Here come the anti gun people.......

[fishermanx14]

You guys wanted a new thread so here it is. Lady Quagga and Cutbait can argue here.
What do you guys think about guns?
This is truly a terrible thing......meanwhile Obama is bombing Lydia and not putting a stop to innocent killing in iraq. This hit home with a lot of people because they thought it could have been their families, what is you were from the middle east? And your famlies were being killed...all he time http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6iLoXIpJFQ

That is rediculious....guns arent the problem, its people. Ever since there has been people there has been violence. Wether it be poking someones eye out with a stick or shooting up a school. Its the people not the tool. I think guns should be allowed to the proper people in schools. I mean think about it, a sicko can do what every he wants in a school because there is no one to stop him....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07gU5sGkRds

[DynoDan]

You guys wanted a new thread so here it is. Lady Quagga and Cutbait can argue here.
What do you guys think about guns?
This is truly a terrible thing......meanwhile Obama is bombing Lydia and not putting a stop to innocent killing in iraq. This hit home with a lot of people because they thought it could have been their families, what is you were from the middle east? And your famlies were being killed...all he time http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6iLoXIpJFQ

That is rediculious....guns arent the problem, its people. Ever since there has been people there has been violence. Wether it be poking someones eye out with a stick or shooting up a school. Its the people not the tool. I think guns should be allowed to the proper people in schools. I mean think about it, a sicko can do what every he wants in a school because there is no one to stop him....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07gU5sGkRds

I completely agree with you. Men and Woman Kill. And will use anything to do so. On this day a person in America shot innocent people, children and at the same time a Man in china stabbed innocent people at a school in china. should the band all knife also...............

[cutbait]

I'm not going to argue with anyone over guns.

I just was asking (demanding really) a bit more respect and civilized behavior from the board on this issue.

[fishermanx14]

I'm not going to argue with anyone over guns.

I just was asking (demanding really) a bit more respect and civilized behavior from the board on this issue.
i can understand ut point of view, and i agree with you. I should have showed more respect along with other people instead of jumping right into the polotics

[Marley]

...I just was asking (demanding really) a bit more respect and civilized behavior from the board on this issue.


Civilized behavior has eluded far too many, one reason that we choose (need, really) to protect ourselves. It's one reason our Founding Fathers chose to back up our First Constitutional Amendment with the 2nd. An oddity in the interpretations of those two amendments is that if the Second were interpreted as broadly and as far-reaching as the First, we would all be REQUIRED to carry a gun.
An issue I see in this is that the shooter may not have had a grasp on the reality of what civilized behavior would exclude. You just simply don't kill our children.

[smokehound]

Seriously, right? Every freaking news station had their own little anti-gun-ghoul whining about irrelevant BS..

I really dont like the corporate media, freakin vultures.

[fishermanx14]

i dont know if anyone watched this video but i recommend you do http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=07gU5sGkRds i agree 100% with this guy

[mjc89]

All i know is guns dont kill people. People kill people. I am all for guns and own several myself. It doesnt matter if they ban guns or not, criminals will always be able to get their hands on them..

[troutman27]

Please note, with most arguments / debates, there is a gray area. Placing a ban on guns is not the same thing as gun control. Long term effects of a total gun ban could be the disappearance of an entire industry, small towns included. There are small towns that really depend on fishing and hunting to create revenue. (Thus, jobs)
At the same time, perhaps there needs to be a thorough investigation into how guns are distributed, and ultimately, what one is actually allowed to buy. Different rules apply to different states and it tends to be a pattern that these incidents occur in not so urban, or not in what we would consider the stereotypical place.

I think society understands that "people kill people", but the debate really surrounds the accessibility of these weapons which makes these crimes that more convenient.

PS: I grew up around firearms and I am not against those that own them.

[fishermanx14]

if anything i this there should be school officials that should be able to carry guns on campus....not all that ad of an idea of you think about it

[pcuser]

Please note, with most arguments / debates, there is a gray area. Placing a ban on guns is not the same thing as gun control. Long term effects of a total gun ban could be the disappearance of an entire industry, small towns included. There are small towns that really depend on fishing and hunting to create revenue. (Thus, jobs)
At the same time, perhaps there needs to be a thorough investigation into how guns are distributed, and ultimately, what one is actually allowed to buy. Different rules apply to different states and it tends to be a pattern that these incidents occur in not so urban, or not in what we would consider the stereotypical place.

I think society understands that "people kill people", but the debate really surrounds the accessibility of these weapons which makes these crimes that more convenient.

PS: I grew up around firearms and I am not against those that own them.

Well said. That is the position of many in the "so-called" gun control movement...

[pcuser]

if anything i this there should be school officials that should be able to carry guns on campus....not all that ad of an idea of you think about it

Yeah, that's a great example to set for young people trying to get an education...

[one long cast]

I've carried a gun now for 46 yrs. 36 while on duty and I had only two people pull a gun on me. They wanted to committ suicide but couldn't pull their own trigger so they both got their wish. Guns don't kill people, troubled people kill people. A loaded weapon by itself will never kill anyone, however put a finger on the trigger and you've got what it takes.

[andrew95]

I've carried a gun now for 46 yrs. 36 while on duty and I had only two people pull a gun on me. They wanted to committ suicide but couldn't pull their own trigger so they both got their wish. Guns don't kill people, troubled people kill people. A loaded weapon by itself will never kill anyone, however put a finger on the trigger and you've got what it takes.

You make me even more ashamed of the police in this country if that story is true. You could have shot him in the arm or lower body to wound him. But it seems like most cops in this country aren't trained in non-lethal force and would rather go for the throat. See: most police beatings and shootings.

I guess America is in some serious trouble because we can't trust our own cops and we can't trust most of our own people with guns since there's too many nutters.

[DEVOREFLYER]

I think it is a good time to go back to Charlton Heston speaking at the NRA convention in Denver after the Columbine shooting and reflect on what he said.

I have been admonished not to be here, not to speak to you here. It's not the first time.
In 1963 1 marched on Washington with Dr. Martin Luther King, long before Hollywood found civil rights fashionable. My associates advised me not to go. They said it would be unpopular and maybe dangerous.

Thirty-six years later my associates advised me not to come to Denver. They said it would be unpopular and maybe dangerous. But I am here. Let me tell you why.

I see our country teetering on the edge of an abyss. At its bottom brews the simmering bile of deep, dark hatred. Hatred that's dividing our country politically, racially, economically, geographically, in every way.

Whether it's political vendettas, sports brawls, corporate takeovers, or high-school gangs and cliques, the American competitive ethic has changed from "let's beat the other guy" to "let's destroy the other guy." Too many are too willing to stigmatize and demonize others for political advantage, money or ratings.

The vilification is savage. This week, Rep. John Conyers slandered three million Americans when he called the NRA merchants of death on national television, as the First Lady nodded in agreement. A hideous editorial cartoon by Mike Peters ran nationally, depicting children's dead bodies sprawled out to spell N-R-A. The countless requests we've received for media appearances are in fact summons to public floggings, where those who hate firearms will predictably don the white hat and hand us the black.

This harvest of hatred is then sold as news, as entertainment, as government policy.

Such hateful, divisive forces are leading us to one awful end: America's own form of Balkanization. A weakened country of rabid factions, each less free, and united only by hatred of one another.

In the past ten days we've seen these brutal blows attempting to fracture America into two such camps.

One camp would be the majority - people who believe our Founders guaranteed our security with the right to defend ourselves, our families and our country The other camp would be a large minority - people who believe that we will buy security if we will just surrender these freedoms.

This debate would be accurately described as those who believe in the Second Amendment, versus those who don't. But instead it is spun as those who believe in murder, versus those who don't. A struggle between the reckless and the prudent, between the dimwitted and the enlightened, between the archaic and the progressive, between inferior citizens and elitists who know what's good for society.

But we're not the rustic, reckless radicals they wish for. No, the NRA spans the broadest range of American demography imaginable. We defy stereotype, except for love of country. Look in your mirror, your shopping mall, your church or grocery store. That's us. millions of ordinary people and extraordinary people - war heroes, sports idols, several U.S. presidents and yes, movie stars.

But the screeching hyperbole leveled at gun owners has made these two camps so wary of each other, so hostile and confrontational and disrespectful, that too many on both sides have forgotten that we are, first, Americans.

I am asking all of us, on both sides, to take one step back from the edge of that cliff Then another step and another, however many it takes to get back to that place where we're all Americans again... different, imperfect, diverse, but one nation ... indivisible.

This cycle of tragedy-driven hatred must stop. Because so much more connects us than divides us.

And because tragedy has been and will always be with us. Somewhere right now, evil people are scheming evil things. All of us will do every meaningful thing we can do to prevent it. But each horrible act can't become an axe for opportunists to cleave the very Bill of Rights that binds us.

America must stop this predictable pattern of reaction. When an isolated, terrible event occurs, our phones ring, demanding that the NRA explain the inexplicable.

Why us? Because their story needs a villain. They want us to play the heavy in their drama of packaged grief, to provide riveting programming to run between commercials for cars and cat food.

The dirty secret of this day and age is that political gain and media ratings all too often bloom upon fresh graves.

I remember a better day, when no one dared politicize or profiteer on trauma, We kept a respectful distance then, as NRA has tried to do now. Simply being silent is so often the right thing to do.

But today, carnage comes with a catchy title, splashy graphics, regular promos and a reactionary package of legislation. Reporters perch like vultures on the balconies of hotels for a hundred miles around. Cameras jockey for shocking angles, as news anchors race to drench their microphones in the tears of victims.

Injury, shock, grief and despair shouldn't be "brought-to-you by sponsors." That's pornography. It trivializes the tragedy, it abuses vulnerable people, and maybe worst of all, it makes the unspeakable seem commonplace.

And we're often cast as the villain.

That is not our role in American society, and we will not be forced to play it. 0 ur mission is to remain a steady beacon of strength and support for the Second Amendment, even if it has no other friend on the planet. We cannot let tragedy lay waste to the most rare and hard-won human right in history

A nation cannot gain safety by giving up freedom. This truth is older than our country Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety Ben Franklin said that.

If you like your freedoms of speech and of religion, freedom from search and seizure, freedom of the press and of privacy, to assemble and to redress grievances, then you'd better give them that eternal bodyguard called the Second Amendment. The individual right to bear arms is freedom's insurance policy, not just for your children but for infinite generations to come.

That is its singular, sacred beauty, and why we preserve it so fiercely.

No, it is not a right without rational restrictions. And it's not for everyone. Only the law-abiding majority of society deserves the Second Amendment. Abuse it once and lose it forever. That's the law. But remarkably, the NRA is far more eager to prosecute gun abusers than are those who oppose gun ownership altogether ... as if the tool could be more evil than the evildoer.

The NRA also spends more and works harder than anybody in America to promote safe, responsible use of firearms. From 38,000 certified instructors training millions of police, hunters, women and youth ... to 500 law enforcement agencies promoting our Eddie Eagle" gun safety program distributed to eleven million kids and counting.

But our essential reason for being is this. As long as there is a Second Amendment, evil can never conquer us.

Tyranny, in any form, can never find footing within a society of law-abiding, armed, ethical people. The majesty of the Second Amendment, that our Founders so divinely captured and crafted into your birthright, guarantees that no government despot, no renegade faction of armed forces, no roving gangs of criminals, no breakdown of law and order, no massive anarchy, no force of evil or crime or oppression from within or from without, can ever rob you of the liberties that define your Americanism.

And when they ask, "So indeed you would bear arms against government tyranny?"... the answer is, "No. That could never happen, precisely because we have the Second Amendment."

Let me be absolutely clear. The Founding Fathers guaranteed this freedom because they knew no tyranny can ever arise among a people endowed with the right to keep and bear arms.

That's why you and your descendants need never fear fascism, state-run faith, refugee camps, brainwashing, ethnic cleansing, or especially, submission to the wanton will of criminals.

The Second Amendment. There can be no more precious inheritance. That's what the NRA preserves.
Now, if you disagree, that's your right and I respect that. But we will not relinquish it or be silenced about it, or be told, "Do not come here. You are unwelcome in your own land."

Let's go from this place renewed in spirit and dedicated against hatred. We have work to do, hearts to heal, evil to defeat, and a country to unite. We may have differences, yes. And we will again suffer tragedy almost beyond description. But when the sun sets on Denver tonight and forevermore, let it always set on we, the people... secure in our land of the free and home of the brave.

I, for one, plan to do my part.

Thank you.

[pcuser]

I've carried a gun now for 46 yrs. 36 while on duty and I had only two people pull a gun on me. They wanted to committ suicide but couldn't pull their own trigger so they both got their wish. Guns don't kill people, troubled people kill people. A loaded weapon by itself will never kill anyone, however put a finger on the trigger and you've got what it takes.

As has already been stated, the idea is to make that trigger less accessible to the finger.

[pcuser]

You make me even more ashamed of the police in this country if that story is true. You could have shot him in the arm or lower body to wound him. But it seems like most cops in this country aren't trained in non-lethal force and would rather go for the throat. See: most police beatings and shootings.

I guess America is in some serious trouble because we can't trust our own cops and we can't trust most of our own people with guns since there's too many nutters.

You aren't being fair here. Most so-called suicide by cop situations involves putting one in position to kill the cop, thus forcing the shooting. It is also foolish to think the cop can shoot the gun out of the hand or wound the person without getting killed or wounded him/herself. ALL police departments train officers to stop the person from being able to inflict damage to anyone or anything. This means severely wounding or killing the perpetrator. There are incidents of abuse of authority, but this isn't it. Stating they both got their wish does seem a bit cavalier, but it doesn't mean anything happened that would be considered police misconduct in any way.

[DockRat]

ALL police departments train officers to stop the person from being able to inflict damage to anyone or anything.
Yes they do.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsVCHE7ayPE

[Marley]

You make me even more ashamed of the police in this country if that story is true. You could have shot him in the arm or lower body to wound him. But it seems like most cops in this country aren't trained in non-lethal force and would rather go for the throat. See: most police beatings and shootings.

