guns

[soberups]

But, I'm blessed and pleased for countries that ban them.

I wonder if the Jews in Germany and Poland felt "blessed and pleased" for having their firearms banned by the Nazis back in the 1930's.

Probably not.

 

[soberups]

Feinstein.....can't stand her guts !!!

I have heard from more than one source that Feinstien has a concealed handgun permit, which is almost impossible to obtain in the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia unless you are wealthy and well-connected.

I hate hypocrites.

 

[bbsam]

hello

 

[brett636]

Those got a lot of traction, didn't they?

You stated you had never heard anyone say they would like to ban all firearms. I provided you two quotes of two government officials who state exactly that. The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance, and believing nobody wants to ban all firearms is naive.

 

[brett636]

Works for me. I hope for your sake the courts find it to be a "justified" shooting. A good legal defense could cause financial ruin, but hey, ya gotta fight for your rights, eh?

I am not sure what state you come from, but in states like Indiana, Florida, Texas, etc. have castle doctrine laws, which state you have the right to defend your home if you feel threatened. If someone breaks into your home in those states, you have every legal right to shoot first and ask questions later. This is not true in all states, but should be.

 

[Lue C Fur]

I am not sure what state you come from, but in states like Indiana, Florida, Texas, etc. have castle doctrine laws, which state you have the right to defend your home if you feel threatened. If someone breaks into your home in those states, you have every legal right to shoot first and ask questions later. This is not true in all states, but should be.

We have that law here in Kentucky...was passed a few years ago.

 

[bbsam]

You stated you had never heard anyone say they would like to ban all firearms. I provided you two quotes of two government officials who state exactly that. The cost of freedom is eternal vigilance, and believing nobody wants to ban all firearms is naive.

Believing that everyone or even a majority on the "other side" wants to ban all firearms is paranoid. I don't want your guns. I believe you have the right to own and even the right to carry. I just think there is too little emphasis on the responsibility that comes with that right. It becomes frustrating to hear of all the gun violence with illegal firearms and the question arises who are the rightful owners who allowed these weapons to be illegally obtained? Where is the responsibility? The saying goes that "Freedom isn't free" and in the same vein "Rights require responsibility".

 

[bbsam]

I am not sure what state you come from, but in states like Indiana, Florida, Texas, etc. have castle doctrine laws, which state you have the right to defend your home if you feel threatened. If someone breaks into your home in those states, you have every legal right to shoot first and ask questions later. This is not true in all states, but should be.

I don't think Illinois has that law, and if it did I don't think I'd like to test the "ask questions later" part of it. "Yeah I shot the intruder...found out later he was my 16 yr old son sneaking back in the house." Exaggerating to make a point.

 

[dilligaf]

Believing that everyone or even a majority on the "other side" wants to ban all firearms is paranoid. I don't want your guns. I believe you have the right to own and even the right to carry. I just think there is too little emphasis on the responsibility that comes with that right. It becomes frustrating to hear of all the gun violence with illegal firearms and the question arises who are the rightful owners who allowed these weapons to be illegally obtained? Where is the responsibility? The saying goes that "Freedom isn't free" and in the same vein "Rights require responsibility".

Sam, defining 'the other side' makes all the difference in your statement. If 'the other side' in this argument are the ones that want to ban firearms (which would seem like the case to me) then Brett, nor anyone else of the pro-ownership side of this argument, is not being paranoid. Just a thought.

"There is far from to little emphasis put on responsibility". I believe that the majority of gun owners are very responsible. To say that anyone allowed a weapon to be illegally obtained is ludicrous. Criminals are criminals. They obtain weapons by illegal means. I would never allow a criminal to break into my house and steal. That is why I have guns, to protect myself and my property. You have no right to dump the responsibility of what a criminal does in my lap. I am the law abiding citizen here. I am the one that works my ass off to be able to purchase the things that I want. In my opinion what we need is stiffer penalties for criminals. I would love to see the death penalty brought back and used. And yes I know our courts and jails cannot handle what there is now. Gangs need to be banned. Illegals need to be sent packing. Our borders need to be better protected. Drug trafficking needs to be stopped. And that's just the short list.

