Supreme Court to see if they can understand 2nd Amendment

[wolfstrike]

Supreme Court to see if they can understand 2nd Amendment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i'm sure you've heard, the Supreme Court (the court that is served with sour cream) is going to hear a case on the 2nd Amendment.


WOW! that's mightly nice of them, after flat out ignoring the 2nd Amendment for 30 years and more.


word around the gun show circuit is laws are going to be struck down all over the country, i'm not so stupid as to believe that.


i don't know about you people, but i'm sick and tired of the USA coincidently mimicing a socialist state.


we already know who will vote against it, Ginsberg and the rest of the anti-american minions.

at least we can say one good thing about Bush, he put "conservatives" and the Supreme Court.

but you know what? we're still screwed, wanna know why?

because even the Supreme Court heros Thomas and Scalia are in the WRONG.
the Supreme Court, the State , the ACLU, NONE OF THEM! have any right to overturn ANYTHING in the Bill of Rights,
even Thomas and Scalia THINK they have a right to go in and make some kind of vote on the subject.

...and don't be fooled by idiots who tell you they can, if the Bill of Rights could be overturned, then there was no point in writing it.




according the the ACLU and other socialist agitators, the words "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" really means , you can't own guns.

i'm i really freaking suppose to believe that?

you rights come from the Constitution, they don't come from the ACLU, socialism is a form of government that is FOREIGN to this country, and it has been a disaster everywhere else in the world.
we still live off of what is left of the Constitution.



as far as i'm concerned, if anyone in this coutry wants to see any kind of reform, gun rights are the first place to start.

this country needs to erase any "criminal" record of anyone who was victimized by the government for carrying a weapon.
the government needs to issue hefty cash settlements for ruining people's lives with their abuse of power.
and any politician that tries to pass any gun laws, needs to go to jail for the clearly written law.

[John Culpepper]

Dude I have a ton of them and:D its a good feelin'

[mrs reb77]

You do realize that what is called the Bill of Rights are actually amendments TO the Constitution and weren't included originally by the founding fathers?

How do you think amendments come about?

Medicate.

[hvacker]

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

First let me say I own guns, I’ve always owned guns, I will always always own guns.

I think careful reading of the amendment will show it referring to a Militia. I believe the Federal Government was trying to put the States at ease that they don’t need to fear. Who?
The Federal Government.

Remember when Washington marched the Federal Army into the south to get the moon shiners. Seems a violation of States Rights. I believe the States wanted assurance they were independent entities and had rights of their own. The right to raise a militia to defend themselves against Feds and even neighbors.

I also don’t think the Feds gave a moments thought about an individual owning a gun. I think it was expected and necessary in many parts of the country back then and now. Remember we had politicians dueling with guns ( not a bad idea even today).

So being a States Rights advocate I think the court could rule that it’s up to the States themselves if a private individual has a right to own or possess firearms. I don’t think the intent of the amendment was to deal with private persons.

Not that much will change as we still have to protect ourselves against wild animals of all types.

[whec720]

Hmmmm.....interesting. So, hvacker, if New Mexico decides its wants to ban free speech (First Amendment), you're okay with that........you know.....being a state's rights advocate and all.:rolleyes:

[oloenneker]

Hmmmm.....interesting. So, hvacker, if New Mexico decides its wants to ban free speech (First Amendment), you're okay with that........you know.....being a state's rights advocate and all.:rolleyes:


I don't think that was the gist of his post. He was more effectively pointing out the reasons for the wording of the second amendment.

On the other hand, I do believe that when it comes to a states right issue when it concerns firearms, the states ruling provides a precedent.

Case in point: I am realistic in thought that there is no way guns will ever be eliminated from the civilian population of the USA. There are certainly firearms that really serve no other purpose, other than to kill people. I see no reason why someone needs an AR-15 with a 30 round magazine. (I know, Mrs. Reb, your husband hunts with one) Now, you still could have a AR-15 rifle, but why would you need a bayonet lug, or a extended magazine? The same rifle could be made available in a "sporterized" version, with less "assault rifle components. The same could be said about certain hand guns.

Now, another portion of the entire equation about guns among the citizens, is that the criminal element gets it's guns from the legitimate gun owners through burlaries and thefts. That is a real problem.

[wolfstrike]

There are certainly firearms that really serve no other purpose,

the only purpose for a gun is for self defence, defense against criminals and politicians.
the founders of the nation thought this was important enough to make it our 2nd listed right.






A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state,

the word "militia" is another thing that has been corruptly RE-DEFINED by our modern legal system.

our government was originally intended NOT to have a standing army.

therefor, every male over the age of 17 was considered a member of the militia, every male meant every household was EXPECTED to be armed.


the government was never given any authority to make laws like that.

[oloenneker]

the only purpose for a gun is for self defense (I corrected it for ya), defense against criminals and politicians.


Huh, thats a new definition of what the purpose of a gun is.


I am sure there are many hunters out there that are gonna disagree with your assessment.

[k-fridge]

There are certainly firearms that really serve no other purpose, other than to kill people.
That's exactly the type of gun you need for self-defense. Before I bought my first gun I spoke to a cop buddy of mine about it. I thought I wanted to get a small caliber weapon; I didn't really want to kill anyone, just stop them. The cop buddy told me no, to buy at least a 38 or 9mm. He said if I'm laying in bed at night and a bad guy comes through my door, I'll be lucky to get one shot off and it better drop him dead in my bedroom floor.

[mrs reb77]

Any gun, in the right hands, could be characterized as "assault". Ever heard the phrase "it's in the way that you use it"? No one in the private sector needs a fully automatic weapon, that's about as far as I go.
Yep, hubby hunts with that AR. It's great for coyotes and has brought in a deer or two. I stick with my Ruger 25-06. My dad has many different guns for many different things, we can't afford that many! :D
We'll all protect you Oloe if there's an invasion in the foreseeable future! ;)

[mark beiser]

You can find out the real intention of the 2nd amendment, from the framers of the amendments themselves, by reading the Federalist Papers.

One of the important purposes of the 2nd amendment was to insure that the people had the means to overthrow the government if it became to oppressive...

It had little to do with state militias.

[BobbyBJr]

Yeah, I agree with Mark. The Revolutionary War was still fresh on the minds of the country at the time and provisions were made for the citizens to be able to do it again if the need ever arose. Maybe they were looking ahead to the mess we have today.

[oloenneker]

That's exactly the type of gun you need for self-defense. Before I bought my first gun I spoke to a cop buddy of mine about it. I thought I wanted to get a small caliber weapon; I didn't really want to kill anyone, just stop them. The cop buddy told me no, to buy at least a 38 or 9mm. He said if I'm laying in bed at night and a bad guy comes through my door, I'll be lucky to get one shot off and it better drop him dead in my bedroom floor.


I am gonna agree with your cop buddy. But if you need 30 rounds to do that, then there is a problem.

[oloenneker]

We'll all protect you Oloe if there's an invasion in the foreseeable future! ;)

Thanks, But I have a gun.

(I had to buy it back when I was a reserve police officer. But I also have training, and carried that pistol as my duty weapon for 9 years. Smith and Wesson 5906. Two 15 rnd. mags on the belt, one in the gun, and one in my back slash pocket. I also carried a 6" boot knife, a can of OC spray, and my baton.)

[John Culpepper]

I wear glasses so if any one "unfriendly" enters my home,the laser sight will blind them right before they meet their maker.:mad:

[Pagan]

Any gun, in the right hands, could be characterized as "assault". Ever heard the phrase "it's in the way that you use it"? I'mna have to agree with Reb here.

Often in the marines they used to tell us the deadliest weapon in the world was a marine and his rifle. well, thats arguable.:D but regardless any gun wether it be a .22 Cal to a .50 cal is deadly in the hands of a proficient & trained shooter. ;)

with that being said, look at the asanine laws that Cali has passed in the past year. for example any and all .50 cal and .54 cal rifles are now illegal.
mind you that no recorded incidents or deaths have been incurred by the use of said weapons!!! yet 2 idiots with armed guards paid for by us taxpayers have determined that these weapons are unsafe and unnecessary! yes this includes Black powder firearms in these calibers.:eek:

these same 2 idiots have also succesfly passed legislation or inacted legislation against californians on other guns and weapons that they deem unsafe : "Tactical Knives",:rolleyes: semi auto handguns, semi - auto weapons that have capabilities similar to standard set forth by military= SKS Rifles etc.

who are these idiots?= Sen Dianne Feinstein & sen Barbara Boxer.:mad:
sorry but I can't afford the luxery of paid armed guards to protect my every move nor my possesions or homes, family, children etc.
But I can and will do all those said things myself by any means necessary
including the use of said wepons for different usues. I have the training, and regardless It's my job both as a man & as a husband/Father!
I will continue to instill this in my 3 boys aswell!:cool:

[MadeinUSA]

I am gonna agree with your cop buddy. But if you need 30 rounds to do that, then there is a problem.If a burglar breaks into a house, 99.999% of people will be nervous as hell, and do not have the training to count the number of shots they take until they are empty, much less the faculties to reload in the dark in a situation like that.

They deserve to have as much fire power as they want so they can lay down a sweep of fire until they here the thump from the Burglar's body hit the floor.

No politician or gun grabber like you has the right to dictate or limit a person's ability to protect themselves because slimy politicians do not have the stones to pass harsh enough laws to deter crime against citizens in this country.

It sure is funny how in countries where you lose a hand if you steal something, there is hardly any theft at all, and for crimes just a little harsher you lose your life and their is basically no crime. That is what laws are supposed to do, deter crime, not be a punishment that the tax payers have to pay twice for (victim and then to foot the bill while they sit in jail with no responsibilities or worries) and are a drain on the treasury.

The second amendment is broken up into two sections divided by a comma. The first is describing the right to form a militia in order to fight off a tyranny government if it were to form, and the second part, after the comma, clearly gives the people the right to KEEP and BEAR arms.

That comma is the most important comma in all papers in this country because it clearly separates the two parts.

Here is the exact legal code defining the militia:

"Title 10 USC, sec 311

"Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

This means every law-abiding and legal resident of this country described in the age range above is a member of the "militia", either organized or unorganized.

It clearly shows, we the citizens, are the militia, and therefore, with we being the militia, have the right to keep and bear arms, otherwise, we the militia, would not be able to carry out the protection the framers intended for us to have against a tyranny government.

Do you lose your rights to keep and bear arms after the age of 45? No, because the "comma" separating the two parts in the amendment clearly gives the right to the "people". Besides, it would be an age discrimination lawsuit at that point.

[bootlen]

If a burglar breaks into a house, 99.999% of people will be nervous as hell, and do not have the training to count the number of shots they take until they are empty, much less the faculties to reload in the dark in a situation like that.

They deserve to have as much fire power as they want so they can lay down a sweep of fire until they here the thump from the Burglar's body hit the floor.


Plus one more round in the shirt pocket for a well placed up-front and personal placement of the muzzle at the temple just a split second before pulling the trigger. If the burglar hung around long enough to get hit by someone untrained, his intentions were obviously to stay and finish what he came to do. He needs to die.

[braces4impact]

I don’t think the intent of the amendment was to deal with private persons.

Not that much will change as we still have to protect ourselves against wild animals of all types.


So nine out of the ten amendments ( bill of rights) deals with how the government cannot restrict the rights of the people and you want us to believe that the second one doesn't deal with rights of the people and that it for some reason is different than the other nine?

[jpb2]

I am gonna agree with your cop buddy. But if you need 30 rounds to do that, then there is a problem.

why should you not have the option ? I' ll be taking the kids shooting in the morning. Will teach them well. Gun control should be nothing more than a steady hand

[hvacker]

So nine out of the ten amendments ( bill of rights) deals with how the government cannot restrict the rights of the people and you want us to believe that the second one doesn't deal with rights of the people and that it for some reason is different than the other nine?


As the writers of #2 arn't around the only choice is to guess. And no I don't think they were concidering private ownership as at that time I duobt it was an issue. So what. If private gun ownership is important then maybe there should be another amendment safeguarding that.

In the United States vs Miller 1939 not much light was shown then eather. The Courts conclusion was weapons must be " in common use" and must bear "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia" Whatever. Looks like that Court was still looking at the citizen soldier explanation.
Whatever most gun owners could hardly be discribed as "a well-regulated militia" Most have had little or no training. Even my military training was less about safety and more about " when in doubt, empty your magazine."

But some interesting stats I read from an artical printed in the LA Times. I'll print them even though I know some will throw them out because of the Times. I read them and some how they might be correct but I'll still keep my guns.

A gun in the home increases the chance of being killed by firearms 72 %

A gun in the home is responsible for the vast majority of children killed by firearms

A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a suicide, homicide, or accident than to be used for self defence.

A gun in the home triples the risk of a homicide.

A gun in the home increases the likihood of suicide five fold.

An abused woman is six times more likely to be murdered if there is a gun in the home.

Have a nice day!

[bootlen]

In the 1770's, an armed civilian populace was called a militia.

Get used to it.

[mark beiser]

As the writers of #2 arn't around the only choice is to guess. And no I don't think they were concidering private ownership as at that time I duobt it was an issue.