I guess America is in some serious trouble because we can't trust our own cops and we can't trust most of our own people with guns since there's too many nutters.

You don't draw on a cop and expect to live, period. That's stupid and stupid hurts. You think the cop should "shoot to wound?" What would happen if the bad guy were under the influence of drugs, didn't really feel the pain he should have and, because he still has his gun, shoots and kills the cop? You have a dead cop which means one less productive, tax-paying member of society who likely had a family. No one takes care of his family, whose kids are now without a father (or mother).
The bad guy (hasn't been convicted yet of anything so can't call him a criminal) gets a lawyer (who probably solicited his case pro-bono) and sues the agency who employed the cop because now his client is confined to a wheel chair, or can't move his arms right anymore, or has nightmares. The city pays millions in damages to the POS who should have been shot in the first place.
You shoot first, you shoot to kill and not to wound.
California Rifle and Pistol Association has a slogan that makes a lot of sense: "Society is safer when criminals don't know who's armed."

[HBAR]

I was trained (in the Marines) while on guard duty there comes a time for challenging, to challenge all person on or near my post and to allow no one to pass without proper authority. If we do have to challenge someone and if we do have to shoot the person, our direct order from the commanding officer was "SHOOT TO KILL NOT TO MAIM"
So Marley hit it the nail square on the head, it's like OJ simpson saying look the glove doesn't fit me, I dont know about you or of anyone else who didn't have to make their hand smaller (by sort of cupping it) to make the glove fit. So basically he got off by saying look my hand fully outstretched this glove wont go on my hand and doesn't pull down on it to get it on his hand and then get's off with murder?!!!

[DEVOREFLYER]

The Media should listen to this!!!!!


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PezlFNTGWv4&feature=player_embedded#!

[pcuser]

I was trained (in the Marines) while on guard duty there comes a time for challenging, to challenge all person on or near my post and to allow no one to pass without proper authority. If we do have to challenge someone and if we do have to shoot the person, our direct order from the commanding officer was "SHOOT TO KILL NOT TO MAIM"
So Marley hit it the nail square on the head, it's like OJ simpson saying look the glove doesn't fit me, I dont know about you or of anyone else who didn't have to make their hand smaller (by sort of cupping it) to make the glove fit. So basically he got off by saying look my hand fully outstretched this glove wont go on my hand and doesn't pull down on it to get it on his hand and then get's off with murder?!!!


Say what??????

[Cartman]

Easy access to guns makes it easier to people to kill other people with guns, but there are so many guns in circulation already that even if all gun sales were halted now it would be two hundred years before it would make any difference.

[Cartman]

I was trained (in the Marines) while on guard duty there comes a time for challenging, to challenge all person on or near my post and to allow no one to pass without proper authority. If we do have to challenge someone and if we do have to shoot the person, our direct order from the commanding officer was "SHOOT TO KILL NOT TO MAIM"
So Marley hit it the nail square on the head, it's like OJ simpson saying look the glove doesn't fit me, I dont know about you or of anyone else who didn't have to make their hand smaller (by sort of cupping it) to make the glove fit. So basically he got off by saying look my hand fully outstretched this glove wont go on my hand and doesn't pull down on it to get it on his hand and then get's off with murder?!!!

Plus his attorney had him wearing rubber gloves when he tried them on.

[one long cast]

the video states it all, its the media. Check the news,m how many has occurred since yesterday with the 24 hr coverage??????????????????

[DEVOREFLYER]

Well here is one in So California.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/12/shots-fired-at-fashion-island-mall-lockdown-in-place.html

[fishermanx14]

Yeah, that's a great example to set for young people trying to get an education...
There are cops at almost all high schools that carry guns. What is the difference a d*ck head attitude and a uniform?
why is citizens carrying guns so taboo to people.

[fishermanx14]

You make me even more ashamed of the police in this country if that story is true. You could have shot him in the arm or lower body to wound him. But it seems like most cops in this country aren't trained in non-lethal force and would rather go for the throat. See: most police beatings and shootings.

I guess America is in some serious trouble because we can't trust our own cops and we can't trust most of our own people with guns since there's too many nutters.
cops are trained for three shots. One in the head and two in the chest

[andrew95]

cops are trained for three shots. One in the head and two in the chest

This is why I don't feel too bad when I hear about a cop getting killed on the news. However I have to say I am furious when I hear about a cop killing/beating an innocent person, like you hear about quite often.

[DockRat]

This is why I don't feel too bad when I hear about a cop getting killed on the news.
:Finger:

That is the worse line anyone has written in a while.
Shame on you. :Rolls Eyes:

[Cartman]

There are cops at almost all high schools that carry guns. What is the difference a d*ck head attitude and a uniform?
why is citizens carrying guns so taboo to people.

I think people are wary of citizens carrying guns because citizens sometimes kill people with guns. Even in westerns like Tombstone the sheriff had citizens check their guns when they came into town. If you get pissed off at somebody you might yell at them or maybe even take a swing if you have a bad temper, but if you're packing heat that only increases the chance some nut will go for his gun and kill somebody.

[NFCD I]

This is why I don't feel too bad when I hear about a cop getting killed on the news. However I have to say I am furious when I hear about a cop killing/beating an innocent person, like you hear about quite often.

Are you fricking kidding me? You need to spend a couple of nights riding in a cop car to see what kind of crap these guy's get from people like you.

[DEVOREFLYER]

cops are trained for three shots. One in the head and two in the chest

No it's actually two shots center mass (chest) and one head shot. Ask me how I know.:Shocked:

[DEVOREFLYER]

This is why I don't feel too bad when I hear about a cop getting killed on the news. However I have to say I am furious when I hear about a cop killing/beating an innocent person, like you hear about quite often.


Well aren’t you a piece of work. I don’t even know where to start when someone of your ilk has such a distain for the Law Enforcement Officers whose job is first to protect ALL of us and second to go home to their family at night.

I was a member of the SBSO Reserves many years ago on the Mountain Search and Rescue Team. During that time I met and became friends with many LEO’s and even did a number of ridealongs with a number of them. LEO’s come in contact daily with the worst dregs and criminal’s society has to offer and most often he/she is solo and backup is minutes away. Two of those LEO’s were killed in the line of duty. One was a CHP officer that stopped to assist a motorist that was broken down on the highway, he did not know that the motorist was a felon driving a car stolen in another state. He left behind a wife and two small children. The other was a SBSO detective that left behind a wife, a daughter and son that he would never see graduate from high school or have the joy of being a grandparent.

All LEO’s go through Peace Officers Standards & Training (POST) it is intense and is made to weed out the weak and unfit. Weeks of classroom study, physical training, range time, field simulation and much, much more.

They are taught compliance methods starting with commands using a strong voice and following orders (stop, freeze, get down etc.). Non lethal force is next (pepper spray, taser, baton) pain is used to make one comply; many hopped up on drugs will not comply even when extreme pain is applied.

If someone is armed then it is a whole new ballgame and compliance may not be an option and neutralizing the subject comes into play. If you have a firearm and the muzzle is pointed toward a LEO you are going to draw fire. If you have any other type of weapon and are inside of 20 feet of the officer you are going to have a serious problem if you have not complied.

Oh and the good cop, bad cop thing, like everything in life there is the good and the bad. It’s a very, very few bad apples in LEO that make all LEO’s look bad. The bad ones and they are few are found out and are dealt with harshly. The video equipment and recording devices that almost all LEO’s have today is for your protection as much as it is for the officer’s defense.

And when the time may come in your life and you need serious help who are you going to call? My bet is it will be a LEO and not your Mom, but I could be wrong, wouldn’t be the first time.

[Marley]

This is why I don't feel too bad when I hear about a cop getting killed on the news. However I have to say I am furious when I hear about a cop killing/beating an innocent person, like you hear about quite often.

Dude, are you effing serious? Nice insight into the mind of an adolescent. I'd send you some Benjamins to buy a clue, but there's not enough in a bank.

[City Dad]

You guys wanted a new thread so here it is. Lady Quagga and Cutbait can argue here.


I've always operated under the assumption that LQ and CB were either the same person or perhaps a husband and wife duo.

Anyhow, the way I see it, the issue isn't that guns kill people or that the bullets kill people (the guns just make them go really fast) or even that Obama is the anit-Christ.

The real problem, if we are honest, is that the true religion of our nation is self-aggrandizement and terrorists will die for their religion.

Have a nice day.

[fishermanx14]

:Finger:

That is the worse line anyone has written in a while.
Shame on you. :Rolls Eyes:
i agree, there are a lot more good cops that dont deserve to die, thank the typical "bad cop" the police and i dont get along very well but i still have some respect for them and i dont want them to die

[fishermanx14]

I think people are wary of citizens carrying guns because citizens sometimes kill people with guns. Even in westerns like Tombstone the sheriff had citizens check their guns when they came into town. If you get pissed off at somebody you might yell at them or maybe even take a swing if you have a bad temper, but if you're packing heat that only increases the chance some nut will go for his gun and kill somebody.
thats a good point. I think if you are going to carry you should have enough self controll to not do something like that....but who is to stop the other crazy guys

[fishermanx14]

No it's actually two shots center mass (chest) and one head shot. Ask me how I know.:Shocked:
how do you know

[fishermanx14]

I've always operated under the assumption that LQ and CB were either the same person or perhaps a husband and wife duo.

Anyhow, the way I see it, the issue isn't that guns kill people or that the bullets kill people (the guns just make them go really fast) or even that Obama is the anit-Christ.

The real problem, if we are honest, is that the true religion of our nation is self-aggrandizement and terrorists will die for their religion.

Have a nice day.
hhahah obama is not the anichrist he is the head of the illuminati hahahah just kidding.

[DEVOREFLYER]

how do you know

SBSO Reserve member 1968-1971.

[Lady Quagga]

I've always operated under the assumption that LQ and CB were either the same person or perhaps a husband and wife duo.

You are off my holiday card list.


Anyhow, the way I see it, the issue isn't that guns kill people or that the bullets kill people (the guns just make them go really fast) or even that Obama is the anit-Christ.

The real problem, if we are honest, is that the true religion of our nation is self-aggrandizement and terrorists will die for their religion.

Have a nice day.

There you go bringing a rational point-of-view regarding our nation's societal ills. This is why we can't have nice things.

[fishermanx14]

SBSO Reserve member 1968-1971.

i have a feeling ur question was rhetorical....

[DEVOREFLYER]

i have a feeling ur question was rhetorical....

Why would you ever think that?:Big Grin:

[fishermanx14]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc8piTgjDHA what do you guys think of this? camera tricks or real situations?

[Skyler]

No it's actually two shots center mass (chest) and one head shot. Ask me how I know.:Shocked:

Yep. The good old failure drill. We even had a cadence we sung while running at the academy. "Two to the chest and one to the head...Is the recommended dose of lead!" Personally, I think all public schools should have armed security on site. The "gun-free" zones only keep lawful citizen's guns out of the area. A criminal could care less. A couple of armed security personnel with appropriate training could have prevented many deaths in these active shooter incidents.

[DEVOREFLYER]

Oh, for the good olde days. LEO’s, being cynical, observed that when you stopped someone, you estimated their odds of bolting on foot by their attire. A guy in a 3-piece suit is unlikely to run or run far (mostly to a car). A guy in a company uniform (UPS, Plumber, mechanic) might run, but not well. No, it was always the skinny guy you stopped wearing a T-shirt, jeans and sneakers who would bolt off down the block doing an great imitation of a Gazelle. About half the time you were more than 30 yards from the car too.

Meanwhile, the LEO is usually heavier (muscle or not), wearing jump boots or shoes, slacks, uniform shirt, stiff Sam Browne gunbelt, gun, spare ammo, baton, radio, keys, chem spray, handcuffs (sometimes 2 sets), ballistic vest and maybe a jacket. It's a wonder bad guys got caught at all. And some people wonder why LEO’s can be a little rough on perps who run from them! :Crying:

[Skyler]

Oh, for the good olde days. LEO’s, being cynical, observed that when you stopped someone, you estimated their odds of bolting on foot by their attire. A guy in a 3-piece suit is unlikely to run or run far (mostly to a car). A guy in a company uniform (UPS, Plumber, mechanic) might run, but not well. No, it was always the skinny guy you stopped wearing a T-shirt, jeans and sneakers who would bolt off down the block doing an great imitation of a Gazelle. About half the time you were more than 30 yards from the car too.

Meanwhile, the LEO is usually heavier (muscle or not), wearing jump boots or shoes, slacks, uniform shirt, stiff Sam Browne gunbelt, gun, spare ammo, baton, radio, keys, chem spray, handcuffs (sometimes 2 sets), ballistic vest and maybe a jacket. It's a wonder bad guys got caught at all. And some people wonder why LEO’s can be a little rough on perps who run from them! :Crying:

Ha ha! True dat! That's why I spent so much on all the lightest gear. Nylon all the way. My nylon belt weighs half the amount of my Sam Browne. I run a 2" low profile duty belt instead of the standard thicker 2.5", all of my pouches in the front run parallel with the front of the belt, so I can get a longer stride, and I wear a mid-ride Bladetech holster instead of the standard low ride duty holster. This allows me to run pretty quickly. The boots are the worst part. I've actually switched to the cheaper Response Gear boots because they are lighter and more flexible in the ankle compared to the comparable Danners and Rockies. They don't last as long, but I can pick up like three pairs for the price of one pair of Bates.

