My dad thinks it's ridiculous to own a gun...

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: 3NF

Originally posted by: K1052

But you admit to knowing nothing about why, how, or to what end it was written. How can you possibly make reasonable suggestions as to what changes should be made when you have exactly zero in the way of an informed perspective?

The Constitution is the foundation of all law (in one way or another) in the United States. Failure to grasp it's meaning and content (and then intentions of those who wrote it) is kind of bad. The mechanism for change is even included in the document itself since the founders were not dumb people.

Go get a copy of the Constitution, Federalist Papers, and several other history books that deal in detail with the beginning of the country and get back to us.

I didn't say any such changes should be made. All I'm saying is that we have the right to question what some moron wrote in the 1700s. I can understand why people think they need to have guns, and I'm fine with that. I personally won't ever own one.

I personally don't have any respect for our judicial system and the people in charge - they are all idiots.

Maybe I should buy a gun, since it looks like police think they have the right to open fire on innocent people - better protect myself from the law - IT'S WORTHLESS!!

The founding fathers were morons. Breaking away from the monarchy and establishing a new government was obviously trivial, why don't you share with us what you've accomplished in your life? You're not a moron are you? Please tell us all about your job at McDonalds, and other feats of not being a moron. :roll:

What a dipshit.

 

[3NF]

Hehe .. McDonalds, yea. I make a good Big Mac - I'll even give you the special sauce

 

[FeuerFrei]

It's a good idea to keep a gun around just in case Muslims take over the government and deprive of us our rights and freedom. Islam causes society to self-destruct. Consider yourselves warned.

 

[Marinski]

Our fore fathers lost their lives so we can own guns. If the citizens can't have guns then who can? Police officers, Military only? Government agencies? Do you trust your government enough to allow them to be the only ones to have guns?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: SolMiester
Guns should be illegal......Only sensible option!

my 2c

How is that the only sensible option? Because you say so? Tell you what, when you're the leader of the US dictatorship, you can make guns illegal. After that, I invite you to come take mine.

That seems very sensible.

Originally posted by: Marinski
Our fore fathers lost their lives so we can own guns. If the citizens can't have guns then who can? Police officers, Military only? Government agencies? Do you trust your government enough to allow them to be the only ones to have guns?

And the hole in the gun-grabbers argument here is that all people would then no longer be created equal. It's not even really a trust issue, so much as our government officials would stop being citizens and start being royalty.

 

[Unheard]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: SolMiester
Guns should be illegal......Only sensible option!

my 2c

How is that the only sensible option? Because you say so? Tell you what, when you're the leader of the US dictatorship, you can make guns illegal. After that, I invite you to come take mine.

That seems very sensible.

Originally posted by: Marinski
Our fore fathers lost their lives so we can own guns. If the citizens can't have guns then who can? Police officers, Military only? Government agencies? Do you trust your government enough to allow them to be the only ones to have guns?

And the hole in the gun-grabbers argument here is that all people would then no longer be created equal. It's not even really a trust issue, so much as our government officials would stop being citizens and start being royalty.

See quote in sig.

 

[JungleMan1]

Originally posted by: SolMiester
Guns should be illegal......Only sensible option!

my 2c

So even if guns are illegal, do you think people who are willing to commit violent acts are paying ANY regard to the law whatsoever? Laws against drugs certainly haven't stopped anyone from getting their hands on drugs, and in fact, has only INCREASED violence due to the huge drug-dealer market, and INCREASED deaths due to contamination of drugs sold (marijuana, a relatively harmless drug, often contaminated with cocaine or other harder drugs).

I am for legalization of most drugs (even though I do not ever do them) and for the legalization of guns (with exceptions, of course). I guess this makes me a Republicrat on social issues.

If bad people want guns, they will get guns, no matter what the law says. Therefore, people who would like guns for self-defense should be able to own them.

As for the issue at hand...I think keeping a gun in the glove box is not something I would do, but certainly not unreasonable, and I would definitely keep one by my nightstand if I lived in a high-crime area.

 

[Shooter308]

I would not keep a gun in a glove box, basically because if your car gets stolen then the bad guys have your gun as well. I have a CWL for Oregon and Washington and my handgun is more accessible and safer on my person then in a car. If you think that nothing bad can ever happen to you or your family, then just go ahead and continue thinking that way. All it takes is one bad person to hurt or kill you or a loved one.
It is a proven fact where states that allow its residents to carry concealed weapons, there is a reduction in crime. This is because the criminals don't know if they're targeting a victim that might be packing. I invite you to look at the statistics on this.

An armed person is a citizen, and an unarmed person is a victim.

This country is big enough that we don't have enough military or law enforcement to protect everyone everywhere in a crisis. The Second Amendment was meant for the citizens of this country to help defend this country against enemies foreign and domestic. It was also meant as a reset button - so to speak - for the citizens of this country to keep the government in check to fight tyranny.

Everyone needs to know all of their constitutional rights as a citizen of this country.

 

[3NF]

"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."

