[Surffrog]

Originally Posted by Doomwitha929

Yes, if a small % of people misuse something then everyone's ability to have or use said item/items should be taken away. I am sure you would then agree that because some people drive drunk or dangerously cars should be banned. Not to mention KNIFES! There are many times more crimes and deaths as a result of those so they should go before guns. Just because YOU are not interested in something like hunting or shooting you think it is ok to take away everyone's ability to enjoy it. How about we do away with TV and video games because they make people fat so you die of heart disease or a stroke? How about we do away with bungee jumping, mountain biking and horse riding because they are all responsible for more injuries then guns. Oh we can't do that because YOU like those things.
You people are missing a big point here. Besides the need for guns a huge issue is the fact the GOVT DOES NOT HAVE THE RIGHT to decide if we should be able to have guns. What made you people think it was your decision? When the Govt begins to restrict your rights it is time to change the Govt. OH, that in fact is the reason we are supposed to have guns.

Note the Constitution does not give you the right to bear arms. The Constitution enforces that we have the INHERENT RIGHT to bear arms.

You do not ban something because some people misuse it, you punish THOSE people. Problem is people are so damn lazy today (Govt,Police) that is is easier for them to Ban guns and screw everyone that likes them then to do their jobs and catch, punish, stop the people that are using them in the wrong way.
There is no position for banning guns that can be backed up by facts or reasonable thought. It does NOT lower crime, It does NOT keep guns away from criminals, It does NOT stop gun violence, It does NOT do anything to further the safety of the public, It DOES make it practically impossible for the average person to defend home or family against a threat. It DOES let criminals know if they break into a house or attack a person they will not be in danger of being shot. It DOES take away the peoples ability to defend themselves from their Govt.

If you think you can depend on the police to protect you?
Most attacks/ shootings are over in a matter of minutes if not seconds. The probability of someone breaking into your house or attacking you on the street you or someone else calling the police and them showing up before you are shot, stabbed, raped, killed, robbed etc are almost 0. If the police do not save you they are in no way responsible for what happens to you. So you are putting your life in the hands of a force that is for the most part composed of people who are badly trained, if you are lucky average intelligence, MAY be physically fit, underpaid and are in no way legally motivated to keep you safe or save you if you are in danger.

Originally Posted by Doomwitha929

Had another thought.
"get rid of sharp toys and kids stop stabbing eachother"
Totally wrong. Get rid of sharp toys and only the criminal kids that stab people have the shap toys because they don't care if the toys are illegal. Get rid of sharp toys and all the other kids have nothing to defend themselves with when a kid with a sharp toy or big heavy toy or a kid who is just pumped on drugs and wacked out or insane or mad cuz this kid messed with his wife comes to kill him.

I'll say it again.
If you want to ban guns stick by your decision.
We make a list of everyone who wants to ban guns and everyone who wants to keep them.
If someone who wanted to keep guns is robbed, killed etc and was unable to defend them selves because they had no gun and the cops never showed up then all the people on the should ban list are responsible for his loss.
If someone who was for banning guns gets shot then all the police are held responsible for their loss since they failed to do their job and keep illegal guns out of the criminals hands.
If someone who was for the ban is killed, raped etc by someone without a gun they just deal with it because they chose not to have a gun for defense.
If someone who was against the ban is robbed etc by someone without a gun the police are help responsible because they did not keep him safe.


Or even better! If you want a gun you have one. If you do not you do not have one. If you commit a crime with your gun you pay for it. If you have no gun you take your chances on the police to keep you safe. If a criminal gets a gun illegaly and uses it in a crime the police find him and he is punished.OH WAIT that is how it is supposed to be now!

I couldn't have said it better

[dr256]

Logic has left the building!

[Surffrog]

Originally Posted by dr256

Logic has left the building!

Well, Dr, we normally agree on stuff, but I'm afraid on this matter we don't. And I don't want my hands tied behind my back by laws that the criminals don't abide by. I want to be in a position whereby if some little toe rag piece of sh!t tries to break in and hurt me or my family then I can protect myself and them.

If you can genuinely find fault with that logic I would like to hear it.

[dr256]

Hi Surf,

I was answering to Doom's list idea.
Evidently you clicked the button before me...

If it stands that, when someone who is on the ban guns list is raped etc they have to deal with it because they banned guns,
then equally one could argue,
If someone who is on the keep guns list is raped at gunpoint they just have to deal with because they wanted to keep guns.

