|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|
... to carry regardless of state or local laws?
I think the Supreme Court will rule today that Americans, all Americans have the constitutional right to carry guns and states and cities can not limit that right! This is huge and if the cour rules as I suspect will be an affirmation of liberty as the founders intended! I will almost immediately go out and buy a gun!
http://forit.org/r/http://image.examine … s-decision
http://forit.org/r/http://news.yahoo.co … _usa_court
It seems to me to be a no-brainer: the US Constitution trumps state and local laws. Heck, it even trumps federal laws.
Do I think it's a good idea to carry in this day and age? Not so much. I don't carry. The chance the gun could be taken from me and used against innocents (any chance = too much chance, imo) outweighs the benefits I'd get from being armed. At least, it does at the moment. This may change.
For now, the responsibilities that I would take on when exercising that right are too weighty to make it worthwhile. But I'll defend those who do choose to exercise their right.
It's in the constitution.... duh!
Wyoming has the lowest crime rate in the nation and the most gun stores per capita.
I see a direct correlation there.
Canada as a whole has a lower crime rate than the US. We have less gun shops.
I thought the right to bear arms was only in times of war, but I don't know that much about your constitution.
Hey leeberttea, I am a registered gun owner and use it responsibly. I love target shooting and am anal when it comes to keeping it unloaded when at home and out of the reach of kids.
But I don't live in a city any longer. I used to live in South Central LA where my neighbors dodged bullets daily. Really. I do believe we have the right to bear arms, however the constitution was written in a different era.
But still..., the law is the law. This should be an open and shut case. Americans have the right to bear arms. Period. It doesn't matter what era we live in now, or what it was like then. It is part of the constitution, and that is that. Wouldn't you agree? I don't own a gun. I hate guns. Hate them. However, the constitution is the governing law-above all other laws.
This is definitely a serious issue to think over. If some short tempered people carry guns with them we may have to see gun shots very frequently. It is also the right of one to keep themselves protected from this kind of short tempered people.
What happened to States Rights? Cities and States should be able to pass gun control laws that meet their needs. The Chicago law has been in effect for 19? years. Shootings are becoming so common in our cities that reasonable restrictions, perhaps not absolute bans, should be allowed by the court.
States rights? Suddenly you're concerned with states rights? States apparently don't have any rights the recent health care bill and controversy over the AZ immigration bill highlight this. In any case, when states ratified the constitution they agreed to abide by it's principles, and so can not pass any law that infringes on the people's right to keep and bear arms.
I'm always confused as to who trumps whom. I have been told that the local police have the right to tell the FBI to get lost.
In Wyoming, some want to issue a handgun as part of WY citizenship, partly to trump any federal laws that would hinder gun owners rights, saying t5he state is more powerful than the fed.
"In Wyoming, some want to issue a handgun as part of WY citizenship,"
Really? So, when would a kid born in Wyoming get his first shootin' iron? When he gets his driver's license? Or when he's old enough to drink?
I've wondered about that myself. I am guessing at age 18, when one becomes a voting citizen. Maybe 14, when one becomes a paying hunting citizen?
Sounds like I need to try harder to stay in the loop of local happenings...I'm also from Wyoming, and have not heard of any such thing . That said, I am an average Wyomingite in the respect that I believe government needs to keep their hands off my firearms, of any type...granted, we don't get shot at by strangers here (maybe because people know that there's a high chance someone will shoot back?), firearms are used mostly for hunting and livestock protection, so the overall perception of firearms are likely very different from that held by city-dwelling folk.
Last I heard on it, part of the reason it is being contemplated, is because WY pays more per capita than any other state, for law enforcement, due to the large land mass with relatively few people.
I know our local law enforcement is the first to make sure people know that there we have a Make My Day law and encourage firearms ownership.
That may be fine for Wyoming but it doesn't work well in New York, Cleveland, Chicago and Detroit where people are being killed right and left by guns, mostly handguns.
killed by illegally aquired handguns. in about 90 percent of cases.
Cities should be able to pass laws with restrictions as you said. It was done in some towns of the old west though maybe not for protection of citizens as much as protecting crooked sherriffs and marshalls.
Exactly, Sir Dent! And that's how I'm hearing the interpretation of today's ruling. A state or community will NOT be able to pass a blanket law to prohibit the ownership of firearms. Restrictions on felons and the insane to buy guns will be upheld. Some states will have concealed carry laws (which I endorse) with the requirement that to obtain a carry permit, you must show a level of competence. I'm in favor of gun ownership AND firearm education because a 9mm Glock is not a magic wand. To own one, you should have an idea what it will do, and how it can buy you a long term in jail if misused.
I can say that after being held at gunpoint on 3 separate occasions in my line of work that the gentlemen holding the guns nether cared or where deterred by any firearm laws.
The only people that care about the laws are people who are sincerely trying not to violate them. So where does that leave us?
Just heard the news, the supreme court struck down the Chicago law 5-4 along political lines! Everyone now has the RIGHT to own and carry!
I wonder how soon I can buy my gun?
Here in the UK gun ownership is comparatively rare, and not really encouraged. Consequently few criminals are able to obtain guns, and our police officers are not routinely armed - they don't need to be. In rural areas and smaller towns, gun crime is almost non-existent, although the bigger cities do have a good sprinkling of more dangerous criminals.
I'm very happy to live without firearms, and am very grateful for our strict gun laws.
Great. In your smaller towns criminals with guns would pretty much own the place, and your law enforcement officers' lives would be in grave danger for the sake of ideology. Brilliant.
Are you suggesting that a nation with strict gun controls is less safe than one with virtually free access to firearms for all citizens?
I am always curious with constitutional rights, federal, state and local laws. As far as these two stories go though, it seems that it's coming down to a reform of law to highlight that the constitutional right to bear arms, will be viewed as above any and all laws in the US.
This may or may not in the future, still provide individuals, or corporations entities to challenge individual federal, state and local laws, as seen in an instance if one of these laws differs from the constitution, the constitution is the precedent(in court) authority.
Now, my curiosity comes as I live in Australia, which in similarity to Canada, we are not a gun bearing nation. We don't have it in the Australian constitution, an amendment for a right to bear arms, as is in the US constitution.
But I do see this as a huge issue in the US, as it may or may not have a massive influence on how the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution is used in today's world.
Congratulations! You have the right to kill!!
And what you would be killing is a living breathing human being...
Yet, aborting a zygote swimming in blood you want to make a crime.
Think you might be led by ideology, not the Constitution??
Hyperbeole! Just plain leftist rhetoric talking points. The constitution gives everyone the right to bear arms. No one has the right to take the life of another.
And the courts have supported the right of cities and states to adopt reasonable conditions and rules for the exercise of that right and for the sale of weapons. The right isn't unlimited. Licensing may be required for carrying a handgun. Guns may be prohibited in workplaces, schools, churches, etc. Certain types of weapons may be prohibited entirely.
Sounds like "infringement" to me! What does "reasonable" mean exactly? By whose "reason"? Yours? Obama's? Kagans?
The courts will decide, case by case. I suspect they would not allow small, tactical nuclear weapons and the NRA would probably object on the ground that the Army has 'em so the people should be able to have 'em too. Or at least stingers to shoot down the black helicopters.
The ACLU is going to want my membership card back, but I hope they rule that States can't restrict ownership.
Without that, we are in danger of losing our liberty. I feel it is worth the obvious problems that go along with it.
Don't panic - I'm still a loony liberal on everything else.
Why do Americans need guns?
You have the most powerful military in the world.
And one of the largest police forces in the world.
Millions of trained professionals to keep you safe.
I can't see how arming the civilian population makes anyone safer.
There is no situation that a firearm improves. Ever.
It gives citizenss protection from the most powerful military in the world in the event it is asked to supress our freedom.
