patrick.net

I do suggest service to the nation's defense should be mandatory for all citizens. Warrior positions should be only for those showing aptitude for that role, same as cooks, tractor operators, seamstress, and painters. We could get away from contractors and have the national pride increase greatly with mandatory service after H.S.

Sure, everyone would get basic weapons training, but not everyone is a warrior. Isreal has a great system.

I really think this would help improve our selection for public office a great deal.

clambo says

Rewrew, the Constitution and framers intended for American citizens to be able to own the same weapons as the government did.

The purpose of the right to bear arms was not intended for simple self defense or hunting. The purpose intended by the framers of the Constitution was to be able to defend against a tyrannical government.

Therefore, since the government at the present time has fine rifles the citizens should have access to equal quality weapons.

I also don't get why he thinks shooting a gun is more complicated than driving a car? It's much simpler than driving. You have to learn your weapon and that's it. You learn one piece of machinery or how many of them you have.

The comparison between driving and shooting wasn't to demonstrate one was easier than the other, it was to show that while each can equally be as destructive only one requires licensing and continued demonstration of competency in use throughout ownership/operation. Additionally, no one seems to get too upset and claim we are restricting freedom of travel by it. People have their feet, bicycles, etc.

The founders didn't ever imagine a time when people would not be familiar with a basic tool like the gun and assumed general competency and universal ownership. It's the era they lived in. They absolutely didn't frame the second amendment in terms of equal arms. It was far from their minds. They just wanted arms, any, to be available to the population. They used the term "arms" generic on purpose to basically mean anything remotely comparable or that could challenge a foreign power/invader.

By your logic of equal arms it would stand to reason citizens should be allowed to stockpile chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons. They should also be able to own mechanized fighting vehicles, mines, mortars, jet fighters, destroyers, and explosives a plenty. Thankfully there are regulations in this country to prevent such things. These things absolutely should be controlled and restricted and were never intended for private possession by a single person.

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1495

Read the above link. The British army was beat by a larger force with stronger unified will and purpose. They were not bested by equal arms on the field of battle by a regular armed force.

I believe guns should be available for private ownership, and reasonable provisions should be made for those who seek to own something outside of a recreational/sport firearm. If you want to own something like that, it seems to me you need to prove you have the level of competency most Americans had with firearms at the time the second amendment was written, and specifically, you need to prove that you have competency with that specific firearm. Currently we hand guns over the counter to people like lollipops and we pay for it in lives.

More guns isn't safer, it's more guns. A citizenship skilled with firearms is safer for the individual as well as a free state. That was the experience shown to be true by the Revolutionary war and what was put in the constitution.

Honest Abe says

I think I'm going to put up a sign in my front yard that says: "I BELIEVE IN THE 2ND AMENDMENT" Or better yet: " NEITHER OF MY NEIGHBORS BELIEVE IN THE 2ND AMENDMENT".

Which home do you think the "bad guys" intent on a home invasion, would avoid?

It's a false argument you make as most citizens "believe in it". Lots disagree with how it is liberally interpreted. (Note: the term "liberally" used here purposefully to remind you of Liberal, but meant in terms of broadness or openness. Just so we are clear.)

Please do post that sign on your lawn and open carry. I give you high odds of gun violence happening in your general direction. "Live by the sword, die by the sword."

It's too bad Americans can't be reasonable and meet in the middle:

- The left accepts the 2nd Amendment isn't going away and quits trying to outright ban guns.

- The right concedes there are limits to the 2nd Amendment, and sees the reason in registration (including a blacklist for crazy/dangerous people), closing the "gun show" loophole, and banning assault weapons.

I'm fairly conservative, and I find that quite reasonable.

rfsanders says

...and banning assault weapons

Yes. Yes. This one. What do you think is an "assault weapon"?
Hint: among media-misused labels this one is hard to beat. Nowadays, it seems that painting rifle black makes it an assault weapon.

rewrew7 says

The founders didn't ever imagine a time when people would not be familiar with a basic tool like the gun and assumed general competency and universal ownership. It's the era they lived in. They absolutely didn't frame the second amendment in terms of equal arms. It was far from their minds. They just wanted arms, any, to be available to the population. They used the term "arms" generic on purpose to basically mean anything remotely comparable or that could challenge a foreign power/invader.

They talked a lot about keeping power in check at home, and framing it even with the expectations that invariably future bloodshed would be required for free people to retain their liberty from those at home who would strive to put them in shackles.

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.
The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is
wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts
they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions,
it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ...
And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not
warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of
resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as
to the facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost
in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from
time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.
It is its natural manure."

-- Thomas Jefferson

Having just thrown off the yoke of one master, they were in no hurry to assume another. Much debate on the form of government ensued, and it was some work to prevent some of the colonial alliance from creating an at home monarchy. Washington himself is said to have refused the title of King.

rewrew7 says

These things absolutely should be controlled and restricted and were never intended for private possession by a single person.

