? That was the main reason for the Second Amendment. We were supposed to have a strong milita so we didn't need a standing army, which was considered to be dangerous.

Protect ourselves from our Armed Forces? Our Armed Forces are comprise of us, the people.

Further, there were no armed forces to speak of during the time the Second Amendment was written.

As I will state again, the Second Amendment is archaic and should be amended to today's times.

Skinview

07-22-2009, 11:29 AM

I have posted numerous links and have disputed your opinions ad infinitum. I have pointed out how you selectively use information to bias, skew, and spin the real facts. You have conveniently ignored one link after another that I have posted and this is very evident by your baseless replies.In your dreams.

It really is getting very tiresome to correct your constant misrepresentations. You are either deliberately uninformed of the real facts, or you are deliberately posting false and misleading information. If you ever bothered to read my previous posts, you would clearly know that there are different types of ammunition AND different types of bullet 'resistant' vests. The average police officer on the street does not wear the same type of much heavier vest that a SWAT officer would wear. Such a heavy duty vest would be far too cumbersome. Common hunting ammo can be anything from a short 22 caliber cartridge to a 30-06 and beyond (there is no real consensus as to what is common hunting ammo). There is an ENORMOUS difference in penetration between these two cartridges alone. You must know this. So please do us all a favor and refrain from posting such statements such as " common hunting ammo can go through a bullet resistant vest like it was tissue paper ". Such a statement ONLY applies under the very limited circumstances of a very specific type of ammo and a very specific type of vest. Overall, this statement is NOT representative of all cartridges and vests.A common 30 06 round will go through any bullet resistant vest. This isn't rocket science. This is not a "limited circumstance".

What exactly is 'hunting ammo'? Given that certain states ban certain types of ammo that would be readily classified as hunting ammo in other states, there is no universal agreement as to what constitutes hunting ammo. Furthemore, it would be intuitely obvious that there are other types of ammo that are common but might not be considered 'hunting ammo'. AK-47 cartridges are one example.People hunt deer with 7.62 x 39 ammo used in AK-47s, although it is a bit weaker than most deer hunting ammo. 30 06 is very common deer hunting ammo.

Sigh.....does it not make sense that a bullet that penetrates a bullet 'resistant' vest can 'kill a cop'? Does it also make sense that a bullet that does not penetrate a bullet 'resistant' vest does not kill a cop?
What you maintain is the highly misleading allegation "all ammo is cop killing ammo"That is not a quote of anything that I wrote.

I can certainly play your game too. i can find an example of an armor piercing hollow point ammunition that did indeed pierce a bullet proof vest.There is no such thing. A very powerful hollow point might be able to penetrate out of sheer power, but hollow points are the worst design for going through armor.

I think that I should start playing your game.Its not a game, and if it was, you don't know the rules.

You certainly are entitled to select the most powerful type of availible ammo that can even be remotely considered 'common gun ammo' (whatever that is)
You are fabricating quotes again.

and then select the thinnest bullet resistant vest to prove your point. I am entitled to call you out on the specific details and to show that what you is carefully selected information that is NOT representative of the whole.You don't have to be selective. Any deer hunting ammo will go through soft body armor, and most will go through hard body armor.

You obviously do NOT understand circumstantial evidence in spite of the explanations of numerous individuals.You obviuosly have a reading comprehension problem. You just don't get it. I am NOT talking about drunk people who drove.

So now you do want to limit certain types of ammuntion. Yet, in past posts, you demanded the right to own whatever gun you chose, including assault weapons and beyond.Duh, a cartridge isn't a gun.

What will you state next.....that you want the freedom to own a howitzer and leave out the details 'ONLY if the howitzer is disabled and can never be made functional'.
Maybe you should have an argument with yourself. You wouldn't have to understand what someone else was saying.

When the Second Amendment was written, most present day hunting ammo did not exist. It certainly is just as valid to assert that the Second Amendment ONLY allows for that ammo which existed when the amendment was written. Hence, you are correct that it can be vaildly asserted that just about all modern hunting ammo is not protected by the Second Amendment and can be banned. Since you steadfastly refuse any modifications or clarifications to the Second Amendment and demand that YOUR interpretation of a nebulous statement written over 200 years ago is the ONLY valid interpretation, then the nebulous aspects of the Second Amendment can and will be used against your interpretation. Do you not understand that in legal contract disputes, poor and vague wording of contracts allow courts to generally rule against the originator of the contract?
Its not vague, and the Supreme Court has ruled the my interpretation is correct.

Why do you continue to cling to this Black Talon ammo when it is only one type of ammon in a vast sea of ammo? Are you again trying to make broad and sweeping generalizations based upon one very specific type of ammo?I can't explain it any clearer. Go back and reread my post or give it up.

I honestly do not think that you really understand how fair decisions or conclusions are reached in life.I'd tell you what I honestly think, but its not allowed here.

gmoney

07-22-2009, 11:37 AM

I'd tell you what I honestly think, but its not allowed here.[/QUOTE]

At least you get it!

nimrod

07-22-2009, 12:37 PM

Further, there were no armed forces to speak of during the time the Second Amendment was written.

There was armed forces before the Consitution was written. There was a Continental Army which later became The Army branch of the armed forces.

nimrod

07-22-2009, 12:55 PM

Yes, Sanslines, you are right.

I just have to shake my head that someone has to carry a gun with them everywhere they go. It must be a strange mental state to think you are not comfortable anywhere without your concealed weapon. What does that really say?

Those who carry all the time have the gall to say they do not live in fear?!?! Can you wrap your brain around that?

Of course they do; otherwise, they would not be carrying.

Could it be that you are projecting your feelings onto those that may want to carry a gun at all times? Some would say that you are in some strange mental state for being nude with others, or even alone, but you know that is not true. Why do you think it to be true of those who would want to carry at all times?

Why do you have the gall to say that they do live in fear? Not every one that has a gun is living in fear. Are you living in fear because you do not have a gun? Are you afraid that you or someone else might be killed if you did own a gun? Of course you do that is why you do not have one. Is that a fair assuption of your character?

