Real or Fake?

[KevinD]

Just ran across this "letter" from a US Marine to Sen Fienstien in regards to her proposed weapons ban.


Senator Dianne Feinstein,

I will not register my weapons should this bill be passed, as I do not believe it is the government’s right to know what I own. Nor do I think it prudent to tell you what I own so that it may be taken from me by a group of people who enjoy armed protection yet decry me having the same a crime. You ma’am have overstepped a line that is not your domain. I am a Marine Corps Veteran of 8 years, and I will not have some woman who proclaims the evil of an inanimate object, yet carries one, tell me I may not have one.

I am not your subject. I am the man who keeps you free. I am not your servant. I am the person whom you serve. I am not your peasant. I am the flesh and blood of America.

I am the man who fought for my country. I am the man who learned. I am an American. You will not tell me that I must register my semi-automatic AR-15 because of the actions of some evil man.

I will not be disarmed to suit the fear that has been established by the media and your misinformation campaign against the American public.

We, the people, deserve better than you.

Respectfully Submitted,
Joshua Boston
Cpl,
United States Marine Corps
2004-2012


I'm gonna be the first to say it: We told you so. Gun Control has been on the libtard agenda forever, and fools are lining up to have the gubment "save" them from themselves.

In all honesty, if this passes, you may very well see me on the news one day because I will refuse to follow it.

Direct link to Fienstien's site so you can read the gory details yourself.

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons

For my response, see my sig.

[Softdreamer]

I have recently had an epiphany regarding America and guns.

The problem is not with the ease of purchase of guns.
The problem is not not with any gun control law.
The problem is not with the constitution.

The problem is the attitude America has towards guns.

Guns are seen as "cool", collecting them is seen as a hobby, using them is seen as a form of relaxation or "letting of stream".
Guns are tools. tools for killing things.


To stop incidents like those seen on the news would mean changes in laws, but more importantly attitudes towards guns.
Frankly,I think it will take a lot more murdering rampages before either of them change...perhaps never.

[FBD]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcztgO8jklo&feature=player_embedded

I see them as every bit tools for protection. Reading history, the founding letters, etc, clearly show this.

[Softdreamer]

BTW this thread title really threw me...

I thought it was either going to be about boobies or the two new girlie members.. :-k

[KevinD]

Gotcha to look though, didn't it? lol

[KevinD]

I have recently had an epiphany regarding America and guns.

The problem is not with the ease of purchase of guns. Agreed
The problem is not not with any gun control law.True
The problem is not with the constitution.Absolutely

The problem is the attitude America has towards guns.Maybe

Guns are seen as "cool", collecting them is seen as a hobby, using them is seen as a form of relaxation or "letting of stream".Here's where you lose me.
Guns are tools. tools for killing things.Absolutely spot on. I've said this for years


To stop incidents like those seen on the news would mean changes in laws, but more importantly attitudes towards guns.
Frankly,I think it will take a lot more murdering rampages before either of them change...perhaps never.

Concerning your view of how guns are seen here in the US: While I can understand what you are saying, I don't totally agree. There is a "cool" factor to some. Perhaps we would be better to try and understand why this is so. Nothing wrong imho with collecting guns. Folks collect all sorts of things, and not one mass murderer to my knowledge has been a collector. It is relaxing to me to go shoot my weapons. I reaffirms to me my ability to safely use a highly dangerous tool.

Note, nowhere did I say you were wrong. Not wanting to start any finger pointing or name calling. You expressed you views, and so did I. Ain't it great? lol

[KevinD]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evEg1VNfX3o

Go Chuck!!

[Acid Trip]

In all honesty, if this passes, you may very well see me on the news one day because I will refuse to follow it.

You and me both brother.

It's probably because we are hard headed Texans who would rather die on their feet than live on their knees. People who live in states full of wussies (liberals) will never understand.

[KevinD]

Ruby Ridge and Waco.

[Muddy]

I think in this modern age, voting should be mandatory... 300 million residents in this country and whats the voting percentage?

[MrsM]

Concerning your view of how guns are seen here in the US: While I can understand what you are saying, I don't totally agree. There is a "cool" factor to some. Perhaps we would be better to try and understand why this is so. Nothing wrong imho with collecting guns. Folks collect all sorts of things, and not one mass murderer to my knowledge has been a collector. It is relaxing to me to go shoot my weapons. I reaffirms to me my ability to safely use a highly dangerous tool.

