93 total posts
(Page 1 of 4)
Why not just call 911? After all, the gun is far more likely
to hurt you. Remember Janet Reno and her wisdom?
and where are the police
there not there are able to help you
by the time they respond your dead, thanks ill provide my own saftey.
and as 911 relies on phones there not working
Yes, lets. If gangs didn't have guns, they couldn't be
shooting them at helicopters and delaying the rescue efforts, could they? More guns would worsen the situation, Mark, not make it better!
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email email@example.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
From what I heard.......
These gangs got their guns by looting! Not legal means
The NO police have a lousy reputation to begin with
one which evidently is true! We need an army to go in there and calm things down...NOW!
(NT) Wouldn't be surprised if some were the looters.
You aren't serious, right?
You WOULD be surprised if cops were among the looters, wouldn't you?
You might be, but they are.
It's fact that some of the NO police have been looting. Some for food and water, some for reasons not related to survival. This has been reported in the papers and on the news.
click here to email the mods
(NT) its all the same to taser dk:(
I'm sure the gangs went through the registering process
and all the other legal loopholes legitimate gun owners face. Plain and simple... gun control has negligible affect on illegal use of guns.
They get their hands on...
The gangs seem to be able to get their hands on a lot of drugs to sell. Would you have us believe that they could not also smuggle guns? Don't make me laugh, Dave.
News flash! DK, people who shoot at police and helicopters
are going to have guns whether you like it or not. The people Mark is talking about are the people who are victimized by those doing the shooting.
Well I guess the mods needn't worry about your courteous
by definition criminals...
don't obey laws so they would tend to have them anyway regardless of the number available to law abiding homeowners and renters.
How? The same way that they get the illegal full auto weapons that some have--import with their drugs at a much lower price than buying a semi-auto in this country as those law abiding homeowners and renters do.
Armed homes are LESS LIKELY to be assaulted or broken into in the first place. Even you are aware of this or you would gladly have taken me up on previous offers to provide you with signs stating yours was a gun free home to post for the public to view.
Right to carry states have overwhelmingly demonstrated your tired argument to be false and simply wistful wishing. More readily available firearms is well noted and documented to be an effective deterrent to violent crime such as the looters are engaging in.
Gun Control?? Whats that?
Has'nt worked and won't work. All it does is make the average honest citizen a target. As far as looters go, shoot the sobs. Same goes for intruders inside your house that threaten the life of you, your family or property. Shoot the sobs.
Just remember, if hes outside, shoot him anyway and then drag him inside the house so when you call the cops, its self defense.
(NT) Gun control, the ability to hit the looter, er target..
both 1 and the same
I agree with him here
A mob of looter vs. family with children, if both the looters and the family don't have guns, it still doesn't look good for the family. A mob of looters with guns vs. family with gun however gives the family a slightly better chance, especially when the first unsuspecting looter runs through the front door and gets shot, looters will most likely move on because they want an easy target so they can get alot for the least energy expended, not a shoot out for the chance that their might be something worth anything left.
Especially if your gun is something like a "Remmington Riot". A 12Ga. pump shotgun with an 18in. barrel - no choke. Just the chilling sound of "racking a round" with one of those is a sound that all felons recognize and fear.
No, lets not. Opinions have been exhaustively and abusively
delivered here on this issue, from all the usual suspects Right and Left. Nobody has moved an inch or is likely to as long as Gun possession is viewed as a right and not a privilege.
The Right prefer to ignore the "In Order that there may be a well regulated Militia" clause, and the Left chokes over the issue of it being an 18th Century document being applied to 21st Century automatic weapons.
Let's all pass
well you can pass
as this proves unarmed =victem
It does not say, "In Order that there may be a well regulated Militia". It says, "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." It does not say or imply the people's RIGHT is dependent on the militia it says is necessary. It does specifically say the people's RIGHT shall not be infringed. It is clearly a right and not a privilege.
