2nd Amendment

[Vince]

Someone posted this on another forum I frequent and I thought I would pass it along. I don't usually do chain letters, but I feel strongly about this.

Why I Should Carry a Gun ?

This just about says it all.
Now I won't have to explain my guns and the use of them...

PEOPLE ASK WHY?

Why I Carry a Gun

My old grandpa said to me 'Son, there comes a time in every man's life when he stops bustin' knuckles and starts bustin' caps and
usually it's when he becomes too old to take an ass whoopin.'

I don't carry a gun to kill people.
I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don't carry a gun to scare people.
I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid.
I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I'm evil.
I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I hate the government.
I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don't carry a gun because I'm angry.
I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.
I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy.
I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.

I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man.
I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.

I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate.
I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

I don't carry a gun because I love it.
I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

Police Protection is an oxymoron.
Free citizens must protect themselves.
Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.

Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to take an ass whoopin'.....author unknown (but obviously brilliant)

**********************************************
A LITTLE GUN HISTORY

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.

------------------------------

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!

If you value your freedom, please spread this anti-gun control message to all of your friends.


The purpose of fighting is to win.
There is no possible victory in defense.
The sword is more important than the shield, and skill is more important than either.
The final weapon is the brain.
All else is supplemental.

SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN!
SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE.
SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!!

IT'S A NO BRAINER!
DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET.

I'm a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment!

[J'Yan]

Good post, Ive seen it on a few other forums out there. Still rings true.

You have a PM inbound.

[AlPrunty]

They say that the ONLY reason why Japan did not invade the American homeland was they were thoroughly convinced that every American had a gun for each person in every house.

Growing up in a rural town even at a young age of 4 we had shotguns by the front door... they were loaded and ready to shoot. The kids knew what they were... we knew what they could do (I remember my grampa taking me out when I was three and shooting a pumpkin... that was all the convincing I needed to know not to touch them) and if we touched them we got our butts beat.

The saddest thing is we are giving up our freedoms one by one in the name of homeland security... and many are not realizing what we are doing.

Allen

[J'Yan]

The saddest thing is we are giving up our freedoms one by one in the name of homeland security... and many are not realizing what we are doing.

The Federal government has tried to press for more stringent gun laws since the Dems too control of both houses. But they have been failing, and the states, by and large have been instituting less stringent gun laws over the past decade and a half.

I am not saying that we need to be lax right now, but things are getting better as far as our 2A rights.

[Separ]

As they say it's better to be judged by 12 then to carried by six.

[J'Yan]

If you use your firearm legally, and train yourself, not only in its use but in your particular state laws you should not be judged by twelve. Though it does happen.

[JosephCade]

Actually I do agree that people have the right to bear arms and carry guns so don't take this wrong. I just didn't care for the history of all those places that had gun control and then there were loads of exterminations.
I'm one of those odd ducks who loves to read voluminous history books about other countries and past wars and such.
Take for example the one about Turkey:

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Well, sorry but that's just way too much of a simplification and much of it incorrect. The Armenians once had quite a few important positions in the Turkish Ottoman Empire goverments under their usually awful sultans. The bulk of the Armenian people though long yearned for their own independent state. World War I began in 1914 and the Turks were soon fighting in the Caucasus against the Russian Empire. The Russians stirred up an Armenian insurrection against the Turks. The Armenians were armed, there was NO gun control. The Turks reacted harshly against what to them were rebels and traitors. Soon BOTH sides were massacring prisoners and whole villages. BOTH sides of course said only the other side did that sort of thing.

The Turkish government then decided on a 'final solution' and that was to round up as many Armenians as they could and get them out of the area they lived in and if many of them didn't survive, too bad. Their regular army was quite tied up in a multifront war so they used a lot of irregulars and Kurdish volunteers. The Kurds and Armenians had a long hatred of each other. You may know the end result - a horrible massacre of massive proportions. The Armenians still want the present Turkish government (no connection to the sultan's one back then) and to this day the Turkish refuse to do so. Yet another very sad tale in that part of the world.

I can provide titles and authors of books on this subject if you don't believe me.

My only point is the Armenian genocide was not a gun control issue.

As for the canard of the Japanese not invading the US because our population was armed, look up any studies of the Imperial Japanese government and military and never did they ever even consider a land invasion, gun control had nothing to do with it. I won't go into that in more detail though because this post is long enough, grin!

All that said - I agree, people have the right to own/carry guns and hope that is never taken away!

[Vince]

Actually I do agree that people have the right to bear arms and carry guns so don't take this wrong. I just didn't care for the history of all those places that had gun control and then there were loads of exterminations.
I'm one of those odd ducks who loves to read voluminous history books about other countries and past wars and such.
Take for example the one about Turkey:

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Well, sorry but that's just way too much of a simplification and much of it incorrect. The Armenians once had quite a few important positions in the Turkish Ottoman Empire goverments under their usually awful sultans. The bulk of the Armenian people though long yearned for their own independent state. World War I began in 1914 and the Turks were soon fighting in the Caucasus against the Russian Empire. The Russians stirred up an Armenian insurrection against the Turks. The Armenians were armed, there was NO gun control. The Turks reacted harshly against what to them were rebels and traitors. Soon BOTH sides were massacring prisoners and whole villages. BOTH sides of course said only the other side did that sort of thing.

The Turkish government then decided on a 'final solution' and that was to round up as many Armenians as they could and get them out of the area they lived in and if many of them didn't survive, too bad. Their regular army was quite tied up in a multifront war so they used a lot of irregulars and Kurdish volunteers. The Kurds and Armenians had a long hatred of each other. You may know the end result - a horrible massacre of massive proportions. The Armenians still want the present Turkish government (no connection to the sultan's one back then) and to this day the Turkish refuse to do so. Yet another very sad tale in that part of the world.

I can provide titles and authors of books on this subject if you don't believe me.

My only point is the Armenian genocide was not a gun control issue.

