Gun owners' duty

Ironically on the same day that a shooter went on a rampage at Fort Hood and shot 13 people dead and wounded 29, oral arguments were taking place in two cases before the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court challenging state gun control laws.

[Tonyspdx]

Scalia actually gave specifics when he said. "The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms."

He did not mention law-abiding citizens. These men are labeled criminals only because the law is criminal.

[Reducing gun violence]

The best way to reduce gun violence is to repeal all of the useless laws that are already in place which prevent people from protecting themselves from such tragedies. Just the THOUGHT that people in the armed services are unarmed is ridiculous! If we can't keep drugs out of maximum security prisons we surely will never be able to keep guns out of the hands of criminals on the streets. Let's "get real" and stop all the nonsense !

[Let it Ring]

to be honest, if people were allowed to carry firearms incidents like fort hood, or virginia tech, columbine etc.. all would have been avoided because just like the shooter at the university of austin when that guy tried to kill a bunch of people; students teachers and passer bys all had their guns and pinned the man down with suppressive fire until police could arrive.

the very idea that we should not have guns is pointless, the very idea in the 2nd amendment is to provide america the means to revolt against a government who has grown too big to control reasonably and every other means has been exhausted.

sure i think there should be background checks to prevent criminals or mentally unstable people from buying guns; limiting the ammo/type of weapon doesnt make any of the remaining guns "non-lethal". they're taking away our military grade weapons and leaving us with basically pea-shooters. in addition whats good for the goose is good for the gander as they say; i propose police drop their automatic rifles, FMJ rounds and hollow point pistol rounds. i want the police to surrender their armoured vehicle, their vests, and any other "device" and or "applicable machine" that under state law, citizens can not carry. after all, theyre not above the law they are citzens just like you and i.

[kevin]

Let it Ring wrote:

to be honest, if people were allowed to carry firearms incidents like fort hood, or virginia tech, columbine etc.. all would have been avoided because just like the shooter at the university of austin when that guy tried to kill a bunch of people; students teachers and passer bys all had their guns and pinned the man down with suppressive fire until police could arrive.
the very idea that we should not have guns is pointless, the very idea in the 2nd amendment is to provide america the means to revolt against a government who has grown too big to control reasonably and every other means has been exhausted.
sure i think there should be background checks to prevent criminals or mentally unstable people from buying guns; limiting the ammo/type of weapon doesnt make any of the remaining guns "non-lethal". they're taking away our military grade weapons and leaving us with basically pea-shooters. in addition whats good for the goose is good for the gander as they say; i propose police drop their automatic rifles, FMJ rounds and hollow point pistol rounds. i want the police to surrender their armoured vehicle, their vests, and any other "device" and or "applicable machine" that under state law, citizens can not carry. after all, theyre not above the law they are citzens just like you and i.

I believe that gun control is bad,but if everyone had guns on them all the time that would lead to more shootings.There are a lot of angry ,unstable people out there with tempers.Background checks are unreliable.Dont get me wrong ,I just dont think everyone should be carrying at Wal mart,or in public

[abc]

Have the gun owners resurrected that eight year old boy from westfield,,,no,,,I did'nt think so.
Not very much evidence of well regulated malitia, that's what the "keep and bear arms" was meant for, not for these gun nuts.

[Nope]

Reducing gun violence wrote:

The best way to reduce gun violence is to repeal all of the useless laws that are already in place which prevent people from protecting themselves from such tragedies. Just the THOUGHT that people in the armed services are unarmed is ridiculous! If we can't keep drugs out of maximum security prisons we surely will never be able to keep guns out of the hands of criminals on the streets. Let's "get real" and stop all the nonsense !

The best way to reduce gun violence is to Stop Welfare Payments to the irresponsible humans in America so they cannot breed with impunity. Zero Population Growth will fix all the ills on this Earth. And it should start here.

That statement should get eveyone started up.

No Hope from a Dope. Nope.

[Boomer215]

From the article:
"It was reported that the Ft. Hood shooter may have used a so-called "cop killer" gun, a FN 5.7 that is powerful enough to penetrate armored vests and can hold up to 31 rounds with an extended clip and a round in the chamber."

I think it's a little misleading, and intended to incite the public, to call it the "cop killer" gun.
The steel penetrator round which defeats body armor is classified as armor piercing (AP) ammunition by the ATF and its sale is restricted to law enforcement and military customers.
In that respect, this handgun is really no different as to penetrating body armor than any other type of handgun firing AP ammunition.
Ammunition which is not availible to the general public.

