More gun violence, Connecticut School Shooting

Exnyr, what part of the second amendment is so hard for you to get?

Is it the "SHALL NOT" or the "BE INFRINGED"?

Isn't limiting people to 1 type of handgun an infringement?

Are you trying to split hairs with the words that are plain as day, or do you think we should get rid of that one and let the goverment go against the origional intent and just rewrite it to fit their agenda? Originally Posted by threepeckeredbillygoat

Now there is a ridiculous argument.

There are not and never have been any absolutes in the Constitution - not even freedom of speech. The words of the first amendment are also as plain as day and yet you cannot commit slander or libel without getting sued. You cannot breach the peace at 3 AM by using a bullhorn in a residential neighborhood. You cannot threaten to kill someone without getting jailed. You cannot tell military secrets to the enemy in war time. All of those things involve speech and yet they are punished.

Your second amendment rights are ALREADY infringed. You cannot get a gun if you are under 18.. You cannot get one if you are a convicted felon. You cannot get one if you are mentally disturbed. You cannot get one without a background check. You cannot get one without obtaining a license. In many states you cannot carry one outside the home or you cannot carry it concealed. The law forbids you to bring one into a courthouse, into a school, onto a plane. The list goes on and on and on.

As to limiting the types of weapons you can have, you ALREADY cannot own a machine gun, or grenades, or .50 caliber. You cannot own a sawed off shotgun.

What part of that gun right looks absolute? Do you really think it is untenable to limit people to revolvers instead of semi automatics? Second amendment rights are not and never have been absolute. Otherwise, it would be unconstitutional for the government to stop you from owning a howitzer.

Well put ExNYer.

What do you expect from Whatzup?

The first amendment is not about the actual speech like using a bullhorn. That was a dumb comparison. The speech that is being talked about is more general and originally of a political nature only. Don't try to make more of it than there is like so many liberals. At one point "fightin words" were not covered by the first amendment. You can also threaten someone life without going to jail. Note the words of Alec Baldwin who wanted a Congressman and his family stoned to death. I didn't see him go to jail for that. Of course it used to be that if you did make such a threat then it was called assault and if the subject of your assault kicked your sorry ass then you were stupid for starting trouble. I also find it odd that a liberal like Woodrow Wilson would criminalize free speech back in 1917. Read up on Emma Goldman and Eugene V. Debs. Today some slime ball can approach you on the street make a threat and then sue you for punching him in the face. (while we're at it, what the papparazzi does is assault not journalism or free speech)

As for second amendment rights, wrong again XNYR I can get a gun without a license legally, I don't need a permit to own a pistol, I bought my first gun when I was 16 and that law has still not changed, In 37 states you can get a concealed carry permit and in many other states you do not need a permit to carry a weapon openly. If I check my weapon at the entrance my pistol can go on the plane in luggage and pick it up at my destination. I can go down and buy a .50 caliber rifle right now if I have the money. If I want to get a license I can buy a fully automatic weapon or have a weapon with a sonic suppressor.

XNYR, this is not New York, the world is not New York. You are woefully ignorant of the gun laws in this country and so is your little lap dog Whatzup.

Now there is a ridiculous argument.

Your second amendment rights are ALREADY infringed. You cannot get a gun if you are under 18. Yes teenagers do. You cannot get one if you are a convicted felon. Yes felons do. You cannot get one if you are mentally disturbed. Yes crazies do. You cannot get one without a background check.Yes felons and crazies and teenagers do. You cannot get one without obtaining a license.Yes "unlicensed" people do. In many states you cannot carry one outside the home or you cannot carry it concealed.Yes they do. The law forbids you to bring one into a courthouse,OBVIOUSLY THEY DO into a school,OBVIOUSLY THEY DO. onto a plane. BETTER NOW WITH TSA SEARCHES. The list goes on and on and on. WHAT "LIST"?
Originally Posted by ExNYer

The discussion about "gun control" does not end by citing the existence of laws. We have traffic laws in every state that regulates all sorts of vehicle activities, yet our traffic courts are jammed packed with speeders, stop light and sign cutters, and people with NO LICENSE and no insurance, "etc., etc., etc."

I believe in the absolute of the 2nd amendment and ....

..... I want the right to keep a firearm.

The truth is that there are firearms in circulation and available for "Joe citizen" to purchase, which have no hunting or self-defense utility and value, but are possessed for what I would call "machismo" or "testosterone" purposes ... "toys" for "boys"!

The "problem" with the "interpretation" of the 2nd amendment is a philosophical difference in constitutional and legislative interpretation. A strict constructionist might consider the historical basis for the 2nd amendment and the context of the times in which it was crafted, proposed, and passed. That era was thinking about the Government not having the authority to unarm the citizens so that the citizens were unable to defend themselves against Government intrusion ... literally that would mean that citizens ought to be able to retain firearms that would be able to resist Government attempts to intrude, which implies at least equality in fire power.

Nothing was said back then about game hunting or sporting events. (May be that was an "assumed" added use of one's firearm .. putting food on the table.)

We'll get the "whole story" sooner or later, but the mother (who died) of the shooter at the school in Connecticutt had reportedly purchased AR-15s to "protect" their home during the economic downturn that is was, and is anticipated, which implies not "Government" intrusion, but criminal elements, who have reasonably easy access to weapons that lack sporting or hunting uses. I'm uncertain where the body armour was obtained and/or for what purpose (if that rumor is accurate) it would be effective for an attempted home invasion, unless they were sleeping in their body armour. But..

Even Obama has the sense to not restrict gun laws. And him "crying" was about as genuine as that "trayvon my son" comment. You gotta admit, hes a great politician. In a fiddler leading the rats kinda way.