As for the canard of the Japanese not invading the US because our population was armed, look up any studies of the Imperial Japanese government and military and never did they ever even consider a land invasion, gun control had nothing to do with it. I won't go into that in more detail though because this post is long enough, grin!

All that said - I agree, people have the right to own/carry guns and hope that is never taken away!

I'm a history buff too, but my focus is American Military history, so I didn't know about the Armenian thing. I also don't know whether or not the Japanese were considering invading the US, but I know Admiral Yamamato (I don't know if I spelled that correctly :redface2:) made the comment that he would never invade the US because "Their would be a rifle behind every blade of grass"

[J'Yan]

.

My only point is the Armenian genocide was not a gun control issue.

No, it like many things was a complex set of issues where the gun control contributed greatly.

As for the canard of the Japanese not invading the US because our population was armed, look up any studies of the Imperial Japanese government and military and never did they ever even consider a land invasion, gun control had nothing to do with it. I won't go into that in more detail though because this post is long enough, grin!


That depends on who you talk to, and your interpretation there in.

You will not find a single piece of intel that indicated they planned to invade the U.S. However there were many, many man born assaults planned.

They knew that even if we did not have any arms as citizens that their little tiny country could not hope to sustain a battle on a land that is twenty six times larger than their own country. So they instead planned attacks on key coastal areas that would have a militarily significant effect on our efforts in the far east. This is where the Admiral who I can not spell made his famous quote, and ultimately stopped their planned assaults on these key coastal areas. Look up Japanese usage of language during that era. You will find that invade and assault are very similar. Easy for an interpreter to mistake one for the other.

Now, lets go back to more recent history. A lot of folks do not see a reason for someone to own a firearm such as an AR or an AK.

Let me relate a story to you folks from one of my deployments to Iraq. More specifically the latter end of the Second Battle for Fallujah.

After the insurgents started pulling out of the city, and folks started coming back in the theater commander decided that it would be a good idea to ban the ownership and carrying of any firearm by any non military person. Its kind of hard to tell who the badguy is when 90% of the population is carrying an AK isnt it?

Iraqi law at the time stated that every military aged male had the right to own one AK style firearm and two thirty round magazines for the protection of himself, his family, and his property.

Within days of that decree we had tens of thousands of firearms turned into us by the law abiding citizens who didnt want to get shot because they had AKs.

Good right? Wrong.

Within a week we saw a 500% increase in suicide vehicle born IEDs (SVBIED). A few months go by continuing on this rising trend, when finally our HUMINT guys came back to us with a reason for this spike.

The bad guys knew that the normal civilians were now unarmed. So what did they do? When dad was out making a living the bad guys would roll up on dad's house, and hold his wife and kids there until he got home. They would then give unarmed dad a choice. Either drive this car full of explosives into this checkpoint, or something of the like, or we are going to kill your sons, and rape your daughters and wife.

Guess what dad decided to do?

Well nearly instantly after getting this information we started giving AKs back to the general population. Within thirty six hours the number of SVBIEDs dropped back down to pre push levels, and in 48 hours we found nearly seven hundred known bad guys dead in the alley ways.

[Jon Allen]

The Federal government has tried to press for more stringent gun laws since the Dems too control of both houses. But they have been failing, and the states, by and large have been instituting less stringent gun laws over the past decade and a half.

I am not saying that we need to be lax right now, but things are getting better as far as our 2A rights.

Coming to the Democrats defense here, I'm not aware of a single anti-gun measure that has been given serious consideration or a vote by Congress.

The only gun law that has passed is one allowing people to carry guns in national parks. The Democratically controlled congress passed that easily.

I've kept one eye on this issue, because I know plenty of pro-gun folks. After the Presidential election they started buying guns and ammo like mad, anticipating some crackdown on firearms and gun laws. The exact opposite has occurred. Both at the state and federal level. I found it very ironic.

[Jon Allen]

The Federal government has tried to press for more stringent gun laws since the Dems too control of both houses. But they have been failing, and the states, by and large have been instituting less stringent gun laws over the past decade and a half.

I am not saying that we need to be lax right now, but things are getting better as far as our 2A rights.

Coming to the Democrats defense here. Personally I haven't seen the Democratically controlled congress press this issue hardly at all. They passed a law letting people carry concealed in national parks. That is the only law that has passed. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Under a Democratically controlled congress, gun laws, both federal and state, are growing more lax.

It's ironic, because when the Presidential election and congressional election ended, gun sales jumped through the roof as people anticipated a crackdown on gun laws. My dad, a retired Marine, grumbles all the time about the cost of ammo since people went buying mad and gun stores can't keep it on the shelves.

[J'Yan]

Coming to the Democrats defense here, I'm not aware of a single anti-gun measure that has been given serious consideration or a vote by Congress.

The only gun law that has passed is one allowing people to carry guns in national parks. The Democratically controlled congress passed that easily.



Perhaps you should read my post again. Then respond again.

I've kept one eye on this issue, because I know plenty of pro-gun folks. After the Presidential election they started buying guns and ammo like mad, anticipating some crackdown on firearms and gun laws. The exact opposite has occurred. Both at the state and federal level. I found it very ironic.

The Dems, or rather the liberals would like to completely do away with the 2A, many of them have been quoted saying that. But they know it was one of their big downfalls during the Clinton era. Politics is as much a strategy as war is.

[Separ]

Folks let's not argue :)

[J'Yan]

I hope I didn't come off as argumentative. I do tend to be a bit blunt from time to time.

There is a difference between arguing and civilized debate or dissent. I am aiming for civilized debate.

[Vince]

Coming to the Democrats defense here. Personally I haven't seen the Democratically controlled congress press this issue hardly at all. They passed a law letting people carry concealed in national parks. That is the only law that has passed. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Under a Democratically controlled congress, gun laws, both federal and state, are growing more lax.

It's ironic, because when the Presidential election and congressional election ended, gun sales jumped through the roof as people anticipated a crackdown on gun laws. My dad, a retired Marine, grumbles all the time about the cost of ammo since people went buying mad and gun stores can't keep it on the shelves.

