AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 14, 2011 9:11:55 GMT -5
Yep. Like I posted- we have tested the gun control arguments, and they have come up short in the living laboratory of the last 12 to 14 years. It's no longer a debate. Everything the gun controllers promised us has been tested, and it has failed in everyplace where it has been tried. Everything advocates for the natural right of a person to defend themselves-- which has now been confirmed by SCOTUS which makes it the law of the land regardless of unConstitutional laws states and localities may have. In other words, you can-- at the very least-- possess a gun in your home for self defense everywhere in the United States-- Chicago, NYC, LA-- wherever you live, you're legal. You may not be able to carry-- but I suspect there will be clarification of that within the next several years.
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Mar 14, 2011 9:15:49 GMT -5
PBP, it is amazing that every state that has passed Concealed Carry, Castle and Stand Your Ground laws has had their crime rates drop, rather than skyrocket like the libs predicted.
|
|
ugonow
Senior Member
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 3,397
|
Post by ugonow on Mar 14, 2011 9:16:38 GMT -5
I don't think there is any argument,contrary to what you may hear, gun laws have been relaxed hugely the last few years all across the country,and the movement is growing.
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Mar 14, 2011 12:52:02 GMT -5
PBP, it is amazing that every state that has passed Concealed Carry, Castle and Stand Your Ground laws has had their crime rates drop, rather than skyrocket like the libs predicted. Of course, that makes perfect sense. Now look at a place like Mexico, where it is mostly illegal for private citizens to own firearms. They have no crime in Mexico, right?
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on Mar 14, 2011 13:40:42 GMT -5
So you just want everyone to have a gun at their fingertips, right? I mean, never mind if they're psychotic, convicted felons, or even illegals or people who have renounced their citizenship. You know, all those classes of people the Brady Law covers. When I was a kid, if we took a shortcut across someone's yard on the way home from school, the worst thing we could expect was for someone to yell at us. I guess future generations will have to worry about some trigger-happy yahoo shooting them dead for trespassing. Oh yeah, give guns to just anyone so they can start shooting up families and children on a public road. www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30650051/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/Yeah, three teen-aged girls were, admittedly, on his property hoping to see some ghosts and this idiot decided to act as though he was Billy the Kid holed up by the corrupt Lincoln County Sheriff and his posse. He was good enough to fire the rifle out of his window, but didn't have sense enough to YELL through it first. Hey, why not ask them to leave first before breaking out the guns and firing at people? Yeah, not the kind of country I want to live in, thank you very much.
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Mar 14, 2011 13:45:58 GMT -5
Shrina, like a true gun banner, you insist on twisting words. The Brady Law is a joke, never was in place long enough to stop anything, and was replaced by the instant check system. Try to keep up with the gun banner lies!
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on Mar 14, 2011 13:52:44 GMT -5
Haha, I knew someone would accuse me of being a "gun banner" despite the fact that I made it perfectly clear that I do not oppose citizens owning guns. I even put it in big bold red letters and still someone didn't bother to notice.
That's not the point. The point is that I'm in favor of regulations that will keep guns out of the hands of people outlined in the Brady Law.
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Mar 14, 2011 13:59:53 GMT -5
Shirina, We have those laws. All we need is updated systems and some way to stop ILLEGAL gun sales.
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on Mar 14, 2011 14:09:11 GMT -5
[/size]
I can go along with that ... so ... what were we arguing about again?
I'm not suggesting we need more laws, but think having fewer isn't the way to go either. This is especially true with some of these Wyatt Earp politicians who believe gun ownership should be mandatory or that there should be no "gun-free" zones ... not even schools(!).
For some local communities like Kennesaw, GA, it might work, but state or nationwide? Uh uh, no way.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 14, 2011 14:30:06 GMT -5
The Brady law doesn't target people who shouldn't have guns, it targets guns. It targets a lot of guns that had nothing to do with the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan (in which, Secret Servic Agent James Brady was severely wounded, and permanently injured / paralyzed).
I'm in favor of "regualtions" that keep guns out of the hands of people that shouldn't have them because I'm in favor of geniunely long prison sentences (truth in sentencing) and the death penalty.
If they don't leave prison, or a mental institution-- which is a place where we should keep people who pose a deadly threat to themselves and others-- then they can't get a gun.