Their writings are are still around, and they pretty clearly tell us what the intentions of the 2nd amendment were, no guesswork is needed.
And yes, private gun ownership was most definitely one major consideration, especially considering that one of the main sparks of the revolution was the British enacting gun control laws, and attempting to disarm some farmers in Concord.

Contrary to what they teach in government schools, the revolution didn't start with a tea party.;)

[hvacker]

In the 1770's, an armed civilian populace was called a militia.

Get used to it.

Get used to what?
And how does an armed civilian populace become a well regulated militia?

I am not a gun control advocate, I am just looking at what has been done to try to understand this amendment.

I think we need another amendment just to be sure.

[Pagan]

Get used to what?
I think we need another amendment just to be sure.

Just to be sure?:eek: for someone who claims to not be a gun control advocate you sure come across like all the dems that say that same crap about " We just need to be sure" right before they initiate some asinine change to a law or enact some asanine law!

ever heard the expression the law is an ASS?!?!?!

you ask questions first when the situation arises, I'll shoot first and ask questions later!

better to be judged by 12 than carried by six!
and one more thing, what brach of service did you get this " hack firearm safety training and more emphasis on emptying the magazine"?

[jpb2]

Get used to what?
And how does an armed civilian populace become a well regulated militia?

I am not a gun control advocate, I am just looking at what has been done to try to understand this amendment.

I think we need another amendment just to be sure.

And we need more governmet intervention to save us from ourselves. More taxes on the filthy capatilist rich who have earned a bit. I'm not ready for from each according to their ability to each accordind to their need:mad:

[braces4impact]

As the writers of #2 arn't around the only choice is to guess. And no I don't think they were concidering private ownership as at that time I duobt it was an issue. So what. If private gun ownership is important then maybe there should be another amendment safeguarding that.

In the United States vs Miller 1939 not much light was shown then eather. The Courts conclusion was weapons must be " in common use" and must bear "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia" Whatever. Looks like that Court was still looking at the citizen soldier explanation.
Whatever most gun owners could hardly be discribed as "a well-regulated militia" Most have had little or no training. Even my military training was less about safety and more about " when in doubt, empty your magazine."

But some interesting stats I read from an artical printed in the LA Times. I'll print them even though I know some will throw them out because of the Times. I read them and some how they might be correct but I'll still keep my guns.

A gun in the home increases the chance of being killed by firearms 72 %

A gun in the home is responsible for the vast majority of children killed by firearms

A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a suicide, homicide, or accident than to be used for self defence.

A gun in the home triples the risk of a homicide.

A gun in the home increases the likihood of suicide five fold.

An abused woman is six times more likely to be murdered if there is a gun in the home.

Have a nice day!

now what about the stats of people who have defended themselves and their children in the home b/c of a gun in the home?

Or on the street, or in their car?

With freedom comes responsibility. A swimming pool at a home is MORE dangerous to children statistically than guns are. Now focus your efforts more on that if that is truly your concern!

[icchvac]

And sooo many people die in automobile accidents... Those should be outlawed!

[hvacker]

And sooo many people die in automobile accidents... Those should be outlawed!

I just printed these stats out of intrest and to see what you guys thought and if you felt they were accurate.
Some of the stats are ambiguous like " A gun in the home increases the chance of being killed by firearms by 72%. Over being killed by something else? See what I mean about stats, the wording is everything. The artical didn't provide any stats about how many were protected by guns. Maybe someone could find those.

And about a redefined amendment being necessary I think the posts on this subject show there is still arguments about what #2 meant.

[wolfstrike]

64% of people know that stats don't mean anything

[mark beiser]

See what I mean about stats, the wording is everything.

Yeah, kinda like "People who drive cars are xxxx% more likely to die in a traffic accident".

Or to follow the gun control lobby's logic:
Pretty women who dress attractively are more likely be raped than ugly women.
To solve this issue, all women must wear a burkha and a veil.

[jmac00]

this may help explain *some* things.

http://tinyurl.com/ytnrvm

you go Granny: http://www.bnd.com/336/story/188660.html

This may help also: http://tinyurl.com/2lwygt


some more 411, from our friends at the NRA:

http://tinyurl.com/2gee5z

[fixacr]

Regardless of your interpretation of the Second amendment, I believe there is one fact that you can't ignore. In spite of their rhetoric about safety and crime, the leaders of the gun control movement know full well that gun control is NOT crime control. They like to spout "facts" and "figures" but they conveniently forget that the cities with the strictest gun control also have the highest crime rates. I have stated in other posts to look at the tenants of communism and see how many of them are already normal everyday life in this country and dis-arming private citizens is one of the biggies.

[pulse21]

From my cold dead hands!!!!!!!!!

By the way for home defense I suggest a shot gun, easier to hit a moving target in the dark with a scattergun, also less likely hood of going through walls and hurting others. Sheetrock, plaster etc won't even slow down a large cal. handgun. I keep a 12ga pump ready, stagger loaded with 3 1/2 inch mag turkey shells and 00 buck shot, close range and it'll look like a cannon ball hit him. Plus the shot will be slowed considerbally by the walls in the event of a miss.

[coordinatesales]

From my cold dead hands!!!!!!!!!

By the way for home defense I suggest a shot gun, easier to hit a moving target in the dark with a scattergun, also less likely hood of going through walls and hurting others. Sheetrock, plaster etc won't even slow down a large cal. handgun. I keep a 12ga pump ready, stagger loaded with 3 1/2 inch mag turkey shells and 00 buck shot, close range and it'll look like a cannon ball hit him. Plus the shot will be slowed considerbally by the walls in the event of a miss.

I keep pistols and a shotgun. My kids would use the shotgun, my wife or I use the pistol. Just the very distinct sound of a shotgun pumping would send most intruders running.

[pulse21]

But some interesting stats I read from an artical printed in the LA Times. I'll print them even though I know some will throw them out because of the Times. I read them and some how they might be correct but I'll still keep my guns.

A gun in the home increases the chance of being killed by firearms 72 %

A gun in the home is responsible for the vast majority of children killed by firearms

A gun in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a suicide, homicide, or accident than to be used for self defence.

A gun in the home triples the risk of a homicide.

A gun in the home increases the likihood of suicide five fold.

An abused woman is six times more likely to be murdered if there is a gun in the home.

Have a nice day!

Not directed at you HVACKER but at the liberal media that shoves these so called facts on the general and naive public everyday, It is proven that most children who are victims of physical or sexual abuse are victimized by someone they know or trust. So should the goverment take our kids next?

[oloenneker]

You guys are a bunch of fanatical gun NUTS. You should be in a institution, or at least on medication because of your paranoia. Guns don't stop crime, gimme a break.


On the issue of self defense, where in the second amendment does it give you the right to defend your self? I don't see it, perhaps some people are reading between the lines again.

BTW, what "well regulated militia" do you belong to? Because from where i read it, that is what gives you the "right" to own the damn things in the first place. So pony up kids, and start "regulating your militia" or you may indeed one day lose your guns...

[bootlen]

Reminds me of this statistic which is true...

85% of all shark bites take place in 3 feet of water.

Does that mean that you are about 3-1/3 times more likely to be bitten by a shark in 3 feet of water than anywhere else? What must be considered is that 85% of all ocean swimmers are in 3 feet of water. THAT is the reason for the high statistic.

Stats are stupid information for stupid people.

[jmac00]

You guys are a bunch of fanatical gun NUTS. You should be in a institution, or at least on medication because of your paranoia. Guns don't stop crime, gimme a break.


On the issue of self defense, where in the second amendment does it give you the right to defend your self? I don't see it, perhaps some people are reading between the lines again.

BTW, what "well regulated militia" do you belong to? Because from where i read it, that is what gives you the "right" to own the damn things in the first place. So pony up kids, and start "regulating your militia" or you may indeed one day lose your guns...


ya, the world is full of *nuts*. Car nuts, Knife/sword nuts, Truck nuts, model train nuts, Garden nuts, there even anti-gun nuts in the PNW:rolleyes:there even anti-gun nuts in the PNW that believe whatever the media spews out. There are anti-gun nuts all over the country that skew statistics to whatever suites there needs.

ya, your right ~~~~Guns NEVER prevent crime: http://tinyurl.com/2kjkz6

I have un-holstered my weapon on two occasions to protect myself, all I had to do was show (the legal term is *brandish* )my weapon and it ended the threat.........................

so next time some dirt bag breaks into your home (you probably live in a "nice" neighborhood so YOU don't have to worry about a break in) and you have no means to protect yourself or your family, cower under your bed and pray to God the police get there before the bad guys have time to kill you :mad:


"where in the second amendment does it give you the right to defend your self?"

are you freaking kidding me:mad::mad::mad: so let me get this right? If I walk in on some dirt bag raping my wife, I'm suppose to go to a phone, call the police ( BTW, no where, in the Constitution does it say the police MUST protect you) and stand there and wait for the police to save my wife.......................your a freaking idiot:mad: I HAVE A GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO PROTECT MYSELF AND MY FAMILY, moron

[oloenneker]

"where in the second amendment does it give you the right to defend your self?"

are you freaking kidding me:mad::mad::mad: so let me get this right? If I walk in on some dirt bag raping my wife, I'm suppose to go to a phone, call the police ( BTW, no where, in the Constitution does it say the police MUST protect you) and stand there and wait for the police to save my wife.......................your a freaking idiot:mad: I HAVE A GOD GIVEN RIGHT TO PROTECT MYSELF AND MY FAMILY, moron


But you did not answer my question, now did you? All you did was make a fool out of your self, and call me names. How old are you? 10?

Now, back on topic, who says that you need a firearm to defend your self in your fictional situation? The second amendment does not address this, now does it. Therefore, the second amendment does not provide you with the right to defend your self. Period.

Once you can understand the intent of the founding fathers, then, perhaps just then you can understand my point. May I suggest some reading material:http://www.amazon.com/Constitution-United-States-America/dp/1557091528/ref=pd_bbs_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197248558&sr=8-6

Get back to me when you have read it and fully understand it.

[bootlen]

BTW, what "well regulated militia" do you belong to? Because from where i read it, that is what gives you the "right" to own the damn things in the first place. So pony up kids, and start "regulating your militia" or you may indeed one day lose your guns...

Our militia IS regulated. It is capital offense to kill someone with a gun if you do not think your life or the life of a family member is in danger.

[jmac00]

But you did not answer my question, now did you? All you did was make a fool out of your self, and call me names. How old are you? 10?

Now, back on topic, who says that you need a firearm to defend your self in your fictional situation? The second amendment does not address this, now does it. Therefore, the second amendment does not provide you with the right to defend your self. Period.

Once you can understand the intent of the founding fathers, then, perhaps just then you can understand my point. May I suggest some reading material:http://www.amazon.com/Constitution-United-States-America/dp/1557091528/ref=pd_bbs_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1197248558&sr=8-6

Get back to me when you have read it and fully understand it.
================================================== ========

okay, let me ask you a more civil question: why does my owning a firearm such a threat to you :confused::confused::confused: are you scared to death that I might shoot you if you break into my house??? Do you believe that the common criminal has the right to steal what I own??? Do you believe the common criminal is simply a misunderstood individual that needs my understanding and compassion:confused:

I am a law abiding citizen of The United States Of America. I AM FREE. Why is my ownership of a fire arm a threat to you. I own a car, I could easily kill many people with my CAR.(don't bother bring up licensing, I am licensed to carry a Concealed weapon, yep, I have gone through an EXTENSIVE background check and I have been fingerprinted. Everyone from the local cops the the CIA now I own SEVERAL firearms) I own several knives, I could kill a whole bunch of people with one of my knives? Hell I own a 5 gal gas can, I could take out a boat load of people with that, WHY IS MY GUN a threat to YOU.


You want to talk about training, How many rounds have you put through your firearm this year??? I have a little over 8000,( ooh ya, thats just ONE gun) I shoot every week, sometimes twice a week. WHY IS MY OWNING A FIREARM A THREAT TO YOU, or anyone else.

England and Australia have removed the ability of its citizens to defend themselves, Violent crime has sky rocketed in both countries. HOW IS MY OWNING A FIREARM A THREAT TO YOU


I AM A CITIZEN OF THE UNTIED STATES of AMERICA, God gives my the right to defend myself, the Constitution gives my the right to use a device to make that a little easier

[pulse21]

Actually several state laws such as the castle doctrine give us the right to protect ourselves. As inthe preivious post why does me owning a gun bother you. Citizen ownership of firearms does deter crime. Gun laws sure do work no one ever gets shot in DC or New York do they?:D

[mark beiser]

On the issue of self defense, where in the second amendment does it give you the right to defend your self? I don't see it, perhaps some people are reading between the lines again.

You seem to be suffering from a very common basic misunderstanding of what the constitution is for.

It does not exist to tell the people what we are allowed to do, it exists to define and limit government.

There were many at the time that argued that the bill of rights was not needed, fortunately there were enough persuasive people, that felt there was a need to implement some additional protections against government oppression, that the bill of rights was able to be ratified.

