Gun Laws Debate - Quakertown, PA

Discuss the national Gun Laws debate in Quakertown, PA.

Does the US need to reform its gun laws?

Quakertown thinks US gun laws are fine.
Not at all
 
12
Yes
 
6
Undecided
 
0

Vote now in Quakertown:

Comments
1 - 20 of 222 Comments Last updated -
First Prev
of 12
Next Last
My thoughts

Quakertown, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Jul 23, 2012
 
We are all guaranteed the right to bear arms? But assault weapons and high capacity clips? I don't think that's necessary.

The ONLY legal use for guns is to hunt and for self protection (Castle Doctrine). A shotgun or pistol is sufficient for that
Inquiring Mind

North Wales, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Jul 23, 2012
 
My thoughts wrote:
We are all guaranteed the right to bear arms? But assault weapons and high capacity clips? I don't think that's necessary.
The ONLY legal use for guns is to hunt and for self protection (Castle Doctrine). A shotgun or pistol is sufficient for that
Cars kill far more people than guns, so should we limit the type and amount of cars people can own because certain of us "think they are not necessary" or that cars which can only go 35 MPH are "sufficient" in the view of some people?

Many gun owners are target shooters, collectors or aficionados of all kinds of weaponry. There is nothing inherently evil or dangerous about that. Maybe individual states have to tighten up requirements for owning certain kinds of weapons, but it's not the govt's place to interfere with a civilian's right to bear arms. Note the word, "RIGHT." The founders saw the wisdom in having civilian soldiers (militia) to avoid govt tyranny. Seems to me that tyranny would start by disarming people, beginning with dictating that certain firearms be made illegal.

My heart goes out to the victims and there families, but there is absolutely NO PROOF that stricter gun controls or outlawing currently legal weapons would have prevented the tragedy in Colorado or anywhere else. Even common sense should tell you that (1) illegal guns are easily procured; (2) a person intent on murder will not be dissuaded by legalities; and (3) guns, even semi-automatic rifles, will kill and injure fewer people than a simple bomb that can be whipped up in any kitchen from common ingredients.
Joe

Brooklyn, NY

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Jul 23, 2012
 
My thoughts wrote:
We are all guaranteed the right to bear arms? But assault weapons and high capacity clips? I don't think that's necessary.
The ONLY legal use for guns is to hunt and for self protection (Castle Doctrine). A shotgun or pistol is sufficient for that
When the founders wrote the 2nd Amendment they were thinking of muskets. Outside of government security forces, no one should be allowed to own an assault weapon. The gun lobby and their Tea Party allies have made a mockery of the 2nd Amendment. And it amazes me how much of a coward Obama and the Democratic Party have become in putting a stop to this insanity. As we mourn the victims nothing changes except. Gun violence has become a health crisis in cities across the nation and it's only a matter of time before we read about another mass shooting.
u funny

Perkasie, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Jul 23, 2012
 
Guns are useless for most people.

If someone is shooting at you...most people duck,run,scream and hide not shoot back. The only people who would fire back are the people who have been in combative situations before like a police officer or a former soldier or a hunter. The majority of regular people would never know how to fire back or have the courage to.

Keep the firearms where they belong with the police.

Also you have to prove to a jury you killed someone in self defense if not your doing a lengthy sentence in jail so basically your life is over too if that happens.

The way i think if it's my time to go it's my time. You can carry gun and get hit by a drunk driver and die or any other number of ways you could die.

You can't totally protect yourself from death just live your life to the fullest.

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Jul 23, 2012
 
Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
When the founders wrote the 2nd Amendment they were thinking of muskets. Outside of government security forces, no one should be allowed to own an assault weapon. The gun lobby and their Tea Party allies have made a mockery of the 2nd Amendment. And it amazes me how much of a coward Obama and the Democratic Party have become in putting a stop to this insanity. As we mourn the victims nothing changes except. Gun violence has become a health crisis in cities across the nation and it's only a matter of time before we read about another mass shooting.
This is factually incorrect. The founders when writing the 2nd amendment did not limit intend to limit "arms" to the weaponry of that day.

To make that assertion is to say the First Amendment's clause to protect free speech and the press only applies to newspapers and speaking in public. TV and the internet could not have been conceived by the Founders.

Inquiring Mind is correct. This mass murderer in Colorado had made home made bombs and other destructive devices, if he didn't have access to a firearm, he would have found other means to carry out his horrible crime.

