slomoe Posted June 26, 2008 Posted June 26, 2008 I don't think this will add more guns to the hands of criminals, but put more guns in the hands of uneducated people with clean records, thus adding to the amount of stray bullets. Thats just my .02 :-? Wow! I'm not even sure where to go with it. Stray bullets don't typically come from law abiding citizens, whether educated or not. I guess they don't teach common sense with marksmanship and gun safety up there, huh? DC has been such a safe place without guns.... ;D Were you able to type that with a straight face?!?!? ;D What I meant was just because you have a gun does not mean you are safe with it. It was just a couple years ago, in a neighborhood a few miles from my house in a suburban neighborhood, a police officer killed an unarmed man because he accidently discharged his weapon. I'm not against protecting yourself, But I just couldn't agree that the violence in DC will get better because there are more guns on the streets. :-? <-----my straight face ;D
Super User Wayne P. Posted June 26, 2008 Super User Posted June 26, 2008 Slomoe, no laws including gun bans are going to influence the behavior of a criminal. Murder is against the law, controlled drugs are illegal, robbery is illegal, etc. The added possession of handguns by lawabiding citizens in D.C. will lessen those crimes since the criminal may have to pay the ultimate price for their chosen profession. A concealed carry permit will lessen it even more. D.C. has been a perfect example of "when guns are outlawed, the outlaws will have guns."
hawgchaser Posted June 27, 2008 Posted June 27, 2008 I don't think this will add more guns to the hands of criminals, but put more guns in the hands of uneducated people with clean records, thus adding to the amount of stray bullets. Thats just my .02 WOW! I really don't understand this way of thinking.....Gun bans have never worked in any town or country...never. Its really simple for me. Without a gun, anyone can break into my home and hurt my wife and I. With my gun, someone breaks in, my dog barks, and I shoot them. My wife and I are safe.
slomoe Posted June 27, 2008 Posted June 27, 2008 Again, go ahead protect yourself, home, family too. But to carry around in a busy city? Meh..Maybe it is just my train of thought. What I fear is alot of people going to the store to purchase a sense of empowerment. What alot of people don't understand is alot of the crime is gang affiliated. Its not so-and-so's knucklehead cousin robbing the gas station. Im not saying that there aren't stick up's, but Its more organized crime where its not uncommon in some neighborhoods to have two people firing at each other. And now that you got things carrying into broad daylight, not just in neighborhoods, how can you ensure anyones behavior in a stressful situation like that. I see people trying to be heroes. Who knows, maybe things will turn out for the better.
hawgchaser Posted June 27, 2008 Posted June 27, 2008 Who knows, maybe things will turn out for the better. They will
fathom Posted June 27, 2008 Posted June 27, 2008 What we all need to take from this was 4 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices basically voted to abolish the 2nd amendment. scary, ain't it. it wasn't the gun they wanted to abolish...the target was the "inalienable right."
FishingBuds Posted June 27, 2008 Posted June 27, 2008 Hey Slomoe, this ones for you and its a true story let me know whatcha think about it :-?
slomoe Posted June 27, 2008 Posted June 27, 2008 How bout this one. Look all I'm saying is I can't see how more guns = safe thats my last reply
Super User Raul Posted June 27, 2008 Super User Posted June 27, 2008 A normal citizen in Mexico is limited to owning five guns? Yup, but there 's an old say: whomever invented the law also invented a way of bending it without actually breaking it. I can legally own 5 guns, but so can do my wife.
Ballpark Frank Posted June 27, 2008 Posted June 27, 2008 What we all need to take from this was 4 out of 9 Supreme Court Justices basically voted to abolish the 2nd amendment. I read the Dissents from the other four and that is exactly what they were saying. They, like others, use the militia comment to justify their postition, noting that the National Guard is now the militia(wrong). The National Guard is a paid military group under the command of the Governor of the State and the President of the United States. The militia that is referred to in the Second Amendment, is that volunteer militia that helped win our freedom from the King of England by using their own hunting rifles and shotguns that the British tried to ban and confiscate. It is simply dumbfounding to me that these Justices(and much of Congress) are so ignorant of history. One of the first actions that all dictators have initiated when they come to power, is to disarm the people; King George III, Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, Castro, Pol Pot, Amin, the list goes on. It has always amazed me that the entire "separation of church and state" is based on a letter by Thomas Jefferson and is not in any official US document for the era. Yet, when it comes to the Second Amendment, the anti's fail to read or they simply ignore the many writings of the Founding Fathers that refer to the ownership of arms(like Zell's Washington quote).