[DEVOREFLYER]

The good olde days were different, the bad guys actually feared the Sheriff not so much today. Frank Bland was Sheriff then, he was born and raised in Big Bear Lake and could really ride a horse. Undersheriff Kendal Stone a neighbor back then could ride anything you could put a saddle on. Everyone worn a wheel gun, semi-autos were not used yet. 357 mag was the gun to use I still have my 6” S&W Mod 28. The old timers carried 45 long colts. The guys in the Mounted Posse all carried 45 long colts being the real cowboys as such and the first round up was a short .410 shot shell (I was told it was for snakes).
Search & Rescue was a *****, as no one ever got lost or at least was reported lost until close to midnight even if they were not seen since O-dark thirty. It was always during a weekend or holiday and the worst weather on earth. No night vision back then and we went out anyway but could not start a search until daylight; it was all PR as stumbling around in the dark would likely wipe any tracks or sign the lost may have made.
The worst part was recovery and not rescue (airplane crash the worst). All the guys carried a jar of Vick’s and a “White Owl” cigar in their packs to mask the odor of the dead. The best part was the way we were fed when on an extended rescue/search. Sheriff Bland believed that because we were all volunteer’s and working in the toughest conditions and hardship great chow was the least he could do. A mobil canteen would be setup with trusties from the jail. T-bone steaks for all (thickest I have ever had), baked potatoes’ that looked like a football wrapped in tin foil and deep dish apple pie (4 to 6 inch deep). And to help keep us warm at night the Mounted Posse guys always had a little whisky around (ya gotta love them cowboys).
Before the Mag-Lite flashlight came into being everyone had a Kel-Lite flashlight. I remember a memo sent out regarding the use of the flashlight as a baton. It basically said it was an acceptable substitute for the baton but to use care and turn it so the on/off button does not leave a mark.
Oh Gawd I got a million war stories. Those were the days.

[DockRat]

what do you guys think of this? camera tricks or real situations?

Out of context. Sure there is few bad cops but most all are good.
Your lame video doesn't show the moments leading up.
The innocent lives at risk during a chase or robbery are much more important than the Thug getting his asss kicked at the end of the chase. If any of those guys getting whooped in the video were working instead of being out causing trouble they wouldn't have to feel the pain of a beating. People choose there own path in life. Too many hoodlums are better off sitting in a cage than on the streets causing problems.
DR

http://i273.photobucket.com/albums/jj225/erwin_ferri/1428601449.jpg

[DockRat]

Crockett Keller, Texas Gun Store Owner, Offers Teachers Discount After Newtown Shooting
Posted: 12/17/2012 3:43 pm EST | Updated: 12/17/2012 6:27 pm EST

Business NewsOne outspoken Texas gun store owner is offering local teachers a 10 percent discount to attend his concealed carry handgun classes in light of the Newtown, Conn., tragedy.

"I was stunned, but not necessarily shocked, when I heard what happened [in Newtown]," said Crockett Keller, who owns Keller's Riverside Store in Mason, Texas. "I thought, 'There we go again, another gun-free zone.' What would have happened had there been a teacher with a handgun or a principal with some sort of defense training?"

Politicians have been promising to crack down on guns after 20-year-old Adam Lanza murdered 26 people -- including 20 children -- at Sandy Hook Elementary on Friday. On Sunday, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) announced plans to introduce a bill that would ban assault weapons, and on Monday even staunch political supporters of the National Rifle Association were adjusting their tones.

But Keller disagrees -- fewer guns won't make for a safer society, he said. "The solution is not to take away our guns," Keller said. "Personal safety is everyone's responsibility, and if we're armed we can be forces of good in the world even when the police aren't present." Keller said his customers are stocking up in fear of new legislation curbing gun ownership.

According to Keller, human nature will always contain a violent streak, with or without guns. "It's better for the righteous law-abiding people to be armed and win over the criminals," he said. After announcing the discount for teachers this weekend, Keller said he hasn't had any teachers enroll in his class -- yet.

Not all gun store owners think arming more people is the solution. Chris Watson, the general manager of a gun store in northeast Georgia, said he would personally turn away anyone who came into his store this week trying to stock up in fear of new gun control legislation spurred by the Newtown tragedy. "Now's not the moment to think about yourself when 20 kids are dead," said Watson.

This isn't the first time Keller has made the news: last year, the Texan attracted attention for an ad that aired on a country music station saying his shop would not offer concealed carry handgun classes to the following categories of people: "socialist liberal and/or voted for the current campaigner-in-chief" or "non-Christian Arab or Muslim."


Keller doesn't oppose liberals entirely -- "I'm happy to have a polite discussion and agree to disagree," he said -- but he noted that he attributes certain social problems like mass shootings to the rise of progressive beliefs. "One of the factors to blame for this situation [in Newtown] is the atheist movement," Keller said. "God has been taken out of our culture. The current generation can't distinguish between good and evil."Keller said he intended the ad's comments to be humorous. "I wrote the ad myself and thought it didn't have enough pizazz, so I thought I'd take a jab at some of my liberal acquaintances," he said. "Then it blew up. All of the sudden my colloquial ad wasn't colloquial any longer." Keller now sells t-shirts printed with some of the ad's text at his store, along with the new and used rifles, machine guns and silencers he offers to buyers who meet the legal requirements for gun ownership.

"When I was a young student in public school, we prayed regularly," said Keller, now 66. "Schools should provide a moral compass to people who can't get it at home."

Keller's comments echo those of some conservative politicians in response to the shooting. In an interview with Fox News on Friday, former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee linked the tragedy to the fact that Americans have

"systematically removed God from our schools." Huckabee added, "Should we be so surprised that schools would become a place of carnage?"




http://www.huffingto...tml?ir=Business

[DockRat]

Why is this not in the news ?
DR


Another mass shooting; gunman opens fire in San Antonio: UPDATE
8:35 AM EST 12/17/2012 by Terry Shropshire1,725 Views SHARE


Police and media report that two people were shot late Sunday when a gunman opened fire at the Santikos Mayan Palace 14 movie theater Sunday night in San Antonio, sending panicked moviegoers rushing to exits and ducking for cover. It is also causing frazzled nerves of citizens nationwide who have yet to come to grips with the unimaginable shooting tragedy perpetrated at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., and the theater shooting deaths in suburban Denver.

Jesus Manuel Garcia, 19, an employee at the China Garden restaurant, apparently became upset Sunday night after his girlfriend broke up with him, reports the San Antonio Express-News.

Here is an account of the story, according to mysanantonio.com, that took place after Garcia became heartbroken over being let go by his girlfriend:

He lashed out by sending her a message saying he planned to go to the restaurant and “shoot somebody,” said Bexar County sheriff’s Sgt. Raymond Pollard.

Pollard said the woman called to warn restaurant employees, but by the time she saw his message, Garcia was already outside the China Garden firing a Glock 23 at the front door about 9:25 p.m.

Garcia went inside, chased people out the back door, and followed one employee as he ran toward the theater, apparently because he was the easiest target, Pollard said.

“He was chasing him, shooting in the air and at other cars,” Pollard said.

He said that when a San Antonio police officer heard the gunshots and pulled into the theater’s parking lot, Garcia shot out his patrol car’s windshield.

Garcia then pursued the employee into the theater, firing more shots when he reached the lobby, Pollard said.

One of the shots struck a patron in the back, but the bullet did not strike any vital organs and the man was released from San Antonio Military Medical Center later Sunday night.

Bexar County sheriff’s Sgt. Lisa Castellano, who was working off-duty as a security guard at the Mayan Palace, chased the gunman toward the back of the theater. The 13-year department veteran cornered him after he ran into a men’s restroom, shooting him several times and taking his gun, Pollard said.

Armando Olguin, an off-duty San Antonio Independent School District police officer, restrained him using the sergeant’s handcuffs, Pollard said.

Garcia was rushed to SAMMC, where he was in stable condition in the intensive care unit Monday.

One witness, Tara Grace, was in line to get drinks when she heard the firecracker-like sounds ring out and instinctively ran into the bathroom and locked herself in a stall with five other moviegoers.

“We thought we were going to die,” she said.

A person at the scene, an employee from a different location of the restaurant, said the gunman initially may have targeted a co-worker before making his way to the theater, though Antu could not confirm a motive immediately.

The shooting immediately sparked fears of the bloodbath in July that killed 12 people and injured 58 at a movie theater in Aurora, Colo.

Cassandra Castillo, whose son is a projectionist at the theater, was frantic as she waited outside the theater for her son.

“It brings back memories of the other theater shooting, and the elementary school shooting,” she said. “You only think the worst.”

[DEVOREFLYER]

Um, GOOD guy with a gun takes down a BAD guy with a gun. Yip no news here, move on.:Sad:

[DockRat]

Aussie Gun Ban = Fail.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=p8RDWltHxRc#!

[DockRat]

Chicago: 446 school age children shot so far this year
with strongest gun laws in country – media silent
By Clash Daily / 19 December 2012 / 7 Comments

The cesspool known as Chicago probably has the toughest gun laws in the country, yet despite all the shootings, murders, and bloodshed, you never hear a peep about this from the corrupt state run media. In Chicago, there have been 446 school age children shot in leftist utopia run by Rahm Emanuel and that produced Obama, Jesse Jackson, Louis Farrakhan, etc. 62 school aged children have actually been killed by crazed nuts in Chicago so far this year with almost two weeks to go. So why isn’t this news worthy? Is it because it would embarrass those anti second amendment nuts who brag about Chicago’s tough gun laws? Is it because most of the kids who were shot and killed were minorities? Or is it because the corrupt media doesn’t want to show Chicago in a bad light?

THE LIST OF MURDERED SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN 2012
18 YEARS OLD- 15

17 YEARS OLD- 16

16 YEARS OLD- 16

15 YEARS OLD- 6

14 YEARS OLD- 4

13 YEARS OLD- 2

12 YEARS OLD- 1

7 YEARS OLD- 1

6 YEARS OLD- 1

446 School Age Children Shot in Chicago so Far This Year
THE LIST OF SCHOOL AGE CHILDREN SHOT IN 2012

18 year old- 110

17 year old- 99

16 year old- 89

15 year old- 62

14 year old- 39

13 year old- 21

12 year old- 10

11 year old- 2

10 year old- 3

9 year old- 1

7 year old- 3

6 year old- 2

5 year old- 1

4 year old- 1

3 year old- 1

1 year old- 2

Read more at fireandreamitchell.com


Read more: http://clashdaily.co.../#ixzz2Fb8qTqEM

[DEVOREFLYER]

Here are the facts the MSM does not want to print or tell ya:

Gun Crimes In the United States - Just the Facts

James M. Woodward - Dec. 2012


In 2011, Homicide was only 16th in leading causes of death in the US, Suicide is the 10th in the nation (http://goo.gl/vQqEj). You are far more likely to lose someone if they pick up a cigarette (438/day, http://goo.gl/iJQRU or (135/day, http://goo.gl/po24U) for those who inhale secondhand smoke, or even if they step into a car (95/day, http://goo.gl/8RgVI).


It’s times like these that I feel it’s important to remind people of the facts about gun related crimes. The media likes to take an aggressive stance against certain types of weapons because it’s a sensationalist topic that will sell. However, there is much that is not presented which leaves their representation of statistics with a great bias.


2009:

Number of firearm homicides: 11,493 (3.7 incidents per 100,000 - http://goo.gl/vQqEj) - CDC/DoVS

Number of firearm murders: 9,146 (2.98 incidents per 100,000 - http://goo.gl/AE0dq) - FBI

Number of suicide firearm deaths: 18,735 (6.1 incidents per 100,000 - http://goo.gl/vQqEj - 2.04x times the number of murders)


2010:

Number of firearm homicides: 11,015 (3.6 incidents per 100,000 - http://goo.gl/bu0bt) - CDC/DoVS

Number of firearm murders: 8,775 (2.84 incidents per 100,000 - http://goo.gl/AE0dq) - FBI

Number of suicide firearm deaths: 19,308 (6.3 incidents per 100,000 - http://goo.gl/bu0bt - 2.20x times the number of murders)


2011:

Number of firearm homicides: 11,101 (3.6 / 100,000 - http://goo.gl/8RgVI) - CDC/DoVS

Number of firearm murders: 8,583 (2.75 / 100,000 - http://goo.gl/AE0dq) - FBI

Number of suicide firearm deaths: 19,766 (6.3/100,000 - http://goo.gl/8RgVI - 2.30x times the number of murders)

The difference between the homicides and murders implies a higher accidental death rate. Murders still declined.


Homicides and suicide firearm deaths are two statistics that are often reported together to increase the shock value of the firearm death rate. Firearm murders are on a decline (as reported by the FBI, Bureau of Justice, etc.) yet suicides are on the rise. It’s a distinction that should be made as they just don’t qualify as the same coverage (http://goo.gl/zqJuA) and reporting them as such is a misrepresentation of the overall statistics.


The statistics (in brief demonstrated here) shows there is a larger problem with suicide rate in the country. However, I feel the confines of this paper are not suitable for the mental health discussion as it could be had by itself. Lastly, If someone needs help (1-800-273-8255) they should have a way to get it, but that doesn’t mean that everyone will seek assistance.


Contrary to popular belief, the most common weapon used is not an assault rifle. In fact, the 2011 FBI murder report (http://goo.gl/LcT8v) details 12,664 murders, 6,220 (49%) of them were committed with handguns, knives totalled up to 1,694 (13.3%) and fists accounted for yet another 3.9%. Rifles came in in absolute last with 323 murders (2.5%), excluding unknown weapons. This is further backed up by California's 2009 report which explicitly lists the bullets used by frequency (http://goo.gl/RYG0e). The most common were the 9mm handgun round at more than double the use of the 2nd place round, the .22 rifle (or occasionally handgun) round. Traditional assault rifle rounds (7.62mm & .223”) were in last place for usage. On the same Justice Bureau website (http://goo.gl/qccOz) we read; “During the offense that brought them to prison, 15% of State inmates and 13% of Federal inmates carried a handgun, and about 2%, a military-style semiautomatic gun." These statistics align with the FBI's 2.5% rifle usage rate in it’s 2011 "About Gun Crime in the U.S" report, mentioned above (http://goo.gl/XpFiF).


Quoting the Justice Bureau's webpage once again, (http://goo.gl/qccOz); "Firearm-related crime has plummeted since 1993" and a 1997 prison survey highlights the fact that illegal firearm sources most often come from “family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source” 80% of the time, contrary to common media misrepresentation that Gun Shows contribute many firearms, which were only listed as 2% of the response.