As for clarification of what the meaning of the 2nd amendment is, even a brief study of the Federalist Papers, and other writings from the period, make the variety of reasons for it very clear.

A few more decades and it will likely be nearly imposable to exercise the primary purpose of the 2nd amendment though....

[oloenneker]

================================================== ========

okay, let me ask you a more civil question: why does my owning a firearm such a threat to you :confused::confused::confused:

Because the leading reason criminals have guns is because they steal them from law abiding gun owners like your self. Thats is what the threat is. I don't care if you are "responsible" etc. all it takes is for you to be lax about locking up your guns, and a criminal steals it and uses it to commit violent crime. That is the facts of the matter, friend.

And stolen firearms are the leading reason for the armed state of criminals these days. Thanks for providing them with the guns that make you paraniod.

[MadeinUSA]

Because the leading reason criminals have guns is because they steal them from law abiding gun owners like your self. Thats is what the threat is. I don't care if you are "responsible" etc. all it takes is for you to be lax about locking up your guns, and a criminal steals it and uses it to commit violent crime. That is the facts of the matter, friend.

And stolen firearms are the leading reason for the armed state of criminals these days. Thanks for providing them with the guns that make you paraniod.You are uneducated.

You are ignorant of what the Bill of Rights actually are.

You are a Communist.

Just the facts Mam.

[oloenneker]

You are uneducated.

You are ignorant of what the Bill of Rights actually are.

You are a Communist.

Just the facts Mam.

Quite the opposite, Mr. Illiterate...

I am well versed in the bill of rights, the Constitution, and its Amendments.

You don't even know the first thing about Communism as a political platform for you to even begin to make an assessment of who is, or not, a Communist.

[MadeinUSA]

Quite the opposite, Mr. Illiterate...Like I said, you are uneducated, and I am about to show everyone in the world who reads this forum just how pitifully ignorant you are.


I am well versed in the bill of rights, the Constitution, and its Amendments.You are not versed in squat.


You don't even know the first thing about Communism as a political platform for you to even begin to make an assessment of who is, or not, a Communist.Are you ready?

Your above statement should taste real good after you eat those words you Communist.


Will America be next ????

A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

I Thought you might appreciate this . . .

In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about
20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of
13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated
------------------------------
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
------------------------------
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
-----------------------------
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control:
56 million.
------------------------------
It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:

List of 7 items:
Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!

In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!

While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 12 months, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed.

There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.

You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information.

Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.

Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late!

The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson.

With guns, we are 'citizens'.

Without them, we are 'subjects'.

During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!

[MadeinUSA]

Hey Oily, tell me when you want some more articles written by well renowned scholars who are several levels above your intellect who agree with what the second amendment guarantees us citizens.

It is always a pleasure making you Communists look like complete fools who want to take our guaranteed rights from us.

[oloenneker]

Hey Oily, tell me when you want some more articles written by well renowned scholars who are several levels above your intellect who agree with what the second amendment guarantees us citizens.

It is always a pleasure making you Communists look like complete fools who want to take our guaranteed rights from us.

All you did was copy and paste some BS stats from a pro NRA site. Most of those stats can be shot down. A common thing about stats, regardless of what subject they are on.

And, please, clue me in how I am a "Communist" because, I think you are ignorant to what Communism is really about. Actually, I know you don't have a real clue, but I would like to entertain your response.

Oh yeah, bring on those articles. But post links, rather than the article. Easier to read...

[MadeinUSA]

Oily, I refuse to wait. You are just too fun and easy to show how uneducated you are, so here is some more for you, you Communist.

Note: Communist is a noun defining an individual, not name calling which is against the rules, WHICH YOU HAVE ALREADY BROKE Mr. Committee member.




Here is the exact legal code defining the militia.


"Title 10 USC, sec 311

"Section 311. Militia: composition and classes

"(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."


This specifically means every law-abiding legal resident of this country within the age range specified is a member of the "militia", either organized or unorganized.

No matter what you say, it doesn't matter whether or not you argue over what the Framers meant, or if only Militia members can own guns; we, the citizens, ARE the militia.

Now, if anyone wants to make the argument that those over 45 are no longer in the Militia, they'll have some solid ground.

Do they then also lose their gun rights? Can anyone say "age discrimination lawsuit"?

[MadeinUSA]

Ok, last one for strike three to show you are a traitor to your own country you uneducated Communist.

Part 1)

THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT
by J. Neil Schulman
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/unabridged.2nd.html
If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right ? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution ?
That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers -- who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of "American Usage and Style: The Consensus."
A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.
Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for "Editor and Publisher", a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.
He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, "American Usage and Style: The Consensus," has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.
That sounds like an expert to me.
After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:
"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.
"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'
"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."
My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment, then concluded:
"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."
After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):
________________________________________
[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.
"In reply to your numbered questions:
[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"
[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."
[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"
[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."
[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"
[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."
[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"
[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."
[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"
[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."
[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."
[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'
[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,
"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'
"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and
"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' _only_ to 'a well-educated electorate' -- for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[MadeinUSA]

Part 2)

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.
"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."
Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."
So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.
As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.
And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms -- all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.
And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.
it seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. no one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak ?
Or will be simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortuned, and our sacred honor ?
(C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.
________________________________________
About the Author
J. Neil Schulman is the award-winning author of novels endorsed by Anthony Burgess and Nobel-economist Milton Friedman, and writer of the CBS "Twilight Zone" episode in which a time-traveling historian prevents the JFK assassination. He's also the founder and president of SoftServ Publishing, the first publishing company to distribute "paperless books" via personal computers and modems.
Most recently, Schulman has founded the Committee to Enforce the Second Amendment (CESA), through which he intends to see the individual's right to keep and bear arms recognized as a constitutional protection equal to those afforded in the First, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth and Fourteenth amendments.
J. Neil Schulman may be reached through:
The SoftServ Paperless Bookstore, 24-hour bbs: 213-827-3160 (up to 9600 baud).
Mail address:
J. Neil Schulman
PO Box 94, Long
Beach, CA 90801-0094.
GEnie address: SOFTSERV
softserv@genie.geis.com
________________________________________
World-Wide-Web html format by
Scott Ostrander: scotto@cica.indiana.edu

[MadeinUSA]

All you did was copy and paste some BS stats from a pro NRA site. Most of those stats can be shot down. A common thing about stats, regardless of what subject they are on.

And, please, clue me in how I am a "Communist" because, I think you are ignorant to what Communism is really about. Actually, I know you don't have a real clue, but I would like to entertain your response.

Oh yeah, bring on those articles. But post links, rather than the article. Easier to read...What did you run away for you Communist?

What is the matter? Are the articles full of too many facts for you to comprehend in your uneducated little pea brain you Communist?

You're just a typical liberal. When the facts are put forth, you try to change the subject and are incapable of disputing the cold hard facts you uneducated Communist Traitor.

[jmac00]

Because the leading reason criminals have guns is because they steal them from law abiding gun owners like your self. Thats is what the threat is. I don't care if you are "responsible" etc. all it takes is for you to be lax about locking up your guns, and a criminal steals it and uses it to commit violent crime. That is the facts of the matter, friend.

And stolen firearms are the leading reason for the armed state of criminals these days. Thanks for providing them with the guns that make you paraniod.

THATS your excuse, you have GOT to be kidding me.

I'll leave my front door open, I'll give you 12 HOURS to get my firearms, you may use any tools except a torch ( I don't want my house burned down )............come and get 'em, good luck


I got another question for you:

If you line up 10 people, all of them have a gun. 9 of which are Legal, Law Abiding Gun owners and number 10 is a criminal. Now you take away the guns of the 9 Law abiding Gun owners......................How does that effect number 10 the criminal????? ?????

[duckman373]

I think Oleo's stas may have some meaning, but most of the suicides and homocides would have occured using other means if a firearm wasn't present. Not too hard to get a knife from the kitchen and get the job done. As far as accidental shootings go, I believe it is lack of respect and education about the power of firearms and safety. Why not teach firearms safety in grade school? Most kids, even those who aren't into guns would probably enjoy it, and it would definately save lives. Banning guns will never be the answer. I don't know why people go into malls and shoot up a few people. If you really want to kill a large number of people, there are much better ways of doing it, with materials you could never outlaw.

[oloenneker]

Note: Communist is a noun defining an individual, not name calling which is against the rules, WHICH YOU HAVE ALREADY BROKE Mr. Committee member.



When? Where, and why?

Please answer the question as rational as you can, if that is possible.

[oloenneker]

THATS your excuse, you have GOT to be kidding me.

I'll leave my front door open, I'll give you 12 HOURS to get my firearms, you may use any tools except a torch ( I don't want my house burned down )............come and get 'em, good luck



Cool, I'll use a forklift. Your house may be damaged though. I don't think you get my point, which I expected.

Perhaps your guns are secure, but that is not the case with the Majority of gun owners. Most store them in their garages, bedrooms, and in the spare room. Sans a safe. One simple burglary by a meth head, and your guns are on the street. It happened to my brother. His stolen shotgun was used in multiple armed robberies after his house was broken into.



I got another question for you:

If you line up 10 people, all of them have a gun. 9 of which are Legal, Law Abiding Gun owners and number 10 is a criminal. Now you take away the guns of the 9 Law abiding Gun owners......................How does that effect number 10 the criminal????? ?????

This is an age old argument.

Was the Wild west safer because of guns, or did more out laws have access to guns? You decide.


In your scenario, those with the guns sooner or later will be rounded up, because as we all know, criminals are stupid. Hence then all guns will be obsolete. This is only a theory. Lets see what happens in the next 20 years in places like Canada, Australia, ands Europe. Change is not always immediate.

[oloenneker]

What did you run away for you Communist?

What is the matter? Are the articles full of too many facts for you to comprehend in your uneducated little pea brain you Communist?

You're just a typical liberal. When the facts are put forth, you try to change the subject and are incapable of disputing the cold hard facts you uneducated Communist Traitor.


LOL!! You're a moron!!! You keep calling me a Communist. Why? I think that it is strange, because I believe in Free Market Capitalism....:confused::confused:


I am starting to think you are just a dolt that likes to toss around monikers to describe people, regardless of factual basis.


BTW, I asked for links, not cut and paste. I see that your reading comprehension is that of a 8th grader.... Which makes sense, because you are slightly illiterate....

Oh yeah, It's Ma'am not Mam. Ma'am is short for "Madam".


Yep, Made In USA, That tidbit of English language comes to you direct from a naturalized citizen of the USA, who's primary language is not English.....:eek::eek::rolleyes:

[oloenneker]

I think Oleo's stas may have some meaning, but most of the suicides and homocides would have occured using other means if a firearm wasn't present. Not too hard to get a knife from the kitchen and get the job done. As far as accidental shootings go, I believe it is lack of respect and education about the power of firearms and safety. Why not teach firearms safety in grade school? Most kids, even those who aren't into guns would probably enjoy it, and it would definately save lives. Banning guns will never be the answer. I don't know why people go into malls and shoot up a few people. If you really want to kill a large number of people, there are much better ways of doing it, with materials you could never outlaw.


Actually, it has really little to do with guns them selves. They are just devices. It's all about the attitude that surrounds primarily the American public that believes that violence solves all.

There was a great movie put out in the late 70's that puts this mania to light. Taxi Driver was such a powerful film that posed the issue. Travis Bickle went crazy because he was drunk on power the guns gave him.

This perhaps is the zeitgeist of the American attitude amongst the thugs.

Or perhaps it drives the paranoia that keeps the gun industry alive. I'll never know.

[John Culpepper]

It has nothing to do with firearms, just the idea that someone can make things right in the world. I'm from Texas so protecting my self from harm seems natural. I believe that we've had differences of opionions before. I do not have a problem with anything you have to say but sometimes you can be offensibve.:o

[jmac00]

Cool, I'll use a forklift. Your house may be damaged though. I don't think you get my point, which I expected.

Perhaps your guns are secure, but that is not the case with the Majority of gun owners. Most store them in their garages, bedrooms, and in the spare room. Sans a safe. One simple burglary by a meth head, and your guns are on the street. It happened to my brother. His stolen shotgun was used in multiple armed robberies after his house was broken into.

so your brother is an idiot, great that explains alot.




This is an age old argument.

Was the Wild west safer because of guns, or did more out laws have access to guns? You decide.

YES, actually the west was safer, try not to base your history on Movies and TV :rolleyes:



In your scenario, those with the guns sooner or later will be rounded up, because as we all know, criminals are stupid. Hence then all guns will be obsolete. This is only a theory. Lets see what happens in the next 20 years in places like Canada, Australia, ands Europe. Change is not always immediate.

sooner OR later??? so your willing to "experiment" with other peoples lives to test a theory, that Law enforcement will 'someday' be able to round up all the weapons out there. How many people are YOU willing to sacrifice.

How many people get to die while we are waiting for theory to work, are you willing to sacrifice YOUR family?

Your theory is all ready in the toilet, Crime in England, Australia and Europe is all ready at an all time high. Violent crime is at a 10 year high in Austrialia and why is that, BECAUSE THE GOVERNMENT HAS TURNED THE CITIZENS INTO SUBJECTS, UNABLE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES.

