HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Yes, we need the 2nd amen...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:07 PM

 

Yes, we need the 2nd amendment.

Guns are still very useful tools for many people. Poor people, especially poor rural people, need a gun in order to put food on their table. Lots of people also need a gun in order to protect themselves and their families.

Do they need an AR-15 with a high capacity magazine, no. But they do need a gun. There is nothing wrong with that.

So, somewhere between an outright ban on all guns, and those who want more and more guns for everybody, there is room for compromise, for the prospect of sane, sensible gun control.

80 replies, 3256 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 80 replies Author Time Post
Reply Yes, we need the 2nd amendment. (Original post)
MadHound Dec 2012 OP
Fresh_Start Dec 2012 #1
MadHound Dec 2012 #3
Fresh_Start Dec 2012 #6
MadHound Dec 2012 #14
Coyote_Tan Dec 2012 #22
ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #52
Fresh_Start Dec 2012 #80
Voice for Peace Dec 2012 #11
MadHound Dec 2012 #16
Voice for Peace Dec 2012 #68
rustydog Dec 2012 #5
graham4anything Dec 2012 #2
MadHound Dec 2012 #4
graham4anything Dec 2012 #8
Little Star Dec 2012 #13
MadHound Dec 2012 #20
graham4anything Dec 2012 #35
stevenleser Dec 2012 #49
geek_sabre Dec 2012 #65
stevenleser Dec 2012 #75
leftofcool Dec 2012 #77
snooper2 Dec 2012 #40
MadHound Dec 2012 #42
snooper2 Dec 2012 #47
Bake Dec 2012 #41
Codeine Dec 2012 #70
libdem4life Dec 2012 #7
GreenStormCloud Dec 2012 #57
Major Nikon Dec 2012 #9
Voice for Peace Dec 2012 #10
MadHound Dec 2012 #12
Voice for Peace Dec 2012 #21
Major Nikon Dec 2012 #23
rustydog Dec 2012 #32
Bake Dec 2012 #45
graham4anything Dec 2012 #38
Bake Dec 2012 #46
graham4anything Dec 2012 #48
Little Star Dec 2012 #15
aandegoons Dec 2012 #17
MadHound Dec 2012 #25
aandegoons Dec 2012 #31
MadHound Dec 2012 #37
aandegoons Dec 2012 #39
leftofcool Dec 2012 #78
Shrek Dec 2012 #27
rustydog Dec 2012 #34
aandegoons Dec 2012 #36
Shrek Dec 2012 #55
horsedoc Dec 2012 #18
darkangel218 Dec 2012 #51
jeff47 Dec 2012 #59
darkangel218 Dec 2012 #61
jeff47 Dec 2012 #62
darkangel218 Dec 2012 #63
jeff47 Dec 2012 #71
darkangel218 Dec 2012 #73
jeff47 Dec 2012 #74
darkangel218 Dec 2012 #76
jeff47 Dec 2012 #79
Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #19
Major Nikon Dec 2012 #26
Savannahmann Dec 2012 #44
white_wolf Dec 2012 #28
Nye Bevan Dec 2012 #53
white_wolf Dec 2012 #24
Skraxx Dec 2012 #29
Skittles Dec 2012 #30
MadHound Dec 2012 #33
Major Nikon Dec 2012 #72
Savannahmann Dec 2012 #43
Shrek Dec 2012 #56
Savannahmann Dec 2012 #58
jeff47 Dec 2012 #60
theKed Dec 2012 #50
alarimer Dec 2012 #54
Whovian Dec 2012 #64
MadHound Dec 2012 #66
Whovian Dec 2012 #69
MNBrewer Dec 2012 #67

Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:10 PM

1. absolutely, some people need guns

but if you need guns to feel safe walking on your own street, you either should move or you should get therapy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fresh_Start (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:16 PM

3. Many people simply can't afford to move,

 

And frankly, crime is everywhere, including even supposedly "safe" neighborhoods. We can't all afford to live in a gated community where armed guards patrol on a regular basis.

When I lived in an urban area, I lived in a rough neighborhood. Home invasion, the whole bit, even got my windshield shot out during a duel between two crackhouses. I was living where I could afford at the time. Now that I've moved out to the country here in rural Missouri, I have to deal with the threat of meth freaks breaking in to feed their habit. So, where should I move?