That's a pipe dream. Are you a militiaman?
No, that's the reality of why that was put into the constitution and why the courts have ruled that it applies to all individuals. Only a fool and a traitor would allow the government to disarm us!
The fact that certain people can't see the answer to those questions really speaks volumes...
If a guy threatens me and my family, threatening to sexually molest my children? I think I could find many reasons why a firearm in my possession would improve the situation. Every Every time!
There are people trained specifically to deal with situations like that - and they'll do a much more effective job of protecting you and your children.
They're called the police.
Tell that to the guy in CT whose house was invaded and the perpetrators raped his wife and daughters in front of him before killing them leaving him for dead and setting his house on fire.
The cops can't protect everyone, all the time.
If guns are legal you can protect yourself, OK. We understand that. It doesn't make sense in reality, why?
The guy breaking into your house knows the high chance of you having a gun, right?
So, being a hardened criminal, what is the logical answer?
You bring a bigger gun. Or, you bring a friend, or you bring a friend and you both have bigger guns.
There will always be someone with a bigger gun. Guns will not protect you.
Here's the flip side to that, when everyone can legally carry, the criminal knows that any house he breaks into could have a gun pointing back at him and all the neighbors as well so maybe he decides that the risk isn't worth it and resorts to internet crime.
And criminals break into houses to get guns to use which can't be traced to them.
There's only one thing that can eradicate violence.
And that's more guns. And more violence.
Kind of like cleaning my house: I can either clean it - boring - or I can just make the parts that are clean as dirty as the parts that are already dirty.
And then call it clean because no-one can tell the difference anymore.
Eventually though the filth will build up and kill me and everyone else in my house.
And i'll be left wondering if maybe the best solution wasn't to just clean my house in the first place.
Yeah and I walk around with a police officer in my back pocket. If the cops are so efficient, why are there still violent crimes.
The police are too busy responding to domestic disturbances to be available during a random act of violence. At that point all the police can do is try to find the perpetrators for prosecution. They would not be able to do anything to protect my family until after the fact.
That's exactly WHY I'm glad I have my guns...there's never any guarantee that the government actually will be working in your best interests. Looking back over history, it's the disarmed populations that were subject to the worst atrocities of tyranny, and we really don't have to look far into the past to find them. How many people here truly, wholeheartedly trust the government?
why ... lets see. the military isnt allowed by law to patrol the streets and even if they were they cant be every where at once.
becuase the military could be used against the populace of a nation. its not likely in America but it has happened historically and its one of the reason the founding Fathers of the US put the second amendment in the constitution in the first place.
" Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
becuase the constitution and the supreme court has stated we have a right to defend ourselves. and the supreme court has ruled that Law enforcement doesnt have the right or the duty to protect individuals only the community at large.
"a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..."
-- Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App.181)
Becuase most criminals will think twice about attacking an armed individual.
Actually, it may be that not much will change in the gun debate. This is from CBS news:
"Both sides of the gun rights debate are claiming some degree of victory concerning today's 5-4 Supreme Court decision restraining government limits on gun ownership while also allowing for the possibility of some governmental regulation.
The decision did not explicitly strike down a Chicago law banning handguns, though it did seem to set a course for an eventual overturning of the law. The majority opinion, however, also said the decision that local governments are fully subject to the Second Amendment "limits (but by no means eliminates) their ability to devise solutions to social problems that suit local needs and values." The position echoed a decision two years ago regarding District of Columbia gun laws."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- … 03544.html
The decision makes a lot of sense - no one has taken the rights of states or communities to reasonably restrict gun ownership. A blanket ban on handguns has been ruled unreasonable. A few wingnuts think that the decision has reversed every restriction on ownership - but that just shows how cheap drugs erode your cognative abilities.
how about the fact that a US citizen is about 3 times more likely to be raped and almost 6 times more likely to be murdered.
Hate to break it to you.
rate of intentional homicide per 100,000 (most recent statistics)
United States 5.4
United Kingdom 1.49
On a positive note, intentional homicide is down in the US from 2004 from 6.5
Good effort guys.
Wiz - You are right except for one thing. In the UK, the right to own guns has always been more restricted than in the US. So you don't have millions and millions of weapons in circulation. Citizens from the center-left all the way out to the far right wingtip are opposed to a BAN on gun ownership. Check how many citizens in Chicago turned in their weapons to become law-abiding.... I don't have the answer but I would venture to bet it was a VERY small number.
The ban that works in the UK would make felons of most gun-owners (who won't surrender weapons) and if it did succeeed in disarming law-abiding citizens, it would create for armed gangs an open season against the helpless. Yes, the police would investigate AFTER the fact - small comfort for the dead.
Your statistics are sobering but It's a leap from that fact to the conclusion that a gun ban would improve the situation here in the US.
Wiz, would be interested to see where Australia ranks there, I'm guessing about 0.02.
I'd have to say that the criminals already have guns wethwe it is legal or not. Everyone has the right to have a weapon in their home. But if everyone had the right to carry?... This would make the work of the police officer even more imposible.
Police can do their job better if we keep our civil rights to bear arms off the streets of america. Those who get a permit to carry should pass a syc. and criminal ck.exam first.
All others should have to go to their trucks to pull a riffle outa their gun rack.
"It gives citizenss protection from the most powerful military in the world in the event it is asked to supress our freedom."
This is what the Black Panthers were saying! And in their case, it was true!! The gvt WAS harrasing them and they HAD no freedoms. Predjudice was the law of the land.
So, which side were you on in that issue?
I'll bet my whole choclate pie that you sided with the gvt to suppress those "dangerous militants" !!!!!
Same with the American Indian Movement and their fight with the gvt.
LEGITIMATE complaints.....how did you stand on that?
Now you want to say you are being suppressed and need to protect yourself. How so?
I am for responsible gun ownership, and feel that it is an inherent right of our constitution. Like any right when you abuse it, you must pay the price for it, not everyone else associated with that right.
Todays ruling of the supreme court is sending a direct message to States like California that have restricted the type of firearms law abiding citizens in their state are legally allowed to own.
Well, I hope they rule next on abortion, cause that's a right that has completely dissapeared from where I live!!!
Ooops, I forgot...that's a conservative court....my rights just might not mean as much as their religion huh?
Kill with a gun...go ahead! Just don't abort a zygote.
Bring an unwanted baby into this world so they can grow up unloved and unwanted, probably abused...you might be creating a new market to sell your guns to! Hey--a win win....for you.
ps; I wrote a hub on abortion. Surprise surprise, the ads were disabled! 1st amendment not so important as 2nd huh?
Guns can be very dangerous so it is important to be careful in their use.
Abortions invariably kill human beings but some callous, inhumane partisan extremists advocate for their unrestricted use.
No, the life of the mother is seldom in danger with legal abortion. NOT the case with illegal abortion where human life is frequently endangered.
The vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester and the fetus is NOT a human being.
How the hell did you guys get on abortions? Did the ruling state that guns can now be used to perform abortions? I missed that part.
Check with Doug.....I recall his comments in regard to abortion really turned the conversation, not that he originated, wouldn't know, too lazy to check back at the moment, but you might.
"The vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester and the fetus is NOT a human being."
Sorry I got off topic!
That statement was very disturbing to me. As soon a Human female egg is fertilized by a Human male spermatozoa; a human being begins forming. That fertilized egg will not become a ritz cracker or a elephant or an apple pie. It is a human being. I respect a woman's right to choose. I just think it's wrong to disrespect developing human beings by saying they are not human.
So you're okay with those late terms being thrown in the trash, no big deal, gotta keep those rights at the expense of those late terms? No need to get some specificity into the abortion laws to prevent that? Uh Huh. A liberal anything goes law, or no law, all righty then. I just lost a newborn heifer this evening, I would shoot anyone who tried to abort her late term or otherwise.
