|
|
|
|
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 7:52:41 PM | About concealed carry:
-in most states/counties, I believe a person has to be at least 21 to carry a handgun
-those with CC permits tend to be proficient and safe with firearms
-because of the various requirements for CC and the nature of the demographic, the permit holder is a sane, responsible, law-abiding, and conscientious member of society
-since the weapon is concealed, no one knows a weapon is in their midst
Just wanted to erase any mental images of kids running around using pistols to intimidate others, settle arguments, and to shoot caps off their beer bottles due to the allowance of concealed weapons. | |
|
| |
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 7:55:26 PM | I teach at a university and I can tell you that I would NOT feel safe in such an environment....and I would bet that most of my students and colleagues, "liberal" and "conservative" alike, would feel the same. Am I supposed to call a student into my office and tell him (or her) that I caught them cheating and I'm failing them and reporting them to the administration, if they might very well be carrying a gun? Is a student of mine supposed to feel safe challenging one of his or her fellow students in discussion if there is every likelihood that they have a gun ?
I can pretty much guarantee that any college kid who can afford to buy a gun would spend that money on pot instead. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 7:58:51 PM | ezzee said:
So rights are bestowed upon us by our mothers and fathers? Really? I had no clue.... I guess you don't.
By your logic, high-born people would have (inherit) more rights than peasants. 
Obviously, that is not the concept put forth in the Declaration of Independence - the document that created this nation.
The Constitution defines & limits the Federal Government.
Rights are inalienable. They are not granted by the Constitution; our rights pre-date the Constitution, and the Constitution was adopted primarily to protect individual rights.
The concept that our creator, some higher being, bestowed our rights upon us is important - regardless of weather you are an atheist or not. It means that the source of our rights is beyond the reach of our government, and therefore the government has no authority to deny us our rights. What they don't provide, they can't control.
You equate the rights of a person to that person's ability.
These are NOT the same, and your analogy does not stand.
Everyone has the RIGHT to read as they wish, even if they don't have the ability to read.
Everyone has the RIGHT to free speech, even if they cannot talk or write.
The way you change my questions about free speech and worship under an oppressive government completely mangle those original questions.
People in communist China may not worship as they wish. This is an activity regulated, licensed, and controlled by the sate. People there still have the RIGHT to worship as they see fit, even though it is illegal.
Legality has no connection to a person's rights.
Also, people in communist China have the ABILITY to worship as they please, when not actively prevented by others.
Yes I am arguing that people have the right to break the law, most especially if that law is repugnant to freedom and liberty. We even have the duty to change (or abolish) our government when it becomes oppressive. Think of the laws that made it legal to imprison Jews and other "undesirables" in Europe during the '30's & '40's. That holocaust was LEGAL, as per the laws duly passed by the government of that country.
People do have the right to yell "FIRE" in a crowded theater. People also have the responsibility to do so only when there actually is a fire, or pay the consequences.
People do have the right to kill another, with the associated responsibility to ensure that it is justified. You have the right to defend yourself with deadly force if necessary. This is a very basic human right. Murder, by definition, is a wrongful killing; therefore you have no right to murder (much different than "killing").
In short (and paraphrasing a famous quote) is that you have the right to do as you damn well please, so long as you don't violate another person's right in doing so. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 8:10:26 PM |
Intrepidinv said:
in response to 'a_bit_nomadic's post:
"I teach at a university and I can tell you that I would NOT feel safe in such an environment"
I'm a police officer and I teach rapid response to active shooters and I'm telling you - you WOULD be safer if the right people had concealed guns around you... I bet she would not FEEL safe with guns around, despite the reality of being safer.