No place is safe.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #3)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:19 PM

6. I'm sorry you don't feel safe....but you are exaggerating your risk

I've lived in cities without the need to arm myself.
And yes, I was robbed...but it would never be worth it to me to shoot someone over things or money.
The only thing worth defending is a life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fresh_Start (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:34 PM

14. Who says I don't feel safe?

 

I simply understand that even at 6' 5" and fairly fit, I would lose virtually every single fight with somebody who had a gun.

If somebody breaks into my house, I'm not going to take the time to ask if they are simply after my possessions or my life. By the time I figure that out, I could very well be dead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fresh_Start (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:40 PM

22. That's just you though...

 

There are many folks who believe otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fresh_Start (Reply #6)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 06:48 PM

52. Wait, I'm confused...

 

...why did you give the robber your possessions if you weren't in fear for your life?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ComplimentarySwine (Reply #52)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:52 PM

80. because

any type of altercation is stupid over things.
Things can be replaced.
BTW, I also survived a home invasion with a baseball bat.
Didn't need to shoot anyone that time either.
Chased him out screaming and swinging the bat.
If it hadn't been the middle of the night, I would have been calmer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #3)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:29 PM

11. Dogs!! Get a couple of big old dogs!

They're probably the best deterrent to most home invasions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voice for Peace (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:35 PM

16. I have a couple of big dogs,

 

And no, they're not going to stop a tweaker. Most likely they'll just be shot at the front door as a matter of course.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:13 PM

68. I don't have any knowledge of tweakers so

must defer to your point of view.

I just watched a movie in which that's exactly
what happened.. the guy had a big dog, and it
was the first thing to get shot. Luckily he had
a rifle because these were really bad guys.

If I lived alone in the country I might want to
have a rifle. But not a machine gun, probably
wouldn't need that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fresh_Start (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:19 PM

5. K & R well said

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:12 PM

2. Get a bow and arrow. Nobody but Federal/state/local law enforcement need a gun.

 

10% of something is better than nothing
but to assure no guns in the street, all guns need to be 100% out of the street, and any still found need to be taken care of.

Guns can stay in the home but not outside

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #2)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:18 PM

4. LOL!

 

Yeah, I've got a tweaker breaking into my house in the middle of the night, and I'm supposed to fumble around, string a bow, find an arrow and shoot it, inside a house. That's going to work real well, NOT.

What about older folks who simply can't fire a bow, what, are they supposed to take their chances?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:23 PM

8. if you read what I wrote- you can keep your gun in the home NOT IN THE STREET

 

BTW-what the hell is a tweaker?


These old gun lines are getting funny

after all, if only the first victim at this shooting in CT had a gun, it would have stopped the killer, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:34 PM

13. I think tweakers are meth users.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:38 PM

20. A tweaker is a meth freak,

 

Somebody who is so far gone that they are willing, and will, do anything to feed their habit. Including breaking into your house, shooting you, anything to get what they need to feed their habit.

As far as on the street, what about people who hunt? What about sport shooters?

Oh, and the logistics of carrying a bow and arrow on the street for self defense are about as deterring as using it in your home for self defense. String the bow, load it, aim and fire. Again, by that time you're probably dead if your opponent is anywhere near serious about doing you harm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #20)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:51 PM

35. hunters can use bow and arrows, that is what the native americans used before they were killed

 

by people who invaded their land with guns

What I never understand is, if someone breaks in to a house in the middle of the night and you are sound asleep how possibly could you find your gun and bullets, when the person who broke in already is there and how can you be sure it isn't someone you know, as you were fast asleep???

the faster gunslinger will win every time
and there is always a faster gunslinger even if you were the fastest 100 times in a row, the 101st might find the other faster

again, if only the first victim of the shooter last week had a gun, it would have stopped everything, right?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #35)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 06:18 PM

49. Exactly. How will he unlock his gun from the safe where it is supposed to be without alerting the

'tweaker' and load it in time to make a difference?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stevenleser (Reply #49)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:45 PM

65. I have a gun in a safe. It is loaded.

Whats the point of a safe for home defense if the gun isn't loaded?

I can open it in 5-6 seconds in the dark. Others here can open theirs in less time

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geek_sabre (Reply #65)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:43 PM

75. Does that include when you are asleep? Or on the othe side of the house? Or on the john?

If you wake up and the intruder has their firearm pressed against your temple, do you think they are going to wait for you to get up, unlock your safe, take your gun out and point it at them?