I'm fed up with both major parties, but Diane Feinstein has said that she wants to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban, it's just a matter of when. And J'Yan is right, Clinton came out and said that his policies on Gun Control were the reason that the dems lost control of Congress in '94 and Gore lost in 2000.

Like I said, Dems and Reps irritate me on different issues. I'm more in line with the Constitution Party, but I registered as a Republican cause occasionally there will be a candidate in the GOP primary I want to support (like Ron Paul.)

[Jon Allen]

I'm not trying to argue, I was just pointing out that this statement:

"The Federal government has tried to press for more stringent gun laws since the Dems too control of both houses. But they have been failing"-J'Yan

That doesn't align with Congress's track record since the Democrats took control of both houses (to my knowledge at least). One gun law has passed, letting people carry in National Parks, I don't know of any other gun laws that came to the floor for discussion or a vote in either the Senate or the House.

I too, enjoy civilized debate. I believe the cornerstone of civilized debate should be statements and positions supported by facts and evidence. I'm suggesting that statement is not supported by the evidence of Congress's actions over the past 1-2 years.

With all due respect of course.

Now this alternative statement I'd consider more accurate, "While the Democratically controlled Congress has made no real attempt to tighten federal gun control laws, many Democrats individually support such measures."

That statement I'd find accurate. I hope I made my point without rustling too many feathers, that was not my intent.

[Jon Allen]

Oh and yeah I consider myself an Independent. I really don't like our 2 party system.

I consider myself a moderate. I'm conservative on some issues, more progressive on others. I don't easily fall into one party or grouping. They like to call that "middle of the road", an expression I hate. Both sides got this "you are either with us or against us" mentality.

Which sucks, nothing gets done that way.

[Kevron]

Out of observation only, this is why politics at least real world politics is kept out of games if those games aren't based on some aspect or involve real politics to a degree. Politics is a touchy subject, and this isn't to cast blame on anyone. Political debates do pop-up once and a while especially since November of 2008 when nearly everyone became interested in politics as politics started involving itself in everyone's lives...well, involving itself more.

I'm in favor of the 2nd Amendment, as I believe that to have a weapon one has to know how to use it and in knowing how to use it they must know how to use it safely. Otherwise, why purchase a weapon? I do believe that our Founding Fathers when they put pen to paper to write the Bill of Rights or the first of the Bill of Rights that they knew people had a right to defend themselves otherwise why include it in the Nation's Foundation. On a different note, but the debate does bring to mind something that gets on my nerves. What's happened to the Bill of Rights is what happens to books, paintings, films, comics...etc. etc. when someone whom looks back on it in hindsight or with their own intention gives their own interpretation of it. That's a pet peeve of mine actually, as the only one I believe whom knows the sole interpetration or meaning (if it has a meaning) is the author/artist/director etc. etc., but I've known people that will argue the author doesn't even know the meaning of their work. In my view, that's what's happening to the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment. Not to rile anyone, but there are people out there that will do exactly that. I did try to keep my opinion civil, and if I have unintentionally offended someone or struck the wrong cord I do apologize.

[AlPrunty]

I'm a history buff too, but my focus is American Military history, so I didn't know about the Armenian thing. I also don't know whether or not the Japanese were considering invading the US, but I know Admiral Yamamato (I don't know if I spelled that correctly :redface2:) made the comment that he would never invade the US because "Their would be a rifle behind every blade of grass"

That is exactly the quote that is on display at the General George S. Patton museum in Fort Knox, Kentucky. It is true that they feared we had a gun in every household and knew how to use them.

It's also true that if the Warsaw Jews did not give up their arms they never would have been invaded.

Allen

[J'Yan]

That doesn't align with Congress's track record since the Democrats took control of both houses (to my knowledge at least). One gun law has passed, letting people carry in National Parks, I don't know of any other gun laws that came to the floor for discussion or a vote in either the Senate or the House.


Ya see, there is the issue. They have not tried to pass many pieces of legislation that were solely about firearms. Banning the sale of expended military brass was one, it was shot down, but now Obama is attempting it again. It is does not sound like much, but it would likely cripple the industry. Cant ban guns make it too expensive to own them.

However there have been over a hundred and fifty pieces of legislation that had some form of stricter gun law, or portions of laws that would decimate the industry by regulation written into an unrelated bill. It happens a lot in both houses. But enough folks still remember what happened during the Clinton years to know now is not the right time for them.

[Separ]

i think the problem is a shift in attitudes. Urban population view guns as related to crime and thughery where as the rural population looks at guns as things that use to go hunting and protecting your family.

[J'Yan]

On a different note, but the debate does bring to mind something that gets on my nerves. What's happened to the Bill of Rights is what happens to books, paintings, films, comics...etc. etc. when someone whom looks back on it in hindsight or with their own intention gives their own interpretation of it. That's a pet peeve of mine actually, as the only one I believe whom knows the sole interpetration or meaning (if it has a meaning) is the author/artist/director etc. etc., but I've known people that will argue the author doesn't even know the meaning of their work. In my view, that's what's happening to the Bill of Rights and the 2nd Amendment.

I got to disagree with you. To understand their meaning you not only have to read the BOR, but also understand teh useage of the language at the time, and read the founding fathers opinions on them. Their intentions are well published.

In one debate, and I am going to paraphrase some because it has been a while since Ive read it, an person asked one of the founding fathers what arms the people should own. His answer was "those which are not dangerous and unusual." He was then asked to define dangerous and unusual. He said arms that are not dangerous or unusual are those which a typical soldier would be likely to be trained to use. This explanation meets exactly with their intent as is explained in the federalist papers.

Not to rile anyone, but there are people out there that will do exactly that. I did try to keep my opinion civil, and if I have unintentionally offended someone or struck the wrong cord I do apologize.

I don't think that you have offended anyone. But there will be those who disagree with you. Such as myself. ;)

[Long Hall]

I have to agree that the OP was an over-simplification of much larger issues, and I don't agree that all democrats want to take guns away.