Firearms and the ability to purchase firearms does not make a normal person go out and kill people. Let's remember that every male adult in Switzerland up to something like 60 is required to have an assault rifle in their home for the national defense. Is there something in the Swiss diet that protects them from turning into crazed killers because of all the SIG 550 rifles?

No.

Since: Feb 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Jul 23, 2012
 
u funny wrote:
Guns are useless for most people.
If someone is shooting at you...most people duck,run,scream and hide not shoot back. The only people who would fire back are the people who have been in combative situations before like a police officer or a former soldier or a hunter. The majority of regular people would never know how to fire back or have the courage to.
Keep the firearms where they belong with the police.
Also you have to prove to a jury you killed someone in self defense if not your doing a lengthy sentence in jail so basically your life is over too if that happens.
The way i think if it's my time to go it's my time. You can carry gun and get hit by a drunk driver and die or any other number of ways you could die.
You can't totally protect yourself from death just live your life to the fullest.
You may think it's acceptable to not have the means to protect your family in case of a home invasion or other type of attack, however, other people think differently.

Having and being able to use a firearm brings parity to the attacker/victim paradigm. A small statured woman or a senior citizen with a 9mm pistol and who knows how to use it, does not suffer a disadvantage with a larger attacker. That parity exists because of the firearm and the ability to use it.
Old Friend

Philadelphia, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Jul 23, 2012
 
How as a felon in 1992 are you allowed to possess a firearm?
Vain HK wrote:
<quoted text>
You may think it's acceptable to not have the means to protect your family in case of a home invasion or other type of attack, however, other people think differently.
Having and being able to use a firearm brings parity to the attacker/victim paradigm. A small statured woman or a senior citizen with a 9mm pistol and who knows how to use it, does not suffer a disadvantage with a larger attacker. That parity exists because of the firearm and the ability to use it.
u funny

Perkasie, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Jul 23, 2012
 
Vain HK wrote:
<quoted text>
You may think it's acceptable to not have the means to protect your family in case of a home invasion or other type of attack, however, other people think differently.
Having and being able to use a firearm brings parity to the attacker/victim paradigm. A small statured woman or a senior citizen with a 9mm pistol and who knows how to use it, does not suffer a disadvantage with a larger attacker. That parity exists because of the firearm and the ability to use it.
Protect my family? I will protect my family by all means possible but I doubt I would be able to shoot a gun when i'm being shot at. I never been shot at and most likely would freak the hell out and run not grab a gun and play wild west shootout.

Most average citizens like myself would not be calm enough to fire back. Like I said before...hunters, police officers, ex soldiers etc... that have been in combative situations would fire back.

I wouldn't want average people sending stray bullets through other homes trying to protect themselves.

Again you can TRY to protect yourself with a gun and the next day get run over by a car, hit by a drunk driver, get struck by lighting, die from a heart attack, have a tree fall on you, choke on something and die, it goes on and on.

You can't protect your life from every life threating situation you just gotta live your life.

IF you are truley scared to live then get a gun.
Inquiring Mind

Quakertown, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Jul 23, 2012
 
Joe wrote:
<quoted text>When the founders wrote the 2nd Amendment they were thinking of muskets. Outside of government security forces, no one should be allowed to own an assault weapon. The gun lobby and their Tea Party allies have made a mockery of the 2nd Amendment. And it amazes me how much of a coward Obama and the Democratic Party have become in putting a stop to this insanity. As we mourn the victims nothing changes except. Gun violence has become a health crisis in cities across the nation and it's only a matter of time before we read about another mass shooting.
The Tea Party? You are seriously disturbed if you are buying the crap, universally debunked that the Tea Party has anything to do with gun laws - it's about SMALLER and MORE ACCOUNTABLE government. Period. Anything else is a fabrication. ABC News issued an apology for implying some association, there was none. Take your head out of your ass.

Gun violence a "health crisis"? Gun violence is a failure of parenting, a corrupted culture, and a broken educational and judicial system - all brought about by "progressive" social policies.