Guns are not the answer to protect yourself is the bottom line. They are the problem, not the answer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #35)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:48 PM

77. Native Americans had guns and still do.

They purchased or traded for them with the same folks who invaded their lands. Every elder I know on Pine Ridge and Rosebud Reservations has at least one gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:59 PM

40. Well, if you had any skills- Saracen Archery: 3 arrows in 1 seconds.

-


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #40)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 06:00 PM

42. Yeah, but that doesn't include the time it takes to string the bow,

 

And you're not going to carried a strung bow with you everywhere now, are you?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #42)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 06:09 PM

47. why not, strap it over your back..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:59 PM

41. Darryl does pretty well with a crossbow ...

Takes out a lotta walkers** with it ...

As for me and mine, we prefer the S&W.



Bake


**ref. to AMC's The Walking Dead

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bake (Reply #41)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:22 PM

70. But even he can't make Carl stay in the fucking house. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:23 PM

7. I agree. As I recall, on your own property you have the right to most any method of protection.

Even though I personally think guns in the home kill more and statistics tend to agree, as a matter of compromise for those who feel they need them and are willing to risk the statistics around their own kids or family members getting killed, especially around domestic violence, perhaps.

But in public...no way. We have law enforcement for that, or just stay home in fear. In a mass situation, a civilian firing off any kind of a firearm ... trained or untrained ... is as likely to kill innocents as the shooter or be shot himself. Not many good options.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to libdem4life (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:17 PM

57. The real world says different.

In the real world there has not been a single case of a CCWer making matters worse in a rampage shooting. There have been several rampage shooting that were stopped by armed citizens.

Pearl MS school shooting stopped by armed citizen 1997:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearl_High_School_shooting

Appalachian School of Law shooting, 2002
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_School_of_Law_shooting

Golden Food Market Shooting 2009
http://blasphemes.blogspot.com/2009/07/golden-food-market-shootout-update.html

New Life Church Shooting 2007
http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/1638879

Winnemuccca, NV bar shooting, 2008
http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/19251374.html


4/24/1998 - Andrew Wurst attended a middle school dance in Edinboro, Pennsylvania intent on killing a bully but shot wildly into the crowd. He killed 1 student. James Strand lived next door. When he heard the shots he ran over with his 12 gauge shotgun and apprehended the gunman without firing.

LAC stops bar shooting in Plymouth, PA
http://citizensvoice.com/news/police-plymouth-shooter-wasn-t-provoked-1.1371854

There has been one case of a CCWer who tried to stop a rampage killer but was himself killed. The rampage killer was wearing body armor.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:24 PM

9. Lots of things are needed by lots of people for lots of reasons

...yet the vast majority of those things don't have a "right" enumerated in the constitution. Furthermore, the things you mentioned were NOT the basis for the 2nd amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:28 PM

10. But do we need the 2nd amendment in order for people to have guns?

I don't see why.

It seems, as usually interpreted, it only serves to prevent
any regulations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Voice for Peace (Reply #10)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:30 PM

12. It keeps guns from being banned on a whim,

 

Just like the First Amendment keeps free speech from being banned on a whim.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:39 PM

21. I think I can understand the mentality of believing in a need to be armed against the government

after watching the Civil War & the way the South was
hopelessly surrounded.

Even if it's not rational or based in today's reality,
probably it's an inherited fear for many people, passed
on from those days.

As vile as slavery was, there was a whole way of life
in the South, which I'm sure contained many beauties
and comforts; and the Federal government was the
real enemy in that regard.

But still, would guns ever be banned altogether, on a whim?
I can't imagine that happening.

Everyone North and South I'm sure appreciates the
image of Grandpa with a shotgun scaring off the
bad guys, or the fox in the henhouse.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:40 PM

23. That's an opinion held only by the most wingnutty members of the SCOTUS

The liberal members of the court don't share that view and the decisions based on that nutty activist opinion can be overturned if and when the court makeup changes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:50 PM

32. Yes after columbine, Oregon mall, 26 dead in school

banning guns would be on a fucking whim? Nilly-willy?

Jesus christ, we banned lawn darts after 8 kids were killed.

Get real

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rustydog (Reply #32)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 06:02 PM

45. Lawn darts were sold as TOYS.

You're comparing guns and freakin' JARTS?

Here's the difference:

Lawn darts: Anybody could buy 'em at most any department or toy store.

You didn't need a background check.

People gave them to their KIDS to play with.

Do I really need to list the differences AGAIN????

Really, really bad comparison.