 

[island1fox]

dilligaf,
Well stated !!!!!

 

[bbsam]

Dill, didn't mean to light a fire. Just seems to me that these criminals seem to be able to get their hands on guns pretty easily. Are they being sold to criminals? Are they all being stolen? Either way responsibilities are not being met. Don't know why you take that personally. I neither want to ban guns nor do I care to own one. But somehow my position seems to draw your ire as one who wants to ban them. To me there is a big difference between insisting on responsible law abiding ownership and banning.

 

[PT Stewie]

My daughter is a cop, my son-law is a cop, and my best friend's son is a cop in the worst district in philly. They all carry hand guns. The bad guys they come up against more often than not have automatic weapons and I am sure they are not registered.So much for gun control.

 

[dilligaf]

Sam, I apologize if it seemed that I was angry. I was not, not at all. I was simply stating my opinions. Perhaps I should have used a smilie but I did not feel that a smilie was appropriate. I do take this issue personally, but not because of what you said. I take the issue itself personally. So please be assured I hold no animosity to you. We are good.

I do feel that I had the right to take you to task on your paranoid comment. You made the comment out of context with what Brett said.

 

[bbsam]

Sam, I apologize if it seemed that I was angry. I was not, not at all. I was simply stating my opinions. Perhaps I should have used a smilie but I did not feel that a smilie was appropriate. I do take this issue personally, but not because of what you said. I take the issue itself personally. So please be assured I hold no animosity to you. We are good.

I do feel that I had the right to take you to task on your paranoid comment. You made the comment out of context with what Brett said.

Fair enough. But I think my "paranoid" comment was accurate in context. Brett had suggested a degree of naivete in my previous post. Namely when I had said that I had not heard of people wanting to ban guns completely. He then gave two quotes. I stood corrected. The paranoia seems to exist in giving those quotes more weight than they deserve. The quotes themselves seem to indicate a knowing impotence. A nod to the fact that though the individual would like to ban guns, she knew it would never
happen. Even if 200,000 or 2,000,000 shared the sentiment, the question is moot: the Second Amendment is alive and well. So when at the mention of gun regulation the suggestion is raised that "they want to ban all guns" it does represent a paranoia in a "domino theory" kind of way. In this way sensible legislation is demonized as being "anti-gun" and "anti-Second Amendment". What happened with the "Brady Bill"? Or the "Assault Weapons Ban"? Or the "3 day cooling off period"? In every instance it was claimed that "they want to ban guns". A knee jerk reaction. It was portrayed as the government slowly trying to erode the rights of the citizens. That is paranoia.

 

[Dis-organized Labor]

Fair enough. But I think my "paranoid" comment was accurate in context. Brett had suggested a degree of naivete in my previous post. Namely when I had said that I had not heard of people wanting to ban guns completely. He then gave two quotes. I stood corrected. The paranoia seems to exist in giving those quotes more weight than they deserve. The quotes themselves seem to indicate a knowing impotence. A nod to the fact that though the individual would like to ban guns, she knew it would never
happen. Even if 200,000 or 2,000,000 shared the sentiment, the question is moot: the Second Amendment is alive and well. So when at the mention of gun regulation the suggestion is raised that "they want to ban all guns" it does represent a paranoia in a "domino theory" kind of way. In this way sensible legislation is demonized as being "anti-gun" and "anti-Second Amendment". What happened with the "Brady Bill"? Or the "Assault Weapons Ban"? Or the "3 day cooling off period"? In every instance it was claimed that "they want to ban guns". A knee jerk reaction. It was portrayed as the government slowly trying to erode the rights of the citizens. That is paranoia.