At the same time, the restriction of weapons has been a standard practice of leaders who want to oppress the population for thousands of years. That is why unarmed combat and combat with such things as grain flails was so heavily practiced in the far east.

The founding fathers did not write the second amendment to allow people to carry weapons for purposes of hunting or protection from animals, as many gun control advocates claim. The founding fathers were trying to protect the balance of power in the country by preventing the government from being able to raise arms against the people. In fact, under article 1, section 8 of the constitution, it is illegal for the U.S. government to maintain a standing army for more than 2 years. Prior to WWII, the army was stood down after each conflict. It was the job of the navy and marines to be our first line of defense and every capable man was required to be a member of the militia; armed and ready to defend the country on a moments notice.

To quote Elbridge Gerry, in the US House of Representatives, August 17, 1789 "What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins."

[Vince]

I have to agree that the OP was an over-simplification of much larger issues, and I don't agree that all democrats want to take guns away.

At the same time, the restriction of weapons has been a standard practice of leaders who want to oppress the population for thousands of years. That is why unarmed combat and combat with such things as grain flails was so heavily practiced in the far east.

The founding fathers did not write the second amendment to allow people to carry weapons for purposes of hunting or protection from animals, as many gun control advocates claim. The founding fathers were trying to protect the balance of power in the country by preventing the government from being able to raise arms against the people. In fact, under article 1, section 8 of the constitution, it is illegal for the U.S. government to maintain a standing army for more than 2 years. Prior to WWII, the army was stood down after each conflict. It was the job of the navy and marines to be our first line of defense and every capable man was required to be a member of the militia; armed and ready to defend the country on a moments notice.

To quote Elbridge Gerry, in the US House of Representatives, August 17, 1789 "What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins."

I believe you're right the 2nd Amendment was specifically targeted towards preserving a fail safe should the Government spin totally out of control, but I believe that the Founding Fathers believed in the right to defend against criminals also. I read somewhere that a few of them carried guns for protection regularly, and I know the practice of carrying concealed firearms was common back then, although we let it die out after the 1800s and wasn't revived until recently.

[J'Yan]

I believe that the drop in concealed carry came near the end of the "Old West" when different state and local governments started instituting no concealed carry laws as they were instituting no guns in town laws in an attempt to curtail crime. It didn't work back then either, and it only took us a hundred and fifty years or so to figure out that it didn't work.

The founding fathers did believe in personal protection. They never incorporated it into the BOR because they likely never imagined anyone would attempt to ban weapons that would aid in personal defense. There is a difference between arms to keep the fed from becoming tyrannical and those which are used for personal defense. Ya know, those weapons of war that Obama was quoted as wanting to get rid of.

[Vince]

I believe that the drop in concealed carry came near the end of the "Old West" when different state and local governments started instituting no concealed carry laws as they were instituting no guns in town laws in an attempt to curtail crime. It didn't work back then either, and it only took us a hundred and fifty years or so to figure out that it didn't work.

The founding fathers did believe in personal protection. They never incorporated it into the BOR because they likely never imagined anyone would attempt to ban weapons that would aid in personal defense. There is a difference between arms to keep the fed from becoming tyrannical and those which are used for personal defense. Ya know, those weapons of war that Obama was quoted as wanting to get rid of.

Yeah, I have always been sort of a Wyatt Earp buff, but my opinion of him went way down when I found out he pushed for the gun ban in Dodge City.

[J'Yan]

Dodge city was a rough place. He tried. Unfortunately he tried something that hasn't worked in all of history.

[David]

Trust my Marine CO to be right in the middle of a Second Amendment discussion. :D

[J'Yan]

Lets just say that it is one of my key interests. Though not the only issue I feel strongly about.

[Jon Allen]

My position on the issue is complicated. I live less than 30 minutes from Virginia Tech. In two days we're remembering the April 16 shootings that happened there not very long ago.

The shooter who killed all those people used two fairly common handguns, one was a .22 caliber Walther P22.

Now, knowing full well the shock and horror that ran through this community after that event, there is part of me that would not mind seeing guns go away. It hit me, and most of the people I know, as though we ourselves had the experience of having a gun shoved in our own faces. I know people at Virginia Tech, so does everyone else I know. It's a massive campus, with a huge student population, basically a small city.

But at the same time, I know people have their rights. I also know that no matter how much gun legislation got strict, you'd probably never see .22 caliber handguns go away. Ban assault weapons, maybe, rocket launchers sure, but a .22 caliber "plinking" gun? Doubt it.

So they could restrict gun rights to the plausible limits, and probably not eliminate one of the two firearms that killed so many people that lived here and shattered a community. To me, that means the gun restrictions are worthless. This community saw firsthand how a seemingly harmless .22 caliber can cause a literal massacre.

So my emphasis is not on restricting gun rights in any way. I truly don't care about that, I don't perceive that as an issue.That's because it would not have prevented the shootings at Virginia Tech. My concerns are on finding ways to ensure such incidents are less likely to happen. Finding ways of making sure a guy that a teacher or psychologist knows is troubled, can't get their hands on a firearm quite so easily. Devising systems in our society to red flag individuals who maybe should not be trusted to buy any firearm. I'm not interested in debating it, I'm just stating my position.

On a related note, since I brought it up. Take a moment this week to remember those who lost their lives on April 16, 2007.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre

[J'Yan]

So my emphasis is not on restricting gun rights in any way. I truly don't care about that, I don't perceive that as an issue.That's because it would not have prevented the shootings at Virginia Tech. My concerns are on finding ways to ensure such incidents are less likely to happen. Finding ways of making sure a guy that a teacher or psychologist knows is troubled, can't get their hands on a firearm quite so easily. Devising systems in our society to red flag individuals who maybe should not be trusted to buy any firearm. I'm not interested in debating it, I'm just stating my position.

