Still can't have someone tell me why we need guns

[margotb822]

I just spent an hour asking why we "need" Americans to own and no one could tell me. Do you think Americans needs guns?

[Dr.Phool]

1. If I ever want to shoot myself in the foot,

It's too hard to do with a knife.

[margotb822]

2. Some people think its easier

Apparently, what you know doesn't matter, just how you 'feel.'

[KG]

3. well, somebody has to 'stop tyranny!'

:eyes:

[Sadie4629]

4. Well,

Depends on how you define 'need.'

Some would claim that they 'need' guns because they hunt. Some feel that they 'need' guns to protect against home invasion, or whatever. Some 'need' to buy guns because they are collectors.

Regardless of whether YOU personally feel there is a need for anyone to own any guns, gun ownership is a 'right' guaranteed by our Constitution, and no one has any 'need' to mess with the Constitution.

(In the interests of full disclosure, I do not own a gun, I grew up in a home with no guns, and I have never even held a gun in my hands. But if someone else wants a gun, I'm not going to force my beliefs on them. The Constitution, and all, you know.)

[margotb822]

6. I grew up

in an over-populated deer county, where a certain number of deer were subjected to "death by firing squad.' But, my point is that, in a modern situation, no one had been able to tell me *why* they need guns. People say they have a right or whatever, but I believe there has to be a need backing that right, and there just isn't one today.

[Sadie4629]

9. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree

You think you KNOW that no one needs a gun. Gun owners feel that they don't have to justify their desire to own guns to you, especially when they have the U.S. Constitution backing them up.

And, if you plan to open the Constitution up to tinkering with it, you may just lose some other rights that someone else figures you don't need.

[margotb822]

11. But its ok to torture people

You either support the Constitution or you don't.

Yes, I believe "agree to disagree," so I will never take away the right of a person to own a gun, but the Constitution was written before the age of rifling and mass sustenance, which I believe, makes a difference.

But, my point is, no one can say that they actually do need a gun. It is scary to me that people want to be able to kill, without a reason. I believe that civil societies are beyond that idea.

[Squatch]

23. Rifling dates to the 15th century and was used during the Napoleonic wars

Link

"...but the Constitution was written before the age of rifling " = WRONG

[Sadie4629]

36. Hey! I've never tortured anyone!

Where did that come from?????

[Florida22ndDistrict]

38. RE: But its ok to torture people

Why would you assume that people are ok with torture, if they are gun advocates? You should also not assume that people who own guns want to be able to kill. A gun is tool and like many other tools it can be used to kill. If I had the intent I could kill you with a shovel, a knife, or a sledgehammer.

Most gun owners use their guns for target practice because it is something they enjoy doing. Some compete all the way up to Olympic level. Many love to hunt (some use the food to help sustain their family). Some carry a gun when camping to protect themselves from wildlife that may see them as food or to signal if injured (sound or flare gun/shell). Some use them to protect their families, from people willing to use violence against them. Some use them to protect their crops or livestock from pests and predators. Some collect guns. Some feel they should own a gun out of tradition and out of respect for the ideas set forth in the constitution.

When it comes down to it, you don't really need anything except oxygen, food, and water so what use is it to argue that one needs a gun. In the event that you were on a sinking ship, or lost in the woods, you may feel a strong desire to have a gun to signal for help (it might just save your life). In the event that the economy slumps and we fall into an economic depression, you might find food easier to acquire if you had a gun. If you own a farm, and want to kill a pig for meat, you may find it easier and more humane to kill that animal with a shot to the head rather then bludgeoning it with a hammer or slicing its throat. If a fox is eating all your chickens, you might want to shoot him to protect your investment in the animals that provide your family eggs and meat. There are many circumstances where a gun becomes useful, and in some cases can be the difference between life an death, but it is not one of the 3 things you “need” to stay alive.

[cornermouse]

44. Not many people sit out in a cornfield hoping to shoot a raccoon.

or stray deer. Most of us farmer types take the livestock to the butcher to be "offed", partly because butchering your own animal is incredibly hard and most don't actually have the equipment to process it very well and chickens are usually in more danger from raccoons and possums than foxes.

[Florida22ndDistrict]

53. re: Not many people...

While many may not have the tools to say butcher a cow very well, many keep small livestock like rabbits for potion sized meals and feel better about using a .22 on it rather then bludgeoning it with a club or slicing its neck. No matter if the predator happens to be a raccoons, possums or whatever the point still stands.

[cornermouse]

58. Most efficient way is to hit it (rabbit) and not with a club

where the spine meets the skull. Shooting something that close is a waste of money (bullet) and probably not a safe thing to do. I wouldn't use a gun on anything that close. Slicing it's neck while alive is just bizarre.

[SteveM]

244. My goodness, have you ever sat in a field?...

I shoot at least one deer a year (two last season), field dress them, skin them, quarter them, and butcher 75% of them (the rest going to a processor for sausage and hamburger). No special equipment needed, and not all that difficult. I hunt because that is how humans got started and the hard-wiring is still there. I enjoy it, certainly, but I get to see explicitly how humans dealt with life & death as a means to live; after all, we all kill to live. Having an agent (commercial butcher) do it for you, or a complex abstraction (agriculture) supply your food, does not remove you from the basic equation: you kill to live. So, may as well experience the web of life up close and personal.

[jody]

75. "no one can say that they actually do need a gun." Tell that to LEOs.

:rofl:

[Critters2]

100. Many of whom support stricter gun control. nt

[EricTeri]

102. I believe we've covered this fallacy already.

Police chiefs tend to. Rank and file cops tend to be very much pro-gun. I dont remember if it is in this thread or another, but someone has posted some interesting links on that issue.

Cops on the street know that gun control just makes their job harder. It doesn't stop the bad guys from having them.

[Critters2]

110. I'm related to two cops who say otherwise.

In my area, where 6 students died by legally obtained guns last week, this is a issue of wide discussion. The cops I've talked to, street cops and a police chief, support gun control.

[sergeiAK]

114. Wow, a sample size of two. Amazing research. nt

[Critters2]

117. 6 dead college students. That's all the research people around here need. nt

[sergeiAK]

120. You still failed to support your allegation.

As has been shown here, rank and file cops support the 2nd Amendment.

[L1A1Rocker]

220. Why do you seem apposed

to good guys having guns when they are most needed?

[sabre73]

264. That is a very narrow minded approach to research. n/t

[L1A1Rocker]

278. I guess it is necessary

to sooth the sole.

[Critters2]

291. My feet are fine.

And thanks for reinforcing the idea that gun nuts aren't that bright.

[benEzra]

206. I shot the breeze with a police officer last night...

I hung out at a local fire station last night and played Halo 3 multiplayer with a bunch of off-duty firefighters, some of their older kids, and some other friends, in between rounds of dodge ball (remember the Four D's!).

One of the guys there was a police officer. We chatted, he talked about how accurate Black Hills ammunition was in his AR-15 style target/defensive carbine--his own, not a department-issue carbine. I think he said he could easily shoot a quarter at 100 yards with the Black Hills match ammo, but it was pricey stuff. We discussed non-automatic civilian AK-47's; he said he regretted selling his and was looking to get another one, and I said I thought their main weak point was the sights and that a red-dot optic makes them much easier to shoot accurately. We also grumbled about the insane cost of ammo these days.

I think your experience may be a function of where you live, or the social circles you move in? Most survey's I've seen (in police periodicals and elsewhere) suggest that in excess of 90% of rank-and-file officers support an individual right to keep and bear arms (that's higher than the figure for the population at large), and the Fraternal Order of Police, the nation's largest rank-and-file police union (as opposed to administrators' groups), takes a pretty pro-RKBA position.

Don't forget that outside of a few states (Illinois, California) where police are granted special gun rights even after retirement, most police are subject to the same laws other "civilians" are--and since there are a higher percentage of gunnies in police work than almost anywhere else, it is reasonable that most of them wouldn't want their personally owned guns banned.

[sabre73]

263. That is what we call "politicking" in Law Enforcement.

I would venture to ask if these 2 "cops" are imaginary or if they want a promotion so they fall in line with Dear Old Chief.

It amazes me that your choice of words "Many of whom support stricter gun control" is base on the Opinion of 3 people. One of who does not count because his position is about public image.

[jody]

111. Suggest you read the AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT in D.C. v. Heller

BRIEF OF THE INTERNATIONAL LAW
ENFORCEMENT EDUCATORS AND TRAINERS
ASSOCIATION (ILEETA), THE INTERNATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF LAW ENFORCEMENT
FIREARMS INSTRUCTORS (IALEFI), MARYLAND
STATE LODGE, FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE,
SOUTHERN STATES POLICE BENEVOLENT
ASSOCIATION, 29 ELECTED CALIFORNIA
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS, SAN FRANCISCO
VETERAN POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION,
LONG BEACH POLICE OFFICERS ASSOCIATION,
TEXAS POLICE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION, TEXAS
MUNICIPAL POLICE ASSOCIATION, NEW YORK
STATE ASSOCIATION OF AUXILIARY POLICE,
MENDOCINO COUNTY, CALIF., SHERIFF THOMAS
D. ALLMAN, OREGON STATE REP. ANDY OLSON,
NATIONAL POLICE DEFENSE FOUNDATION,
LAW ENFORCEMENT ALLIANCE OF AMERICA,
AND THE INDEPENDENCE INSTITUTE AS
AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF RESPONDENT

[sabre73]

262. YOU ARE WRONG!

Ask MOST of us LEOs and we will gladly tell you that a legally armed citizen makes us sleep better at night!

Don't trust what you read in that papers when a "Chief" states that "we" want stricter gun control. They are politicians and they are ONLY PLAYING A PLATFORM FOR THEIR POLITICAL CAREER.

And in case you did not know it; there are usually 1,000 LEO's to ONE Chief!

We here that are "On the Job" want the laws that already exist to be enforced we don't want "STRICTER" gun control!

But I will give you this for pretending to know what "Many" of us support.......:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[L1A1Rocker]

281. Didn't realize you were LEO

but I should have based on your avatar. Back when CHL was being debated here in Texas one of my IPSC buddies made the only counter argument to me that made sense.

The situation is; one, two, or even several plain clothed LEO's have a perp at gun point. A class "A" or better IPSC shooter (I'm a class "B" BTW)happens along on the scene and mis-interprets things. This IPSC shooter mistakes the perp for an Innocent and the plain clothed LEO's for the perps. Well, if you know anything about IPSC and the classes you can see that things would turn out very bad for the LEO's.

THAT scenario is the ONLY scenario that I have ever herd that holds ANY water for CHLs being a bad idea. Fortunately the CHL training class does take this kind of situation into account and addresses it in class.


For those that do not know IPSC stuff; IPSC is the International Practical Shooting Confederation. It is a sport of shooting pistols in a simulated stressful environment in various situations. Consider it in comparison of Nascar (or even Indy car) racing to normal driving with regard to pistol shooting. I have seen many Leo's come to an IPSC event ready to "clean house" cause they are Leo's and are trained to use handguns. They routinely get trounced by the Junior competitors (under 16 years old) and are so embarrassed they do not return.

No offense meant to Leo's! They have my utmost respect for MANY reasons!!! It is a fact however that firearms training for Leo's is up to an acceptable level. To require a Leo to shoot on the level of the top IPSC competitors is simply not reasonable considering their wide range of job duties. Remember that Leo's are trained to drive really good also, but not to the Nascar level. They are also trained to shoot well, but not to the top IPSC level.

I'm sorry for my endless rambling. It is late and I'm dealing with insomnia. Suffice it to say that I have only herd of ONE reasonable objection to concealed carry and it was resolved by proper and competent training/instruction.

And that's all I've got to say about that.


I hope.

[sabre73]

288. Here, Here!!!

I totally agree! I shoot IPSC too but I actually prefer IDPA for my personal preference. I finally ranked master with IPSC in 2007 and I love the sport.

One thing that I deal with a lot in the service is the fact that there are a lot of LEOs who don't care about being better than the required bare minimum (which is a score of 252 out of a possible 360). We qualify every three months as per service policy but that is usually it.

Fortunately for me, I just transfer to a new station where the majority of the agents are heavily involved with IDPA, IPSC, SAS!

Pinch me. I am in heaven. On average the lowest qualification score here is 348 out of 360.

Anyhow, Off to work with me... People to arrest and papers to push!

[liberal4truth]

280. Not according to the gun-nutz they dont, which is a crock. Most cops I know want people to go

through the same serious background checks they do, including mental health screens,
before they are allowed to own any firearms.

[L1A1Rocker]

282. So why is it that cops are

exempt from the "domestic battery" charge that other citizens will loose their gun rights over?

[liberal4truth]

284. Perhaps thats how the law is where you live, but not here. If a cop loses the right to

own a firearm because of a criminal conviction, they are out of luck as far as working in law-enforcement goes.

And thats the way it should be.

I agree that the police should be subject to the exact same laws that non-LEO citizens are,
if that is where you are going here.

No exceptions whatsoever allowed.

[sabre73]

302. I am glad that 2 out of the 3 "cops"

you know say that. You are really an expert.

[liberal4truth]

219. I certainly would, but I would probably get shot, tasered or kicked to death if I did....... ..

IMO, there are too many non-street level police officers, non-street level
FBI criminalists and other crime investigators that are way too heavily armed
with firearms, which only contributes to the issue of the need for tighter
gun control laws for everyone in America, including the LEO's sitting at a
desk somewhere shuffling paperwork or doing investigative CSI type work.

In the European nations, for instance, it seems that most non-beat LEO's get
along just fine without all the firepower that all the police have in the USA.

Since the police are supposed to lead us by example, we need some of them to
disarm to a great degree, to set another example for the population in general.

[L1A1Rocker]

222. I agree completely

Let the police disarm. Where is the auction for their guns at? I want to put in a bid.

[sabre73]

265. The Un informed are entitled to their opinion as well....

The scary thing is..... Your vote could cancel mine!!!! Holy crap get a clue! You read some "anti-gun Euro-trash internet article and take it as a fact of life. The police there are not getting on "just fine"!!!

Here is an example of how "fine" they are doing!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ezx5s95Yz98

And If you are wondering...YES I would have terminated the threat. I would have done it with out hesitation and without question because I do value the life of a brother officer over a LOWLIFE suffering from road rage and stupidity.

That is just one of hundreds of documented examples I can give you too.

Just fine my eye!!!

[liberal4truth]

266. You dont read so well, do you? I said non-street level police and those WERE street cops.

Get a clue and READ what people post here, why don't you?

