Right to bear arms...Are you for or aginst it?

Originally posted by TheDuckster
What about other countries? Those who haven't the Right to bear arms?

What about them ?
I to live in a country were people don't have the right to bear arms and I am quiet happy about it.

Yet, there is a Canadian militia. It is voluntary, not manditory.

Well there is the small force of the NZ army reservists but I don't think that is a militia.

reply to post by xpert11


Ahhhhhhh...I see where you're coming from now...slowly but surely...I see it Give my head a footy ball!

I assumed (see what happened...I'm an arse) I assumed you to be on this side of the world. Possibly American.

Now I made a total arse outta myself.

I forgot that there were other countries like Canada, that don't have in their constitution: "The right to bear arms"

I'm such an arse.

Forgive me?

PLEASE RESPOND TO THIS QUESTION!

WOULD YOU SUPPORT THE "IN-ALIENABLE RIGHT" OF A CONVICTED FELON TO CARRY A FIREARM? ALSO, WOULD YOU ALLOW HIM TO VOTE?

[edit on 13-10-2007 by thatblissguy]

TheDuckster no harm done you wouldn't be the first member who has made that mistakes. Thatblissguy when you type in all capitals its like your shouting.

Cheers xpert11.

My personal favorite for home defense, every home should have at least two, and it is easy to conceal under a jacket or coat...check it out!
serbu.com...

reply to post by icybreeze


$705, nice. How much do you think it will get at a pawn shop after some dude breaks into your house, and shoots 'n' loots?

An armed criminal breaking into your house has numerous advantages over you, Icybreeze. I doubt you sleep with your weapon in hand, chambered, safety off, am I right? This guy is coming into your home, he's most likely packing, as well. His weapon has the safety off, a bullet in the chamber, and is either in his hand, or tucked within easy reach. He will most likely be more awake than you are, as home invasions tend to happen while the occupants are asleep - the intruder is lucid, has clear eyes, and knows exactly what is going on, while you are groggy, have gunk in the corner of one eye, and only know that you heard a noise. I don't know how much firefight experience you've had, but most people have had absolutely none. This guy has better odds than you of being one of those people who has in fact been under fire. Add to that, he is probably quite prepared to kill you, while you, like most decent people, can't say the same. These two factors mean you are likely to freak out, shoot wildly, and likely end up with a few new navels. Speaking of which, ever been shot? I have. It's not fun. It's VERY not fun. When you get shot, you don't grit your teeth, utter a pithy one liner ("ain't got time fer pain!") and expertly return fire. You recoil away from the impact, spend about three seconds figuring out what just happened, another two seconds to realize that that is a HELL of a lot of blood, and then the pain actually registers. The overall effect is leaving you flat on your butt and looking rather like a suffocating fish. This is what makes guns such a good weapon compared to, say, swords.

Maybe I'm mistaken, and you're one of the many, many, many ATS posters who's either a navy seal or a grizzled SWAT cop. Most people aren't. For the overwhelmingly vast majority of people, all a gun in the home does is provide some mental comfort, and occasionally a dead child - they're practically useless for home defense because your average person simply cannot handle the crucial points of a gunfight, even if they're lucid and prepared. The average person would be better off putting that $705 price tag towards guard training for whatever sort of mutt they have laying around. You'd be surprised how effective a well-trained German shepherd in the living room can be, especially compared to a shotgun tucked away in a closet.

As for the original question asked, I'm indifferent. Perhaps in different times, I would be clearly in favor, but to tell you the plain truth, all these heavily armed yahoos who claim their arsenals are all that's standing between freedom and tyranny in america... Well, they aren't exactly coming through on that. Most seem firmly on tyranny's side, in fact. So the presumptive argument that people need to be armed to protect themselves from the government seems to be proven false.

reply to post by The Walking Fox


The Walking Fox An armed criminal breaking into your house has numerous advantages over you, Icybreeze. I doubt you sleep with your weapon in hand, chambered, safety off, am I right? This guy is coming into your home, he's most likely packing, as well. His weapon has the safety off, a bullet in the chamber, and is either in his hand, or tucked within easy reach. He will most likely be more awake than you are, as home invasions tend to happen while the occupants are asleep - the intruder is lucid, has clear eyes, and knows exactly what is going on, while you are groggy, have gunk in the corner of one eye, and only know that you heard a noise.