"the fetus is NOT a human being."
You HAVE to say that (fully aware it is insupportable) in order to justify support for an inherently immoral act. There might be an easier way to put your mind at ease...
"The vast majority of abortions occur in the first trimester and the fetus is NOT a human being."
Is it a Ritz Cracker?
The same can be said about computer keyboards. You should use the safety more often.
That sounds pretty much to me what happens far too often in this country, mostly because it brings in a bigger check, and for sure babes born into the most trying of circumstances that you so eloquently and succintly describe would most likely one day be part of the 'new market to sell' guns -- as no doubt they are now and have been in the past. I doubt you realize what you've said -- and it is not a 'win win' for you or for those children.
...well I haven't read all of the posts...I don't mind guns to be used for target practice, hunting etc....but...when I'm in the US and I don't know which states allow or don't allow guns to be carried by people...I am on my best behaviour at all times, because of that..I don't care what you may think of this..but there have been times that I've travelled with someone from the US carrying a weapon and I really don't understand why a gun needs to be toted and visible while we take a nice motorcycle ride on a beautiful day...and then I see the gun...hmmmmm....gonna shoot someone while we are out! I'm sure I'll get some backlash on my comments but I don't care....I just don't get it and never will. I'm glad I don't feel I need a gun to protect myself. A female friend of mine in California has hers for protection. Wow! I kid around about guns but that is all it is - I'm joking. I'd never carry one. So when I'm in the US, I know that not everyone is of sound mind, but they could be carrying a weapon. Backlash? here it comes - I'm ready - come and get me!
The real problem here is the people of unsound mind get guns and uniforms, and a free pass from the justice system to murder black men in our cities.
Do either of you live in a big city? I was responding to a comment. Before making faces at me; scoll up please.
Not weird at all. Though to be fair, the cops don't always shoot the black guy. Sometimes they beat him to death with their flashlights or jam a broomstick up his butt.
Cops treat black people differently from white people (and not in a good way).
This is true. You may not like it, but it's true. (I'm seeing a bit of a pattern here...)
Uh yeah sure it's true... except the broomstick up the butt that cop was cleared in that case.
I'm sure you are not, but you sound like a racist and a criminal. I'm confident that you are capable of greater logic than that displayed in the above post.
"you sound like a racist and a criminal."
Wait, what? I acknowledge that there exists a pattern of law enforcement treating black people more harshly than they treat white people, and that makes me sound like a racist and a criminal?
I think it makes me sound like someone who's willing to look at reality.
Cops don't just go around randomly shooting people--only a fool would believe that. But. As a general rule, black people get treated differently by law enforcement than white people do. White people get warnings, black people get the book thrown at them. Not always, but often enough to be a serious problem, and it's not okay.
It's easier (for us white guys) to pretend this isn't true, but it is. And it's not my fault (or yours) that it's true. But if we insist on pretending that the problem doesn't exist, it will be at least partly our fault that the problem still exists when our kids are grown up.
Not all, but most.
And this may surprise you, but back when I was teaching college, several of my black students told me that even black cops give them a harder time than they gave white kids. It sure surprised the heck out of me, I can tell you that.
It's the new logic, if you point out racism it means you are the racist...
True. Rumor has it that the cops in my community have radar that detects skin color. I'm convinced that the level of criminality in the law enforcement community is higher than in the general population.
Gun ownership rights are protected. Cities can make laws that restrict the usage inside their jurisdiction but they can not ban the ownership of guns.
Be aware that criminals want guns banned. They aren't paying attention to the law anyway and it serves their purpose to have the rest of the population unarmed.
I am all for gun rights. And if you own one, you should know how to use it safely.
I have NEVER resorted to name-calling on the forums before, but I have to say that some of you are nuts! Why would anyone want a gun unless it's to kill another human being? Ever heard of hunting? Skeet shooting? Target practice?
My trusty shotgun saved me and my 3 small children years ago from intruders in the middle of the night in our home. I didn't have to shoot them. When they saw the gun, they left. No one was hurt. Never saw the men again. Happy ending all the way around. I wonder what would have happened if I hadn't had a gun to dissuade them??
Very well said, and I hope your children have the same right/ability to protect their own when they come of age.
I'm wondering what might have happened to your three small children if they'd been high on crack, had guns of their own, and had felt threatened by you waving a gun at them.
I'd put my money oh Habee and there would be three dead guys who were high on crack. If she didn't have the gun it would have been a sadder situation.
Well, you certainly paint a far rosier picture than the alternative possibility.
Televisions, microwaves, money, these things can be replaced.
What you think that if Habee didn't have the gun they wouldn't have been attacked by those druggees or you think that they wouldn't have gotten access to the guns? New York has one of the strictest gun laws and it still doesn't stop criminals.
I don't understand what you're asking / telling me.
OK there was a miscommunication. When you referred to they, I thought you mean the intruders but actually you meant that Habee's kids would be high on crack and had their own guns. So you want to restrict guns on the likelihood of something like your theoretical situation happening vs Habee's actual situation happening, which is really far more likely?
and just how did your reach the conclusion that the Intruders wouldnt have killed, raped or at the least injured her and her family. about hafl of all home intrusions have a componenty of violent physcial attacks.
would you want to bet which percentage youll fall under if some one breaks into your home.
I suspect that your statement suggesting that 'half' of home intrusions are of a violent nature, above and beyond theft is an extreme exaggeration.
But to be honest, Not being an American, I'm not that bothered about any of it, it just sounded a little risky to me. But I guess that teaching your children that people can come into your house and take what ever they like isn't a great lesson either.
If you guys all want to shoot the crap out of each other, go for it.
Mr. Voodoo, did you really think home intrusions were welcome surprises? I'm curious, wherever it is you live, is it okay for strangers to barge into your house unannounced?
No, of course they're not welcome. But I'm positive that 99% of the time they'd be trying to steal my Playstation, not trying to bum-rape me.
And elevating the situation by pointing a gun at them could be risky.
But what do I know.
So in your situation, even if all they wanted to do was take everything valuable in your home, that would be okay with you. And they know that you're not going to do anything and as soon as you replace those things, they will continue to come to your home and keep taking valuable things. That would be okay with you as long as no one got hurt?
What if they got the wrong house? Maybe it was your drunk neighbor? Shoot him just in case...he might be after your cigarettes?
Don't you think Habee might recognize her own neighbor, drunk or not? And even if it was a neighbor, and he's a mean and violent drunk, you think she shouldn't defend herself or her family?
If that situation were to occur, they could have whatever they wanted the first time, and the second. But after the second time the children would be packed off somewhere safe, and then I'd hunt them down.
Oh, okay, so you have a limit of two burglaries.
But you would only be aware of the pattern of repetition after the second.
But if your pride is more important than the lives of your children, that's fine.
Pride? You think Americans are irresponsible enough to flash a gun just to show off?
'even if all they wanted to do was take everything valuable in your home, that would be okay with you. And they know that you're not going to do anything and as soon as you replace those things, they will continue to come to your home and keep taking valuable things. That would be okay with you as long as no one got hurt?'
Same situation for you. ^
All the intruders want are your possessions, you have your children present with you. What do you do?
Well, your question is premised on the 'intruders' not being 'liars' as well -- now that is really funny.
When I hold a gun, it's not because of pride Mr. Voodoo. My home should be a place of security for my family and no one is allowed in it unless invited.
That you didn't see an answer shows how much we differ. Perhaps our situations really are very different.
I guess they must be.
And I in no way meant to imply that Habee shouldn't have acted as she did. It's just that my imagination started running wild with ugly images of that situation turned bad. And I didn't like it.
But everything turned out fine.
So I'm gonna stop thinking about it and go do some work.
There are 350 million of you, right? As if there is one rule of pride? One America to the power of *?
C'mon... there must be more than a few who flash a gun just for amusement.
