B
Bogtrotter07
Guest
PS. Does anyone have figures on how far the armed home invasions or breakins have dropped or diminished since teeth have been put into that legislation everywhere in the US?
Opinions/Discussions on Guns
- Thread starter irishff1014
- Start date
Polish Leppy 22
Well-known member
- Messages
- 6,594
- Reaction score
- 2,009
1) Sooooo everyone in Chicago left the state to buy their guns? OK. I'll take your word for it since you're in Colorado.
2) The president can bring up gun legislation whenever he wants. My point was no president can simply remove all guns and bullets from the streets. He'd need a lot of help re-writing the Constitution.
3) Speaking of putting words in people's mouths, I didn't advocate "do nothing" here. I will argue all day with the CNN anchor (and those like him) who says we need to "take all guns and bullets off the streets." I got my license to carry and went through a heavy background check to obtain it lawfully. I'm not sure what other ideas you have in mind for regulation. Mental health evaluations? Lie detector tests?
The biggest cause of death in the US is heart disease. You don't see the government shutting down fast food joints, banning liquor, tabaccor, etc...
4) I will, and would encourage others, to protect their families in whichever way they see fit as long as it is within the law.
G
Grahambo
Guest
If i understand it correctly, and I may not; this might be the wrong interpretation but wouldn't he technically just need SCOTUS to reverse their interpretation of the 2nd Amendment?
phgreek
New member
- Messages
- 6,956
- Reaction score
- 433
wide open question...NO, if I'm purchasing a weapon used to hunt (ie limited capacity long gun like a shotgun or rifle).
Yes, if it is a handgun or other weapon not traditionally used to hunt with.
phgreek
New member
- Messages
- 6,956
- Reaction score
- 433
...maybe. Its possible, that in this term, he gets a supreme Court to support that.
...but careful what you wish for...(don't mean you personally)
irishff1014
Well-known member
- Messages
- 26,511
- Reaction score
- 9,285
I on't think it would probably help much in these cases. However it will probably help in more Family Domestic situations. where it is a father killing his wife and kids. And others like Children killing just family meembers and ot going to the school like this case.
I don't know that exact numbers but i wonder how many lives this would have saved where the wife wants a divorce or they have an argument. They can't go right to the store and get that gun. and might give them time to cool off. Evry still needs to under stand that if someone wants to get a gun bad enough they will.
cody1smith
Active member
- Messages
- 679
- Reaction score
- 61
You are right. Then at least they could suffer from the antifreeze they will be poisoned with.
Look i have never killed someone but if i wanted to (5 minute fit of rage or not) I'm gonna do it, to believe otherwise is crazy. The only reason guns kill more people than knives fire and rope is because its a more efficient way to do it. limit guns and its just gonna fill inner city hospitals with stabbing victims who cant pay there bill because they blew there money on the crack the one who did the stabbing took from his pocket after he poked him in the stomach.
PEOPLE ARE THE PROBLEM. You wanna take rights start locking up crazy *** people. Do not limit my rights to have a 100 round clip in my ar15 because some stupid *** did something that we already have a law protecting. Murder is illegal in every state. Creating ANY gun control law will only affect the people that already obey the laws.
woolybug25
#1 Vineyard Vines Fan
- Messages
- 17,677
- Reaction score
- 3,018
So you can effectively kill the same amount of people with rope as you can with an automatic weapon.... got it...
Weird... because on the same day as this disaster, a man in China did the same thing with a knife. Same amount of students attacked, no fatalities. He probably wouldn't have killed anybody if we switched out his knife with a gun though...
chicago51
Well-known member
- Messages
- 3,658
- Reaction score
- 387
Tighter gun restrictions and checks will not stop law aibing citizens from having a gun. Yes it may be innconvient (Boo Whoo) so go cry me a river.
After having a series of instances like we did in the 1970s Canada enacted tougher gun purchasing restrictions. They now have way less gun related fatalities yet the gun ownership rate is higher than it is in the United States. It is not about having or not having guns. It is about who has and who doesn't have the guns.