Besides, you post one clip of a motorist that wont stop as if
that happens everyday in Europe. Have you even been to Europe?

Somehow, I doubt it.

The fact is that people in Europe are much more law-abiding then
Americans becuase they dont have a culture of violence like we do
in the US, including all the firearms, both civilian and police
weapons floating around out there, just waiting for someone to pull
the trigger on someone else.

[sabre73]

268. Good point

The people there are much more law abiding. Then why oh why should I disarm myself? And I lived in a small place called Diepenbeek for a while. Would you like to try this conversation in Flemish? How about French?. Keep on doubting you clueless moron.

We do have a culture of Violence and a lot of that (all of it) can be laid the the feet of criminals who don't give a crap about you or me OR what is legal and what is not.

Furthermore, The Agency that I work for employs over 13,000 Field agents. I am one of them and I have worked with well over 3,000 of those who say the same thing I already told you. We don't support stricter gun control. get a clue.

Oh wait I sorry you already think that you know it all.

Oh and if you are not so good with geography Diepenbeek is in Belgium...and I am not sure but I think that that is part of Europe.....Hmmm :sarcasm:

[sabre73]

269. It is also easier to read if the poster actually has

a clue on how to use proper grammar and punctuation. But then again...My bad for not reading at a sixth grade level.

[liberal4truth]

287. What part of: "In the European nations, for instance, it seems that most non-beat LEO's get along...

... just fine without all the firepower that all the police have in the USA" did
you not understand ?

I would seem that your English comprehension skills are severely lacking.

[gorfle]

162. In what way does it make a difference?

but the Constitution was written before the age of rifling and mass sustenance, which I believe, makes a difference.

In what way does it make a difference?

[Endangered Specie]

318. The first amendment was written before we had typewriters and computers

does that make a difference?

[Ghost in the Machine]

10. I suppose you'd rather have those "over-populated deer" die of STARVATION, DISEASE, or

being hit by cars as they ventured out to new areas because their food supply was gone. Do you have even the first clue as to what "conservation" is?

I think not...

"death by firing squad"... I've heard it all, now

:eyes:

[margotb822]

15. What are Animal Services for?

Aren't they supposed to control populations?

It's a weak point for gun owning, but I've heard it and I've seen it in action.

The point is: Why do you need lethal capacity against another American?

I'm not doubting it's in the Constitution, I'm arguing the relevance. If hunting and animal population is the argument, we have agencies that can take care of that.

Please, tell me why you want the capacity to kill another.

[cornermouse]

32. lolololololololol

Animal services? lololololololololol

[Ghost in the Machine]

35. Animal Services, in the places that have it, is for picking up stray CATS & DOGS

Are you totally clueless, or just acting like it for attention?

"Aren't they supposed to control populations?" - See Above

"The point is: Why do you need lethal capacity against another American?" - Straw man... *who* said I wanted to use it against another American?????

"I'm not doubting it's in the Constitution, I'm arguing the relevance. If hunting and animal population is the argument, we have agencies that can take care of that." - Please point me to one of these agencies that hunts for other people, I'd like to see if I can get a job with them. As for population control, yes, there is an agency.. it's called the 'Department of Wildlife' around here, and they issue hunting licenses to people to help control the populations. You see, one or two wildlife officers can't keep a whole county's deer population in check, nor do they have the resources to hire the extra help. The fees they get from selling hunting licenses, as well as fishing licenses, are what keeps these agencies going, and funds their efforts to conserve & protect wildlife.

"Please, tell me why you want the capacity to kill another." - Same old straw man again... how surprising (NOT)... again, *who* said I *wanted* to kill another human being????

I think it might be best for you to quit while you're behind...

Ghost

[liberal4truth]

223. Bull$**t!! Out here, ACS takes care of mountain lions, bears and coyotes too!

as well as a host of other wild animals.

You don't need a gun for those reasons !!!

[EricTeri]

257. Spoken like someone who's never left the city.

Calling ACS when you're out in the woods and expecting them to get there before you're turned into dinner is a good way to find out what it feels like to be eaten by an animal.

As I've stated before though, whether i need a gun or not is irrelevant. I don't have to provide you with reasons for my ownership. What I'd like to know is why you want to know if I own one? Are you planning to rob me and want to know if I have something you're seeking?

[krispos42]

133. Because I may need to kill somebody to defend me and mine.

It is a simple as that.


At some point in my life I may need to threaten or actually use deadly force to stop a person from hurting or killing myself or a family member.


Let's look at a recent poll that I posted in GD

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2903443


Out of 137 votes, 54 indicated they had never owned a gun, leaving 83 gun owners.

Out of those 83:

• 49 of them (59%) have never touched their guns for self-defence.
  
• 16 of them (19%) carried their guns while investigating strange noises
  
• 8 of them (9.6%) displayed their guns to scare off an attacker.
  
• 10 of them (12%) fired their guns in self defense.

Of those 10 that fired:

• 5 (6%) of them killed at least one of their attackers.
  
• 2 (2.4%) of them only wounded at least one of their attackers.
  
• 3 (3.6%) either missed or fired warning shots.

[SteveM]

250. "Why [I] want the capacity to kill another"? For self-defense...

I can elaborate on this is you wish, but you will have to frame a question for further exploration.

As for "Animal Services," "agencies that can take care of " cost tremendously. A locale wishing to temporarily reduce deer populations by employing sharp-shooters using silencers, or bows, will pay upwards of $100,000 of tax money for this service. On the other hand, regulated hunting can do this for a pittance. For example, I hunted Fort Boggy State Park in Texas this season. The reason for the hunt? "Deer hunting by special permit is conducted in order to control the deer herd and protect native plants." (Texas Parks & Wildlife, PWD LF W100-251 (06/07)) I also hunted Balcones Canyon Lands National Wildlife Refuge in Central Texas, another "draw" hunt designed to control deer and feral hog populations for much the same reason.

I am interested in your statement "...we have agencies that can take care of that." Why should these agencies take care of that? Why can't I and fellow hunters? I would appreciate your answer.

as for "...arguing the relevance" of 2A: "Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right or that it's too much of a safety hazard... They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like." Alan Dershowitz quoted in "The Conceptual Foundations of Anglo-American Jurisprudence in Religion and Reason," 62 Tennessee Law Review, 759, 789 (1995). Dershowwitz is no friend of firearms ownership, and suggests if you wish to disarm individual Americans, you should repeal the Second Amendment.

[bossy22]

254. lethal capacity

i wouldnt use that word, many things have lethal capacity. Just last week a guy lost control of his car and killed 7 people and injured many more. just over the summer i witnessed the lethal capacity of a car first hand. I saw the remains of what used to be a human being after he was hit by a car going 70 mph. We never found the lower half of the guy

[EricTeri]

256. Wow...just wow...

No, animal services is not supposed to control populations.

You're right, it IS a weak point. The best reason is, i want one, and frankly thats all you need to know.

One of the reasons i may want lethal capacity against another American is that person may be trying to kill me.

The right is protected by the Constitution, and it is certainly relevant. Ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

I have had the capacity to kill another since I was capable of understanding what that meant. I don't need a gun for that. That's the part you seem unable to comprehend. The gun does not give some magical power - it is merely a tool.

[EstimatedProphet]

323. So your answer is to pay the government to shoot deer?

Rather than let the people do it themselves, so that they can supplement their diet, you think it is better for an agency to do it and prevent people who might need the meat from getting it? You must really hate hunters if you want to pay the government to take away the means to feed their family.

And they say there's no such thing as liberal elitism...

[zanne]

40. "Conservation" doesn't include killing for enjoyment. t

And pleeeeze don't try to tell me you eat the meat. That's so lame.

[cornermouse]

46. Do you live in the city?

A lot of people eat rabbit, squirrel, and deer.

[Sadie4629]

47. It's only conservation

if the hunters aren't enjoying themselves? :eyes:

The deer population NEEDS to be controlled. There are lots of people who don't mind helping out with that. If they can have a good time while doing it, everyone benefits: The state, the hunters, the drivers who might have a serious accident if the deer population exploded, and the deer themselves who would starve to death with all the competition for food.

Yours is an extremely silly argument.

[zanne]

56. Yours is an extremely disingenous argument.

I've been hearing those excuses for so many years, I'm beginning to think they come with every hunting permit.

[sergeiAK]

79. Our state is issuing "special cull permits" now

Because there aren't enough hunters in some areas. These permits allow a hunter to take up to 10 deer, of a specified age/sex mix, designed to drop the population.

[sabre73]

87. So, Wise and powerful zanne......

Should my family be forced to eat the meat that only YOU DEEM fit or can we eat the meat that we enjoy? You see the meat that we eat does not contribute in large to the hole in the OZONE by producing large amounts of methane gas. The meat we eat is not subject to cruel farming practices or hormonal injections, and our meat has NEVER BEEN RECALLED by anyone.

We eat Elk, Moose, Deer, Duck, Turkey, Fish, Goose, Rabbit, etc. You will find that our diets are far better than your McDonald's preference any day so don't crap on my right to bear arms and don't crap on my right to select which type of meat I eat.

I say this with all due respect Mr. Zanne "the dictator".

[zanne]

130. It's against the rules to point out the name of another DU'er to other posters.

Mocking a poster in your title is a no-no.

[krispos42]

154. Nonetheless,the points are valid.

Deer are free-range, antibiotic-free, and hormone-free. They eat a variety of natural vegetation in addition to our cultivated crops.

They breed naturally, as well. No artificial insemination, like turkeys.

Isn't this all good stuff?

[L1A1Rocker]

273. All hail to the one that must not be named! HaHaHa LMAO

[zanne]

131. If you'd bother to check your facts before inserting foot in mouth...

You'd know that I'm not a "Mr."

[sabre73]

192. I was too busy checking on

facts that matter. Gender is a no harm no foul issue as to the comment you made of "And pleeeeze don't try to tell me you eat the meat. That's so lame."

Well you may think that humane practices and free range meat is lame but to some of us (most I'm sure) it is very important and if people would care just a little more about this planet they might see the honest benefits of eating game animals instead of poorly treated birds, sheep and cows.

So to answer a few questions I would say that Yes, I NEED my hunting rifles for hunting. It is too hard to hunt some animals with a bow at my age.

And YES, I DO EAT THE MEAT! I know it is sooooo lame to take a proactive stance on humane practices.

And for those of you who have not had any game meet like elk but are curios to try some there is a website that offers a good variety of these meats. Unfortunately all of this meet is farm raised so it is not as good (in my opinion) as free and wild meat.

look at www.venisonworld.com

Happy hunting

[SecularNATION]

210. Very Funny...

...coming from you, zanne.

[L1A1Rocker]

274. So, is calling another poster "you'd" a rules violation. DU rules not grammar.

[sabre73]

276. only if it upsets

zanne....I think

[EricTeri]

258. The fact that you're ignorant

doesn't make an argument disingenuous.

[L1A1Rocker]

275. I once called a poster "ignorant" and it got deleted.

Apparently statements of fact are often considered rules violations. Go figure.

[EstimatedProphet]

339. So don't debate the arguments, just dismiss them because you've heard them before.

Maybe you heard them before because they happen to be true. Give me one viable alternative, given current technology and state government budgets, to control animal populations other than hunting them. One.

[krispos42]

149. Yes it does

It's the same as any other job that needs being done: find somebody that likes to do it and hire them. Most of the people that work in a slaughterhouse, for example, may not enjoy killing the cows, but it doesn't bother them that much either.

In this case, the states do not hire hunters. Hunters pay the state for a permit.

They bring their own clothing, deer drags, tree stands, lights, radios, binoculars, rifles, ammunition, and trucks.

They buy their own gas, pay for their own meals, and pay for their own butcher to process the carcass.


And the hunters that pay for all of this stuff enjoy waking in the freezing, predawn darkness, dressing in layers of clothing, tramping through the woods and fields toting a nine-pound rifle, stalking and shooting a deer, field-dressing (gutting) it, dragging it back to their truck (by hand, usually), and dropping it off at a butcher.

They also like the companionship of the hunt, maintaining skills largely lost in our modern society, the time alone with nature, and the friendships and parent/child relationships that result from this.

[pipoman]

191. You are clueless

In my tiny state alone there are around 60,000+ deer killed annually each year. ALL ARE EATEN. In Oklahoma and many other states there are programs in place for deer killed during season to be donated and the meat is distributed to less fortunate, thousands of deer are put into this program each year. This culling of the deer population is vital (as in the population will CEASE to exist) to the maintaining population. Have you heard of chronic Wasting Disease? This disease threatens to wipe out whitetail deer populations and it likely would have already if it were not for population controls. Further the conservation of ALL wildlife in nearly every state in this country is entirely dependent on the revenue generated by the sale of hunting and fishing licenses. If it were not for hunters/fisherpersons the state of wildlife and the proliferation of species would be dismal and many species would be extinct in the wild. I always love it when urbanites think they know what is best for wildlife even though they have never contributed one second or one dollar to their conservation. I on the other hand contribute approx $200 per year and I maintain 120 acres of land which is completely for the preservation of wildlife...I could generate income with that land and choose not to.


On edit....Yes I do have a freezer full of venison as does my sisters family and my mother which I provided this year, my parent in laws have a freezer full, as does my brother in law and sister in law. My neighbors have a freezer full as does their neighbors and their neighbors after that. What a small world you must live in.

[L1A1Rocker]

277. My freezer is empty right now. I'll pay shipping.

Actually I'm hoping to get up to my parents sometime soon to harvest a few Axis deer.

On topic: It is true that North Am. has many more deer today than when Columbus first put his boots on the ground. I once read that there are currently more deer alive today than have ever died in recorded history but cannot source that claim. It may be bogus.

[albert johnson]

317. i think that is true

the story goes that a large mature forest can have only limited browse only able to support few browsing animals,deer.as farming went bigtime it created of course alot more food,allowing a much higher animal density. makes sense to me.

[gerrilea]

33. Doesn't the Constitution say it all?

Rights are not given to us, they are inherent...I don't need to be free, but I have that right...somewhat

I do wonder sometimes about that right being destroyed (i.e. patriot act, Military commmissions act, signing statements)

I don't need to have free speach...but I do

First step in taking over a country divide the masses and then take away their power to defend themselves, round up all those gun owners as "terrorists"...


Then bam...democracy experiment over...didn't work well...let's see how a dictorship works here...

[zanne]

57. "Inherent right" to own guns is a ridiculous argument.

Did the NRA tell you that? Or your buddies over at Gun Cite? I've heard and read the argument before. It's simply a disingenuous way to attempt to win an argument. It doesn't really mean anything.