Everyone else should be REQUIRED to buy a gun. And why not? We're supposedly REQUIRED to buy health insurance.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 14, 2011 14:49:35 GMT -5
I'm for guns in the hands of adults in K-12 schools; and I'm for concealed carry on college campuses. Minors should have the opportunity to use guns at a range under close adult supervision as part of their schooling- like driving. In terms of carrying a gun, minors shouldn't but ANY adult that's legal to carry a concealed weapon in ANY state that permits it shouldn't have their Constitutional rights end at the school yard; or for that matter Constitutional rights shouldn't end at the college campus. This is especially true of taxpayer funded, government run schools. Private schools I think could, based on their private property rights, prohibit gun possession on their private property- and then their "customers" - the parents of their students who are paying the bill would have to make a determination about whether that's a place they would like to choose to send their kids. You know, it's like liberals seem to want a crime free-for-all in our schools, and on our college campuses, and on our airplanes-- where again, I think airlines-- if they so choose-- and many obviously would not-- could allow pilot, crew, and even passengers legal to carry, the right to carry aboard a plane. I think government has overstepped far enough with "gun control" and if you're in favor of laws like the Brady Bill-- you're a gun controller. If you think people should have the right to own guns, that's one thing-- I think people have the right to USE guns for self defense. One teacher with a gun at Columbine High School, four guns aboard four airplanes on 9.11.01. And imagine if the school board members had guns at the Florida incident where fortunately a couragous woman with a purse and an armed security guard took on the shooter? Imagine a world in which criminals can count on their heads being blown off. That's a world I want to live in. www.northescambia.com/?p=11533If liberals are gonna let em go, conservatives have to have a way to kill them. Firearms have been proven very effective. How about next time, instead of letting him go, we just shoot him. You see the time and money this saves, right?
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Mar 14, 2011 16:11:21 GMT -5
Back in the year 1, when I went to college, many of the guys kept guns in their dorms. Yep, they hunted in their down time. No big deal!
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Mar 14, 2011 18:25:31 GMT -5
Back in the year 1, when I went to college, many of the guys kept guns in their dorms. Yep, they hunted in their down time. No big deal! They would be arrested and sent to prison today. See how far we have fallen?
|
|
Shirina
Well-Known Member
Card carrying member of the Kitty Klub!!
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 23:15:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,200
|
Post by Shirina on Mar 15, 2011 10:34:01 GMT -5
That way we can have teachers snap and shoot a misbehaving kid.
Do you seriously believe that the Founders' intent was to allow adults to parade around in a school with weapons?
Yeah, that way if some trigger-happy cowboy type sees some Muslims praying, he can pull that baby out and shoot them, or worse still, put a few rounds through the side of the plane. Nothing like a sudden loss of cabin pressure to ensure a safe landing.
With everyone carrying a gun, we may as well just disband the police and repeal the amendment granting us the right to a trial. Just summary executions on the spot performed by neighborhood civilians.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 15, 2011 10:59:09 GMT -5
Americans have had plenty of opportunity- most notably on 9.12.01 to shoot all the muslims we want. We didn't do it. In fact, my muslim neighbors came over the night of 9.11.01 and apologized to us and explained muslims don't believe these things. On 9.12.01 we ate dinner with them, we sat around on cushions at their house and ate wonderful food with our hands-- our RIGHT hands (oops, I learned that the hard way) and they told us about Isalm, and we told them how they were wrong, going to hell if they don't accept Jesus Christ as their savior and the ONLY way to heaven....not really, well sort of... We did share our beliefs and there was plenty of mutual respect. I didn't even get my gun when I saw them at the door. We would need fewer police, and many police would be deputized members of the community and not public employee union types with pensions that start after 15 years of service at the age of 47. It'd be much better. Read more: notmsnmoney.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=politics&action=display&thread=4674&page=3#ixzz1GmJhAkyw
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 15, 2011 11:02:59 GMT -5
Shirina- you got anything to say about #71?
|
|
henryclay
Senior Member
Joined: Feb 5, 2011 19:03:37 GMT -5
Posts: 3,685
|
Post by henryclay on Mar 15, 2011 11:05:28 GMT -5
"........... Do you seriously believe that the Founders' intent was to allow adults to parade around in a school with weapons? .........."
My history classes made me think that was part of life back then. Maybe they taught history a little differently when I was in school.
".........we may as well just disband the police ......"
I believe the country's first organized police force didn't happen until New York formed one in 1849. I wonder how people managed before that. I guess they depended on Marshalls, Constables and Militias, a sort of irregular band of off-the-wall law enforcers. A related fact is that as late as the Civil War the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Roger B. Taney was also a Circuit Court judge in Maryland.
Things have changed, and are still changing. Some things are changing back to what they used to be like. Others are going to.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 15, 2011 11:07:00 GMT -5
I was raised that you don't trespass on other people's property, or you might get shot. Of course, a lot of my family was from Rural KS, and southern IL. The rest of my family was from Chicago, and they taught me not even to look at someone funny, or you might get a beat down, or get killed.