An armed Society is a polite Society

[MadeinUSA]

When? Where, and why?

Please answer the question as rational as you can, if that is possible.Typical ignorant liberal response when facts make you eat your words.

Why can't you dispute the facts now that they have been posted for everyone to see?

Please tell us now how the second does not give us rights based on the "facts" I have posted which is backed up by a renowned journalist with a link.

[MadeinUSA]

LOL!! You're a moron!!! You keep calling me a Communist. Why? I think that it is strange, because I believe in Free Market Capitalism....:confused::confused:


I am starting to think you are just a dolt that likes to toss around monikers to describe people, regardless of factual basis.


BTW, I asked for links, not cut and paste. I see that your reading comprehension is that of a 8th grader.... Which makes sense, because you are slightly illiterate....

Oh yeah, It's Ma'am not Mam. Ma'am is short for "Madam".


Yep, Made In USA, That tidbit of English language comes to you direct from a naturalized citizen of the USA, who's primary language is not English.....:eek::eek::rolleyes:And another waste of bandwidth with you ignoring the "facts" I have posted.

Who's the illiterate one? Yes that would be you being you obviously are incapable of reading the articles with facts Mr. Communist.

[MadeinUSA]

Here Oily

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/communist

com•mu•nist [kom-yuh-nist]

1. (initial capital letter ) a member of the Communist party or movement.

2. an advocate of communism.
3. a person who is regarded as supporting politically leftist or subversive causes.
4. (usually initial capital letter ) a Communard.

–adjective
5. (initial capital letter ) of or pertaining to the Communist party or to Communism.

6. pertaining to communists or communism.

Oily, I believe #3 fits you quite well being ignoring ones rights granted by the Constitution would be considered subversive (a person who adopts subversive principles or policies).

Yeah, you’re well read in the Constitution alright, about as well read as an unborn child is with their ABC’s.

[jmac00]

give it up MAID, this is like arguing with a 3 day old infant.:rolleyes::eek:

[bootlen]

Cool, I'll use a forklift. Your house may be damaged though.

Well, jmac00, he's got ya there. They use forklifts all the time breaking into homes around here.

[jmac00]

Well, jmac00, he's got ya there. They use forklifts all the time breaking into homes around here.


Yep, I better up-grade the alarm to something with a relay/pressure switch and a couple of pounds of C-4 :rolleyes:

[hvacbear]

Oloenneker,

If the criminals get their guns from law abiding citizens then what is the use of regulating law abiding citicizens gun rights? The criminals will get them illegally anyway.
Why not make stealing firearms a crime? Orrr better yet enforce the laws on the books already.

My point is punish the criminals not the guy who wants a AR-15? So why do you need a AR-15 it's like a Corvett you can only legally go the speed limit but we just like to get to it quicker.

As for the right to defend yourself it is pretty much inherant. Nearly every state recognizes that if someone breaks into your house they don't have your best interest in mind. If these criminals take adirt nap because they commited a crime so be it. It keeps them from clogging up our already cumber some legal system. I think in general we need to be more pissed about crime.

Thanks for the intelligent conversation.

[oloenneker]

Well, jmac00, he's got ya there. They use forklifts all the time breaking into homes around here.

He did say ANY tool, other than a torch...:rolleyes::rolleyes:

I was just making an EXTREME example.

But it's not that far off...

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070703/NEWS34/70703028 :):)

[oloenneker]

Thanks for the intelligent conversation.


You're welcome.


I am sorry, sometimes I can be a bit of a http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c306/biggerlost/37icon-troll-small.gif

I guess I like the sport of it.:eek::cool:

[oloenneker]

Yep, I better up-grade the alarm to something with a relay/pressure switch and a couple of pounds of C-4 :rolleyes:


Ohhhh... A challenge....:D

[oloenneker]

Typical ignorant liberal response when facts make you eat your words.

Why can't you dispute the facts now that they have been posted for everyone to see?

Please tell us now how the second does not give us rights based on the "facts" I have posted which is backed up by a renowned journalist with a link.


Because your supposed "facts" are actually propaganda, thats why. If you like entertaining propaganda, then that is your juxtaposition, not mine.

When you can provide hard line "FACT" then perhaps, just perhaps, then will I entertain your position. Until then, you're moot.

But I guess you can just be juvenile, and call me a "Communist" or whatever name suits you at the moment. Feel free to call me a "Liberal", because that is where I lean politically, and so did the Founding Fathers of this great nation. :p

In reality, I am just another poor slob that installs and repairs furnaces and Air conditioning systems.... Like alot of people around here.

[oloenneker]

It has nothing to do with firearms, just the idea that someone can make things right in the world. I'm from Texas so protecting my self from harm seems natural. I believe that we've had differences of opionions before. I do not have a problem with anything you have to say but sometimes you can be offensibve.:o

You have hit the nail directly on the head. I am sorry if you find my diatribe offensive. It is not my objective to offend, but sometimes I do get a little feisty and like to throw out a few bones to make it "spicy"... There are plenty of fish that take the bait, as you have seen.

[bootlen]

He did say ANY tool, other than a torch...:rolleyes::rolleyes:

I was just making an EXTREME example.

But it's not that far off...

http://www.recordonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070703/NEWS34/70703028 :):)

So, ya need a forklift to carry off jmac's weapons?

D-u-u-u-u-de. You need to stay a little closer to sea level.

[fixacr]

Making something illegal is not going to stop the criminal element from obtaining it if they want it. Prohibition didn't stop alcohol, modern laws don't stop drug traffic and it wouldn't be any different with guns. Unfortunately, there is no way to document the criminal acts that did not occur because the criminal knew he would be risking getting his head blown off.

[jmac00]

So, ya need a forklift to carry off jmac's weapons?

D-u-u-u-u-de. You need to stay a little closer to sea level.


or stop smoking da-wacky-weed :eek::p

[MadeinUSA]

give it up MAID, this is like arguing with a 3 day old infant.:rolleyes::eek:3 days old? He's crying like he's only 3 seconds old and ignoring the cold hard facts like they always do.

[MadeinUSA]

Because your supposed "facts" are actually propaganda, thats why. If you like entertaining propaganda, then that is your juxtaposition, not mine.Post (51) showing : "Title 10 USC, sec 311 "Section 311. Militia: composition and classes”

sure looked factual to me unless you consider the printed word of the Constitution as propaganda which you obviously do.

Then post (52) and (53) basically drove a stake through your Communist heart.



When you can provide hard line "FACT" then perhaps, just perhaps, then will I entertain your position. Until then, you're moot.You have had your rear handed to you, and are just simply too ignorant to know when to shut your yap, so you just keep yapping to make a fool out of yourself which I am happy to watch.


But I guess you can just be juvenile, and call me a "Communist" or whatever name suits you at the moment.Communist is a title one gets when they act out those desires which you have. Obviously you are again too ignorant to admit that even when the definition was given for proof to your gun grabbing philosophy.
Feel free to call me a "Liberal", because that is where I lean politically, and so did the Founding Fathers of this great nation. Wrong Communist. They leaned towards citizen rights and little government, not a gun grabbing Communist government which you advocate.

This is my last post concerning this to you. I proved you wrong, and you are a waste of my time to debate with on this matter you Communist.

Maybe we will meat one day on the battle field and you can see if you have the stones to take my weapon.

[jmac00]

3 days old? He's crying like he's only 3 seconds old and ignoring the cold hard facts like they always do.

now , now, lets cut 'em some slack. He obviously lives in a gated community where crime doesn't exist. Someday though, he may find himself face-to-face with a real bad guy and he's going to be real disappointed when he tries to fend off the bad guy with his pocket protector.

On the bright side, he may be able to escape when the bad guy starts laughing so hard he almost passes out :o:o:o:eek:

[MadeinUSA]

On the bright side, he may be able to escape when the bad guy starts laughing so hard he almost passes out :o:o:o:eek:I have almost passed out from laughing just reading his warped thinking in this thread. :D

[oloenneker]

or stop smoking da-wacky-weed :eek::p

Ya know, I tried that stuff. I did not like it. I'll leave the rest of the supply of dope, for well, dopes.

[oloenneker]

I have almost passed out from laughing just reading his warped thinking in this thread. :D


That was not from laughing, that was from the spray paint you sniff...:eek:

[oloenneker]

Post (51) showing : "Title 10 USC, sec 311 "Section 311. Militia: composition and classes”

sure looked factual to me unless you consider the printed word of the Constitution as propaganda which you obviously do.

Then post (52) and (53) basically drove a stake through your Communist heart.


You have had your rear handed to you, and are just simply too ignorant to know when to shut your yap, so you just keep yapping to make a fool out of yourself which I am happy to watch.

Communist is a title one gets when they act out those desires which you have. Obviously you are again too ignorant to admit that even when the definition was given for proof to your gun grabbing philosophy.Wrong Communist. They leaned towards citizen rights and little government, not a gun grabbing Communist government which you advocate.

This is my last post concerning this to you. I proved you wrong, and you are a waste of my time to debate with on this matter you Communist.

Maybe we will meat one day on the battle field and you can see if you have the stones to take my weapon.

What a dope.

You are just a dope. Smokin' rope dope.

Some people are hooked easier than others.

BTW, I know of a house so full of guns, I will need a forklift to take them out, wanna buy a rifle or two so you can defend your self against the boogeyman?

[oloenneker]

now , now, lets cut 'em some slack. He obviously lives in a gated community where crime doesn't exist. Someday though, he may find himself face-to-face with a real bad guy and he's going to be real disappointed when he tries to fend off the bad guy with his pocket protector.

On the bright side, he may be able to escape when the bad guy starts laughing so hard he almost passes out :o:o:o:eek:


I wish I live in a gated community, but sadly, I live in the the inner city.

We have crime, and I have had stuff stolen out of my cars etc., but never once did I think that I needed more than my bravado, and perhaps a few striking weapons to get my point across. I guess that is what is different from you and me. You rely on a firearm, and I rely on my street smarts.

Pocket protector, ha!! I just remind the homies that most serial killers are white... Usually they look pretty puzzled, and slightly scared. Crazy works as well as brandishing a firearm in many situations...:D

[MadeinUSA]

That was not from laughing, that was from the spray paint you sniff...:eek:You're on your death bed if this is all you have.

[MadeinUSA]

What a dope.

You are just a dope. Smokin' rope dope.

Some people are hooked easier than others.Looking at the maturity in this post, I can see why they don't or won't sell you a gun.


BTW, I know of a house so full of guns, I will need a forklift to take them out, wanna buy a rifle or two so you can defend your self against the boogeyman?My arsenal is quite sufficient to hold off Communists like you. Two more rifles would just be a needle in the hay stack.

[MadeinUSA]

...you can defend your self against the boogeyman?Oh, and being how you were so anal retentive a few posts back concerning my "mam" comment, I just could not let your little grammatical error here pass.

"Yourself" is one word, not two Professor Oily.

Oh, and we are still waiting for you to show us your superior knowledge and well read intellect on the Constitution. Seems all we are getting now is name calling from a committee member.

I noticed you ran as far as you could from my two posts identifying the "legal" definition of militia and a well renowned journalism scholar's expert opinion on the second.

If you were *cough cough* such a studied expert, why run from facts without a debate. LMAO

[slimwoodie]

Dude I have a ton of them and:D its a good feelin'


sherrif john ....:)

[duckman373]

When I lived in NC, a man broke into my house one night at 1:30 AM. I grabbed my shotgun, and just the noise of a round being loaded, and the bolt slamming forward, caused the intruder to haul ass out of my house. In Miami a couple of weks ago, a young man heard an intruder in his house, and grabbed a machette. The intruder had a gun, and shot the young man in the groin, a wound which proved to be fatal. I have to believe, that if that young man had a gun, he would still be alive. I will never surrender my firearms. They are as much of my life as breathing.

[oloenneker]

When I lived in NC, a man broke into my house one night at 1:30 AM. I grabbed my shotgun, and just the noise of a round being loaded, and the bolt slamming forward, caused the intruder to haul ass out of my house. In Miami a couple of weks ago, a young man heard an intruder in his house, and grabbed a machette. The intruder had a gun, and shot the young man in the groin, a wound which proved to be fatal. I have to believe, that if that young man had a gun, he would still be alive. I will never surrender my firearms. They are as much of my life as breathing.


You sir, are what I call a "paranoid gun nut".

in your case, it could also have been that the intruder realized that he was not alone, and fled, but that does not satisfy your agenda, now does it.

[bootlen]

You sir, are what I call a "paranoid gun nut".

in your case, it could also have been that the intruder realized that he was not alone, and fled, but that does not satisfy your agenda, now does it.

Lemme see, now. Car parked out front...I doubt anybody's home.

Yeh. Go'head, Fred.

[deanmech]

I live in Canada, where there are fewer guns and consequently I don't own one. If I lived in a place where most of the criminals had guns, I probably would have one too (depending on the level of danger in the neighborhood).