[gerrilea]

89. I read both of your replies and no the NRA didn't tell me anything

I don't have any "buddies over at Gun Cite"...don't know anyone that owns a gun in fact, except my father who passed away 5 years ago...

To be free means that you have to have the power to keep your freedom, i.e. though the force if necessary...

and your second argument about the 2nd admendment is correct from a certain perspective...

the State, in this sense is the militia (people or citizens) of each respective state...and when the constitution was written in the 1700's the state in this case had no money to arm their militia's, us...so we the people had to aquire our own, thus the belief that we had the right...but your interpretation is most likely "legally" correct...and the "masses" meaning us, weren't told what they were fighting for at the time or what the words in the 2nd Amendment really meant...

Now, over 200 years later we are still fighting for what we were originally led to believe we were fighting for...

The common belief, weather it is "legally correct" or not...should be a moot point...we were lied to then and now they are trying to enforce lie...

Back then you had to open your home up and board the militia too...people for get history much too often...

[fightthegoodfightnow]

92. Huh?

You write: 'To be free means that you have to have the power to keep your freedom.'

And that power comes from a ............ gun?

Nonsense. That power comes from you and the people.

If and when your elected government betrays you, you're going to be hard pressed to find a situation where the people will not prevail.

[gerrilea]

98. Sorry if I wasn't more clear

if and when your elected government betrays you, the people may have to use force, without it we are sheep...

I don't think the people will prevail in the current atmosphere of our country...

The power comes from us...I heartily agree...but we need to back it up...voting isn't enough...remember the crap in Mexico and their elections...they went into the streets and were killed by their government...

[Llewlladdwr]

153. Apparently, we aren't reading our Mao.

According to the good chairman, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." (from "Quotations From Chairman Mao Tse-Tung", also known as the Little Red Book)

[gorfle]

165. Power does indeed flow from the end of a gun...

You write: 'To be free means that you have to have the power to keep your freedom.'

And that power comes from a ............ gun?

Nonsense. That power comes from you and the people.

That power almost always comes from armed people

If and when your elected government betrays you, you're going to be hard pressed to find a situation where the people will not prevail.

If they are armed they will stand a much greater chance of success than not, especially if their government elects to use force in an attempt to quell those people.

[sabre73]

267. Yeah! It sure worked for Cuba!!! LOL

TONTO.....TONTO...TONTO

The people sure exercised the power there!! They laid out an elaborate plan to let Castro grow old and die of old age!! Hurray for the power of the people that have no means to enforce that power!!

Yeah! Lets all move to Cuba!!! You first FTGFN! LOL!:rofl:

[fightthegoodfightnow]

90. I'm Adding You to My Buddy List

:)

[gerrilea]

91. thanks...I need support here

[L1A1Rocker]

144. Well, I know of some judges

on the DC circuit court of appeals that disagree with you. We'll see in a couple of months what SCOTUS says on the matter.

[L1A1Rocker]

233. No responce there FTGF? Guess you

know your full of it hey?

[sabre73]

196. Your opinion of our rights doesn't really mean anything either

yet you are free to spout them here and anywhere else thanks to another blessed "Inherent right" the freedom of speech.

HURRAY FOR THE ENTIRE BOR!!!!:party:

[jmg257]

238. Her opinion would matter - but only if it was right. Since it is SO skewed...

and has NO basis in facts or history or any other reality, it really only matters to her.

[liberal4truth]

227. Bingo!! There is _NO_ "inherent" right to own a weapon of mass-murder.

[L1A1Rocker]

228. We're not talking mass murder. We're talking firearms for self defense.

Why the needless hyperbole? Can you not debate a reasonable issue on reasonable terms?

[jmg257]

236. Sure there is...EXACTLY how this right was referred to, by those who secured it...

1st Congress, Rep. Fisher Ames to George R. Minor. 12 June, 1789

"Yet Mr. Madison has inserted, in his amendments, the increase of representatives, each State having two at least. The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people. Freedom of the press too..."

See there - "inherent". It's also been called "natural", "absolute", "unalienable", "private", "personal" etc., all by people alot smarter then you few here who just don't approve, so just don't get how important it is - hmmm...I think "essential" is how they put it.

[jody]

241. PA & VT said citizens have "natural, inherent and inalienable rights. . . defending life and liberty

A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 28 Sept. 1776
"That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
And
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

PA ratified the BOR on 10 March 1790 and with contemporaneous knowledge of the Second Amendment, PA modified its constitution that took effect on 2 Sept. 1790 to say “The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.”

As an inalienable right it is impossible for PA citizens to give the right to bear arms for self-defense away when they ratified our Constitution or when they ratified the BOR. PA citizens acknowledged that fact by retaining the right of self-defense in their constitution when they modified it just five months after they ratified the BOR.

You may not like it but PA & VT citizens have the "natural, inherent and inalienable" "right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state".

If SCOTUS applies the 14th Amendment to RKBA like it has to other rights, then that right of self-defense enjoyed by PA & VT applies to all states, D.C. and territories.

[SteveM]

251. BINGO! Indeed. nt

[liberal4truth]

279. Thats just not going to happen in the Heller case or any other at the SCOTUS level for a host.. .

of reasons that I could name, none the least of which is that Washington, D.C. is NOT a legitimate state at all.

[L1A1Rocker]

283. We shall see won't we.

We definitely disagree on how the Heller case will go. We'll know in a couple of months.

[jody]

289. I guess we'll wait to see what SCOTUS says. n/t

[sabre73]

270. Man you really know how to

make liberals look ignorant! I know of a little town in Texas where a mass-murderer went on a killing spree and I honestly feel like the world would be a safer place if we DID get rid of these weapons of mass-murder!

SO.......

I propose that we start a strong and determined campaign to do away with ALL CHAINSAWS in the United States of America so that our children can sleep just a little safer at night.

[jmg257]

237. Nope, not the NRA - the framers of the Constitution, and we the people who ratified it...

Rep. Fisher Ames to George R. Minor. 12 June, 1789
The civil departments will employ us next, and the judiciary the Senate. They will finish their stint, as the boys say, before the House has done. Their number is less, and they have matured the business in committee. Yet Mr. Madison has inserted, in his amendments, the increase of representatives, each State having two at least. The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people. Freedom of the press too


Don't under-estimate the importance of this natural, absolute, unalienable, private, personal right just because YOU don't like it. "It is of such a nature it CANNOT be denied our posterity."

[EricTeri]

259. Have you actually READ the Constitution?

Again, saying something is disingenuous doesn't make it so.

[slackmaster]

329. We have an inherent right to own, say, and do anything we want

Except where restricted by due process of law.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Edweird]

73. Says. You. Remember the 1994 midterm election? A lot of people disagree.

Your fellow Americans disagree with you. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but you're on the losing side of this one.

[zanne]

108. Do you really think that most Americans don't want gun control?

If you do, you're sadly mistaken. WE are the majority.

[Edweird]

127. If by that you mean enforcement of exisiting laws, you're probably right. So do I.

But the rabid irrational histrionic laden nonsense being trotted out here?
If (IF!) it's the majority here on DU, it's not by much, and out in the real world it's a loser.

[zanne]

132. No. I mean stricter laws. nt

[krispos42]

163. Majority is meaningless

If the Majority wants something unconstitutional, then that is too bad for the majority.


I went to the Minnesota History Center a couple of weeks ago. They're hosting a traveling exhibit called "Terrorism in America: 1776-2001" or something like that.

It was very informative. I didn't know how much damage German spies did to try to stop US munitions shipments to the Allies during the First World War.

But scattered throughout the display were this Gallup polling stations, where there was a statement such as "Should organizations such as the Klu Klux Klan be outlawed?" that you can rank. Strongly agree, agree, no opinion, disagree, strongly disagree.

Something on the order of 54% (if memory serves) said "Strongly agree" to that question.

Yet doing so is blatantly unconstitutional.




I bet if you polled the American people after 9/11, you would have found majority support for the "domestic eavesdropping" program, too.

The segregation laws of the Deep South? Majority-approved. Invading Iraq? Majority-approved. Tax cuts for the wealthy? Majority-approved. Keeping the 10 Commandments on the lawn of a courhouse in Alabama? Majority-approved. Teaching both evolution and intelligent design in Florida? Majority approved.


Majority approval does not make right or constitutional. And when you add in the fact that large swaths of Americans are woefully ignorant about guns and dependent on the ever-informative Main Stream Media...

[sabre73]

272. Krispos42. Once again you post is........

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT! Keep it up. I find your posts very enlightening!

[krispos42]

285. Thank you

Majority rule with respect of minority rights is the way it's suppose to be. There's only so far you can push any restriction on a right, regardless of how big your majority is. Now, not everthing is a right, but you get the idea. The majority getso pick where and how hard to push, though.

[Llewlladdwr]

170. Actually, no, I don't.

At least not the kind of "gun control" you're advocating. If your belief is truly the majority view please explain to me how the will of the people is being thwarted.

[jmg257]

186. Not according to most polls... YOU are in the minority...

"Support for gun control dropping
Public support for stricter gun laws has been declining since the 1990s, according to the Gallup Poll. In January 2007, the number of people who supported stricter gun laws was at 49 percent, less than a majority for the first time since at least 1990."

*******************
LOS ANGELES, Aug. 21 /PRNewswire/ — A recent Zogby International poll question conducted for Associated Television News found that 66% of the American voting public in a recent poll of 1,020 Americans from August 8-11, 2007 (margin of error of +/- 3.1%) found that the American public rejects the notion that new gun control laws are needed.

The poll asked: “Which of the following two statements regarding gun control comes closer to your own opinion?

Statement A: There needs to be new and tougher gun control legislation to help in the fight against gun crime.

Statement B: There are enough laws on the books. What is needed is better enforcement of current laws regarding gun control.


Conversely, only 31% of the American public think new and tougher gun control legislation are needed.

A majority of voters who support enforcement of gun laws already on the books exists virtually across all demographic groups and in all regions of the country with the only exception being Asian and liberal voters.

*************************************************************

[sabre73]

271. You are not

anything other than un-informed and opinionated.

Majority my foot. If you are the majority then why does the 2nd amendment still stand?

What "Most" Americans want is not MORE gun control. It is ACTUAL ENFORCEMENT of the existing laws around gun control.

The funny thing is.... All of the gun-grabbers thought, that by passing the laws we have in place today, there would decrease gun violence.

Now they are mad at gun owners (who abide by those laws) because their laws only allowed for more gun violence.

Then they have an ingenious idea!!! Lets make MORE P.O.S. laws that look great on paper but have no chance in hell of working; then we can blame the gun owners for everything else that we helped cause.

[zanne]

126. Gun owners are DECLINING in number in this country, Edweird.

http://www.vpc.org/studyndx.htm

Gun control advocates only help the Democrats. It's people who want to loosen gun control laws that help the Republican Party gain control. See "A Shrinking Minority: The Continuing Decline of Guns Ownership in America". Read the press release. It's very enlightening.

[Edweird]

128. Right. Which is why we took control in '94 after the glorious AWB passed, right?

Are you in that much denial?

[zanne]

129. You didn't even read it.

Quick Draw McGraw on a rampage, huh? You won't even bother with the facts. Gun ownership HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 1994. Go fondle your guns, Edweird. (Good username, by the way).

Also, this is 2008. Now whose not living in the here and now?

[Edweird]

134. You're right, I didn't. I could care less what they have to say.

The fact of the matter is that I grew up around them. Lots of people did. And they KNOW, just like I know, that the "12x more likely" business is hogwash. Plain and simple. When you see responsible gun ownership and learn it, it's clear what the truth is. Much like the anti-drug campaign. The ads make it seem like your life will end if you smoke pot. Well, kids see other kids doing it, and all they do is sit on the couch and act silly. Suddenly the anti campaign has lost all credibility.

Yes, the existing laws need to be enforced better.
I would like to see that.
Our government needs to restore funding to vital social programs.
Dealing with the mentally ill will help as well.

[zanne]

136. Well, your head is firmly set in the sand.

What good is a discussion with you when you admit that you don't want to acknowledge the facts, or that other people have valid opinions? I say none. You're on ignore.

[Edweird]

138. Show me facts, not propaganda.

[krispos42]

168. Some aspects of gun control help the Democrats

Unfortunately, the ones that people harp on and introduce legislation over and pound podiums about don't.

Gun control advocates only help the Democrats. It's people who want to loosen gun control laws that help the Republican Party gain control.

Now, let me see here... Non-gun owners are a growing majority in this country. This growing majority wants to tighten gun control laws. To do so, they suuport the Democrats. Gun owners are a shrinking minority in this country. This shrinking minority wants to loosen gun control laws. To do so, they support the Republican party. And... the Republican party is in charge.

Wait, what?

[gorfle]

171. It would not surprise me.

It would not surprise me if gun ownership was declining.

Firearms are expensive. Most decent firearms start at $300. As wages stagnate and the cost of living continues to rise, firearms are frequently seen as an unnecessary luxury. Also ammunition is expensive. A box of 250 rounds of 9mm ammunition, a common handgun caliber, costs about $50. A box of 250 rounds of .45 ammunition costs about $90. A box of 50 rounds of nearly any handgun ammunition is about $20. In a typical afternoon of shooting it is easy to burn through $50-$100 of ammunition very, very easily. I happen to live in an area where free public ranges are within an easy drive, but for many people their only recourse are indoor ranges that charge by the hour for their use - usually $5/hour or so. When compared to the price of ammunition this is actually pretty cheap, but it is still another expense. This makes target shooting a reasonably expensive hobby. I only go shooting about once every 3 months, mostly due to time constraints, but also because of the expense.

I think hunting is an even more endangered activity. In addition to the costs of the weapons and ammunition, finding land to hunt on can be expensive also. Public hunting land is often limited, and consequently can be crowded during hunting seasons. Many hunters instead go to managed game preserves, and will pay sometimes hundreds of dollars for a day of hunting in such places. Other hunters pay a thousand or more dollars a year to lease hunting rights on private property. For large game, it is common to pay a processor to butcher the game, such as deer. This can cost around $80 or so per deer. I would prefer to avoid this expense myself but I don't know how to butcher a deer.

The bottom line is gun ownership, particularly hunting, is, unfortunately, becoming an activity for the elite. It does not help that laws have made the enjoyment of this hobby ever-more restrictive, though the tide appears to be finally turning in the other direction for now. Another of the studies on the page you reference indicates the dramatic reduction in FFL dealers from the 80's until today - a 78% or so reduction overall. The limiting of outlets to buy firearms results in less competition and access to firearms. The hinderences in sending firearms through the mail likewise is a disincentive to buying them.