Sanslines

07-22-2009, 01:15 PM

gmoney

07-22-2009, 02:08 PM

Skinview,

It is apparent that you will not read or understand what I had posted. Nothing that I say or explain will make any difference to you. You have resorted to emotionally charged rants. Any form of sensible conversation where individuals listen to each other has certainly ended. Will you not agree that we should do the adult thing here, agree to disagree and then leave it at that? I honestly see no point in continuing to discuss this topic further with you. It really accomplishes nothing of value.

thats because there is little value in what you are spewing.
Here's the problem....
You are actually the closed minded one!

I have an open mind and I see that gun control is not the answer to solve the problems of society.
If you could open your mind and see what REALLY is causing the problems here maybe you would then understand.
Until then it is really worthless arguing your senseless point that gun control is the answer...

jon71

07-22-2009, 02:14 PM

jon71

07-22-2009, 02:26 PM

There is a scientific mindset and a religious mindset. The scientific mindset looks at facts and forms a conclusion around them whereas a religious mindset has a conclusion and tries to make facts fit around them. We should note that being a person of faith doesn't mean you have the relgious mindset and being an atheist/agnostic doesn't mean you lack it. The religious mindset applies to other things. Many people were adamant that O.J., Mike Tyson, and others were innocent and their accusers were money hungry liars skanks, etc. just because they were fans of their athletic accomplishments. It's clear that gmoney, skinview, and kiq what's her name, very much subscribe to the religious mindset. They believe the constitution says what they wish it says, they'll cherry pick statistics and twist them into pretzels to back up what they want to believe. Case in point they're trying to get us to believe that Switzerland, land of cuckoo clocks, chocolate, and PACIFISTIC NEUTRALITY, is a place full of armed to the teeth Rambo's holding the forces of evil at bay. Gimme a break. The sad truth is they seem impervious to reason and truth. Religious (i.e. the church of the N.R.A.) indoctrination is set in and nothing will deter their worship of guns.

nimrod

07-22-2009, 03:07 PM

Case in point they're trying to get us to believe that Switzerland, land of cuckoo clocks, chocolate, and PACIFISTIC NEUTRALITY, is a place full of armed to the teeth Rambo's holding the forces of evil at bay.

Well I would not say that they are Rambo's holding the forces of evil at bay, but did you know that military service there is mandatory. That may have changed, but has far as I know it is still that way.

gmoney

07-22-2009, 03:50 PM

In 1994, when the U.S. Congress debated whether to ban "assault weapons," a talk show host asked then-Senator Bill Bradley (New Jersey), a sponsor of the ban, whether guns cause crime. The host noted that, in Switzerland, all males are issued assault rifles for militia service and keep them at home, yet little crime exists there. Sen. Bradley responded that the Swiss "are pretty dull."

For those who think that target shooting is more fun than golf, however, Switzerland is anything but "dull." By car or train, you see shooting ranges everywhere, but few golf courses. If there is a Schuetzenfest (shooting festival) in town, you will find rifles slung on hat racks in restaurants, and you will encounter men and women, old and young, walking, biking and taking the tram with rifles over their shoulders, to and from the range. They stroll right past the police station and no one bats an eye. (Try this in the U.S., and a SWAT Team might do you in.)

Tourists--especially those from Japan, where guns are banned to all but the police--think it's a revolution. But shooting is the national sport, and the backbone of the national defense as well. More per capita firepower exists in Switzerland than in any other place in the world, yet it is one of the safest places to be.

According to the U.N. International Study on Firearm Regulation, England's 1994 homicide rate was 1.4 (9% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 116, per 100,000 population. In the United States, the homicide rate was 9.0 (70% involving firearms), and the robbery rate 234, per 100,000. England has strict gun control laws, ergo, the homicide rate is lower than in the U.S. However, such comparisons can be dangerous: In 1900, when England had no gun controls, the homicide rate was only 1.0 per 100,000.

Moreover, using data through 1996, the U.S. Department of Justice study "Crime and Justice" concluded that in England the robbery rate was 1.4 times higher, the assault rate was 2.3 times higher, and the burglary rate was 1.7 times higher than in the U.S. This suggests that lawfully armed citizens in the U.S. deter such crimes. Only the murder and rape rates in the U.S. were higher than in England. The small number of violent predators who commit most of these crimes in the U.S. have little trouble arming themselves unlawfully.

The U.N. study omits mention of Switzerland, which is awash in guns and has substantially lower murder and robbery rates than England, where most guns are banned.

Here are the figures: The Swiss Federal Police Office reports that in 1997 there were 87 intentional homicides and 102 attempted homicides in the entire country. Some 91 of these 189 murders and attempts involved firearms. With its population of seven million (including 1.2 million foreigners), Switzerland had a homicide rate of 1.2 per 100,000. There were 2,498 robberies (and attempted robberies), of which 546 involved firearms, resulting in a robbery rate of 36 per 100,000. Almost half of these crimes were committed by non-resident foreigners, whom locals call "criminal tourists."

Sometimes, the data sound too good to be true. In 1993, not a single armed robbery was reported in Geneva. No one seems to be looking at the Swiss example in the U.S., however.

Congress is stampeding to pass additional firearm restrictions in response to the events of April 20, when two students used guns and bombs to murder a dozen classmates and a teacher in Littleton, Colorado.

Yet in 1996, a man who legally owned guns under England's strict regulations went on a rampage, murdering 16 children and a teacher in Dunblane, Scotland. Parliament then banned all handguns and most rifles.

But there have been no school massacres in Switzerland, where guns and kids mix freely. At shooting matches, bicycles aplenty are parked outside. Inside the firing shelter, the competitors pay 12-year-olds tips to keep score. The 16-year-olds shoot rifles with men and women of all ages. In fact, the tourist brochure, "Zurich News" recommends September's Knabenschiessen (boy's shooting contest) as a must-see: "The oldest Zurich tradition consists of a shooting contest at the Albisguetli (range) for 12 to 16 year-old boys and girls and a colorful three-day fun-fair." The event has been held since 1657, and attracts thousands of teenage participants and spectators.

While many shoot for sport, all males aged 20 to 42 are required by militia system regulation to keep rifles and/or pistols at home. In addition, gun shops abound. Yet firearms are rarely used in crime.