I believe that, WITHIN REASON, people have a right to defend themselves: eg. If someone breaks in to my bedroom in the middle of the night brandishing a gun or knife and proceeds to attack me or my wife, I would say they deserve to be shot or maimed (i.e. whatever it would take to stop them). If they happen to be killed, it is their fault. Now, if someone happens to be trespassing my property, but not actually trying to break in to the house, I would be much more lenient (eg. possibly call the police if I thought the action was suspicious). The point being: there are many levels of crime and of criminals--the means of self-defense should be commensurate with the level of crime--simple as that. As for the police, they should be our first level of defense whenever possible. Obviously, there are occasions where there is no time to call the police..............................

[duckman373]

I was just using a personal, and current example, don't see the need for insults. I thought we were debating, not shutting each other up. If realizing someone was home caused intruders to run, why did the young man in Miami die. And the guy in my house was trying to knock down the door to my bedroom. He knew I was in there. To this day I have a hard time sleeping some nights. I feel violated, but grateful that arming myself saved the situation from escalating, including my having to fire a shot in anger. I never want to know what it is like to kill another human being, but if it needs to happen. so be it.

[jmac00]

I live in Canada, where there are fewer guns and consequently I don't own one. If I lived in a place where most of the criminals had guns, I probably would have one too (depending on the level of danger in the neighborhood).

I believe that, WITHIN REASON, people have a right to defend themselves: eg. If someone breaks in to my bedroom in the middle of the night brandishing a gun or knife and proceeds to attack me or my wife, I would say they deserve to be shot or maimed (i.e. whatever it would take to stop them). If they happen to be killed, it is their fault. Now, if someone happens to be trespassing my property, but not actually trying to break in to the house, I would be much more lenient (eg. possibly call the police if I thought the action was suspicious). The point being: there are many levels of crime and of criminals--the means of self-defense should be commensurate with the level of crime--simple as that. As for the police, they should be our first level of defense whenever possible. Obviously, there are occasions where there is no time to call the police..............................

There are all ready VERY STRICT rules of engagement (laws) about defending ones self and family.

IF the criminal is OUTSIDE of your dwelling, he/she is NOT an immediate threat to you or your family, you MAY NOT TERMINATE the perpetrator. However, if that same person attempts forcible entry into your dwelling, well then, he's at your mercy. The perpetrator need NOT be armed, if he's in your home it's assumed hes there to do you harm and you may engage him/her as you see fit.

As for the police being our first line of defense???? NO WHERE is it written that the police must respond to your call for help. YOU MUST BE that first line of defense

[mark beiser]

There are all ready VERY STRICT rules of engagement (laws) about defending ones self and family.

IF the criminal is OUTSIDE of your dwelling, he/she is NOT an immediate threat to you or your family, you MAY NOT TERMINATE the perpetrator. However, if that same person attempts forcible entry into your dwelling, well then, he's at your mercy. The perpetrator need NOT be armed, if he's in your home it's assumed hes there to do you harm and you may engage him/her as you see fit.

In Texas, they don't even have to be attempting to enter your home if it is dark outside.

[bootlen]

As for the police being our first line of defense???? NO WHERE is it written that the police must respond to your call for help. YOU MUST BE that first line of defense

That is exactly right. Cops will not come on your call because of threats. They will only come if a crime has been committed. Hell, then it's too freakin' late. Tell 'em to stay at KK or DD. It's all over now.

[MadeinUSA]

in your case, it could also have been that the intruder realized that he was not alone, and fled, but that does not satisfy your agenda, now does it.Yep, you’re just an every day Communist as seen here by you twisting blame around and thinking a homeowner is the person at fault when a Burglar has broken and entered their residence. For you to think a homeowner is a gun freak just because he talks about cocking a gun to ready himself for self-defense is a pretty sick mind, but then it is a Communist mind, so what else could we expect being you feel a homeowner has NO rights when a Burglar is inside at night in a dark house.

[MadeinUSA]

There are areas in some towns where the cops will wait 30 minutes after gun shots just to let the scene calm down before they go in. This fact alone shows every citizen can only depend on themselves for any protection if they want to survive if they ever find themselves in a dangerous situation.

If you listen to the Communists in the country, they would have you wait on the cops, even if you live out in rural America where it could take 15-20 minutes to get to you, before you have a right to protect your own family.

[oloenneker]

There are areas in some towns where the cops will wait 30 minutes after gun shots just to let the scene calm down before they go in.


This is only happens if you're country... That is your sacrifice. You trade solitude for lax law enforcement. Your choice, not mine. If you need protection, thats your paranoia.


In the city, this is not a problem.

[mrs reb77]

Supreme Court to see if they can understand 2nd Amendment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i'm sure you've heard, the Supreme Court (the court that is served with sour cream) is going to hear a case on the 2nd Amendment.


WOW! that's mightly nice of them, after flat out ignoring the 2nd Amendment for 30 years and more.


word around the gun show circuit is laws are going to be struck down all over the country, i'm not so stupid as to believe that.


i don't know about you people, but i'm sick and tired of the USA coincidently mimicing a socialist state.


we already know who will vote against it, Ginsberg and the rest of the anti-american minions.

at least we can say one good thing about Bush, he put "conservatives" and the Supreme Court.

but you know what? we're still screwed, wanna know why?

because even the Supreme Court heros Thomas and Scalia are in the WRONG.
the Supreme Court, the State , the ACLU, NONE OF THEM! have any right to overturn ANYTHING in the Bill of Rights,
even Thomas and Scalia THINK they have a right to go in and make some kind of vote on the subject.

...and don't be fooled by idiots who tell you they can, if the Bill of Rights could be overturned, then there was no point in writing it.




according the the ACLU and other socialist agitators, the words "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" really means , you can't own guns.

i'm i really freaking suppose to believe that?

you rights come from the Constitution, they don't come from the ACLU, socialism is a form of government that is FOREIGN to this country, and it has been a disaster everywhere else in the world.
we still live off of what is left of the Constitution.



as far as i'm concerned, if anyone in this coutry wants to see any kind of reform, gun rights are the first place to start.

this country needs to erase any "criminal" record of anyone who was victimized by the government for carrying a weapon.
the government needs to issue hefty cash settlements for ruining people's lives with their abuse of power.
and any politician that tries to pass any gun laws, needs to go to jail for the clearly written law.

Which case were you referring to in this original post?
Was it this one summarized on Wiki? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parker_v._District_of_Columbia

[fixacr]

After more than half a century on this earth, I still don't understand why the "enlightened" liberals think that because they choose not to have a gun, the rest of us are supposed to be denied the choice.

[hvacbear]

I believe that it is my right to have a firearm to defend myself just the same as anyone who chooses not to.
There are arguments for and against it. I feel safer with a firearm and I feel much safer for my family when I am away. I have several personal friends who are cops and they all keep firearms at home for protection and suggest to me personally to do the same. Seasoned criminals do not run away because they realize they are not alone. They also tell me force (dogs or guns) are the only things that work. (This comes from over 100 years of law enforcement experience)

[MadeinUSA]

Text deleted per poster's request

Message delivered.

[jmac00]

this just in:

A man in the Town of Richmond ( a little town at the north end of Honeoye Lake, which is one of the tiny Finger Lakes) that owns a auto repair shop, was tired of getting his shop broken into. So Monday night he caught two individuals and they ran to a car, the shop owner shot out the tires.

Hers the interesting part: The two perpetrator's were charged with misdemeanor's, the shop owner is charged with a FELONY for using his firearm to protect his property:eek:

From what the news reported, The shop owner did not shoot at the to men, he did not shoot at the car, he TARGETED the tires and now he faces more severe charges than the criminals.

He was arraigned last night at the Town Hall/Court, the ENTIRE TOWN turned out in support of the shop owner. The town folk want the charges dropped, the Assistant DA is now in a quandary as to whether he will drop the charges.


This is an example of whats wrong with this country. District Attorney's that are over zealous in prosecuting the wrong people :mad: and giving criminals a slap on the wrist :mad:

I have a feeling if the DA pursues this case against the shop owner, next election he will be looking for a new job

[bootlen]

If that DA is in a quandary about what to do about the charges, he probably has a hard time deciding whether to eat or starve.

[jmac00]

If that DA is in a quandary about what to do about the charges, he probably has a hard time deciding whether to eat or starve.


after further review, it appears the shop owner, caught the individuals IN HIS SHOP and when they ran, that is when he shot out the tires.

Damn good shooting if you ask me :D

[bootlen]

after further review, it appears the shop owner, caught the individuals IN HIS SHOP and when they ran, that is when he shot out the tires.

Damn good shooting if you ask me :D

Yup. That's what I call gun control.

[dhvac]

ok i didnt read al the posts but i did read a lot of them, here is what i am hearing from oloen if someone starts breaking into vans and stealing ohhh lets say mag lights, they then take these mag lights and go out and kill a few people with them, then the people who use them for a legitimate purpose should not be allowed to buy them anymore?

so rather then make a mandatory death sentience for all the people who use guns in illegal VIOLENT CRIMES we should punish those who do what they should be doing?

this same basic subject is going on in another thread, why should the criminals have more rights then the law abiding citizens?

a few side notes anyone who watches anything on discovery channels knows they are producing non-lethal weapons in mass quantities and variations
now let me ask you, do you think you will ever see a chopper full of marines landing in Afghanistan and getting out with non-lethal weapons?
so why are they devoting so much time, effort, and money into this?....well its because they intend to use them on YOU if the need ever arises

also if guns kill people then spoons made Roseann fat :D (cant take credit for this one heard it somewhere else before)

i am all for gun laws which we already have tons of just direct them towards the criminals and make the punishment harsh enough that other scum bags wont want to commit the same crimes they see other people suffering for

[dhvac]

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/april2007/190407mandatory.htm

what about the town that made owning a gun mandatory and the crime rate dropped?

guess they are the exception



when guns are outlawed only outlaws will own guns

[Johnny Law]

This is only happens if you're country... That is your sacrifice. You trade solitude for lax law enforcement. Your choice, not mine. If you need protection, thats your paranoia.


In the city, this is not a problem.

How rural is Detroit? It looks like logic and reality has no part in your posting.

[mrs reb77]

It's hard to compare Detroit with, say, my area which is rural. If I recall, some poll last year put Detroit and St. Louis as the most dangerous cities per capita or some such.

Out here in the rural areas it is sometimes hit and miss with law enforcement. I don't think it's because our police forces don't WANT to respond but, due to size of force, extent of areas covered etc. it's just a reality. I think that's kind of where Oleo was headed with that statement...

[Johnny Law]

I did not extract that at all with a statement like this attached to it.



If you need protection, thats your paranoia.

[mrs reb77]

I've known him longer than you...:D

[oloenneker]

this just in:

A man in the Town of Richmond ( a little town at the north end of Honeoye Lake, which is one of the tiny Finger Lakes) that owns a auto repair shop, was tired of getting his shop broken into. So Monday night he caught two individuals and they ran to a car, the shop owner shot out the tires.

Hers the interesting part: The two perpetrator's were charged with misdemeanor's, the shop owner is charged with a FELONY for using his firearm to protect his property:eek:

From what the news reported, The shop owner did not shoot at the to men, he did not shoot at the car, he TARGETED the tires and now he faces more severe charges than the criminals.

He was arraigned last night at the Town Hall/Court, the ENTIRE TOWN turned out in support of the shop owner. The town folk want the charges dropped, the Assistant DA is now in a quandary as to whether he will drop the charges.


This is an example of whats wrong with this country. District Attorney's that are over zealous in prosecuting the wrong people :mad: and giving criminals a slap on the wrist :mad:

I have a feeling if the DA pursues this case against the shop owner, next election he will be looking for a new job


So what's your problem with the charges?

The people breaking in committed a misdemeanor crime, but when your hero decided to use deadly force against an un-armed intruder you balk at the fact that this is against the law in the United States?

Thats is what I really consider strange...

(BTW, in some cities in the US, discharging a firearm is indeed a felony... Perhaps that is the statute being used in this case in question....)

[oloenneker]

How rural is Detroit? It looks like logic and reality has no part in your posting.


Considering inner Detroit these days, I might be able to claim that it is deed rural... Do people still live in inner Detroit? My mother asked me the same question recently, and that was because she grew up right off 6 mile road....

[oloenneker]

Out here in the rural areas it is sometimes hit and miss with law enforcement. I don't think it's because our police forces don't WANT to respond but, due to size of force, extent of areas covered etc. it's just a reality. I think that's kind of where Oleo was headed with that statement...

You're spot on to what I was trying to say, as usual.

[jpb2]

Rural or not we have as big a problem here with meth as anyone. South central Mo. a year ago had the biggest concentration of labs in the country.Better safe than sorry. It is my right to protect my family and property and god forbid it happen. I will not give a second thought to sending a dirt bag to a dirt nap. Forgot to mention my wife's x is a convicted fellon who thanks to a weak court system is out of the penn and still peddling the stuff I hear. Its only a matter of time befor he tries again to get back into the kids ( 2 of 3)lives.

[mrs reb77]

Yeah, Meth is a major problem in this state.
Sorry to hear about the ex, hope he does something stupid somewhere else and becomes....not your problem.

Very good article in the American Hunter January 2006 magazine by Ted Nugent. A must read for all hunters concerned about their portrayal in society.