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:57 PM

38. My first amendment rights are violated because of people with guns

 

And what are the founding fathers anyhow?

Thomas Jefferson wrote all men are created equal but forgot about women
and of course, he owned men and women, therefore they were not equal to him
What a hypocrite he was.

And as the amendments are a work in progress, they can always be changed

soon the supreme court will be 8 to 1 or 7 to 2 liberal and who knows what a different court would rule

And with Mike Bloomberg backing any/all anti-gun folks, soon congress will be fully stocked with those willing to do something

I would personally say that the 2nd is the least important good amendment, but it is the singular worst amendment, and only happened anyhow because of a compromise.
They never envisioned 2012 events.
Nor did they envision Walmart either.

Only federal,state,local law enforcement should have guns in the street.

and especially citizen patrols should not be armed.
The Guardian Angels in NYC never had a gun, nor did they need one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to graham4anything (Reply #38)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 06:08 PM

46. Sure you can amend the Constitution any way you want.

If you can get 2/3 of the states to ratify it.

Good luck with that. Your forecast is overly rosy. 8 to 1 or 7 to 2 liberal SCOTUS? Not with a young cons on the Court like Roberts and Scalito. Filling the Congress with liberals? Last time I checked, this country is damn near 50-50 divided.

In other words, you're dreaming.

And the Guardian Angels, as I recall, didn't need guns because they were badasses.

Bake

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bake (Reply #46)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 06:12 PM

48. What is your definition of a badass?

 

90% of the country used to smoke too. Didn't even take any law to change that to about the opposite.
Just rebranding and reframing.

Just like the Marlboro Man people used to think was Kool.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:35 PM

15. I agree.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:36 PM

17. Holy shit.

Hunting is expensive. What the fuck


Hunting license + gun + ammo + dog + cammo + one tiny deer + tools to process deer or pay someone to process deer = several years worth of steaks at the store!


Gun owners are 4 1/2 times more likely to get shot then non gun owners when they are supposedly doing that protection.

When do you folks start telling the truth?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aandegoons (Reply #17)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:41 PM

25. Gee, are't you the city hunter,

 

Hunting license and ammo, that is what it cost for most poor hunters, and generally the hunting license is optional for many of them. Fifty cents for the bullet, a good skinning knife and voila! you have meat for your family for many months.

You obviously have never been hunting, or are simply a city hunter who has no idea what subsistence hunting is all about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #25)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:50 PM

31. LOL

You cannot process a deer with a fucking skinning knife.

Own 320 acres near the PA line in the poorest freaking county in NY.

Liar.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aandegoons (Reply #31)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:55 PM

37. You may not be able to,

 

But lots of people can.

Just do a quick google search, there are videos out there on how to do it any everything, educate yourself.

Oh, and when is the last time you hunted?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #37)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:58 PM

39. You can build a bridge with matchsticks too.

But hey as long as it's on the Internets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #37)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:51 PM

78. I think one of the chapters in my Foxfire books is devoted to this very thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aandegoons (Reply #17)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:43 PM

27. Deer aren't the only animals hunted

Waterfowl, upland game birds, rabbits, and squirrels can all be hunted quite inexpensively.

None of them requires any special processing before cooking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shrek (Reply #27)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:51 PM

34. I forget the last time I hunted squirrels and fucking grouse with an AK 47

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rustydog (Reply #34)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:55 PM

36. Makes a mess of them that is for sure.

And grouse are hard to hit with a shotgun much less a rifle. Of course that is unless they are shooting them on the ground.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rustydog (Reply #34)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:13 PM

55. I'm not sure how that is relevant

Other than your post, the AK 47 isn't mentioned in this thread.

I was responding to a post that claims hunting is expensive. That isn't necessarily true, and the firearm you mentioned isn't one used for hunting (particularly for the game animals I listed).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:36 PM

18. Sorry totally disagree

The reason people "need" guns in bad neighborhoods is because there are so many dam guns in this country and they are so easy to get. I believe in sensible gun control but the ease at which you can get a gun in this country is astounding. People should be allowed to hunt, and if you absolutely need to feel safe in your home a shotgun will do. But assault weapons (as OP stated) and semi-automatic handguns need to be banned and the other types of guns need to be tightly regulated.

I'm a gun owner btw and am planing on getting rid of it as soon as I can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to horsedoc (Reply #18)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 06:35 PM

51. If we ban the second amedment, how to you plan on taking the guns from the criminals?

Let's say every law abiding citizen gives up their weapons.. what are you going to do with the illegal ones?? You imagine how much the crime rate will go up?? It's not realistic.