Note, nowhere did I say you were wrong. Not wanting to start any finger pointing or name calling. You expressed you views, and so did I. Ain't it great? lol

I think we can all agree that for the most part responsible gun owners are not the problem. The problem is that there are way too many gun owners that are not responsible.

So - How do you define responsible versus not responsible? Someone needs to make that decision, or there needs to be "hoops" that people need to jump through to help weed out irresponsible owners.

I hear people say that the people that have been responsible for these latest crimes should not have had a gun in the first place... but I also hear that the government has no right to even know what guns that I have or what I do with them.

So what is the solution? I am more anti-gun than pro-gun. I have shot guns, my dad owned guns and I understand the enjoyment factor. To me, a start in the right direction is more registration, more involved process to be able to purchase guns, stricter punishments for illegal gun ownership and crimes committed with guns.

I think part of the mentality that SD was referring to is - that if I wanted to own a military style rifle, I would welcome having to fill out another form or have a deeper background check to prove that I am fit and responsible... just to make sure that the ass hats that should not have this type of gun do not get one. But it seems that the response from Americans are more down the line of you can't tell me what to do - I'm an American and the second amendment says that I can bear arms so give me my rifle.

There doesn't seem to be any thought of the greater good, instead, this affects me so therefore I'm against it!

Just my 2 cents

[FBD]

If I have to register to that extent, I at least want 98% of everything seen on FPS russia :lol:

[KevinD]

Well, there you have it in a nutshell. The 2nd amendment does cover all arms. That is fact, regardless of what some would have you believe. There is a process to change or abolish amendments, or add new amendments to the constitution. I'm NOT against changing the constitution if the greatest majority actually desire to do so. What I AM against is a tyrannical government (which I do believe we have) trying to take away the rights guaranteed me by the constitution (and amendments) that protect me from said government.

It doesn't bother me if someone else doesn't like weapons, or want them in their life. I would prefer to never have to shoot a gun again. That's not realistic though.

[KevinD]

As for the military style rifle. If you want a true military rifle, you DO already have to undergo much more stringent background checks. Now, if you are defining a "military" rifle as one the LOOKS like a real one, that is imho, just so much media and political hype. The action(s) of all semi auto rifles and/or pistols are basically the same: One trigger pull+ one shot fire, then the weapon autoloads another round. So, if I understand the media and politicians correctly, they want to ban weapons that "look" like actual military weapons (but don't in fact function the same) but all other weapons the are semi auto are okay? Even though other weapons may in fact be more effective than a "assault" type?

Yeah. That makes sense to me.

I do in fact believe that this is just a step in the agenda to disarm the US Public. Your opinion may vary.

[MrsM]

Well, there you have it in a nutshell. The 2nd amendment does cover all arms. That is fact, regardless of what some would have you believe. There is a process to change or abolish amendments, or add new amendments to the constitution. I'm NOT against changing the constitution if the greatest majority actually desire to do so. What I AM against is a tyrannical government (which I do believe we have) trying to take away the rights guaranteed me by the constitution (and amendments) that protect me from said government.

It doesn't bother me if someone else doesn't like weapons, or want them in their life. I would prefer to never have to shoot a gun again. That's not realistic though.

I am not familiar with the rules or process for amendments to admendments - but if it was passed where the second amendment no longer applied and the new admendment was that you could only own some guns and not all. Would you then hand over your now illegal guns and swear by the new constitution? Or would you go down fighting?

[Acid Trip]

The 2nd Amendment was written to protect the people from the government the founding fathers were creating. The Founding Fathers knew that eventually the government would become corrupt and no longer serve the people.

What happens when the government no longer serves the people? You overthrow it and start a new one! How do you overthrow a government? With the pen (1st Amendment) and guns (2nd Amendment).

In order to have an armed populace capable of overthrowing a government almost every citizen needs a gun. Hence the 2nd Amendment.

I could bore everyone with founding father quotes on this subject but I'll restrain myself.

[Softdreamer]

Maybe its just an outsiders opinion..