Oh, so the law should fashioned because of the few? Why am I constantly surprised that liberals would look at laws that way. Yes, we should make laws for the exceptional cases not for the majority of cases.
Pardon me, Madame. No need for name calling.
Pardon me, I didn't know liberals were now a slur. Good!
Not so much the liberal part. Just that you assume my thoughts on one topical issue might actually define me in some way. Sort of like if I called you a fascist. Or a socialist. Its all a bit silly. I don't really care enough to join a political camp, I much prefer to think with my own mind.
P.S. your sarcasm or specifically, any sense in your sarcasm is going straight over my head. It seems by the state of things that people really do enjoy 'flashing their guns.' I will not repeat the obvious. I suggest you think before you type.
Yeah, weuns enjoy flashin guns n shootin furriners.
In the Army a rifle is a weapon and a "gun" is something entirely different, and flashing it could get you in trouble.
no actually its not Mr. V. in addition to theft it seems most home invaders love to do a few side jobs after they steal your stuff. LIke beating you or your family senseless. ocassionally they like to rape, kill, and some odd torture too. guess they feel once they have you at their mercy why not go for broke.
so personally I would treat every situation as a Potential for Violence and react accordingly. if they want to dail 911 for me so I dont have to shoot them all the better. if they want to run out of my house great. if they want to play macho Ill drop em on the floor.
Maybe you guys just have a different class of bad guys out there. Over here the burglars taking a shit on your floor is about as nasty as things usually get.
LOL, only inside your scared little mind where you believe that everybody is out to get you.
Turn the television off, go outside, all-in-all people are quite nice.
Apparently, in your scared little mind everyone has to pay up to keep you and yours fed, clothed, housed, and educated.
If you're referring to earlier I was merely suggesting it should be a last resort with children present.
But if you want to play Rambo and mop your children's brains up of the floor when it all goes horribly wrong. Be my guest.
Habee will step in and further defend her choice and her own thoughts......yours are nothing but emptiness, and one must wonder at their purpose. Perhaps you would prefer the people of most countries of power to believe you are right, that it is better to converse, and believe, the trespassers, that all they want is your wealth, not your life or the future life of your children.......don't think you'll find Americans buying into that line of BS.
The only nation of power in control of America is China.
Please don't hide behind Habbee, I'm sure she will too, but I didn't mean to attack her actions specifically, it just came across that way.
'don't think you'll find Americans buying into that line of BS.'
Unfortunately I believe you are right.
The Terrorists, The Criminals, The Drugees, The Immigrants.
They sure do sound a scary bunch.
Well, gee, maybe she would have put a voodoo hex on those goons with a gun that scared the heck out of them and sent them running away, think that would've worked? Habee would have kept her gun aside until she hexed them with a long litany of voodoo mumbo, if she thought her gun would add to the problems. Apparently, though, Habee's actions were right on.
Blame it on Doug. Or somebody else. I didn't bring up abortion - I was just responding.
OK. It just seems using a gun to perform an abortion is just plain nuts, although if you combine the constitutional arguments presented here it would be perfectly legal.
Maybe amateurs should defer to the Supreme Court's ability to interpret the Constitution. I find it hillarious that people who have never practiced law can claim to know with absolute certainty which laws and practices are constitutional and which ones aren't.
So you find a Right to Abortion, in the right to Privacy? Most Americans I know do not. It is called Judicail Activism... it is a major enemy to the Constitution itself.
And Chrs... the reason to bring up Abortion is just to babble the femi-nazi agenda, nothing more. it is the lefts' way to obfuscate and drag the conversation into a bash the right and cry about imagined rights rant.
Versus the real Right to keep and bear arms.
We have grown used to it.
so the major enemy to the constitution is the fact it contradicts itself?
Judicial Activism= any court ruling with which you disagree.
It's because you all tout the Constitution when you want YOUR rights upheld.
But when you disagree, the Constitution can go to hell.
That is the point and the reason for bringing up abortion.
I can get a gun where I live, I cannot get an abortion.
Your rights are more important than mine.
Oh, and guns DO kill people....just read the paper and you will see. Was it 40 people gunned down in Chicago last week?
Sweet little kids get killed all the time by being at the wrong place at the right time.
SPARE ME your Holier than thou care about human life! It's a crock!!!
Just a quick thought here was it the guns that killed those people or the people holding the guns. Owning a gun does not make you a murdered using the gun to kill someone does.
"I can get a gun where I live, I cannot get an abortion."
It is very easy to legally get an abortion where you live. It is very difficult to legally get a gun where you live. Don't repeat falsehoods.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. But Monkeys do, too (if they've got a gun).
The gun helps.
We've got the right to carry them (which I say is a Good Thing), but they sure do make it easier to kill people.
"SPARE ME your Holier than thou care about human life! It's a crock!!!"
There you have it, the liberal attitude toward the value of human life compared to banal political bias. Concern for human life is just "a crock" to them. What's really important is the politics of personal irresponsibility.
No, Sab, she's not saying that concern for human life in general is a crock, she's saying she doesn't believe that you have genuine concern for human life.
It was not particularly clearly worded, but I'm pretty sure that's what she was going for.
This from the person in another thread who basically said people are crap and dogs are better.
Believing in a woman's choice to do what she wants with her own body in no way means you have no respect for life.
"This from the person in another thread who basically said people are crap and dogs are better."
In general that's true.
"Believing in a woman's choice to do what she wants with her own body in no way means you have no respect for life."
Depends on what she wants to do with her body, doesn't it?
If you don't have a gun in the first place, you can't use it to kill. Buying a gun gives you license to kill...you decide whether you use it or not.
You allow yourselves that license. You want to restrict mine. Simple as that. Both Constitutionally guarenteed rights....one touted as "freedom", the other demonized as "murder".
Owning a gun does not equate to ending a life, or abortion. You say it's your right to end that life, no that's a decision that you might make without asking the one person who matters most what they think, the unborn child.
Abortion is legal so I don't get your argument, and owning a gun isn't murder. That's just twisted logic.
The Constitution specifically guarantees the right to bear arms. It says nothing about abortion. That is a horror that was sadly granted legal protection long, long after.
The Constitution via Supreme Court decisions does not support your point of view.
"The Constitution specifically guarantees the right to bear arms. It says nothing about abortion."
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
You may not like it, but there it is.
IT DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTION ABORTION IN THE CONSTITUTION. IT DOES SPECIFICALLY MENTION THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS.
Do I have to draw a picture?
No, but it would help if you read your own posts. You said the constitution says nothing about abortion. Jeff accurately pointed out that it does....
aaaaaaargh! how the hell did this get back to abortion?
"IT DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTION ABORTION IN THE CONSTITUTION."
No need to shout, I heard you the first time. I do not deny that abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. I simply pointed out that the Constitution doesn't need to mention abortion. The Ninth Amendment makes it quite clear that, even though the Constitution only lists these specific rights [The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,] , that doesn't mean you don't have all other rights [shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.].
You should just accept it.
Or you can yell at me some more if it makes you feel better. I have thick skin.
"I do not deny that abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution. "
Glad we finally cleared that up.
Good. 'Cos the Constitution doesn't need to mention a right for us to have the right. It specifically says so:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
You clearly don't like that we have that right, but we have it.
Do you obtain some benefit from repeating something that is not in dispute over and over again? If you had bothered to read my first post in this line carefully you might have saved yourself a lot of effort.
No, I don't, but you seem to think that rights not enumerated in the Constitution are somehow lesser rights than those that are.
Do you think that? If not, then there's no dispute; we agree.
If so, then there is a dispute, and you're wrong.
You're clearly having this conversation with yourself. Enjoy.
Thanks, I am enjoying being right.
"You're clearly having this conversation with yourself."