The NRA believes every person should be armed and carrying. They lamented that the student body at Virginia Tech was not armed on that day of tragedy, April 16, 2007, on the Blacksburg, Va campus. Ah, if but the students were carrying, they could have shot back and killed the mad-man in a flash! Tally? 32 dead plus the suicide. Twenty wounded. See Note 1.

The incident prompted immediate changes in Virginia law that had allowed Cho, an individual adjudicated as mentally unsound, to purchase handguns and led federal lawmakers to take up the issue of strengthening the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Lax gun laws in VA have been the source of 1000s of hand guns on the streets of NYC over many years. I would not doubt that 5,000 people in NYC have been killed with VA guns. NRA at its best!

Fortunately for us more rational people, the US courts do not agree with the NRA. The most famous gun control law, still on the books, is New York’s Sullivan Act. Here follows an exert from the NYTimes of the day.

“January 4, 1913. The Appellate Division upheld the constitutionality of the Sullivan dangerous weapon law in a decision filed yesterday. The majority opinion of the court held that the keeping of a revolver by a householder in his home might be prohibited by the Legislature as a penal offense, under the "police power" clause of the Constitution, despite the constitutional guarantee of the right to bear arms.”

In a oft quoted but widely misunderstood opinion rendered in Texas which was overturned, domestic violence orders (DVOs) were held constitutional including provisions that forbid offenders from having access to firearms. In another case also from Texas, a gun dealer was successfully prosecuted for having an undisclosed prior felony conviction.

There are dozens of laws that regulate who can own or possess firearms. Obviously, the courts do not read the Constitution the way the NRA reads it. So which reading counts, the judiciary’s or the NRA? Which can put you in jail? You can pretend all you want over what the 2nd Amendment means, but if you are wrong, you can go to jail despite what you think it says.

The US began as a country under the Articles of Confederation. Finding those inadequate, a second Constitutional convention was called in Philadelphia in 1787. It ignored the gun issue but did include it in the first 10 amendments some states wanted.

To get an better idea where the founders were coming from, lets look at the 6th Article of the Articles of Confederation. “ . . every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.”

The second amendment was derived from this source. You figure.


Note 1. Other large massacres. Luby’s Cafeteria in Texas saw 24 killed. 22 were killed at a McDonalds in California. 17 dead at the UT Tower in Texas. 15 dead at Columbine in Colorado, tied with the Oklahoma post office massacre. 13 died in Atlanta, 10 in Jacksonville. More guns says the NRA. The victims could have shot back! Hello Tombstone or Dodge City revisited.

[edit on 10/13/2007 by donwhite]

reply to post by The Walking Fox

aw..so close mr fox. but it sleeps under my bed, at arms length and it has 4 shells in it, pump action. also it is "sawed off" so it has a WIDE dispersement, which means pretty much anything in front of you will be hit. no aiming needed, just point in the general direction and BANG!
and I am lucky to live in a state where we can shoot an intruder (armed or not) if he is inside my home, like they say around here, "if you shoot'em outside, drag them back in" and "if you shoot'em make sure they die or they will sue you" (for effect, imagine a southern drawl when you read that)

yup the "shorty" perfect for home defense.

reply to post by icybreeze


Wow. Right over your head. Good luck with that thing, I guess, luck's pretty much the only thing you can hope is in your favor if you find yourself in a "situation"

reply to post by donwhite


The NRA would like to see more people armed, but it wouldn't turn things into Dodge City. In the incidents were a lot of people were killed, the scenario they are thinking is that one armed and TRAINED civilian could have stopped or reduced the casualities. I believe that, too.

I have no problem with someone packing heat, as long as they had taken training/classes on the proper use of the weapon and when the proper time to use it would be.

Originally posted by The Walking Fox
reply to post by icybreeze

 

Wow. Right over your head. Good luck with that thing, I guess, luck's pretty much the only thing you can hope is in your favor if you find yourself in a "situation"

aww mr fox. i'm a little disapointed. i thought you were bigger than that.

I chose to not answer your remarks that the intruder would have a hand up and would win the confrontation simply because you probably have not been trained in hand gun use since you were a child. see where i come from people actually shoot their guns regularly, at ranges and while hunting (yes we kill innocent animals for fun and profit...and food yum!)

and kids around here have "hunting safety" classes (during P.E.) and they all are thought how to respect a handgun and not fear it.
please read some of these news articles i have pasted below and try to think of how things could have gone differently if the "victims" were not allowed to own guns.
(mods please edit for ex. source, don't know that one yet)

PA: Intruder shot, killed
Source: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
Police said the trouble began around 2:30 a.m. when Mr. Pittman entered the Murtland Avenue home uninvited.... (10/11/07)
Link: www.post-gazette.com...