But why is it that because there is a law saying you CAN own a gun,
do people think they HAVE to own a gun.

I just can't imagine ever wanting to own one.
If you think this is wrong or can't understand it, then it is this attitude that I was referring to.

[KevinD]

Wouldn't bore me at all.

I wish I stil had the conversation I had with Deep over on AS about 2nd amendment. He kept trying to say that since it includes "militia" that it didn't apply to general public. When I went and pulled quotes, and definitions (era correct) as to what the authors were referring to, he ignored it. Would never reply to that part.

[MrsM]

I do in fact believe that this is just a step in the agenda to disarm the US Public. Your opinion may vary.

This is the part that I guess I just don't understand... I agree that the purpose is to disarm the US public... but what I don't understand is why this is a bad thing?

[KevinD]

Maybe its just an outsiders opinion..

But why is it that because there is a law saying you CAN own a gun,
do people think they HAVE to own a gun.

I just can't imagine ever wanting to own one.
If you think this is wrong or can't understand it, then it is this attitude that I was referring to.

Not at all Soft. I don't blame you at all for not wanting a gun. I however do chose to have a few, and as per my rights, my ability to do so should NOT be regulated, irregardless of what other idiots or sociopaths do.

I fully defend your right to chose whether to have a gun, your right to freedom of speech, right to assembly, freedoms from unjust search, etc, etc.

[KevinD]

This is the part that I guess I just don't understand... I agree that the purpose is to disarm the US public... but what I don't understand is why this is a bad thing?

BECAUSE it is against the constitution. Period.
( I happen to believe the right to own weapons is a good thing)

[MrsM]

The 2nd Amendment was written to protect the people from the government the founding fathers were creating. The Founding Fathers knew that eventually the government would become corrupt and no longer serve the people.

What happens when the government no longer serves the people? You overthrow it and start a new one! How do you overthrow a government? With the pen (1st Amendment) and guns (2nd Amendment).

In order to have an armed populace capable of overthrowing a government almost every citizen needs a gun. Hence the 2nd Amendment.

I could bore everyone with founding father quotes on this subject but I'll restrain myself.

Do you honestly think that there will be a cival war in the US similar to what is happening in Syria? I would like to think that possibility is so remote, it would probably be more likely that the guns will be used to protect people against alien invasions (and I do not believe in UFO's) :)

[FBD]

I am not familiar with the rules or process for amendments to admendments - but if it was passed where the second amendment no longer applied and the new admendment was that you could only own some guns and not all. Would you then hand over your now illegal guns and swear by the new constitution? Or would you go down fighting?

I dont recall exactly, but basically the first 10 as "the bill of rights" is basically not to be fkd with in any way, shape or form.


Do you honestly think that there will be a cival war in the US similar to what is happening in Syria? I would like to think that possibility is so remote, it would probably be more likely that the guns will be used to protect people against alien invasions (and I do not believe in UFO's) :)

It depends, if they try to screw with the bill of rights, then that is absolutely pretext for a lot of us. Only over here, we have an army mostly loyal to the constitution, not necessarily the fkwads who are in charge at any particular time. So it would be interesting, and wont play out like in other areas where the military just does whatever TPTB say.

[KevinD]

Lets take the 1st amendment:


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Lets say the government wanted to establish restrictions on your personal religious choice. By doing it in such a fashion that if you are say "christian" no problem, but if you are "muslim", you have to undergo background checks, be on a watchlist etc, etc all because some Muslims, in some parts of the world kill people.


Would this also be acceptable to you?

[MrsM]

BECAUSE it is against the constitution. Period.
( I happen to believe the right to own weapons is a good thing)

Back to my previous question - if there is another amendment that changes or superceeds the 2nd Amendment - would you then stand behind the constitution that you hold so dear? (Also, I don't even know if that is possible - so please let me know if the 2nd Amendment can ever be changed or superceeded with another Amendment)

[MrsM]

Lets take the 1st amendment:



Lets say the government wanted to establish restrictions on your personal religious choice. By doing it in such a fashion that if you are say "christian" no problem, but if you are "muslim", you have to undergo background checks, be on a watchlist etc, etc all because some Muslims, in some parts of the world kill people.


Would this also be acceptable to you?