Oh, wait...are you saying that you're a figment of my imagination?[/edit]
The second amendment of the Constitution gives us the right to bear arms. The Constitution is not a living document to be changed at the whim of every judge who has a personal opinion. The law is to be upheld. It is up to you to learn proper care and use of your gun, the laws of your state and most importantly to make sure it is not loaded and accessible to children.
The problem is crooks get guns no matter whether it is lawful or not. I grew up around having a gun in the house and was taught from an early age the rules to follow as a child and to respect the fact that guns can kill if someone pulls the trigger.
I think this is a great day for law. Taking away defence mechanisms only leads to bigger bullies in crime, law, and government.
You go, girl!
My dad was a gun dealer, collector, and hunter, so we had guns around all the time. Like you, I was taught from an early age to respect firearms. My brother and I NEVER played with guns! We knew better!
Personally I Dont care if some people dislike firearms. your opinions means zero against the constitution and my right to defend myself. those who dislike them are perfectly with in their rights to become victims and to be subjugated by a Tyranical government.
The Supreme court also needs to remember they do not make law nor interperet law. their one and only function is to uphold the constitution by judging whether a law is constitutional.
as far as laws... Laws are the best tools of Tyranny around. laws are passed by those in power.with out regard to the Populace. laws can come and go. the constitution how ever Defines the limits of the Government and the inalienable rights of the people. The constitution is supposed to be the peoples trump card against Oppressive government, runaway legislation and powergrabs.
"is very easy to legally get an abortion where you live. It is very difficult to legally get a gun where you live. Don't repeat falsehoods."
The ONE clinic that provided abortion here was run out of town by the scary protestors...people were afraid they would be shot for working at an abortion clinic, so it is now gone. I would have to drive at least 100 miles to find one, if even there.
There is a gun shop 30 miles from here. I can obtain a license with no problemo...my daughter went to a shooting range with her friends family and was doing target practice!!!
Abortion was ruled a right of my privacy as guarenteed in the Constitution.
YOU want to force me to have a baby by order of the state!!!
You are NOT for freedom OR the Constitution...only when it suits you.
"The ONE clinic that provided abortion here was run out of town by the scary protestors...people were afraid they would be shot for working at an abortion clinic, so it is now gone."
Sounds like you are describing domestic terrorism.
There are clinics in Falmouth and Hyannis, and any major hospital near you can provide services or put you in touch with a doctor who will.
Don't repeat falsehoods.
In Massachusetts all new firearm license applicants must complete a certified firearms safety course or Basic Hunter Education Course which cost $100.00
"The constitution is supposed to be the peoples trump card against Oppressive government, runaway legislation and powergrabs."
And people who want to force their views upon me!
From a blogger on my local blog:
"Justice Alito's plurality opinion upholds our 2nd Amendment rights against unreasonable state regulation via incorporation through the 14th Amendment under the principle of substnative due process -exactly as Justice Blackmun in Roe v. Wade upheld a woman's right to abortion under 4th Amendment privacy principles."
and yet you miss the whole point behind the constitution. People cant force their views on views on others if it violates the constitution. and people are the ones that have set back and let the Politico slime balls and the wienies on the supreme court violate their constitutional mandates and limitations of power.
The supreme court was never intended to be a political tool that a president uses to stack a court to get his or his parties views pushed on the rest of the nation. yet that part of the seperation of powers mandated by the constitution has been ignored for years.
as far as you quote... its yet more legalese that really means very little in plain english its the typical court and lawyers say alot with out saying a word.
reality is and plain english... Regardless of personal, local or state opinions on fire arms the Constitution, supported by the documents of the founding fathers states that Owning a fire arm and self defense are Constitutional and shall not be infringed.
thats what they say but add in legalese to allow them to skate around the issue and obfuscate it in a courtroom.
as far as abortion it has nothing to do with gun control, further more regardless of my opinon of abortion it is a personal and religious Issue and therefore is not up to any one group, person or religion to set a standard, law or restriction for the rest of the populace.
how ever your more than welcome to ostrecize some one in your personal life and voice your disagreement with the whole thing. social pressure is what used to be used. of course it only works when the majority of people agree with your point of view.
unless of course you want to start a constitutional convetion to change the constitution. Passing laws will not alter the constituttion and will only continue the battle thru the years. a majority voting to change the constitution will end it one way or the other and thats what the framers of the constitution intended for such serious and divisive issues.
"SPARE ME your Holier than thou care about human life! It's a crock!!!"
Do you really have a hard time with this?
You think you really care about life because you don't think I have the right to have an abortion.
Yet, you think it's perfectly fine to own a gun,one of the purposes of which is to kill people.
ERGO, your concern for human life is a crock.
You are only concerned about throwing your religious views on me, and making me live by them.
For, if you really cared about life, you would be against any kind of death.
And you support war and the death penalty.
"You think you really care about life because you don't think I have the right to have an abortion."
Another one with reading comprehension issues...
I said at the outset that the horror of abortion is currently legally protected. And yes, I do think I really care about life because I don't approve of the callous taking of the most vulnerable human life as a means of birth control or a convenient escape from responsibility.
"you think it's perfectly fine to own a gun"
As I noted, the Constitution specifically guarantees the right to bear arms. And of course one of the purposes of bearing arms is to protect the innocent.
"You are only concerned about throwing your religious views on me"
Who said anything about religion?
"For, if you really cared about life, you would be against any kind of death."
That makes no sense.
I'm not trolling...I am sick of this psuedo caring for the Constitution.
I don't own a gun, never will. So I don't. I also don't go around making everybody else do the same.
The anti-choice people, however, will herald their rights all over the place, while doing everything in their power to prevent me from having mine.
You don't like abortion, don't have one. But you have terrorized away the Constitutional rights for many women--such as any women who live around here... while maintaining your right to own a deadly weapon.
Either the Constitution applies to all, or it applies to none.
You want a gun, I want an abortion....both are protected by the Constitution, of which you claim to love.
So, I can get a gun, but not an abortion...so how is that living by the Constitution? It's not!
And yes, Doug, it is domestic terrorism...been going on here unchecked for decades. Doctors targeted, their families targeted...Cher made a documentary about it...very powerful.
"There are clinics in Falmouth and Hyannis, and any major hospital near you can provide services or put you in touch with a doctor who will."
WRONG! That clinic in Hyannis was closed down, due to Victory Chapel, IMO. And the one on Falmouth, I don't know,..but a woman wrote an article stating that abortion was no longer available on the Cape. I believe her.
"In Massachusetts all new firearm license applicants must complete a certified firearms safety course or Basic Hunter Education Course which cost $100.00"
Like I said, easy as pie!
"You don't like abortion, don't have one."
That makes no sense. By that thinking we would have no laws against other kinds of murder either. "You don't like murder, don't murder anyone"? Makes no sense.
"So, I can get a gun, but not an abortion..."
Who said you can't? Abortion is currently legal.
"Doctors targeted, their families targeted..."
The people doing that should be arrested and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
"WRONG! That clinic in Hyannis was closed down"
There is a clinic in Hyannis, and the one in Falmouth, and many in and around Boston, and one can receive those 'services' at hospitals around the Cape. Don't be misleading.
"Hyannis Family Planning is referring women to Four Women Inc., in Attleboro, Planned Parenthood in Boston and Women's Health Services in Brookline, among other places, said Jenny Lusk Yablick Sheehan, director of reproductive health services for Health Care of Southeastern Massachusetts, the family planning agency's parent company.
Her agency provides "full options" counseling, including parenting resources as well as adoption and abortion referrals. It does not perform abortions.
Turner worries that women who have made the painful decision to have an abortion now face the barriers of time and travel off Cape. The local hospitals do not perform abortions, she said. "All options that have to do with human services and medical services that are necessary for women but somewhat controversial have always been difficult to access," Turner said."