If you want to give up your rights to "government security forces," go right ahead. But that's EXACTLY why the founders wanted a "well organized militia" - to defend themselves against govt forces.
Inquiring Mind

Quakertown, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Jul 23, 2012
 
RINOhatER wrote:
<quoted text>I suppose you, as so many others, have failed to take note that you no longer have any rights. Our Protections have been stomped into the ground. Even the Supreme Court has spit upon the Constitution. They will do as they wish. What this country once was? Is no longer. We allowed it. Might be a good idea to learn Spanish, Farsi, Arabic, Hindi.....You can't even speak English in this country anymore.
Sure you can (speak English). Just Press 2 first.
Inquiring Mind

Quakertown, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Jul 23, 2012
 
u funny wrote:
Guns are useless for most people.

If someone is shooting at you...most people duck,run,scream and hide not shoot back. The only people who would fire back are the people who have been in combative situations before like a police officer or a former soldier or a hunter. The majority of regular people would never know how to fire back or have the courage to.

Keep the firearms where they belong with the police.

Also you have to prove to a jury you killed someone in self defense if not your doing a lengthy sentence in jail so basically your life is over too if that happens.

The way i think if it's my time to go it's my time. You can carry gun and get hit by a drunk driver and die or any other number of ways you could die.

You can't totally protect yourself from death just live your life to the fullest.
Let's say you're a criminal and you have two choices. There's one house with a sign out front that says, "This house protected by Smith & Wesson." There's another house with a sign that says, "This is a gun-free zone." Which one would you choose for a home invasion with rape or robbery on your mind? Bet you change signs afterward!
Inquiring Mind

Quakertown, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Jul 23, 2012
 
One of the worst shooting massacres carried out by a madman occurred in Norway almost exactly one year ago, a country with one of the toughest gun laws in the world. 69 people were killed.
Here's a good article that explores the question:

http://m.gazette.com/opinion/stop-142108-atro...
u funny

Perkasie, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Jul 23, 2012
 
Inquiring Mind wrote:
One of the worst shooting massacres carried out by a madman occurred in Norway almost exactly one year ago, a country with one of the toughest gun laws in the world. 69 people were killed.
Here's a good article that explores the question:
http://m.gazette.com/opinion/stop-142108-atro...
Yeah and guess where the gun came from...right here in the good ole USA guaranteed.

I will never own a gun because I don't want to feel like I constantly live in fear. You hardly ever hear of a person using a gun and killing the enemy and if you do it's rare. All you ever hear on the news is innocent people dieing from nutjobs with guns.

Watch the local news daily and you will see who is using guns to protect themselves...next to none.
Voluntarist

Newark, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Jul 23, 2012
 
Joe wrote:
<quoted text>
When the founders wrote the 2nd Amendment they were thinking of muskets. Outside of government security forces, no one should be allowed to own an assault weapon. The gun lobby and their Tea Party allies have made a mockery of the 2nd Amendment. And it amazes me how much of a coward Obama and the Democratic Party have become in putting a stop to this insanity. As we mourn the victims nothing changes except. Gun violence has become a health crisis in cities across the nation and it's only a matter of time before we read about another mass shooting.
You are missing the point about the 2nd amendment, the one right after the 1st? Shall certain speech be banned?
The point of the 2nd amendment is to protect the people from tyrannical government, so whichever arms are fit to do so.
Given that there are psychopaths in charge of government I would say the people need to be heavily armed.
Voluntarist

Newark, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Jul 23, 2012
 
u funny wrote:
<quoted text>
Protect my family? I will protect my family by all means possible but I doubt I would be able to shoot a gun when i'm being shot at. I never been shot at and most likely would freak the hell out and run not grab a gun and play wild west shootout.
Most average citizens like myself would not be calm enough to fire back. Like I said before...hunters, police officers, ex soldiers etc... that have been in combative situations would fire back.
I wouldn't want average people sending stray bullets through other homes trying to protect themselves.
Again you can TRY to protect yourself with a gun and the next day get run over by a car, hit by a drunk driver, get struck by lighting, die from a heart attack, have a tree fall on you, choke on something and die, it goes on and on.
You can't protect your life from every life threating situation you just gotta live your life.
IF you are truley scared to live then get a gun.
We not so fortunate for you, you don't have a right to tell me how to protect my family.