WA: Man swinging bottle shot by driver at rest area
Source: KOMO News
“Investigators say 66-year-old Dennis Shaw of Lynnwood and his wife had stopped at the Nason Creek rest area 14 miles west of Leavenworth where Kneer asked him for a ride. When Shaw refused, Kneer became angry, followed Shaw to his car and struck his vehicle window with a glass bottle....(10/11/07)
www.komotv.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">Link: www.komotv.com...

TX: Armed homeowner catches suspects in the act
Source: ABC 13 News
“A quick-thinking homeowner who happens to be an early riser may be responsible for getting some crooks off the street....(10/11/07)
Link: abclocal.go.com...

CO:Intruder shot after kicking in door
Source: Denver Channel
“Police are investigating an early-morning shooting involving a man armed with a pool cue and a renter trying to get some sleep..... (10/10/07)
Link: /25r46l[/ur]

PA: Man kicked out of home, returns with a gun and gets shot.
Source: Pittsburgh Channel
“A young man was wounded by gunfire while he shot and killed an intruder at a home in Pittsburgh’s Homewood area Tuesday morning... (10/09/07)
Link: [url]/24va2g

FL: Burglar shot in the face during break-in
Source: NBC 2 News
“A burglary victim shot the thief in the face early Tuesday morning in North Fort Myers.It happened around 3:45 a.m. ... (10/09/07)
Link: www.nbc-2.com...

*all those stories and many morecan be read at this site for those that are truely interested in how gun ownership prevents crime.
www.rationalreview.com...

reply to post by madnessinmysoul


I'm a gun owner and my livelihood and life depend on it.

Psychological exams on a regular basis are not going to solve any problems. Look at the recent shooting of six by an off duty cop. All law enforcement are required to have psychological exams prior to becoming sworn in. Hummmm guess they missed that one.

Speaking about gun control in general I feel that permits and background checks should be and are necessary along with safety classes.

Gun safety is the ultimate responsibility of the gun owner! Teach your children well at a young age and gun safety is no longer a problem.


To say banning guns would solve the crime issue look at the "Brady Ban", enacted by Clinton, in the 90's, it accomplished nothing but hacking off a bunch of gun owners. The Brady Laws banning high capacity magazines and assault weapons did nothing to lower the gun crime rate in America. On the other side of table places that have allowed concealed carry have mostly seen a drop in violent crime, and home invasions.

Case and Point made look at LA,Chicago and New York City, all anti gun cities and all have huge violent crime rates. In those states any and most violent gun crimes come from folks who are not supposed to have guns anyway, and didn't just go down to the local gun store and purchase a hand gun.

Originally posted by HeavilyArmed
I'm a gun owner and my livelihood and life depend on it.

really? and why would that be?

Psychological exams on a regular basis are not going to solve any problems. Look at the recent shooting of six by an off duty cop. All law enforcement are required to have psychological exams prior to becoming sworn in. Hummmm guess they missed that one.

so one case in millions is enough to dismiss an entire idea as not solving ANY problems?
it may not solve ALL the problems, but it will solve many.
and the officer in question hadn't had a recent examination.
i said PERIODIC, very regular.

reply to post by icybreeze


As someone who's trained in gun use, I'm sure you're aware of the vast differences between shooting a paper target or a deer, and shooting another human being after being rudely awakened.

Could you explain something to me, though? Why are so many gun owners eager for a confrontation where they might get to shoot someone? You certainly seem to be.

I guess some of you are right...If sombody breaks into my house ill just call the cops and hope that it takes the intruder longer than 20 minutes to walk 15 feet to my room, and if the intruder makes it to my room ill just beg for my life and hope that he dosnt kill me, Oh and add 15 minutes on to that 20 minute response time from the police because once they get to my house their not gonna rush in as if I was a family member of theirs, thell either wait to for a K9 or brainstorm ideas on how to make entry. Police dont respond to those calls to risk their lives for me, they respond to draw the lines around my body.Thanks but no thanks, ill grab my gun before I grab the phone.