This is not an apples to apples comparison - if there were little to no US guns killing people and the majority of the civilian gun deaths were caused by a minority of people in other countries, then we wouldn't be having this discussion about guns.

A better example would be that if it was proven that Muslims were the cause of terrible crimes within the US - I would hope that the government would then make some changes to what Muslims can or cannot do.

Which I believe that they are already doing in that Muslims and their leaders are under great scrutiny related to what they are preaching and what they are doing in the US.

So you are trying to tell me that the CIA, Homeland Security and FBI are already not already undergoing background checks, putting people on a watch list etc, etc just because they belong to a mosque of some suspected person with ties back to a terrorist organization?

How many times here have people said that there should be racial profiling and closer watching of individuals because of the colour of their skin or their religion?

[KevinD]

Back to my previous question - if there is another amendment that changes or superceeds the 2nd Amendment - would you then stand behind the constitution that you hold so dear? (Also, I don't even know if that is possible - so please let me know if the 2nd Amendment can ever be changed or superceeded with another Amendment)

As far as I know, it is possible to change any of the amendments. There is a process to do so. If the 2nd amendment were to be legally abolished, then I for one would in fact obey it. I believe in the entire consitution, and once upon a time, raised my right hand a swore to defend it. I took that seriously then, and do so now.

[KevinD]

This is not an apples to apples comparison - if there were little to no US guns killing people and the majority of the civilian gun deaths were caused by a minority of people in other countries, then we wouldn't be having this discussion about guns.

A better example would be that if it was proven that Muslims were the cause of terrible crimes within the US - I would hope that the government would then make some changes to what Muslims can or cannot do.

Which I believe that they are already doing in that Muslims and their leaders are under great scrutiny related to what they are preaching and what they are doing in the US.

So you are trying to tell me that the CIA, Homeland Security and FBI are already not already undergoing background checks, putting people on a watch list etc, etc just because they belong to a mosque of some suspected person with ties back to a terrorist organization?

How many times here have people said that there should be racial profiling and closer watching of individuals because of the colour of their skin or their religion?

As for your better example, okay, read the US constitution, along with all amendments, then tell me the government has the power to impose restrictions upon a person based on religion. Do provide quotes.

And the CIA, Homeland security, et al?? Yes they are in fact doing these things (Patriot Act ring a bell?) and I for one believe this is yet another symptom of a federal government run wild.

[KevinD]

Oh, and here a great article on why it's a bad idea to disarm the public:


Americans are getting a bit of advice from a columnist in Pravda, long considered the voice in front of the massive power of the Soviet Union: Keep your guns.

“This will probably come as a total shock to most of my Western readers, but at one point, Russia was one of the most heavily armed societies on earth,” wrote columnist Stanislav Mishin in his recent column.
Ads by Google

Walden University OnlineDoctoral, Master's and Bachelor's. Classes Start Soon. Call Now! Waldenu.edu
Heavenly TriviaHow Well Do You Know The Bible? Test Your Knowledge On Bible Trivia www.BibleTriviaTime.com

“This was, of course, when we were free under the Tsar. Weapons, from swords and spears to pistols, rifles and shotguns were everywhere, common items. People carried them concealed, they carried them holstered. Fighting knives were a prominent part of many traditional attires and those little tubes criss crossing on the costumes of Cossacks and various Caucasian peoples? Well, those are bullet holders for rifles.”

However, the communists weren’t stupid, he wrote, and when they took power, “One of the first things they did was to disarm the population. ”

“From that point, mass repression, mass arrests, mass deportations, mass murder, mass starvation were all a safe game for the powers,” Mishin wrote.

The commentary, which originally appeared on the author’s personal website, comes just as the gun control sentiment in America is at a zenith because of the deranged attack on a Newtown, Conn., school in which 20 children and six adults were killed.

As WND reported, a coalition of gun organizations already has told members of Congress that more restrictions on guns won’t increase security and will likely, instead, lead to more violence.

“Between the first significant school shooting, in 1966, and enactment of the 1996 (Gun Free School Zones Act], media summaries reveal eight shootings with 134 victims killed or wounded – a rate of 4.3 victims per year,” said the letter to members of Congress and other leaders.