And of course then there is apathy. When something like less than 50% of the eligible population participates in their government by voting, it may not be surprising to find even less motivated to own firearms for the ultimate recourse against government.

[jmg257]

175. Right - we already debunked this BS a while back, the 65+ MILLION gunowners IS

an increase over the number of owners the year before, which is an increase over the year before that, and the year before that...

According to the NORC organization, their were 65+Million gun owners in 2006*, compared to the est. 57 Million gun owners in 2004**, which is atleast 6 million MORE then they estimated (51 Million**) owned them in 2000, compared to the est. 44 Million who owned them in 1997****.

Wow, what startling information! And just HOW DID you & the anti-gunners decide gun ownership is on the decline???

*According to NORC 2006 National Gun Policy Survey of the National Opinion Research Center "the percentage of Americans who reported personally owning a gun has shrunk to just under 22 percent"
**2004 estimates of 26% of adults in the US owning at least
one firearm, Injury Prevention estimated that 57 million adults owned 283
million firearms
***Smith, “2001 National Gun Policy Survey of the National Opinion Research Center: Research
Findings.” (50.6 million individuals who personally own a gun – Applying 24.2% estimate of adult
gun owners to 2000 Census total of 209,128,904 adults).
****. Philip J. Cook and Jens Ludwig, “Guns in America: National Survey on Private Ownership and
Use of Firearms,”

[beevul]

177. The VPC? Heres a CREDIBLE source Zanne...

Notice that this article is 4 months NEWER than your little vpc fib.

http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSL2834893820070828?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews&rpc=22&sp=true

U.S. most armed country with 90 guns per 100 people
By Laura MacInnis


GENEVA (Reuters) - The United States has 90 guns for every 100 citizens, making it the most heavily armed society in the world, a report released on Tuesday said.

U.S. citizens own 270 million of the world's 875 million known firearms, according to the Small Arms Survey 2007 by the Geneva-based Graduate Institute of International Studies.

About 4.5 million of the 8 million new guns manufactured worldwide each year are purchased in the United States, it said.

"There is roughly one firearm for every seven people worldwide. Without the United States, though, this drops to about one firearm per 10 people," it said.

This bears repeating:

"About 4.5 million of the 8 million new guns manufactured worldwide each year are purchased in the United States, it said."

Now, IF you are still ,going to say that gun ownership is going down, you need to show proof of it, you have to show that:

A) People that own guns are becoming non-gun owners at a higher rate than non-gun owners are becoming gun owners.

B) That those 4.5 million NEW firearms every year are going somewhere other than into private ownership by individuals.

C) Explain where both those 4.5 million NEW guns, and all the guns that people give up in becoming non-gun owners, are going.


Good luck with that.

"You won't even bother with the facts. Gun ownership HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 1994."

Well...Bill Clinton himself says otherwise. Yet you have the stones to tell someone else that they "won't even bother with the facts", and "Well, your head is firmly set in the sand."



"What good is a discussion with you when you admit that you don't want to acknowledge the facts, or that other people have valid opinions? I say none. You're on ignore."

Translation:

This person is unwilling to swallow the brady/vpc kool-aide, therefore a debate can not be won with that poster, therefore they must be put on ignore.



You can keep ignoring what Democrats like Bill Clinton have said, about how gun control hurts the Democratic Party, and in the next breath spreading the LIES of REPUBLICANS HELMKE AND BRADY and their virulent message all you like.


And you will be regarded for such, and as such, by a ever increasing number of reasonable people on DU.

[SecularNATION]

213. zanne is wrong again.

"Gun control advocates only help the Democrats"

Not according to Bill Clinton. zanne, have you called him and straightened him out, yet?

[L1A1Rocker]

145. Why do people insist on changing the meaning of the 2A

By putting more commas in it than there is. There is only ONE comma in the 2A!

[gorfle]

167. A question:

"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."
The Second Amendment is the most misunderstood provision contained in the Bill of Rights. The purpose of the Second Amendment is to guarantee the states' ability to maintain independent militias composed of state residents available to be called upon to defend the country should its security be threatened. The Founding Fathers' reliance on state militias to perform this military task stemmed from their deep distrust of a standing federal army.

Do the States retain the ability to resist the Federal standing army today? By what means are they able to do so?

[jmg257]

172. The 2nd amendment codified in law - AGAIN... The right to keep and bear arms protects the right of..

One Hundred Ninth Congress

of the United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

←→Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
the fourth day of January, two thousand and five

An Act

To prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSES.

(a) Findings- Congress finds the following:

(1) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

(2) The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the rights of individuals, including those who are not members of a militia or engaged in military service or training, to keep and bear arms.



End of argument that the 2nd means anything then EXACTLY what it says - THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. The Supreme Law of the Land, as ratified/enacted by the people of the United States in 1788/1789 and amended in 1791, and as enacted by the representatives of the people of the United States.

[jmg257]

180. I LOVE "Miller"! Confirms our right to "military arms in common use".

"These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time. "

Thank God for the militia observation in the 2nd!

Now - I want my M4!

And don't forget Dred Scott:

Dred Scott decision, the U.S. Supreme Court showed that it shared this understanding that citizenship excluded blacks, and because of the relationship between citizenship and the carrying of arms:

"It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognized as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went."

[L1A1Rocker]

194. Well said

I recall the days when you would see an AR-15 for $700.00 and right besiede it was a real M-16 for $800.00. That same M-16 today is going for close to $20,000.00!!! Boy how I wish for the return of pre-86 ban!!

[L1A1Rocker]

202. The Parker decision of 2007 says otherwise

and SCOTUS will make it's ruling in two months.

I am curious about three things.

First you mis-quote of the 2A. Why have you added so many commas? (There is only one)

Second is you assertion that the 2a applys to the states to call up militia. The Federalist papers clearly show that the intent of the second was for an individual right.


Third is in the definition of "people". You change the definition of "people" in the 2A from all the other uses of "people" in the rest of the amendments. How can you be intellectually honest if you apply one definition here and a different definition there? In order to discuss the 2A we must use the same definition of "people" throughout. I could easily make the 1A say something different if I could use different definitions of specific words but that would not be intellectually honest.

[beevul]

240. Since Zanne "forgot" to post a link, Here it is...

http://www.vpc.org/studies/who2nd.htm


The VPC...now theres a credible unbiased source for second amendment interpretation.





NOT

[L1A1Rocker]

249. LOL

[jody]

252. VPC says "In short, the federal courts have consistently given the Second Amendment a collective,

militia interpretation." :rofl:

[slackmaster]

330. zanne doesn't believe the rules apply to her

The arrogance of the gun ban extremists is astounding.

[iiibbb]

328. As long as the police feel they "need" them...

... then I "need" them.

People use guns every day to defend themselves, provide for themselves, or as part of their job.


It really comes down to what you mean by "need"... individuals "needs" are quite a bit different from society's "needs". There are also "needs" that conflict. Guns are just one of those issues like being pro choice. As a social libertarian I place the rights of individuals higher than the rights of society to dictate to those individuals how they live (assuming they are law-abiding).

[caseycoon]

5. I live in the south..

out in the woods. Have you ever had a 7 ft. rattlesnake in your front yard who didn't want to leave? I have, more than once. So, yeah, we have a shotgun for that reason. Also copperheads & mocccasins. We don't do anything to the ones in the woods... just the ones in the yard areas.
Also have packs of dogs roaming. They harrass my cats. Best way to run them off is to shoot up in the air. They will run away then. Whatever wildlife is out there doesn't usually come near the house.

[stark6935]

7. gfdg

Yeah, I'm with the above poster. You should kill what you don't understand. I'm glad here in Iowa its illegal to kill things like rattle snakes, and other protected animals. They have phone numbers you could call,and someone who cares will come out to get them out of your yard. I understand you don't want to call them once every six months, but that is a stupid reason to own a gun.

[caseycoon]

13. LOL! Attack what YOU don't understand

Here they are not protected & nobody will come out to get them. I just don't really like stepping on poisonous snakes, and I do understand that should I get bitten I would have a big problem getting to a hospital within the suggested 30 minutes.

[margotb822]

17. I just see too many people getting killed

Guns shouldn't be so easy to acquire. Most people aren't shooting snakes, they're shooting people. And the results are so sad.

We need to find a way to make sure that firearms are available to the people who *need* them, without making them available to the people who want to do harm to other Americans. Why is that a bad thing?

[Sadie4629]

39. Where do you get your info?

"Most people aren't shooting snakes, they're shooting people."

I have no idea the exact number of gun owners in this country, but I'm willing to bet that it is in the tens, or dozens, or scores, of millions. Out of that HUGE number, there is a relative handful of gun deaths each year.

So, you are just flat out WRONG in your claim about what "most people" are doing with their guns.

[cornermouse]

41. Every time anyone tries the NRA pops up.

There are legitimate reasons to own a gun and there are people who shouldn't be allowed to touch one. What people are shooting depends on where you live, I guess. If you're living in a large city, I've gotten the idea that the sound of gunshots is not unexpected. Out here, it would spook me.

[sergeiAK]

72. I live in a bad section of a major city.

I have heard gunshots once. It's not that common. It certainly is a bad situation, but it doesn't happen everyday.

Also, the emphasis is, and has been, on keeping guns out of the wrong hands. Witness the NICS improvement bill, passed recently with support from both parties and the NRA.

[L1A1Rocker]

146. Do you really believe

that most people that are shooting guns are shooting other people with them? That seems to be what you are saying but I wanted to make sure before responding.

[gorfle]

174. So what would you propose?

We need to find a way to make sure that firearms are available to the people who *need* them, without making them available to the people who want to do harm to other Americans.

What would you propose?

[beevul]

179. You do not see the big picture.

There are 80+ million people that own guns in America.

"Most people aren't shooting snakes, they're shooting people."

If the above were remotely close to being true, there would be MILLIONS dead every year, rather than the 12 thousand-ish murdered by firearms.

"We need to find a way to make sure that firearms are available to the people who *need* them, without making them available to the people who want to do harm to other Americans. Why is that a bad thing?"

Who decides what defines "need"?


Secondly, as long as firearms exist, they wiull be available to "the people who want to do harm to other Americans".

You need to read that as many times as it takes to get it to sink in.

[SecularNATION]

215. Embarrassingly Ignorant

"Most people aren't shooting snakes, they're shooting people."

Why don't you learn something about the subject, before you embarrass yourself with stupid statements like the one quoted? It is ignorance like this that has caused the Democrats to lose election after election after election.

[L1A1Rocker]

224. What is that old axiom?

It is better to remain silent and let those around you wonder if you're an idiot than to speak up and remove all doubt.

I think that's the one.

[sabre73]

304. THAT IS A BLATANT LIE!

64,999,987 firearms owners killed no one yesterday.

But hey most people are shooting people. You have passed the line of ignorant and stepped into slanderous comments that equate libel!

What is so "sad" is this pathetic attempt to sway anyone who is "on the fence" with such ridicules lies.

BACK IT UP margotb822! Show us the facts that back up your lie!

Do it! Or shut up.

Furthermore, I don't need to run MY need to own a gun to see it it qualifies as a "NEED" in your book. I was not born in a dictatorship so I don't know what gives you the right?

And if you actually believe you have the right to dictate to me then I ask you; how do you plan to enforce this "right"?

You don't have the means to do so unless you "need a gun" just long enough to do so. :grr:

[iiibbb]

338. If you're going to count that way... "most" people are doing nothing with guns...

... if pulling the trigger is your metric, "most" people are target shooting of some kind.

[zanne]

42. Welcome to DU, stark6935!

Help us fight the good fight!

[Critters2]

101. Every time someone tells me rural people are gun nuts,

I think about the gentle people I served in Iowa, who were anything but. Thanks for reminding me! :hug:

[newfie11]

246. WOW

Rattlesnakes are protected. Come on out to the SW corner of the Nebraska panhandle and we would love for anyone to shoot all the rattlers we have around here. You can have the prairie dogs too.If anyone wants to tell me how cute the little beasties are they need only come look at a pasture that is distroyed by them.

[L1A1Rocker]

301. Ever been to the Texas Rattlesnake Roundup?

It's an annual thing about 45 miles north of Corpus. There are races and lots of rattlesnake to eat. It's a lot of fun.

[sabre73]

303. Evidently you think that rattlers are protected!!!

I wonder if you know anything about geography? In the SOUTH there are rattlers every day! But being from IOWA you must know ALL ABOUT THE SOUTH being that you practically live there already.

In the south we have "Rattlesnake Roundups" to help deal with the problem. There is no shortage of understanding between us and them. They bite us and we get sick or worse; and that is only the Western Diamondback Rattler. If it is an Eastern you are in a world of trouble.....THEN YOU DIE. So get a clue.

Here is a current list of REAL protected species in Iowa:

http://www.agriculture.state.ia.us/Iowaspecies.htm

And rattlesnakes are not on the list. Go hug a tree or something.

RATTLESNAKE IS DELICIOUS!!!

[iiibbb]

337. If you must discharge the shotgun, I would suggest shooting into the ground rather than the air.

You want to have a decent backstop.

[Ghost in the Machine]

8. I'll be more than happy to tell you why I *need* my gun...

just as soon as YOU can tell me why you *need* :

The right to speak freely - can't you be a good citizen and control yourself and speak of only those things that your government *wants* or *allows* you to say?

The right to assemble peacefully - can't you just be a good citizen and keep to yourself except to work and shop?

Freedom of religion - can't you just be a good citizen and worship whomever or whatever your government *tells* you to worship?

Start with those and then we'll see where we're at, ok?

Ghost

[caseycoon]

14. EXCELLENT REPLY! n/t

[Critters2]

103. My use of these rights never killed anyone.

Whereas the right to own guns....

[EricTeri]

107. My right to own guns has never killed anyone.

The right to own a firearm is NOT equivalent to having a right to use it with impunity and on concerns as to the consequences. One has a responsibility to not violate another's rights when exercising his own. Killing an innocent certainly violates their rights.

Criminal acts are also violations of another's rights and are not covered by the 2nd Amendment.

When you understand this, perhaps we can talk. If you are going to spew uninformed emotional tripe, please, go away. We have enough of that already.

The 2nd Amendment didn't kill anyone. Guns exist and no law will change that. The actions of a person are what takes a life - NOT the gun. It is merely the tool which is used.

Frankly, the attitude you've displayed is why the gun control movement has utterly failed.

[Critters2]

109. The ease with which this guy got guns is what killed.

And I blame the NRA and other gun nuts.