You know, I agree completely that a woman has a choice, a right, to do as she pleases with 'her own body'. But, as long as late term abortion is allowed by idiots who have second and third thoughts, for no medical reason, or maybe don't even know they are pregnant until that stage, something has got to change.
It is murder, as it is premeditated ending of life. Period. I'd rather see no abortions, that is not, and never in history has been, something that will end, and yes, it is much preferable that it be done by a medical professional. But, our new medical care allows absolute murder. Put a gun to your belly at 5 months and pull the trigger, same difference. Read up on the stages of the development of the human baby, and lots of other animal babies at comparable stages for that matter! It's "easy as pie" . . . to read and comprehend.
The comparison of the right to bear arms equated with the “right to choose” is of a ridiculous nature. The right to bear arms is intended to provide each citizen the option of protection via personally owned weapons to protect the life, property and/or liberty of one’s self and/or that of others and in no way allows, concedes, sanctions or endorses the taking of life through this right.
The Rowe vs. Wade decision, no matter what your religious beliefs or the limits to your definition of life is, the “Right to Choose” is still, and always the destruction of life every time.
LIFE: the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.
Whether that life be believed to be sentient or not, is not of issue. At a biological level whether zygote or embryo or cellular the “choice” is always and only the destruction of that life.
I care not about the latter issue and hold no issue with a woman’s right to choose, but making the assumption that bearing arms is a license to the automatic and sanctioned taking of life is as stated above, absurd.
Who said automatic? It's giving you the choice whether or not to pull the trigger.
If you do, and someon dies, you have taken a life! SIMPLE!!
But you want your choice...you just want to end mine!
Handguns were designed with one purpose in mind: to kill people. Anything made with the sole intent of killing people is evil. Ergo: Handguns are evil. The likeliest outcome of owning a handgun is it sitting in a drawer. When it comes out, the next likeliest outcome is killing someone, usually a loved one. I would prefer a world without handguns to a world with handguns.
Hammers were designed with the sole purpose of driving nails, yet they make pretty good murder weapons too. Regardless of the intention of the design, how something is used determines it purpose and intent is something that only living beings can possess not inanimate objects.
That is a philosophical mistake. People have a peculiar ability to embody their intentions in objects. The neat "only living things can have intent" is simply wrong....it doesn't take evil seriously enough. Object can have evil qualities. Put a gun along side a hammer and ask yourself if you truly believe they have no qualitative difference.....that is both are merely tools?
What? I don't own a handgun, but I've shot many of them, and not once did I end up killing anyone, and neither has anybody I've ever shot with.
Also, the stat you're referring to, about usually killing a loved one? The actual data is a check on whether the murderer and the victim knew each other beforehand, not how they knew each other. We don't know from those data how many of the killers killed a 'loved one,' or a business associate, or a fellow criminal (my money is on a majority of 'fellow criminal').
Did you take statistics? 'Cos if you did, your prof was rubbish.
yes banning handguns really stops people from killing people..
after that what... ban hard bound books, rolling pins, knives, sharp pointy sticks..
I know we can make murder illegal along with Theft and rape.. oh ... never mind its been tried.
england ban on handguns... cab drive went on a rampage and killed 25 people in two villages with..... ( no not a herring) a Hand gun.. that ban really stopped him in his tracks.
Its surpreme idiocy to think that banning something stops it. I will defend myself, my family, my property and those who need it regardless of what you, the law or the Supreme court decides. Becuase I have the responsibilty to defend my self and those who cant.
becuase if I dont I betray the Moral values and Ideals I espouse.
Ill be just as low as those scum who watch a women get raped and do nothing. or watch a child get snatched and do and say nothing till its over with.
oh and Love my ... I dont mind taking a life. Child molesters, rapists and murders dont deserve my pity and wont get it either if I see them committing the crime. Women beaters and child abusers are only slightly above those.
The fire arm death rate is 30 times higher here than in the UK and more than double Canada where guns are regulated sensibly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co … death_rate
"Canada where guns are regulated sensibly."
I haven't time to fully describe them just now, but the rules for getting your handgun repaired by a gunsmith in Canada are worthy of Monty Python.
(I know this from talking to Canadian friends, not from firsthand experience. Any folks from Canada want to chime in before I get around to telling the story?)
Rules for getting a handgun repaired aren't a burden unless you own a handgun! And if you do how many times in your lifetime do you need to have your handgun repaired? Not a major inconvenience it seems to me. I own a shotgun and a .22 rifle neither of which has ever been in the repair shop. (I admit they are rarely used these days, but they once were used a lot.)
"Rules for getting a handgun repaired aren't a burden unless you own a handgun! " This is true, no question. However, I don't think that's really the point.
The following are the byzantine Canadian handgun rules as explained to me by a fellow reenactor a couple years ago. Any shooter from Canada will be able to fill in the blanks and correct my mistakes.
So, to even own a handgun at all, you must be a member of a shooting club. Of course you need to have a permit for the handgun and the gun itself must be registered (two separate documents).
You may not carry your handgun anywhere outside of a locked case, and you must not carry ammunition in the case, even if the ammunition is not loaded in the handgun. You need a separate case.
When going to the range to shoot, you may not make any stops on the way if you have your cased handgun with you. Not for gas, not for a bite to eat, not nothing. Same for on the way home.
If your handgun should malfunction or break while you're at the range (as my brother-in-law's handgun did while we were at the range one day, so it does occasionally happen), you need to call up the government to let them know that you're going to take your handgun to a gunsmith for repair.
The gov't worker will ask you the address where you are and the address of your gunsmith. He will note these down, and give you a permission-to-have-your-gun-worked-on number, and tell you how much time you have to get from where you are to the gunsmith. If you take too long, that's a crime. Of course, no stops of any kind are allowed on the way to the gunsmith.
If you're over time, even if you just got stuck in traffic, the gunsmith is not allowed to work on your gun. If he does, that's a crime. When you get there, assuming you're not late, the gunsmith will call the government, let them know that you've arrived, and make sure it's okay to work on your gun.
When the gunsmith is finished, he'll call you up to come get your gun. When you get there, you need to call the gov't again, and get permission to take your own gun home. As before, you'll get a number, and a time limit. You need to check in with the gov't again when you get home. If you get stuck in traffic, or stop at a Tim Horton's drive-thru, you're a criminal.
Doesn't seem very "sensible" to me.
Well, it seems to be working for the Canadians.
Same goes for a woman's body.
How it is used is up to her!!!
Or let's make a law forcing men to have vasectomies. That will end abortion pronto.
You can use your body any way you want, it's how you want to use the body of an unborn child that shouldn't be up to you.
I keep asking and no one replies, how do you force a woman who does not want a child to carry it until it is born?
Just been catching up on this thread after a couple of days. Seems the only good argument from the pro gun side is the fact that gun ownership is already so prolific. For every 100 people there are 90 guns! By that token it does seem fair enough to protect your right to ownership. However, owning a gun for protection requires a criminal element to be a worthy cause. Guns are legal but there are still such harsh laws on possession of drugs. Why not legalize drugs and put and end to drug related crime?
Originally published Sunday, December 4, 2005 at 12:00 AM
Legalize drugs — all of them
By Norm Stamper
Special to the Los Angeles Times
"LEAP - Law Enforcement Against Prohibition - Cops Say Legalize Drugs
Jun 29, 2010 "
Plus, it's a RACIST system!
80% of people indicted for drug crimes are black, yet they are only 13% of the problem! Know who does 72% of drug crimes? Yep, white people!
Continuation of slavery. Free labor for the system. Lots of money for the system. Sadistic bent of the system.
Don't belive me....believe the cops who are in the thick of it!!!