Another statistic rarely mentioned is the ratio at which gun crime occurs to gun ownership. In the United States, there are estimated to be 270 Million firearms, both licit and illicit, in the hands of private citizens (http://goo.gl/i2ifW). Compared to the number of weapons used in a murder (See: FBI Report 2011) that occurred last year is 0.003178%. That’s 3.17 per 100,000. Previous years (citing the same page), show that this is a continued decrease from each prior year:

2006:5.70, 2007:5.61, 2008:5.35, 2009:4.96, 2010:4.6

Verifying this information, the FBI Murder statistics show a steady decline every year starting at 10,150 in 2005 (beginning of the report) and ending at 8,583 reports in 2011: http://goo.gl/P5D5q


All these statistics demonstrate that attention grabbing issues are nothing more than distractions from the real problem; Handgun and gang violence that the press has long since moved past. In this FBI spreadsheet on gang activity it is apparent that handgun usage is on the rise, and hasn’t seen a drop in gang related homicide activity, (raw numbers: http://goo.gl/OxvrZ, chart: http://goo.gl/ZR5ih). We mostly see high publicity events that grab media attention, while the majority of gun violence is statistically carried out with illegally obtained handguns not assault weapons, (and not in schools) however those more common issues don't garner press attention. A fine example, is that the death toll from all mass shootings (30 over 13 years) since Columbine (273, http://goo.gl/J2oMJ) are surpassed by drive-by shooting deaths in Los Angeles, in a single year (275, http://goo.gl/qYSQJ).


I do not seek to trivialize the horrific nature of the mass shootings that have occurred in our society but to suggest alternate means of handling their occurrence. As a society, we (and particularly the press) often have knee jerk reactions to extremist situations when there are much, much larger problems occurring, (daily even) that aren't pushed at us with such tenacity. As such I'll side with Roger Ebert and his recent article. If we stop placing the killers in the limelight, perhaps they won't be frequent. We shouldn't remember and glorify the names of those that stormed Columbine yet forget the victims; http://goo.gl/6UmOg

[HawgStalker]

This is why I don't feel too bad when I hear about a cop getting killed on the news. However I have to say I am furious when I hear about a cop killing/beating an innocent person, like you hear about quite often.
Just read this entire thread and only learned one new thing... andrew95, you truly are a DUMB**** and people like YOU are why I have a hard time visiting this section anymore!!! Of course, 95 probably stands for the year you were born so you're just a young know-it-all PUNK that can't help it anyway!!!

Guns are not the problem, it's the crazy and criminally insane F****S that get their hands on them and kill innocent people!!! Why the F*** can't they just put a bullet in their own heads?! Oh I know why, because they're F*****G COWARDS!!!! 2nd Ammendment Rights will stand the test of time... Thank you Fore-Fathers!!!

[HawgZWylde]

Just read this entire thread and only learned one new thing... andrew95, you truly are a DUMB**** and people like YOU are why I have a hard time visiting this section anymore!!! Of course, 95 probably stands for the year you were born so you're just a young know-it-all PUNK that can't help it anyway!!!

Guns are not the problem, it's the crazy and criminally insane F****S that get their hands on them and kill innocent people!!! Why the F*** can't they just put a bullet in their own heads?! Oh I know why, because they're F*****G COWARDS!!!! 2nd Ammendment Rights will stand the test of time... Thank you Fore-Fathers!!!

Well said HS...

A few things need to be clear. First, the Founders of this nation did not put the 2nd Amendment in place to protect deer hunting. Second, the Bill of Rights is not a list of rights granted us by the government. The rights listed exist sans government. This document points them out lest the people in government forget. Third, when you hear that this is a republic and not a democracy that is not merely rhetoric. There is a stark difference between the two forms of governance. In a Constitutional Republic, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and may not be altered by a mere vote of the government. The majority does not have the power to remove rights from the minority…and some rights are unalienable, meaning they are not in the purview of governments.

The 2nd Amendment is there to insure the other ones are not usurped. It is there to make certain that any government we elect doesn’t become tyrannical or dictatorial. It is not there for hunters or even self-defense of our home from crime. It is there to provide protection from government seeking to take away freedom and liberty from the people. The Bill of Rights in its entirety will be protected by whatever means become necessary. That there are forces within our nation who have decided that our rights no longer serve them is immaterial to the existence of my right to bear arms. This is not a debate.

I am not interested in the give and take of opinions about basic rights. Another's opinion of my basic rights doesn’t matter to me. You don’t have a say in whether I have free speech or the right of self-determination. It was a violent revolution that put the government out of the “granting rights” business. It will take another such action to change that.

[pcuser]

Well said HS...

A few things need to be clear. First, the Founders of this nation did not put the 2nd Amendment in place to protect deer hunting. Second, the Bill of Rights is not a list of rights granted us by the government. The rights listed exist sans government. This document points them out lest the people in government forget. Third, when you hear that this is a republic and not a democracy that is not merely rhetoric. There is a stark difference between the two forms of governance. In a Constitutional Republic, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and may not be altered by a mere vote of the government. The majority does not have the power to remove rights from the minority…and some rights are unalienable, meaning they are not in the purview of governments.

The 2nd Amendment is there to insure the other ones are not usurped. It is there to make certain that any government we elect doesn’t become tyrannical or dictatorial. It is not there for hunters or even self-defense of our home from crime. It is there to provide protection from government seeking to take away freedom and liberty from the people. The Bill of Rights in its entirety will be protected by whatever means become necessary. That there are forces within our nation who have decided that our rights no longer serve them is immaterial to the existence of my right to bear arms. This is not a debate.

I am not interested in the give and take of opinions about basic rights. Another's opinion of my basic rights doesn’t matter to me. You don’t have a say in whether I have free speech or the right of self-determination. It was a violent revolution that put the government out of the “granting rights” business. It will take another such action to change that.

Think back to prohibition or slavery. The ability to change the Constitution is written into it by the founders. Saying what you believe has nothing whatsoever to do with our ability to change the Constitution. Most would argue that slavery always is and was "unconstitutional". Yet it was written into the Constitution by the founders. The founders understood that times change and sometimes necessitate changes to the Constitution. That's why it's written as it is...

[HawgZWylde]

Think back to prohibition or slavery. The ability to change the Constitution is written into it by the founders. Saying what you believe has nothing whatsoever to do with our ability to change the Constitution. Most would argue that slavery always is and was "unconstitutional". Yet it was written into the Constitution by the founders. The founders understood that times change and sometimes necessitate changes to the Constitution. That's why it's written as it is...

Article V of the Constitution spells out the processes by which amendments can be proposed and ratified.

To Propose Amendments

In the U.S. Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate approve by a two-thirds supermajority vote, a joint resolution amending the Constitution. Amendments so approved do not require the signature of the President of the United States and are sent directly to the states for ratification.

Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.)

To Ratify Amendments

Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or

Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition.

This, pcuser, will never legitimately happen regarding the second amendment. You will never disarm law abiding Americans. I know your ideology requires it's civilians to be fully submissive to it's government rulers, and that my friend, will never happen in America. Your use of prohibition and slavery is absolutely ridiculous, apples and oranges really, and has nothing to do with civilian Americans of all cultures having absolute control over it's government and not the other way around. As a matter of fact, prohibition is a great example of just that, worked out great didn't it? Now how do you suppose it would work out regarding a civilians right to protect his life and freedoms against an armed gang or a tyrannical, totalitarian government? Are you going to be one of those people going door to door and demanding their firearms? I didn't think so.

I assure you the founders would never agree to disarming the American people. Revisionist much user?

[HawgStalker]

Article V of the Constitution spells out the processes by which amendments can be proposed and ratified.

To Propose Amendments

In the U.S. Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate approve by a two-thirds supermajority vote, a joint resolution amending the Constitution. Amendments so approved do not require the signature of the President of the United States and are sent directly to the states for ratification.

Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.)

To Ratify Amendments

Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or

Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition.

This, pcuser, will never legitimately happen regarding the second amendment. You will never disarm law abiding Americans. I know your ideology requires it's civilians to be fully submissive to it's government rulers, and that my friend, will never happen in America. Your use of prohibition and slavery is absolutely ridiculous, apples and oranges really, and has nothing to do with civilian Americans of all cultures having absolute control over it's government and not the other way around. As a matter of fact, prohibition is a great example of just that, worked out great didn't it? Now how do you suppose it would work out regarding a civilians right to protect his life and freedoms against an armed gang or a tyrannical, totalitarian government? Are you going to be one of those people going door to door and demanding their firearms? I didn't think so.

I assure you the founders would never agree to disarming the American people. Revisionist much user?
Ditto to that HW... These liberals NEVER get ALL the facts before they spout off at the mouth!!!

Some things will NEVER change.......

[pcuser]

Article V of the Constitution spells out the processes by which amendments can be proposed and ratified.

To Propose Amendments

In the U.S. Congress, both the House of Representatives and the Senate approve by a two-thirds supermajority vote, a joint resolution amending the Constitution. Amendments so approved do not require the signature of the President of the United States and are sent directly to the states for ratification.

Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.)

To Ratify Amendments

Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or

Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition.

This, pcuser, will never legitimately happen regarding the second amendment. You will never disarm law abiding Americans. I know your ideology requires it's civilians to be fully submissive to it's government rulers, and that my friend, will never happen in America. Your use of prohibition and slavery is absolutely ridiculous, apples and oranges really, and has nothing to do with civilian Americans of all cultures having absolute control over it's government and not the other way around. As a matter of fact, prohibition is a great example of just that, worked out great didn't it? Now how do you suppose it would work out regarding a civilians right to protect his life and freedoms against an armed gang or a tyrannical, totalitarian government? Are you going to be one of those people going door to door and demanding their firearms? I didn't think so.

I assure you the founders would never agree to disarming the American people. Revisionist much user?

Do you even read what I write? I think you just react to my userid... You and others of your ilk have a bad habit of making ill-considered sweeping generalizations without thinking. I am not suggesting we can remove the second amendment. I'm not even convinced that would be a good thing. However, you state "The majority does not have the power to remove rights from the minority…and some rights are unalienable, meaning they are not in the purview of governments." You have the Constitution confused with the Declaration. The Declaration uses the term "unalienable Rights". The government only exists by the will of the majority. The government, voted into being by that will can vote without input from the people to change the Constitution. I didn't say it was easy, only that it can be done. That's what I pointed out. You further state "I am not interested in the give and take of opinions about basic rights. Another's opinion of my basic rights doesn’t matter to me. You don’t have a say in whether I have free speech or the right of self-determination. It was a violent revolution that put the government out of the “granting rights” business. It will take another such action to change that." As I said, slavery and prohibition took away basic rights of others regardless of their opinions about those rights. You try to conflate my statements as suggestive of what you believe I'm saying as opposed to what I actually say. Furthermore, you know little about my ideology. The very notion of civilians being submissive to their government rulers is offensive to me and most people in this country. Your comment about my being a revisionist is hyperbole of the highest order. Try thinking before spouting off. It will stand you in good stead if done correctly.

[pcuser]

Ditto to that HW... These liberals NEVER get ALL the facts before they spout off at the mouth!!!

Some things will NEVER change.......

I suggest you read the previous post. It will explain that I have all the facts and I don't spout of at the mouth. What never seems to change is your ability to read information and not understand what you read. Perhaps some more remedial education would help with that...

[Lady Quagga]

The ability to change the Constitution is written into it by the founders. Saying what you believe has nothing whatsoever to do with our ability to change the Constitution. Most would argue that slavery always is and was "unconstitutional". Yet it was written into the Constitution by the founders. The founders understood that times change and sometimes necessitate changes to the Constitution.


Article V of the Constitution spells out the processes by which amendments can be proposed and ratified.

[...]

Your use of prohibition and slavery is absolutely ridiculous, apples and oranges really, and has nothing to do with civilian Americans of all cultures having absolute control over it's government and not the other way around.

There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents modification - or outright repeal - of the Second Amendment. I don't believe either is likely to happen anytime soon, but the possibility exists.

Pcuser's reference to prohibition and slavery are actually quite relevant. At any given time - past, present, or future - our society may deem it fit to modify the Constitution, effectively eliminating the rights of all (or a certain class of) citizens. The compromise of slavery - in which blacks had absolutely no control over their government - was a conscious decision made by our Founding Fathers. A nation which could allow such a thing to occur - to the cost of the lives of 750,000 of it's own citizens - could certainly allow the curtailing of its citizen's gun rights.

[HawgZWylde]

There is nothing in the Constitution which prevents modification - or outright repeal - of the Second Amendment. I don't believe either is likely to happen anytime soon, but the possibility exists.

Pcuser's reference to prohibition and slavery are actually quite relevant. At any given time - past, present, or future - our society may deem it fit to modify the Constitution, effectively eliminating the rights of all (or a certain class of) citizens. The compromise of slavery - in which blacks had absolutely no control over their government - was a conscious decision made by our Founding Fathers. A nation which could allow such a thing to occur - to the cost of the lives of 750,000 of it's own citizens - could certainly allow the curtailing of its citizen's gun rights.

I didn't say that Quagga. I clearly showed the only way our constitution can be modified or amended. What I am saying is it will not happen regarding specifically the 2nd amendment. It would be a huge mistake and would just provoke a civil war as Americans will not go for it...

As far as ending slavery, that was a human civil rights issue, not the same as the right to defend oneself and fellow Americans against a tyrannical government. That applies to Americans of all cultures, as I stated. At a minimum, half this nation will not turn in their firearms, they will have to be taken by force, and I think you know as well as I do what the results of that action would be...

[Lady Quagga]

I didn't say that Quagga. I clearly showed the only way our constitution can be modified or amended. What I am saying is it will not happen regarding specifically the 2nd amendment. It would be a huge mistake and would just provoke a civil war as Americans will not go for it...