The first time I was shot, I was riding across a farmer's newly planted corn on a moped. Fortunately for me, he loaded up his shotgun with salt pellets. Hurt like hell-- got me mostly in the legs-- but I learned the lesson. There was no "second time" I was shot.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 15, 2011 11:14:50 GMT -5
I saw the author of a book on Stossel the other night whose contention was that those famous Founders of ours really wanted to keep us quiet and docile; and that the real heroes of the revolution were drunkards and whores. It was a book a liberal would absolutely LOVE, about those stogy old white guys vs. the "liberated" ladies of the night.
That is, until someday when it finally dawns on liberals that they ARE the new "puritans". That whores were the first women to carry GUNS and once the "Peacemaker" (the Colt revolver) came out, crime against women-- and particularly crime against women who were thought to have "loose morals" (which was prevalent because they were "fair game" and assaults against them weren't taken very seriously) virtually disappeared.
It's no different today-- a gun is a great equalizer for women.
I hear these stories of "trigger happy cowboys" and the anarchy that would almost certainly ensue if everyone had access to a gun, but the FACT is that we have access to guns-- and the greater access law abiding citizens have, the lower the crime rate. Sure, there's a shooting here and there that libs will seize upon, but there's one statistic they can't quote because it's an invisible benefit: the number of crimes prevented with a gun that go unreported-- and there are a lot of those- especially in places where gun owners fear they might get into trouble on some obscure gun violation in places like Chicago, NYC, San Fran and other crime "free for all" zones liberals have created.
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Mar 15, 2011 11:17:24 GMT -5
yep, the anti-gunners keep predicting chaos if large numbers of people carry. As CCW laws proliferate, the gun banners are proved wrong time and time again. But that doesn't stop them from telling the lies!
|
|
|
Post by ed1066 on Mar 15, 2011 12:16:21 GMT -5
Ever read The Lathe of Heaven by Ursula Leguin?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Mar 28, 2024 5:40:34 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 15, 2011 12:34:47 GMT -5
Ever read The Lathe of Heaven by Ursula Leguin? Yes. One of my wifes and mine favorite stories. Also the wife and I both have concealed carry licenses. We'll not be willing victims of crime any time soon. I once read on line an article titled "would you be willing to forgive someone who committed a violent crime against you or your family". I would have to say no, I do have a better idea though... It would involve a Darwinian natural selection thing.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 15, 2011 13:11:30 GMT -5
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 15, 2011 13:12:49 GMT -5
yep, the anti-gunners keep predicting chaos if large numbers of people carry. As CCW laws proliferate, the gun banners are proved wrong time and time again. But that doesn't stop them from telling the lies! Exactly. They are liars. There's simply no way people of reasonable intelligence and goodwill can be this willfully ignorant of the facts.
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Mar 15, 2011 13:23:08 GMT -5
And unfortunately the 80 year old might face charges for possessing the gun
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Mar 15, 2011 13:38:53 GMT -5
It won't stand up in court. SCOTUS confirmed his right to be armed, hence Chicago's law is unconstitutional.
|
|
vonnie6200
Senior Member
Adopt a Shelter Pet
Joined: Jan 8, 2011 14:07:17 GMT -5
Posts: 2,199
|
Post by vonnie6200 on Mar 15, 2011 13:41:03 GMT -5
It won't stand up in court. SCOTUS confirmed his right to be armed, hence Chicago's law is unconstitutional.
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Mar 15, 2011 14:17:16 GMT -5
It won't stand up in court. SCOTUS confirmed his right to be armed, hence Chicago's law is unconstitutional. That's why they won't enforce it in any high profile way, but trust me when I say people in and around Chicago do not take the rule of law for granted. We used to joke, "In Chicago, you may be right, but you'll still be in dead" (or in jail, or out of your property, etc).
|
|
Bluerobin
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 14:24:30 GMT -5
Posts: 17,345
Location: NEPA
|
Post by Bluerobin on Mar 15, 2011 14:23:34 GMT -5
Even in Chicago, I want to see the jury that will convict the old guy. You know with Mayor Rahm, they will play games, but the law of the land will ultimately prevail.
|
|
Frappuccino
Junior Member
Joined: Jan 16, 2011 18:58:33 GMT -5
Posts: 161
|
Post by Frappuccino on Mar 16, 2011 1:27:36 GMT -5
I live alone and would love to have a gun for protection. But, I am afraid of getting arrested after defending myself against someone who is going to attack me. I do not want to spend my life in prison and it seems that it would be better to let the criminal attack than risk prison. www.sacbee.com/2011/01/21/3340265/shooting.htmlI'm sure this guy won't get jail time, but imagine if there hadn't been any witnesses to corroborate his story.
|
|