Weird! | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 8:55:07 PM | | To Intrepidinv and a bit nomadic: A campus shooting was once stopped by two armed students. This happened in 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law. A former student shot and killed the Dean , a profesor and a student. Two students who happened to be off-duty LEO's ran to their vehicles to fetch their personal owned firearms. While they approached the shooter, A third student (unarmed) who happened to be a former Marine and LEO tackled the shooter. This case was cited as an example of the media's bias against guns, the use of a firearm in a defensive role was not reported in most news stories of the event. The media did not want to report this because they are overwhemingly bias in favor of gun-control laws. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 9:36:41 PM | "The media did not want to report this because they are overwhemingly bias in favor of gun-control laws"
That was a good post. Unfortunately, these types of stories are often ignored by the MSM - isn't that scarey? I find it very alarming how the news is so distorted to fit an agenda - why can't they just report the facts and let people make their own decisions? I get very frustrated with the media and the gullible people that follow them blindly.
There are now those (Nancy Pelosi) trying to silence any conservative news by enacting the so called "Fairness Doctrine" that is totally unfair to conservatives. | |
|
| |
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 9:47:33 PM | I did get side tracked by the media issue but that is a good example of how guns can be used to SAVE lives. We are all safer when the RIGHT people have firearms.
I've been a police officer for 21 years. I teach a technique known as "rapid deployment." The idea is to get guns on the bad guy ASAP and give them something to think about besides shooting fish in a barrel. As soon as ONE gun is introduced against the aggressor, their focus has to change - all of a sudden they have to worry about getting shot and its not so fun anymore.
A recent shopping mall gun man started shooting and an off duty officer (armed) engaged him and very few lives were lost. If this had not had happened it would been another blood bath.
One of the earlier post compared DC to a war zone - to that I would have to ask, why do you want to disarm the good guys, if its a war zone? So dumb. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 9:50:07 PM | I did get side tracked by the media issue but that is a good example of how guns can be used to SAVE lives. We are all safer when the RIGHT people have firearms.
I've been a police officer for 21 years. I teach a technique known as "rapid deployment." The idea is to get guns on the bad guy ASAP and give them something to think about besides shooting fish in a barrel. As soon as ONE gun is introduced against the aggressor, their focus has to change - all of a sudden they have to worry about getting shot and its not so fun anymore.
A recent shopping mall gunman started shooting and an off duty officer (armed) engaged him and very few lives were lost. If this had not happened it would been another blood bath.
One of the earlier post compared DC to a war zone - to that I would have to ask, why do you want to disarm the good guys, if its a war zone? So dumb. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 9:55:27 PM | "Yeah heard about the fairness doctrine need to read up on that but wondering if you cna tell me ab it about it? "
I'm no expert on this but from my understanding its a law that would mandate that talk radio or any similar type program would have to allow for equal time for a rebuttal. According to one article I read recently, radio program like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity would be in jeopardy b/c radio stations could not afford to give time away for the rebuttals.
Its really an attempt to totally silence anything other than the MSM regular liberal monopoly on information. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 10:14:42 PM | Pizza Hut deliveryman James Spiers thought he was making a routine delivery, but he was walking into an ambush. As Spiers approached, an armed man sprang at him with a gun, but Spiers, a concealed carry permit holder, was no easy target. Police say Spiers struggled hard with the assailant until he was able to produce his handgun. "It was a long ordeal....my life was without a doubt in danger," Spiers recalls. Spiers shot the suspect three times. The suspect fled and was arrested at the hospital. Pizza Hut summarily fired Spiers a 10 year employee, citing a corporate policy forbidding employees from carrying firearms.
(The Des Moines Register, Des Moines, IA 4/3/08)
Angela and Jeffery Patterson were watching TV when a man wearing a bandana and carrying a pistol burst into their apartment. Police say he demanded money and TV, then ordered the couple to disrobe. He watched Angela more closely. "He didn't pay attention to me so i charged him," Jeffery explained. As her husband struggled with the intruder, Angela ran to the bedroom and grabbed her pistol. "I refuse to be a victim", Angela said. " He put a gun in my face. If your bold enough to do that, you're bold enough to shoot us". Angela stepped back into the living room and fired, killing the intruder.