[EricTeri]

115. This guy bought them LEGALLY

Which in IL is no mean feat. They were purchased quite a bit ahead of time (about a month IIRC). Prior to purchasing them, he had to obtain an FOID card, which takes a few weeks in and of itself.

You can blame the NRA and other gun owners all you want, but in doing so, you are acting stupidly. The NRA had nothing to do with this, and I defy you to show how they can be blamed. No other gun owner had ANYTHING to do with this, and frankly the fact that you are willing to paint everyone with such a broad brush indicates nothing but your own mental instability.

I am not a murderer. I resent your implication that I am as guilty as one. I daresay you are abusing your 1st amendment rights by such comments as you are committing slander against me and every other gun owner out there.

[Critters2]

119. You're making my point. It was still too easy for him to get guns.

Stricter laws are needed.

[ac2007]

164. Like what?!?

Wow, can't you read?

Let's lay this out for you...

In Illinois, you require a Firearms Owner Idenfication Card (FOID). In other words, a state license to own a gun. And you need this license before you can even attempt to buy a gun or ammunition anywhere. Period. When you apply, the Illinois State Police does a full background check on you and a few weeks to a few months later, you receive the card.

Step two is to go buy the gun. When you do this, you must present your valid FOID and then the dealer runs ANOTHER background check through NICS. If this clears, you own the gun but can't take it home yet.

Step three is to wait 24 hours (for rifles/shotguns) or 72 hours (handguns) before you can take your gun home.

Now, having gone through all that legally, the NIU shooter then broke numerous Illinois state laws by carrying the weapons onto a campus concealed. Illinois does not issue concealed carry permits to anyone.

So, pray tell, what STRICTER laws are needed?!? Illinois is already a strict gun control state and highly ranked as such by the VPC and Brady Campaign.

Enlighten us, please. Given you already need state's permission in Illinois to even own a gun and you can't even bring a handgun into Chicago, what else can you possible do that might have stopped NIU? Please tell us.

[Name removed]

306. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

305. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[beevul]

183. Just as MY use of a right to own a gun has never killed anyone.

Where as more people have died in the name of religion since the beginning of recorded history than about anythijng else I can think of.


Were you really trying to make a point with this "logic"?

[Critters2]

201. Try agin. Mine is a pacifist faith. More often the victims of violence than the agents of it. nt

[beevul]

239. You try again.

I said NOTHING about YOUR religion.


I said "Where as more people have died in the name of religion since the beginning of recorded history than about anythijng else I can think of."


That would be religion in general.

[sabre73]

307. I think what they mean is that we MUST follow their religion too.

It is only right that they would require that of us beevul since the idea of dictatorship gets them all "warm and fuzzy" inside.:evilfrown: O8) :evilgrin: O8) :puke:

[SteveM]

253. "Taking life may be a duty...

...suppose a man runs amuck and goes furiously about, sword in hand, and killing anyone that comes in his way, and no one dares to capture him alive. Anyone who despatches this lunatic will earn the gratitude of the community and be regarded as a benevolent man." M. Gandhi, ALL MEN ARE BROTHERS, Navajivan Publishing House, March 1971 reprint.

Gandhi knew something about non-violence, not the kind of vulgar pacifism that has grown out of the post-Vietnam era which seems to eschew self-defense of all sorts.

[Critters2]

290. My pacifism does not grow out of the post-Vietnam era,

but of 500 years of Anabaptist thought and practice. And that grows out of the teachings of Jesus.

[SteveM]

299. Then what of Gandhi's thoughts? He was also a reader of Thoreau:

"We cannot but pity the boy who has never fired a gun; he is no more humane, while his education has been sadly neglected." Thoreau, WALDEN

I think both of these anti-war advocates of non-violence saw the distinction between non-violent resistance and (in Gandhi's word) "cowardice." Gandhi viewed interactions with an adversary on a continuum of sorts: (1) passivity whereby the victim of attack allows the attack to proceed with no resistance; (2) violent self-defense whereby the victim inflicts harm upon the attacker, if necessary; and (3) non-violent resistance to an attacker whereby the victim does not inflict harm upon the attacker, and is in fact willing to sacrifice his/her own life. The "third" stage he sees as the highest order of resistance. The second, a necessary response if a victim has not achieved the third stage. The "first" stage as a form of cowardice.

Gandhi also believed an attack constituted actions against a person, his/her property, his family and/or his religion.

A remarkably tough and practical approach to self-defense most of my contemporaries fail to grasp.

[Critters2]

300. What about Ghandi. You quoted Ghandi, I didn't.

I said I'm drawing on my faith tradition. Ghandi was a Hindu, so it's nice to know what Ghandi thought, but not relevant to anything I've said.

[SteveM]

309. Relevancy: what would you have done to STOP the NIU shooter?.

While he was shooting. We can discuss policy and hypotheticals of someone else's actions, but what would you have done? I read that while Cho was murdering students at VT, the old professor (with, strangely, no assistance) tried to keep the murderer from entering his class. He was killed in the process. Now, no one knows for sure what their actions would be when the crunch comes, but we have to come to grips with the question, for such an incident will (and did) happen again.

What would you have done?

[sabre73]

308. Christ NEVER SAID

Blessed are those who are the willing victim for they will inherit anything.

He said "Blessed are the peace makers" not pacifists Defenders are often attributed with being peace makers not hippies.

Jesus himself is a warrior not only a warrior but he will lead the charge into battle. What bible are you reading or are you just as much of a puppet in your "faith" as you are in your political opinion?

Do you let others decide for you what is right and what is wrong.

I offer you a theological challenge. Tell me what "turn the other cheek" means as it pertains to the lessons of the bible. If you do a small amount of homework (3 minutes) you should be able to figure it out.

Just a hint: It has very little to do with pacifism.

[L1A1Rocker]

147. Outstanding

reason. You need to exercise your rights or you'll end up loosing them.

[demnan]

12. No, I don't

however I live in Virginia and I can tell you right now, we won't win this battle. This is what lost us the election last time. We have to give up the gun control issue. We will never win if we focus on gun control.

[Critters2]

104. I can name 6 dead college students who might think otherwise. nt

[EricTeri]

112. Might think otherwise what?

That gun control is a good thing?

Those students are dead because they were living with the effects of gun control. Pray tell, what else could have been done?

Every safeguard which your ilk has requested was in place in NIU. Didn't change a thing did it?

You can't un-invent firearms by making them illegal, so stop thinking that gun control will somehow make them go away. That is a foolish belief.

I ask again: What law would have prevented this?

Can you think of anything which isn't already on the books in IL and doesn't violate the rights of the law abiding?

[Critters2]

113. A gun ban would've prevented this.

Not allowing the mentally ill to have guns would've prevented this.

Sending one's child to college in Canada or the UK would've prevented this.

[gorfle]

182. Comments...

A gun ban would've prevented this.

There are currently somewhere in the neighborhood of 160 million firearms in the US (http://www.ncjrs.gov/txtfiles/165476.txt), in the hands of some 44 million Americans. If we assume an average value of $300 per firearm, we have a combined value of some $48,000,000,000 - $48 billion dollars worth of private property. A ban on all guns, even if possible, would certainly enrage many voters and require massive compensation for property loss.

In addition to this, there is some portion of the gun-owning crowd who would consider that the day the government moves to confiscate firearms would be the day that tyranny has arrived and arms must be taken up against it. If we assume that 5% of those 44 million Americans fall into this category, that is some 2,200,000 Americans.

A gun ban in this country may well result in civil unrest.

Not allowing the mentally ill to have guns would've prevented this.

The mentally ill are already not allowed by law to own firearms.

Sending one's child to college in Canada or the UK would've prevented this.

There are numerous places around the world, including many under dictatorships, where one need not fear private ownership of firearms, too.

[beevul]

185. More like 80+ million, gorfle...

I'll make a new thread about that.

[Critters2]

292. The mentally ill ARE allowed to have guns.

In Illinois, one cannot own guns within 5 years of a hospitalization for psych treatment. After that, you're well enough to go shoot up a lecture if you want, and buy all the guns and ammo necessary to do so. Legally.

[jody]

294. That's not completely true. 18 USC 922 says

(g) It shall be unlawful for any person—

* * * * * * * * * * * *

(4) who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution;

* * * * * * * * * * * *

to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

[Critters2]

295. Well, I don't know what "adjudicated" or "committed" mean,

but this guy had an FOID and legally bought guns. And killed 5 students as they sat in Geography 104.

[jody]

296. The statement you made in #292 is not completely true. How you deal with truth is your problem. n/t

[Critters2]

297. It is true. The mentally ill who get voluntary treatment or out patient treatment,

no matter how severe their illness, are able to buy guns perfectly legally. The killer at NIU was hospitalized for a full year, but not under court order. Thus, not adjudicated nor committed. But a yearlong hospitalization means something was seriously ill. But not so seriously that he couldn't buy guns. Legally.

That is the truth.

[jody]

298. You changed your statement from #292. Have a good day and good bye. n/t

[EricTeri]

311. So because you dont know what something means

the law has to be changed to make you feel better?

Go buy a dictionary and a clue. Your ignorance is toxic

[slackmaster]

331. Admitting your problem is the first step toward fixing it

Good luck with that, mycritters2.

[Critters2]

293. Canada and the UK are not dictatorships, yet somehow

their rate of gun violence is nowhere near the good Ol' US of A.

[benEzra]

261. All of those guns are perfectly legal in Canada.

If Canada, and even the UK, aren't having mass shootings, it's not because there aren't any guns around to carry them out with.

There is a lot more going on here than gun availability (which has been trending in the less-available direction for the past 40 years, anyway).

[slackmaster]

326. It's already illegal for the mentally ill to have guns

You really need to study the subject before attempting to debate it.

[L1A1Rocker]

148. You cannot legislate

that crazy people behave. Cannot be done. You MUST allow those that can and are willing to protect themselves. Those dead could have been well served had their need for a firearm not been impeded.

[Perry Logan]

16. Gun proponents used to say we need guns to preserve our freedom. Yet we've lost our freedom...

So where were the gun guys when we needed them? Didn't they have a plan?

[KG]

18. 'keeping their powder dry'

[Perry Logan]

21. Best to save your ammo for domestic disputes.

[zanne]

55. ROFLMAO!

Good point, Perry Logan!

[L1A1Rocker]

150. Disgraceful

that you would trivialize such a serious issue with another serious issue.

[L1A1Rocker]

151. And another

It is much better for me to have and not need than to need and NOT have.




Fooy, I put this one in the wrong spot. It should be on the main thread.

[liberal4truth]

221. LOL!!!! Or drinking down at the local distillery establishment !!

[Edweird]

83. What you've lost is historical perspective, if you ever had it. You think we are at our lowest point

as a nation? How completely clueless and wimpish. Things have been MUCH worse, and there weren't revolts then. People (rational people anyway) understand the cyclical nature of our nations politics. Grow a pair, will ya? And get a clue while you're at it.

[Critters2]

106. But that's what all the guns are for...those revolts that are gonna protect our rights.

The gun people need to grow a pair. Or admit they just love guns for other reasons, and use the "last line of defense" argument as a ruse.

[Edweird]

122. Gun ownership is a RIGHT. An inherent right explicitly enumerated in our constitution.

No justification is needed.

Period.

Recall what happened in '94. Americans as a whole won't tolerate tinkering with the 2nd amendment.

[Critters2]

124. And more students will die. But you get to have your precious gun. nt

[Edweird]

137. So, you believe guns have some kind of voovdoo mind control power?

That guns are the only way to kill?
25 people were killed, at the same time, in Iraq today, without a single bullet.
What kind of gun did McVeigh use?
What kind of guns did the 9/11 hijackers use?

With or without guns, people will kill. Period.
Address the WHY, and the how will resolve itself.

[L1A1Rocker]

152. Then stop the "Free Kill Zones"

laughingly called "Gun Free Zones".

[jmg257]

231. I do like guns for lots of reasons - starting a revolution isn't one of them.

Thanks - but no, I have other plans that don't involve a revolt right now.

[Critters2]

105. Right!! They were gonna stand up and protect us.

Our last line of defense, my ass!

[Edweird]

123. Against what, exactly?

[Critters2]

125. Let's see, the patriot act, lack of FISA, stolen elections.

Our rights are being mitigated all the time. Yet the gun people insist they need guns to prevent this. Well, when is that going to start? Cuz, if you're not using guns for the things you say you will, maybe you don't need them after all.

[Edweird]

135. Show me where I or any other gun owner has suggested a revolt over a law.

Let's see it.

*Here on DU, not freeperville.

[Edweird]

139. RW fundie nutbags kill people over laws they don't like.

Maybe you could try to talk them into doing your treasonous bidding.

I understand the reality, and consider myself to be rational.
Killing over a law is ridiculous. Especially when political climates change as dramatically as they do over time.

[gorfle]

187. Be careful what you wish for.

Our rights are being mitigated all the time. Yet the gun people insist they need guns to prevent this. Well, when is that going to start? Cuz, if you're not using guns for the things you say you will, maybe you don't need them after all.

Firstly, having the means to overthrow tyranny is no guarantee that it will be done. Remember what Sinclair Lewis said: "When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." It is hard, even for firearm owners, to be vigilant and aware for when tyranny has arrived. Especially when so many of the firearm-owning crowd is wrapped up in flying flags and carrying crosses themselves. It may be that tyranny may well come and the people, even the armed ones, will have been so masterfully placated that they do not even realize that their rights have been lost. I believe we have gone well down that road under the last 8 years of Bush. He skillfully panders to the "guns and jaysus" crowd so that many of them feel they are on their side. Ask your average citizen about the erosion of their rights and the rise of the police state with the War on Drugs and the War on Terror and most will have no clue, and think that any "inconvenience" on our liberties we have suffered in the name of those things is worth the "safety" we have "achieved" because of it.

But you should be careful in your demands for why the revolution we are armed for has not yet occurred. Civil War is a brutal and ugly thing. It would likely bring about the demise of the United States as a world power. Be grateful that the majority of Americans, and firearm-owning Americans, do not yet feel the day has come to rise up against tyranny. Do not wish for that day.

[Critters2]

200. You tell me. You're the one arguing you need instruments of death. nt

[L1A1Rocker]

225. No I need instruments of defense. Why would you deny me that?

[L1A1Rocker]

155. Why do you expect someone else to protec you?

That goes to the very heart of the issue. Those that want others to protect them VS. Us that are very happy to protect ourselves. The problem arises when "those" want "us" to be like them.