As far as ending slavery, that was a human civil rights issue, not the same as the right to defend oneself and fellow Americans against a tyrannical government. That applies to Americans of all cultures, as I stated. At a minimum, half this nation will not turn in their firearms, they will have to be taken by force, and I think you know as well as I do what the results of that action would be...

There is no guarantee that any portion of the Constitution cannot and would not be repealed given the right set of circumstances. While it may not be likely now, that doesn't mean it wouldn't be likely in the future.

I would ask slaves if they felt their situation in life was sanctioned by a tyrannical government. I'd argue their rights were no less important than those afforded to you by the Second Amendment.

[City Dad]

I think that anyone who is truly concerned about their right to the access of firearms should do their best to not look like an idiot - which seems to be difficult these days. One stupid thing that pro-gun folks could refrain from doing is continually insisting that the Founding Fathers adopted the Second Amendment because they thought it would be a good idea to have an armed population that could wage combat against the central government. Google "Whiskey Rebellion" to see how George and the boys felt about that.

If fact, the whole argument that a 21st century American requires a standing militia to battle tyranny is utterly laughable. Picture your average NRA meeting forming up to take on the National Guard... or the 82nd Airborne... because that's what you'd be talking about. When the government finally does come for you, boys, it's gonna be with all the resources at it's disposal, so good luck against that Abrams with your AR 14. Further more, if you were really going to use firearms to go after the true tyrannic power in this country you'd be talking about gunning down the board of directors of Pfizer or Exon Mobile... and how do you think your obituary would read after a stunt like that?

So, Big-Shooters, please, please do yourself a favor and consider a respectful silence for the moment.

I'm just sayin...

[Lady Quagga]

I think that anyone who is truly concerned about their right to the access of firearms should do their best to not look like an idiot - which seems to be difficult these days. One stupid thing that pro-gun folks could refrain from doing is continually insisting that the Founding Fathers adopted the Second Amendment because they thought it would be a good idea to have an armed population that could wage combat against the central government. Google "Whiskey Rebellion" to see how George and the boys felt about that.

If fact, the whole argument that a 21st century American requires a standing militia to battle tyranny is utterly laughable. Picture your average NRA meeting forming up to take on the National Guard... or the 82nd Airborne... because that's what you'd be talking about. When the government finally does come for you, boys, it's gonna be with all the resources at it's disposal, so good luck against that Abrams with your AR 14. Further more, if you were really going to use firearms to go after the true tyrannic power in this country you'd be talking about gunning down the board of directors of Pfizer or Exon Mobile... and how do you think your obituary would read after a stunt like that?

A perfectly valid argument, CD.


So, Big-Shooters, please, please do yourself a favor and consider a respectful silence for the moment.

I'm just sayin...

Now here is where you start to lose me. As a "big-shooter", do you believe it is reasonable for me to remain silent when those opposed to "big-shooters" are actively engaged in taking the right/privilege away from me?

[seal]

Picture your average NRA meeting forming up to take on the National Guard... or the 82nd Airborne... because that's what you'd be talking about. When the government finally does come for you, boys, it's gonna be with all the resources at it's disposal, so good luck against that Abrams with your AR 14. Further more, if you were really going to use firearms to go after the true tyrannic power in this country you'd be talking about gunning down the board of directors of Pfizer or Exon Mobile... and how do you think your obituary would read after a stunt like that?

I had a similar thought. Guns vs. jets, missiles all kinds of weapons of mass destruction, the logic kind of didn't make sense, basically what good would guns do anyway?

But then I thought about Syria, seems the rebels over there were way overpowered but with guts and GUNS they seem to be doing pretty damn good. So kind of screws with your logic a bit doesn't it? Oh and possibly this also would explain why the "big shooters" don't wish to give up on their more powerful weapons, gives substance to the argument that those weapons are necessary for average citizens to own.

[DarkShadow]

It's really telling that the poll is either, 'everyone is given a gun at birth,' to 'nobody ever can own a gun ever or else they get shot.'

Yes, gun issues are black and white issues, and major progress will be made when there are only two options to choose from. Yes, it's either "yes" or "no," take a choice because there are no gray areas.

[City Dad]

A perfectly valid argument, CD.



Now here is where you start to lose me. As a "big-shooter", do you believe it is reasonable for me to remain silent when those opposed to "big-shooters" are actively engaged in taking the right/privilege away from me?

Firstly, I personally, own guns. My entire family are gun collectors - trap-shooters and re-loaders, so, I feel very much in the geographic middle of the debate. In my previous statement, what I was trying to imply was that tact, on the part of gun enthusiasts, would be more productive at this time than the kind of all-out frontal assault "independents - or non NRA gun owners" like me are perceiving. Having a foot in both worlds I recognize the right to self-defense and at the same time can appreciate the revulsion gun-control supporters feel at the strident, macho bluster that is presently being passed off as dialogue by the pro-gun community in general and the NRA specifically.

If I were a dues-paying NRA member, I'd want to kick David Keen in the short-and-curlies for the clumsy, ham-handed and infinitely oblivious publicity stunt he pulled this week. Profoundly counter-productive, confrontational and wrong.

The reality is that fewer and fewer Americans worship at the shrine of John Wayne. Gun-rights advocates would do well to remember this and argue their case more like you, LQ and less like... well, others. ;)

[HawgZWylde]

I think that anyone who is truly concerned about their right to the access of firearms should do their best to not look like an idiot - which seems to be difficult these days. One stupid thing that pro-gun folks could refrain from doing is continually insisting that the Founding Fathers adopted the Second Amendment because they thought it would be a good idea to have an armed population that could wage combat against the central government. Google "Whiskey Rebellion" to see how George and the boys felt about that.

If fact, the whole argument that a 21st century American requires a standing militia to battle tyranny is utterly laughable. Picture your average NRA meeting forming up to take on the National Guard... or the 82nd Airborne... because that's what you'd be talking about. When the government finally does come for you, boys, it's gonna be with all the resources at it's disposal, so good luck against that Abrams with your AR 14. Further more, if you were really going to use firearms to go after the true tyrannic power in this country you'd be talking about gunning down the board of directors of Pfizer or Exon Mobile... and how do you think your obituary would read after a stunt like that?

So, Big-Shooters, please, please do yourself a favor and consider a respectful silence for the moment.

I'm just sayin...

" One stupid thing that pro-gun folks could refrain from doing is continually insisting that the Founding Fathers adopted the Second Amendment because they thought it would be a good idea to have an armed population that could wage combat against the central government."

Hate it, disagree with it, ridicule it all you want, but that is precisely what the 2nd amendment was created for. The removal of a tyrannical central government.

[City Dad]

I had a similar thought. Guns vs. jets, missiles all kinds of weapons of mass destruction, the logic kind of didn't make sense, basically what good would guns do anyway?

But then I thought about Syria, seems the rebels over there were way overpowered but with guts and GUNS they seem to be doing pretty !@#$%^&* good. So kind of screws with your logic a bit doesn't it? Oh and possibly this also would explain why the "big shooters" don't wish to give up on their more powerful weapons, gives substance to the argument that those weapons are necessary for average citizens to own.

How are Syrian rebels equipped? Did they stock up at Turners or are they procuring military weapons and ordinance from Syrian army defectors and interested military third parties? Also, how do you think the Syrian rebels would fare against the army of a modern superpower state? Espousing the idea that American's need to be allowed the arm themselves to fight the government imakes no sense to me. If that were the case I would think we'd need to legalize the great, big fire crackers - you know, anti-aircraft missiles, land mines, hand-grenades, etc.. Personally, I'd rather not live in a country where anyone can buy a Stinger if they pass the Hunters Safety course and have an orange vest.

[City Dad]

" One stupid thing that pro-gun folks could refrain from doing is continually insisting that the Founding Fathers adopted the Second Amendment because they thought it would be a good idea to have an armed population that could wage combat against the central government."

Hate it, disagree with it, ridicule it all you want, but that is precisely what the 2nd amendment was created for. The removal of a tyrannical central government.

Nope. Defense against a tyrannical European government.

[Lady Quagga]

Firstly, I personally, own guns. My entire family are gun collectors - trap-shooters and re-loaders, so, I feel very much in the geographic middle of the debate. In my previous statement, what I was trying to imply was that tact, on the part of gun enthusiasts, would be more productive at this time than the kind of all-out frontal assault "independents - or non NRA gun owners" like me are perceiving. Having a foot in both worlds I recognize the right to self-defense and at the same time can appreciate the revulsion gun-control supporters feel at the strident, macho bluster that is presently being passed off as dialogue by the pro-gun community in general and the NRA specifically.

If I were a dues-paying NRA member, I'd want to kick David Keen in the short-and-curlies for the clumsy, ham-handed and infinitely oblivious publicity stunt he pulled this week. Profoundly counter-productive, confrontational and wrong.

The reality is that fewer and fewer Americans worship at the shrine of John Wayne. Gun-rights advocates would do well to remember this and argue their case more like you, LQ and less like... well, others. ;)

I agree, but can a "common ground" be found between pro-gun and gun-control supporters? My own personal point of view is that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to possess semi-automatic weapons with a capacity of, say, 30 rounds. There are those who will vehemently disagree with me, and at this point in time, I do not know of a middle ground between individuals like me and those who would pass gun-laws more restrictive than in the '94 Crime Bill.


How are Syrian rebels equipped? Did they stock up at Turners or are they procuring military weapons and ordinance from Syrian army defectors and interested military third parties? Also, how do you think the Syrian rebels would fare against the army of a modern superpower state? Espousing the idea that American's need to be allowed the arm themselves to fight the government imakes no sense to me. If that were the case I would think we'd need to legalize the great, big fire crackers - you know, anti-aircraft missiles, land mines, hand-grenades, etc.. Personally, I'd rather not live in a country where anyone can buy a Stinger if they pass the Hunters Safety course and have an orange vest.

I have no desire to see military-grade hardware in the hands of civilians. (Though in certain states, it is still possible to obtain a Class 3 firearms permit for such weapons under heavily regulated conditions - but that is a different issue altogether.)

Devil's Advocate here: might it stand to reason that firearms purchased from your local gun store are suitable for civilian ownership, since - as might be suggested from your quote above - they may not be suited for military engagements? (CD, I ask this only because, as ridiculous as you and I may find these arguments, this is but a sampling of what we'll be seeing in the coming weeks.)


Nope. Defense against a tyrannical European government.

While the "defense against tyranny" argument is by no means my primary reason for my support of private ownership, it is not one I can completely discount. Though the immediate threat of tyranny at the time of creation of the Second Amendment came from the British, in modern times that threat could just as easily shift. But I do agree with you CD - in the current political climate, that is really not the argument gun owners should be making.

[HawgZWylde]

Nope. Defense against a tyrannical European government.

Bwahahaha, clueless.

The Right To Keep And Bear Arms - Quotes

"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."

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Proposed Virginia Constitution, 1776

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms. . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." -- Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774-1776, quoting from On Crimes and Punishment, by criminologist Cesare Beccaria, 1764

-- Thomas Jefferson

"[A] string of amendments were presented to the lower House; these altogether respected personal liberty." -- Letter to Patrick Henry, June 12, 1789, referring to the introduction of what became the Bill of Rights

-- William Grayson

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." -- The Federalist, No. 46

- James Madison

"[I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens." -- The Federalist, No. 29

- Alexander Hamilton

"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." -- Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775

- Thomas Paine

"What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789

- Elbridge Gerry

"The great object is, that every man be armed."

- Patrick Henry

"That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free State..."

- George Mason

"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possesion and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

- Patrick Henry

"...who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country...? I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

- George Mason

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people!"

- Patrick Henry

"No free government was ever founded or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state.... Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen."

- State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788

"While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny."

- Rev. Nicholas Collin, Fayetteville Gazette (N.C.), October 12, 1789

"The powers of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sward are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress have no right to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American.... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or the state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

- Pennsylvania Gazette, February 20, 1788

"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that axists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive."

- Noah Webster An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

"The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them" - Tench Coxe, An American Citizen IV, October 21, 1787

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." -- The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

"As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms." -- Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

"And that the said Constitution 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 peacable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent teh people from petitioning, in a peacable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possesions."

- Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle." --

"... whereas, 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 H. Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer 53, 1788

"... of the liberty of conscience in matters of religious faith, of speech and of the press; of the trail by jury of the vicinage in civil and criminal cases; of the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus; of the right to keep and bear arms.... If these rights are well defined, and secured against encroachment, it is impossible that government should ever degenerate into tyranny."

- James Monroe

"... the loyalists in the beginning of the late war, who objected to associating, arming and fighting, in defense of our liberties, because these measures were not constitutional. A free people should always be left... with every possible power to promote their own happiness."

- Pennsylvania Gazette, April 23, 1788

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

- Thomas Jefferson, in letter to William S. Smith, 1787
Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment
Quotes on Freedom and Liberty

[HawgZWylde]

Nope. Defense against a tyrannical European government.

