This is your paranoid gun culture...

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by AlBeMet

 

No not at all, being paranoid is being unnecessarily afraid, looking before you cross the road is not.

If you don't cross the road without looking the chances are very good you'll get hit. I'm not going to accidentally hurt someone else by looking before I cross the road.

The chance of accidentally killing your fiance with a gun, pretty high.

Again more people are killed by guns, than guns save lives. So guns are really not saving lives are they? Guns just make you feel brave and safe, sod it if people are getting killed by them. How many people are killed by fire extinguishers?

Sorry but your analogies just don't wash.

Admit it, you like the power you feel when holding your gun, and your reasoning is just excuses.

See there you go lumping all 300 million gun owners in with one bad apple.
People have provided facts and numbers and you still say garbage like "Again more people are killed by guns, than guns save lives."
If you believe it and have the facts provide the source links?
Deny ignorance.
Until you can provide something that can be debated besides your opinion,
we will have to agree to disagree.

Keep safe
-Al

Originally posted by AlBeMet
You are incorrect.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) is a landmark legal case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for private use.

en.wikipedia.org...

I'm afraid I'm not.

U.S. Constitution: Second Amendment

Second Amendment - Bearing Arms
Amendment Text | Annotations

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.

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

reply to post by moniker


That "milita" argument has never held any water with anyone who wasnt "anti" as a matter of course.

Yet even after the SCOTUS ruling people still drag it out?

Amazing. Actively choosing stupidity.

Long story short, freedom is a risky venture.

These are the reasons for the 2nd amendment, in order:

1) To provide the means to wipe out, through violent revolt, a tyrannical government.

2) To protect your person and property

3) To hunt.

Since none of these needs will go away, and SOME Americans still care why America was set up in the first place, those against guns will need to move.

Simple as that. You can not remove the 2nd Amendment or nullify it by proxy without the collecting all the bullets first. It'd be a good time to update your will if you tried.

In a land of 300 million people, even a few thousand deaths a year does not an argument make.

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Long story short, freedom is a risky venture.

These are the reasons for the 2nd amendment, in order:

1) To provide the means to wipe out, through violent revolt, a tyrannical government.

2) To protect your person and property

3) To hunt.

Reference, please.

Originally posted by moniker

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Long story short, freedom is a risky venture.

These are the reasons for the 2nd amendment, in order:

1) To provide the means to wipe out, through violent revolt, a tyrannical government.

2) To protect your person and property

3) To hunt.

Reference, please.

You really need a reference on this one? Sheesh. I'll provide some quotes for number 1.

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." George Washington First President of the United States

I deemed the order by the reasonable person test. It would seem to me that the order goes like this.

1) Protection from tyranny (invasion or domestic tyranny)
2) Defend your person
3) Provide for your person

Double post...

Sorry

[edit on 14-10-2009 by KrazyJethro]

Originally posted by KrazyJethro

Originally posted by moniker

Originally posted by KrazyJethro
Long story short, freedom is a risky venture.

These are the reasons for the 2nd amendment, in order:

1) To provide the means to wipe out, through violent revolt, a tyrannical government.

2) To protect your person and property

3) To hunt.

Reference, please.

You really need a reference on this one?

Yes, because your no 2 and 3 seems to contradict the letter of the amendment.

reply to post by moniker


You are correct about the militia.

You are wrong about who the militia is. I'm 20 years old, with no current physical or mental handicaps.

That means I can be called by the govt. and forced to fight an enemy invasion against my will. If I refuse, it's treason. The government is not required to either arm or train me.

One who looks into what the militia is, realizes that every man in the US 18-45 is considered a reserve militia. The reserve is neither enlisted, nor trained, nor armed by the government. But they have to fight anyways.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by Miraj]

Originally posted by AlBeMet
See there you go lumping all 300 million gun owners in with one bad apple.

Yeah sorry about that but I have neither the time or space here to cover all 300m individually...

People have provided facts and numbers and you still say garbage like "Again more people are killed by guns, than guns save lives."

Hey so what? I still say there are more deaths from guns that are nothing to do with protecting anyone. It's a personal observation.

If you believe it and have the facts provide the source links?
Deny ignorance. Until you can provide something that can be debated besides your opinion, we will have to agree to disagree.

Why such focus on my one comment, I made plenty more, my whole argument doesn't rest on that comment. If I take it back my argument still stands.

So having said that, here just found this...

Even Paul Blackman, research coordinator for the N.R.A., concedes that the advertisement "stretches the data." He adds, "I don't know of any criminological study that has tried to quantify the number of lives saved based on the number of guns that were successfully used for protection...
...Even the American Rifleman accounts of how helpful a gun can be in saving a life may not always tell the full story. In the case of cabdriver Bolton, the N.R.A. magazine failed to report how chance, rather than her pistol, saved her life. Bolton told the Arizona Republic that after she wounded her assailant, he grabbed her gun, pushed the barrel against her neck and pulled the trigger several times. What really saved Bolton was that she had emptied the chamber.

www.time.com...

So where are your links? Your own NRA says there isn't any. And I bet you believe everything the NRA tells you, don't you?

For all the lives saved by guns, there are just as many who died. Or actually many more.

[edit on 10/14/2009 by ANOK]

reply to post by ANOK


Stastics don't matter in my opinion.