Homicide is tied to a willingness to resort to violence, not the mere presence of guns. The prevalence of firearms in the home and the participation of youth in shooting matches bind youth to adults and discourages a generation gap.

By contrast, homicide rates are highest in the underdeveloped countries, many of which ban private firearm possession. In some, private murder does not compare to the genocidal murder committed by governments against their unarmed subjects.

In America, firearms take on a sinister reputation from the nightly news and violent movies. But in Switzerland, firearms symbolize a wholesome, community activity. The typical weekend shooting festival brings out the entire family. Beside the range is a huge tent where scores or hundreds of people are eating, drinking, and socializing. With cantonal and rifle club banners fluttering in the wind, the melody of rifle fire blends with Alpine music and cow bells.

Since its founding in 1291, Switzerland has depended on an armed populace for its defense. William Tell used a crossbow not only to shoot the apple from his son's head, but also to kill the tyrant Gessler. For centuries, the cantonal republic defeated the powerful armies of the European monarchs. Machiavelli wrote in 1532: "The Swiss are well armed and enjoy great freedom."

This coincidence has not escaped the notice of those who oppose liberty.

Monarchist philosopher Jean Bodin, writing in 1606, denounced free speech and arms possession by commoners. Subjects must be disarmed to prevent democratic sedition, he said. The Swiss proved, Bodin wrongly averred, that arms bearing was "the cause of an infinite number of murders."

The Swiss militia model, however, preserved democracy and held Europe's despots at bay. In fact, it inspired the rebellious American colonists.

John Adams praised the democratic Swiss Cantons, where every man was entitled to vote on laws and to bear arms. Patrick Henry, another American Founding Father, lauded the Swiss for maintaining their independence without "a mighty and splendid President" or a standing army.

The Swiss influence is clear in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which provides: "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." Today, it has become fashionable to hate this orphan of the Bill of Rights.

However, a quick glance at history shows that tyrannical governments kill far more than do private criminals. But first, governments must disarm their victims. In 1933, the

Nazis seized power via massive search-and-seizure operations for firearms against "Communists," i.e., all political opponents. In 1938, during the Night of the Broken Glass, they disarmed the Jews. When the Nazis occupied Europe in 1939-41, they proclaimed the death penalty for any person who failed to surrender all firearms within 24 hours.

There may be various reasons why the Nazis did not invade Switzerland, but one of those reasons is that every Swiss man had a rifle at home.

For this we have no better record than the Nazi invasion plans, which stated that, because of the Swiss shooting skills, Switzerland would be difficult to conquer and pacify.

European countries occupied by the Nazis had strict gun controls before the war, and the registration lists facilitated confiscation of firearms and the execution of their owners.

By being able to keep out of both world wars in part through the dissuasive factor of an armed populace, Switzerland demonstrates that civilian firearm possession may prevent large numbers of deaths and even genocide. The Holocaust never came to Switzerland, the Jewish population of which was armed just like their fellow citizens. In the rest of Europe, what if there had been not just one, but two, three, or many Warsaw Ghetto Uprisings?

Traditionally, the Swiss Cantons had few firearm regulations. The first federal firearms law was recently enacted. Certain firearm purchases require a permit, and others do not. On retirement, every soldier may keep his rifle or pistol. Surplus assault rifles may be purchased by any Swiss citizen from the Military Department.

The bottom line is one of attitude. Populations with training in civic virtue, though armed, do not experience sensational massacres or high crime rates. Indeed, armed citizens deter crime. Switzerland fits this mold. Similarly, America's lawful "gun culture" is peaceful. Sadly, some of its subcultures are not.

From The Wall Street Journal Europe

ki4kxq

07-22-2009, 06:18 PM

Wow, referring to someone as a liberal is a derogatory term now. Gee, you can call me a conservative/libertarian till the cows come home and I won't be offended. Oh, I guess the new PC term is "progressive".

You talk about "responsible" gun owners as if none of us that have posted here meet that criteria. Just what exactly are you looking for? Maybe someone that will put a non-loaded, non-working gun in a locking cabinet so that they can just look at the thing. News flash, a ccw permit allows me to LEGALLY carry my gun most anywhere unless posted otherwise, in several states. Why then is it then not considerate of others? They don't even know that it's there.

I regularly train at the shooting range. Follow all laws concerning where I can and can't carry. So how is it Sanslines that you can look down from your lofty tower and pronounce someone responsible or not? Attitudes like yours are exactly the reason the founding fathers put into the constitution the right to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

As far as tolerance, the ones on the gun side have repeatedly said, if you don't want to own a gun, don't. Your side is the one that is trying to shove it's world view down our throats. By all means, stay in New York. You will not have to worry about me coming up there armed or otherwise. You have nothing we need or want.

jon71

07-22-2009, 06:44 PM

ki4kxq

07-22-2009, 06:53 PM

Not one person has taken offense at being called a liberal and you know it. I'd be insulted by anything else personally. As for extremity that belongs to you. Us libs don't want to ban guns, we want common sense restrictions, restrictions that even most gun owners support. You are the one pushing for an absolutist extreme position.

Wrong, Sanslines was incensed at being called a liberal. And no, most gun owners don't want more gun laws. We want the current laws to be enforced.

Naturist Mark

07-22-2009, 07:17 PM

Wrong, Sanslines was incensed at being called a liberal.

I think Sans is mostly a principled conservative, but today's wingnuts consider even Barry Goldwater's politics to be liberal - as Goldwater commented to Bob Dole in 1996 "We're the new liberals of the Republican party. Can you imagine that?"

My apologies to Sans for "Goldwatering" him, my only point is that "liberal" and "conservative" don't mean what they used to - or often, anything at all. When a word is used as an epithet rather than its former descriptive meaning, one has a right to object, even if it is etymologically correct.

(By the way, did you notice my disparaging use of an epithet? Would you be offended if it was used to describe you?)

ki4kxq

07-22-2009, 07:59 PM

I think Sans is mostly a principled conservative, but today's wingnuts consider even Barry Goldwater's politics to be liberal - as Goldwater commented to Bob Dole in 1996 "We're the new liberals of the Republican party. Can you imagine that?"

