Blackshirts007 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 And a few more.... Armed man stops knife attack http://www.abc4.com/...sRhrWCM9dQ.cspx Ex Marine shoots robbers http://www.marinecor...robbery_070702/ Yet another 2nd amendment nut http://www.foxnews.c...t-cafe-robbery/ Also funny these incidents haven't sparked talk of gun control from the President http://www.huffingto..._n_1602692.html http://www.huffingto..._n_1552297.html For every of a nut job killing people, you can find other stories that show armed citizens protecting themselves and/or others. Just saying. i didn't like the video of the "another 2nd amendment nut," because is what's wrong with this picture. The guy shot at them the 1st time and they both started bolting out the door. He got two more shots in, and then when the robbers tripped over themselves outside the door, the man took another shot from the door. The point is to not kill the guys, its to protect others. The robbers were on there way out, scared shitless the second he pulled the trigger. So why fire 4 more shots!?!?! I wouldn't normally stick up for criminals but its unnecessary to try to kill in this situation. Link to comment
wax Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 a gun has never killed anybody but the person holding it has Link to comment
sd'sker Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 a gun has never killed anybody but the person holding it has with a gun. Link to comment
Yossarian Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 even jefferson was not an 'originalist': "Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right." oh, and have you read the constitution? "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." it could be argued that only members of a militia can bear arms. You are right, you could argue that only members of a militia could bear arms. Wait a minute...I think that has been argued before the Supreme Court. Why, yes, it has. And the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. I really respect your Constitutional expertise, but I believe I'll go with the Supreme Court on this one. Link to comment
sd'sker Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 even jefferson was not an 'originalist': "Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right." oh, and have you read the constitution? "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." it could be argued that only members of a militia can bear arms. You are right, you could argue that only members of a militia could bear arms. Wait a minute...I think that has been argued before the Supreme Court. Why, yes, it has. And the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. I really respect your Constitutional expertise, but I believe I'll go with the Supreme Court on this one. we will have to wait to see the long term affect of dc v. heller. as for me, i would rather not have society bound by what was best over 200 years ago. Link to comment
'SkersRule Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Bottom line on this is that the Constitution permits gun ownership, the American Public agrees, and the SCOTUS has ruled on the matter repeatedly. While I am a gun owner, I see no reason to own an AK-47. I can protect myself just fine with what I have. Gun ownership in the Constitution has noting to do with what's suitable for hunting.. the musket was the most powerful gun at the time of the constitution. it is not the bottom line as the constitution is not final and there have been assault rifle and extended magazine bans. And the framers of the constitution believed in a small, limited in scope and power, federal government with the states holding the majority of power... Link to comment
Yossarian Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 even jefferson was not an 'originalist': "Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right." oh, and have you read the constitution? "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." it could be argued that only members of a militia can bear arms. You are right, you could argue that only members of a militia could bear arms. Wait a minute...I think that has been argued before the Supreme Court. Why, yes, it has. And the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. I really respect your Constitutional expertise, but I believe I'll go with the Supreme Court on this one. we will have to wait to see the long term affect of dc v. heller. as for me, i would rather not have society bound by what was best over 200 years ago. I like freedom of speech and all of those other 211-year-old amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. I do. And come to find out, so does the Supreme Court. Link to comment
sd'sker Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 even jefferson was not an 'originalist': "Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right." oh, and have you read the constitution? "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." it could be argued that only members of a militia can bear arms. You are right, you could argue that only members of a militia could bear arms. Wait a minute...I think that has been argued before the Supreme Court. Why, yes, it has. And the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. I really respect your Constitutional expertise, but I believe I'll go with the Supreme Court on this one. we will have to wait to see the long term affect of dc v. heller. as for me, i would rather not have society bound by what was best over 200 years ago. I like freedom of speech and all of those other 211-year-old amendments that make up the Bill of Rights. I do. And come to find out, so does the Supreme Court. so do i. i just do not like that a person can legally own an assault rifle. i can evaluate separate amendments and just because i do not agree with one, does not mean i disagree with all of them. should i assume you think only land owning males should vote? i guess i should just suppose you are against women's suffrage and equal protection for all citizens? those are some other 211-year-old beliefs of the same people who drafted and ratified the 2nd amendment. the supreme court agreed and then disagreed with lot of those laws as well. look up buck v. bell, plessy v. ferguson, pace v. alabama. they have all been overturned, good thing the supreme court is not infallible. oh, also it was a 5-4 decision, d.c. v. heller, so some of those supreme court members happen to agree with me. Link to comment
sd'sker Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Bottom line on this is that the Constitution permits gun ownership, the American Public agrees, and the SCOTUS has ruled on the matter repeatedly. While I am a gun owner, I see no reason to own an AK-47. I can protect myself just fine with what I have. Gun ownership in the Constitution has noting to do with what's suitable for hunting.. the musket was the most powerful gun at the time of the constitution. it is not the bottom line as the constitution is not final and there have been assault rifle and extended magazine bans. And the framers of the constitution believed in a small, limited in scope and power, federal government with the states holding the majority of power... exactly, times change. Link to comment