I don't know about all that...but I agree with Dilli..

SHE'S LOADED FOR BEAR!!!


Seriously BB, I'm not sure of your position. Pro or Anti? Anti with Conditions? Pro with stipulations?

 

[grgrcr88]

I don't know about all that...but I agree with Dilli..

SHE'S LOADED FOR BEAR!!!


Seriously BB, I'm not sure of your position. Pro or Anti? Anti with Conditions? Pro with stipulations?

He must be related to Klein!!

 

[dilligaf]

Fair enough. But I think my "paranoid" comment was accurate in context. Brett had suggested a degree of naivete in my previous post. Namely when I had said that I had not heard of people wanting to ban guns completely. He then gave two quotes. I stood corrected. The paranoia seems to exist in giving those quotes more weight than they deserve. The quotes themselves seem to indicate a knowing impotence. A nod to the fact that though the individual would like to ban guns, she knew it would never
happen. Even if 200,000 or 2,000,000 shared the sentiment, the question is moot: the Second Amendment is alive and well. So when at the mention of gun regulation the suggestion is raised that "they want to ban all guns" it does represent a paranoia in a "domino theory" kind of way. In this way sensible legislation is demonized as being "anti-gun" and "anti-Second Amendment". What happened with the "Brady Bill"? Or the "Assault Weapons Ban"? Or the "3 day cooling off period"? In every instance it was claimed that "they want to ban guns". A knee jerk reaction. It was portrayed as the government slowly trying to erode the rights of the citizens. That is paranoia.

Sam, we have views from opposite sides of the table. You see, I don't think that giving those 2 quotes their due diligence is being paranoid. I think it is being realistic. We have government officials that have been put in office by the public, making statements that cause me to wonder just what their agendas are. I have no problems with a 3 day cooling off, I have no problem with a ban on assault weapons. I do think that the government is trying to get into bed where they don't belong.

 

[cachsux]

I don't carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.

Dave.

Dave,the only thing I want to address about that statement is that no matter what skills you have to take care of yourself there will always be someone tougher,better,younger,and heartless in the use of their skills then you and I are. This isn`t the gentlemanly world of pugilism. A gun keeps us out of their arms reach.

I don't own a gun because I have three very bright, young, and curious children in the house.

Three here also. Everyone taught from day one never to touch a gun they might encounter. They might be locked up in our house but who`s to say if a friends house is as responsible.They have also never had toy guns or been allowed to play a game were one "shoots" another such as war,etc. Our`s are always locked up or have a lock on them. But the two oldest have been taught to shoot since they were old enough to properly hold a gun.

Actually I've thought about getting a gun but only after 2-3years martial arts training.

Like Mr. Myagi said "learn Karate so one does not have to fight". Own a gun so that someone who knows Karate can`t get close enough to use it on you.

A partial list over the last 10 years...

Westside Middle School, Jonesboro AR 3/24/98----5 students killed in a "gun-free zone"

Thurston High School, Eugene OR (my hometown) 5/20/98---2 dead and 25 wounded in a "gun-free zone"

Columbine High School, Littleton CO 5/20/99---15 dead and 22 wounded in a "gun-free zone"

Red Lake HS, Red Lake MN 3/21/05--8 dead in a "gun-free zone"

Amish school, Nickel Mines PA 10/02/06---6 dead in a "gun-free zone"

Virginia Tech, Blacksburg VA 4/16/07---33 dead and 25 wounded in a "gun-free zone"

North Illinois U, DeKalb ILL 2/14/08---6 dead and 18 wounded in a "gun-free zone"


In the last 10 years, over 120 unarmed people have been murdered in posted, designated "gun-free zones" all over the country.

Dont forget the soldiers at Fort Hood who are NOT allowed to carry their weapons outside of training even on a military base. The person who shot the attacker was a security person.

Chicago and DC have the highest gun violence in the US and it has the strictest gun laws for the Average American Citizens.. Something Very wrong in the states.