My apologies to Sans for "Goldwatering" him, my only point is that "liberal" and "conservative" don't mean what they used to - or often, anything at all. When a word is used as an epithet rather than its former descriptive meaning, one has a right to object, even if it is etymologically correct.

(By the way, did you notice my disparaging use of an epithet? Would you be offended if it was used to describe you?)

Nope, nothing you call me or describe me as would offend me. Since I neither know you or care what your opinion is of me, I couldn't care less. The problem with folks today is that they are way too easily offended over nothing.

Sanman

07-23-2009, 12:42 AM

Until Heller muddied the water (not overturned it as some claim) there was a 200 year precedent that the second amendment established a COLLECTIVE right to own arms (well regulated militia) and not an individual right, the modern claim of the N.R.A. and it's lackeys. The idea that it's for anything other than a militia is very modern and very revisionist. That's about as true the colonials riding Harleys and carrying 9 mils.

No, you are completely wrong. The "minute men" were the militia, each man, an INDIVIDUAL. And the being "well regulated" did NOT mean "limited", but rather fully-stocked and well maintained. Every man was responsible for owning a gun and keeping balls and powder ready at a moment's notice.

Again, go watch this video series before making any further comments so you will no longer be uninformed about the Constitution...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5085838350268647159

Sanman

07-23-2009, 12:47 AM

...Why on earth would you need to bring a loaded firearm into a restaurant? What kinds of restaurants do you eat in that you believe requires you to do so?

Well, Luby's Cafeteria is one such restaruant... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhyuJzjOcQE

Sanman

07-23-2009, 12:52 AM

Here's Suzanna Hupp's full statement on what happened that day, and WHY the 2nd ammendment means exactly what it says, that the RIGHT of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be INFRINGED!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1u0Byq5Qis
Listen to her testimony.

"Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people's teeth and keystone under independence." - George Washington

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." - Thomas Jefferson

"A million armed freemen, possessed of the means of war, can never be conquered." - Andrew Jackson

"A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison

MoonShadow

07-23-2009, 04:59 AM

Ahem --- as I said earlier the Second Amendment is archaic and needs amended.

MoonShadow

07-23-2009, 05:01 AM

The problem with folks today is that they are way too easily offended over nothing.

Boy, Howdy, aren't they? Just mention guns. :D

Sanslines

07-23-2009, 05:18 AM

Ahem --- as I said earlier the Second Amendment is archaic and needs amended.

THE D.C. CIRCUIT'S OPINION IN PARKER v. D.C. (renamed D.C. v. Heller in the Supreme Court appeal)

"In this second installment, we explain how the Parker panel also botched its textual and historical analysis of the Second Amendment. At every turn of its decision, the Parker panel treated the first thirteen words of the Amendment — containing its militia purpose — as irrelevant surplus, with absolutely no binding effect. In its place, the court assumed that the Second Amendment protects ownership and use of firearms for "private purposes," even though this is found nowhere in its text or legislative history. We have entitled this piece Decision by Eraser because Parker treats the Constitution as if courts are empowered to selectively erase its words and replace them with unexpressed meanings that support the court's predilections."

"In this third installment, we explain how the Parker court, while disregarding the militia purpose of the Second Amendment as having no limiting effect, also totally mischaracterized the "well regulated Militia" that the Framers meant to protect. To the Framers, the "well regulated Militia" was an armed, organized, and disciplined governmental military institution made up of citizens. It helped fight the British during the Revolutionary War, and afterwards was called out to suppress armed insurrectionists like the farmers in Shays's Rebellion. Thereafter, it was formally embodied in the Constitution and protected by the Second Amendment. It has existed, in some form, ever since. The "well regulated Militia['s]" value to our society has always been to serve the three purposes laid out for it in the Constitution: "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions." Service in the militia was a civic duty, not a right. ..." "Militia was for the benefit of the government and not the right of individuals to form and oppose the government in armed rebelion"

http://www.gunlawsuits.org/defend/second/fantasy/

Conservative judges fault Scalia opinion on guns

"I cannot help but recall Justice Scalia's lament ... that 'by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish,'"
Wilkinson said, quoting from Scalia's dissent.

"Yet, sixteen years later, the court now takes an issue about which the nation is deeply divided and narrows democratic outlets, overlooks regional differences, and imposes a rigid national rule," he said.

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2008/09/27/1921788-conservative-judges-fault-scalia-opinion-on-guns

Sanslines

07-23-2009, 05:27 AM

Boy, Howdy, aren't they? Just mention guns. :D

This thread has past run it's course. It's time to move on to bigger and better things.

jon71

07-23-2009, 09:55 AM

No, you are completely wrong. The "minute men" were the militia, each man, an INDIVIDUAL. And the being "well regulated" did NOT mean "limited", but rather fully-stocked and well maintained. Every man was responsible for owning a gun and keeping balls and powder ready at a moment's notice.

Again, go watch this video series before making any further comments so you will no longer be uninformed about the Constitution...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5085838350268647159

I am far more informed about the constitution than you or your speaker and it's obvious. You can't change the meaning of something or change America's history through the power of wishful thinking.

jon71

07-23-2009, 09:57 AM

Well, Luby's Cafeteria is one such restaruant... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhyuJzjOcQE

And a perfect example of why we need strong enforced gun control laws. If we lower the bar the way the N.R.A. wants that kind of crime will become far more common than it already is.

ki4kxq

07-23-2009, 11:10 AM

nimrod

07-23-2009, 12:24 PM

Ahem --- as I said earlier the Second Amendment is archaic and needs amended.

And your reasoning behind that was because you thought that there were no armed forces when the constitution was written, and I gave you information showing that there was indeed an armed force when it was. So why is it still archaic? Is it archaic because of its age? If that is so then lets throw out the whole constitution and start over.

For all those who think that people who want guns for protection are living in fear. When you put on a seatbelt, is it for protection, are you living in fear of an accident, or like me avioding the possibility of a ticket?

nimrod

07-23-2009, 12:30 PM

Wow, referring to someone as a liberal is a derogatory term now. Gee, you can call me a conservative/libertarian till the cows come home and I won't be offended. Oh, I guess the new PC term is "progressive".