[Plant Lady]

kevin wrote:

<quoted text>I believe that gun control is bad,but if everyone had guns on them all the time that would lead to more shootings.There are a lot of angry ,unstable people out there with tempers.Background checks are unreliable.Dont get me wrong ,I just dont think everyone should be carrying at Wal mart,or in public

Folks carry at Wal Mart. How many folks are killed at wal mart currently by *angry* folks?

Your implication that a gun turns an angry person into a killer is repugnant and insulting.

[Plant Lady]

abc wrote:

Have the gun owners resurrected that eight year old boy from westfield,,,no,,,I did'nt think so.
Not very much evidence of well regulated malitia, that's what the "keep and bear arms" was meant for, not for these gun nuts.

No, and draining the pools of negligent parents who lose their child to drowning won't bring them back either. What is your point?

http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story...

http://www.news-record.com/content/2009/10/14...

http://www.tdn.com/articles/2009/10/28/breaki...

I can do this all day long.

[kevin]

Plant Lady wrote:

<quoted text>
Folks carry at Wal Mart. How many folks are killed at wal mart currently by *angry* folks?
Your implication that a gun turns an angry person into a killer is repugnant and insulting.

What Im saying is a person with a temper or mental illness that is carrying is more apt to snap.As far as how many carry at Walmart,I dont have a clue.I have never seen anyone.I like guns,just not in public.As far as insulting you,you may be a little temper mental

[The Necromancer]

abc wrote:

Have the gun owners resurrected that eight year old boy from westfield,,,no,,,I did'nt think so.
Not very much evidence of well regulated malitia, that's what the "keep and bear arms" was meant for, not for these gun nuts.

You can continue to live in ignorance, or you can read what the founders had to say regarding an armed citizenry..

The choice is yours.

[kevin]

Plant Lady wrote:

<quoted text>
No, and draining the pools of negligent parents who lose their child to drowning won't bring them back either. What is your point?
http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story...
http://www.news-record.com/content/2009/10/14...
http://www.tdn.com/articles/2009/10/28/breaki...
I can do this all day long.

Nice picture though

[Todd]

Tonyspdx wrote:

Scalia actually gave specifics when he said. "The Second Amendment right is not unlimited. We do not cast doubt on concealed-weapons prohibitions, laws barring possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, laws barring firearms in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on commercial sale of arms."
He did not mention law-abiding citizens. These men are labeled criminals only because the law is criminal.

you answered your own question
many states grant ex felons their civil rights back
upon release
and that allows them to possess firearms for self protection in their homes
the SCOTUS ruling is currently THE definitive ruling on the second
amendment
it would effectively invalidate all local and state code concerning
gun control

this is a ruling, like wade vs roe, that many proponents have been following for decades

[Plant Lady]

kevin wrote:

<quoted text>What Im saying is a person with a temper or mental illness that is carrying is more apt to snap.As far as how many carry at Walmart,I dont have a clue.I have never seen anyone.I like guns,just not in public.As far as insulting you,you may be a little temper mental

You are correct you DON'T know how many folks are carrying at wal mart.

The person behind you could be me and I do carry.

I think Ayoob states this much more directly than I can hope to:

excerpt:

'What about the argument that people die in domestic arguments because a gun is within reach of an angry person?

Certainly, those with uncontrollably violent tendencies should not own guns. When asked this question, I always respond with a question:“Could you pick up a gun and kill someone you love because they angered you?”

If the answer is No, I reply,“Then how dare you imply that I, and everyone else, would be that unstable?” If the answer is Yes, I suggest they stop attempting to counsel well-adjusted people and immediately seek psychiatric counseling for their own self-admitted tendency toward acting out impulses of uncontrollable violence. "

http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/ayoob45...

[k-f Overman]

What a shame that it took the response of a police officer to stop this incident. The purpose of police officers aught not be viewed as the actual deterrent to such crimes, but as a proximate one in that once a crime has been committed, and the perpetrator has escaped and is no longer in commission of the crime, the police will hunt them down, capture them, and take them to trial where they will sentenced to death if proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.(In so doing the police officer provides society a useful function in that the innate responsibility of all citizens to hunt down and bring criminals to justice can now be delegated to the citizen police officer. This allows the other citizens to continue their "regular" everyday jobs.) Thus, the police officer is only a secondary deterrent. The primary deterent in a civilian setting to Ft. Hood type crimes should always be the armed civilian, ready to act at moments notice.

On military bases, all soldiers when on duty should be required to be armed (excepting of course certain activities such as PT, and possibly some others), and all soldiers when off duty should at least have the option of being armed. Had these conditions been met, 11 people would not have died at Ft. Hood. Possibly as many as five, but not eleven given the office/cubicle setting of the crime. Unfortunately, as this incident has shown, the policy of some military military bases such as Ft. Hood only which negligently prohibits soldiers whether on or off duty from being armed only invites such crimes to be committed.