I know that you aren't interested in debating it. So I'm not going to try, I'm just going to state my position. There are already systems in our society to red flag individuals. But like any system, it is going to be fallible. Seung-Hui Cho went before a judge to be legally adjudicated as a person that could be dangerous to himself or others. That judge did not listen to the counselors and psychiatrists that were telling him that he is a danger. So he was not legally adjudicated. Had he been, then he would not have been able to legally purchase those firearms as he did. That wouldn't have stopped him from buying them illegally, and then going and doing what he did, it wouldn't have even made it more difficult for him to get those guns. It is actually more difficult to get them legally than it is illegally, for the most part. No law can stop someone from doing something that is illegal.

I wouldn't say the system is broken, just fallible. So if we make the system different, and stop folks who haven't been adjudicated from purchasing them legally we trample over the rights of folks who haven't done anything wrong. Have a bout of depression and get some help for it? Loose your 2A rights.

So instead, knowing that evil is present in the world, we empower our citizens, and allow them to defend themselves.

I am no cowboy. I'm not a cop, and I don't pretend to be one. I am not out looking for a fight. But if I had been there I am sure that I could have saved many of those folks.

I posted a thread a few weeks ago that I think really rings true to topics like this, and there are some interesting books that can help some of us come to terms with what happened, and why it happened.

http://st-bob.com/showthread.php?t=636

On a related note, since I brought it up. Take a moment this week to remember those who lost their lives on April 16, 2007.

We do, and will.

[Vince]

Here's the thing though. Even if all guns were outlawed, even .22s, it wouldn't make a difference. Look at England and Australia. Gun laws only effect the law abiding. Murder is illegal and still there are people who kill other people. Robbery is illegal and still there are people who steal. Drugs are illegal and still there are people who sell and use drugs.

Arkum's razor applies to the issue of gun control. The simplest solution would be to allow the people being attacked the means to fight back. Gun free zones are only free of legal guns. Shooters know this.

[J'Yan]

Look at England and Australia.

And in those countries, there have been steady rises in gun crimes even with the gun bans.

[David]

Here's the thing though. Even if all guns were outlawed, even .22s, it wouldn't make a difference. Look at England and Australia. Gun laws only effect the law abiding. Murder is illegal and still there are people who kill other people. Robbery is illegal and still there are people who steal. Drugs are illegal and still there are people who sell and use drugs.

Arkum's razor applies to the issue of gun control. The simplest solution would be to allow the people being attacked the means to fight back. Gun free zones are only free of legal guns. Shooters know this.

Basically, the idea behind gun bans seems to be that criminals who are already planning on committing a major crime (burglary, robbery, assault, etc) will stop if they're faced with breaking one more little crime in order to get a firearm.

Makes very little sense to me, but then since when have politicians lived in the same world as the rest of us?

[Vince]

Basically, the idea behind gun bans seems to be that criminals who are already planning on committing a major crime (burglary, robbery, assault, etc) will stop if they're faced with breaking one more little crime in order to get a firearm.

Makes very little sense to me, but then since when have politicians lived in the same world as the rest of us?

I'm not trying to convince politicians, I'm trying to convince people so that the politicians know it is political suicide to propose gun laws. Too many people are naive enough to believe their rhetoric about gun laws making our children safer.

[J'Yan]

Yes, but along with that, you have to promote responsible gun ownership. Offer to take a friend out to the range and teach them proper and proficient use, work with local and area gun clubs at spreading the word, and safety. Convince a liberal to go to the range, and make it enjoyable for them. etc.

[Naomi Tsenzori]

Speaking from an English standpoint and facts and figures...

America on average is subject to more gun crime than the UK (in terms of percentage of committed crimes and those involving guns). Granted we have a knife problem, but between you and me I'd prefer being stabbed than being shot.

Even our policeman don't carry guns, unless they have a special permit.

*shrug* It's only my view but, I don' think there is really a place for guns in todays society.

[Kevron]

Slamming the 2nd Amendment or removing it and tighter gun control won't limit gun crimes. Criminals will gain access to firearms or other weaponry through devious means, means that can't be traced or monitored and yet the politicians, the ones in office in Washington D.C. will want to clamp down on the 2nd Amendment still or some other Amendment.

Controlling gun sales, and clamping down on them isn't the answer. It never is. What needs to be done is something more invasive, something more sweeping. I don't know what that action or measures might be, but there has to be something else other than clamping down on Amendments and having stricter control on those that won't use firearms for ill-deeds. Teaching people how to use firearms is a much better incentive and more effective than simply locking them (the firearms) under glass. I know for a fact that people that have been trained to use firearms, in usage and safety aren't as...I don't want to say intimidated by them, but respect the firearms more.

An example, of something similar would be an article I read yesterday. The article explained that drivers that opt to text while driving, such as beginning drivers and others, would be sent through a mandatory course. They would navigate the course in a golf cart while being encouraged to text, and having to navigate through a series of lanes of cones. The few the article described that had taken the course (I wont' name names, and plus I can't remember them) had run over more than half the cones while texting and were frightened into just how it would have been even more deadly if they had been on the road. The course is a measure to teach those drivers that opt to text while driving the dangers of doing just that, and is supposed to aid the Ban on Texting while Driving Law that many states have adopted.

[J'Yan]

Speaking from an English standpoint and facts and figures...

America on average is subject to more gun crime than the UK (in terms of percentage of committed crimes and those involving guns). Granted we have a knife problem, but between you and me I'd prefer being stabbed than being shot.

Even our policeman don't carry guns, unless they have a special permit.

*shrug* It's only my view but, I don' think there is really a place for guns in todays society.

Ive been stabbed and shot. I would rather be shot.

Anyway, there are so many more factors to think about than simply gun availability. So instead of simply looking at percentages you have to look at history.

Even when the U.K. had guns they had fewer gun crimes than the U.S.

However since the U.K.'s bans, they have seen drastic increases in gun crimes. Something to think about there.

Kevron, I said this in another thread, but no one responded to it. Read Col Grossman's books. It may help out some.