18th Century document being applied to 21st Century
...18th Century document being applied to 21st Century
Perhaps, but the entire document is 18th century being applied to rule our current 21st century nation. Do you suggest we throw it all away and start over?
Changes are to be made by constitutional admendment, a mechanism established by the same document and refined by admendments and laws over the decades and centuries.
Neither side has 100% blame or innocent, but deciding that because things are different now and someone doesn't like guns doesn't change the fact that the people were guareenteed the right to bear arms.
BTW, I'm not a gun fanatic, but understand why people object to registration and such given the governments tendancy to take more than you give anyway.
click here to email firstname.lastname@example.org
Not to mention the repeatedly demonstrated failure of the
government to displace the role of the personal weapon. As long as the police are so easily overwhelmed, there should be no consideration of measures which deprive individuals of the right to protect themselves, other people, and their property.
and Rob insists on misinterpreting it by leaving out the
part that spells out the right being reserved to the people, and focusing, instead, on one of the reasons that the right is important.
human nature hasn't changed in 229 years
you talk as if a document that is old has somehow becomes invalid... for all the technological advances of the past 2 centuries we as a race have not changed much. We still have people who hate and cheat. We still have people who think less of other people and therefore think that person's opinion does not matter. We still have people who would force there way of life on others. In certain cases we need to be able to defend ourselves but to argue that if we get rid of guns we get rid of violence is nonsense. A club or a knife kills just as readily if not quite as neatly. On the other hand how many times I have seen a total idiot with a weapon that was more dangerous to himself than to others? More than I want to count.
Human nature is the issue... not the constitution. That document has served us well despite all the times our government has been willing to circumvent it for a time. I don't agree with the gun wavers anymore than I do with the gun haters. I was raised to think of a gun as a tool to put food on the table. Sad to say but there are still too many people who need to feed their kids by hunting. A million more people were officially added to the ranks of the poverty level this week (not counting the poor people of NOLO)
Still, for all you crazy city folk...
I personally have a theory about legalized murder for one day out of the year... get rid of a lot of the maroons. Make it safe for us normal people to come in to the city every once and a while.
In regard to 'well regulated militia'...
you might want to take advantage of this to disabuse yourself of the notion that it means what you apparently think it does.
(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?
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.
Then take a look at what was actually debated and you should never attempt that specious argument again as those Congressment debating the Second Amendment NEVER for a moment felt right to own and use was predicated by any consent to militia.
If you have any doubts as to the accuracy of the above feel free to browse the records yourself:
http://lcweb2.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/hlaw:@field(DOCID+@lit(hj001T000)): (copy and paste INCLUDING that last colon)
Thanks Edward, While I appreciate with the more accurate
statement of the 2nd Amendment, and that the right to bear arms is not contingent on the idea of a Militia as I had thought, the fact remains that the idea was to have men available with their own fire arms for a Militia. This is no longer the case, nor has it been for more than a century. Circumstances have changed as has the nature of the weaponry. I think that a restriction on convertible semi-automatic weapons would be appropriate. I think that a return to the situation that applied while I was growing up and learning about firearms would reduce the carnage. Machine guns, regardless of their semi-automatic varieties, were not available to the public. Clips larger than a certain size (?9 shots?) were not available.
I was pleased to note upon moving to Canada that hand guns were licensed (pretty much anybody could get a license except convicted felons and ex-mental patients) and no convertible automatic weapons like AAK47s were available. This has changed recently to a situation where all firearms are registered and must be kept in a gun safe. Ownership parameters have changed very little other than that.
Gun ownership here is nearly as great per capita but gun deaths are unusual. Less than half the murders committed in Toronto this year involved guns, and this is a bad year statistically. I regret that I do not have the statistics nationwide at hand but Canada has roughly 1/9th of the US population but have far less than 1/9th the number of gun deaths. If my memory servs we have something like 10% the number of gun deaths per 100,000 of population.
Its still an issue without a resolution.
This is no longer the case
BEFORE the hurricane!
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 4)