Lastly, while I would of course hope that all military bases of any significant size have at least one QRF standing by, the purpose of a QRF is not to respond to "small" incidents, like the Ft. Hood affair, bit is to counteract larger scale coordinated operations. Incidents like the Ft. Hood one should be taken care of as quickly as a battle drill by the people at the scene before the QRF is even out the door.

[kevin]

Plant Lady wrote:

<quoted text>
You are correct you DON'T know how many folks are carrying at wal mart.
The person behind you could be me and I do carry.
I think Ayoob states this much more directly than I can hope to:
excerpt:
'What about the argument that people die in domestic arguments because a gun is within reach of an angry person?
Certainly, those with uncontrollably violent tendencies should not own guns. When asked this question, I always respond with a question:“Could you pick up a gun and kill someone you love because they angered you?”
If the answer is No, I reply,“Then how dare you imply that I, and everyone else, would be that unstable?” If the answer is Yes, I suggest they stop attempting to counsel well-adjusted people and immediately seek psychiatric counseling for their own self-admitted tendency toward acting out impulses of uncontrollable violence. "
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/ayoob45...

Your nuts.You dont sound very stable.I have guns but see no need to carry them in Walmart or in public.You sound like a tough girl with a toy.Well adjusted my ass

[Chicago Guy]

Plant Lady wrote:

<quoted text>
Folks carry at Wal Mart. How many folks are killed at wal mart currently by *angry* folks?
Your implication that a gun turns an angry person into a killer is repugnant and insulting.

Not at all. Most gun shootings are crimes of passion, are they not?

If I REALLY piss you off while we're shopping at Walmart, and you're unarmed, the worst that will likely happen is that I'll get yelled at, or maybe punched.

If you're packing, I might just take a bullet to the head because I took the last 42" plasma on sale...

Saying otherwise is simply dishonest.

[Chicago Guy]

Plant Lady wrote:

<quoted text>
You are correct you DON'T know how many folks are carrying at wal mart.
The person behind you could be me and I do carry.
I think Ayoob states this much more directly than I can hope to:
excerpt:
'What about the argument that people die in domestic arguments because a gun is within reach of an angry person?
Certainly, those with uncontrollably violent tendencies should not own guns. When asked this question, I always respond with a question:“Could you pick up a gun and kill someone you love because they angered you?”
If the answer is No, I reply,“Then how dare you imply that I, and everyone else, would be that unstable?” If the answer is Yes, I suggest they stop attempting to counsel well-adjusted people and immediately seek psychiatric counseling for their own self-admitted tendency toward acting out impulses of uncontrollable violence. "
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/ayoob45...

Then you agree we need gun control to, at the very least, "insure that those with uncontrollably violent tendencies should not own guns"?

That means cracking down on the gun show loophole, and imposing stiff penalties for failing to perform the mandatory background check, right?

[Tory II]

kevin wrote:

<quoted text>I believe that gun control is bad,but if everyone had guns on them all the time that would lead to more shootings.There are a lot of angry ,unstable people out there with tempers.Background checks are unreliable.Dont get me wrong ,I just dont think everyone should be carrying at Wal mart,or in public

In Chicago, Illinios the only people carrying guns in WalMart or in public are the politicians, cops, and criminals. Last year Chicago had the most gun homicides. Chicago bans handguns (for peaceful law-abiding peasants), many types of longguns, some types of ammo, and many other objects that could be used for self defense.

Chicago's voluminous gun control laws have never stopped the people who ignore LAWS from committing crime against the people who choose to obey all of Chicago's laws (including it's gun control laws).

Is Chicago unique ? Washington D.C. had the same problem with the same gun control laws. The D.C. sniper was executed last night.

[Plant Lady]

kevin wrote:

<quoted text>Your nuts.You dont sound very stable.I have guns but see no need to carry them in Walmart or in public.You sound like a tough girl with a toy.Well adjusted my ass

50 year old grandma is hardly a girl...but lol...sure I will enjoy the thought..heh

I am curious though as to why based on reading a few posts on a GUN thread as to why you feel qualified to judge me as *uunstable*?

Here is the thing....you don't have to carry a gun if ya don't want to dude. You can enjoy all your BOR rights without touching a gun. Go figure, isn't America great!

But if I *choose* to carry a weapon for self defense it does not make me *unstable* or even *tough*. It merely shows that I have made a decision to protect my self from harm by carrying a weapon. Nothing more -nothing less.

I would not care to be your *loved one* if that is how you feel about self protection. You would rather a person leave themselves vulnerable to an attack. MY DH made sure I well trained and practiced with my weapon. We spend a lot of quality time at the range that we both very much enjoy.