[Kevron]

Certainly, J'Yan. I have to find the book though.

[J'Yan]

Certainly, J'Yan. I have to find the book though.

http://www.killology.com/books.htm

Start with "On Killing". Then read "On Combat". Then read "Stop Teaching Our Kids to Kill"

Lastly, unrelated but related at the same time read Warrior Mindset.

[Naomi Tsenzori]

Shot = Dead usually.
Fewer people die from knife crime >.<

Would you rather be shot once with a shot gun or stabbed once with a kitchen knife? But I'll look into that Gun Crime stat's...lately there's been a huge reduction except in big cities.

[J'Yan]

Naomi, please check your facts. Getting shot does not instantly mean death. Not even a majority of the time, and as I said, Ive been shot, and Ive been stabbed. I would rather be shot.

[Long Hall]

Outlawing guns does not reduce gun crime, it just ensures that only outlaws have guns. The reason you have fewer gun crimes in the UK is because of the social differences between our countries. Look at the percentage of people in the US who are in prison compared to the UK; they aren't all there because of guns. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to find that drugs were the number one cause and that is something that is illegal and we spend a lot of money enforcing those laws.

Making it illegal for average people to bear arms is, historically, one of the first steps towards oppression. I'm not saying that the UK is oppressive and I hope it never is, but nations that take that step tend to go in that direction.

[Roo]

Since everyone in Israel is required to do military service and knows their way around a gun, its really unlikely that they will ever be outlawed here -- however, there is a law that says if you lose your weapon and someone uses it in commission of a crime, you're held responsible. I'm wanting to say equally responsible but not entirely sure on that point.

[Kaziarl]

Personally, I'm on the side of people owning guns. I don't have an issue with it. For hunting, self defense, the eventual zombie invasion...


One thing though, and I do bring this up to people who try to take the second amendment a bit to literally. You see these guys who say that it must be taken AS it is written, and thats the bottom line. So lets take a look real quick.

Now, this is just my opinion, as I'm not a law student or anything like that.

"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."

Ok, so this is how I see it (if it were to be taken in an absolute literal sense.) In the 1700's America had a rather successful militia that fought along side the regular army. This militia was incredibly valuable in securing the freedom of this country, and has been valuable ever sense. This militia eventually formed into a more organized fighting force, and set itself up on a state by state basis. The militia as it is now answers to the governor of the state it is in, and also to the DoD. That militia, is the national guard.

So it could be argued that the second amendment, when taken literally as many people try to do, is saying that people can have weapons to form the national guard, puts a slightly different spin on things doesn't it?

Personally, while I have seen a select few argue that point of view, I don't think it will get wide spread enough to actually do anything. I don't currently own any guns, as I'm too financially challenged, but I plan an getting one some day.

Oh, and that stuff above about only the national guard getting guns? I should try and make very clear... I do NOT believe that, I am simply stating that I believe if people aren't careful in there arguments, they can be taken that direction.

[J'Yan]

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised to find that drugs were the number one cause and that is something that is illegal and we spend a lot of money enforcing those laws.

Drugs, Rape, home invasions, forceful entry into a vehicle, Assault (.09 behind the U.S.), and kidnappings are the most popular crimes in the UK. And if you look at the total crimes per capita you will see that the UK comes in sixth where as the U.S. comes in eighth.

That militia, is the national guard.

Incorrect.

[Kaziarl]

No, not incorrect. Go read up on the history of the national guard.

[J'Yan]

No, not incorrect. Go read up on the history of the national guard.

I have, it is not the militia. Dig a little deeper. The Dick Act repealed the Militia Acts of 1792. etc etc.

There is more history than you can read on the History of the National guard on Wiki.

[Kaziarl]

Who said anything about a wiki? I was in the national guard and we (or atleast my unit) had to learn about guard history. The old Militia evolved into the national guard, and no repeal can change a historical fact.

[J'Yan]

Who said anything about a wiki? I was in the national guard and we (or atleast my unit) had to learn about guard history. The old Militia evolved into the national guard,

Yeah I was in the Corps, and we learned our history too. But that does not change the fact that history is often very flawed.

and no repeal can change a historical fact.

Do you know what the Dick Act is, and what it did?

[Kaziarl]

Yeah I was in the Corps, and we learned our history too. But that does not change the fact that history is often very flawed.
So... are you saying that I am flawed in saying the national guard evolved from the old militia's? Cause many in the guard that I worked next to are actually quite proud of that fact


Do you know what the Dick Act is, and what it did?

No, I do not know what it did. I admit that freely. But again, that does not change historical fact. Acts, Repeals, Amendments, Addendum, Bills, those change Political fact.

[Lupe]

Keep up this line and approach and this thread will disappear.

You are getting to aggressive for my taste, take it to IM or PM if you want to argue.

[Kaziarl]

As you wish Lupe, I apologize if I pushed it.

[J'Yan]

So... are you saying that I am flawed in saying the national guard evolved from the old militia's? Cause many in the guard that I worked next to are actually quite proud of that fact

Evolving from something, and being something are not the same my friend.

Depending on your belief system we evolved from some type of primate, for simplicity sake lets call it a monkey. Does that mean we are monkeys?




No, I do not know what it did. I admit that freely. But again, that does not change historical fact. Acts, Repeals, Amendments, Addendum, Bills, those change Political fact.

Umm. It is historical fact. The Dick act did away with the militia acts that I talked about earlier. It also required that the organized militia of the States were given federal status to the militia, and required to conform to Regular Army organization within five years. It also placed much of its control under the Adjutant General's office, a federal office, then in 1908 was placed under control of the Division of Militia Affairs in the Office of the Secretary of War (once again controlled by the federal gov), and in 1910 the Chief was directed to report directly to the Army Chief of Staff. Then in 1916 the Division of Militia Affairs became the Militia Bureau of the War Department, under the direct supervision of the Secretary of War, and eventually created the National Guard Bureau (once again controlled by the fed).