It comes down to the individual. In my house, we don't keep any guns with a round in the chamber.

This removes any chance of that accidental discharge. No one picks up without following a safety procedure. Nobody points a gun in a direction it's not supposed to be, even if it's not loaded.

As such, accidents simply won't happen.

I'm not a criminal, so I don't see much point in your argument.

However, I've heard plenty of stories where guns do save lives. You don't hear about these stories because pretty much all media is biased and they omit these.

reply to post by Miraj


The only weapon that is loaded in my home is my .38 special Smith. It's hammer down on an empty chamber. I figure if 5 isn't enough at the ranges I'm going to be using it, measured in feet, I'm screwed anyway, a sixth probably wouldn't make a great deal of difference.

Safety is paramount. Every weapon is loaded.

reply to post by seagull


Revolvers are fine to keep loaded if there's no way a child can get to them. But semi-autos can go off even when the trigger wasn't even pulled. It's pretty rare but it can happen. This wouldn't be a safety issue with a 1911 type hand gun.

With a revolver.. this of course isn't an issue.

I keep a magazine loaded in a separate location from my rifle. If I need to I can have it armed pretty quickly. If that isn't enough time, I keep a knife close by.

[edit on 14-10-2009 by Miraj]

Originally posted by MirajBut semi-autos can go off even when the trigger wasn't even pulled. It's not common, but it can happen.

That's pretty wrong right there.

Any firearm if loaded and cocked given catastrophic failure of the device itself could accidentally discharge.

I have a PF-9 in my holster right now and there is nothing besides pulling the trigger or some magic corrosion igniting a primer that it is going off. I can slam it, toss it against a wall, bash the hammer over and over against my desk and it will not fire.

If I grabbed the hammer with a pair of pllyers, pulled it back, then let it go maybe it would fire.

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


I edited it to say rare

I realized using "Uncommon" was incorrect, and that "Extremely rare would be more fitting"

But I have heard of it happening. I had a friend on MSN.. who essentially her husbands hand gun went off while it was sitting in the dresser.

But with a revolver, the hammer isn't suddenly going to cock itself and fire a round.

Also, to be fair, I've only heard of a glock misfiring when it wasn't even touched.



[edit on 14-10-2009 by Miraj]

reply to post by moniker

You do realise that the 2nd amendment is expressed in terms of a militia, not about individual private citizens, do you?

Ok, I really get tired of this argument because it is too easy to apply the simple rules of grammar and determine the meaning of the sentence.

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.

Notice the comma between the words 'State' and 'the'.

Comma: 1. Grammar - A punctuation mark ( , ) used to indicate a separation of ideas or of elements within the structure of a sentence.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Separate ideas or elements. So, in this case, you may exchange the word 'and' in the place of that comma. Meaning, the "militia" and "right of the people" are both protected.

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by moniker

 

You do realise that the 2nd amendment is expressed in terms of a militia, not about individual private citizens, do you?

Ok, I really get tired of this argument because it is too easy to apply the simple rules of grammar and determine the meaning of the sentence.

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.

Notice the comma between the words 'State' and 'the'.

Comma: 1. Grammar - A punctuation mark ( , ) used to indicate a separation of ideas or of elements within the structure of a sentence.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Separate ideas or elements. So, in this case, you may exchange the word 'and' in the place of that comma. Meaning, the "militia" and "right of the people" are both protected.

Actually, I disagree with both accounts (although yours is closer).

The Constitution is not subject to interpretation, only translation as words change meaning over time (gay is a good example).

Well Regulated simply means Well Prepared. Grammatically, the bracketed (by commas) phrase "...being necessary to the security of a free State..." is like an aside, a side note if you will. I'll give an example because it's used simply to explain why the right is valid:

"A well educated staff, necessary for the success of entrepreneurial success, should not be bogged down with too many procedures and protocols."

The militia IS the people. It translates simply to citizens.

reply to post by KrazyJethro


Not to be argumentative, but, that's why I specifically pointed out the comma I did. The phrase "being necessary to the security of a free State" is just descriptive of the word "militia" and can be removed without changing the meaning of the sentence. It would, then require a comma between the words "militia" and "the right", to make sense. So, it is still separating elements of the sentence.

reply to post by ANOK

* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.5

Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.

Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives

Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).6 And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high

Concealed carry laws are dropping crime rates across the country. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed:

All above quoted can be found at Link

-Al

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by moniker

 

You do realise that the 2nd amendment is expressed in terms of a militia, not about individual private citizens, do you?

Ok, I really get tired of this argument because it is too easy to apply the simple rules of grammar and determine the meaning of the sentence.

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.

Notice the comma between the words 'State' and 'the'.

Comma: 1. Grammar - A punctuation mark ( , ) used to indicate a separation of ideas or of elements within the structure of a sentence.

www.thefreedictionary.com...

Separate ideas or elements. So, in this case, you may exchange the word 'and' in the place of that comma. Meaning, the "militia" and "right of the people" are both protected.

The free dictionary is not entirely clear. Commas are also used for subordinate clauses that are used to explain or to clarify the preceding clause. If there had been two separate situations described in the text, the word "and" would have been used instead of a comma as an "and" is always used to separate the last item in a list of ideas.

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.