If you want to be an unarmed sitting duck, be my guest.
Google "Cheshire home invasion " ill bet the good doctor whose daughter was raped and murdered in front of him wishes he had a gun, put yourself in that position and think about it.
qtown resident

Quakertown, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Jul 23, 2012
 
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
You are missing the point about the 2nd amendment, the one right after the 1st? Shall certain speech be banned?
The point of the 2nd amendment is to protect the people from tyrannical government, so whichever arms are fit to do so.
Given that there are psychopaths in charge of government I would say the people need to be heavily armed.
Yeah -- If Romney wins the White House and the psycho teabagger Republicans take over the Senate, I agree, we should be armed to the teeth.
Voluntarist

Newark, NJ

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Jul 23, 2012
 
qtown resident wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah -- If Romney wins the White House and the psycho teabagger Republicans take over the Senate, I agree, we should be armed to the teeth.
I agree with the Romney part, there is an administration now responsible for world atrocities and gun running, not to mention Obama violating several laws.
but hey they are the government laws are for suckers like you.
u funny

Perkasie, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#21
Jul 23, 2012
 
Voluntarist wrote:
<quoted text>
We not so fortunate for you, you don't have a right to tell me how to protect my family.
If you want to be an unarmed sitting duck, be my guest.
Google "Cheshire home invasion " ill bet the good doctor whose daughter was raped and murdered in front of him wishes he had a gun, put yourself in that position and think about it.
Sitting duck? Sorry but I lived 34 years on this planet without needing a gun and neither has my parents or other family members.

Cool safe yourself from a home invasion that may never happen then hop in your car one day and get hit by a teen texting and driving.

If you are that scared live underground I doubt your home will be invaded there.
Miller

Hatfield, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#22
Jul 23, 2012
 
You can't even discuss Guns in this country. The knee jerk reaction is "they better not try to take my gun away" argument. Thomas Jefferson (who by the way was a strong advocate for guns), said that the Constitution should be "torn up" once a generation, meaning that each generation should evaluate THEIR Constitution. Because the Constitution is meant to represent the people of their time, not some other time. His reasoning behind this was derived by his observance of the arcane government of France (he was there prior to the French Revolution), and the fact that the Monarchy was based on outdated ideals which were contrary to the needs of the people. Anyone who professes to know anything about the second Amendment realizes at the very least the language within is, put politely, ambiguous. I am not suggesting that we do away with guns - I am merely suggesting that the discussion should at least be able to proceed. I fail to understand the need for assault weapons. There clearly is no practical use for them. And to deny that this Country has a problem with murders committed by firearms is not rational, given the statistics in relation to the rest of the world. Whether you are a gun supporter or not, a discussion is the only way to address the problem.
Inquiring Mind

Quakertown, PA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#23
Jul 23, 2012
 
u funny wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah and guess where the gun came from...right here in the good ole USA guaranteed.

I will never own a gun because I don't want to feel like I constantly live in fear. You hardly ever hear of a person using a gun and killing the enemy and if you do it's rare. All you ever hear on the news is innocent people dieing from nutjobs with guns.

Watch the local news daily and you will see who is using guns to protect themselves...next to none.
You are right, next to no victims use guns to protect themselves. But right after the crime, if they're still capable, they buy a gun. And many attend classes to learn how to handle it.

In cities where open carry is widespread, crime rates are down. In cities like Chicago and NYC with the toughest gun laws, gun crimes are the highest. In New York City alone, 4000 illegal guns were confiscated last year. How did its strict gun laws prevent these illegal guns?

As far as the US with its "lax" gun laws resulting in mass shootings is concerned, the world leader in this category? GERMANY. And that's probably where the Norway shooter got his guns. The handgun industry in the US has been basically driven out of the country. The semi-auto pistol used in the Aurora shootings, as well as the Gabby Gifford shooting, and several others, was a Glock - made in AUSTRIA.

http://mobile.washingtonpost.com/rss.jsp...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

First Prev
of 12
Next Last
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

37 Users are viewing the Quakertown Forum right now

Search the Quakertown Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
Quakertown train 2 hr george 4
Town meeting sets up tough crowd for Rep. Paul ... 3 hr smoking doctor 2
PA Who do you support for Governor in Pennsylvania... (Oct '10) 4 hr Eddie Swindell 51,185
PA Who do you support for U.S. Senate in Pennsylva... (Oct '10) 5 hr PA Voter 3,813
cops and robbers 7 hr Tim Arnold 2
Slouching towards Dystopia 22 hr Patsy Cline 2
Memories of Quakertown (Jan '10) 23 hr Conceived at the Q-Mart 745

Quakertown Jobs

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]