By whom? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

When a nation collectively loses its identification with true liberty, its people only have hope and prayers that they will be justly ruled.

I can understand community ordinances prohibiting dangers items that can go "boom" from being kept in the neighborhood. But I don't care much for the Federales making that a law that only those on Mt. Olympus get to have all the killing devices. Historically that's a mistake.

rfsanders says

banning assault weapons

I think this is a bad idea. There are a bazillion auto weapons out there, many bought black market by criminals (some directly frmo the Feds, but that's a different convo...). I'd hazard that 99% of deaths related are drug and gang violence (somewhat redundant, I know). The rest are kept safely by their owners and provide a very viable deterrent to tyranny.

lenar says

Yes. Yes. This one. What do you think is an "assault weapon"?

Isn't the term "assault weapon" kind of redundant? Sure, a weapon can be used in defense, but there's still blood.

lenar says

Nowadays, it seems that painting rifle black makes it an assault weapon.

Hey, they don't call them Evil Black Rifles (EBR's) for nothing. ;-)

HEY YOU says

How many gun lovers had family members wounded or killed in Aurora?
Collateral damage happens. Do not tread on 2nd amendment rights.

Actually saw a great interview with a family member of a deceased victim. Big news reporter from major network asked leading question for slam dunk pro-gun-control response from family member, only to have question stuffed back into reporter's mouth as family member totally defended gun ownership, that law-abiding gun owners are the only ones that would turn in guns and nut jobs would keep them, and moreover it's an issue of preserving liberty which is much bigger than this incident. BRAVO!

If someone wants you dead you're dead, whether your armed or not.
What's the saying?: You will not hear the bullet.
How many are 10 feet tall & BULLET PROOF?

True enough. Same holds true, however, for the nut job shooting in a crowd. If 12 people in that theater were packing heat in violation of the theater ban, perhaps a few lives would have been saved.

I posted a thread today on a guy who saved folks from a knife wielding maniac today. Maniac might just as easily have not heard a bullet hit him had he a gun. Instead, someone packing heat (perhaps because of what just happened in Aurora) halted his progress immediately by providing him with the option: bullet or drop the knife.

Everyone who wants to control people owning guns wants to change the subject.
The one above says that people should "prove" they can operate a gun. Really? I have some tips on operating a gun.
Load the mag, stick it in. Yank the slide or whatever it has to put one in the chamber. Point it away from yourself, fire.
Repeat.
There is no gun show loophole at least in California there isn't.
I also don't know anyone who bought a piece at a gun show anyway.

freak80 says

lenar says

Yes. Yes. This one. What do you think is an "assault weapon"?

Isn't the term "assault weapon" kind of redundant? Sure, a weapon can be used in defense, but there's still blood.

I don't have any problem with the term, persay. The AK an AR semi models are designed to look just like the real deal which are spoken of by the military as assault weapons, although often the assault style can be narrowed down to a more purpose specific, close quarters style weapon vs. a more standard issue Single / auto fire flex rifle like the M16, etc.

The media / left calls anything that looks like a military grade weapon an assault weapon, auto or not. I find that to be horribly misleading, and deliberately so. This nutjob could have had a fat clip in a semi hunting rifle with same caliber with identical limited potential / results.

If they were intent on accuracy, they would say assault-style single shot rifle to differentiate from an auto machine gun which, IMO, is the imagery they are trying to impart, with the goal of gaining support to take out semi-auto weapons with the support of average people who think they're removing military grade firepower from the street.

clambo says

Everyone who wants to control people owning guns wants to change the subject.
The one above says that people should "prove" they can operate a gun. Really?

Yeah, and the analogy to driver licensing is apples and oranges, and besides the point. 1) the problem is not that people accidentally shooting each other left and right (and when it is an accident, it almost always involves a child finding the weapon not safely stored) 2) plenty of licensed drivers exhibit a complete and total disregard of the rules anyway which kills exponentially more people than whack jobs each year; and 3) people operate their vehicles in public practically every single day of their lives and must always share the roads with one another. Guns? They shoot them on their own property / middle of nowhere / at a range.

Those who do differently will do so without a license, proper care, etc. anyway. Much like the bonehead driving 22 Mexicans in/on his pickup truck off the road and into a TX ditch killing 14 of them the same day as Aurora.

Here's one gun that's cool very accurate and bad ass looking. It's a clone of the CZ75, an outstanding piece.

rfsanders says

The left accepts the 2nd Amendment isn't going away and quits trying to outright ban guns.

I'm pretty sure everyone on the left has already done this. I haven't heard a politician speak in favor of an outright ban in 15 years or so. Speaking for myself, I've said earlier in the thread, I accept the right to keep and bear arms as a fact, although I don't accept its legitimacy.

The problem is the right won't take "yes" for an answer and keeps pushing further and further ("stand your ground", etc.). I think its because they see it as a political winner and want to keep the fight alive.

FunTime says

So I think the idea, for some, is that the level of tool that they want covered by law comes all the way from nuclear bombs, F16s(can a private citizen own a fighter jet?), down to hand guns, or guns designed to quickly kill dozens of people. What is the purpose of such a tool, if not mass murder?

Funtime,

Yes, they are intended for mass killing and/or murder. The government is made of the same human beings as those not in the government. Anything banned from the private citizen should also be banned from the government and vice versa. So if a general citizen can't have an F-16, neither should the government. The situation we have now is a situation of haves and have-nots.

bdrasin says

The problem is the right won't take "yes" for an answer and keeps pushing further and further ("stand your ground", etc.). I think its because they see it as a political winner and want to keep the fight alive.

Bullshit. NYC, DC, Chicago bans.... The Schumers of the world will push for as much as they can get:

“The basic complaint is that the Chuck Schumers of the world want to take away your guns,” Schumer said of the argument made by gun lobbies. “I think it would be smart for those of us who want rational gun control to make it know that that’s not true at all.”

....He also said average Americans don’t need an assault weapon to go hunting or protect themselves.

Governments around the world have stripped hundreds of millions of people their right to own weapons which have left them defenseless to be robbed, raped and murdered.

The best way to enslave the people is to disarm them.

Gun control is not about safety - its about the loss of FREEDOM.

The guns give you freedom argument is bogus. And if we grant the argument then clearly guns steal freedom from those that don't own guns.

And guns shoot 100,000 people each year(give or take a few thousand) So there is no way in hell guns make us safer.

And the gun people like to say that cars kill people also. Well granted. Cars do kill and raise your risk of horrible injury or death. This does not jusify ratcheting up the risk still higher with legal guns.

100% of all people will die.

100% or murderers killed people.

Since people all die anyways, why prosecute murderers? Speak up my liberal friend.

StillLooking says

The guns give you freedom argument is bogus

really? Then why does it take guns to remove freedom? (Ask your leader Mao for hints on this one)

Still - guns don't "give" you freedom, but taking them away is taking away the freedom to own them or defend yourself.

And why do politicians insist the people used to protect them are heavily armed? Why do they insist that firearms for protection for THEM is good, but that firearms for protection for YOU is bad? Could that be just another one of the trillions of liberal double standards"?

Bap33 says

a tool's use is limited to the USER's intent. You can drive a fucking nails with pistols, and you can kill millions of people with hammers

There's a difference in ease of use relative the physical and mental abilities of people. I get that some people will just become dead set on murder and agree the really difficult societal problem to solve is that one. It's a bummer that some guns make it so easy. Just go to your local store, load up, and walk into a crowded place and light it up. I appreciate the difficulty involved in killing a room of people with a hammer or having to concoct a chemical combination capable of leveling a government building in Oklahoma City and then having to carry said concoction in a way that could just mean a very successful suicide.

FunTime says

There's a difference in ease of use relative the physical and mental abilities of people.

yep, and one of the reasons that liberalism is called a mental disorder is their thought process that allows them to believe that criminals are too lazy to use a hammer, and that more laws controlling the tool used to murder will have an effect on behavior and people that exist outside of the law already. It's totally insane to think that removing a law following citzens weapons will effect a friggin criminal or his actions. Absolutly insane. Arming the citizens, and teaching weapons training in H.S., just like drivers training or cooking, will GREATLY reduce the number of criminal acts. And you show that you agree with me when you site a "successful suicide" being a deturant for a truck bomb made of fertilizer -- you admit that criminals don't normally want to die in their effort to murder others -- so, you admit that the idea of facing an armed target would detur most criminals. We have a breakthrough!!! Eureka!!

clambo says

I also don't know anyone who bought a piece at a gun show anyway.

I guess gun shows don't make any money then. They're just charities. ;-)

Leopold B Scotch says

plenty of licensed drivers exhibit a complete and total disregard of the rules anyway which kills exponentially more people than whack jobs each year

True! What's a bigger threat, a guy with a concealed handgun or a soccer-mom texting while driving her SUV?

Bap33 says

you admit that criminals don't normally want to die in their effort to murder others -- so, you admit that the idea of facing an armed target would detur most criminals.

I'm not sure why you took that as an admission. I've read every response to this thread and I think the part of what I wrote to which you're referring is actually a point I made.
Regardless, I don't understand what you wrote because you wrote the phrase " facing an armed target." My allusion to a criminal was meant to be one where the criminal makes their own bomb. I wouldn't say the target is armed. The weapon is just a lot more dangerous to the person trying to use it than an AK47 is to the person using it. I would just think more of society if, when reading about mass killings, if I could think, " Well that person was just determined as hell to do it and took a tough road getting there including having weapons that are more strictly registered."
Colorado is a heavily armed state. So what happened? I grew up there and don't remember a single event of determent. I do remember my cousin committing suicide with a pistol, a grade school friend shooting his sister, who survived, in the head, and numerous minor events of gun use against people and animals as a kid. I have family in Arizona and despite the suicide death of a brother, keep a house of various rifles and hand guns in a house with three kids. That resulted in a .44 revolver being fired in the house when a suspected prowler was on the property. Someone drilled a hole in the side of their house while they were gone and stole all their guns.
These are just anecdotes. They mean very little, but involve my family so are compelling to me. Still, I've never read a statistic supporting this idea that armed people reduces gun crime. Why doesn't it work in areas of concentrated gun use, like those with gang activity or heavy illegal drug trade?

Where I go shooting on the weekend.

http://www.samhouston.army.mil/bullistraining/TrainingSupport.asp

The problem with the theater shooting in Colorado wasn't too many guns in the theater. It was not enough guns in the theater. When all it takes is one guy with a gun to walk in and shoot 70 people and then freely walk out, you know you have a problem with too much gun control.

IMO, the Joker should have been killed within 15 seconds of walking into that theater and pointing a gun at an innocent victim. Unfortunately, he was the only guy around with a gun so he was allowed to take his time and slaughter all that he could with relative ease.

To solve the problem, we simply need to train more people to carry guns and be able to use them effectively.

Some have said that around 2,000,000 crimes/ year are prevented by guns... I find this hard to believe. (and if it were true, what does that say about even more crime potentially occuring in the US).

moldhaven says

The problem with the theater shooting in Colorado wasn't too many guns in the theater. It was not enough guns in the theater.

How do you know? I'd be surprised to find not one gun was in that theater. I get the idea it's very popular to carry concealed guns in Colorado, based on the friends I have who still live there.
It comes back to what many have said on this thread. Carrying a gun is only the beginning. You have to be skilled and willing to use it. So who's going to stand up with their .38 revolver and take a chance at firing a few shots at some guy who just walked in fully armored with the weapons used in that theater?

And if your counter point is, "Well, then people need to carry AK47s." Awesome society! I don't think that's how most of us think of the United States. That sounds more like some of the other countries mentioned in this thread or a few African countries run by overlords.

How do you know?

FunTime,

I haven't read any news reports that answer that question. I understand that theater chain in question has a rule against fire arms, so even if concealed carry (not sure about Colorado gun laws) were legal, guns are forbidden by the chain. The people who follow the rules and policies set by the business will be defenseless against someone who disregards those same policies. So full legalization of any type of guns won't help unless the businesses change their own policies.

taketheplunge says

guns are forbidden by the chain.

Ah, I hadn't thought about how free one could really be with a concealed weapon. I know sporting events and other events with a large number of people in attendance also check to make sure people aren't carrying guns. I was just thinking of the conversation I had with a friend who got his concealed weapon license. So there's obviously places where gun carrying is limited, even if one has legal permission to carry a gun.

I once shot AT a man who was playing Horse With No Name on a Ukulele. this was pretty recent ago. It was wonderful

jvolstad says

Where I go shooting on the weekend.

http://www.samhouston.army.mil/bullistraining/TrainingSupport.asp

Casual Friday at my shooting range. She's nailing clays.

American in Japan says

Some have said that around 2,000,000 crimes/ year are prevented by guns... I find this hard to believe. (and if it were true, what does that say about even more crime potentially occuring in the US).

How many more crimes would be commited if they KNEW there could be NO retaliation ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia
JESUS Patrick, Can you do something about that nudity ? Like watchin a train wreck. The more I look the more I wanna pull that trigger. My standards are low enough.

Funny thing.. try to look up Lance Thomas and you wont find much!
Guess the lefty press doesnt want to cover these stories...

He left 5 criminal gang bangers dead !

Real Gunfighter Lance Thomas on Justic Files

http://www.youtube.com/embed/pkWgp2abM2w

'Please Try To Remember Wonderful Things Guns Do For Us Every Day'

Smart words to live by for some!

Jewelry Vendor Shoots Robbers

http://www.youtube.com/embed/GmadBLAvnfw&feature=related

.
.
.Carjacker Killed By Gun Permit Holder
.
http://www.youtube.com/embed/_But23A9A0k&feature=related

TMAC54 says

JESUS Patrick, Can you do something about that nudity ? Like watchin a train wreck. The more I look the more I wanna pull that trigger. My standards are low enough.

Aww! It's just Nancy airing out the beef curtains. She don't bite. It's not like I asked Patrick to make it his new logo or anything. Although...

We are all GOD'S childen TMac

My latest favorite BTW. It's a tidy package.

JodyChunder says

It's a tidy package

WOOF!