(Houston Chronicle, Houston TX, 3/28/08):
it's about time the supremes got something right. | |
|
| |
| |
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 11:34:29 PM |
Yeah heard about the fairness doctrine need to read up on that but wondering if you cna tell me ab it about it? "
The fairness doctrine isn't new. It was a post-WWII measure introduced into the FCC in an attempt to require balanced reporting on issues of national importance by broadcasters licensed by the FCC. The idea was that when an issue was controversial and of national importance, equal time should be given to different "sides" in the name of balanced reporting.
This was made a part of FCC regulation in the 1940s. It was withdrawn during the Reagan administration unilaterally by the FCC (under a Reagan appointee). Congress responded to the FCC decision by legislating in favor of "equal time" and balance, but Reagan vetoed the legislation. Some people would like to see the Fairness Doctrine reintroduced, which I think is a good idea, mainly because its loss has contributed to destroying incentive for investigative journalism, which is all but extinct in this country when it come to mainstream media (despite the attempts by individual journalists to maintain equitable journalistic standards, often to the fury of their profit-oriented editors). News has become not journalism but, in large part, a series of op eds, because there is no requirement of balanced reporting...searching for truth rather than for whatever opinion their selected audiences will respond to.
I can't exactly remember what this has to do with the issue of gun control, but it is an important issue by itself. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/26/2008 11:59:20 PM | Thank you nomadic I will see what I can dig up always want to be informed you know If not informed then at least intelligently opionionated | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/27/2008 12:05:02 AM | ^^^ You are very welcome. This isn't as partisan an issue, btw, as it should be. People from both the "liberal" and the "conservative" POV benefit from unbalanced reporting. So, for example, Obama (who I support) has not come out in favor of the Fairness Doctrine (that I know of)....while John Edwards has.
Edwards, 2016.... :) | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/27/2008 1:45:09 AM | A few fun facts;
Gun Deaths and Injury - The United States Leads the World in Firearm Violence
• In 2004, 29,569 people in the United States died from firearm-related deaths – 11,624
(39%) of those were murdered; 16,750 (57%) were suicides; 649 (2.2%) were accidents;
and in 235 (.8%) the intent was unknown. [5] In comparison, 33,651 Americans were
killed in the Korean War and 58,193 Americans were killed in the Vietnam War.[6]
• For every firearm fatality in the United States in 2005, there were estimated to be more
than two non-fatal firearm injuries.[7]
• In 2004, firearms were used to murder 56 people in Australia, 184 people in Canada, 73
people in England and Wales, 5 people in New Zealand, and 37 people in Sweden.[8] In
comparison, firearms were used tomurder 11,344 people in the United States.[9]
• In 2005, there were only 143 justifiable homicides by private citizens using handguns in
the United States.[10]
Gun Violence - Young Lives Cut Short
• In 2004, nearly 8 children and teenagers, ages 19 and under, were killed with guns
everyday.[11]
• In 2004, firearm homicide was the second leading cause of injury death for men and
women 10-24 years of age - second only to motor vehicle crashes.[12]
• In 2004, firearm homicide was the leading cause of death for black males ages 15-34.[13]
• From 1999 through 2004, an average of 916 children and teenagers took their own lives
with guns each year.[14]
• Each year during 1993 through 1997, an average of 1,621 murderers who had not
reached their 18th birthdays took someone's life with a gun.[15]
Guns in the Home - A Greater Risk to Family and Friends
• For every time a gun is used in a home in a legally-justifiable shooting there are 22
criminal, unintentional, and suicide-related shootings.[16]
• The presence of a gun in the home triples the risk of homicide in the home.[17]
• The presence of a gun in the home increases the risk of suicide fivefold.[18]
The Economic Costs of Gun Violence - All Americans Pay a High Price
• A study of all direct and indirect costs of gun violence including medical, lost wages, and
security costs estimates that gun violence costs the nation $100 billion a year.[19]
• The average total cost of one gun crime can be as high as $1.79 million, including
medical treatment and the prosecution and imprisonment of the shooter.[20]
• At least 80 percent of the economic costs of treating firearm injuries are paid for by
taxpayer dollars.[21,22]
April 2007
Endnotes:
1. Cook PJ, Ludwig J. Guns in America: Results of a comprehensive national survey on
firearms ownership and use. Police Foundation. Washington DC. 1996.