More

Founding Fathers on the Second Amendment

GEORGE WASHINGTON (First President)
THOMAS JEFFERSON (Author of Declaration of Independence, member Continental Congress, Governor of Virginia, Minister to France, Secretary of State, Vice President, 3rd President )
"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." 12 Jun 1823 (The Complete Jefferson p.32)
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." (Jefferson Papers, p. 334, C.J. Boyd, 1950)
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Thomas Jefferson Papers p. 334, 1950)
"And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms...The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Letter to William S. Smith 13 Nov 1787 (Jefferson, On Democracy p. 20, 1939; Padover, editor)
"The few cases wherein these things (proposed Bill of Rights) may do evil, cannot be weighed against the multitude where the want of them will do evil...I hope therefore a bill of rights will be formed to guard the people against the federal government..." (letter to Madison 31 July 1788, The Papers of James Madison, Hobson & Rutland, p.11:212)
"I have a right to nothing which another has a right to take away." (letter to Uriah Forrest, 1787, Jefferson Papers, 12:477)
"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law,' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." (letter to Isaac Tifany, 1819)
GEORGE MASON (Virginia House of Burgesses, Virginia delegate to Constitutional Convention, wrote Virginia Declaration of Rights, wrote "Objections to the Constitution", urged creation of a Bill of Rights)
"I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." (Jonathan Elliot, The Debates of the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [NY: Burt Franklin,1888] p.425-6)
"Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised...to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia..." (In Virginia's Ratifying Convention, Elliot p.3:379-380)
"The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practiced in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless - by disarming them." (Elliot, p. 3:379-80)
"I consider and fear the natural propensity of rulers to oppress the people. I wish only to prevent them from doing evil." (In Virginia's Ratifying Convention, Elliot p.3:381)
JOHN ADAMS (Signed Declaration of Independence, Continental Congress delegate, 1st Vice President, 2nd President)
"Arms in the hands of citizens (may) be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense..." 1788(A Defense of the Constitution of the Government of the USA, p.471)
JAMES MONROE (Served in Revolutionary Army, member Continental Congress, Governor of Virginia, U.S. Secretary of State, Secretary of War, 5th President)
"But it ought always be held prominently in view that the safety of these States and of everything dear to a free people must depend in an eminent degree on the militia." (his first Inaugural Address, 1817)
SAM ADAMS (Signed Declaration of Independence, organized the Sons of Liberty, participated in Boston Tea Party, Member of Continental Congress, Governor of Massachusetts)
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the right of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; ...or to prevent the people from petitioning , in a peaceable and orderly manner; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions." (Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788, p86-87)
JAMES MADISON (Drafted Virginia Constitution, Member of Continental Congress, Virginia delegate to Constitutional Convention, named "Father of the Constitution", author of Federalist Papers, author of the Bill of Rights, Congressman from Virginia, Secretary of State, 4th President)
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation.. (where) ..the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." (Federalist Papers #46)
"I believe there are more instances of the abridgment of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
"They [proposed Bill of Rights] relate 1st. to private rights....the great object in view is to limit and qualify the powers of government..." 8 June 1789 (The Papers of James Madison, Hobson & Rutland, 12:193, 204)
"To these (federal troops attempting to impose tyranny) would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands." (Federalist Papers #46)
RICHARD HENRY LEE (Signed Declaration of Independence, introduced resolution in Continental Congress to become independent, proposed Bill of Rights from beginning, author of Anti-Fed Papers, Congressman and Senator from Virginia)
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." 1788 (Federal Farmer, p.169)
"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..." 1788 (Federal Farmer)
"No free government was ever founded, or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state... Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizens and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen."
PATRICK HENRY ('Liberty or Death' Speech, member of Continental Congress, Governor of Virginia, member Virginia convention to ratify U.S. Constitution, urged creation of Bill of Rights for Constitution )
"The great object is, that every man be armed.... Every one who is able may have a gun." (Elliot p.3:386)
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." During Virginia Ratification Convention 1788 (Elliot p.3:45)
"I am not well versed in history, but I will submit to your recollection, whether liberty has been destroyed most often by the licentiousness of the people, or by the tyranny of rulers. I imagine, sir, you will find the balance on the side of tyranny." (Elliot P.3:74)
"My great objection to this government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights, or of waging wars against tyrants." (Elliot, 3:47-48; in Virginia Ratifying Convention, before Bill of Rights)
"O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone..." (Elliot p.3:50-52, in Virginia Ratifying Convention demanding a guarantee of the right to bear arms.)
BEN FRANKLIN (member, Continental Congress, signed Declaration of Independence, attended Constitutional Convention, 1st Postmaster General)
"Those who would give up essential Liberty to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." (Respectfully Quoted, p. 201, Suzy Platt, Barnes & Noble, 1993)
NOAH WEBSTER (Served in Revolutionary Army, Printed dictionary; a federalist)
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed...." (An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Webster1787)
"A people can never be deprived of their liberties, while they retain in their own hands, a power sufficient to any other power in the state." (Webster, p.42-43)
ALEXANDER HAMILTON (Member of Continental Congress, Aid-de-camp to General Washington, commanded forces at Yorktown, New York delegate to the Constitutional Convention, wrote Federalist Papers, 1st Secretary of Treasury for George Washington, wanted 'President for life')
"Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped." (Federalist Papers #29)
TENCH COXE (friend of Madison, member of Continental Congress)
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...(T)he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." (Freeman's Journal, 20 Feb 1778)
"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." (introduction to his discussion, and support, of the 2nd Amend) "Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution" Philadelphia Federal Gazette, 18 June 1789, pg.2
"The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, ...will form a powerful check upon the regular troops..." (Coxe, An Examination of the Constitution of the United States of America p.20-21)
REPRESENTATIVE WILLIAMSON (member of the first Congress of the United States)
"The burden of the militia duty lies equally upon all persons;" in Congress, 22 Dec 1790 (Elliot, p423)
WILLIAM GRAYSON (Senator from Virginia in first Congress under the United States Constitution)
"Last Monday a string of amendments were presented to the lower house; these altogether respect personal liberty..." (in letter to Patrick Henry)
ZACHARIA JOHNSON (delegate to Virginia Ratifying Convention)
"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them." (Elliot, 3:645-6)

[HawgZWylde]

Nope. Defense against a tyrannical European government.

More


CAPTAIN JOHN PARKER (Commander, Lexington Militia Company)
"Every man of you who is equipped, follow me..Stand your ground. Don't fire unless fired upon. But if they want to have a war, let it begin here." Lexington, MA, 19 April 1775, as British troops approached on their march to Concord to implement gun control (Mine Eyes Have Seen, Goldstein 1997 & Quotes for the Military Writer, U.S. Army Command Information Unit, Library of HQ TRADOC)
GEORGE WASHINGTON
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed." (farewell address)
"A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined..." (Papers of the President, p.65, Richardson, ed)
THOMAS JEFFERSON
"Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like evil spirits at the dawn of day." (Letter to Du Pont de Nemours 24 April 1816)
"When the government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."
SAMUEL ADAMS
"If ye love wealth more than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home and leave us in peace. We seek not your council, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may your chains set lightly upon you, and posterity forget that ye were our country men." 1776
"The liberties of our country, the freedom of our civil constitution, are worth defending at all hazards; and it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors: they purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood, and transmitted to us with care and diligence. It will bring an everlasting mark of infamy on the present generation, enlightened as it is, if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or be cheated out of them by the artifices of false and designing men."
PATRICK HENRY
"Millions of people armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible. ...The battle, is not to the strong alone; it is the vigilant, the active, the brave. ...Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death." Excerpts of speech made before the Virginia House of Burgesses, 1775
"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense?.... If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to use, as in our own hands?" (3 Elliot, p. 168-9)
THOMAS PAINE (Author: Common Sense & The Rights of Man, urged Declaration of Independence)
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
"...arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe...Horrid mischief would ensue were the good deprived of the use of them."
DANIEL WEBSTER (Representative and Senator from New Hampshire, U.S. Secretary of State )
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption for authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN RANDOLPH
"A people who mean to continue free must be prepared to meet danger in person..." (22 Dec 1790, Elliot p.4:411)
LUTHER MARTIN (Member Continental Congress, Maryland delegate to the Constitutional Convention)
"...the whole history of mankind proves that so far from parting with the powers actually delegated to it, government is constantly encroaching on the small pittance of rights reserved by the people to themselves and gradually wrestling them out of their hands..." (The Maryland Journal, 28 March 1788)
WILLIAM PITT
"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves." Speech to House of Commons, 1787
EDMUND BURKE
"Nobody makes a greater mistake than he who does nothing because he could only do a little."
"The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." 1784
ANDREW JACKSON (Served in Revolutionary Army, Senator, Major General US Army, 17th President)
"...but a million armed freemen, possessed of the means of war, can never be conquered by a foreign foe." his first Inaugural Address, 1829 (total popular vote for his election was just over one million)
ARISTOTLE
"Both Oligarch and Tyrant mistrust the people, and therefore deprive them of arms." (Politics, Aristotle p. 218)
ABRAHAM LINCOLN
"The people of the United States are the rightful masters of both Congress and the Courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution." (17 September 1859, speech in Cincinnati, OH)
"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards out of men."
WILLIAM RAWLE (U.S. Attorney for Pennsylvania, appointed by President Washington)
"No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people." (Rawle, A View of the Constitution, p. 125-6, 1829)
ALBERT EINSTEIN
"The strength of the Constitution lies entirely in the determination of each citizen to defend it. Only if every single citizen feels duty bound to do his share in this defense are constitutional rights secure."
HUBERT H. HUMPHREY (Senator, Vice President)
"Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms...The right of citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard, against the tyranny which now appears remote in America but which historically has proven to be always possible." (22 October 1959)
WINSTON CHURCHILL
"If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
REVEREND MARTIN NIEMOLLER (arrested by the Gestapo in 1937)
"In Germany, they first came for the communist, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then, they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew...Then they came for the Catholics. I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and there was no one left to speak up."
FREDERICK DOUGLASS (U.S. Marshal, son of a slave)
"Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; ...The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." 1857
DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.
"A right delayed is a right denied."
JOSEPH STORY (Supreme Court Justice)
"The militia is the natural defense of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as 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...enable the people to resist and triumph over them." (Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, p.3:746-7, 1833)
WILLIAM HOWARD TAFT (27th President, Chief Justice US Supreme Court)
"Constitutions are checks upon the hasty action of the majority. They are self imposed restraints of a whole people upon a majority of them to secure sober action and a respect for the rights of the minority." (22 August 1911)
WILLIAM O. DOUGLAS (Supreme Court Justice 1939-75)
"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there is a twilight when everything remains seemingly unchanged. And it is in such a twilight that we all must be most aware of change in the air-- however slight-- lest we become the unwitting victims of the darkness."
"Fear of assassination often produces restraints compatible with dictatorship, not democracy."
HUGO BLACK (Supreme Court Justice, U.S. Senator)
"I cannot agree with those who think of the Bill of Rights as an 18th century straitjacket, unsuited for this age...The evils it guards against are not only old, they are with us now, they exist today." (The Great Rights, Cahn '63, p 44-45)
GEORGE SUTHERLAND (Supreme Court Justice)
"For the saddest epitaph which can be carved in memory of a vanished freedom is that it was lost because its possessors failed to stretch forth a saving hand while there was still time."
LOUIS BRANDEIS (Supreme Court Justice)
"Those who won our independence by revolution were not cowards. They did not fear political change. They did not exalt order at the cost of liberty." (Whitney v. California, 1927)
"Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well meaning but without understanding." (Olmstead v. United States, 1928)
ANTONIN SCALIA (Supreme Court Justice)
"It would be strange to find in the midst of a catalog of the rights of individuals a provision securing to the states the right to maintain a designated 'Militia.' Dispassionate scholarship suggests quite strongly that the right of the people to keep and bear arms meant just that . There is no need to deceive ourselves as to what the original Second Amendment said and meant." A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law, Princeton University Press
"[T]hey [the Founders] feared that some future generation might wish to abandon liberties that they considered essential, and so sought to protect those liberties in a Bill of Rights." A Matter of Interpretation
"The Constitution Protects us from our own best intentions." (U.S. v. Printz, 1977)
CLARENCE THOMAS (Supreme Court Justice)
"The Second Amendment similarly appears to contain an express limitation on the government's authority. If the Second Amendment is read to confer a personal right to 'keep and bear arms,' a colorable argument exists that the Federal Government's regulatory scheme, at least as it pertains to possession of firearms, runs afoul of that amendment's protections" (U.S. v. Printz, 1997)
EARL WARREN (former Supreme Court Chief Justice)
"Today, as always, the people, no less than the courts, must remain vigilant to preserve the principals of our Bill of Rights, lest in our desire to be secure we lose our ability to be free." (James Madison Lecture, NY University, 1962)
DAVID KOPEL (Civil Rights Attorney)
"They will never outlaw all of your guns at once. But every 'reasonable' control they can impose without your resistance gives them one more bit of leverage to make gun ownership for you and your children and your grandchildren as difficult as possible."
REBECCA WYATT (Founder of Safety for Women and Responsible Motherhood, Inc.)
"The advice on self-defense that I received after [my] assault was 'Don't get a gun. It will only add to the violence.' Never having been exposed to guns before, this seemed to make sense -- until I was attacked again."
SHERIFF RICHARD MACK (Sheriff of Graham County, AZ; filed suit challenging Constitutionality of the Brady Law)
"...the only background check I'd support is one on politicians."
LIEUTENANT LOWELL DUCKETT (Pres., Black Police Caucus, Special Assistant to Washington, D.C. Police Chief)
"Gun control has not worked in D.C. The only people who have guns are criminals. We have the strictest gun laws in the nation and one of the highest murder rates. It's quicker to pull your Smith and Wesson than to dial 911 if you're being robbed." The Washington Post
MAHATMA GANDHI
"Among the many misdeeds of British rule in India, history will look upon the Act depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest." (My Autobiography, p. 446)
TENCH COXE
"What should we think of a gentleman, who, upon hiring a waiting-man, should say to him 'my friend, please take notice, before we come together, that I shall always claim the liberty of eating when and what I please, of fishing and hunting upon my own ground, of keeping as many horses and hounds as I can maintain, and of speaking and writing any sentiments upon all subjects.' (A) master reserves to himself...every thing else which he has not committed to the care of those servants." [editor's translation: Bill of Rights not needed; repetitive]
CESARE BECCARIA
"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; ...The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty -- so dear to men, ...and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer? Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree." On Crime and Punishment, p.145 (1819) originally published in 1764
JAMES BURGH (18th Century English Libertarian writer)
"...most attractive to Americans, the possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave, it being the ultimate means by which freedom was to be preserved." (Shalhope, The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment, p.604)
DR. SUZANNE GRATIA (Texas State Representative)
"I blame the deaths of my parents on those legislators who deny me my right to defend myself." (Both her parents and 20 others were killed by a mad man in the Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen, TX, 1991. TX law prevented her from carrying her handgun into the restaurant, so she left it in the car)
UNKNOWN
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing he cares about more than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."
THE TALMUD
"Who can protest an injustice but does not is an accomplice in the act."
EDWARD ABBEY
"The tank, the B-52, the fighter-bomber, the state controlled police are the weapons of dictatorship. The rifle is the weapon of democracy....If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police, the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the government and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws."