No referring to someone as a liberal in itself is not derogatory, but when used like "you liberals" it is as though it is being used in a derogatory way. Saying something that you disagree with is stupid and labeling it as liberal is using liberal as a derogatory term.

MoonShadow

07-23-2009, 12:41 PM

For all those who think that people who want guns for protection are living in fear. When you put on a seatbelt, is it for protection, are you living in fear of an accident, or like me avioding the possibility of a ticket?

You're comparing a seatbelt to a gun?? Huge difference and absolutely no correlation.

If you have a need to carry a gun, you are fearful; plain and simple.

gmoney

07-23-2009, 01:00 PM

You're comparing a seatbelt to a gun?? Huge difference and absolutely no correlation.

If you have a need to carry a gun, you are fearful; plain and simple.

The Fearless carry a gun.
That means they stand up and fight not tuck their tails and run!

PLAIN AND SIMPLE!

MoonShadow

07-23-2009, 01:25 PM

The Fearless carry a gun.
That means they stand up and fight not tuck their tails and run!

PLAIN AND SIMPLE!

Sorry, you have it backwards. The fearful carry a gun. That means they will shoot. Plain and Simple. A scary lot they are.

nimrod

07-23-2009, 03:19 PM

You're comparing a seatbelt to a gun?? Huge difference and absolutely no correlation.

The corrolation is there are things you do to protect yourself, not out of fear but they help to keep you safe. Do guns in themselves keep you safe? No, but if you took classes on gun safety and self protection they are a help to keep you safe. Nothing is 100%, just as a seatbelt will not always save your life.

If you have a need to carry a gun, you are fearful; plain and simple.

You need to carry a gun if you are a police officer, are they fearful or just doing there job? If you are trying to relate a emotional need for a gun there might be somethin to your thoughts of need=fear. But for those who just want to do it, that does not make them fearful. It is not as black and white as you are trying to make it.

Boreas

07-23-2009, 05:42 PM

Laws do not stop crime. If they did, we wouldn't have any, a point that some of you refuse to understand or accept. Again, DC had the most stringent gun laws in the nation, handguns were completely banned. How then were they one of the top cities in the country for handgun violence. By your way of thinking, gun crime should have been non-existant.

You theory on gun laws stopping violence has been proven wrong again and again. When will you look at other ideas instead of the same old misguided nonsense that has never worked and never will?

Guns create the need for guns. You attitude will have a huge effect on how you will interact with the world. If you believe the world is a dangerous place and that there are threats everywhere, you will see them. If you believe the world is more safe than not, that is what you see. I have been in the Canadian Forces Reserve and know how to handle a variety of firearms. I grew up with my father's police pistol in the house. I am not afraid of guns/firearms/whatever.

I truly fail to understand the generally American view that guns are sacred.

Boreas

07-23-2009, 05:48 PM

You need to carry a gun if you are a police officer, are they fearful or just doing there job? If you are trying to relate a emotional need for a gun there might be somethin to your thoughts of need=fear. But for those who just want to do it, that does not make them fearful. It is not as black and white as you are trying to make it.

The use of tasers by police officers is front and central in Canada right now, because four RCMP officers shot a Polish immigrant, Robert Dz, in the Vancouver airport almost two years ago. These men seemed to use their weapons out of fear, rather than out of proper training and good police skills. I wonder how they would have responded had they not had tasers.

Some police officers may act out of fear. They are human. Others carry the firearm only because it is part of the uniform, and use proper communication and police skills to achieve their goals.

I agree that this issue is not black and white. Never-the-less, those who arm themselves in order to protect themselves are arguably acting out of fear.

ki4kxq

07-23-2009, 06:06 PM

Laws do not stop crime. If they did, we wouldn't have any, a point that some of you refuse to understand or accept. Again, DC had the most stringent gun laws in the nation, handguns were completely banned. How then were they one of the top cities in the country for handgun violence. By your way of thinking, gun crime should have been non-existant.

You theory on gun laws stopping violence has been proven wrong again and again. When will you look at other ideas instead of the same old misguided nonsense that has never worked and never will?

Again, I am wondering why none of the gun control advocates on here will answer this simple question. DC is not the only city that this applies to, there are others as well.

In Kennesaw, GA, the head of each household must have a working and loaded firearm available at all times. Oddly enough, the violent crime rate per capita there is almost non-existent.

Could it be that people don't break into homes in Kennesaw or commit violent acts against the citizens because they know that they will meet armed resistance if they do, and not have an easy target unable to protect themselves or their families?

MoonShadow

07-23-2009, 06:10 PM

In Kennesaw, GA, the head of each household must have a working and loaded firearm available at all times. Oddly enough, the violent crime rate per capita there is almost non-existent.

Could it be that people don't break into homes in Kennesaw or commit violent acts against the citizens because they know that they will meet armed resistance if they do, and not have an easy target unable to protect themselves or their families?

Here is a clear example of fear at work.

Help us all if we have to resort to living like this. This does not bode well in a civilized society where everyone is armed. This is a time-bomb waiting to go off -- numerous ones! Such an existence would make the wild west of yesteryear look like a tame society.

MoonShadow

07-23-2009, 06:14 PM

I truly fail to understand the generally American view that guns are sacred.

Boreas, it is amazing but my opinion is that the fascination stems from fear and owning and being arm with a gun empowers them. It's about power. With a loaded gun, they can snuff you in a single shot. Imagine that power right at your fingertips?

Boreas

07-23-2009, 06:20 PM

ki4kxq

07-23-2009, 06:22 PM

Guns create the need for guns. You attitude will have a huge effect on how you will interact with the world. If you believe the world is a dangerous place and that there are threats everywhere, you will see them. If you believe the world is more safe than not, that is what you see. I have been in the Canadian Forces Reserve and know how to handle a variety of firearms. I grew up with my father's police pistol in the house. I am not afraid of guns/firearms/whatever.

I truly fail to understand the generally American view that guns are sacred.

I disagree that if you carry a gun that you are fearful. I don't think about crime or live in fear. However, I also know that if something does happen, as it does to 100's of people everyday, that I am in a much better position to survive an attack than someone not armed.