Remembering that you don't always have your gun in your hand just in case you, as Doom argues, have seconds to react, there will be, and are, occasions when people on the keep guns lists are attacked and unable to defend themselves despite having a gun in the trunk of the car, bedroom cupboard etc.
So therefore under Dooms logic any pro-gun supporter who is attacked and raped at gunpoint just has to deal with it!

Which kinda doesn't make sense.

[Doomwitha929]

actually not because deciding to allow the LAWFUL use and possesion of handguns does not mean we are responsible for criminal use. The POLICE are responsible for that. I can't understand why people keep insisting that Law abiding citizens are responsible for criminal use of guns. Is that not why we have LAW Enforcement?
People who do decide to ban guns should be responsible because they chose to remove guns from LAW ABIDING people that would have used them for self defense. If they said "lets MAKE SURE criminals don't get guns" that would be diff but that is not the case. They are saying criminals are using guns so lets take them away from everyone. By that logic we should ban cars, tire irons, rocks, knifes, bats, rope, and a rack of other crap that causes more deaths every year then guns.
there is an add that says something like "400,000,000 gun owners didn't shoot anyone last year" The point being that the ration of legal gun owners to gun crime is VERY low.
I'll make it simple. The FACTS are that gun bans do not lower crime POINT BLANK. There is NO argument against this it is a proven FACT. It has been proven again and again. Anyone that insists that banning guns will save more lives and lower crime is in direct conflict with reason.

[imcamod81]

Originally Posted by Doomwitha929

Note the Constitution does not give you the right to bear arms. The Constitution enforces that we have the INHERENT RIGHT to bear arms.

Thomas Jefferson is credited with writing the bulk of the U.S. Constitution. He believed, as did the other framer's of the Constitution, that we are born with certain rights. They held these rights as unalienable rights. They listed them as part of the Constitution.

I tried to channel Thomas Jefferson in my first post. I tried to display the angst that he might have displayed had he been able to reply to this thread. I rather doubt I was severe enough to garner respect.

If you agree with the framer's of the Constitution, then you believe that we are born with certain rights, rights that a government cannot take away from you. If on the other hand you are arguing the other side, then you believe that we are born without rights and are allowed only those rights that government bestows upon us.

That is the crux of the argument, Natural Law. It has nothing to do with guns!!!!

[ghbzorro]

Originally Posted by imcamod81

That is the crux of the argument, Natural Law. It has nothing to do with guns!!!!

I am not a gun owner. I would never have a handgun in my house. If I lived in a place that needed me to wear a gun, I would move. I believe that people selling or buying guns illegally should be put away for a very long time.

But I reject the notion that the government of my nation (different situation if I am a visitor elsewhere, like now) can stop me or any other law-abiding person from owning one.

[bjay51d]

Has anyone heard from FB100inPA...The news just had a story about a gun owner that was concerned about obama taking his guns.He had a shootout with the cop killing 3 PA officers...

[fireblade929]

Originally Posted by bjay51d

Has anyone heard from FB100inPA...The news just had a story about a gun owner that was concerned about obama taking his guns.He had a shootout with the cop killing 3 PA officers...

I think its this type of guy that makes it rough for all of us that own and carry guns. I have a ccp, have had it for many years, my father was a gunsmith, my dad is also a gunsmith hobbyist. My take...

I believe that all humans have the right to protect themselves, no quibble there. However, as a gun enthusiast, I think there are certain ideals that the gun shooting public should adopt. Because not all of us have an innate ability to use mechanical things, and many times, someone can be totally logical and right minded when given certain liberties, and then go completely off the deep end when given too many liberties. Many times I've gone to the range to see some idiot gun owner do something unsafe, or even stupid. Many times, familiarity breeds contempt, in this case, it was contempt for some of the simplest rules that we (meaning gunowners) all abide by.
Checking to see if the gun is loaded, never point the gun at anyone unless you intend to use it...etc..most of us, I hope would know the rules.

Unfortunately, there are those individuals out there that do not either know the rules, or refuse to follow them, these are the idiots that cause the public to even think about banning guns. As Surf said earlier, we jail the criminal for the activity, not ban the activity. I do believe that there should certainly be some common sense rules about carrying guns, as I live in Tennessee, our gun laws here are (gulp) quite liberal. In other words, the definition of "in fear for my life" is pretty self-explanatory, and you can literally shoot someone if you have that fear reasonably.