After having a series of instances like we did in the 1970s Canada enacted tougher gun purchasing restrictions. They now have way less gun related fatalities yet the gun ownership rate is higher than it is in the United States. It is not about having or not having guns. It is about who has and who doesn't have the guns.
Downinthebend
New member
- Messages
- 1,035
- Reaction score
- 77
Any supreme court decision that would allow arms to be infringed is bullshit.
phgreek
New member
- Messages
- 6,956
- Reaction score
- 433
totally agree...I think it sets up, gets enforced, and topples about like prohibition of alcohol...
It is destined for failure...and alot of heartache.
phgreek
New member
- Messages
- 6,956
- Reaction score
- 433
You did invite opinions on the topic didn't you...? Lemme see here...ah yes...
Quote:
Originally Posted by chicago51
My question to gun owners is say you had to wait twice maybe even 3 times as long to get a gun but it significantly helped prevent (I say help prevent as stopping it 100% is not plausible) things like what happen in Newtown from happening would you do it?
People responded honestly with their opinion...and you, having asked, respond with "cry me a river" douchbaggery...NICE!
people have pretty strong opinions on the subject...you acting like you are two probably doesn't add much here...if you want to have a thread where you act like a douche what say you start your own...call it "come on in...your opinion is stupid".
Last edited:
G
Grahambo
Guest
Not a single word is mine. Damn sure looks hard to interpret the correct way, if there really is any correct way.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller, stated:
Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people”.
Justice John Paul Stevens countered in his dissent:
When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated. But the Court itself reads the Second Amendment to protect a “subset” significantly narrower than the class of persons protected by the First and Fourth Amendments; when it finally drills down on the substantive meaning of the Second Amendment, the Court limits the protected class to “law-abiding, responsible citizens”.
In Heller the majority rejected the view that the term "to bear arms" implies only the military use of arms:
Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.” At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia. The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,”. Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms” from the founding period either includes the preposition “against” or is not clearly idiomatic. In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.”
In a dissent, joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, Justice Stevens said:
The Amendment’s text does justify a different limitation: the “right to keep and bear arms” protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase “bear arms” to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as “for the defense of themselves”.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority in Heller, stated:
Nowhere else in the Constitution does a “right” attributed to “the people” refer to anything other than an individual right. What is more, in all six other provisions of the Constitution that mention “the people,” the term unambiguously refers to all members of the political community, not an unspecified subset. This contrasts markedly with the phrase “the militia” in the prefatory clause. As we will describe below, the “militia” in colonial America consisted of a subset of “the people”— those who were male, able bodied, and within a certain age range. Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people”.
Justice John Paul Stevens countered in his dissent:
When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated. But the Court itself reads the Second Amendment to protect a “subset” significantly narrower than the class of persons protected by the First and Fourth Amendments; when it finally drills down on the substantive meaning of the Second Amendment, the Court limits the protected class to “law-abiding, responsible citizens”.
In Heller the majority rejected the view that the term "to bear arms" implies only the military use of arms:
Before addressing the verbs “keep” and “bear,” we interpret their object: “Arms.” The term was applied, then as now, to weapons that were not specifically designed for military use and were not employed in a military capacity. Thus, the most natural reading of “keep Arms” in the Second Amendment is to “have weapons.” At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” again, in the most analogous linguistic context—that “bear arms” was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia. The phrase “bear Arms” also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: “to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight” or “to wage war.” But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition “against,”. Every example given by petitioners’ amici for the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms” from the founding period either includes the preposition “against” or is not clearly idiomatic. In any event, the meaning of “bear arms” that petitioners and Justice Stevens propose is not even the (sometimes) idiomatic meaning. Rather, they manufacture a hybrid definition, whereby “bear arms” connotes the actual carrying of arms (and therefore is not really an idiom) but only in the service of an organized militia. No dictionary has ever adopted that definition, and we have been apprised of no source that indicates that it carried that meaning at the time of the founding. Worse still, the phrase “keep and bear Arms” would be incoherent. The word “Arms” would have two different meanings at once: “weapons” (as the object of “keep”) and (as the object of “bear”) one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying “He filled and kicked the bucket” to mean “He filled the bucket and died.”