Obviously if you chose to give up your own gun, that's a personal decision, but its unfair to push that onto all of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkangel218 (Reply #51)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:20 PM

59. The vast majority of illegal guns start as legal guns

Remove the legal guns, and the supply of illegal guns is greatly reduced.

Someone would smuggle some in, but they'd suddenly be much more expensive and harder to get, greatly reducing their use.

Also, people made your claim when Australia passed a lot of strict gun control laws - since the legal owners were gonna turn their guns in, there would be a massive crime wave. It didn't happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #59)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:29 PM

61. "Remove the legal guns, and the supply of illegal guns is greatly reduced"

Guns are not perishable food, they don't go "bad" overnight or over a decade. You'll need a couple hundred years to rid of them all. There are way too many illegal guns in the US to try to disarm the legal law abiding citizens. Besides, we don't have enough Police to deal with the aftermath of robbers, rapists and murderers running amok without any fear. What is to deter them from breaking into a house? The prospect of going to jail?? Lol

It's not doable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkangel218 (Reply #61)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:33 PM

62. You forget that the point of an illegal gun is to use it.

Which means it gets seized or discarded to hide the evidence. It's not like a legal gun, which is going to be re-used for decades.

Besides, we don't have enough Police to deal with the aftermath of robbers, rapists and murderers running amok without any fear.

Go read that part in my post about Australia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #62)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:38 PM

63. How many criminals are actually getting aprehended?

I'm not interested in Australia, I lived in UK for a while and you get robbed on knife point in plain daylight over there. Not to mention criminals still get weapons from other countries, you can't stop them, just like you can't stop the massive amounts of drugs that cross our borders.

If the 2nd amedment gets banned, we better triple or quadruple the number of LEOs and armed private security, otherwise will be mayhem. IMHO.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkangel218 (Reply #63)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:23 PM

71. So many worries, so little literacy

The point of bringing up Australia is they did exactly what you are terrified about. They got rid of tons of guns. People predicted, like you, that there would be a massive crime wave. It didn't happen.

Not to mention criminals still get weapons from other countries, you can't stop them, just like you can't stop the massive amounts of drugs that cross our borders.

Yeah, that would be the other point I already addressed that you haven't managed to read.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #71)


Response to darkangel218 (Reply #73)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:39 PM

74. You're still asking questions I've already addressed

Why on Earth would I respond again when you've completely ignored everything I've written so far?

If you utterly failed to read my last 3 responses, why should I bother writing another? You'll just utterly fail to read it too.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jeff47 (Reply #74)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:45 PM

76. You ignoring my points as well.

Obviously you're not going to change your opinion and niether am I.

The good news is the 2nd Amedment will NEVER get banned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to darkangel218 (Reply #76)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:24 PM

79. No, I already responded to your points

Repeatedly.

The posts are still right up there, for everyone to read. Including you, but it seems you really aren't interested in actually discussing anything. Feel free to read them and prove me wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:37 PM

19. Do they need a semiautomatic, an automatic, or a handgun?

Wouldn't a non-automatic rifle work for hunting, and isn't a shotgun good for home protection?

If so, let's ban semiautomatics, automatics, and handguns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #19)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:42 PM

26. A muzzle loading flintlock would suffice for what he described and did for quite some time

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Nikon (Reply #26)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 06:02 PM

44. I wish I had read your reply before making mine.

Good point well made Sir.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #19)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:43 PM

28. Regarding handguns.

I posted below that a handgun with six rounds would be acceptable for home defense, but should not be allowed outside the home. However, I'm curious to know why they are considered more dangerous than shotguns. Aren't shotguns usually more powerful? Sorry, if it's a stupid question, but I'm no expert on guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to white_wolf (Reply #28)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:01 PM

53. Because it is easier to conceal a handgun and sneak it into a public place like a school? (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:41 PM

24. You want a gun? Fine under these conditions.

You can keep a single handgun in your home with a clip of six rounds or a shotgun a limited ammo. Enough to defend yourself and your family. You can't take it out of your home. If you are found on the street with a gun you will face criminal charges. If you want guns for hunting then you have to store them in a government facility and show your ID to get them out and they must be returned when you are done hunting. If you fail to do so you will face fines and have all your guns taken away. I understand the need for self-defense, but we cannot tolerate that as an excuse to own your own personal arsenal. A single handgun or shotgun is more than sufficient to protect your home.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:45 PM

29. How Interesting, Most Of Your Posts Trash Obama, And Now You're Defending Guns

Fascinating.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skraxx (Reply #29)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:49 PM

30. usually goes hand in hand, doesn't it?

but Madhound does make a good point

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Skraxx (Reply #29)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 05:51 PM

33. Or am I defending guns?

 

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022023330

Actually, put those two positions together and you get about where Obama is on the gun issue, a nice compromise somewhere in the middle.