Okay, so far, all well and good. But, now you take the dr of emergency surgery at a hospital, who takes his 8 year old son to a gun show, and lets him shoot an uzi..obviously this parent was out to lunch. The boy shot the weapon, and the recoil pulled the barrel up until the kid was shot in the head and died right there. With his parent, and the organizer of the gun show standing feet away. To me, thats ludicriously stupid. I grew up with guns, had my first bb gun when I was 8 years old, took hunters safety at 12, and had my first 20 gauge shot gun about the same time. To me, this is a more controlled environment, and should be mandatory for anyone that intends to carry a gun. Common sense legislation has already been passed, so it shouldn't be a big deal to get done.

But as long as we have idiots that are willing to shoot a bullet straight up in the air for no good reason..we will have people that give the government amunition (pardon the pun) to try and ban guns outright. Its those people, and of course the felons, that need to be reigned in. Unfortunately, our prisons are full of non-violent drug offenders (80% of all inmates today are there for non-violent offenses)(we also jail more people than any other country on the planet, bar none.)(6 million at last count)

Our country has been lacking common sense for some time. People have knee jerk reactions to all sorts of **** that honestly don't deserve that kind of reaction. On both sides of the political aisle.

First, Obama is not trying to get our guns, so relax. He has a helluva lot more on his plate than that. Our erstwhile "decider" made sure of that (worst president I've ever seen..bar none). He may put a tax on ammo, etc, but, thats just so that gun enthusiasts will clean up after themselves..which many of us already do, but, you know, you've seen em at the gun club, guys that come in, blow a few boxes of shells, then leave their mess, don't police their area, etc. I know I've seen it.

And then there's the gun shows that will sell a weapon to anyone, whether they should have a gun or not. A simple background check to me, is not a big deal. It doesn't have to be deep or invasive, but, can just do a quick check of criminal records, to find out if someone is either a felon, or, a mental case. For instance, to me, if your a felon, you don't get a gun..Period. You gave up that right when you broke the law, the laws are quite stringent on that, and I believe its a good deterent. If you commit any kind of crime with a gun in your possession, you again, lose the right to carry, automatically. You don't get the right back until you've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that your capable of making good decisions. I also believe that the right to carry a concealed weapon should require a class, not only on gun safety, but also on what to do in different situations.

In the end, its up to us gun owners to make sure that we each follow common sense practices, so that we can continue to carry. Crying foul every time someone says they want our guns, or demeaning the other side of the argument will not win friends, or for that matter, backers of our side of the argument.

You gotta admit, lately, there's been an uptick in gun violence..and it ain't comin from the liberals, its coming from the far right wing, conservative whack jobs that think Obama is bringing socialism, they can't stand it, even tho they don't even have a clue to what it is, they run into their local church, or worse, one thats not local, and start shooting. I've seen 5 cases of this in just the last 3 months, and all of them were similiar.
thats what will get the gns taken away. To many adolescents (maturity wise) with guns. who misuse the right, all because someone got them pumped up over something political that more than likely didn't even resemble the truth.
To close, (I know, long winded as hell, sorry)I think we should continue to have the right to keep and bear arms, but, I also think that not just any person should carry a gun. The following should not be allowed to carry a gun, right or no right..convicted felons, mental patients, children under the age of 18(for concealed permits, hunting, target and so forth, I got no problem with, also, under the age of 18 an adult should be required to supervise any gun activity). If your older than 18, and can demonstrate the ability to reason, think, and make good decisions..no problem, carry all ya want. If your under the age, and you have trouble doing any of the above..I don't think you should be allowed to carry..to me, thats just common sense.

[FB1000inPA]

Nope, it wasn't me. I am not a criminal and that's the big problem many don't realize here. It's the criminals who use weapons to kill and not the legal citizens of this country.

Btw - in my county the legal registrations of firearms was roughly 150. This year we are already up to 1300+. I don't think I am the only one who is concerned with Obama.

And don't get me started in that liberal pig Pelosi. What a f@&*ing c()nt.

[TexasTraffic]

Originally Posted by FB1000inPA

............
And don't get me started in that liberal pig Pelosi. What a f@&*ing c()nt.

I think a large part of her problem is that she's not f@&*ing.

That would make me an irritable, irrational control freak, too.


So, who's willing to step up & take one for the team?

[FB1000inPA]

It has to be someone from the Peoples Republic of Californica.

[TexasTraffic]

Originally Posted by fireblade929

....when given certain liberties...
...when given too many liberties. ...

We are not given freedom or liberty. It is already ours, and the government is in place to protect these. That is why the US constitution defines and limits government, not people.

Originally Posted by fireblade929

... Many times I've gone to the range to see some idiot gun owner do something unsafe, or even stupid. ....