In a dissent, joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer, Justice Stevens said:
The Amendment’s text does justify a different limitation: the “right to keep and bear arms” protects only a right to possess and use firearms in connection with service in a state-organized militia. Had the Framers wished to expand the meaning of the phrase “bear arms” to encompass civilian possession and use, they could have done so by the addition of phrases such as “for the defense of themselves”.
phgreek
New member
- Messages
- 6,956
- Reaction score
- 433
...what do you mean real $hit.
irishpat183
Banned
- Messages
- 5,625
- Reaction score
- 504
Horrible idea. You'd rather "fail" taking away rights of the citizens of this country?
And I'd rather go down with a gun in my hand, than be gunned down huddled in a corner because the bad guys are always gonna get guns and some cut off the public. At least give your citizens a CHANCE at defending themselves.
Ban all the guns you want. Go ahead. Won't make a damn bit of difference.
irishpat183
Banned
- Messages
- 5,625
- Reaction score
- 504
Dumb.
I feel the need to have a firearm because if there is a threat to me and mine, I have the means to protect.
And people like you will be glad there are people like me around. You'll shake my hand afterward.
G
Grahambo
Guest
irishpat183
Banned
- Messages
- 5,625
- Reaction score
- 504
Keep comparing other countries to ours...because it's the same mentality over here.
Good lord. Our society is OBSESSED with violence. Let's just start there.
Maybe we try EDUCATION instead of banning? Maybe we start raising our kids right?
Why must we always look to the innamate object as the cuprit?
irishpat183
Banned
- Messages
- 5,625
- Reaction score
- 504
Because the shooter may come with me. Or it may scare him off as it did in the case of the Calakamas mall shooter.
And there are countless cases of armed citizens that have botched robbers or mass shooters that you never hear about in the news.
Wonder why.......
BobD
Can't get no satisfaction
- Messages
- 7,918
- Reaction score
- 1,034
Almost anything scary or dangerous. Even when they actually find the guts to pull the trigger, most people when faced with great danger fire extremely inaccurate. I once had someone throw the gun at me.
BobD
Can't get no satisfaction
- Messages
- 7,918
- Reaction score
- 1,034
You should know more about who your talking to before you say something. really dumb like that.
irishpat183
Banned
- Messages
- 5,625
- Reaction score
- 504
What were you doing to them that they felt extemely endangered!! LOL....
BobD the dangerous
irishpat183
Banned
- Messages
- 5,625
- Reaction score
- 504
G
Grahambo
Guest
Not saying you're wrong in your opinion.
Just curious why people take the stance I'd rather go down this way then that way..to me, going down is going down.
Do you have any training with weapons? (Again, not being a jerk.)
BobD
Can't get no satisfaction
- Messages
- 7,918
- Reaction score
- 1,034
most are
irishpat183
Banned
- Messages
- 5,625
- Reaction score
- 504
Yes. Have my CHL, tactical shooting, countless range hours, handgun trainign course...etc.
No military experence, but have too buddies of mine that are vets that have taught me a thing or two.
Not an expert or anything....but i can handle a weapon.
irishpat183
Banned
- Messages
- 5,625
- Reaction score
- 504
I disagree. In fact, I beleive that most gun owners are responsible.
(and no offense earlier....I've just heard everything "anti-gun" in the last few days and it's coming to a head)
G
Grahambo
Guest
I don't know if its offered for civilians but would recommend researching active shooter training if you can. (Assuming you haven't already.)
These mass shootings are exactly that: active shooter.
I've had a lot of military and police training and think the active shooter training is the best. Target shooting is great and all but nothing beats the strategy of the scenarios and getting shot at back.
irishpat183
Banned
- Messages
- 5,625
- Reaction score
- 504
That's actually what I did in a shooting class I took last summer. It was in a simulator that had you in a 360 degree setting (a grocery store).
Very cool, and intense, stuff.