[Critters2]

199. I don't want to be protected by guns. That was my point. nt

[L1A1Rocker]

203. So if you call the police for help you want them to leave their guns, right.

[Critters2]

205. I worked with the police for 4 years. Never saw one pull a gun.

So, I feel safer with them than with gun advocates carrying concealed weapons.

[benEzra]

209. CHL holders draw their guns a lot less often than police do.

Police can use deadly force in a lot of situations that we can't.

[L1A1Rocker]

211. That was not a responce, that was a diversionary tactic

So here it is again. If you call the police for help you want them to leave their guns?

[jmg257]

230. No we weren't. Never in my plans to protect you. I have enough to worry about protecting my family

and our own liberties. BTW - YOU have the right too, it's your choice whether to take advantage of it.

Also never in plans to revolt against the govt - that's what elections are for.

[krispos42]

142. The majority of gun-ownered have been co-opted by the Repubs

And their claims of "strict constitutionality" and other bullshit. If Bill Clinton had tried pulling a quarter of the shit that Bush has, he WOULD have been impeached, and rightly so.

Many people left the Democratic party after the Civil Rights Act, and a lot of them were gun-owning Southerners. Repubs were happy to take them in, leaving more big-city, guns-are-evil Democrats to determine the fate of the Democratic party.

It's a win-win for the Republicans. The current crop of Repub leaders are fascist and authoritarian, and those kind of people LOVE a disarmed populace. They currently have the Democrats doing their dirty work for them. If the Democrats succeed in passing gun-control measures, then the Repubs benefit by either a) having the unwashed masses disarmed, or b) having the unwashed masses throw out the Dems in rightous anger and bringing in Repubs instead.

Besides, as long as the vast majority of the population is fat, content, and happy, a revolution will not happen. It's why a communist revolution in America was never realistic: we have (or at least, had) a large, prosperous, productive, and comfortable middle class.

The only people plotting against the government are a few rightwing whackos that share our awareness of the BushCo federal power grab and a few leftwing whackos dreaming of overthrowing the corporate state for good and replacing it with some sort of commune-based living.

[gorfle]

184. We've lost our freedom...

So where were the gun guys when we needed them? Didn't they have a plan?

Obviously we have not reached the point where a majority, or even a minority, of firearm owners feel that armed rebellion is necessary.

Also one can never underestimate the problem of apathy. Too many are easily distracted by bread and circuses. All the more reason for the people to be armed, so that should they awake, they have the ability to act.

[liberal4truth]

226. What nonsense! How have you "lost your freedom" , exactly?

[gorfle]

229. I can think of a variety of ways...

What nonsense! How have you "lost your freedom" , exactly?

I can think of a variety of ways, but I was not the one making the assertion. Ask the poster in #16 - he is the one who asserted that we have lost liberties.

As for myself, I'll just say that if you don't believe American Civil Liberties have eroded under the leadership of Bush I'd be astonished. The Patriot Act, the whole Habeas Corpus debacle, Wiretapping Immunities, the list goes on.

[SteveM]

255. 2A guarantees a right to arm yourself, not a warranty of success...

It should be clear that any need for arms to protect our (other) freedoms is a choice of last resort. Put another way, do you think we should have a shoot-out every time a police department wants to restrict a mass march on the capitol? You deal with powerful extremes which seem to collapse your own argument: do you really want "gun guys" to present their plan to preserve our "lost...freedom"? SERVICE PROVIDER SCREW UP: I think you are trying to be facetious, but what have we lost in terms of our freedoms which require the calling up of the militia? Your still posting, aren't you? Has it gotten so bad that you want to see our "plan"?

Recommended reading: THE END OF AMERICA, Naomi Wolf, Chelsea Green, 2007. She doesn't have a clear understanding of the Second Amendment, but seems to concede that all of our rights have suffered since BushCo and the Far Right have gained power -- all except the Second. That is why she focuses on the rise of "private armies" like Black Water (seen in New Orleans during the gun confiscation fiat ordered by then-police chief Compass). When I spoke to Wolf during her Austin book signing (not covered by MSM), she was unaware of Compass' fiat, but conceded the right and necessity to form militias (one was formed in Algiers Point -- again not covered by MSM). She was also unaware that H.R.1167 (the "no-fly, no-buy" bill introduced by McCarthy (D-NY), giving the attorney general power to list those on the "no fly" list on the NICS list to prevent them from buying guns.) Whatever concerns liberals had about due process with the "no fly" evaporated when they saw they could do the same to anyone wishing to exercise their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms (by purchasing). By the way, according to Gottlieb of the Second Amendment Foundation, the bill's provision were drawn up by Alberto Gonzalez.

Seems BushCo is trying hard to damage 2A as much as possible. What do think of that?

[maine_raptor]

19. Three Reasons

1. Self-protection: I live in a rural area and if I need assistance, the nearest cop is quite a distance away.

2. Hunting: I'd rather eat wild game than store bought meat filled with god knows what.

3. It's my Right: And Rights are like anything else, you gotta exercise them to keep them strong.

[margotb822]

20. Ok, that's all I wanted to heara

I suppose it's harder to get the uniformed to say, but I just want to know reasons.

Do you feel that having a gun-owning society makes people more prone to gun related deaths?

[Perry Logan]

22. A gun kept in the house triples your chances of getting killed. So much for protection.

In addition, there is no right to bear arms.

Hunting makes some sense, though it would be more sporting if the animals shot back.

[margotb822]

25. I heard 12X

Which would make it an even worse reason to keep one in the house.

I'm just trying to figure out why a modern society would want to keep such a violent technology.

The 2nd Amendment complicates it, but I think we can work something more useful out for the future.

[Edweird]

76. Let's see.. there are an estimated 200 MILLIION privately owned firearms.

Shouldn't gun owners be dropping like flies? I haven't heard anything about that on the news....

Maybe those numbers are vaguely realistic if you are a gangbanger or drug dealing thug or something and use a firearm as intimidation and violence regularly.

You'll have a hard time convincing me that those stats apply to everyday responsible owners.
I grew up around them. All my friends had them. According to you, we should all be dead now. But we're not.

BTW, breathing increases your odds of dying to 100%. If you breathe, you WILL die.

[margotb822]

26. I heard 12X

Which would make it an even worse reason to keep one in the house.

I'm just trying to figure out why a modern society would want to keep such a violent technology.

The 2nd Amendment complicates it, but I think we can work something more useful out for the future.

[HiDemGunOwner]

313. Please cite your sources

Perry Logan and yourself. I doubt you can cite any credible source that validates your 3x or 12x statement. Here, let me help you: You are likely thinking of the 1986 study by Kellerman in which he (wrongly) asserts that you're 42 time more likely to be killed by a gun if you keep a firearm in your home. His study has been discredited for its methodology, and its conclusions thus baseless. And, to make that study even more worthless, Kellerman leaves out the fact that in everyone of the killings in his study, the victim was killed by a firearm brought to the scene by the killer, not the one that was kept in the house. Seems kinda odd, doesn't it? I mean, a homeowner who feared for his safety bringing a firearm into his/her home and then being shot by someone who brings a gun to his/her house. Makes it seem rather reasonable to consider a defensive firearm, doesn't it?

It is a shame that you want to make sweeping generalities about legal gun owners when in reality they are repeatedly proved to be some of the most trustworthy and law-abiding people in our communities. We are neither "crazy" or "nuts," nor are we ignorant and uneducated (care to measure your scholastic achievements with mine?).

In any argument about gun violence one needs to consider the facts and not allow your emotions to rule. The facts are that when compared to the legitimate defensive use firearms, accidents and deaths are but a very small fraction of the equation. If your espoused "logic" about the number of deaths caused by firearms were applied to cars, swimming pools, or 5 gallon buckets (all of which kill more children yearly than guns) these should all be banned too, or at least more restrictive laws enacted to make sure they didn't fall into the wrong hands.

And don't tell me to call the police if the situation arises where my, or my families safety is threatened. First, as I am sure you are aware, they (the police) have no obligation to protect you, the individual. Second, most violent crimes occur in far less time than it takes for the police to arrive. Here's the best reason to own a gun (and similar incidents occur frequently): http://www.nbc5.com/download/2008/0110/15020797.mp3

Why do I own a gun:

I like them.
I occasionally hunt
To defend myself and my family from the criminals that might want to prey on us.
Because I can

[maine_raptor]

29. We disagree, fine.

But the average number of guns per household is quite high up here, yet we have far fewer murders by gun than most places. So I would look for another reason for that "triple" stuff.

Deer and Bear are quite capable of killing you also. Don't think so? Then try to "Rope a Deer" or "Take Down a Bear" un-armed sometime. In nature the "strong" will always win. Having a gun only evens the odds.

And as for "no right to bear arms", there we disagree.

[bossy22]

94. you up and maine

have an individual right because of your constitution

[jmg257]

78. Wow - I have like 25 guns - I should be dead already! Good thing mine are well behaved! Of course

that is why you should never rely on statistics when discussing unalienable rights, especially those absolute ones secured by the constitution - those numbers may not always agree with you!

[Retired AF Dem]

85. Is that true?

I mean with 80,000,000 gun owners that keep guns in the house there should be at least what? 10 000,000 accidental gun deaths a year? Another clueless person trying to fit into a conversation where they don't belong.

[L1A1Rocker]

158. Well at lease the Brady propaganda is toned down a little

Please site your source for that statement. It is very reminiscent of the old Brady propaganda that a gun in the home is four times more likely to injure an Innocent person that save some person. Once the info used to calculate that stat was found out the stat was completely debunked.

[L1A1Rocker]

212. Please source that claim.

[slackmaster]

327. That's not logical, Perry

Correlation does not prove causation. Many people keep guns BECAUSE they live in high-crime areas.

[maine_raptor]

24. Yes

Just like a car owning society makes people more prone to car related death.

A gun is a tool, nothing more. You use it when it's called for.

[margotb822]

27. That's not true

Most people use a gun when its not called for, hence the school shootings. Do you think those are called for?

People don't need guns for survival or protection, it is a fact of modern life.

[Squatch]

28. Now I know you're talking out of your ass.

"Most people use a gun when its not called for..."

I'm sure you have published research to back up this ludicrous claim.

Whenever a situation "calls for" the launching of projectiles at high rates of speed, I usually rely on a gun. :eyes:

[sergeiAK]

71. If people don't need guns for protection, then why

Do police officers carry them?

[bossy22]

95. good point

[krispos42]

166. Because carrying a "deadly assault weapon" is not convienent

Note that, when they know there is trouble brewing they get the shotgun or AR-15 out of the trunk!

[L1A1Rocker]

214. That's because

a handgun is to keep when your not expecting trouble. It is for defensive use.

[Edweird]

77. Again, 200 million privately owned guns.

MOST people, my ass.

[gorfle]

188. Completely untrue.

Most people use a gun when its not called for, hence the school shootings. Do you think those are called for?

There are some 44 million gun owners in America. Yet there are only some 10,000 firearm-related murders each year. This means that only .02% of all firearm owners are involved in murders each year. That means 99.95% of firearm owners each year use their firearms properly. I would say that that would mean most people do use their guns when they are called for.

People don't need guns for survival or protection, it is a fact of modern life.

Tell that to this lady:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhyuJzjOcQE

And tell it to those students gunned down in Illinois with no means to fight back.

[Llewlladdwr]

43. "Do you feel that having a gun-owning society makes people more prone to gun related deaths?"

Apparently not. Both Finland and Switzerland have very high rates of gun ownership (55 and 46 for every 100 citizens, making them the third and forth most heavily armed countries in the world) yet both also have low rates of gun violence.

Any chance you'll be answering Ghost in the Machine's question as to why you "need" freedom of speech, assembly and religion?

[krispos42]

218. Yes, in a sense

Just like being a car-owning society makes people more prone to car-related deaths.


Constitutional issues aside, in the 90s we had a drastic decline in violent crime, non-violent crime, and homicide with no change at all in the types or numbers of guns or ammunition.

Remember, guns are the means, not the motive. Person A does not kill Person B simply because Person A wakes up one morning and says "I have a gun and it's about time I killed somebody with it".

[safeinOhio]

49. 2 years ago I shot a dog

4 in the morning I heard it out in the horse pasture. Went out and chased this big rot out. I turned around to check my horses, looked back and it was running toward me. Drew my 22 pistol and shot it in self-defense. Of course I could have got bit and then called animal control. Did I "need" a gun? no, no more than anyone "needs" to have sex.

[cornermouse]

30. Legitimate reason to have a gun.

If you live out in the country and like to go hunting for food.
If you live out in the country, own livestock and have too many coyotes running around.
If you live out in the country, own a cat that you happen to like and have coyotes running around. (They like to eat cats for some reason)
If you're in law enforcement, gun ownership is legitimate and reasonable.
If you regularly transport large sums of money.

Illegitimate reasons to own a gun.

If you think you're going to be able to defend yourself from the army in some sort of population control thing. (hint: you're too late and they're going to have other ways to do it)
If you need it to make yourself feel safe, you're either living in the wrong place or you shouldn't have one due to questionable sanity.
If you think you're going to defend your home from an intruder. You're in a state of surprise, fear, adrenaline, and probably not capable of making great decisions or taking good aim. A lot of potential for tragedy.

[Llewlladdwr]

45. Huh?

Carrying around large sums of money makes you more able to defend yourself from attack than being in your house? Suppose I regularly keep large sums of money IN my house? Would that be a legit reason for owning a gun?

[cornermouse]

48. Because when you're in your house

you're relaxing and not expecting anything to happen; that is, if you're normal. If you regularly keep large sums of money in your house (I wouldn't but if that's what you choose to do...), you should install a hidden safe. The castle doctrine is flawed. Shooting someone is not your only option.

If I was carrying large amounts of money on me I would be hyper-alert till I got rid of it.

[Edweird]

65. "Shooting someone is not your only option." Nobody said it was.

It is the option of last resort.

[SteveM]

247. You might be interested in this quote...

"The man who seeks a fight, or who is forewarned of deadly danger is not well advised to use it, for he has better choices. However, for one who wants no trouble but is prepared to finish what another starts, a reliable handgun -- well used -- is hard to beat." Col. Jeff Cooper, Complete Book of Shooting, Outdoor Life/Harper & Row, New York, 1965.

I live rather "normally" and relaxed in my own house, and I have no large sums of money (though what relevancy this is to the average B&E guy and robber escapes me; I mean, how does a crim know what I have -- unless he is cued by my "hyper-alert"?)

I think your beef is with the notion that individuals have a right to self-defense. Criticisms of the natural right to self-defense are based on a vulgar interpretation of pacifism and a distrust of non-institutional defense; institutions being somehow able to confer legitimacy and approval. This reaction to self-defense is a rather modern (and "flawed") doctrine. See Gandhi, one of the better thinkers on non-violence and self-defense.