Training, or the lack of.

Originally Posted by fireblade929

Our country has been lacking common sense for some time.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by fireblade929

First, Obama is not trying to get our guns, so relax.

No, I will NOT relax!
Are you daft? completely blind to his past behavior?

Originally Posted by fireblade929

And then there's the gun shows that will sell a weapon to anyone, whether they should have a gun or not.

You keep using the word "should". This is a red flag warning anyone within earshot that someone is trying to control others.

Originally Posted by fireblade929

A simple background check to me, is not a big deal. It doesn't have to be deep or invasive, but....

"...but..." There's another red flag completely negating what comes before it. You just told me "...it does have to be deep and invasive..."

Originally Posted by fireblade929

...If you commit any kind of crime with a gun in your possession, you again, lose the right to carry,

Please review the definition of a "RIGHT".
A right that you need a license to exercise is NOT a right!

Originally Posted by fireblade929

... I also believe that the right to carry a concealed weapon should require a class, not only on gun safety, but also on what to do in different situations.

You appear to be unfamiliar with CHL classes. These are the main topics in CHL classes (the law, de-escalation, when NOT to draw the gun...).
And there you go with placing prior requirements (licensing, taxes, fees) on exercising a right!

Originally Posted by fireblade929

... we each follow common sense practices.

No such thing.

Originally Posted by fireblade929

...will not win friends

I'm not looking to make friends. I am, however, rather insistent upon being able to exercise my rights without someone trying to take them away.

Originally Posted by fireblade929

... conservative whack jobs that think Obama is bringing socialism

Look at his actions. You think he's NOT moving quickly toward Socialism? What I see is clearly that he is.

Originally Posted by fireblade929

...I think we should continue to have the right to keep and bear arms, but...

With quibbling 'friends' like you, we have already lost.

Originally Posted by fireblade929

...not just any person should carry a gun...
...the following should not be allowed....
... an adult should be required...
...I don't think you should be allowed...

CONTROL, CONTROL, CONTROL, CONTROL!

Gun CONTROL is not about guns.

[bjay51d]

Originally Posted by FB1000inPA

Nope, it wasn't me. I am not a criminal and that's the big problem many don't realize here. It's the criminals who use weapons to kill and not the legal citizens of this country.

Btw - in my county the legal registrations of firearms was roughly 150. This year we are already up to 1300+. I don't think I am the only one who is concerned with Obama.

And don't get me started in that liberal pig Pelosi. What a f@&*ing c()nt.

He wasnt a criminal until his partner pissed him off...But he did seem to have the same ideals as you...I remember you saying you wouldnt let them take your guns...Sorry about the mix up.

[FB1000inPA]

Registration usually leads to confiscation. Do you remember recent German history? Or maybe Russian or any Eastern block country's history?

[imcamod81]

Here is what Jefferson thought about guns and gun control. This is from Wikipedia.

Jefferson's commitment to liberty extended to many areas of individual freedom. In his "Commonplace Book," he copied a passage from Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria related to the issue of gun control. The quote reads, "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."

The following quote is the original draft of the preamble to the declaration of independence. The final draft has some significant changes to it. This is what Jefferson wanted in the opening.

Again, we see how one of the founding fathers felt about the very important issues facing the new nation.

In the Preamble to his original draft of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson wrote:
“We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government shall become destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, & to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles & organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety & happiness.[49]

[FB1000inPA]

Why am I not surprised about this article?

EDITORIAL: 'We want them registered' - Washington Times

Funny that the "Comments are temporarily unavailable". I wonder why??

[Doomwitha929]

Originally Posted by Surffrog

I also believe all gun owners should be registered. I don't think this is a problem though, as anyone with a genuine intention to protect themselves or their family should have no objection to registration. Whereas, someone with crime as their intention would not wish the weapon to be registered to them.

Carry on fighting for your right to protect yourselves, guys. I'm with ya

OK, The problem people have with their guns being registered is that there is NO good reason to support it. Gun registration has NEVER (this is a statistical fact by the way) helped in lowering crime) There have been several measures developed to help gun crimes be connected to the owner such as registration, logging shell casings (as used in MD, this process has NEVER (admitted by the police dept) done any good in finding the criminal who convicted a gun crime) nore has it in any other state. It has been proven AGAIN AND AGAIN! I do not understand why people cannot get this through their heads. Making laws outlawing guns ONLY keeps guns out of the hands of law abiding people. OUTLAWS DO NOT OBEY THE LAW.
When you buy a gun they can do an instant background check and off you go with your gun. Why do you need to reg it with the govt? If you pass the background check what need does the govt have for a list of gun owners? One of the BASIC uses of owning a gun is for the peples protection against their own govt. News flash this was the very reason why it was considered a basic right in the constitution. People in America are so simple they believe our govt will never do anything against the people. Maybe not, I do not think I am going to crash my motorcycle but I still wear a helmet.

