Santa and the Second Amendment!!

[stringerman85]

The problem I'm having with most of these stories that you all are posting is that the people who are causing the crime are using GUNS! Now I understand that owning guns for protection can help these situations but you can not assume that every victim is going to believe in carrying a gun...Now I can see what DS was trying to say, in canada it's been banned for many many years, that's why there's not much of a problem on the street with guns, in america, if such law was made against them then it would probably take years and years for the country to get cleaned up, criminals may still get their hands on them for awhile, but you would have to imagine after about 50-100 years, lol, like in canada, that eventually it may get tougher for guns to get into the hands of the wrong people, but i think it would take time...And like what DS said, some of the guns that get into canada are from the U.S., but if you have two countries together with laws banning guns, that would possibly solve the problem..it would take awhile though like i said, but perhaps it may work, like also what DS said, we're all just used to it, we grew up with guns

 

[stringerman85]

So, by your logic <----LOL, the racing fuel and the device used to spray it should be banned along with all guns? And after banning those we should go ahead and add forks, knives, swords, clubs, sharp obects? Hell, lets just ban any and every sold obect while we are at it. BUT WAIT!....liquids too because they can kill as well. Guns don't kill people. People do. And people will always kill other people whether guns are legal or not. There are billions of other objects that can be used.

Very funny....But I don't think guns are anywhere near compared to the other objects that you named....Banning those things don't make any sense....I don't imagine gang members driving by neighborhoods throwing knives and forks at other gang members, or criminals robbing gas stations and banks with knives, I mean yeah I guess it could be scary, but I would feel much safer knowing they had those objects then guns, but that's just me...I'm not actually agreeing that this is a good law that should be passed, If this was going to be passed then it should have been done decades ago...it's too late now, like what everybody said, people would find guns illegally either way, for many years to come

 

[brett636]

The problem I'm having with most of these stories that you all are posting is that the people who are causing the crime are using GUNS! Now I understand that owning guns for protection can help these situations but you can not assume that every victim is going to believe in carrying a gun...Now I can see what DS was trying to say, in canada it's been banned for many many years, that's why there's not much of a problem on the street with guns, in america, if such law was made against them then it would probably take years and years for the country to get cleaned up, criminals may still get their hands on them for awhile, but you would have to imagine after about 50-100 years, lol, like in canada, that eventually it may get tougher for guns to get into the hands of the wrong people, but i think it would take time...And like what DS said, some of the guns that get into canada are from the U.S., but if you have two countries together with laws banning guns, that would possibly solve the problem..it would take awhile though like i said, but perhaps it may work, like also what DS said, we're all just used to it, we grew up with guns

I don't want to have to live with the increased crime for the next 50-100 years to find out. Not to mention this country was founded with the belief that the people will always be able to keep and bear arms. Its a fundamental right of the law abiding citizenry of this country.

 

[stringerman85]

There's honestly too many illegal guns circulating around the country...Making a law against them wouldn't help....People really don't need guns for protection though, that's what house alarms are for he he...or big dogs honestly though. I own plenty of hunting firearms, if all else, I can use one of those to protect myself, imagine a crook looking down the barrell of a 12 gauge

 

[brett636]

There's honestly too many illegal guns circulating around the country...Making a law against them wouldn't help....People really don't need guns for protection though, that's what house alarms are for he he...or big dogs honestly though. I own plenty of hunting firearms, if all else, I can use one of those to protect myself, imagine a crook looking down the barrell of a 12 gauge

Your last sentence says exactly why firearms are necessary for people to own. That crook breaking into your house while you are home may or may not be armed himself, but I can guarantee you that he can reach you and your family quicker than any police officer could. Personally I would want that 12 gauge between my family and him instead of a phone and a 911 operator.

 

[wkmac]

There's honestly too many illegal guns circulating around the country...Making a law against them wouldn't help....People really don't need guns for protection though, that's what house alarms are for he he...or big dogs honestly though. I own plenty of hunting firearms, if all else, I can use one of those to protect myself, imagine a crook looking down the barrell of a 12 gauge

stringerman,

I'm not quite sure you are saying this and others here have seemed to bounce around the edges but I'm going to use you to make this point. There is a belief in our society that the need to defend one's self or be prepared to is not needed because we have a police force. This belief goes even further that we also need not prepare in no way for some foreign aggressor as this is completely in the realm of the military. As well the case can be made for earthquakes, floods and other natural disasters. This thinking IMHO could never be more wrong.

For starters, our nation and it's founding documents never gave any such assurances but even more important today are the judical rulings time and again where the courts have maintained that gov't has no duty to provide the public with adequate protective services.

In 1989', SCOTUS heard the case of Deshaney v. Winnebago County Social Services (489 U.S. 189) in which it was alledged that Winnebago Cty. was at fault in failing to povide adequate protective services in a child welfare case. SCOTUS in it's majority opinion held the following in the case.

A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services. The Clause is phrased as a limitation on the State's power to act, not as a guarantee of certain minimal levels of safety and security; while it forbids the State itself to deprive individuals of life, liberty, and property without due process of law, its language cannot fairly be read to impose an affirmative obligation on the State to ensure that those interests do not come to harm through other means

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=489&invol=189

In another major decision from a federal appellate court, it was ruled that:

the police were under no specific legal duty to provide protection to individual appellants

Warren v. District of Columbia 444 A. 2d 1 (D.C. App. 181)

For a more general background on this case you might read this piece.
http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/warren.html

On the one hand I understand and appreciate the concern of those folks who don't like guns or reframe from resorting to having them around or using them but at the same time, guns in a very real way may be the course of last resort for good, honest decent folks from becoming a victim. If the State by law has no duty to protect us, the only real recourse is for us to protect ourselves and to suggest the individual be barred from seeking out the best means of protecting his/her life, liberty or property literally goes against the bedrock thinking that formed our free society to begin with.