I work for a state department. I understand full well. I work in cooperation with police and have also seen the issue from the other side. The race issues in Australia are different. Here, the indigenous people are dramatically overrepresented in the prison system. In my studies, some years ago now, we looked at the statistics. Not only are the indigenous overrepresented but a most prisoners are not only there for drug related crimes, they also suffer serious long term mental health issues. Recently, there has been some shift in policy making where people in the prison system are given a chance and the support to deal with addiction and mental illness issues and crime rates have dropped. What I find hard to believe is that some people can not understand the relationship between poverty/drug addiction/mental illness/crime and the economic situation at large. Based on these new policies new research has been conducted and would you believe it, the everyman actually benefits on the bottom line.
"An ...evaluation of the Court Integrated Services Program (CISP) found its participants reoffended less and saved the justice system nearly $5 million in avoided costs since it began two years ago."
Health Department Of Victoria
"You can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hands."
The, "Right To Bear Arms", is enshrined within the Constitution of the United States Of America for one reason above all else.
To defend yourself from an over-bearing and tyranical Government.
The Government which seeks to strip me of my Right to bear arms and defend myself against them and all other enemies, is the government which is overbearing and tyranical.
Simple as that.
That was really, really....
You haven't graced us with your presence in awhile. Did you get a job or something?
I've been busy speakin the truth to power. lol
Work?... a Job?... We're all Socailists now. You can pay for me to live... all of you.
Oh Ron, you libs are just lost when the good conservative voices are silent, aren't you?
It is not "enshrined" it is written. Laws change as can constitutions. I don't worship words. Words are simply meanings that work for a time and a place while times and places change.
And isn't the right to cultivate hemp also in the Constitution?
The crackers might have ran. If they ran, they would have ran fast.
Is this new law about owning and keeping weapons in a home or carrying weapons wherever and whenever?
Just a thought and I checked back to the OP, it says carry.
Has this discussion gone off point? This is slightly abstract for me, I don't have to worry about a tanked economy and gun toting drug addicts and no welfare system. I live in Australia. Anyway, I can actually see the point in owning a gun and keeping it at home. I think its unfortunate but the situation is that the US is full of guns. IMO the root of the problem is written in your law (a terrible law if you ask me but..) carrying a weapon down to the supermarket?
Do you think crime only happens at your house? Or that your right to defend your life and the life of others is nullified because your out on the town, or walking the block?
No... crime is all around you. And the criminals think twice about it when they have no idea who is carrying.
And again, the main reason for the right to keep and bear arms is to protect yourself from an over-bearing and tyranical Govt.
Like I said, I do not live in America. There is not 'crime all around me.'
Thanks for your perspective. I guess there are mixed opinions. I do understand your point of view. No way in this life or the next will I ever visit the United States. By the sound of it, the place is hell on Earth.
http://www.nraila.org/issues/factsheets … ;issue=015
Btw, you are very much welcome to never visit the United States as you have so declared your intention. I hope you are a person of your word.
Sabbo, I might change my mind. I might buy some cheap property after the next crash, take up a new career as a slum lord.
Crime is decreasing though:
"Preliminary figures indicate that, as a whole, law enforcement agencies throughout the Nation reported a decrease of 5.5 percent in the number of violent crimes brought to their attention for 2009 when compared with figures reported for 2008. The violent crime category includes murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. The number of property crimes in the United States in 2009 decreased 4.9 percent when compared with data from 2008. Property crimes include burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. Arson is also a property crime, but data for arson are not included in property crime totals. Figures for 2009 indicate that arson decreased 10.4 percent when compared to 2008 figures."
You can get robbed (or oppressed by the King of England) on your way to the supermarket just as much as in the privacy of your home, Wiz.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms is the citizens' check on government power. It's designed to make the government think twice before trying to take away our other rights. In this day an age, there's no way an armed group of ordinary citizens would be anything more than an inconvenience to the US Army (most American civilians are in wretched physical condition and have no freaking idea how to fight a modern battle). But would the Army march against its fellow citizens*? And what would happen after the battle ended? 'Cos more people have guns than just the ones who got killed that one time...
*Well, maybe it would if it were an armed group of gay activists....
It took some effort but I did move past 'take away our ... rights.' Sorry, if I appear sarcastic, it is not my intention. Why the above quotation stands out is by the fact the US is simply not righteous. The citizens (as you clearly state [wretched physical condition]) have had those 'other rights' stripped. By a different sort of weapon, more sophisticated and covert, by tyrannical policy, by intellectual posturing and drama, by setting citizen against citizen, the government has taken its seat, a very nice seat, too (probably much nicer than the King [Queen]). I would think the basic rights must include shelter, food, clean water, for a first world country, education and health care. America is truly in its time.
Don't confuse Socail Welfare for Rights.
To many today already do.
It must be so natural for you Mason, to draw everything on either side of the line.
No... actually it isn't.
There are alot of shades of gray to sort through.
It takes real work and dedication to intergrity.
But someone has to do it.
Yes I have... he is my profile pic.
I did not say I am against some socail welfare programs to help those in need.... but that does not make that help needed, a right.
Sure. However, if you can't get enough food or you can't put a roof over your head and you deal with that long enough, you can go get a gun and take what you need and what you want. You might be about politics Mason, I am just calling it like I see it.
P.S. I have no idea who that is in your profile pic.
It's "Senator" McCarthy, the leader of the anticommunist hysteria that gripped the US in fear and had our citizens 'informing' on each other like cowards back in the 1950's after he made his completely unsubstantiated claim that a number of communists were working for the State Department, and never produced any actual evidence against them.
It's especially funny that someone who claims to honor the constitution looks to Joe McCarthy as an honorable man. He was one of the worst public figures in America's history.
Thank you. This is the reason I hang around. I engage in the usual banter for a bit of fun, it is interesting as an exercise in study. Guns, no guns, that is one thing. What interests me is the reasoning of some people and the 'falling into line.' This whole communism paranoia you speak of. How people will back themselves into a corner to protect a political standpoint.
The US is a weird place, really. The conservatives want to make sure that everybody is armed, but want to restrict everyone else's freedom. The liberals want to make sure everyone can do whatever they like, except have a gun.
Both sides love to hold up the founders, but the conservatives refuse to see that the founders were not only liberals (in their time) but radicals. The liberals refuse to see that the founders were in favor of liberty, and that also means the liberty to be a jerk if you want to.
Americans are a strange and fascinating bunch, and I say this as an American.
But I still love it here. It's safer than Australia. I mean jeez, you guys have the nine most deadly spiders in the world, and even the freaking platypus is venomous!
Plus those 'roos will kick you right in the groin!
We do have some ugly wildlife, for sure!
There are also places I will not go walking. Places I wouldn't drive either. There are some serious race issues here and a big amphetamine problem, also a lot of money which in the wrong hands is a poor tool! A lot of idiots with too much money, too much booze and too much speed. Bad mix.
I try stay out of trouble. I have already misspent my youth. Oh and btw, you forgot the snakes..
American citizens should have every right to defend their lives, their well-being, and their property against criminals.
These days, the criminals have more rights than the average citizen, and that just isn't right.
I'm all for the right to carry guns, even in public, as long as the carrier has a valid permit.
Maybe this new law will help us protect ourselves against illegal entry by both criminal citizens and criminal illegals.
It's always humor with you guys... lollllllllll
Yes... I will shoot the Homo-Nazis when they come a goose stepping toward my lil son with a perverted smile on thier faces licking thier lips in anticipatory glee.
Any other questions.
And to the above... both. Don't come in my house period if your not asked. I live in Fl. we have the "Stand your ground" Law, and the "King of the Castle" Law.
It is a great place to be armed.
Brenda, you really shouldn't leave out the violent gays, that is so homophobic!
I have a tomahawk. It settles the neighbors. I pulled it out once and now they stay away.
I live in a particularly bad area for this city and still, I live without fear. Great place to live.