 

[DrPizza]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Perhaps then you can explain why Canada has a higher rate of private gun ownership than does this US.

Canada's rate of gun ownership is roughly 1/3 of the United States, according to a broad consensus of government sources. I suspect you got this notion from Michael Moore's Bowling For Columbine (whether or not you are aware of it). Like most of Moores 'factoids' and assertions, the bit about Canada having higher rates of gun ownership is flat wrong.

However, there are some other differences between the United States and Canada. Roughly occupying the same geographic area as the US, Canada has about 1/10th our population. No single ethnic or racial minority accounts for more than 3% of Canada's population, with all ethnic and racial minorities combined representing no more than 12%. In the US, blacks alone represent 12% ~ 15% of our population. Canada is as lilly white as any Scandanavian country.

When Canada's homicide rates are compared to like-demographics in the United States, there is no statistically significant difference between our homicide rates. IOW, outside of the predominantly black or latino high-crime urban centers, when you compare lilly white areas of the United States most similar to Canadian demographics, the homicide rates are not stastically different, though these same areas in the US have the highest rates of gun ownership per capita.

There is more to the United State's higher homicide rates than guns. In fact, when you consider that urban centers with war-like homicide rates almost always have the most restrictive gun controls including sweeping bans, while communities with the most lax controls on firearms almost always have homicide rates comparable to Europe and Canada, it becomes obvious to any thinking person that there is little to no correlation between crime rates and gun control.

:thumbsup: Well stated.

 

[Vette73]

Originally posted by: 3NF
"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."

1. No federal court in history has overturned a gun law on Second Amendment grounds.

2. The meaning of the Second Amendment has been settled since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Miller

"In that case, the Court ruled that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia."

3. Since Miller, the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment twice more, upholding New Jersey's strict gun control law in 1969 and upholding the federal law banning felons from possessing guns in 1980. Furthermore, twice - in 1965 and 1990 - the Supreme Court has held that the term "well-regulated militia" refers to the National Guard.


If any of you gun people think the 2nd protects your individual right to own a gun. Sue the government over any gun law saying it breaks your right as a individual to own a gun that is protected by the 2nd. Tell me how that works out.

Theres a reason the NRA has not sued saying any gun law is wrong as it breaks the 2nd. They know they would lose and not be able to get their dues from all the gun people and lose their "we stand for the 2nd..." BS slogan.

 

[JACKHAMMER]

Gun nuts are idiots. There I said it. My father was a gun dealer, and let me tell you - I have spent a lot of time at gun shows. I would not trust any of those anti-social, biggoted, racist nut jobs. Your guns belong at home for home protection. You don't need armor piercing rounds, nor autpmatic weapons to protect your home from an intruder ( a simple shotgun is best at this actually). You certainly don't need to have a gun on you at all times, you just make things more dangerous b/c people don't make good decisions all the time, whether they are drunk, raging, or just stupid. Look at the other post where some guy killed a teen for an egging. Come on... that is the kind of crap you get when people carry on their way to the grocery store.

 

[Ilikepiedoyou]

I am a democrat. My brother is a gun nut and he is quite the nut. However, I feel that people should be aloowed to own weapons. If we were not, bad things would happen. A black man ( yea I said black, yes when I think of robber I imidiately think black person, when I see a black person nearby in the city I do hold my belongings a bit tighter) could steal a gun from a security officer and have his choice of any house on the block to take what he likes, why? you ask, because the populus was deprived the right to own and gun, and is not match for black man and his gun. That is a society in which I would not like to live.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: JACKHAMMER
Gun nuts are idiots. There I said it. My father was a gun dealer, and let me tell you - I have spent a lot of time at gun shows. I would not trust any of those anti-social, biggoted, racist nut jobs. Your guns belong at home for home protection. You don't need armor piercing rounds, nor autpmatic weapons to protect your home from an intruder ( a simple shotgun is best at this actually). You certainly don't need to have a gun on you at all times, you just make things more dangerous b/c people don't make good decisions all the time, whether they are drunk, raging, or just stupid. Look at the other post where some guy killed a teen for an egging. Come on... that is the kind of crap you get when people carry on their way to the grocery store.

whats the definition of a gun nut? seems everyone thinks a gun nut is someone who owns a gun(s).

 

[CryHavoc]

Gun Owner
Victim

Choose one of the above!

 

[JACKHAMMER]

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: JACKHAMMER
Gun nuts are idiots. There I said it. My father was a gun dealer, and let me tell you - I have spent a lot of time at gun shows. I would not trust any of those anti-social, biggoted, racist nut jobs. Your guns belong at home for home protection. You don't need armor piercing rounds, nor autpmatic weapons to protect your home from an intruder ( a simple shotgun is best at this actually). You certainly don't need to have a gun on you at all times, you just make things more dangerous b/c people don't make good decisions all the time, whether they are drunk, raging, or just stupid. Look at the other post where some guy killed a teen for an egging. Come on... that is the kind of crap you get when people carry on their way to the grocery store.

whats the definition of a gun nut? seems everyone thinks a gun nut is someone who owns a gun(s).