The role of the police, since they can't be everywhere at once to stop crime, is to respond once the crime has been committed. By the time they get there, the rape, robbery, murder, etc has occurred and the damage has been done. So no, I don't spend my life thinking about crime or being fearful. However, I owe it to my family to have the means and the training necessary to make sure that we are protected if something does happen. Not doing that is irresponsible as far as I am concerned. But to each his own.

Boreas

07-23-2009, 06:22 PM

Boreas, it is amazing but my opinion is that the fascination stems from fear and owning and being arm with a gun empowers them. It's about power. With a loaded gun, they can snuff you in a single shot. Imagine that power right at your fingertips?

I agree. Micheal Moore did a little cartoon thing about how Americans are fearbased. It was very enlightening, and bang on......in my humble opinion.

Canadians do own guns for a variety of reasons. In fact, if I had a rural property around here, especially if I had livestock, I MIGHT consider getting a firearm....for the bears. But then we do also have good conservation officers and there are good ways to reduce the risk of bears causing problems.

Boreas

07-23-2009, 06:27 PM

I disagree that if you carry a gun that you are fearful. I don't think about crime or live in fear. However, I also know that if something does happen, as it does to 100's of people everyday, that I am in a much better position to survive an attack than someone not armed.

Of course you disagree, you live with a different view of the world than I do.

I believe you are in your late forties. How many times in those years have you been threatened by "something" happening? How many crimes have you been involved in as a victim?

I will tell you that I am indeed biased. My father was a police officer. When I was born in June 1957 we lived in a then sleepy town outside of Toronto. It was not known for its high crime rate. We lived above a Sears order office. Two weeks after I was born, my parents heard some noises downstairs. My father, though off duty, went downstairs with his gun to investigate. He had of course called the police who were on duty. Anyway, he was shot with his own gun. The statistics show that this is not unusual. Police are often shot with their own firearms, especially in small towns. If a man who was trained to use the gun, and to seek out "bad guys" can get shot, what about the normal citizen.

Having a gun will more likely cause you to be injured than the bad guy.

Naturist Mark

07-23-2009, 06:43 PM

In Kennesaw, GA, the head of each household must have a working and loaded firearm available at all times. Oddly enough, the violent crime rate per capita there is almost non-existent.

It is low, but hardly non existent. (http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ga/kennesaw/crime/) Crime rates in general have been on a long decline, especially during the 90s. Kennesaw's gun law was passed in 1982 as a response to Morton Grove, Illinois' handgun ban. Both cities saw a decrease in crime.

gmoney

07-23-2009, 07:13 PM

Sorry, you have it backwards. The fearful carry a gun. That means they will shoot. Plain and Simple. A scary lot they are.

Boreas, it is amazing but my opinion is that the fascination stems from fear and owning and being arm with a gun empowers them. It's about power. With a loaded gun, they can snuff you in a single shot. Imagine that power right at your fingertips?

What you still cannot grasp is that law abiding americans are not looking for that power.
They are wanting to protect themselves.

CRIMINALS now may like that power.
No law abiding citizen wants to "SNUFF YOU" in a single shot.
Why can't you grasp that LAWFUL CITIZENS HAVE THE RIGHT TO GUNS?

CRIMINALS KILL INNOCENT PEOPLE.
LAW ABIDING CITIZENS KILL CRIMINALS!

ki4kxq

07-23-2009, 07:49 PM

Of course you disagree, you live with a different view of the world than I do.

I believe you are in your late forties. How many times in those years have you been threatened by "something" happening? How many crimes have you been involved in as a victim?

I will tell you that I am indeed biased. My father was a police officer. When I was born in June 1957 we lived in a then sleepy town outside of Toronto. It was not known for its high crime rate. We lived above a Sears order office. Two weeks after I was born, my parents heard some noises downstairs. My father, though off duty, went downstairs with his gun to investigate. He had of course called the police who were on duty. Anyway, he was shot with his own gun. The statistics show that this is not unusual. Police are often shot with their own firearms, especially in small towns. If a man who was trained to use the gun, and to seek out "bad guys" can get shot, what about the normal citizen.

Having a gun will more likely cause you to be injured than the bad guy.

How many times have I been a victim of a violent crime. 0. However, it only takes one time to become a statistic. Your answer I guess is to wait till I'm a victim, then defend myself. That is if I'm still alive to have a second chance. That sounds like a stupid plan to me.

As far as your theory that having a gun will more likely cause you to be injured than the bad guy, that is simply not true. There are no statistics that even remotely bear that out. Quite the opposite is true, especially when you have taken at least a ccw permit class.

Boreas

07-23-2009, 09:52 PM

How many times have I been a victim of a violent crime. 0. However, it only takes one time to become a statistic. Your answer I guess is to wait till I'm a victim, then defend myself. That is if I'm still alive to have a second chance. That sounds like a stupid plan to me.

As far as your theory that having a gun will more likely cause you to be injured than the bad guy, that is simply not true. There are no statistics that even remotely bear that out. Quite the opposite is true, especially when you have taken at least a ccw permit class.

Here are some stats for your information: http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm

For what it is worth.

I cannot fathom why anyone would want to have a gun for protection. I maintain that if that is your world, it is a sad world and I am glad I am on this side of the Canada/US border.

jon71

07-24-2009, 12:15 AM

jon71

07-24-2009, 12:17 AM

It is low, but hardly non existent. (http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/ga/kennesaw/crime/) Crime rates in general have been on a long decline, especially during the 90s. Kennesaw's gun law was passed in 1982 as a response to Morton Grove, Illinois' handgun ban. Both cities saw a decrease in crime.

Personally I would far rather live in Morton Grove.

Sanslines

07-24-2009, 03:54 AM

I truly fail to understand the generally American view that guns are sacred.

Boreas,

No worries as you are not alone in attempting to understand this obsession. This issue is one of the emotionally charged issues in the US. When people resort to emotional arguments and outbursts, then it becomes virtually impossible to reason with such individuals. The truth is that both sides have their points but the irrational from both sides are incapable of listening to the other side.