[jpb2]

Thanks Mrs reb ! Merry Christmas

[Refer-Madness]

after further review, it appears the shop owner, caught the individuals IN HIS SHOP and when they ran, that is when he shot out the tires.

Damn good shooting if you ask me :D

At that point they were no longer a threat to him and he was not justified in firing his weapon. That he was able to hit the tires does NOT make him a hero, it makes him careless and foolish. Most tires don't have the stopping power to prevent a bullet from passing clean through and ricocheting into a passing vehicle or innocent persons home/business. In my opinion, if he had time to take careful aim at the vehicles tires then he had time to get make, model, and license number to give to the police, and his actions make responsible gun owners look bad. I say, ahead with his prosecution.

[jpb2]

I disagree refer. The **** stain in thier pants will remind them of this. If there were more people who would go on offence the better it would be

[jmac00]

Yep, when we get to start shooting back, more criminals will think twice before pulling any shenanigans.

An Armed Society is a Polite Society

[duckman373]

I hate to say this, but I think he may be in the wrong on this one. Guns are to defend life, not stop criminals from escaping. This is the law, and I don't neccesarily agree with it 100%. If I were the DA, I would find a misdemeanor that I could charge him with, with a suspended sentence. I couldn't justify shooting someone trying to get away from me. We have to police ourselves first as gun owners. i hope he gets off light.

[jmac00]

I hate to say this, but I think he may be in the wrong on this one. Guns are to defend life, not stop criminals from escaping. This is the law, and I don't neccesarily agree with it 100%. If I were the DA, I would find a misdemeanor that I could charge him with, with a suspended sentence. I couldn't justify shooting someone trying to get away from me. We have to police ourselves first as gun owners. i hope he gets off light.


I think (in this case) people are mad because the LAW ABIDING, TAX PAYING EX-MARINE shop owner is getting charged with a felony, while the real criminals got away with a slap on the wrist. They got what amounts to an appearance ticket and will probably end up paying a fine.

The shop owner, is charged with a felony and will probably do jail time...........that ain't right:mad:

[mrs reb77]

Well, if they weren't were they weren't supposed to be in the first place there would have been no opportunity to shoot at them.
In other words, in the commission of their crime they presented themselves to a situation that would not have occurred had they been otherwise gainfully occupied. Now, who's fault is that!?
Kind of like the trespasser that injures themselves on posted land. No right to be there--no rights.

[duckman373]

Look guys, I agree the guys were scum and deserve a harsher charge than the shop owner. I'm not saying he was morally wrong, but he may have broken a law. I am all for him getting a very light sentence. It sucks, but we have to play by the rules, the criminals don't. That's what separates us from them.

Jmac- I missed the part about them getting a slap on the wrist. That is a bunch of crap, and makes absolutley no sense.

[controldude]

I believe the fore fathers of this country which I also served, didn't trust any government, so when they wrote The Bill of Rights they came up with a specific order that being 1st freedom of speech from the government 2nd the right to protect themselves from government and so on. The media never lets us forget about the 1st but the 2nd is the one that protects us all.
please read the attached picture I think it says alot about what will happen if they try to remove our weapons.

[oloenneker]

I disagree refer. The **** stain in thier pants will remind them of this. If there were more people who would go on offence the better it would be


Perhaps the message is clear to the criminal, but the action take by the shop owner is illegal. The intruders where not posing a threat in their retreat. Hence the idea of firing a weapon at or around them is the case the DA is making, hence why he is facing a possible Felony.

Even when I was in the military we acknowledged this regarding retreating forces.


Deadly force can only be used in the case of need. If you feel that unless you use deadly force to defend your self, the action you cause is and can be homocide. That is also a felony. Property crimes are not considered "life threating" by any means, therefore, deadly force is never appropriate. Of course this does not include Armed robbery, or any property crime where inherent bodily injury might be the result of non-compliance. In those cases you have the right to defend your self.

But someone breaking into your shop or work van to steal tools or equipment never requires deadly force. Period. Thats what insurance is for.

[oloenneker]

please read the attached picture I think it says alot about what will happen if they try to remove our weapons.


Mr. ControlDude, with all respect and all that jazz, you, sir, are a propaganda whore. Nothing more, nothing less....


I'll bet it reads as follows: "from my dead cold hands"...


LOL.

[bootlen]

That's what separates us from them.


I know what you're saying in your general post. But this little sentence is untrue. What separates "us" from "them" is the fact that "they" were trespassers, law violators, in the wrong while "we" were minding our own business until interrupted by "them". The law should allow for that as long as "we" do not leave our property in disposing of the problem.

Someone mentioned an innocent bystander getting hurt. And in doing so, proposed that the round would have gone through the tire and hit an innocent. The law should have provision for that as well...that is, allow for certain types of ammo (hollow point--that stops upon first contact) for home protection and thus leaving this poor guy within his rights to protect, AND deter crime on, his property.

[bootlen]

Perhaps the message is clear to the criminal, but the action take by the shop owner is illegal.


Correct. And the law should be changed. THAT is the point.

[bootlen]

Mr. ControlDude, with all respect and all that jazz, you, sir, are a propaganda whore. Nothing more, nothing less....


I'll bet it reads as follows: "from my dead cold hands"...


LOL.

Well, Ole, that what real Americans are. People who love their country as it was originally founded. Now a bunch of European "B types" want to come in and sissify the place...and expect real Americans to stand by and let it happen.

I only pray that my great-great-great-grands are still verbally fighting this battle while their arms/ammo is safely locked away in a safe in their own homes. And I pray that the law has been changed by then to allow property owners to take out criminals who trespass.

And I can only think that if you have a problem with that, that maybe you DO have designs on entering someone's home with a forklift. :eek:

[jmac00]

Perhaps the message is clear to the criminal, but the action take by the shop owner is illegal. The intruders where not posing a threat in their retreat. Hence the idea of firing a weapon at or around them is the case the DA is making, hence why he is facing a possible Felony.

Even when I was in the military we acknowledged this regarding retreating forces.


Deadly force can only be used in the case of need. If you feel that unless you use deadly force to defend your self, the action you cause is and can be homocide. That is also a felony. Property crimes are not considered "life threating" by any means, therefore, deadly force is never appropriate. Of course this does not include Armed robbery, or any property crime where inherent bodily injury might be the result of non-compliance. In those cases you have the right to defend your self.

But someone breaking into your shop or work van to steal tools or equipment never requires deadly force. Period. Thats what insurance is for.

your kidding right???? So after the forth or fifth break in and my insurance premiums continue to climb, until my insurance company drops me all together. I'm just suppose to let these jerks continue to break into my shop/truck/house and NOT DO nothing? I'm just suppose to shrug my shoulders and say "oh well, I'll just go buy more stuff tomorrow"

By That thinking, I should be able to walk into any Jewelery store, unarmed and just take whatever I want and walk out and let the jewelers insurance cover it, but some how, I don't think thats going to happen:confused:

Just how much of EVERYONES insurance premiums (what percentage) are higher because of payments due to burglary? or other criminal activity?

We (as citizens) have a right to protect our property, and our livelihood. If a person engages in criminal activity, we have the RIGHT to stop them, with any means necessary.

Once a person that has criminal intentions realizes, that there is a good chance he/she may die, there is a better chance he/she will rethink there intentions.

[duckman373]

I know what you're saying in your general post. But this little sentence is untrue. What separates "us" from "them" is the fact that "they" were trespassers, law violators, in the wrong while "we" were minding our own business until interrupted by "them". The law should allow for that as long as "we" do not leave our property in disposing of the problem.



Good points.

[jpb2]

Perhaps the message is clear to the criminal, but the action take by the shop owner is illegal. The intruders where not posing a threat in their retreat. Hence the idea of firing a weapon at or around them is the case the DA is making, hence why he is facing a possible Felony.

Even when I was in the military we acknowledged this regarding retreating forces.


Deadly force can only be used in the case of need. If you feel that unless you use deadly force to defend your self, the action you cause is and can be homocide. That is also a felony. Property crimes are not considered "life threating" by any means, therefore, deadly force is never appropriate. Of course this does not include Armed robbery, or any property crime where inherent bodily injury might be the result of non-compliance. In those cases you have the right to defend your self.

But someone breaking into your shop or work van to steal tools or equipment never requires deadly force. Period. Thats what insurance is for.

I somewhat agree. If they retreat I will lower arms. If they advance and I feel the least bit threatened, after a verbal warning, the dirt nap starts. My contention is there would be less crime if people would be more agressive (responsibly) about protecting their interests borh tangible and physical

[jmac00]

More interesting news on the Gun front: The Armed Citizen From The American Rifleman, a NRA magazine

Associated Press, 10/18/07

Tiffany & Adrian McKinnon returned from vacation to find their Montgomery Ala. home ransacked. "Tears just rolled down my face as I walked in and saw everything gone and piles of trash all over my home" recalled Tiffany.

Adrian was surveying the damage when, incredibly, a man walked through the back door wearing Adrian's hat!

Police say Adrian pointed a gun at the suspect and told him to lie on the floor. Then Adrian got an idea: He forced the suspect to clean up the mess.

When police arrived, the suspect griped about his treatment. "The police officer laughed at him when he complained and said anybody else would have shot him dead" said Tiffany.

:D:D:D:D

I got hundreds of examples of law Abiding citizens using a firearm to defend the lives and property

[duckman373]

That's classic. Gotta renew my NRA membership, ran out a couple of months ago.

[jmac00]

That's classic. Gotta renew my NRA membership, ran out a couple of months ago.


I just signed up for a Life Membership, it turns out they take payments :D

[MadeinUSA]

But someone breaking into your shop or work van to steal tools or equipment never requires deadly force. Period. Thats what insurance is for.You are 100% wrong and clueless.

The very reason a person could hang horse thieves on the spot was so that AMERICANS could protect their tools, horses, they used to plow their fields with or work their cattle so they could earn a living and be able to support their families.

Tools in a van are no different than horses or oxen as tools, and these thieves who steel tools should be able to be strung up by a rope ON THE SPOT just like it originally was in this country so AMERICANS are able to send the message to all thugs that they will die if they put a family’s earnings at risk in this country. Cars should be included for they took the place of horses.

Anyone who protects thieves in this country through laws or public marches are not qualified to be Americans and whoever marches and protests in their favor should have their citizenship stripped from them because they are against America by their actions and do not deserve to be called an American and that includes you Oloe.

[bootlen]

MadeinUSA, you have mail.

[bootlen]

Ole,

Email me.

[hvacpope]

who needs guns:D all you need is this:D http://www.katize.com/2007/08/11/sleep-tight-with-the-safe-bedside-table/

[oloenneker]

[/u][/b]

your kidding right????

No I am not kidding. Read your local laws carefully.





We (as citizens) have a right to protect our property, and our livelihood. If a person engages in criminal activity, we have the RIGHT to stop them, with any means necessary.



YES!! You do have that right. You have the right to use necessary force needed to make a private persons arrest. Does that need deadly force? Especially if it only involves a property crime? Thats the line you are willing to draw. If you shoot that intruder, one who might be un-armed, you are then the criminal.... Guilty of Homicide... Can you live with that???




Once a person that has criminal intentions realizes, that there is a good chance he/she may die, there is a better chance he/she will rethink there intentions.


This is a flawed logic, if you ask me. Especially when you consider that you , yes you!! are considering criminal intent to solve the problem...

[oloenneker]

You are 100% wrong and clueless.

The very reason a person could hang horse thieves on the spot was so that AMERICANS could protect their tools, horses, they used to plow their fields with or work their cattle so they could earn a living and be able to support their families.

Tools in a van are no different than horses or oxen as tools, and these thieves who steel tools should be able to be strung up by a rope ON THE SPOT just like it originally was in this country so AMERICANS are able to send the message to all thugs that they will die if they put a family’s earnings at risk in this country. Cars should be included for they took the place of horses.

Anyone who protects thieves in this country through laws or public marches are not qualified to be Americans and whoever marches and protests in their favor should have their citizenship stripped from them because they are against America by their actions and do not deserve to be called an American and that includes you Oloe.


Ahhhh... Made, you have to remember, that property crimes are no longer punishable by capital punishment. Those are ideals of times long ago. We are now a "civilized" society that realized that capital punishment should only be reserved for the most heinous of crimes, and of those, it never included any theft crimes...


Although, I understand, I wanted to "kill" the guy that stole a bunch of power saws out of my side yard a few years ago.... While I was working with them to boot! I maintained my composure though....


Then again, thats what Homeowners insurance is for...

[k-fridge]

We are now a "civilized" society
You should spend some time in Atlanta, you'd change your mind about this.

[mrs reb77]

I have a fire extinguisher in my home. Hopefully I will never have to use it but it is there if I need it.
Now, if I have a fire at my house I have the possibility of using that extinguisher (while calling the fire department!) and perhaps stopping the fire or I could just let the insurance handle the whole mess later.
I have a weapon for personal protection. If I hear someone trying to break into my house (or someone already in it!), I may have to rely upon it. I would not like to shoot someone and would tell them that--but if it came down to them harming me or family I would do it.
This is the United States of America and I still have that right as of now. Perhaps in future the politicians will get it changed, perhaps not.