“Between 1996 and 2012, the review finds 62 shootings and 367 victims – a fivefold increase to 23 victims per year. Yet, during the same period, FBI Uniform Crime Reports indicate homicide nationwide dropped by 14 percent,” the letter explains.

“Members of the National Coalition to Stop the Gun Ban demand that Congress refuse to use lawful gun owners as political scapegoats and instead reduce school violence by …. Defeating any attempt to pass gun control including, but not limited to, banning semi-automatic firearms or magazines, or requiring private gun transfers to be registered through the National Instant Check System; and repealing the Gun Free School Zones Act of 1996.”

The letter is signed by leader of the Firearms Coalition, Gun Owners of America, Rights Watch International, Second Amendment Sisters and USRKBA.org and dozens of state groups.

The Pravda column noted that taking over lands holding “an extremely well armed and aggressive population hell bent on exterminating or driving out the aggressor” was no simple matter.

Are you interested in self-defense? Check out all these DVDs and books in WND’s Superstore.

“To this day, with the Soviet Union now dead 21 years, with a whole generation born and raised to adulthood without the SU, we are still denied our basic and traditional rights to self defense. Why? We are told that everyone would just start shooting each other and crime would be everywhere …. but criminals are still armed and still murdering and [too] often, especially in the far regions, those criminals wear the uniforms of the police.”

Even today, the columnist wrote, authorities “do as they please, a tyrannical class who knows they have absolutely nothing to fear from a relatively unarmed population. This, in turn, breeds not respect but absolute contempt and often enough, criminal abuse.”

Mishin said America’s Second Amendment, the right to bear arms, “is a rare light in an ever darkening room.”

“Governments will use the excuse of trying to protect the people from maniacs and crime, but … in reality, it is the bureaucrats protecting their power and position,” he said.

“In all cases where guns are banned, gun crime continues and often increases. As for maniacs, be it nuts with cars (NYC, Chapel Hill, N.C.), swords (Japan), knives (China) or home made bombs (everywhere), insane people strike. They throw acid (Pakistan, UK), they throw fire bombs (France), they attack. What is worse, is, that the best way to stop a maniac is not psychology or jail or ‘talking to them,’ it is a bullet in the head, that is why they are a maniac, because they are incapable of living in reality or stopping themselves.”

He continued: “Do not be fooled by a belief that progressives, leftists hate guns. Oh, no, they do not. What they hate is guns in the hands of those who are not marching in lock step of their ideology. They hate guns in the hands of those who think for themselves and do not obey without question. They hate guns in those whom they have slated for a barrel to the back of the ear.

“So, do not fall for the false promises and do not extinguish the light that is left to allow humanity a measure of self respect.”

Already, state and national lawmakers in the U.S. are strategizing over more gun restrictions. Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., has a plan that would ban 120 specific weapons and certain semiautomatic rifles, handguns and shotguns that have certain features. It also would impose background checks on owners and require registration of a firearm serial number and positive identification of the owner, including photograph and fingerprints.

That’s despite her own experience with the need to carry a weapon, as she explained:

It was during a U.S. Senate hearing on terrorism after the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, she told “a little anecdote” of how she carried concealed to protect herself after two assassination attempts by the New World Liberation Front, the NWLF.

She explained: “I know the sense of helplessness that people feel. I know the urge to arm yourself because that’s what I did. I was trained in firearms. I walked to the hospital when my husband was sick. I carried a concealed weapon and I made the determination if somebody was going to try and take me out, I was going to take them with me.”

She championed her private firearm ownership the same year that she called for banning “all” firearm ownership.

In an interview with “60 Minutes” in 1995 she said, “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States, for an outright ban, picking up every one of them. Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in, I would have done it.”

See her comments in the “60 Minutes” interview:

Meanwhile, one Marine is warning Feinstein that he won’t be disarmed.

And many other Americans are following suit.

The FBI says the number of background checks for Americans buying guns set a record in December. The 2.8 million background checks recorded last month surpassed November’s record of 2 million. December 2011 saw 1.9 million checks. In Colorado, there was a backlog of tens of thousands of gun owners waiting to pick up weapons they had purchased. State agency officials asked for an extra $500,000 to make sure the work, which was running with about a 10-day delay, got done.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/01/pravda-tells-america-keep-your-guns/#EApU0oBRDcXOI9Fc.99

[MrsM]

As for your better example, okay, read the US constitution, along with all amendments, then tell me the government has the power to impose restrictions upon a person based on religion. Do provide quotes.