Originally posted by The Walking Fox
reply to post by icybreeze

 

As someone who's trained in gun use, I'm sure you're aware of the vast differences between shooting a paper target or a deer, and shooting another human being after being rudely awakened.

Could you explain something to me, though? Why are so many gun owners eager for a confrontation where they might get to shoot someone? You certainly seem to be.

no, no, no mr fox.. not eager, just ready big difference.
see, the way i see it, i have a responsability to my family to give them the best protecton that i possibly can. and that doesnt mean cowering in the corner while some punk rapes my wife and makes my kids watch...you can be certain, my family will never be put through that ordeal
CAN YOU SAY THE SAME THING ABOUT YOURS?



[edit on 15-10-2007 by icybreeze]

and kids around here have "hunting safety" classes (during P.E.) and they all are thought how to respect a handgun and not fear it.

Where do you live? I like that idea!

I think we should have firearms training/safety classes the same as we have drivers education classes (except this would be mandatory and done during the regular school session) in our schools and in order to obtain a high school diploma one should be required to take and pass at least 2 firearms training/safety classes in their 4 years of high school. It would go something like Firearms Shooting/Safety I (9th Grade - Mandatory), Firearms Shooting/Safety II (10th Grade - Mandatory), Firearms Shooting/Safety III (11th and 12th Grades - Optional), Advanced Firearms Shooting/Safety (11th and 12th grades - Optional for advanced shooters only). Taking the 2 optional classes would give you a college discount or a lower insurance payment or something like that.

reply to post by ChrisF231

hi, southern arkansas here. and yes firearm training should be more popular i agree.

reply to post by icybreeze


That's great. I never understood why all the schools ended their rifle teams and biathlon programs. Well, I have my theories but that's for a different thread.

To the poster who assumes the criminal has some sort of experience that the average gun doesnt I have a bit of info. Cops briefly used tilted holsters so they could draw while ducked or crouched to avoid being shot in the head. This resulted in more police being shot in the head. Studies have found that criminals are horrible shots and if they hit you at all it will be lower than center mass.

Also, the average gun owner gets more practice time than the average police officer. A cop might get 200 rounds through his service weapon a year while the typical gun owner can go through 200 rounds in an hour.

Then there's the IDPA, PPIH, PPOH, and countless other training opportunities, seminars and classes that always fill to capacity and go on all year round.

So, nice try with the petty thief trained in SWAT tactics but that doesn't reflect reality.

We found a guy here who was trying to break into a car. He had on him a 9mm with a .38 jammed in it. Criminals are NOT VERY BRIGHT and to further ease in their downfall they are usually intoxicated.

And ask yourself why the criminals who buy guns in states with lax gun laws travel to "gun-free" zones. I mean, it isn't like NYC is just a bus ride from VA. You go to where you know a man with a gun is feared. You go to where you know nobody else has one but you. It's like traveling back in time to an age of swords and horses with a Abrams tank.

Ask Kennesaw, GA about "gun-free" zones. Take a look at their great experiment and what their crime rate is. Gun control has to be the greatest well-intentioned disaster in history. Right up there with trying to save humanity through eugenics.

Originally posted by donwhite
The NRA believes every person should be armed and carrying.

You're wrong Don White and what is more, you know that what you say is untrue.

This left wing scenario of every man being the helpless prey to the armed criminal has been told in the same terms for more than thirty years and it will not be made more true by its continued repetition.

I may not sleep with my weapon in my hand, but I know how to access one in a hurry and indeed, a criminal might be clever enough to break into my home and kill me before I have the chance to protect myself, but I will not be denied the right to protect myself on the basis of this marxist-driven canard.

Furthermore, the NRA does not think that every individual should be armed. The NRA supports legislation to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons and the legally incompetent.

Moreover, it is the Constitution of the United States of America that affirms a God-given right keep and bear arms, which like every other right affirmed by the Constitution is an individual right.

It's not nice to tell untruths.

You should know better.

Second Amendment

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

www.armed-citizens.com...

www.nraila.org...

www.nraila.org...

www.nraila.org...

www.nraila.org...

www.nraila.org...

www.nraila.org...

timesunion.com.../14/2007

www.dallasnews.com...

www.azbiz.com...

www.nrapublications.org...

www.armed-citizens.com...

www.backwoodshome.com...

www.backwoodshome.com...

www.cnsnews.com...

lonestartimes.com...

www.nysrpa.org...

[edit on 2007/10/15 by GradyPhilpott]