[mrs reb77]

When talking about criminal activity, we're generally speaking of those that prey on victims they perceive as weak or easy. If they know you are armed and willing to protect yourself you don't appear as weak or easy.
That's a pretty simple idea. I think it's why the cavemen started carrying sticks in the first place.

And, why does protecting yourself with a firearm always have to be considered "lethal"? Perhaps you've seen the ongoing controversy concerning the 'non-lethal' taser usage?

[wolfstrike]

you have to remember, that property crimes are no longer punishable by capital punishment.

those are the left wing views that have created our modern corrupt society.

invading someone's house is a major crime, even if the criminal does nothing.

that view provides protection for a theif.

it can turn out as a rape or a murder, but if they get caught first, then it's just 'stealing'.


it's strange how backwards the political views of the left are, they want strict 'preventative' laws for the average citizen, ...give someone a DUI because they have alcohol on their breath, but when someone is caught red-handed in a crime, they fight endlessly for freedom for the criminal.


we need to recognize the left-wing as a bunch fruitcakes, ignore them, and return the country back to sanity.

[oloenneker]

those are the left wing views that have created our modern corrupt society.



I am really starting to think you are on drugs, but I will entertain your point.



invading someone's house is a major crime, even if the criminal does nothing.

Actually, it is not. Most places this is a Misdemeanor, or a very low level Felony. And for a to make it a Felony Charge in California, you must be able to prove that the intruder had intent to commit a theft or another felony. Simply breaking in is not a felony, but simple trespassing. How does this warrant deadly force?



that view provides protection for a theif.



No it does not, it is what is written in the laws that currently govern our society today.



it can turn out as a rape or a murder, but if they get caught first, then it's just 'stealing'.



Those are very rare instances. Most burglaries are committed by people who are desperate to steal your stuff so they can sell it to get drugs. Plain and simple. In fact, most break-ins occur when the occupants are most likely not going to be there. In the case of your home, it is more likely to ge burglarized while you are away at work, than when you are home. The same can be said about you place of business, except, that usually happens at night, when, once again, no one is likely to be there.




it's strange how backwards the political views of the left are, they want strict 'preventative' laws for the average citizen, ...give someone a DUI because they have alcohol on their breath, but when someone is caught red-handed in a crime, they fight endlessly for freedom for the criminal.


Where are you getting this BS from? Perhaps from the highly pressurized hollows of your own head, I must presume. Or is it the drugs talking again? DUII and Theft are both Misdemeanor crimes, and if caught red handed in such crimes, usually are found guilty. I don't know where you get the correlation between a petty crime and defending your self, they have nothing in common.



we need to recognize the left-wing as a bunch fruitcakes, ignore them, and return the country back to sanity.

Well, considering that the "left wing fruitcakes" are the ones that have written the laws of this country, including the mother of all legal documents, The Constitution, your desire for change might be more appropriate in a country like, Saudi Arabia. Hope you enjoy it there, because I will be damned to watch this country be governed by such a radically malicious religious dictatorship as that.

[oloenneker]

You should spend some time in Atlanta, you'd change your mind about this.


I meant as a society as a whole... But then again, you knew that. I agree, there are quite a few people in this country that do seem to act very un-civilized though.

[drcustom]

I agree with those who have said that entering into someone's private home without their consent nor invite constitutes a grave crime. If the State will not allow a homeowner seeking to protect his/her family through any means necessary to do so upon discovery of trespass then the State should be willing to enforce these protections. Alas they are not. And if one thinks that the actual initial burglary charges are insipid and weak, you should see how diluted they further become after plea bargaining. I have experience in this regard after 4 men (Russian illegal immigrants who earlier on that same day were hired as movers) were caught red-handed breaking into my folks' home (and only caught when witnessed by a very diligent and brave teenage neighbor who immediately called police). In the end all was watered down to probation with zero time incarcerated. The bottom line is, at least in effect (which is what counts...), the State (or People, et.al) doesn't really consider breaking and entering on par with similarly invasive crimes like aggravated assault, etc. At the same time, they severely limit steps one can take on their own, in the heat of the moment. If that disrespect for private property and the sanctity thereof is not a end-around drive towards socialism, I don't know what is, for not every action against personal liberty is a frontal assault. The watering-down of private property protections can be seen on par with the recent eminent domain ruling, where instead of the State determining the best usage for your physical property for the "greater good", they legislate stipulations for acceptable behavior in a bizarre effort to pull taut the fabric of society and treat criminals with as much dignity at law-abiding citizens.

[bootlen]

The point, Ole, is that a homeowner does not know the intent of the intruder...until it is too late.

When the U.S. declared its independence from England, one of the phrases that rings out loud and clear is "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." If you can be liberated and happy allowing intruders into your home unimpeded, knock yer liberal self out. But don't expect the balance of U.S. citizens to follow your lead. I'm sure not gonna.

[jmac00]

there is only ONE THING that burglar's fear............the armed citizen.....period

Burglar's don't fear alarms, they don't fear dogs, they fear the armed home owner

Over the years I have had a few things stolen, Bicycles, power tools, my truck broken into and tools stolen. In every case I told the cops, "it a good thing I didn't catch them, cause they would have gotten themselves shot"

In every case the cops said "well, it sure would make it easier for us to find them, AND whatever you do, put something in there hand, I don't want to arrest you" {everyone of the cops always said that with a big smile}



One more thing (ask your lawyer, I did) If the perpetrator is in the commission of a FELONY, no weapon is necessary, you may shoot them dead . Such as a bank robbery or car jacking They DO NOT have to display or threaten you with a weapon.

Breaking and entry (Home invasion) is a felony, NOT a misdemeanor. Misdemeanor's must be witnessed by the arresting officer, such as speeding or running a red light. Hence~~~the Castle Doctrine.

Many states are now passing laws, Castle Doctrine Laws, that say{paraphrase} "anywhere, were you have a legal right to be(your personal space), is your Castle, and you may defend yourself with deadly force if necessary" The interesting part of the Castle Doctrine law is the part that says the criminals family MAY NOT sue you for wrongful death.

I think it's painfully obvious that the public is getting fed up with crime and the liberals way of thinking, with passage of Castle Doctrine Laws and Laws to prevent the police from taking our weapons during disasters (such as Mayor Nagin removing guns from law abiding citizens) the public is more on the side of the NRA, than the ACLU.

[wolfstrike]

Well, considering that the "left wing fruitcakes" are the ones that have written the laws of this country,

the majority of them were gun owners who went to church every Sunday, and they created a government that had almost no power.

what on earth could you possibly think the liberals of today have in common with them?


the left-wing views were held by the Federalists like Adams and Hamilton, after people saw what they were about, they got kicked out of power.

guys like Thomas Jefferson would be considered so far right-wing, they would never let him get near politics today

[oloenneker]

The point, Ole, is that a homeowner does not know the intent of the intruder...until it is too late.

When the U.S. declared its independence from England, one of the phrases that rings out loud and clear is "...life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." If you can be liberated and happy allowing intruders into your home unimpeded, knock yer liberal self out. But don't expect the balance of U.S. citizens to follow your lead. I'm sure not gonna.


What on earth do you think I am all about? I for one am not going to coddle an intruder in my home, nor should anyone. That is just stupid.

Now, I understand your point as well as all the gun nut's point of view. I for one am not happy about someone who wants to relieve me of my hard earned property, nor do I think that any one does. But my position is that you have to understand shoot and don't shoot situations. From the responses I have heard so far, it's like, "Kill 'em if they come around" attitude that alarms me. If it where not for an armed society, this attitude would not prevail, period.

[oloenneker]

the majority of them were gun owners who went to church every Sunday, and they created a government that had almost no power.

what on earth could you possibly think the liberals of today have in common with them?


the left-wing views were held by the Federalists like Adams and Hamilton, after people saw what they were about, they got kicked out of power.

guys like Thomas Jefferson would be considered so far right-wing, they would never let him get near politics today

I see buddy.... Keep drinking that kool aid.


You sorely missed my point by a mile...

[oloenneker]

I agree with those who have said that entering into someone's private home without their consent nor invite constitutes a grave crime. If the State will not allow a homeowner seeking to protect his/her family through any means necessary to do so upon discovery of trespass then the State should be willing to enforce these protections. Alas they are not. And if one thinks that the actual initial burglary charges are insipid and weak, you should see how diluted they further become after plea bargaining. I have experience in this regard after 4 men (Russian illegal immigrants who earlier on that same day were hired as movers) were caught red-handed breaking into my folks' home (and only caught when witnessed by a very diligent and brave teenage neighbor who immediately called police). In the end all was watered down to probation with zero time incarcerated. The bottom line is, at least in effect (which is what counts...), the State (or People, et.al) doesn't really consider breaking and entering on par with similarly invasive crimes like aggravated assault, etc. At the same time, they severely limit steps one can take on their own, in the heat of the moment. If that disrespect for private property and the sanctity thereof is not a end-around drive towards socialism, I don't know what is, for not every action against personal liberty is a frontal assault. The watering-down of private property protections can be seen on par with the recent eminent domain ruling, where instead of the State determining the best usage for your physical property for the "greater good", they legislate stipulations for acceptable behavior in a bizarre effort to pull taut the fabric of society and treat criminals with as much dignity at law-abiding citizens.


So what are you suggesting? Shall the US start to instill capital punishment for property crimes once again? Should we have rounded up those moving contractors on the spot and executed them right away?

I am having a hard time following your logic. In this country we have a legal policy of due process. If you feel that gives the criminal too much lee-way then I am sorry. But these are the laws of the land.

If we start to admonish justice in that manner, then how are we, as Americans, supposed to provide an example of how a civilized country acts? I mean, If you want immediate justice, you can always move to Afghanistan... There they have no laws, nor a system of due process.... Do you really want to the US stoop to that kind of justice level?

[oloenneker]

And, why does protecting yourself with a firearm always have to be considered "lethal"?

How else does this work? Brandishing a firearm is a promise of deadly force. No "if's, and's or But's " about it.


Or do you subscribe to the "I'll only shoot you in the leg" theory?

Thats a far cry from normal firearms training, that advocates "two in the body, one in the head"...

[bootlen]

How else does this work? Brandishing a firearm is a promise of deadly force. No "if's, and's or But's " about it.


Or do you subscribe to the "I'll only shoot you in the leg" theory?

Thats a far cry from normal firearms training, that advocates "two in the body, one in the head"...

Well, Ole, it works like this. You don't have to be shot to know it hurts. Or at least that's true for all but yourself, apparently.

The greatest cause of fear in a burglar is the sound of a 12 gauge locking and loading. He ain't gotta be shot to make the right decision to leave...quickly.

[jmac00]

How else does this work? Brandishing a firearm is a promise of deadly force. No "if's, and's or But's " about it.


yep, everyday a firearm is drawn, pointed and never fired. A brandished firearm is an excellent deterrent. In most cases, the smart perpetrator will retreat immediately, the rest get shot :cool: But then again thats the point isn't it. I don't know about the rest of the folks who carry a firearm, but I REEEALLY don't want to shoot someone. The difference is, I will if I HAVE to.

However, you'll be happy to know that brandishing a firearm in public is a crime in it's self:rolleyes:unless you actually shoot someone ;)

[oloenneker]

yep, everyday a firearm is drawn, pointed and never fired. A brandished firearm is an excellent deterrent. In most cases, the smart perpetrator will retreat immediately, the rest get shot :cool: But then again thats the point isn't it. I don't know about the rest of the folks who carry a firearm, but I REEEALLY don't want to shoot someone. The difference is, I will if I HAVE to.

However, you'll be happy to know that brandishing a firearm in public is a crime in it's self:rolleyes:unless you actually shoot someone ;)

I am glad to read that you don't want to shoot someone. That is my fear. I don't want to bash your brains in with my bat either, but in dire circumstance , I will do what I need to do.



I have a confession to make concerning this thread:

I own several firearms.


Three to be exact.


1. H&K 94 rifle
2. S&W Model 686
3. S&W Model 5906

All, which are locked away in my basement, with the appropriate ammunition....

But in the other hand, I do not rely on these instruments for home defense... (because I am whipped, and my wife hates them) but that is my position....




Flame away.

[jmac00]

I am glad to read that you don't want to shoot someone. That is my fear. I don't want to bash your brains in with my bat either, but in dire circumstance , I will do what I need to do.



I have a confession to make concerning this thread:

I own several firearms.


Three to be exact.


1. H&K 94 rifle
2. S&W Model 686
3. S&W Model 5906

All, which are locked away in my basement, with the appropriate ammunition....

But in the other hand, I do not rely on these instruments for home defense... (because I am whipped, and my wife hates them) but that is my position....




Flame away.


wow, you know a basement is a terrible place to keep firearms, to much humidity :D:D:D

[drcustom]

So what are you suggesting? Shall the US start to instill capital punishment for property crimes once again? Should we have rounded up those moving contractors on the spot and executed them right away?

I am having a hard time following your logic. In this country we have a legal policy of due process. If you feel that gives the criminal too much lee-way then I am sorry. But these are the laws of the land.