Ballpark Frank Posted June 27, 2008 Posted June 27, 2008 How bout this one. Look all I'm saying is I can't see how more guns = safe thats my last reply Accidents happen, even to experienced gun owners. Have you ever gotten stuck with a fish hook?
Super User Catt Posted June 27, 2008 Super User Posted June 27, 2008 Slomoe no one put it as eloquently as our founding fathers "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764
moby bass Posted June 27, 2008 Posted June 27, 2008 IMHO, gun bans have little to do with the left's desire to control crime and more to do with their desire to control your life. They want you to rely on the government for everything, including protection. They DO NOT want you to take any responsibility for your own actions, and that includes defending oneself. You are not smart enough to control your life. You must have some higher authority tell you what to do, every step of the way, cradle to grave. Do not smoke, do not drink, wear a seatbelt, kids, wear a bike helmet, do not eat fast food. Do not choose your own medical care, let us do it for you. Do not defend yourself, let us do it for you. Criminals need not take responsibility for their actions either. When someone rapes a child, its not his fault. He was abused as a child and therefore he is not responsible for his conduct. As some one else stated, we are extremely lucky that the high court didn't just obliterate the entire 2nd amendment. We came dangerously close.
Super User flechero Posted June 27, 2008 Super User Posted June 27, 2008 But to carry around in a busy city? Hundreds of thousands have carry permits in this country... you rarely ever hear about an incident with a permit holder. But the decision in DC was NOT about permits to carry. The guns will be in homes, at least the legal ones... a police officer killed an unarmed man because he accidently discharged his weapon. That's sad but the decision does not affect a police officer, even ones who need additional training. but Its more organized crime where its not uncommon in some neighborhoods to have two people firing at each other. No worries, the criminal already have guns out there, as you point out. The difference now is that when they break into a house, the law abiding homeowner may choose to defend himself and his family from these thugs. I see people trying to be heroes Statistically that RARELY happens, even in places that have carry permits. Slomoe, I disagree with your opinion but that's it. I do agree that guns are not for everyone... and even with no gun control, many people would elect not to own one. But the difference is that I believe you and I should have the choice. I believe that each person has the right to CHOOSE what is best for them, instead of the gov't telling us. Not allowing me to own a gun is actually the same as making you own one... which would be wrong.
Super User Catt Posted June 27, 2008 Super User Posted June 27, 2008 I understand slomoe's point of view since I spent a year selling guns for Academy Sports & Outdoors and have drawn the conclusion that not everyone should own a gun and thank God we had the option to refuse to sell them one. I could scare the _ _ _ _ out of y'all with stories of some of the people who tried to buy a gun. I believe a total background check including mental history should be required and first time gun owners should be required to attend a firearm safety course equal to military training.
Super User roadwarrior Posted June 27, 2008 Author Super User Posted June 27, 2008 The NRA supports (timely) background checks AND training. I am in total agreement with Catt on this (and just about everything else!). 8-)
Siebert Outdoors Posted June 27, 2008 Posted June 27, 2008 I understand slomoe's point of view since I spent a year selling guns for Academy Sports & Outdoors and have drawn the conclusion that not everyone should own a gun and thank God we had the option to refuse to sell them one. I could scare the _ _ _ _ out of y'all with stories of some of the people who tried to buy a gun. I believe a total background check including mental history should be required and first time gun owners should be required to attend a firearm safety course equal to military training. Catt, I agree with that and I doubt you could scare me. LOL I've been in the same shoes for alot of years. Yes, one thing I do believe in is everyone taking a training course or hunters ed. Doesnt matter on age. I am all for #2 admendment but making yourself safer and understanding a firearm is something everyone should do. Teaching especially young ones quality gun possesion and handling should be a must. Hidding a firearm from kids isnt an answer. Teach them.
slomoe Posted June 27, 2008 Posted June 27, 2008 I appreciate everyone keeping there comments reasonable. I sometime type from gut feelings. I am not against DC's decision, for the constitution is really the last say in Americas Freedom but when I get home from work and turn on the TV to see reports of double and triple homicides every other night, the thought of more guns just makes me uneasy. Believe me I am NOT cool with the Government making decisions for me. ;D My last reply, really..
Super User roadwarrior Posted June 27, 2008 Author Super User Posted June 27, 2008 Agreed...So, to keep it that way...Thanks everyone! Good night Irene.
Recommended Posts