[ghbzorro]

Originally Posted by Doomwitha929

One of the BASIC uses of owning a gun is for the peples protection against their own govt. News flash this was the very reason why it was considered a basic right in the constitution.

Doom, we often disagree, but I am with you on the gun control issue (my thoughts have changed on this fairly recently), and I accept the above. Hmmm. Maybe that's the whole point? Guns are to ensure that the government can't overdo it, not to kill somebody who threatens you? More thinking required.

[dr256]

Gadgets for your Guns! Time to accessorize...

From iPhone Apps to Beer Holders, Killer Accessories for Your Guns | Danger Room | Wired.com

[spina220]

If your worried about someone breaking into your house, get a dog, not a big scary dog that will do nothing, but a little dog that barks when it hears something outside. I have lived in some pretty rough areas and never even had to look at my guns when it comes to being worried about a break in, bottom line is, to all that are paranoid, get a good watch dog to buy you those couple of minutes you need to pull out.

[Twincam]

Originally Posted by spina220

If your worried about someone breaking into your house, get a dog, not a big scary dog that will do nothing, but a little dog that barks when it hears something outside. I have lived in some pretty rough areas and never even had to look at my guns when it comes to being worried about a break in, bottom line is, to all that are paranoid, get a good watch dog to buy you those couple of minutes you need to pull out.

How long does it take for you to get yours? It should be by your bedside

[spina220]

Originally Posted by Twincam

How long does it take for you to get yours? It should be by your bedside

Yes Twin, it is by the bedside I will rephrase and say an extra second or two.

[ghbzorro]

Originally Posted by spina220

... get a good watch dog to buy you those couple of minutes you need to pull out.

If I was in bed with my wife and I heard somebody in my house it wouldn't take more than half a second to pull out.

And I don't have any firearms

[spina220]

Like I said ,I don't go to sleep every night thinking someone is going to break into my house, I sleep real good at night especially where I live now. It is very important to master the pull out ghbzorro, firearms or no firearms.

[Doomwitha929]

I don't go for every ride thinking I will crash but I wear my gear and prepare for the crash anyway.

[edp]

Advice is out there to not sleep with a handgun under your pillow for obvious reasons. The work around on this is to 1) sleep with 2 pillows - one for your head and one leaned up on the headboard. 2) slip your handgun deep inside the pillowcase on the headboard pillow - It's there, it's safe, and it's very accessible.
This method has worked for me for 20 years. I also have dogs and an electronic security system. This buys a lot of time - and no, I've never had occasion to use deadly force to defend my family. Then again, I haven't used my life insurance policy yet either.

[reefkprZ]

basicly long story short I am a gun owner, I own them leagaly, its my right as laid down by the founding fathers of this country, when they change the laws to out law guns I will become an outlaw. I will not surrender my arms.

Any goverment that is afraid of its Law abiding citizens owning guns, is probably afraid becuase they know they should not be in power, We as citizens Have the obligation to bear arms in case the military cannot cope with foriegn invasion. as well as to defend ourselves and our families and properties from those who would do us harm.

for those of you Who say "move to a nicer neighbor hood", lots of home invasions happen in these nice neighborhoods because no one expects them to because "its such a nice neigbor hood". Wake up.

I have dogs, and guns, if some one breaks into my house and I suspect they are armed they are leaving on a stretcher, or in a bag. (needless to say if you break into my house I am going to assume you are armed). and if your not armed you better arm yourself.

In my opinion there is no such thing as an "innocent" criminal, if your breaking into my house I dont care if your after my tv or my life, the threat is the same to me, I earned everything I have and I will defend it. and to those that wont defend what they have, your the type that criminals rely on. you can thank yourself for the increasing rates of crime.

[Doomwitha929]

FUNNY THING you should mention that about crimes in nice areas. Two weeks ago my Girlfriends house was robbed. She lives in a very nice and established area with very low crime. Luckily she was not home, I much rather her be robbed and not at home then to have had the guys show up while she was there. Maybe they would have just kept going maybe not.

Gun Cntrol: The theory a woman laying raped and strangled in an ally is some how morally superior to a woman explaining to the police how her attacker got the fatal bullet wound.