2. National Opinion Research Center, The University of Chicago, 1997-1998 National Gun
Policy Survey. September 1998.
3. US Department of the Treasury. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. Commerce in
Firearms in the United States, February 2000.
http://www.atf.gov/pub/fire-explo_pub/020400report.pdf
4. Cook PJ, Ludwig J. Guns in America: Results of a comprehensive national survey on
firearms ownership and use. Police Foundation. Washington DC. 1996.
5. WISQARS, Injury Mortality Reports, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control,
Centers for Disease Control, 2004 data,
http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html (hereafter Injury Mortality
Reports).
6. Combat Area Casualty Figures. Center for Electronic Records. National Archives.
7. WISQARS, Nonfatal Injury Reports, National Center for Injury Prevention and Control,
Centers for Disease Control, 2005 data,
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/nfirates2001.html.
8. Crime in England and Wales 2004/2005, Canadian Crime Statistics, Australian Crime -
Facts & Figures 2004, The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention - Criminal
Statistics 2004, Statistics New Zealand.
9. WISQARS, Injury Mortality Reports.
10. FBI Uniform Crime Report, 2005, Expanded Homicide Table 14,
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/offenses/expanded_information/murder_homicide.html.
11. WISQARS, Injury Mortality Reports.
12. WISQARS, Leading Causes of Death Reports, National Center for Injury Prevention and
Control, Centers for Disease Control, 2004 data,
http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html.
13. Ibid.
14. WISQARS, Injury Mortality Reports.
15. Supplemental Homicide Data provided to the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence by the
Federal Bureau of Investigation.
16. Kellermann AL, Somes G, Rivara FP, et al. "Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the
home." The Journal of Trauma. 1998;45:263-267.
17. Kellermann, AL, Rivara, FP, Rushforth NB, et al. "Gun ownership as a risk factor for
homicide in the home." N Engl J Med. 1993;329:1084-1091.
18. Kellermann, AL Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. "Suicide in the home in relation to gun
ownership." N Engl J Med. 1992;327:467-472.
19. Cook PJ, Ludwig J. Gun Violence: The Real Costs. New York, NY. Oxford University
Press; 2000.
20. Lengel A. "The price of urban violence." The Washington Post. December 28, 1997;B1.
21. Rice M. "Shooting in the dark: estimating the cost of firearm injuries." Health Affairs.
1993;12:171-185.
22. Wintemute GJ, Wright MA. "Initial and subsequent hospital costs of firearm injuries." The
Journal of Trauma. 1992;34:556-560.
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/factsheets/pdf/firearm_facts.pdf
A person is 22 times more likely to have a death in their family due to a gun in the house, than fending off a criminal with the weapon. This isn't rhetoric, it is a fact. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/27/2008 2:51:49 AM |
Taken LITERALLY... EVERYONE should be allowed to buy an M1 Abrams, fully operational tank, if they want it.
But of course, that would be gross insanity wouldn't it. That would bring the term "road rage" to a whole new level. And no, we shouldn't be allowed to own RPG's or nukes either.
Sorry... the Supreme Court did it right this time. Roe V Wade... they goofed. Point of view is everything, isn't it. Instead of spouting that you are a constitutionalist... try reading it before you abuse it. Then please tell me where in the constitution is says that the federal (or state for that matter) has the constitutional right to tell women whether they can or cannot choose what happens with their own body? The Supreme court did not do anything but interperate the law which is what they are supposed to do. They do not make law nor are they supposed to ammend law to what they themselves believe it should be. That's the very same argument used to decry Roe v. Wade isn't it? Except from someone ELSE'S point of view. What I'm saying is that you can say the supremes did the right thing only because you agree with what they did. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/27/2008 4:21:15 AM | | exodus...you reference to Va Tech and Columbine shows your ignorance of the issue....criminals and those of criminal intent don't obey laws | |
|
| |
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/27/2008 4:49:58 AM | Many of you know that I am in support of gun control, but even I agree that owning a gun is the right of an American citizen. It's what one does with that gun that should be controlled.