[HawgZWylde]

I agree, but can a "common ground" be found between pro-gun and gun-control supporters? My own personal point of view is that law-abiding citizens should be allowed to possess semi-automatic weapons with a capacity of, say, 30 rounds. There are those who will vehemently disagree with me, and at this point in time, I do not know of a middle ground between individuals like me and those who would pass gun-laws more restrictive than in the '94 Crime Bill.



I have no desire to see military-grade hardware in the hands of civilians. (Though in certain states, it is still possible to obtain a Class 3 firearms permit for such weapons under heavily regulated conditions - but that is a different issue altogether.)

Devil's Advocate here: might it stand to reason that firearms purchased from your local gun store are suitable for civilian ownership, since - as might be suggested from your quote above - they may not be suited for military engagements? (CD, I ask this only because, as ridiculous as you and I may find these arguments, this is but a sampling of what we'll be seeing in the coming weeks.)



While the "defense against tyranny" argument is by no means my primary reason for my support of private ownership, it is not one I can completely discount. That the immediate threat of tyranny at the time of creation of the Second Amendment came from the British, in modern times that threat could just as easily shift. But I do agree with you CD - in the current political climate, that is really not the argument gun owners should be making.

"in the current political climate, that is really not the argument gun owners should be making."

It happens in increments, and is, and has been happening for some time. Freedoms are being lost at an alarming rate. And if there is an attempt at neutering the second amendment, it should scream at you that the time indeed, is now...

BTW, your first paragraph in your response to CD, hold your breath, we are in total agreement. There is no middle ground on that issue, it's yay, or nay...

[Lady Quagga]

first stupid wall of text


second stupid wall of text


third stupid wall of text

Pro-gun advocates aren't doing themselves any favors by regurgitating walls of text from sites like "What Really Happened (http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/RKBA/2ndQuotes.php)".

If this is the tactic pro-gun folks intend to use in the upcoming gun control debate, they will very quickly end up on the losing side, with no one to blame but themselves.

[Lady Quagga]

It happens in increments, and is, and has been happening for some time. Freedoms are being lost at an alarming rate. And if there is an attempt at neutering the second amendment, it should scream at you that the time indeed, is now...

The "they're comin' to get our guns" argument failed 18 years ago, and will likely fail again if used now.

Should this turn into the gun-control debate I expect it to, some salient points can be made:

1. Millions of Americans, many of them owners of high-capacity semi-automatics, woke up every day and went to bed every night this year, without engaging in a single firearms-related crime.

2. This tragedy points to another underlying but frequently ignored truth - that there are in this country people suffering from mental instability and emotional despair, and we have done nothing to help them or address the driving motivations behind their violent actions.

3. That an incident such as the recent massacre, while tragic, should not be used as a political opportunity to further divide this nation, regardless of which side of the gun-control issue you stand on.

[HawgZWylde]

Pro-gun advocates aren't doing themselves any favors by regurgitating walls of text from sites like "What Really Happened (http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/RKBA/2ndQuotes.php)".

If this is the tactic pro-gun folks intend to use in the upcoming gun control debate, they will very quickly end up on the losing side, with no one to blame but themselves.

Doesn't matter where the quotes came from, just the fact that the quotes are true. I did attempt spacing, but every time I posted, they reformatted without spacing. Ah well.

One of the many tactics. So few actually understand why the second amendment was created, they must be educated of it's true intent. Our public education system surely doesn't do it. So what is wrong with that?

[HawgZWylde]

The "they're comin' to get our guns" argument failed 18 years ago, and will likely fail again if used now.

Should this turn into the gun-control debate I expect it to, some salient points can be made:

1. Millions of Americans, many of them owners of high-capacity semi-automatics, woke up every day and went to bed every night this year, without engaging in a single firearms-related crime.

2. This tragedy points to another underlying but frequently ignored truth - that there are in this country people suffering from mental instability and emotional despair, and we have done nothing to help them or address the driving motivations behind their violent actions.

3. That an incident such as the recent massacre, while tragic, should not be used as a political opportunity to further divide this nation, regardless of which side of the gun-control issue you stand on.

Different situation and political climate now Quagga. We've just had Obamacare shoved down our throats, and a we have a president and an administration that admittedly wants to "fundamentally change" America. That "fundamental change" has so far gone against the grain of the founders intents. Americans are rightfully concerned, and angry. Many on the left are calling for a complete ban on semi auto's. That isn't sitting well with the silent majority.

I do agree with your 3 suggested talking points...

[gamekiller]

1st off, Washington wasn't the first president and definitely not one of the founders...he was #9...john hanson was the first

Freedom? Yeah right!!! What good have guns really done us?

And second and better yet more importantly:

[HawgZWylde]

1st off, Washington wasn't the first president and definitely not one of the founders...he was #9...john hanson was the first

Freedom? Yeah right!!! What good have guns really done us?

And second and better yet more importantly:

Not quite, in November 1781, Hanson became the first President of the Continental Congress to be elected for an annual term as specified in the Articles of Confederation, although Samuel Huntington and Thomas McKean had served in that office after the ratification of the Articles. Under the Articles of Confederation, the United States had no executive branch; the President of Congress was a mostly ceremonial position within the Confederation Congress, but the office did require Hanson to handle a good deal of correspondence and sign official documents. Hanson found the work tedious and wished to resign, but his departure would have left Congress without a quorum to select a successor, and so, out of a sense of duty, he remained in office.

And under those founding fathers what was this nation called then? Siberia of the Americas? Sorry pal, there was no nation in those times. Those men were Tribal leaders of hunters and gatherers. There was not an educated civilized society of any kind in those days in North America...

[gamekiller]

There was not an educated civilized society of any kind in those days in North America...

Ohhhhhh you mean like we are today?? Im pretty sure the natives didnt need the settlers help however...

To each their own son, but dont dance around pissing on my leg, telling me to look at your rain dance

[Lady Quagga]

Different situation and political climate now Quagga. We've just had Obamacare shoved down our throats, and a we have a president and an administration that admittedly wants to "fundamentally change" America. That "fundamental change" has so far gone against the grain of the founders intents. Americans are rightfully concerned, and angry. Many on the left are calling for a complete ban on semi auto's. That isn't sitting well with the silent majority.

On the contrary, you will find the situation and political climate even more polarized than in '94, and hence more hostile towards gun owners.

This country is politically split, right down the middle, on many issues. The notion of a "silent minority" which quietly supports one side or the other, is a pleasant sentiment. It is also wrong. If you were somehow able to get the apathetic citizenry to have their political voices heard, you'd find that they would be evenly split, with no clear advantage for either side. Over one hundred years of election statistics bears this opinion out. You mention "founders' intent" and "fundamental change". These are political catchphrases which are meaningless and tired, regardless of which political party uses them. The birth and rise of America consists of a series of fundamental changes, both good and bad. At the same time, the founding fathers could not possibly have anticipated the nation or world in which we live in - though many of the economic and social policies they enacted had far-reaching and lasting consequences for this country - both beneficial and disastrous. What I find particularly amusing is the good guy badge both Republicans and Democrats try to affix to themselves, especially when voicing their opposition of "the other side".


Doesn't matter where the quotes came from, just the fact that the quotes are true. I did attempt spacing, but every time I posted, they reformatted without spacing. Ah well.

One of the many tactics. So few actually understand why the second amendment was created, they must be educated of it's true intent. Our public education system surely doesn't do it. So what is wrong with that?

Most of the quotes you copied and pasted are political opinions only. I am not arguing that there isn't sound reasoning behind many of those opinions, or a good deal of historical background to support those opinions. The point (once again) is, you aren't legitimizing your point of view by flooding out the opinions of others - particularly by regurgitating walls of text sourced from an inflammatory, alarmist, conspiratorial website like "What Really Happened (http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/RKBA/2ndQuotes.php)".

[HawgZWylde]

On the contrary, you will find the situation and political climate even more polarized than in '94, and hence more hostile towards gun owners.

This country is politically split, right down the middle, on many issues. The notion of a "silent minority" which quietly supports one side or the other, is a pleasant sentiment. It is also wrong. If you were somehow able to get the apathetic citizenry to have their political voices heard, you'd find that they would be evenly split, with no clear advantage for either side. Over one hundred years of election statistics bears this opinion out. You mention "founders' intent" and "fundamental change". These are political catchphrases which are meaningless and tired, regardless of which political party uses them. The birth and rise of America consists of a series of fundamental changes, both good and bad. At the same time, the founding fathers could not possibly have anticipated the nation or world in which we live in - though many of the economic and social policies they enacted had far-reaching and lasting consequences for this country - both beneficial and disastrous. What I find particularly amusing is the good guy badge both Republicans and Democrats try to affix to themselves, especially when voicing their opposition of "the other side".



Most of the quotes you copied and pasted are political opinions only. I am not arguing that there isn't sound reasoning behind many of those opinions, or a good deal of historical background to support those opinions. The point (once again) is, you aren't legitimizing your point of view by flooding out the opinions of others - particularly by regurgitating walls of text sourced from an inflammatory, alarmist, conspiratorial website like "What Really Happened (http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/RKBA/2ndQuotes.php)".

Most of the quotes I copied and pasted are from the founders and those around them, and a few from more modern sources. And who gives a "F" where they came from. I Googled "quotes from the founders regarding the 2nd amendment", and that's what came up. Never saw the site before that, so? It gave me what I wanted.

I don't really care about the opinions of those who seek to disarm the American people. And I certainly don't really care what you think of me. You want to try to portray me as some kind of extremist, that's your problem. I'm a right of center American citizen and proud of it. No extremist as you wish to portray me. Those opinions you so much want to ridicule are from the very men who founded our great nation, so if you don't like that, tough s**t.

One more thing Quagga, nearly 100 million eligible voters do not participate in the elections, so there is no mandate as the socialist progressives wish you to believe. And yes, regarding the second amendment, there is a silent majority. Many democrats, like my 4 brothers-in-laws in Minnesota are staunchly pro second amendment, as are all their democrat friends, and will stand right along side of me in defending it.

Merry Christmas Lady Quagga...

[HawgStalker]

I suggest you read the previous post. It will explain that I have all the facts and I don't spout of at the mouth. What never seems to change is your ability to read information and not understand what you read. Perhaps some more remedial education would help with that...

Lol!!! You're a joke and I don't need more education to understand the constitution or laws of MY country.... Or to read the posts of some DUMB**** liberal much like yourself!!! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year

[Lady Quagga]

Most of the quotes I copied and pasted are from the founders and those around them, and a few from more modern sources. And who gives a "F" where they came from. I Googled "quotes from the founders regarding the 2nd amendment", and that's what came up. Never saw the site before that, so? It gave me what I wanted.

I don't really care about the opinions of those who seek to disarm the American people. And I certainly don't really care what you think of me. You want to try to portray me as some kind of extremist, that's your problem. I'm a right of center American citizen and proud of it. No extremist as you wish to portray me. Those opinions you so much want to ridicule are from the very men who founded our great nation, so if you don't like that, tough s**t.

By copying and pasting walls of text from that website, you painted yourself as an extremist who patronizes extremist websites like it. Do you think someone who is less sympathetic to the pro-gun cause would be any less critical? Those with an anti-gun agenda will be much more prepared - and much more ruthless - than I, and will scrutinize everything pro-gun folks have to say. Ham-handed responses like yours only give them ammunition (pun intended). If you don't like that, touch s**t.


One more thing Quagga, nearly 100 million eligible voters do not participate in the elections, so there is no mandate as the socialist progressives wish you to believe. And yes, regarding the second amendment, there is a silent majority. Many democrats, like my 4 brothers-in-laws in Minnesota are staunchly pro second amendment, as are all their democrat friends, and will stand right along side of me in defending it.

The mandate exists, whether you and I like it or not. It may not be an overwhelming mandate - a point I made quite clear in my last post on this thread - but it exists nonetheless. And when I was referring to the silent majority, I was referring to this country's political ideology in general, not the 2nd Amendment. I stand by what I said.

Back to the subject at hand....

As to the 2nd Amendment, there is every indication to suggest that a majority of the population would be amenable to addition gun control measures, and would embrace those measure if they were served up as "reasonable compromises". When anti-gun groups present their proposals, they will make their case to the centrists, and they will present themselves as wanting to make "sane and rational" changes to our gun control laws. This upcoming debate will transcend political ideologies - but that does not necessarily bode well for pro-gun citizens.

[DEVOREFLYER]

HawgZWyld do not worry about them. They are referred to as “homo slackass-erectus” created by natural genetic downward evolution through constant spineless posturing, and spasmatic upper limb gestures, which new research has shown to cause shorter legs and an inability to ambulate other than in an awkward shuffling gait. The "drag-crotch" shape also seems to effect brain function. Expect no eye contact or intelligent verbal or written communication. Unfortunately most are highly fertile and is the reason they want free birthcontrol and love abortions.. and will eventually become extinct, we just have to wait it out.

[etucker1959]

HawgZWyld do not worry about them. They are referred to as “homo slackass-erectus” created by natural genetic downward evolution through constant spineless posturing, and spasmatic upper limb gestures, which new research has shown to cause shorter legs and an inability to ambulate other than in an awkward shuffling gait. The "drag-crotch" shape also seems to effect brain function. Expect no eye contact or intelligent verbal or written communication. Unfortunately most are highly fertile and is the reason they want free birthcontrol and love abortions.. and will eventually become extinct, we just have to wait it out.