Problem is the Average American Citizens are not the ones committing the highest gun violence in those city's. It`s the non licensed s-bags who are carrying those guns. So much for those laws,huh.

bbsam,
I will gladly do my part. Anyone who breaks into my house to steal my guns or harm my family ---I will shoot them!
I hope that falls into your description of everything possible !

Works for me. I hope for your sake the courts find it to be a "justified" shooting. A good legal defense could cause financial ruin, but hey, ya gotta fight for your rights, eh?

The problem here guys is the phrase "I will shoot them". If someone comes into your house you have two choices. 1) Hold them at gunpoint until the police arrive and arrest them. 2) Kill them. There is no in between. It`s harder for homeboy to plead his case on hows he has permanent pain and suffering,and sue you, if you end it for him forever.

Could anyone ever imagine a whole country or world without guns ?
Hell no !
Would go back to fist fighting !

Guns are here for a reason.
Shoot and kill.
Great thing we have them.

But, I'm blessed and pleased for countries that ban them.

klein,shut up and have another beer.

I am not sure what state you come from, but in states like Indiana, Florida, Texas, etc. have castle doctrine laws, which state you have the right to defend your home if you feel threatened. If someone breaks into your home in those states, you have every legal right to shoot first and ask questions later. This is not true in all states, but should be.

My wife would more than likely,based on my work hours,be the one at home during anytime that there might be a break in. Shes someone who is kind enough that if there was a desperate person in our front yard she would get them help and even give them money to help them out. But cross the threshold of our house uninvited and they will have a gun if their face. As I stated above,2 choices,held or dead.

I don't think Illinois has that law, and if it did I don't think I'd like to test the "ask questions later" part of it. "Yeah I shot the intruder...found out later he was my 16 yr old son sneaking back in the house." Exaggerating to make a point.

This boils down to being experienced as a gun owner. If your someone who`s going to empty a clip before you ask questions then gun ownership probably isn`t for you. Get a bat. If your going to point your gun,you`ve already asked and answered your question.

 

[island1fox]

Fair enough. But I think my "paranoid" comment was accurate in context. Brett had suggested a degree of naivete in my previous post. Namely when I had said that I had not heard of people wanting to ban guns completely. He then gave two quotes. I stood corrected. The paranoia seems to exist in giving those quotes more weight than they deserve. The quotes themselves seem to indicate a knowing impotence. A nod to the fact that though the individual would like to ban guns, she knew it would never
happen. Even if 200,000 or 2,000,000 shared the sentiment, the question is moot: the Second Amendment is alive and well. So when at the mention of gun regulation the suggestion is raised that "they want to ban all guns" it does represent a paranoia in a "domino theory" kind of way. In this way sensible legislation is demonized as being "anti-gun" and "anti-Second Amendment". What happened with the "Brady Bill"? Or the "Assault Weapons Ban"? Or the "3 day cooling off period"? In every instance it was claimed that "they want to ban guns". A knee jerk reaction. It was portrayed as the government slowly trying to erode the rights of the citizens. That is paranoia.

bbsam,
I respect your position and the fact that you acknowledged Bretts post --alot of people would not do that. In today's political world I just believe with all things from taxes to guns --all of us should be on guard. The latest thing I have heard from the government regarding "gun control" is that on next years tax return --you will be required to report what guns you own. Why would the Federal government want this information when I am legally licensed by my state's law ? Could it be that once they know where all the "legal" guns are ---decisions and laws would be made ?
Sure should give every legal gun owner and Freedom loving American cause for concern.
I do no see them asking to list my pets or the size of my underwear --yet!!

 

[bbsam]

I guess one the one other disturbing point that comes to my mind is the split second it takes to go from law abiding citizen to "second degree" murderer doing 15 to 25 years or worse. There's a lot of crazy people in the world.

Dill, we are on opposite sides of the table on this. God I love this country!