I don't believe we have the right to bare arms because of the 2nd amendment, the 2nd amendment was a re-affirming of the pre-existing inalienable right grounded in the "right to life, liberty and property" ideal as expressed by John Locke and his political thinking. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Locke#Political_theory Protecting Locke's ideas of revolution as a natural right was also an equally important aspect as well as any contract, even a social contract, once made void by violation should be allowed to be made null even if at the point of a gun as the last resort. Obviously Lincoln didn't hold to Locke's views but then we also forget other States (some Northern) before that threatened succession but this fact tends to get lost in Statecraft myth making.

An inaleinable right is a right coming from God or nature's God and therefore can not be seperated from man by another man or a collection of men we call gov't. To do so literally sets one at odds with God or Nature's God!

That's my take for what it's worth!

The Bitter Fruits of Compromise
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gaddy/gaddy41.html

 

[av8torntn]

The Bitter Fruits of Compromise
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gaddy/gaddy41.html

"The battlefield of freedom is littered with the bodies of those who believe in compromise. Unfortunately, they usually manage to take some heroes with them.

Hope is not a method."

I love it.

 

[Babagounj]

US Rep Bobby Rush, D-Ill has a bill that he would like to become law, HR 45.
Which would greatly alter anyone's ability to own a handgun. All handgun owners would be require to apply for a federal license which along with an application one would have to submit a photo, a thumb print and release all mental health records.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86039

 

[wkmac]

The Gathering Storm

http://www.lewrockwell.com/gaddy/gaddy43.html

 

[UPS Lifer]

Wow! California with a '"K" is there a hidden message there? All you experts on California let me tell you I have lived here my whole life. Forty-six years next month. I have never , ever been in a situation where I needed a gun for protection nor have I ever wanted to own a gun. That is just the way most of us choose to live. I am also not against you owning or wanting guns in your homes. Live and let live, right?
Most of us Californians choose to settle our differences over a fine bottle of Sonoma Vallley red

California is the land of fruits and nuts. I ought to know I am one of them LOL!

There is no state with more serial killers than California. When the Santa Ana winds come up, every fire bug comes out of the woodwork like cockroaches!

1984
I bought my first gun when Richard Ramirez (the night stalker) was on the prowl. He was breaking into homes close to freeways. He got within 10 miles of my house. We lived real close to a freeway and this maniac was killing someone every two-three days! My wife and I were not sleeping well at night during this reign of terror.

I had 2 young children (5 & 7) and a beautiful wife that I felt I needed to protect at all costs. I have never ever felt bad about that purchase.

I hope I never ever have to use a gun except for target practice. But I want to know it is there just in case!

 

[moreluck]

I'm a Californian (now) but I don't drink (wine or otherwise) so that's why I have guns. Can't settle things over a drink with me unless it's a frappucino. Starbucks deliberations !!

 

[wkmac]

I'm a Californian (now) but I don't drink (wine or otherwise) so that's why I have guns. Can't settle things over a drink with me unless it's a frappucino. Starbucks deliberations !!

What will you do if Starbucks goes belly up which if the economy gets worse could very well happen? Come down south and I'll show you how to make moonshine and you won't need to rely on anyone else for ya drinkin' needs!

 

[soberups]

US Rep Bobby Rush, D-Ill has a bill that he would like to become law, HR 45.
Which would greatly alter anyone's ability to own a handgun. All handgun owners would be require to apply for a federal license which along with an application one would have to submit a photo, a thumb print and release all mental health records.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=86039

Robby Bush can kiss my butt.

I already own several handguns. I have already undergone a criminal background check and been fingerprinted. I have held an Oregon concealed weapons permit for 11 years. I'm not a criminal. I have no interest in jumping through a bunch of hoops in order to comply with a warm-and-fuzzy "feel good" law that serves no purpose other than to allow some liberal politician to pander to the Million Moms.

 

[soberups]

Lawrence Crouthers smiled and joyously hugged his attorney Friday afternoon when a jury cleared him of criminally negligent homicide in the 2002 shooting death of Andrew Leroux.

I dont blame him for smiling and hugging his attorney. He was looking at spending the rest of his life in prison simply for defending himself.

It is indeed a tragedy that the young man died, but the fact of the matter is that he made a choice to drink alcohol, become intoxicated, and climb onto the porch of a 68 year old man who justifiably felt threatened. Perhaps instead of focusing on the gun, we should focus on on the alcohol that caused the situation to begin with.

Alcohol is a direct causitive factor in millions of deaths, injuries, homicides, rapes, child abuse and domestic assaults every year.

Why do we not require "waiting periods" for all alcohol purchases? Why not require locking caps on alcohol containers to prevent access by children? Why not require fingerprinting and background checks in order to purchase alchohol? What about registering all containers of alcohol with the federal government? Should we allow federal agents to enter every home to make sure that all alcohol inside has been properly licensed, registered and locked up? And while we are at it, lets ban those "assault"-sized high capacity bottles of alcohol, and require instead that all alcohol be sold only in low-capacity, six-ounce containers more suitable for "sporting" purposes. We need to enact "common sense" alcohol control and registration. If it saves one child, it will be worth it.

If you think that these suggestions are ridiculous, pointless, and a gross infringement of government authority into your private life, then substitute the word "guns" for alcohol and ask yourself if you still feel the same way. And remember, alcohol kills FAR MORE people every year than guns ever do.

 

[ol'browneye]

BRAVO Sober!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Well said!