Speaking of genetic downward evolution, did you hear of the theory of the Christian gene pool being surpassed by the Jewish gene pool. The theory goes something like this, in the dark ages when the only Christian educated people were in the clergy and they weren't allowed to marry and reproduce. At the same time in the Jewish faith the rabbis got to pick from the best women available to marry and had many children. These children then reproduced thus creating a top notch gene pool. While in the Christian faith only the poor uneducated people were the ones who had all the children. See where this is going, you can make all your sassy comments now. Merry Christmas!!!!!

[pcuser]

Lol!!! You're a joke and I don't need more education to understand the constitution or laws of MY country.... Or to read the posts of some DUMB**** liberal much like yourself!!! Merry Christmas and Happy New Year
Then I guess I should bow down to your superior intellect. You obviously have all the answers and we should simply do away with elections and let you run YOUR country...

[pcuser]

HawgZWyld do not worry about them. They are referred to as “homo slackass-erectus” created by natural genetic downward evolution through constant spineless posturing, and spasmatic upper limb gestures, which new research has shown to cause shorter legs and an inability to ambulate other than in an awkward shuffling gait. The "drag-crotch" shape also seems to effect brain function. Expect no eye contact or intelligent verbal or written communication. Unfortunately most are highly fertile and is the reason they want free birthcontrol and love abortions.. and will eventually become extinct, we just have to wait it out.

Such a clever response... You should be proud of your obvious intellectual superiority...

[pcuser]

Speaking of genetic downward evolution, did you hear of the theory of the Christian gene pool being surpassed by the Jewish gene pool. The theory goes something like this, in the dark ages when the only Christian educated people were in the clergy and they weren't allowed to marry and reproduce. At the same time in the Jewish faith the rabbis got to pick from the best women available to marry and had many children. These children then reproduced thus creating a top notch gene pool. While in the Christian faith only the poor uneducated people were the ones who had all the children. See where this is going, you can make all your sassy comments now. Merry Christmas!!!!!

Well said!

[seal]

Speaking of genetic downward evolution, did you hear of the theory of the Christian gene pool being surpassed by the Jewish gene pool. The theory goes something like this, in the dark ages when the only Christian educated people were in the clergy and they weren't allowed to marry and reproduce. At the same time in the Jewish faith the rabbis got to pick from the best women available to marry and had many children. These children then reproduced thus creating a top notch gene pool. While in the Christian faith only the poor uneducated people were the ones who had all the children. See where this is going, you can make all your sassy comments now. Merry Christmas!!!!!

This shows what a classy guy you are Etucker.

[City Dad]

Pro-gun advocates aren't doing themselves any favors by regurgitating walls of text from sites like "What Really Happened (http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/RKBA/2ndQuotes.php)".

If this is the tactic pro-gun folks intend to use in the upcoming gun control debate, they will very quickly end up on the losing side, with no one to blame but themselves.

I agree.

I also think it would serve the pro-gun-ownership community to realize and acknowledged the reality of changing demographics. I assure you that the perception of gun owners as little more than a bitter mob of middle-aged white guys just itching for a reason to shoot a brow-skinned teenager cannot be underestimated. (And gentlemen, before the hate PMs start, notice I say "PERCEPTION")

I feel for your, LQ. You seem to me like a person engaged in a three-legged race with a partner who won't run, but instead insists on pulling down his/her pants, defecating and throwing the filth at their opponents. Good luck, M'lady!

Gun ownership is falling out of vogue. That's the bottom line. You gotta convince gun owners that trying to sound like Sergeant Hartman or channeling the ghost of Randy Weaver, isn't going alter this fact and will, in all likelihood, serve only to accelerate the trend.

Going forward, I think that the only sustainable argument would be that of the right to self-defense. That is to say, somehow convince your cohorts to forget their Turner Diaries fantasies and focus more on the sanctity of home and hearth, etc..

To that end (Devil's advocate here) what you you say to the following argument?

"There is really no need for the average citizen to own a semi-auto, 30-round weapon because the best firearm for defense of home and person is a shotgun. When one hears glass breaking at three A.M. the adrenaline will be pumping so hard, the body reacting so intensely that all the range time in the world isn't going to help one put a round in the broad side of a barn let alone a moving target and the most potent means by which to put an intruder down is with the generous application of #3 buckshot."

[HawgZWylde]

I agree.

I also think it would serve the pro-gun-ownership community to realize and acknowledged the reality of changing demographics. I assure you that the perception of gun owners as little more than a bitter mob of middle-aged white guys just itching for a reason to shoot a brow-skinned teenager cannot be underestimated. (And gentlemen, before the hate PMs start, notice I say "PERCEPTION")

I feel for your, LQ. You seem to me like a person engaged in a three-legged race with a partner who won't run, but instead insists on pulling down his/her pants, defecating and throwing the filth at their opponents. Good luck, M'lady!

Gun ownership is falling out of vogue. That's the bottom line. You gotta convince gun owners that trying to sound like Sergeant Hartman or channeling the ghost of Randy Weaver, isn't going alter this fact and will, in all likelihood, serve only to accelerate the trend.

Going forward, I think that the only sustainable argument would be that of the right to self-defense. That is to say, somehow convince your cohorts to forget their Turner Diaries fantasies and focus more on the sanctity of home and hearth, etc..

To that end (Devil's advocate here) what you you say to the following argument?

"There is really no need for the average citizen to own a semi-auto, 30-round weapon because the best firearm for defense of home and person is a shotgun. When one hears glass breaking at three A.M. the adrenaline will be pumping so hard, the body reacting so intensely that all the range time in the world isn't going to help one put a round in the broad side of a barn let alone a moving target and the most potent means by which to put an intruder down is with the generous application of #3 buckshot."

" I assure you that the perception of gun owners as little more than a bitter mob of middle-aged white guys just itching for a reason to shoot a brow-skinned teenager cannot be underestimated. (And gentlemen, before the hate PMs start, notice I say "PERCEPTION")"

That statement is false, and racist too boot. And to try to get out of it by emphasizing "perception", is a cover my butt cop out. You better study history and the constitution a little better because you obviously have no clue why the second amendment was written. The media, and the progressives tell you firearms ownership is "out of vogue". But sales numbers prove that to be progressive propaganda. And they are being bought by democrats as well as "right wing nuts".

And I beg to differ, if I heard glass breaking, and I found an armed intruder in my home, you can bet he won't have a head left to bury. No shotgun needed, though I do own one. And yes Shirley, it's a SEMI AUTOMATIC shotgun at that...

[seal]

City Dad, Is it possible your "perception" is not based on the country as a whole but limited to your surroundings? You are of course a California resident and I believe live within a big city surrounded by liberal media, liberal government and a more liberal society as a whole which in turn by percentage would seem to have a more negative opinion of gun ownership. I live in a more rural area of the state. My perception is that the only ones that have changed their opinions on gun ownership are those that already were not as passionate about gun ownership, they (myself included) are more willing now to be vocal about their confusion on the need of 30 round clips and certain assault weapons. So I really don't think that the change is as drastic as you seem to believe.

Being that I am more on the side of doing something rather than nothing. I believe that high capacity clips (number of rounds needs to be determined still) and availability of certain types of rounds should be better regulated or prohibited. I do not believe there is a need for anymore regulation on handguns other than better background checks possibly.

But all this does little to avoid these types of events from occurring again, the society related issues that are at the route cause of these horrible events need to be addressed and those are being swept under the rug because they are more difficult to nail down and resolve. It's much easier to isolate guns as the main culprit, that would give some a false sense of security and that feel good attitude that they actually have accomplished something.

[City Dad]

City Dad, Is it possible your "perception" is not based on the country as a whole but limited to your surroundings? You are of course a California resident and I believe live within a big city surrounded by liberal media, liberal government and a more liberal society as a whole which in turn by percentage would seem to have a more negative opinion of gun ownership. I live in a more rural area of the state. My perception is that the only ones that have changed their opinions on gun ownership are those that already were not as passionate about gun ownership, they (myself included) are more willing now to be vocal about their confusion on the need of 30 round clips and certain assault weapons. So I really don't think that the change is as drastic as you seem to believe.

Being that I am more on the side of doing something rather than nothing. I believe that high capacity clips (number of rounds needs to be determined still) and availability of certain types of rounds should be better regulated or prohibited. I do not believe there is a need for anymore regulation on handguns other than better background checks possibly.

But all this does little to avoid these types of events from occurring again, the society related issues that are at the route cause of these horrible events need to be addressed and those are being swept under the rug because they are more difficult to nail down and resolve. It's much easier to isolate guns as the main culprit, that would give some a false sense of security and that feel good attitude that they actually have accomplished something.

Hey, Seal,

Not that I feel compelled to share my personal business, but perhaps a little light on my background might better illuminate my position.

I lived, until the age of 18, in the town of Okanogan, Washington. Google it. My family still lives in that area. They all collect guns. They all hunt (although with bow and arrow - it being more sporting.) They and I are about as rural (and white) as you can get.

My reason for posting in on this thread was to point out the supreme foolishness of the tact that the, ahem, "Renaissance Men" of our society are taking. Bluster and insults. That's all. I am educated and don't require their expert tutelage in any matter and I assure you this feeling is not limited to Yours Truly.

Anyhow, I think about the folks in my 'Ol Highland home and imagine they would be damn p!ssed at some of these Californians for making gun owners look like knuckle-draggin' dip-sticks.

Ya'll keep yer powder dry, now.

[DockRat]

Nugent Scools Morgan !
This is great, enjoy.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tMso12zeYDQ#!

[HawgZWylde]

Nugent Scools Morgan !
This is great, enjoy.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=tMso12zeYDQ#!

Hahaha, gotta love Uncle Ted man. At last count, over 75,000 people have signed a government petition to deport Piers Morgan back to the UK. Funny thing is, the folks in the UK have their own government petition demanding their government not allow him back...

[TroutOnly]

Ted rocks,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

[Lady Quagga]

My reason for posting in on this thread was to point out the supreme foolishness of the tact that the, ahem, "Renaissance Men" of our society are taking. Bluster and insults. That's all. I am educated and don't require their expert tutelage in any matter and I assure you this feeling is not limited to Yours Truly.

Anyhow, I think about the folks in my 'Ol Highland home and imagine they would be damn p!ssed at some of these Californians for making gun owners look like knuckle-draggin' dip-sticks.

I currently take up residence in both SoCal and Tri-State Nevada. Needless to say, I have a first-hand perspective on the gun laws of California, Nevada, and Arizona, as well as the general culture of gun owners from each. In all three states, the pro-gun folks share a common bond which transcends race, religion, political affiliation and socioeconomic status. However you are quite correct - there is a perception, even among gun owners, that some of the most vociferous 2nd Amendment advocates have about as much tact as Elmer Fudd or Yosemite Sam.

Looking at the statistics, gun sales have increased over the past two decades (and it's no surprise to me that there have been noticeable spikes in sales preceding the threat of stricter gun control measures). But once again, I agree with you when you point out that gun ownership is not in vogue. It is unwise to think that practicality and popularity are synonymous with one another.

[DockRat]

Nugent Scools Morgan !


Scools ? Lol
Schools :Rolls Eyes:

[City Dad]

I currently take up residence in both SoCal and Tri-State Nevada. Needless to say, I have a first-hand perspective on the gun laws of California, Nevada, and Arizona, as well as the general culture of gun owners from each. In all three states, the pro-gun folks share a common bond which transcends race, religion, political affiliation and socioeconomic status. However you are quite correct - there is a perception, even among gun owners, that some of the most vociferous 2nd Amendment advocates have about as much tact as Elmer Fudd or Yosemite Sam.

Looking at the statistics, gun sales have increased over the past two decades (and it's no surprise to me that there have been noticeable spikes in sales preceding the threat of stricter gun control measures). But once again, I agree with you when you point out that gun ownership is not in vogue. It is unwise to think that practicality and popularity are synonymous with one another.

I've been lobbying to present my nephew with his first BB gun for some time now... It's an uphill battle - and my brother-in-law is a Republican. Can't underestimate the power of a perception... (But I have, I think, managed some wiggle room on giving him a pocket knife before he's eighteen, so, he's got that going for him.)

[Lady Quagga]

I've been lobbying to present my nephew with his first BB gun for some time now... It's an uphill battle - and my brother-in-law is a Republican. Can't underestimate the power of a perception... (But I have, I think, managed some wiggle room on giving him a pocket knife before he's eighteen, so, he's got that going for him.)

It would be totally worth it, if for no other reason than to emulate this scene:

http://media.al.com/living_impact/photo/11974436-large.jpg

[City Dad]

It would be totally worth it, if for no other reason than to emulate this scene:

http://media.al.com/living_impact/photo/11974436-large.jpg

Great movie.

I knew a kid in grade school who walked around with a BB embedded in his lower lip because he didn't want to cop to shooting his BB gun in the basement.

[Lady Quagga]

To that end (Devil's advocate here) what you you say to the following argument?

"There is really no need for the average citizen to own a semi-auto, 30-round weapon because the best firearm for defense of home and person is a shotgun. When one hears glass breaking at three A.M. the adrenaline will be pumping so hard, the body reacting so intensely that all the range time in the world isn't going to help one put a round in the broad side of a barn let alone a moving target and the most potent means by which to put an intruder down is with the generous application of #3 buckshot."

Ah CD....there is no firearm suited for every scenario. The one you ultimately choose to keep for self-defense should be suited for the scenario you will most likely encounter.

Using a firearm for self-defense, whether you end up pulling the trigger or not, is an unfortunate experience - one I hope my friends and family never have to face. I'd rather my loved ones avoided situations which place them at unnecessary risk of being harmed - thus avoiding having to use lethal force to protect themselves.

[City Dad]

Using a firearm for self-defense, whether you end up pulling the trigger or not, is an unfortunate experience

I think it would benefit gun owners if they were heard expressing this sentiment more often, but (in my opinion) this cannot be perceived above the din of the "Fill yer hand, you somuvabitch!" caterwaul. Not every NRA member sits around fantasizing about how much fun it would be to actually put a round or two in someone... but the outside observer would never pick that up.