And the CIA, Homeland security, et al?? Yes they are in fact doing these things (Patriot Act ring a bell?) and I for one believe this is yet another symptom of a federal government run wild.

I understand better where you are coming from - I was trying to point out that people (a gereral term and not directed at you) tend to stand behind the constitution when it affects them directly and they don't really care when it doesn't (ie my example with muslims)

this, from an outsider view gives the appearance of a "me only" attitude towards the constitution (kinda like the race card in the debate of gun control)

I appreciate the discussion

[KevinD]

For those of you who do believe in disarming the public, could you be so kind as to explain how to go about defending yourself from robbers, muggers, rapists, killers, tyranny etc.

[KevinD]

I understand better where you are coming from - I was trying to point out that people (a gereral term and not directed at you) tend to stand behind the constitution when it affects them directly and they don't really care when it doesn't (ie my example with muslims)

this, from an outsider view gives the appearance of a "me only" attitude towards the constitution (kinda like the race card in the debate of gun control)

I appreciate the discussion

As do I Mrs, as do I.

Each of us is entitled to their own beliefs, and I absolutely respect yours, so, please especially given the limited ability of the internet to ascribe feelings to something written, don't feel that I'm telling you your views are invalid.
If I actually thought that, I'd tell you, lol

I for one don't understand the belief in a disarmed public, hence my above question. I truly would like to know what others think.

[KevinD]

One thing we all have to keep in mind, whether the topic be guns, government, religion etc. We only hear the bad things on the news, never the good.

For example, just the other day, an off duty LEO was in a movie theater in San Antonio. A man came in with the intentions of murdering the movie patrons. The off duty LEO had her concealed carry pistol with her, and killed the perp before he could kill anyone else. Now, the only reason she was carrying in an other wise "gun free" zone is the fact that she was a LEO.
But since only the criminal was killed, this hasn't made the news at all.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/sanantonio.asp

[MrsM]

For those of you who do believe in disarming the public, could you be so kind as to explain how to go about defending yourself from robbers, muggers, rapists, killers, tyranny etc.

We have these things in Canada - yet the murder rate in all of Canada in 2011 was 598 (which was actually an increase over previous years) Didn't Chicago have 500+ murders in that city alone this year?

Using your logic and with all the guns in the US - shouldn't US be safer and have less crime?

[MrsM]

One thing we all have to keep in mind, whether the topic be guns, government, religion etc. We only hear the bad things on the news, never the good.

For example, just the other day, an off duty LEO was in a movie theater in San Antonio. A man came in with the intentions of murdering the movie patrons. The off duty LEO had her concealed carry pistol with her, and killed the perp before he could kill anyone else. Now, the only reason she was carrying in an other wise "gun free" zone is the fact that she was a LEO.
But since only the criminal was killed, this hasn't made the news at all.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/sanantonio.asp

I agree the media plays greatly into public opinion and after the school shooting I was very disapointed with the "news" and how it kept pushing gun control as the only solution for this problem. IMO gun control is a small part to prevent this from happening in the future

Now to your story above - this is positive - But I look at it more from the view point that why did this guy have a gun in the first place and not that it was a good thing that the LEO was carrying.

[KevinD]

We have these things in Canada - yet the murder rate in all of Canada in 2011 was 598 (which was actually an increase over previous years) Didn't Chicago have 500+ murders in that city alone this year?

Using your logic and with all the guns in the US - shouldn't US be safer and have less crime?

Sorry for the long reply. I was working, actually, lol

I don't actually know an answer for your question. Perhaps it's culture related. Does Canada have as high a percentage of poor uneducated as the US? What about the percentage of minorities etc?
What I can say about Chicago, is that it in fact has some of the most restrictive firearms laws found in the US. It is difficult for law abiding citizens to own a firearm, impossible to carry it in self defense, and yet has one of the highest homicide rates in the US.
How does that hold up the theory that disarmament works?