You know, one day I knocked on the neighbor's door. I would have been a kid, ten maybe. Happened a lot, really. Kicked the ball across the fence. We can do that round here, knock on the neighbors door. Heck, if I was at some other kids house, I could even knock on his neighbors door!
There is a difference between knocking on your nieghbor's door... and knocking in your nieghbor's door.
See... fairly simple.
lol I love the way you guys twist and sqirm to try to make this a militant killers grabbin up guns to commit mass murder issue. lol
Gee I wonder how many Jews would have survived NAZI germany, (leftys), if they had had the right to keep and bear arms.
See... that is an example of when the right to bear arms would have served the purpose it was intended for.
I am not one of those guys. Honestly, your culture is truly fascinating to me. I don't ever want to be IN America but it does amuse me and fascinate me. I was actually planning a trip for 'one day' but really, mathematically, i.e. returning alive... doesn't seem worth the odds.
WOZ... "There are 350 million of you, right? As if there is one rule of pride? One America to the power of *?
C'mon... there must be more than a few who flash a gun just for amuseme"
Yes some do... mostly gang-banging punks who are not licensed to carry to begin with.
And if you are licensed to carry and flash your gun around... then you will be in jail and have no license no more.
That is the law. Thus the term... "concealed carry".
And I think your vacation would be more than safe.
Is it just that you people think a Govt. is above slaughtering it's populace?
Europe's history proves it is all too possible.
Yes, if all the Jewish people had been armed the Holocaust wouldn't have happened
Are you agreeing with me UW?... really... IDK?...
That being armed may have saved the lives of millions of Jews, Gays, Christians, Gypsies, etc, from Hitler's ovens.
Yes, I do.
That you agree with me... no I don't.
That is why I asked straight out, UW.
No shame in my game.
I think it... I say, I believe it, I argue it.
Simple and truthful.
Yup, I can just picture Anne Frank taking on a bunch of Nazi soldiers because she had a gun.
See... that is what I call... (I will be nice today)... playing a game to divert from the matter at hand.
Were there no Jewish men or women that could have fought against the NAZI's? Just lil Anne frank... that is the logic of a lefty.
"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members."
'A society will be judged by how it treats its weakest members.'
"Socail Welfare, Rights... two different things." TMMason.
Helping the poor and needy is an individual choice as to whether they want to help, or not. Not the perview of the Govt to take from me to give to another.
You can think "Socail policy", is a, "Right" all you want.
They are not, it doesn't matter what you believe.
Welfare could be ceased tomorrow if the law was repealed. Because it is not a right, it is a privilage.
Thats is all there is to it.
I am not sure if it is your memory or your eyes but I do not think social policy is a right. I am really not sure how you came to that conclusion. All the same to me. The fact remains that social policy/welfare, any policy for that matter that requires government spending, requires your spending, whether or not you like it, whether or not it fits your ideals. Too bad.
WOZ you said... "I would think the basic rights must include shelter, food, clean water, for a first world country, education and health care."
That is Socail Welfare Policy... not "Rights".
Just going on what you said... so please keep track of your own spouts of spittle so i won't have to keep catching you up.
And too bad if you don't like it.
Give all the Rights you want away in Aussie land... here in America we know the difference between (Socailism), "Socail Welfare policies", and Rights.
At least some of us still recognize that difference... and we will be back to the right track soon. Repealing obama-Care and all his Socailistic policies.
Just uh cuz we cain't spellz it doen meen we doen no nuttin.
Again, you are wrong. Still, you misinterpret. You make inference through your clouded ideals. What my thoughts might be has no bearing on social policy.
It is my belief that to speak of morals, that is, to speak of rights, this is a moral issue. I am no socialist.
If you are still working on the definition of rights from your constitution, great. That is no concern of mine. I am sure we already covered this; if you enjoy bearing arms and supporting the denial of support for your poor and weak society, fine. If those ideals work for you, great.
We are clearly using different terms here. To further explain myself, assuming the fair chance that you will still not comprehend; I can not give away rights. What you are talking about is the distribution of funds. The government collects its funds from, in part, your taxes. What the government decides to do with that money has diddly squat to do with you. Likewise, in Australia, I don't write the bills that distribute taxes. Too bad for you and too bad for me.
So far as knowing the difference between Socialism and Rights and Socialism and Social Welfare policies, well, that is a doozy, Mason.
Socialism is not equivalent to Social Welfare and for the umpteenth time, I never drew any correlation between either socialism or welfare to rights.
We clear now?
Socialism is not welfare.
Welfare is not socialism.
Welfare is not a right.
Government funds are in part your taxes.
If welfare is distributed,
in part, your earnings are paying the poor to eat.
If you don't like feeding the poor, too bad, go polish your gun (after all, it is your right).
How ridiculous is your interpretation of socialisim. In this country, this 'non-socialistic' country of old, we have for many many years helped to feed the hungry with our tax dollars, the problem is we now are expected to do more for the poor than we can do for our own families. Lots of time spent on a post that falls flat.
Fell on dead ears. I never attempted to explain socialism.
Furthermore, if you don't like the government, do something about it. If you don't do something about it, well too bad.
No you attempt to change, to re-define your Socailist ideals, into a moral definition of rights... wow. What-ever.
That is an old trick of left they have used here in the USA repeatedly... and we are not falling for it anymore. You cannot redefine all things to fit your arguement.
You are talking Socail policy... not rights. Too bad.
"What the government decides to do with that money has diddly squat to do with you."
That is of course not true.
I am still not convinced on this. Once you pay your taxes, the government does as it pleases, correct? I am open to the fact I might sometimes be wrong. Please explain.
Are you under the impression that "the government" is the name of a giant evil robot that has enslaved the people?
If so, the good folks at FoxNews would like to offer you a talk show.
No not really. I do like the imagery.
Seriously though, politicians lie all the time. Ours do, I know that. You can vote them in but they are going to tax you and they hardly do what you ask.
Really? I suppose that means that my vote and voice counts for naught? I think 'naught'.
I just think it is great that all you guys can do is whine about my spelling of Socailism, or would you prefer, "Socialism"... no I like Socailism... so... huh...lollllll too funny.
Good thing I am not intelligent enough to do it on purpose just to watch you all correct me over and over.
"Good thing I'm not intelligent enough..." Mason.
Yes... personal attacks will prove your an intellect to be feared.
I am shaking now...
Wow.. you got it bad.
You're so jealous of America it oozes from every word you spout. I thought the other foriegners were fanatics over America, but you...
You are obsessed with our country.
Relax... we may let you visit sometime.
This foreigner used to be fanatic over America,
The Key words here are used to be.
And no I will not explain.
It does not need an explanation.
On the other hand I have nothing against America.
If you can not see it for yourself...Then you would not be able see it with an explanation. No disrespect intended, but this conversation is over.
by Marian L5 years ago
Why do Americans think their right to bear arms is more important than people's lives?
by Sharon Stajda11 days ago
My question - In general, how do you feel about the right to religious freedom being used in this specific Supreme Court decision? Does one have the right to discriminate due to a religious belief? The...
by Daniel Bassilios3 years ago
What's your view on the supreme court's move to grant equal LGBT marriage rights?The vote on whether or not gay marriage is a constitutional right that should be recognized nationwide will soon be put to the supreme...
by Charlotte Gerber2 years ago
Should U.S. citizens continue to be able to have guns (assuming they carry a permit)? Hillary Clinton doesn't think so. There are several sides to this argument. One consideration should be that certain...
by SEXYLADYDEE5 years ago
Do you support a universal ban on military & assault "like" weapons for non military individuals?Do you believe that only the military needs assault "type" guns? And that "non military"...
by Susie Lehto22 months ago
The majority of American people believe the right to own a firearm for self-defense is their choice to make, not the governments. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ … _own_a_gunThe U.S. Supreme Court said...
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.