Lil' Red Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Bottom line on this is that the Constitution permits gun ownership, the American Public agrees, and the SCOTUS has ruled on the matter repeatedly. While I am a gun owner, I see no reason to own an AK-47. I can protect myself just fine with what I have. Gun ownership in the Constitution has noting to do with what's suitable for hunting.. the musket was the most powerful gun at the time of the constitution. it is not the bottom line as the constitution is not final and there have been assault rifle and extended magazine bans. And the framers of the constitution believed in a small, limited in scope and power, federal government with the states holding the majority of power... The constitution was drafted because the Articles of Confederation was a colossal failure where the federal government didn't have enough power. Smaller government where the states hold all the power isn't the de facto best solution to everything. Link to comment
sd'sker Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Bottom line on this is that the Constitution permits gun ownership, the American Public agrees, and the SCOTUS has ruled on the matter repeatedly. While I am a gun owner, I see no reason to own an AK-47. I can protect myself just fine with what I have. Gun ownership in the Constitution has noting to do with what's suitable for hunting.. the musket was the most powerful gun at the time of the constitution. it is not the bottom line as the constitution is not final and there have been assault rifle and extended magazine bans. And the framers of the constitution believed in a small, limited in scope and power, federal government with the states holding the majority of power... The constitution was drafted because the Articles of Confederation was a colossal failure where the federal government didn't have enough power. Smaller government where the states hold all the power isn't the de facto best solution to everything. i do think the senate should be abolished (maybe), but the federal government is becoming imminently more important as it is the only entity that has any leverage against multinational corporations. Link to comment
carlfense Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 And the framers of the constitution believed in a small, limited in scope and power, federal government with the states holding the majority of power... The only problem being that this isn't true. You don't even need to go into the writings of the founder to see that it isn't true. It's right in the Constitution itself. Yet another example of the alternative reality theory. Link to comment
Muck Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 I've stated it before and I know I am in the minority on the subject but I've never understood why people think we need the right to bear arms at least in the context of the kind of arms one can get their hands on these days. Perhaps then you should familiarize yourself with the writings of the founding fathers....or some of the wonderful things that governments have done to their populations throughout history (up to and including the current day) You really think a semi automatic with a 100 round magazine is going to help you overthrow a tyrannical government when they have tanks, drones and F-22's? Of course not, that's why all of the uprisings were immediately crushed by state forces during the 'Arab Spring'. Oh wait... I heard some jackball on the radio today trying to explain how he needs a gun like an AR-15 to shoot coyotes. If you really think you need guns like that to hunt, you are either a terrible hunter or just lazy. You want a rifle or shotgun to hunt? I'm fine with that. Guns like what? Accurate? Modular? Having good parts availability & a robust aftermarket? Do you believe that a good 'yote setup built on the AR platform is the same as one built for combat? The reality is that rifles like the AR-15 are not particularly unique in ways that make them more lethal than other weapons with less of a 'mystique'. It's actually funny AR-15 has a singular distinction of being labeled as an unstoppable killing machine by one group of uninformed individuals and on the other hand as a completely inadequate 'poodle shooter' incapable of dropping human beings due to it's under-powered round by another. You want a handgun that shoots 6 or 10 rounds for personal protection? Fine with that as well. But to have guns that are designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible (thus the name assault) and say they are for personal protection or for hunting or hell even target practice, sorry I just don't buy it. Ahh I see, people should stick to muzzle loading rifles instead of those evil ones designed to shoot as quickly as possible. Breach loaders & lever, slide or bolt actions are all out as each of those innovations were created for the very reason you mention. Smoothbore muskets are a no no as well given their reloading advantage over those with rifled bores. For the record you can't buy an assault rifle over the counter (per the National Firearms Act of 1934). An assault rifle by definition is capable of automatic fire. BTW could you link the research that provided you with the expertise to decide what is an appropriate number of rounds required for self defense? Hopefully someday our country evolves out the stone age with this issue. Oh I agree, but I seriously doubt we as a species will ever evolve beyond letting emotional reactions overwhelm our ability to reason. Link to comment
Muck Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 If only that were really true. But we all know it isn't. There aren't equal numbers of "good guys" out-shooting the "bad guys" as there are "bad guys" shooting unarmed people. So of course the best solution is to create more unarmed people. And since no society in history has shown that MORE guns make for LESS gun crime, it's a pretty weak argument from the get-go. Using ALL CAPS does not make your statement any less inaccurate. Statistics within our own society dispute your claim...fewer restrictions & higher firearm ownership has indeed correlated with less violent crimes. Link to comment
knapplc Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Oh I agree, but I seriously doubt we as a species will ever evolve beyond letting emotional reactions overwhelm our ability to reason. If only everyone with ready access to guns was able to properly reason, we wouldn't have any trouble with guns at all. Link to comment
Recommended Posts