[KevinD]

I agree the media plays greatly into public opinion and after the school shooting I was very disapointed with the "news" and how it kept pushing gun control as the only solution for this problem. IMO gun control is a small part to prevent this from happening in the future

Now to your story above - this is positive - But I look at it more from the view point that why did this guy have a gun in the first place and not that it was a good thing that the LEO was carrying.

Being as the guy was only 19, it's entirely likely that he was breaking the law in Texas just by having the gun. If it was a rifle or shotgun, he's legally able to own it (as a gift, not a purchase) but not a handgun. Must be 21 in Texas to purchase/own a handgun. None of the reports I've seen identify the weapon used, so, again, I dunno.

Just so we're clear, I don't personally carry a weapon. I trust in my fellow man enough that I won't get murdered out in public. One day I could be wrong, who knows.

[Softdreamer]

For those of you who do believe in disarming the public, could you be so kind as to explain how to go about defending yourself from robbers, muggers, rapists, killers, tyranny etc.

Its a newish thing called the 'police'... To protect and to serve etc..


We have these things in Canada - yet the murder rate in all of Canada in 2011 was 598 (which was actually an increase over previous years) Didn't Chicago have 500+ murders in that city alone this year?

Using your logic and with all the guns in the US - shouldn't US be safer and have less crime?

Exactly my point, its the attitude of Americans to guns which is the problem, and law changes wont change that!

[FBD]

Its a newish thing called the 'police'... To protect and to serve etc..



Exactly my point, its the attitude of Americans to guns which is the problem, and law changes wont change that!

police? what's their response time, again?

and chicago is the absolute worst place to have picked aside from DC if you want to talk about murder, or if you want to advance any data on gun control, because it really supports the 2nd amendment's argument - Illinois does not issue licenses for the concealed carry of firearms, nor does it recognize licenses issued by other states. Illinois is the only state that does not allow concealed carry in some form. Open carry is also prohibited in most areas.

yet again, looking at the stats...shows more guns in the hands of responsible gun owners lessens crime. significantly.

On December 11, 2012, these blanket restrictions were struck down as unconstitutional by a federal appeals court, which gave the state 180 days to change its laws or appeal the decision.

:wave:

[Softdreamer]

and accidental deaths that are NOT crime related??

what about all those kids who shoot themselves with daddies gun???

[Hal-9000]

I think we can all agree that for the most part responsible gun owners are not the problem. The problem is that there are way too many gun owners that are not responsible.

So - How do you define responsible versus not responsible? Someone needs to make that decision, or there needs to be "hoops" that people need to jump through to help weed out irresponsible owners.

I hear people say that the people that have been responsible for these latest crimes should not have had a gun in the first place... but I also hear that the government has no right to even know what guns that I have or what I do with them.

So what is the solution? I am more anti-gun than pro-gun. I have shot guns, my dad owned guns and I understand the enjoyment factor. To me, a start in the right direction is more registration, more involved process to be able to purchase guns, stricter punishments for illegal gun ownership and crimes committed with guns.

I think part of the mentality that SD was referring to is - that if I wanted to own a military style rifle, I would welcome having to fill out another form or have a deeper background check to prove that I am fit and responsible... just to make sure that the ass hats that should not have this type of gun do not get one. But it seems that the response from Americans are more down the line of you can't tell me what to do - I'm an American and the second amendment says that I can bear arms so give me my rifle.

There doesn't seem to be any thought of the greater good, instead, this affects me so therefore I'm against it!

Just my 2 cents

Well said.

[Muddy]

It's not the enjoyment factor though Minz.. It's the fear of a Tyrannical government...

[Richard Cranium]

No offense intended nor is this aimed at anyone.

I see no value in trying to debate or change any non US citizens mind on the issue of firearms. It is very simply a waste of energy for either party,

Nobody is going to change anyone's mind, ever

I'm keeping my guns and that is a fact. Most of you don't like that fact but have absolutely no say in the matter and never will.

On the subject of firearms, you will never understand me and I will never understand you.

[Lambchop]

1791 law with 1791 technology in mind still remains unquestioned in the eyes of gun advocates over two-hundred years later, in a world where guns have advanced tremendously in terms of rate of fire, accuracy, range and overall lethal potential. This really does demonstrate the alluring power a gun can have over its owner.

[KevinD]

The 1791 law and views are still relevant, otherwise why don't we throw out all those other pesky bill of rights?