Now go and take a look at the 2A again. How can the National Guard be the Militia if it is in almost every aspect (funding and TO&E, etc etc) controlled by the fed?

Lupe, I am not trying to argue, simply attempting to have a civil debate and educate a few folks. If I am being too blunt in my postings I apologize. I am open to suggestions on how to continue without offending someone.

[Naomi Tsenzori]

Interesting, so the US has banned the ability to be able to band together to protect their homes and instead must get federal help....

[J'Yan]

Interesting, so the US has banned the ability to be able to band together to protect their homes and instead must get federal help....

No, not banned. Say that the gov continues on the path it is on, and voting these folks out does not work, there is nothing they can do constitutionally to stop you and yours from bringing the militia together, and folks from the guard could very well join up with this militia once it is brought together.

[Naomi Tsenzori]

...mm... I'm a liberalist and I like people being responsible for their own actions but I'm not an anarchist. If were a member of the US, I'd be voting for the democrats.

You just said

The Dick act did away with the militia acts that I talked about earlier.

That would mean that Militia's are banned...right?

So voting them in or out, until someone reverses that decision the law is always going to be against none-government organized militia. Or at least that's my take.

[J'Yan]

but I'm not an anarchist. If were a member of the US, I'd be voting for the democrats.

Neither am I, and if the Democrats were the old school dems from back in the day I would be voting for them too. Unfortunatly they are chipping away at what this country is.

You just said



That would mean that Militia's are banned...right?

No, not right.

[Naomi Tsenzori]

Well, we'll stay clear from politics in that respect for another topic.

Instead of making a statement, why not explain. ^-^

[Lupe]

Instead of making a statement, why not explain. ^-^

^ This is the best advice I can ever offer.

I have no problem with a civil discussion. But I dislike the solid and unforgiving statements of 'you are wrong' or any variance as such. 'mistaken' is a softer word for it.

links to back up your statement go a very much further towards convincing people. I never have heard about a 'Dick Act' and would prefer not to have it waved in my face as a fact without the actual document to read over (or an electronic copy in this case)

As for making a big fuss, I really don't see why. Guns are not going to be ban in the US, Prohibition showed the government that banning something like that is stupid and a waste of time.

Also, my father taught me how to make a pipe gun that shoots steel or glass marbles, the internet taught me how to make black powder, and books taught me how to use black powder weapons. I can make a gun if I need one. And so can you.

[Naomi Tsenzori]

or or... legalise everything. Education is the key ^-^;

I agree with Lupe on this respect, statistics do indeed show that when something is prohibited, criminals seek to use it. However, when people are educated and they realize the consequences, they instead put down the restricted items and step away.

...take for instance Nuclear arms, I'd like to believe that it's because we're more educated about them that we're reducing the amount we hold. (Applies to the UK too)

[J'Yan]

^ This is the best advice I can ever offer.

Sorry. I tend to do that, to see if the person I am conversating with is able to think through what has already been said, and come to the same conclusion as I have, even if they don't agree with me. It is a sign that they are willing to learn, and not set to one outlook. An old debate tactic I learned in Highschool (no not in debate class, in open discussion).

links to back up your statement go a very much further towards convincing people. I never have heard about a 'Dick Act' and would prefer not to have it waved in my face as a fact without the actual document to read over (or an electronic copy in this case)

Everything that I have said is easily found on google. But since you asked I will post them soon as I get done with getting the kids in and homework and what not.

As for making a big fuss, I really don't see why. Guns are not going to be ban in the US, Prohibition showed the government that banning something like that is stupid and a waste of time.

If that were the case then soft drugs would have been legalized long ago. They wouldn't continue to raise the taxes on smokes, etc etc. As I said earlier there are continued attacks. And once again if you would like I can show you the not so overt acts themselves when I get done with the kids.

Also, my father taught me how to make a pipe gun that shoots steel or glass marbles, the internet taught me how to make black powder, and books taught me how to use black powder weapons. I can make a gun if I need one. And so can you.

It ain't all I can make. But that is outside the scope of the discussion.

[Naomi Tsenzori]

Just a quick message, but they don't actually raise taxes to prevent people from taking things. It's a quick and valid way for the government to make money based on peoples guilty pleasures. Nicotine, Alcohol make more money than say soda. Therefore taxing it yields more profit. Along with the fact that the media often go on a tirade against them makes the government appear in good light when they decide to raise the taxes on them.

Or at least, that's what it's like in the UK.

[J'Yan]

Just a quick message, but they don't actually raise taxes to prevent people from taking things. It's a quick and valid way for the government to make money based on peoples guilty pleasures. Nicotine, Alcohol make more money than say soda. Therefore taxing it yields more profit. Along with the fact that the media often go on a tirade against them makes the government appear in good light when they decide to raise the taxes on them.

Or at least, that's what it's like in the UK.

Incorrect. The ever increasing taxes on booze and smokes has created a bootleg market which by its existence has lowered tax revenue from those products and has just created more crime. Taxing something because it is a guilty pleasure is not constitutional.

[Naomi Tsenzori]

Perhaps not, but it's profit for the government...and the UK doesn't have a constitution. The government simply imposes Value Added Tax and then imposes further taxes on other items that will make them more money.

Feul, Tobacco, Alchohol... hell, we recently imposed a tax on inheritance. Imagine that, after having the interest made taxed whilst resting in the bank, the cash lump sum is then further taxed before it can be inherited. ^-^; Completely insane.

But that's what we elect governments to do in the UK.

[J'Yan]

Perhaps not, but it's profit for the government...and the UK doesn't have a constitution. The government simply imposes Value Added Tax and then imposes further taxes on other items that will make them more money.

So, what is more important to you, government funded programs, or your personal freedom. Keeping what you earn?

Feul, Tobacco, Alchohol... hell, we recently imposed a tax on inheritance. Imagine that, after having the interest made taxed whilst resting in the bank, the cash lump sum is then further taxed before it can be inherited. ^-^; Completely insane.