If we start to admonish justice in that manner, then how are we, as Americans, supposed to provide an example of how a civilized country acts? I mean, If you want immediate justice, you can always move to Afghanistan... There they have no laws, nor a system of due process.... Do you really want to the US stoop to that kind of justice level?

Executed? Round up? Oloenneker my dear, you seem a mite confused. FYI, due process is commonly obfuscated by over-burdened prosecutors who plea down charges in order to maintain at least some semblance of state control over criminal behavior. Due process works both ways bud. If you think due process per the 5th and 14th amendments were ever intended to eclipse the the effectivenessof the justice system from it's goal of addressing criminal behavior at all, you're wrong my man. They were put in place to force the state to play by the rules, provide open disclosure and avoid arbitrary prosecutions; indeed, these are controls imposed on the State to limit the corrupting affect of unmitigated power.

All I was saying (try to follow the logic here, in smaller words), if limiting property protection rights isn't the simple power grab it appears to be (a more intangible eminent domain concept if you will), then prove it, and follow through and prosecute criminals to the fullest letter of the law (and no further, thank you). Laws that were passed of course through another version of due process in the legislative realm.

Cut out the ad hominen attacks. Controls on state power, in the same vein as the spirit of due process rules, is all I advocate. What's your point? BTW, I think you meant, "administer", not "admonish" justice but maybe you were a bit sleepy and all "ad" words had begun to look alike. :D

[hvacpope]

I am glad to read that you don't want to shoot someone. That is my fear. I don't want to bash your brains in with my bat either, but in dire circumstance , I will do what I need to do.
I own several firearms.
Three to be exact.
1. H&K 94 rifle
2. S&W Model 686
3. S&W Model 5906



the HK94 rifle, wanna sell it? e-mail me if interested.

[fixacr]

[QUOTE=oloenneker;1713923]I am glad to read that you don't want to shoot someone. That is my fear. I don't want to bash your brains in with my bat either, but in dire circumstance , I will do what I need to do.


"I will do what I need to do"

Exactly the point of having a gun for self defense. I look at having a gun the same way I look at my health insurance. I have it but hope that I will not have to use it.

[mrs reb77]

Well, me being a self professed weakling, I will feel much more safe standing several feet away from a threat and using my pistol than waiting for them to get close enough and try to hit them with my baseball bat.
It's a matter of choice I guess (that and skills) ;)
Especially if the intruder is armed...

[bootlen]

the HK94 rifle, wanna sell it? e-mail me if interested.

Hell, don't ask him. Ask his wife. She'd prolly pay ya to haul it off.;):cool:

[k-fridge]

Well, me being a self professed weakling, I will feel much more safe standing several feet away from a threat and using my pistol than waiting for them to get close enough and try to hit them with my baseball bat.
It's a matter of choice I guess (that and skills) ;)
Especially if the intruder is armed...
At 6'1" - 230 lbs and a frequent gym rat, I'm hardly a weakling and I'm still gonna go for my gun if somebody breaks into my house.

[hvacpope]

Hell, don't ask him. Ask his wife. She'd prolly pay ya to haul it off.;):cool:

I cant make fun of him,my wife hates my guns with passion, in my case I bring home the bacon and she knew the deal way before we got married.
when my son was born I bought a 800lb safe to keep her quiet.

[bootlen]

Guess I'm pretty fortunate. I never had a gun in the house till my dad passed and left his. Colt .45 revolver, S&W .38 revolver, Ruger .45 revolver, Colt .45 automatic, 1945 Walther P38, Winchester 12 gauge pump, an Iver Johnson .410 single shot, Ruger M77, and a Ruger .22 semi-automatic. Oh, yeah...and an armory load of ammo.

And the little lady is itching to go pop some caps.

And he gave 6 WWII rifles (Jap and American) to a good friend.

[oloenneker]

wow, you know a basement is a terrible place to keep firearms, to much humidity :D:D:D


Nah, they are fine. I have other things stored down there that are way more valuable.... Like my prized guitar collection and my Amps....


I also have a dehumidifier running...

Water displacement formula 44 works well too....:)

[oloenneker]

the HK94 rifle, wanna sell it? e-mail me if interested.


Sorry, not for sale.

My wife would tell you different though.


Don't come by with your offer while I away on a climbing trip...:cool::cool:

Wanna buy some telemark skis instead?


I am interested in buying a 30-06 rifle though.... Point me in the right direction.

[oloenneker]

Well, me being a self professed weakling, I will feel much more safe standing several feet away from a threat and using my pistol than waiting for them to get close enough and try to hit them with my baseball bat.
It's a matter of choice I guess (that and skills) ;)
Especially if the intruder is armed...

I guess I am weird (duh) but I would rather see my target in the eyes before I insert my knife, Baseball bat, Ice axe, etc in a defensive action...


A gun seems so, well, remote, and non-personal. Any Tom, Dick, and Harry can brandish a gun and fire it with little of no idea of who they assaulted... My method makes it a bit personal....'


I guess I am just weird. I want you to know who you just fu%ked with!

Does this sound psychotic? I hope not.

[freddy-b]

Here is my thought if anyone cares.

Today its guns, tomorrow its this ,and then its that. When does it end?
Sooner or later it will be something you do care about. Then what do you do?

Wake up People! Rights of all the People! Dont like it! Move!

[TRob84]

Just an interesting stat I found:
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the
20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.

I have the breakdown of countries and their death counts, Germany actually 3rd... Soviet Union and China each have the most at 20+ million, and Germany with 13 million. Feel free to get in contact with me if you want the full stat breakdown.

[jmac00]

Here is my thought if anyone cares.

Today its guns, tomorrow its this ,and then its that. When does it end?
Sooner or later it will be something you do care about. Then what do you do?

Wake up People! Rights of all the People! Dont like it! Move!

I think It's KC that is trying to ban swearing and table dancing in bars..............America, Land of the Free.................not any more:mad:

[Texas-Tech]

I also have a conceal/carry permit, been background checked by the govt., trained and combat tested by the US Army, and will always be a believer that when you really need the police to come to your aid they will be to late. You will be the one whose response time was longer then normal due to some ignorant 911 operator whose computer hung up or got doughnuts stuck in their mouth.:D

[hvacpope]

Sorry, not for sale.

My wife would tell you different though.


Don't come by with your offer while I away on a climbing trip...:cool::cool:

Wanna buy some telemark skis instead?


I am interested in buying a 30-06 rifle though.... Point me in the right direction.

one of the best 30-06 rifles http://shopping.rollanet.org/listings/index.php?a=2&b=235153

[jmac00]

one of the best 30-06 rifles http://shopping.rollanet.org/listings/index.php?a=2&b=235153


Its freaking LEFT HANDED??? what? you shoot backwards :D:D:D:D:D

[mrs reb77]

I think It's KC that is trying to ban swearing and table dancing in bars..............America, Land of the Free.................not any more:mad:

I don't know about KC but St. Charles Missouri is. It's up before the city counsel (as stated in the local news) but they're holding off on a vote because the bar owners want a say. Seems they really don't see a problem with these issues but one of the counsel members does...

[jmac00]

I don't know about KC but St. Charles Missouri is. It's up before the city counsel (as stated in the local news) but they're holding off on a vote because the bar owners want a say. Seems they really don't see a problem with these issues but one of the counsel members does...

I'm kinda interested in how there are going to enforce a "no swearing" law?

what do you do? Call a cop?

Is the Bar owner going to throw you out?


What happens if a bar owner decides the first amendment is more important than this stupid "law", will the state pull his Liqueur License?


This law is more about the government becoming my parents and controlling the populace than it is about "law"

Personally I think the law is unconstitutional, it obviously violates the first amendment right to free speech?

[mrs reb77]

Not only that, they are attempting to control what music can be played in these bars. Any adult language would be a no-no. Even though you must be 21+ to enter.
The bar owners (and others) are against it and trying to keep it from passing. It sounds as if it is the crusade of one council member.

[mrs reb77]

Here, I finally found the story.

http://www.ksdk.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=137966

drinking contests and open bar were the other issues.

[jmac00]

Here, I finally found the story.

http://www.ksdk.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=137966

drinking contests and open bar were the other issues.



Owner Marc Rousseau says, "We're dealing with adults here once again and I don't think it's the city's job or the government's job to determine what we can and cannot play in our restaurant."

How would they define profanity? And how big a problem is table dancing? Rousseau believes this bill needs revision. He says business owners should have a say in the new rules.

at least one guy has some common sense. I think the city council could better "control crowds" with more police officers on the street. A few "DRUNK AND DISORDERLY" arrests and the rest of the people will calm down.

But trying to tell someone, what they can and can not do in there own establishment is going to far

[mrs reb77]

Oh, I definitely agree. I've been to this area in question, (granted, not lately!) and it comes across as a bustling, fun, party atmosphere. I wasn't worried for my safety or anything, didn't really see anything that was that bad. This seems to be a crusade by this one council member. Gotta protect people from themselves and all you know...:rolleyes:

[jmac00]

just another jerk that thinks the government is everyones Parents:mad:

[hvacpope]

http://www.miamiherald.com/top_stories/story/378546.html

Another classic example of a liberal news paper blaming the guns for the crime instead of the criminals.

[mrs reb77]

An update on this case before the Supreme Court

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/01/14/MNSDUE535.DTL

[Texas-Tech]

liberalism is a mental disorder

[jmac00]

In arguments filed Friday, 18 elected prosecutors, led by Kamala Harris of San Francisco and Robert Morgenthau of New York, said a similar ruling by the Supreme Court could cast doubt on numerous gun laws, ranging from bans on assault weapons to increased sentences for using a firearm during a crime.

In response to the appeals court ruling, the prosecutors said, defendants around the country have been invoking the Second Amendment to challenge their convictions and sentences. "If upheld, such challenges could decriminalize a breathtakingly broad range of dangerous conduct," the brief said.

uuum, what laws would be "decriminalized" ????

================================================== =======

The prosecutors did not delve into the central issue in the case: whether the Second Amendment's right to own guns applies to individuals or only to a "well-regulated militia," a phrase in the amendment.

They argued instead that the court should either uphold the Washington law as a reasonable public-safety measure or issue a narrow ruling that focuses on the specifics of the ordinance.


whats the point of there argument then? The Washington law has all ready been ruled unconstitutional?

================================================== =======

The laws they cited as being in jeopardy include state and local bans on specific types of guns, including California's prohibition on semiautomatic assault weapons; bans on gun possession by convicted felons; laws that forbid carrying a concealed weapon in public, or require a permit; and increased sentences for possession or use of a gun during certain crimes.

It has been a felony for convicted criminals to posses ANY FIREARM for over 60 years? [either Long gun or hand gun]

and whats wrong with increased sentences for possession or use of a ANY GUN during ANY crime.??? idiots

================================================== =======

The prosecutors said the possibility that a law could be challenged on Second Amendment grounds would weaken their hand in negotiations that lead to guilty pleas - the basis of 95 percent of all state criminal convictions - and would encourage some defendants to go to trial, straining already backlogged court systems.

WHAaaa??? When prosecutors want a conviction, the first thing they throw out, to get a plea deal, is the possession of a fire arm charge?

whats up with that statement :confused::confused::confused:

[jmac00]

How come NONE OF THESE PEOPLE have answered my one question:


If the government restricts or removes guns from a legal, law abiding citizen, HOW DOES ANY OF THIS EFFECT THE CRIMINAL?????

Not one iota!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad::mad::mad:

[mrs reb77]

In effect, it makes them the criminal.
We MUST be protected from ourselves you know.

[bootlen]

How come NONE OF THESE PEOPLE have answered my one question:


If the government restricts or removes guns from a legal, law abiding citizen, HOW DOES ANY OF THIS EFFECT THE CRIMINAL?????

Not one iota!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :mad::mad::mad:


Oh, but ot DOES affect teh criminal. It empowers him.

[fixacr]

If we aren't careful, a perfectly well-meaning law can cancel out another. It happened quite a few years ago when I lived in Tennessee. A former convict was arrested on several charges, one of which was possession of an un-registered firearm. His lawyer got him out of that charge by claiming that since it was illegal for a convicted felon to have a gun, it would be a violation of his 5th Amendment rights to require him to register it.

[mrs reb77]

OOOhhhh, that's a smooth maneuver!

[jmac00]

If we aren't careful, a perfectly well-meaning law can cancel out another. It happened quite a few years ago when I lived in Tennessee. A former convict was arrested on several charges, one of which was possession of an un-registered firearm. His lawyer got him out of that charge by claiming that since it was illegal for a convicted felon to have a gun, it would be a violation of his 5th Amendment rights to require him to register it.


If thats the case, the Prosecutor AND the judge should be disbarred, for being STUPID:mad:

Federal Law says that anyone convicted of a crime, may not possess, hold or control ANY FIREARM. There is a minimum penalty is 5 YEARS IN PRISON. for each weapon.


when is the judicial system going to start prosecuting people to the full extent of the law
So if a criminal is caught with 3 illegal hand guns, thats 15 years right there.:rolleyes: