Gunowner quiz on Obama

[soberups]

You yourself said you carry one and no one else knows about it while your on campus.
How would you distinquish in a matter of a split second who the good guy is from the bad guy with kids running around screaming and crying and then you see me in the middle of it?

My guess is that the guy who is walking through the classrooms with a gun and shooting students in the head while they are cowering behind desks is probably the bad guy. Most good guys dont typically do that sort of thing.

 

[trplnkl]

posted by The Other Side:
When the smoke clears, it turns out that I am just another idiot citizen

You finally got something right in one of your fantasy dream plays.
While I hold to my Constitutional right to "keep and bare arms" , I'm not too sure I want you to have that right.

Sober, this is a loosing argument, only because you can not counter idiocy with logic.

 

[The Other Side]

You finally got something right in one of your fantasy dream plays.
While I hold to my Constitutional right to "keep and bare arms" , I'm not too sure I want you to have that right.

Sober, this is a loosing argument, only because you can not counter idiocy with logic.

Sober, funny you said this, cause this is where I was going with my hypotheticals as both of you failed to address them with any logic.

Gun owners who believe they are the save-all to crime in america is a falacy.

Responsiblities and liabilities are two words that all gun owners must realize.

There are laws that protect people from being 'injured" or "killed" by people in superman mode.

This is called "wrongful" death.

Any gun owner who believes they can walk onto a campus, take out a gun and fight another gun weiding loser and in the process kills a child should face the maximum penalty for "wrongful" death.

Nobody has the right to place a child in jeopardy because of the 2nd amendment.

 

[over9five]

Sober, this is a loosing argument, only because you can not counter idiocy with logic.

I agree. Sober, you are arguing against classic sheeple "logic".

Baaaaaaa.....

 

[tieguy]

I'm not going to kill someone over the contents of my wallet, I will just hand it over to a mugger. Having a gun simply mean that, should the criminal decide that my wallet isnt enough, I have one final option available to me other than begging for my life.

Interesting point. So if you were armed and a mugger asked you for your wallet you would give it to him?

You know muggers aren't like the wife? They generally don't ask you for your wallet , they like to rough you up first and then take it.

At what point in this tussle would you decide its time to plug the guy?

 

[tieguy]

Sober, funny you said this, cause this is where I was going with my hypotheticals as both of you failed to address them with any logic.

Gun owners who believe they are the save-all to crime in america is a falacy.

Responsiblities and liabilities are two words that all gun owners must realize.

There are laws that protect people from being 'injured" or "killed" by people in superman mode.

This is called "wrongful" death.

Any gun owner who believes they can walk onto a campus, take out a gun and fight another gun weiding loser and in the process kills a child should face the maximum penalty for "wrongful" death.

Nobody has the right to place a child in jeopardy because of the 2nd amendment.

typical liberal trying to protect the criminal from the average citizen.

 

[Jagger]

Obviously, you are qualified to be on the US Supreme Court since they decided differently.

The U. S. Supreme Court should have applied the well established common law rules of construction, as they prevailed in the late 1780's, to the words of the Second Amendment, to ascertain it's meaning.

 

[Jagger]

Well, a militia is an army of people made up of common citizens. WE are the militia.

The words in the Second Amendment should generally be understood according to their usual and most know signification in the late 1780's. The usual meaning of the word "militia" in 1789 was "body of persons trained to arms." "Trained to Arms" meant "Trained to fight in War."

There's a reason it is the 2ND amendment and not the 10th or 20th. It is our human right to defend ourselves when facing harm or death. Anybody who tries to take that away has no idea what it means to have freedom.

The only reason it's the second, is because the first two weren't ratified.

 

[Jagger]

The spirit of the 2nd amendment would be commonality of defense...

The spirit that moved the lawmakers was "the security of a free state." They didn't give a rat's ass about the security of individuals. Most of the Federalists were Butt Monkeys who would have disarmed the militias if they could have gotten away with it.

 

[Catatonic]

The spirit that moved the lawmakers was "the security of a free state." They didn't give a rat's ass about the security of individuals. Most of the Federalists were Butt Monkeys who would have disarmed the militias if they could have gotten away with it.

Some logic and truth to that.
I am getting use to your style...sort of like the Sid Vicious of the Punk Posters.

 

[hyena]

OOOHHHH the scary OBAMA is going to take your guns!!!

Better vote for McCain and your guns will rest safely in your closets!

Get serious folks. Do you all live in fear everyday of your lives? Has the republican fear machine really and truly caused you all to live in fear because they tell you so?

Do you really believe that somehow, somewhere at sometime that Barack Obama will take out his mighty liberal pen and take away your rights to own guns??

Does the president have that kind of power? Can he really supercede the Supreme court of the United States of America?

Use logic people.

Unless OBAMA can convince the 5 conservatives on the supreme court to overturn the 2nd amendment, then I think your guns are safe.

Be serious people, this hype is nonsense.

On the other hand, should there be taxes on ammo?, I think so. Just like taxes on beer, gasoline & cigarettes, ammo should be on the list.
Alcohol Tobbaco and Firearms whos bringing the chips?
Should kids under 18 be prevented from owning guns?, I think so. Too many killing there classmates as it stands.

This country has many different opinions on this subject depending on what part of the country you live in.

The bottom line remains the same, your guns are safe.

 

[toonertoo]

Interesting point. So if you were armed and a mugger asked you for your wallet you would give it to him?

You know muggers aren't like the wife? They generally don't ask you for your wallet , they like to rough you up first and then take it.

At what point in this tussle would you decide its time to plug the guy?

They will usually shoot you after , so there will be no witnesses.

I think if I was carrying I would shoot, not to kill, just to disable. Then if they had a gun, I would shoot to kill.
And I would lose no sleep, one less.

 

[Jones]

They will usually shoot you after , so there will be no witnesses.

I think if I was carrying I would shoot, not to kill, just to disable. Then if they had a gun, I would shoot to kill.
And I would lose no sleep, one less.

Always shoot to kill. If you try to get too cute by aiming for an arm or leg you might miss. Center mass is the way to go.

 

[Jagger]

If this were the case, the amendment would read "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

If the lawmakers were being deceptive, which they were, they would have made the Amendment with two parts that didn't coincide, because they knew the rule of construction is such a case, was that the ends should be sacrificed to the end.

They used the same deception to obtain authority to make a completely new constitution. See Federalist No. 40.

The founding fathers distrusted standing armies.

That's a myth. Most of them had no problem with a standing army. That's why they granted the U. S. Government power to raise and support armies under Article One - Section Eight.

It was their intent that the entire population be armed, so that a militia of the people could band together in times of danger.

The intent of the Second Amendment was to prevent Congress from destroying the militia, by neglecting to provide it arms.

 

[toonertoo]

Always shoot to kill. If you try to get too cute by aiming for an arm or leg you might miss. Center mass is the way to go.

Thanks, Ill keep that tip handy and you are right.

 

[Catatonic]

If the lawmakers were being deceptive, which they were, they would have made the Amendment with two parts that didn't coincide, because they knew the rule of construction is such a case, was that the ends should be sacrificed to the end.

They used the same deception to obtain authority to make a completely new constitution. See Federalist No. 40.

That's a myth. Most of them had no problem with a standing army. That's why they granted the U. S. Government power to raise and support armies under Article One - Section Eight.

The intent of the Second Amendment was to prevent Congress from destroying the militia, by neglecting to provide it arms.

Jagger, while I like your posts and they well positioned, your arguments are based on modern interpretations of what the framers of the constitution meant.

The following is an excerpt of pamphlet put out by a cotemporaneous friend of Madison (who wrote the Bill of Rights):
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

It would be incongruous to suppose or suggest the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, which were proscriptions on the powers of the national government, simultaneously acted as a grant of power to the national government. Similarly, as to the term "well regulated," it would make no sense to suggest this referred to a grant of "regulation" power to the government (national or state), when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to both declare individual rights and tell the national government where the scope of its enumerated powers ended.

In keeping with the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights both of declaring individual rights and proscribing the powers of the national government, the use and meaning of the term "Militia" in the Second Amendment, which needs to be "well regulated," helps explain what "well regulated" meant. When the Constitution was ratified, the Framers unanimously believed that the "militia" included all of the people capable of bearing arms.

George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, said: "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people." Likewise, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a "militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves."

 

[Jagger]

The Second Amendment does have a preamble about the militia, but that was the way it was, there was no standing army.

The Second Amendment was intentionally and deliberately constructed to be ambiguous. It was constructed in two parts that didn't coincide. Why would the lawmakers have done that if they hadn't been trying to deceive? Why didn't they give the reason for freedom of speech, freedom of press, right to assemble and right to petition? Why did they single out the right to keep and bear for such special treatment? Why did they treat it disrespectfully as merely a means to a more important end, and not as an end in and of itself?

 

[av8torntn]

Always shoot to kill. If you try to get too cute by aiming for an arm or leg you might miss. Center mass is the way to go.

May I add I would suggest to keep firing at center mass until the target goes down.

 

[soberups]

Interesting point. So if you were armed and a mugger asked you for your wallet you would give it to him?

You know muggers aren't like the wife? They generally don't ask you for your wallet , they like to rough you up first and then take it.

At what point in this tussle would you decide its time to plug the guy?

Nothing in my wallet is worth shooting somebody for.

It is impossible to sit here in my nice safe recliner and speculate about when I would make the decision to shoot. It would depend upon the number of assailants, how well they are armed, and whether I felt they were likely to escalate the violence or run away once they had gotten my wallet. The whole point of having a concealed weapon is that I get to make this life or death decision for myself, instead of having it made for me.

A lot has been posted here about "shooting to kill" vs. "shooting to wound." It is a mistake to think in these terms. In a self defense scenario you shoot at center of mass to stop the assailant, and you continue shooting until he is no longer a threat. Your intent is to stop the threat....whether the bad guy is killed or wounded is outside of your control and not your concern.

 

[soberups]

Gun owners who believe they are the save-all to crime in america is a falacy.

No gun owners that I know have this belief. The only fallacy here...is your standard liberal delusion that anybody who owns or carries a gun is some sort of Rambo wannabe. Most people who carry concealed do so only for the protection of themselves and their familes, not because they want to go out there and be John Wayne. Liberals such as yourself are incapable of grasping this fact, or understanding why anyone would want to carry an icky scary awful gun when they could solve all of their problems by calling 911 and waiting for someone with a shiny badge to come and rescue them instead.