[Edweird]

66. You're in a state of surprise, fear, adrenaline, and probably not capable of making great decisions

Wow. How, exactly, do you even dare to feel qualified to judge my experience or training?

It's interesting how much of the anti-gun argument distills down to "you'll shoot your eye out, kid!".
That's a steaming load of fresh manure.

If you are so inept or unstable as to be a danger to those around you, then YOU should not own a firearm. Or power tools. Or anything that utilizes an open flame.

I am a gun owner. I know other gun owners. With the exception of my EX-father-in-law, we all train regularly. Some of us compete in IPSC. Some have military training. Any gun owner that buys a firearm and doesn't touch it until they need it is irresponsible and dangerous. I am not that person. Neither are the people I know.

Speak for yourself.

[pipoman]

216. This looks like you are speaking for yourself

Either violence (gun and otherwise) is a problem in this country or it isn't which is it??



If violence is a problem then how am I paranoid or overreacting by owning a firearm for defense? If violence isn't a problem why does it matter if I own a gun or not??

I happen to believe there is a violence problem in the US. I choose to be proactive in my own defense. You may not be able to fathom the ability to react as necessary to a threat but that is your own weakness, believe me I am fully capable of reacting to a threat on myself even if I am relaxing when the threat arises...

[jmg257]

243. Hmm..I am all pumped up because Mongo is coming in w/an axe..."BOOM BOOM!" Easy decision actually..

[HiDemGunOwner]

314. It must be nice to be free to move wherever you want if you feel unsafe

"If you need it to make yourself feel safe, you're either living in the wrong place or you shouldn't have one due to questionable sanity.
If you think you're going to defend your home from an intruder. You're in a state of surprise, fear, adrenaline, and probably not capable of making great decisions or taking good aim. A lot of potential for tragedy."

How naive and condescending can you be? Not everyone can move to some idyllic, "safe" location when those bent on criminal activity and violence move into the neighborhood. I don't know about you, but I know more than a few people who would like to move but either cannot afford it or are limited in their choices because of other constraints. But that's OK, these poor people have "questionable sanity" so it's perfectly OK to dismiss them or their rights to protect themselves or their family.

And, legal and appropriate use of a firearm occurs almost daily, but that's OK, 'cause those folks don't really need their guns either, right? Ever seen the stats on home invasions in the US versus the UK (you know, that bastion of civility and safety now that all those nasty guns have been taken from legal gun owners....Of course you realize that rates of crime in the UK have exceeded those in the US except for rape and murder, right?)? Well 60% of home burglaries are "hot" as the Brits say, meaning the home is occupied. Why do you think this is? Do you think that the possibility that a homeowner might be armed would deter some of the criminal elements from choosing "that" house? These guys do: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qyoLuTjguJA (start at about 2 minutes if you can't stand to listen to more valid arguments against more gun control) ANd while a firearm in your home doesn't guarantee you'll be able to defend yourself, it does even the odds. Oh, and did you know that even the police, more often that not, miss the majority of time when they discharge their firearm?

[EstimatedProphet]

324. No. Legitimate reason to own a gun:

The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right.

[gerrilea]

31. We absolutely need them, protect ourselves from our own gov't if needed

And any pesky foreign invaders...lets say maybe Canadians...

Wasn't there a movie called "Canadian Bacon"...hilariously stupid...

[ThomWV]

34. Not many people need guns, but we all have a right to own them

You see, that is where your argument fails. The Constitution does not distinguish between your need to be armed and your desire to be armed, it simply states that it is one of your rights to be armed.

[mitchum]

37. Well, no one needs religion...

would you also like to gut that from the Bill of Rights?

[east texas lib]

50. Carjackers, home invaders,armed robbers and the like certainly seem to think they need them...

And if you don't happen to have a cop in your pocket at the time, maybe you could stop them by
waving an order of cease and desist or, perhaps a large chocolate chip cookie. Then, after you've
turned over all your valuables and or vehicles, and they still bust a cap in your ass to look
cool in front their buds or because they just felt like it, your percetion of "need" might be
altered somewhat.

[cornermouse]

51. You need to move.

[east texas lib]

54. No can do..

And I wouldn't anyway. But I would respond in kind if attacked with lethal force. Which is permitted
in my state.

[cornermouse]

59. If you're surrounded with carjackers, home invaders, etc.

You need to move. Staying there is not a sign of intelligence.

[east texas lib]

61. Life is full of risks, but home is home.

I believe that it is the criminals who should kick it on down the line. But thank you for your
concern.

[cornermouse]

62. Have you lived in the same house from birth till now?

Or have you moved a few times since you were born? Home is the pillow under your head and it can be moved. Put the money in the bank or a safe deposit box and stop worrying about the possibility of needing to defend it.

[east texas lib]

63. No, our last home was burned to cover a break-in and burglary...

And there just comes a time when you get tired of running. No further quarter will be given. Nor
taken.

[cornermouse]

64. You're all wrapped up in this. Take a step back & breathe deep.

Is it possible that you're so wound up in trying to defend your however big space that you aren't able to step back and take an objective look?

Moving isn't running. It's common sense. It's calling getting a life. Spending every day and apparently every night in fear of carjackers, burglars, muggers, etc. and carrying a gun to try to protect yourself is not living. Unless you really want to, you don't have to live like that. And that's the last I'm going to say on this.

[east texas lib]

67. Relocating is financially impossible at this time...

And so I have accepted the harsh realities of the situation and taken the appropriate steps to deal
with it. Nothing more, nothing less.

[WWFZD]

70. Elitist drivel

Move is your answer? Instead of defending his home, family and property, with a firearm if he so desires, he should just move? Get a life? Maybe a person is getting older and on a fixed income and can't afford to move. Maybe the home has sentimental value. Maybe somebody doesn't want the hassle of moving. Maybe it doesn't matter whatever reason anybody has for living wherever they choose.
A person says they can't afford health insurance insurance? Then get a better job, what's the problem? I'm sure they haven't had the same job since they turned sixteen, right?

[Edweird]

80. Wow. It's that easy, huh? Just move... Stupid poor, you shoulda gone to Yale...

Then we could all live in Utopia like you.....
Un-fucking-believeable!

[cornermouse]

84. Yep. That's little old elitest me.

Working from paycheck to paycheck, sneaking around behind my husband's back after he took a job which took him away from home all week and going back to school when I was almost 50 because I knew I needed to in order to have enough money to survive, paying off the student loan for another how many years, went out and bought my own car because I was tired of being told that putting 5 miles a day to drive into town buy groceries on the speedometer was outrageous, told not to use the dryer to dry clothes because I was wearing it out, and even now looking into property closer to my family and considering moving again. Yep. I thought I was just determined but I guess I'm elite instead.

[Edweird]

86. Well, then here's an idea...

Since:
you have the wherewithal to relocate to suit yourself, and many of us peons do not;
and,
you find guns unpleasant, while many of us prefer to maintain our constitutionally protected inherent rights;
maybe you should take your own advice and move someplace free of guns.

That will also provide you the additional benefit of sparing you the agony of dealing with us ignorant peasants who are clearly too stupid to realize that the answer to all our problems is to simply move away from them.

[cornermouse]

88. Welcome to the elite.

There are now a grand total of 7 of you.

:nuke:

[WWFZD]

173. Absolutely

it's little old elitist you. I got mine so screw all y'all.
You're so far gone you can't even see it.

[HiDemGunOwner]

315. Quick question:

Can you, right now move? Say the neighborhood you are currently living in is invaded by violent criminals tomorrow and in order to avoid having to be in constant fear, you need to move. Can you? Tomorrow?
Seems like, based on your "Working from paycheck to paycheck" response you might find that a little difficult, so it seems rather disingenuous of you to suggest that others simply do the same.

[jody]

52. RKBA is first and foremost about self-defense and only secondarily about defense of the state.

SCOTUS says government is not obligated to protect an individual unless she/he is in custody so self-defense is a personal problem.

PA (1776) and VT (1777) say:
"That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and (inalienable by PA and unalienable by VT) rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
And
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

Handguns are the tool of choice for self-defense by 840,000 sworn law enforcement officers and their right is a privilege granted by government, not a natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right possessed by law-abiding citizens as sovereign entities before they accepted the social contracts we honor as state constitutions and the Constitution.

As abhorrent as all murders and mass murders are, the simple fact remains that in the U.S., and IMO most countries, government is not obligated for failing to protect a law-abiding citizen.

For that reason and as long as criminals roam free, I will aggressively defend the natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right of law abiding citizens to keep and bear arms for self defense and handguns are today the most effective/efficient tool for that job.

NOTE: I follow Drucker's pithy definitions, effective = doing the right thing and efficient = doing a thing right

[gerrilea]

93. Good post, I agree with almost all of it except the part about gov't granting rights

The US government was created by us and it's powers limited to those enumerated in the Constitution, the US Government cannot grant me any rights or previledges.

People are mislead on this, we all have been since childhood, lied to infact...

Do a search for "natural law" and you will understand my point a bit better...

The Bill of Rights was included to ensure that the following generations wouldn't forget that we created our government...that the gov't we were creating had very limited powers, but the founding fathers were wise beyond their years on this one...we have forgotten this simple fact...

I always understood that the gov't we created was primarily there to provide for our "common defense" and since the SCOTUS has claimed, incorrectly, that our government doesn't have to defend us, then by God I better...

Good post:toast:

[jody]

96. I don't believe I said govt granted rights. I did quote PA & VT "natural, inherent, inalienable

rights".

Free-thinking scholars in the Age of Enlightenment introduced the concept of natural rights as inherent in the nature of people and not contingent on human actions or beliefs, e.g. divine right of kings or the pope.

That thinking was embodied in the BOR and PA (1776) and VT (1777) citizens threw off the "divine right of kings" and enshrined "natural rights" in their constitutions. They declared "That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."

To give power to the authority of each individual's "natural rights, PA and VT then said, "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

The words "natural" show the source or basis of rights from the perspective of those who entered into the social contract we know as the Pennsylvania and Vermont Constitutions.

Fast forward to the last part of the 20st century and we find a strident minority wanting to replace "natural rights" with the "divine right of government".

[gerrilea]

217. Thanks, but I'm confused about the following from your post

Handguns are the tool of choice for self-defense by 840,000 sworn law enforcement officers and their right is a privilege granted by government, not a natural, inherent, inalienable/unalienable right possessed by law-abiding citizens as sovereign entities before they accepted the social contracts we honor as state constitutions and the Constitution.

This is the part I didn't agree with..."their right is a privlege granted by government, no a natural, inherent..."

Is this a quote from someone else or somewhere else?

[jody]

232. My statement re "right" is from PA (VT) constitutions. LEO's carry firearms because government

authorizes that act.

Clearly our Constitution does not recognize the right of LEOs to keep and bear arms so I use the word "privilege" to make a distinction between the "right" of law-abiding citizen to RKBA and the "privilege" of LEOs to RKBA.

I often reply on Wiki, see Natural Right and Privilege

A DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF THE INHABITANTS OF THE COMMONWEALTH OR STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 28 Sept. 1776
"That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights, amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety."
And
"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

[gerrilea]

260. Got it, LEO don't have any inherent rights

But citizens do under PA Constitution, I thought it was your position, thanks, I'm a bit slow some days...


Now I must revise my 1st post to you, GREA POST WITHOUT ANY EXCEPTIONS, now that I understand...thanks for your patience..:loveya:

[WWFZD]

176. I'm with ya,

never did care much for the term "Bill of Rights". More like the Bill of Resrictions on Government Power and Authority. But the "BoR" is much more terse than the BoRoGPaA.:)

[L1A1Rocker]

159. Cannot argue with that.

[Wcross]

68. We need guns to efficiently kill things that need killing.

I own numerous guns out here on the farm. I own shotguns, rifles & handguns. Have you ever tried to kill a coyote with a knife? Have you ever dialed 911 in the middle of the night & had to wait 45 minutes until an officer arrived? Have you ever had to confront drunken poachers late at night on your property? The last time I did they were quite impressed with my weapon of choice.




The truth be told, I have no obligation to explain why I need anything. Gun control is a dead issue, law abiding citizens have a right to keep & bear arms. All people have an inherent right to self defense & self preservation. Some people are more comfortable getting on the phone & calling for help to protect themselves. If you feel more comfortable calling for people with guns (the police) to help, by all means don't buy a gun. Best of luck to you as we all know that the police are not OBLIGATED to protect you. It is all on you.

[L1A1Rocker]

160. Another good point!

[WWFZD]

178. Nice piece

Would that be what Patton called "the single greatest battlefield implement ever devised"?

[Wcross]

190. No, it is the next generation of the M1 Garand.

This is the weapon that won world war two. The M1a is the same design more/less but uses a .308 vs .30-06 round and is magazine fed. I want to own a M1 garand someday but right now I just have a couple of M1a's.

[WWFZD]

193. Thanks for the info

You are correct, I should have known by the magazine.

[L1A1Rocker]

195. I'm kinda partial to the L1A1 myself.

But there really isn't anything wrong with ANY of the MBR's.

[Wcross]

197. Nothing wrong with that weapon either.

I wouldn't mind squirreling a few of those away if I wasn't so frugal. You know what I mean, don't ya?;) Too many great firearms & so little money!:patriot:

[L1A1Rocker]

204. Yep

There are LOTS of things on my "to buy" list if I ever come into a lot of discretionary money!

[slackmaster]

69. Some people do, some don't

Many of us feel the decision should be left up to each individual.

BTW - When has need ever had anything to do with people choosing to exercise their civil rights? In particular, someone else's assessment of YOUR need?

[jmg257]

74. Easy! Yes, we need guns - in case we need to shoot something.

And different things that may need shooting usually require different guns, as some excel at some things while other other things. (think pistol vs shotgun vs scoped HB rifle vs semi-auto)

So - not only do we need guns, we need alot of guns in case we need to shoot a lot of (different) things.

Or just because we like them!

[EricTeri]

81. Why do you need to know? It really isnt any of your business. N/T

[Ready4Change]

82. Don't ask me. Ask a criminal.

I'll admit I WANT guns because I enjoy shooting them. Just like I enjoy shooting a bow, or throwing darts. It's marksmanship, not machismo. But, as I say, that's a want, not a need. If guns weren't available, I'd find other outlets.

Now, as to why I NEED a gun? I'd have to say that's because I live in a world with people who have no qualms about using whatever tools are at hand to impose their wills or desires on me. Those tools include guns, and always will. To defend myself against those people, I may need a gun.