Not everyone who owns guns is a nut. A nut would be those who feel there should be no restrictions on what they can have and when they can carry it.

edit: spelling

 

[tcsenter]

1. No federal court in history has overturned a gun law on Second Amendment grounds.
2. The meaning of the Second Amendment has been settled since the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v. Miller
"In that case, the Court ruled that the "obvious purpose" of the Second Amendment was to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia."
3. Since Miller, the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment twice more, upholding New Jersey's strict gun control law in 1969 and upholding the federal law banning felons from possessing guns in 1980. Furthermore, twice - in 1965 and 1990 - the Supreme Court has held that the term "well-regulated militia" refers to the National Guard.

lol! Copy/pasted verbatim from Handgun Control Inc. (renamed The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence in order to distance its name from gun control).

I am always amazed how the antigun crowd seems to consist largely of mindless lemmings who are capable of nothing more than copy/pasting straight from the talking points of antigun advocacy groups, utterly paralyzed or reduced to repeating themselves when the talking points don't offer any thought-free answers or rebuttals. While the progun side has no shortage of persons who can originally articulate the progun argument, including case law and court rulings, and don't need (or want) to copy/paste from progun advocacy groups because they KNOW the facts.

Indeed, the Miller Court "found" (not ruled) that the obvious purpose of the Second Amendment was to "assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia." The Miller Court also found:

"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. 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." -- United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174

Taken together, not out of context, these two Miller findings plainly mean:

The obvious purpose of the Second Amendment was to assure that the militia (defined above) were not forced to depend on the State to provided it with arms, because the people shall always have access to their own arms.

The Miller findings are totally consistent with the NRA's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, as well as pre-eminent constitutional scholar Justice Cooley:

It may be supposed from the phraseology of [the 2nd Amendment] that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrollment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check.

The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. -- Thomas Cooley, Principles of Constitutional Law (1898)

 

[GoodRevrnd]

It's important to keep a gun in the glove box for fending off Canadian rednecks.

 

[adairusmc]

Originally posted by: CryHavoc
Gun Owner
Victim

Choose one of the above!

Yep. Gun owners are citizens. Those who do not own firearms are subjects.

 

[JACKHAMMER]

Originally posted by: adairusmc

Originally posted by: CryHavoc
Gun Owner
Victim

Choose one of the above!

Yep. Gun owners are citizens. Those who do not own firearms are subjects.

Yup. That makes a whole lot of sense. If I don't own guns then I am both a victim and a subject. I guess then when you disobey a law you don't like, you shot the cop that comes to your door b/c your not a subject.:disgust:

 

[JACKHAMMER]

Ohhh.. and Adair, nice signature. You certainly validate your opinion by having something like that on the end of every post.

 

[pontifex]

Originally posted by: JACKHAMMER

Originally posted by: pontifex

Originally posted by: JACKHAMMER
Gun nuts are idiots. There I said it. My father was a gun dealer, and let me tell you - I have spent a lot of time at gun shows. I would not trust any of those anti-social, biggoted, racist nut jobs. Your guns belong at home for home protection. You don't need armor piercing rounds, nor autpmatic weapons to protect your home from an intruder ( a simple shotgun is best at this actually). You certainly don't need to have a gun on you at all times, you just make things more dangerous b/c people don't make good decisions all the time, whether they are drunk, raging, or just stupid. Look at the other post where some guy killed a teen for an egging. Come on... that is the kind of crap you get when people carry on their way to the grocery store.

whats the definition of a gun nut? seems everyone thinks a gun nut is someone who owns a gun(s).

Not everyone who owns guns is a nut. A nut would be those who feel there should be no restrictions on what they can have and when they can carry it.

edit: spelling

too bad most of the anti-gun people seem to think anyone owning a gun is a nut.

 

[adairusmc]

Originally posted by: JACKHAMMER
Ohhh.. and Adair, nice signature. You certainly validate your opinion by having something like that on the end of every post.

I live by those words every single day. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: JACKHAMMER

Originally posted by: adairusmc

Originally posted by: CryHavoc
Gun Owner
Victim

Choose one of the above!

Yep. Gun owners are citizens. Those who do not own firearms are subjects.

Yup. That makes a whole lot of sense. If I don't own guns then I am both a victim and a subject. I guess then when you disobey a law you don't like, you shot the cop that comes to your door b/c your not a subject.:disgust:

I saw someone the other day with an excellent sig:

There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.


If you don't understand the need for that last box, then you are indeed a subject.

 

[Xyclone]

Originally posted by: Ronstang

Originally posted by: shuttleboi
Your dad is right.

Liberals are rarely right about anything it is just that they are programmed to feel good about being wrong.

Rofl, I was surprised until I saw that you lived in Texas. Ignorant hicks with guns are not a good idea.

 

[Vic]

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. ... What country before ever existed a century and half without a rebellion? And what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." -- Thomas Jefferson, 1787

"An armed citizenry, ready and willing to fight, is the foundation of all civil liberty." -- Robert Heinlein, 1952