Even Obama has the sense to not restrict gun laws. Originally Posted by Slappy Balls

He sent up a trial balloon with a brief comment, but he at least has enough sense to wait until Congress has a go at it, before he starts signing Executive Orders.

Hopefully, Congress and Obaminable will leave schools alone and allow local/state government to address individual school facility security.....and hopefully the ACLU and NRA will step back and take a breath before weighing in on the proposed solutions.

The same could be said about someone who is afraid of the fact that he is surrounded by people who have the right to take up arms of all callibers and magazine capacity to defend theirselves, home and family.

Don't like the rights, go somewhere where they aren't allowed.

They have made it very hard to get guns in Norway.

And didn't some nut job just last year murder 70 some odd people? And injur 300+?

And they did such a good job of making it hard to get guns there that there were no good guys with guns to stop him so he had free reign to murder at will.
Google Norway massacre

Then get back with me and tell me how good gun control worked there. Originally Posted by threepeckeredbillygoat

As I said in another post, there is virtually nothing that can be done in my opinion to prevent such tragedies. Whether it be here or in Norway. One deranged person is all it takes.

At least you agree it has been trampled on. Originally Posted by threepeckeredbillygoat

I don't even know what the 2nd Amendment guarantees anyone. I've said before, almost every word in it has been scrutinized and people come up with various opinions as to what it REALLY means. If you think it guarantees that ANYONE can carry ANY WEAPON at ANYTIME, ANYWHERE, then I'm glad it has been trampled on.

As I said in another post, there is virtually nothing that can be done in my opinion to prevent such tragedies. Whether it be here or in Norway. One deranged person is all it takes. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I don't even know what the 2nd Amendment guarantees anyone. I've said before, almost every word in it has been scrutinized and people come up with various opinions as to what it REALLY means. If you think it guarantees that ANYONE can carry ANY WEAPON at ANYTIME, ANYWHERE, then I'm glad it has been trampled on. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Correct on both counts!

I came into the middle of something apparently. I think Speedie is trying to say that no one needs a handgun for protection because he is so well traveled. I. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You misinterpreted my statement. Someone stated that since I live in such an isolated city, Cedar Park, Tx., far from major crime areas such as Detroit, Philadelphia, etc., I was safe in my little coccoon so my opinions are not as valid as those who live in crime hotbeds. My wife, more than I, and I are fairly well traveled and have never needed a gun for self-protection.

I'm willing to bet everyone in Newtown Ct felt they were safe too, cause nothing ever happens there, right? And it wasn't even in the scary dark night. It was at an elementary school in broad daylight for pete sakes.

They played smart and tried to be safe, had a security door and everything. They didn't think anybody needed a gun to protect them either. I hope your "it could never happen here" attitude doesn't turn out like theirs did some day. Originally Posted by threepeckeredbillygoat

For the third I'll say it -- there is very little any one could have done to prevent such a tragedy from occuring. In Newtown. Or at Virginia Tech. Or in Columbine. Or in Oregon. However, the average person has a great deal he/she can do to protect against violent crime. Including staying out of high-crime areas if at all possible.

Want to keep intruders out of your house? An intruder doesn't know if you have a handgun in your home. The best time-proven way is to put a sign in your home from a home protection company stating that your home has a security system hooked up. You don't even need it hooked up. The sign alone has been proven to be almost 100% effective in preventing home break-ins. Want a little more protection? Hook up your home so that an alarm goes off when an intruder tries to break in.

And you make a very good point Slappy Nuts. I guess its just bad luck if you have car trouble passing through the wrong area at the wrong time and we are just supposed to accept it.

Well I guess I'm at you bad guys's mercy now, here all my money and wallet, and do what ever ya want to my girlfriend and daughter.... but please please please you evil bastards, just don't kill them when your done with them.


FUUUUUUUCK THAT SHIT !!! Originally Posted by threepeckeredbillygoat

So why do less than 3% of eligible Texans have CHLs? Thank God the majority do not think the way you do. Your answer to everything is so simple -- arm everyone with enough firepower to stop a small army and we'll all be safe.

You misinterpreted my statement. Someone stated that since I live in such an isolated city, Cedar Park, Tx., far from major crime areas such as Detroit, Philadelphia, etc., I was safe in my little coccoon so my opinions are not as valid as those who live in crime hotbeds. My wife, more than I, and I are fairly well traveled and have never needed a gun for self-protection. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I agree. I have traveled extensively for the past 25 years and have never felt that I needed to carry a gun for self-protection, even though I have a concealed handgun license. The only time I carry a gun is when I go hunting. Except for hunting trips, all of my firearms are always stored in my gun safe.

On your other point, I have an activated alarm system wired to my home for the past 14 years and have never received a call from the alarm company regarding an unknown intruder. I have an alarm company sign clearly displayed in my front yard, as well as stickers on each door and most of my windows. Knock on wood, in 36+ years of owning a home, I have never had an intruder enter my home.

So why do less than 3% of eligible Texans have CHLs? Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

The failure to obtain a CHL does not necessarily reflect that one does not possess AND carry a firearm when moving about the State. Given the existing laws in Texas regarding having a handgun in one's possession when "traveling" about the State, many people may believe it is not necessary for them to obtain a piece of paper from the State identifying them as having a handgun or one in their possession.

Personally, I would announce on here or elsewhere whether or not I have one.

If a peace officer asks me, I will answer honestly. If a non-peace-officer desires to find out, he or she will depending upon their indicated intentions as to why they would want to know.

Training I had stated if you are stopped for any reason by law enforcement you should notify them if you have a cc and if you are armed or not.