EVERYONE should be allowed to buy an M1 Abrams, fully operational tank, if they want it.
Are you saying that there shouldn't be a line drawn as to the excessiveness of weaponry? If so, then why stop at an M1 Abrams? Why not own a nuclear war head or two?
The purpose of the 2nd amendment "right to bear arms" was:
To allow the people to be CAPABLE of REVOLT against an OPPRESSIVE govenment.
Taken LITERALLY
That is pure speculation. How do you KNOW with all CERTAINTY that this was the purpose behind this amendment?
Many people would say that it's purpose was to defend our country from outside forces, since our military, due to the Revolutionary War, was not strong enough to defend itself from another attack on our soil of any magnitude.
The fact is, our 2nd amendment is clearly in favor of a "well regulated militia". This is referring the the armed citizens of America. The term militia is commonly used to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service.
If we are letting our armed citizens (or militia) carry whatever weapon they feel like carrying, then can we really consider that to be a "well regulated militia" as our 2nd amendment claims that we need? | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/27/2008 4:50:16 AM | >>>Virginia Tech ~Columbine ~
And what do those schools have in common?
Oh, thats right- a gun free zone. Odd, isn't it? You'd think those laws would have prevented those massacres. instead, it almost seemed like it enabled it. I wonder why....
But I suppose you don't want to wonder why. It opposes your beliefs- and if reality opposes your beliefs, then reality is a fault. | |
|
| Court: A constitutional right to a gun
Posted: 6/27/2008 4:54:35 AM | >>>How do you KNOW with all CERTAINTY that this was the purpose behind this amendment?
The purpose behind the amendment is pretty clear, although there is slight room for argument-but the intentions of the founding fathers? That couldn't be any more clear- they've already been posted, but I'll post 'em again;
"I hope, therefore, a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the Federal government as they are already guarded against their State governments, in most instances."
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788.
"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776
"Fear the government that fears your guns."
Thomas Jefferson
"None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army. To keep ours armed and disciplined is therefore at all times important." Thomas Jefferson 1803
"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
Samuel Adams of Massachusetts -- U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
James Madison, The Federalist Number 46
"[Tyranny cannot be safe] without a standing army, an enslaved press, and a disarmed populace."
James Madison, In his autobiography
"Arms in the hands of individual citizens [may] be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense..."
John Adams, A Defense of the Constitution of Government of the United States of America, 1788
"The right of self-defense never ceases. It is among the most sacred, and alike necessary to nations and to individuals."
President James Monroe (November 16, 1818)
"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
George Washington
Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth." ~George Washington
"The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and when the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of
destruction." Blackstone's 1768 "Commentaries on the Laws of England"
"The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of the republic, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." Joseph Story, United States Supreme Court Justice, 1833
"The danger (where there is any) from armed citizens, is only to the 'government', not to 'society'; and as long as they have nothing to revenge in the government (which they cannot have while it is in their own hands) there are many advantages in their being accustomed to the use of arms, and no possible disadvantage."
Joel Barlow, Advice to the Privileged Orders, 1792-93
"[The disarming of citizens] has a double effect, it palsies the hand and brutalizes the mind: a habitual disuse of physical forces totally destroys the moral [force]; and men lose at once the power of protecting themselves, and of discerning the cause of their oppression." Joel Barlow, Advice to the Privileged Orders, 1792-93
"To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..."
Richard Henry Lee, Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788 | |
|
| |
|
| Page 4 of 13
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 |
|
Home
login 