In Canada, there exist common sense laws that keep weapons out of the hands of criminals and yet allow those who prove that they meet competency requirements as established by Canadian citizens to own guns. In the US, any attempt to follow this pattern resorts in hysterics by some who can only think in absolutes. As you know, banning all guns will never solve ALL gun crime or violence. The key word here is ALL. The point is that there really is no such thing as an ABSOLUTE solution. The rational understand this and are reacting to the abhorrant gun death rates in the US by considering ALL aspects to reduce these fatalities, including further gun restrictions as well as other social and economic factors that may contribute to this terrible problem. The pro gun people obviously are only interested in their rights and can not seem to care about the staggering loss of life in the USA due to gun violence. If they did, then they would acknowledge this loss of life. The again what does it matter as long as THEIR interpretaion of THEIR right is protected.

Since the Second Amendment is truly a vague document, the meaning can be interpreted and spun in a variety of ways. One way can easily be to interpret that this amendment is an absoute right which superceeds all restricitions. Hence, no one would be banned from owning a gun. Convicted gun felons as well as the criminally insane could freely own guns. Yet, restrictions currently prevent this from happening.

Obama rejects this way of thinking and has stated this concerning the DC gun ban: "Mr Obama pointed out that Justice Scalia had, while ruling that the DC ban went too far, acknowledged that the right to bear arms is "not absolute and subject to reasonable regulations".

Yes so many can not seem to read and understand this and would prefer to shout emotionally charged statements (such as Obama wants to take away your guns) that appeal to the easily influenced among us in spite of Obama repeating over and over again that he can not take away THIER guns even if he wanted to.

This is the bottom line summary:

Why does gun ownership matter to Americans?

Some observers relate the importance of firearms to the American psyche to the country's relatively recent history as a frontier nation, peopled by settlers who had to be largely self-sufficient.

Many Americans see their right to gun ownership as an essential personal liberty guaranteed by the Bill of Rights - and it is one they are determined to keep.

That attitude is supported by the National Rifle Association (NRA), a powerful gun rights lobby.

Surveys estimate that there are now 90 guns for every 100 citizens in the US, making it one of the most heavily-armed nations in the world - although that figure covers people who own multiple guns, and many Americans do not possess firearms.

Those who support gun control argue that easy access to guns makes it more likely that they will be used and call for greater restrictions on their sale.
Firearms, including handguns, are used in two-thirds of murders and about 42% of robberies committed in the US, according to statistics from the FBI.

Back to your original statement, I do not think that you or other Canadians will ever understand the American fanaticism with guns.

Canadians seem to be more able to approach this issue with calm and rational thinking rather then emotion. This may be the crux of the difference.

Sanslines

07-24-2009, 04:13 AM

Here is a clear example of fear at work.

Here are other examples:

A 15-year-old female says, "I was always out on the streets. I was dating guys 20, 21, 22 and always have. I thought I needed some protection because I was around drug dealers and was point-blank fearful."

A 15-year-old male who carries a gun says, "After I was being jumped by some boys trying to get me into a gang, I stole it from a house. I carried it everywhere I would go except school."

nimrod

07-24-2009, 12:51 PM

The use of tasers by police officers is front and central in Canada right now, because four RCMP officers shot a Polish immigrant, Robert Dz, in the Vancouver airport almost two years ago. These men seemed to use their weapons out of fear, rather than out of proper training and good police skills. I wonder how they would have responded had they not had tasers.

Now there are stories of taser over-use because they are not fatal, or as fatal as a gun.

Some police officers may act out of fear. They are human. Others carry the firearm only because it is part of the uniform, and use proper communication and police skills to achieve their goals.

The key words are act out of fear. There is a difference in carrying a gun because of fear and the way one acts because of the fear they feel at the moment.

I agree that this issue is not black and white. Never-the-less, those who arm themselves in order to protect themselves are arguably acting out of fear.

I am sure that some are acting out of fear, but not all. Not everyone that takes classes in the martial arts or "self-defence" are acting out of fear. I just do not think that just because some-one wants the ability to protect themselves is done so out of fear.

nimrod

07-24-2009, 12:56 PM

I truly fail to understand the generally American view that guns are sacred.

Outside of this forum, I do not know of anyone that thinks that guns are sacred. I think most just want the right to choose.

nimrod

07-24-2009, 01:09 PM

The pro gun people obviously are only interested in their rights and can not seem to care about the staggering loss of life in the USA due to gun violence. If they did, then they would acknowledge this loss of life. The again what does it matter as long as THEIR interpretaion of THEIR right is protected.

I do not know if you think of me as pro-gun or not, but I know and do care about the loss of life due to violence in general, not just gun violence. Violence happens with or without guns, so do accidents that lead to injury or death.

I saw video of a robbery where a man went into a convience store with a palmfrawn as a weapon intending to do violence in order to get money. Violence is done with more then just guns. Let us stop blaming guns for the all violence in this society. Take away all the guns in the world and there will still be violence.

jon71

07-24-2009, 02:12 PM

Now there are stories of taser over-use because they are not fatal, or as fatal as a gun.

The key words are act out of fear. There is a difference in carrying a gun because of fear and the way one acts because of the fear they feel at the moment.

I am sure that some are acting out of fear, but not all. Not everyone that takes classes in the martial arts or "self-defence" are acting out of fear. I just do not think that just because some-one wants the ability to protect themselves is done so out of fear.

I used to take Karate with my baby. I partly chose it because it was a Christian group (blackbelts of the faith), partly for exercise (I'm too sedentary) but the best thing was spending time with my baby. Often we'd get supper afterwards, it was a nice little father/daughter outing. Even so I'm glad I have the knowledge I do have should it ever be necessary and better than a gun I'll always have it with me.

gmoney

07-24-2009, 07:38 PM

Of course you disagree, you live with a different view of the world than I do.

That's where I think the problem lies.
I live in the real world and see whats happening.
I don't live in a world that I view different than what it is.

ki4kxq

07-24-2009, 07:56 PM

Here are some stats for your information: http://www.ichv.org/Statistics.htm

For what it is worth.

I cannot fathom why anyone would want to have a gun for protection. I maintain that if that is your world, it is a sad world and I am glad I am on this side of the Canada/US border.