That situation will continue until someone invents a magic wand that will eliminate all guns, along with the ability to create guns in the future. Create that magic wand, and you will eliminate my need for guns.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

118. Criminals are the Only Ones that Need Guns?

Hardly.

You respond: 'I'd have to say that's because I live in a world with people who have no qualms about using whatever tools are at hand to impose their wills or desires on me. '

How does that distinguish them from you?

The notion that every law abiding gun owner always has the judgment to use a gun is absurd as the notion that every law abiding gun owner never drinks.

[Wcross]

169. When a criminal decides to visit my home.

When a criminal assaults me or attempts to rape me. When a criminal is shooting people at the mall or in Luby's cafeteria. Thats when the distinction becomes obvious.

The majority of the 100 million gun owners know that guns & alcohol do not mix. If it were such a problem there would surely be more gun accidents than we currently have. Disarm all for the sake of the very small percentage that are ignorant?

[jody]

97. Your subject accurate "Still can't have someone tell me why we need guns" because you ignore facts.

[Boomer 50]

99. In 1992, I used a gun in self defense.

I fired 8 rounds. The attackers were dogs. Without a firearm, I would have been severely wounded if not killed.

In 2002, I had to draw my CCW in defense of another. I stopped an armed assault on a woman in my neighborhood by a local gang member with a knife. No shots fired. Her husband had called 911 nearly five minutes before, I happened to walk out of my residence and saw the assault taking place. I stopped it and restrained the attacker until the cops arrived about 10 minutes later.

If you don't understand why we need firearms, I suggest you read history very carefully. A couple of points to pay close attention to would be the Bonus Army of the 1930's and the Battle of Athens, Tennessee in 1947.

There are many, many reasons for Americans to own and use firearms, there is only one legitimate reason to prevent the private ownership of firearms, ask any holocaust survivor or refugee from any nation that banned firearms and they will tell you what it is.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

116. Good for You

..........but please don't imply or equate those of us who oppose gun violence and support gun control as being supporters of unbridled state power or Hitler.

[L1A1Rocker]

141. Um excuse FTGF

But what the Hell are you talking about?


"..........but please don't imply or equate those of us who oppose gun violence and support gun control as being supporters of unbridled state power or Hitler."



This thread is about the NEED for a firearm. Your statement has nothing to do with that.

Please make you post relevant to the OP.

[WWFZD]

181. Thanks FtGF

"support gun control as being supporters of unbridled state power or Hitler"
That's a succinct definition. I agree 100%, couldn't have said it better.

[Boomer 50]

189. Gun control promotes violence

Look at the violent crime rates of Britain, Australia and other nations that have banned firearms. Look at the rates before, and after. Gun control kills.

There are many reasons to support gun ocntrol. There is only one legitimate reason to pursue it. That is dominance. Every nation in the world that has gone down the gun control path has begun further infringements on civil liberties. In England, their version of right to due process was eliminated by Tony Blair's administration. Look at Germany 1938, look at Russia 1918, look at Cambodia and the reign of Pol Pot, look at what is happening in China and the civil rights or lack thereof. Look at South Africa and what the whites did to the blacks. Here's one for ya, look at Darfur. There have been people trying to arm the disarmed citizens and give them the ability to defend themselves. Many of those people have ended up being executed as enemies of the state.

There are no real, non-political stats that support reduction of crime and violence with gun control but there are many from FBI, DOJ, foreign nations, and other non-political sources that show the exact opposite. So, with this said, what other reasons are there for gun control?

[DavidMS]

121. I can think of another couple.

The Battle of Hayes Pond. The Lumbee Indians took care of a KKK rally.

http://www.fayobserver.com/special/battle_of_maxton_field/#

http://archives.econ.utah.edu/archives/marxism/2001/msg05679.htm

We can also look to Rob Williams:

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/negroeswithguns/index.html

And the 43 group that broke the Mosleites didn't ever shoot fascists, they did aggressively break up their meetings and rallies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/43_Group

However the Holocaust should never be used as a reason to defend civilian gun ownership. It was a failure of the KPD to work with the SPD against the Nazis and conservatives. That can be laid at the feet of Stalin.

At the end of the day, guns are a fungible commodity on the international market, easy to get, easy to use, difficult to have the political organization to use effectively. At the end of the day, political organizing is what makes movements succeed (and when its absent, fail), groups struggling to achieve recognition of or protect their basic rights can use many tactics from letters to the editor to armed conflict to achieve their goals. The means are determined by local circumstance. There is over 200 years of recent history to make case studies from and thats the guide as to tactics and methods of social change.

The line from the The Big Sleep is the best quote on firearms I have seen yet: "You know, you're the second guy I've met today that seems to think a gat in the hand means the world by the tail." Marlow

[L1A1Rocker]

140. Outstanding!

[L1A1Rocker]

143. Here's my reason for need of firearms.

The saying is: God made some men big and some men small. Sam Colt made all men equal.


The connotation is as good today as it was then. Firearms are necessities that equal the playing field called life.

[L1A1Rocker]

156. And another

It is much better for me to have and not need than to need and NOT have.

[L1A1Rocker]

157. One more

God wants me to protect my life. Firearms are a very good way to obey His word.

[gorfle]

161. Why Americans need guns.

I just spent an hour asking why we "need" Americans to own and no one could tell me. Do you think Americans needs guns?

The 2nd Amendment reads thusly:

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.

This was written into the Constitution so that The People could participate in well regulated, state-controlled Militias, as they were deemed necessary to to the security of a free State.

At the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and for 4 years thereafter, there was no Federal standing army. This was the intent of the founding fathers from the beginning. They feared a Federal government with its own army, because they feared it could be used to support and enforce a tyranny. Thus they came up with a decentralized military force, with each state maintaining its own militia, made up of people from those states, and lead by officers from those states. The militias were to provide for the common defense against foreign threats, but they were also set up specifically to eliminate or greatly reduce the need for a standing Federal army, as a protection against tyranny.

The militias as they were intended to exist at the time of the writing of the 2nd Amendment ceased to exist in 1903, with the passing of the Dick Act. The Dick Act federalized the state militias and created the "organized militia" - the National Guard, and the "unorganized militia" - all other able-bodied men between age 17 and 45.

Unfortunately for the vision of the founding fathers, the State Militias at this time became not counterbalances to Federal military power, but rather they became adjuncts to it - in fact they became reserve troops for the Federal military forces. This made, and makes, the unorganized militia all the more important as The People - the unorganized militia - are all that remains to provide the recourse against tyranny that the founding fathers intended.

This constitutes the core "need" of Americans, and indeed all people - the need to possess the means to resist tyranny.

[Critters2]

198. I am sure Americans do not need guns.

But it'll take a lot more deaths to cure us of this culture of death.

[Wcross]

207. Guns do not cause deaths.

People pull the trigger. We have to address the problem of why people are willing to kill others here in the united states. How come Vermont is one of the safest states in the union despite having virtually no gun control laws? Why doesn't Canada have the same rate of homicide as the U.S, while having about the same rate of gun ownership?
You can pretend that gun availability causes gun deaths but someone has to decide in their mind that they want to kill another human being.

[krispos42]

286. Canada doesn't have a similar rate of ownership

If Iverglas still posted here she would have the exact figures, but IIRC there are about 12 million guns in Canada, population 33 million or so. About a third of ours, but still high compared to most countries.

[iverglas]

310. boo

Now don't forget one of the most significant factors.

The rate of handgun ownership in Canada is a fraction of the rate of handgun ownership in the US, and legal handgun ownership is restricted to people who belong to approved gun clubs and people who meet "collector" criteria. (The restrictions are too lax, but they're there.)

And as we all know ... nobody kills anybody with a rifle! Hahaha.

The relative absence of handguns means a few things, including:

- firearm homicide/injury in the course of the commission of other crimes, e.g. robbery, is must less prevalent (rates of death associated with robbery are much lower in Canada than in the US)

- the use of firearms to facilitate crimes, e.g. robbery, is much less prevalent (and arguably such crimes are harder to commit because of lack of access to firearms, this being one possible explanation for lower robbery rates in Canada than in the US)

- a much lower proportion of homicides in Canada is committed with firearms (the relative absence of firearms homicides being one possible explanation for the much lower homicide rate -- generally just over 1/3 the US rate)


In response to the original question, people sometimes need firearms for sports and recreation, subsistence, and pest and predator control.


Firearm-related sporting and recreational activities are matters of choice, but firearms are needed to carry out the choice, if a society permits those activities, whether with or without restriction.

Some people in North America do need firearms for subsistence hunting. (A related point is that in some parts of North America, probably more in Canada than in the US, local economies can be dependent on tourism that involves hunting, so the subsistence is indirectly related to firearms.)

And some people in North America do need firearms to protect crops and livestock from pests and predators, which again comes down to subsistence: to protect the source of their liveliihood.

[benEzra]

208. Your home, your choice. Our home, our choice.

I respect your choice not to own guns. But my wife and I both own them lawfully and responsibly, and we will continue to do so, as will the other ~80 million of us who choose to lawfully own them. Our choice.





----------------------
Thoughts on Gun Ownership

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

[EricTeri]

235. Culture of death?

Oh please - spare us the absurd hyperbole.

Frankly I find people like you to be a pathetic joke. You're the living embodiment of hypocrisy.

Your entire pacifist (cowardly?) existence is only even possible because you expect others to protect you.

Someone asked you earlier in the thread, and you still have not answered: If you called the police for assistance, would you want them to show up unarmed?

[SteveM]

245. Any more than they need the First Amendment...

until they must use it. How many folks do you know who actually exercise the rights under the First? By that I mean, say, redress, petition, assemble for something more important than the next episode of "C.S.I.: Miami" or the latest Old Navy styles. Few people exercise any of our rights from day-to-day. Consequently, I have no need for a .357 Magnum revolver. Until someone kicks in the back door.

Does that clear up the "need" thing?

[aikoaiko]

234. Liberty. nt

[dmallind]

242. Since emotional appeals seem to resonate for controllers

Why not ask these two women if they were happy a neighbor not only had a legal firearm but - shocking though it may seem based on what I have learned in this thread, managed to avoid killing them instead of the rapist.

http://www.commercialappeal.com/news/2008/feb/19/e19attackweb/

[Recursion]

248. The franchise is alot more dangerous than a gun

Votes for * managed to kill a million Iraqi's. Don't tell me the right to bear arms is the only right that sometimes kills people; it most certainly is not.

[Dukkha]

312. because you instantly lose when the word "need" is mentioned

it's a bill of rights NOT a bill of needs. the sooner you gun grabbers accept that the better off you'll be
:eyes:

[albert johnson]

316. lots of good reasons

the most important being self defense,next is food,we buy none of the crappy hormone injected raised knee deep in their own crap,radiated to make safe foul tasting animals that most people do.our health is way more important.
our freezer is full of moose,caribou,grouse,ducks and salmon plus pheasants and quail that we raise and release to train our dogs with.we as a family enjoy target shooting,clay pigeons,etc...
all these people talk that gun control prevents crime,one example of that is washington d.c.'s ban on guns.isnt it the murder capital of the country?the problem is the lifestyle of the people.here in alaska you dont need any permit to carry a gun,i have seen people wearing guns in the grocery store and even in state buildings.businesses that dont want people to bring in guns put up signs and it is a crime to take one in.the crime rate is very low to nill on violent crimes.though anchorage does have crime etc.. but most people in alaska dont even consider anchorage part of the state calling it los anchorage or anchoraugra,etc...
i think that all the gun banners should move inside towns bigger than say 10,000 people and wall them off ,then they can control all the guns they want.while leaving me and others to our freedom.

[sgt lackey]

319. Yes We Do

As Americans In The Coloniel Days Without Guns We Would Have Stood No Chance Against The British. In Pearl Harbor Gen. Yakamoto Said And I Quote "NO Successful Attack Would Ever Be launched On Main Land America For There Would Be A Riffle Hiding Behind Every Blade Of Grass."

As Well If You Disarm The American Public You Would Then Allow Criminals To Be The Only Ones Minus Law Enforcement To Have Guns. You Would See Crime Rates Frolic Due To The Inability Of The American Citizen
To Defend Him Or Herself.

So In Polite Awnser To Your Question Yes We Need Guns.

If You Would Like More Reasons I Would Be happy To Provide More

[Sanctified]

320. We don't need a lot of shit.

seat belts, helmets, knives, cars, mass transit, TV's, washing machines, microwaves, lawns, bikes, horses, pigs and a lot more worthless shit we keep around but don't really need. Of course all of these things make life easier and sometimes safer but in the end do we really need any of that stuff?

[sgt lackey]

321. ok

Ok So In This Are You Basicly Saying We Dont Really Need Guns. If so Ok Your Right! Just As We Dont Need Laws Or The Constitution. Though There May Be Much Contriversy On Who Should Have Guns. We All Should Admit That In One Way Or Another, They Are A Nessicary Evil.

Law Enforcment
Military
Security
Self Defense

[Sanctified]

332. I am saying we don't really need guns but they are

still really nice to have because they make life easier or safer.

[pnutbutr]

322. self reliance

/thread

[slackmaster]

325. The question is irrelevant

Your assessment of someone else's needs is not important.

[radioburning]

333. I'll say it! I don't NEED'em. I just WANT 'em! n/t

[TomHansley]

334. Do you NEED a fire extinguisher or seat belts?

I NEED a fire extinguisher in case I have a fire

I NEED a seat belt in case I get into a car accident

I NEED a firearm in case someone tries to harm me or my family.

Fire extinguisher, seat belt, firearm, all these objects protect us from harm.



(saying the police are good enough protection against someone trying to harm you, has never had to wait 20 minutes for them to show up while some druggy is trying to beat in your front door...)

[GaVetRay]

335. I don't need a gun. I want a gun...

I need protection from your sons which you teach no morals to.

[sgt lackey]

336. Agreed

Parents That rely on TV to Raise Their Children Or Give Them No Moral Guide Lines To Help Them In Life.

[old mark]

340. Guns, abortion-same thing

freedom of choice.
My choice is to own means to defend myself, my home and my family.
If you choose not to, that's fine, but don't restrict my right of choice.


mark
FWIW, I'm not a member of the NRA or similar organization, I'm a 3rd gen Democrat and I have been a gun owner for nearly 40 years.
I carry a gun everywhere I go because I can and I want to.

I'm sorry, margot, but you are full of shit.

[radioburning]

341. So, Have you heard enough reasons we need guns yet? n/t