Gun Control Debate - Collegeville, PA
Discuss the national Gun Control debate in Collegeville, PA.
Would you support a ban on handguns?
#1 Sep 25, 2010
The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental right almost uniniquely afforded to Americans. Dictators always impose gun control. We are close enough to a dictatorship and don't need to take the next step. Crime rates decline in states that allow law abiding citizens to carry a concealed weopan.
#2 Sep 25, 2010
To what end?
The criminals wouldn't give up their guns. Only the law abiding folks would - effectively leaving them unable to protect themselves from the emboldened bad guys.
If you don't follow the law, then laws don't matter!
#3 Sep 27, 2010
Every gun means a dead child or a suicide. Not even police should have guns. Europe doesn't allow guns and their death rate is a fraction of that in the USA.
“People smell funny.”
Since: Nov 07
East Vincent, PA
#4 Sep 27, 2010
Wow.. Ed Thomas is either a troll or so out-of-touch with reality that he needs to be seen by a psych doc.
Care to back up that "every gun means a dead child or a suicide" claim with real facts?
I was raised in a household filled with guns. I'm the oldest of six. Now that I'm out on my own, I have my own rifle (used for hunting and target practice). None of the nine guns my parents have, nor the single gun I have, has ended up killing a child or ourselves.
Responsible gun ownership. Learn it, live it, love it.
#5 Sep 27, 2010
Not everyone who has a right to bear arms should bear arms. There are too many irresponsible people in America. Leave the guns in the hands of law enforcement professionals.
#6 Sep 27, 2010
Hey Jenn, suck a pee pee!Hey Ed, you too!
#7 Sep 28, 2010
OK Ed, a few things:
1.) No, not every gun means a death or a suicide. I have dozens of guns in my cabinet, and nobody in my family's history has ever killed themselves or anyone else with them. That is a completely irrelevant and un-backed comment that you based on feelings instead of any stats or factual evidence. You need to learn to use an educated opinion based on logic, rather than emotion.
2.) You CANNOT compare rates of a country the size of England, to one the size of the US. The population and land demographics vary greatly and that is not a proper representation. Plus, where are your statistics for this statement as well? You seem to be providing a lot of talk, abut you aren't showing the walk my friend.
3.) Crime rate has not improved since the ban in England. There is not only shootings by criminals, but there is routine stabbings and beatings. Their solution? Ban long pointy knives as well. Where does it stop Ed? Where does it stop? When I, a law abiding citizen, handed in my guns, while the criminals just got more from the black market and came to my house, raping my wife and kids, leaving me defenseless? I guess I could dial 911, and 15 minutes later the police can arrive just in time to pronounce us dead. You are really for leaving families defenseless against criminals Ed?
4.) Check out www.gunfacts.info There's statistics backed up by citations from the FBI, DOJ, etc. Gain a little knowledge on the subject before you let your feelings take over next time.
Since: Feb 09
#8 Sep 29, 2010
It is a constitutional right.
#9 Sep 29, 2010
I don't own a gun and never will. However, it's every American's right to own a gun. Period. However, every American should not be allowed to drive. Stupid drivers kill more Americans then guns. Let's ban cars right after guns.
#10 Sep 29, 2010
DeShaney v. Winnebago County, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).
Rivera v. City of Providence, 402 F.3d 27 (1st Cir. 2005).
SCOTUS and the Federal Court ruled that the LEO had no "duty to protect" either of these people, and that personal security is an individual responsibility.
"There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state (or Federal) against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: it tells the state (gov't) to let people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order"
(Bowers v. DeVito, U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 686F.2d 616 ).-- There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen."
Warren v. District of Columbia --[C]ourts have without exception concluded that when a municipality or other governmental entity undertakes to furnish police services, it assumes a duty only to the public at large and not to individual members of the community.’.
In Warren v. District of Columbia (1981), the D.C. Court of Appeals ruled,“official police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection... a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen.”
Castle Rock v. Gonzales
The right to self-defense has been recognized for centuries.
Cicero said 2,000 years ago,“If our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right;”
English jurist Sir William Blackstone observed that the English Bill of Rights recognized “the right of having and using arms for self-preservation and defense” as intended “to protect and maintain inviolate the three great and primary rights,” the first of which is “personal security.”
Sir Michael Foster, judge of the Court of King’s Bench, wrote in the 18th century,“The right of self-defense... is founded in the law of nature, and is not, nor can be, superseded by any law of society.”
The Supreme Court, in U.S. v. Cruikshank (1876), recognized that the right to arms is an individual right, stating that it “is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence.”
In Beard v. U.S.(1895), the court approved the common-law rule that a person “may repel force by force” in self-defense, and concluded that when attacked a person “was entitled to stand his ground and meet any attack made upon him with a deadly weapon, in such a way and with such force” as needed to prevent “great bodily injury or death.”
#11 Sep 30, 2010
A ban on hand guns will only take away the legal guns. My favorite quote," If guns kill people then pencils misspell words".
#12 Oct 9, 2010
Not in my lifetime.
Add your comments below
|Review: Pretty Nails||Dec 23||girlsnappsx||1|
|Senators propose pipeline impact fee||Dec 20||Tax Lovefest||2|
|Basement water damage from overhead pipe leak (Dec '08)||Dec 16||Matt Dalek||10|
|Route 422 (Jan '09)||Dec 15||422sucks||22|
|Moving to Collegeville (Mar '07)||Dec 7||Tolerance is a Vi...||44|
|Is anyone else having trouble with Organized St...||Dec 5||lookoutforpville||1|
|Debate: Drinking Age - Collegeville, PA (Dec '11)||Nov 26||Sally Donafan||2|
Find what you want!
Search Collegeville Forum Now
Copyright © 2014 Topix LLC