Now if I pulled stats from the NRA, you would have a stroke. Yet you pull so called "stats" from a gun ban website, and that is supposed to be ok. No, you are not more likely to be injured by your own gun in an attack.

gmoney

07-24-2009, 08:52 PM

Now if I pulled stats from the NRA, you would have a stroke. Yet you pull so called "stats" from a gun ban website, and that is supposed to be ok. No, you are not more likely to be injured by your own gun in an attack.

In some inner cities, 23 percent of students have witnessed violence in their schools and reportedly up to 12 percent of youngsters have carried a gun to school in any given academic year. With these frightening statistics, it's not surprising that many Americans believe that a greater effort should be made to enforce the 20,000 U.S. gun laws already in place and which sometimes are not fully enforced, particularly those pertaining to keeping guns away from minors, the mentally ill, and the criminal element

Recent scholarship in the criminologic, sociologic, and legal literature shows that the defensive uses of firearms by citizens amount to 2.5 million uses per year and dwarf the offensive gun uses by criminals. Between 25-75 lives are saved by a gun for every life lost to a gun. Medical costs saved by guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are 15 times greater than costs incurred by criminal uses of firearms. Guns also prevent injuries to good people and protect billions of dollars of property every year.

Prof. John R. Lott, Jr., reviewed the FBI's massive yearly crime statistics for all 3054 U.S. counties over 18 years (1977-1994), the largest national survey on gun ownership and state police documentation in illegal gun use. The data show that while neither state waiting periods nor the federal Brady Law is associated with a reduction in crime rates, adopting concealed carry gun laws cut death rates from public, multiple shootings (e.g., as those which took place in Dunblane, Scotland, and Tasmania, Australia in 1996 or the infamous Columbine High School shooting in Littleton, Colorado, in 1999) --- by an amazing 69 percent. Allowing law-abiding citizens to carry concealed weapons deters violent crime --- without any apparent increase in accidental death. If states without right to carry laws had adopted them in 1992, about 1570 murders, 4177 rapes, and 60,000 aggravated assaults would have been avoided annually.
In Prof. Lott's survey, children 14 to 15 years of age were found to be 14.5 times more likely to die from automobile injuries, 5 times more likely to die from drowning or fire and burns, and 3 times more likely to die from bicycle accidents than they are to die from gun accidents.

When concealed carry gun laws went into effect in a given county, murders fell by 8 percent, rapes by 5 percent, and aggravated assaults by 7 percent.
Several gun researchers have written about suicides and have linked these fatalities to the availability of guns.(7) Medical critics, however, cite the overwhelming evidence compiled from the psychiatric literature that untreated or poorly managed depression is the real culprit behind the relatively high rates of suicide in the U.S. Moreover, countries such as Japan and Hungary, and in Scandinavia --- all of which boast draconian gun control laws and low rates of firearm availability - have much higher rates of suicide (2 and 3 times higher) than the U.S.(5,8,9) In those countries, citizens simply use other cultural or universally available methods, such as Hara-kiri in Japan, drowning in the Danube as in Hungary, suffocation (with poisonous gases such as stove or automobile exhausts), or simply hanging and strangulation like in Denmark and Germany, or even drinking agricultural pesticides as is commonly done in Sri Lanka. And in these countries, citizens commit suicide quite effectively by these methods at higher rates than in the U.S.
A child's death from any cause is a tragedy. In 2000, 600 children and adolescents died of accidental gunshot wounds, 2700 perished in motor vehicle accidents, 3600 children died from burns, 3900 died of drowning, and 12,100 died from poisoning. These are all tragedies, but do we want to ban automobiles, matches, swimming pools, and household chemicals? Firearm accident rates in the United States have been declining steadily since the turn of the century, because of the emphasis placed on gun safety and education courses, including the National Rifle Association's Eddie Eagle program which has touched in excess of 11 million youngsters in the U.S

jon71

07-24-2009, 08:52 PM

gmoney

07-24-2009, 08:53 PM

As far as teenage violence is concerned, more than 20,000 laws are already on the books, including a sizable number pertaining to the proscription of handgun possession by minors and banning guns on school grounds. Yet, despite all the media's sensationalization of crime, the latest available FBI statistics for 2000 show that, like the not-so-well known drop in gun accident rates, there has also been a steady decline in homicide rates for every segment of American society. In fact, in the U.S., murder and violent crimes have reached 30 and 25-year low rates, respectively. The opposite has been the case in Australia and Great Britain

Australians are learning the lessons of indiscriminate, draconian gun control laws the hard way. In 1996, a criminally insane man shot to death 35 people at a Tasmanian resort. The government immediately responded by passing stringent gun control laws, banning most firearms, and ordering their confiscation. More than 640,000 guns were seized from ordinary Australian citizens.(10)

As a result, there has been a sharp and dramatic increase in violent crime against the disarmed law-abiding citizens, who in small communities and particularly in rural areas are now unable to protect themselves from brigands and robbers. That same year in the state of Victoria, there was a 300 percent increase in homicides committed with firearms. The following year, robberies increased almost 60 percent in South Australia. By 1999, assaults had increased in New South Wales by almost 20 percent. Two years following the gun ban/confiscation, armed robberies rose by 73 percent, unarmed robberies by 28 percent, kidnappings by 38 percent, assaults by 17 percent and manslaughter by 29 percent, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Interestingly, the same thing occurred in Great Britain. Following a 1996 massacre of school children by a madman in Dunblane, Scotland, the British government banned and ordered the confiscation of most firearms. Since then a horrific crime wave has taken place in England and Scotland. In 1998, the U.S. Department of Justice declared that the rate of muggings in England had surpassed that in the U.S. by 40 percent, while assault and burglary rates were nearly 100 percent higher in England than in the U.S.

To make matters worse for England --- and this is also true for Canada --- in those countries where citizens are disarmed in their own homes, day burglary is commonplace and dangerous because criminals know they will not be shot at if caught flagrante delicto. Not so in the U.S., where burglars not only prefer night burglaries but try to make sure homeowners are not at home to avoid being shot at by the intended victim.(1