We started taxing inheritance after you did. My gramps was a poor man, but he saved well during his 73 years on this brown, green and blue rock. Paid his taxes, then when he passed away my father and his sister had to pay taxes on what he left them. How sick is that? My father literally went from rags to riches (well not so much riches, he makes about a hundred and sixty k a year). When he was a kid they were so poor that the neighbors brought them food so they didnt starve. Things got better in his teens, though he had been working since he was in the single didgets. He put himself through college, but was flunking out, so he was about be drafted into Nam. Instead of running he joined the Chair Force and served his time honorably doing one tour in Nam (four years total one in the states, one in country, then two in the states). Got out and went back to college (graduated deans list), got a job in the late 70s starting out in lower management and over the next thirty years he worked his way up and is now the President and owner of that company. Via the taxes he pays as the owner he now makes less than his mid level exects do. He turns sixty six this year and still cant retire.

To put things into prospective, our founding fathers started a war, and won their independence because their breakfast beverage was over taxed. Yes I know I am simplifying things greatly. Now we regardless of if we have the majority of the folks here in the U.S. against something and it is voted, or deemed voted in anyway.

How is that not oppressive?

But that's what we elect governments to do in the UK. One can say a lot about this, but it is likely going to tick off a lot of folk, so I will say nothing futher about your gov.

[Naomi Tsenzori]

Well, personal freedom or free health care...hm, freedom isn't worth much if I'm dead. So I guess, government programs have it ^_^

I never said it wasn't oppressive... I wholeheartedly disagree with inheritance tax.

You would be surprised, most of us are ticked off at our own government, we can only hope that this coalition will lead to something different ^-^

[J'Yan]

Well, personal freedom or free health care...hm, freedom isn't worth much if I'm dead. So I guess, government programs have it ^_^

Its called working for what you get. Choosing professions that subsidize it. Stop punishing doctors for doing their jobs.

I never said it wasn't oppressive... I wholeheartedly disagree with inheritance tax.

Well so long as you are willing to lay down and take it in the *** so you can get something for free, the gov is going to **** you from the other end so they can pay for it.

I have friends on your side of the pond, "free" health care killed a few of their loved ones.

You would be surprised, most of us are ticked off at our own government, we can only hope that this coalition will lead to something different ^-^

Hope changes nothing unless you are willing to give something up to fight for what you want.

[Naomi Tsenzori]

Doesn't matter whether it's free or not. Accidents happen in health care.

[J'Yan]

Doesn't matter whether it's free or not. Accidents happen in health care.

And that means?

[Kaziarl]

It means that government health care, company health care, or out of pocket health care, doctors can, and do make mistakes. My mother passed away because the health care offered by her company, even though it was "full coverage" would not approve the type of chemo she needed. So trying to say that people die because it's government health care is a little silly.

[Lupe]

*looks at OP and title, looks at posts* um... :focus:

[Kaziarl]

*looks at OP and title, looks at posts* um... :focus:

lol, sorry...I'll behave now.

Ahem... as I said before, I approve of gun ownership. Although I do wish gun control was a little better. (That is, keeping them out of the hands of criminals)

[Naomi Tsenzori]

mmm, I agree.

Although I think guns should be wiped off the face of the planet (me thinks a huge downgrade). I have to go back on an earlier attitude where I disapproved of gun ownership.

While I dislike them, there's no reason to restrict ownership as long as education comes with them to be honest. I also agree that they should be kept as much out of the hands of criminals as possible. Possibly even to the extent of making the owners responsible of their use.

That'd make people think twice before accidentally losing them or not securing them well enough. >.>

So yeah. I agree with Kaziarl.

[Long Hall]

The founding fathers, or at least some of them, were concerned that a standing army would lead to tyranny. Eldridge Gerry is quoted as saying "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
The original constitution, in fact, makes it illegal for the congress to appropriate money for an army for longer than 2 years; To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years That is one of the primary complaints about income tax (since most of the money goes to support the military).

The purpose of the 2nd amendment was not to provide an army; you wouldn't need to allow everyone to have a firearm in order to have an army, even one organized as a militia. The purpose of the 2nd amendment was to prevent the government from becoming too powerful; to protect their descendants (us) from tyranny.

[J'Yan]

While I dislike them, there's no reason to restrict ownership as long as education comes with them to be honest. I also agree that they should be kept as much out of the hands of criminals as possible. Possibly even to the extent of making the owners responsible of their use.

So you want to punish someone because a criminal violated that person's rights and broke into their home, and stole their property? Thats kind of like saying that you as the owner are responsible for a car jackers crimes he committed after he stole your car.

[Naomi Tsenzori]

Way to take what I said out of context.

I don't believe that tresspassing or burglary warrants the punishment of death. We have courts that decide this and in the UK the death penalty was outlawed 197* can't remember the exact year.(Still used if the queen wishes it for those who have committed treason against her >.<)

Carjacking and taking an unsecured gun are two different kettles of fish.

So.. Yes.

If you use a gun, own a gun, you are responsible for what that gun is used for. There's a huge difference between protecting your property and taking a life.

[J'Yan]

Way to take what I said out of context.

I would like to know how I took it out of context. You want to punish someone because someone committed a crime against them.


Carjacking and taking an unsecured gun are two different kettles of fish.

How about forgetting to take your keys out of your car and some idiot steals it and runs down a kid on the street?

If you use a gun, own a gun, you are responsible for what that gun is used for. There's a huge difference between protecting your property and taking a life.

You can only be responsible for what you, and those who are legally in your home do with it. The second someone violates your rights by breaking into your home it is their responsibility.

Locked doors only keep honest folk honest. Same with a gun safe.

I pretty much turned my closet into a big safe. And my carry gun (when it is not on my belt) is in a finger safe next to my bed. Before my collection grew past what my last safe could hold I had a high quality tamper proof safe. It cost a good chunk of change. A few months ago I saw a demonstration where a guy broke into the same model I had in less than three minutes using a sledge hammer and a crowbar.

Locks only keep the honest honest.