Wow, what a concept. Let's hope Obama follows through on it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #33)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:23 PM

72. You are promoting the concept that there's a massive conspiracy to ban all guns

Just sayin'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 06:01 PM

43. Let's say your argument bears some truth, for the sake of argument.

Could those people not put food on the table with a black powder rifle? If not, why not? I mean, that was the technology in everyones hand at the time of the Constitution, and the Second Amendment. A flintlock rifle was the state of the art. Perhaps three shots per minute. If someone did try and shoot a school for of children, they would likely get one shot off, perhaps two if they had two rifles. Then the teachers would beat him senseless with the teachers edition of the textbooks.

So sporters, are you willing to go to black powder? Or do you need magnum power to blast your rabbits for your table?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Savannahmann (Reply #43)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:15 PM

56. Birds in flight are nearly impossible to hit with a rifle

A shotgun is the only realistic option.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shrek (Reply #56)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:20 PM

58. I wonder, how those folks managed to keep from starving back in the late 1700's.

I mean, if we can't possibly do it without a shotgun, then perhaps they loaded shot instead of ball into their rifles? Or perhaps, they were better shots with their rifles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Shrek (Reply #56)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:24 PM

60. Nothing says you have to ram a single ball into a flintlock.

Shot was invented long before we had cartridge ammunition. Primarily for use in cannons, but there was some use in rifles of the day.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 06:31 PM

50. Not having the 2nd Amendment

Does not mean there will, necessarily, be no guns. It means it will be a fuckload easier to curtail ease of acquisition, types of guns available, and required means of storage/usage.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:07 PM

54. Well-regulated is key.

Simple register all guns, including all hunting rifles. Make possessing insurance a condition of gun ownership (like auto insurance if you cause damage/injury). Require a hunting license to include a safety course for all, not just young people. No high capacity magazines. There are a lot of things that could be done without banning guns outright.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:39 PM

64. "Poor people need guns to gather food." (paraphrase)

 

Great logic! Let's pass out shotguns to the homeless living under bridges to cut down on the squab population and feed themselves! Nothing like driving down a rural stretch of interstate and hearing volleys of shotgun blasts ring out when a flock flies by.

You know, teach a man to fish and all that. It might work out so well that we can start the program in metropolitan areas as well. Can't you imagine it! All the homeless, the mentally handicapped homeless in your city exercising their constitutional rights by wandering about your city with a 12 gauge strapped across their backs as they push their carts? That should work out really great.

That part of the OP has to be one of the more ludicrous things I have read all week in support of guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Reply #64)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:50 PM

66. I know lots of people who would otherwise not be able to feed their families if they didn't hunt,

 

I know lots of poor people who are provided with much needed food each fall as hunters donate their kills to the poor.

You make think you're being cute and sophisticated by using hyperbole and wit, but the fact remains that a lot of people in this country depend upon hunting to provide for themselves.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Reply #66)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:20 PM

69. "There are a lot of people who donate their venison to the poor." paraphrased again

 

Let's see. How many dear can you bag per season in your part of the world? Where I'm at the season is from Nov. 17th to Jan 31st and three per season and of the three, one must have at least four points.

So for where I'm at, I would imagine that a good hunter eats what he shoots, he might save one deer for himself and giving one to family and friends who enjoy gamy meat and the rest to the poor. Gee, that's one deer per year to the poor. WOW! There's a cure for hunger if I ever saw one! NOT.

Like photography, fishing, rafting, climbing and spelunking, hunting is an expensive hobby (which is what you are talking about in this point wherein just as hobby or sport fishing it is cheaper by the pound to buy your meat at market.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MadHound (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:54 PM

67. Repealing the 2nd Amendment

and confiscating each and every gun in the country are two entirely different things.

We can limit guns, even to the point of repealing the 2nd Amendment, without removing the ability of those who rely on game meat in order to survive to have access to hunting guns.

What a red herring argument!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread