Guns

Ok, then we are in agreement - you read, but don't understand.

Flat-out wrong, dude.

DC v. Heller was specifically about the right to have a gun in one's home for self-protection, in Washington DC.

McDonald v. Chicago was specifically about the right to have a gun in one's home for self-protection, in Chicago IL.

You really need to pay more attention. Originally Posted by Sidewinder

Impossible to pay more attention. Libs lack the ability to do such.

Ok, then we are in agreement - you read, but don't understand. Originally Posted by endurance

It says what it says. No more and no less.

Also in agreement.
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

It doesn't say: unless Smokin Joe thinks that "one would need missles, tanks, jets, ships, and things like that to truly be armed. I don't think anyone's going to make much of a stand against an army with a handgun"

I bet all you guys who are against guns WILL NOT put a sign in front of your house that says "GUN FREE HOUSE". And when a situation occurs where you need a gun you call someone with a gun (police) to come and help you.

In Warren v. District of Columbia, two women who were repeatedly raped at knife point and beaten in their own home - over the course of fourteen hours by two assailants - sued the DC police department. Their multiple calls to the cops reporting the crime in progress were misrouted by dispatchers and poorly investigated by the cops on patrol.
The court’s conclusion was sobering: despite the carelessness and ineptitude of the police in this particular case, the police cannot be held liable if they fail to provide adequate protection because there is no duty for the police to protect citizens. The case was dismissed.

All liberals can't debate this issue - all they do is promote propaganda. We are not Japan, Australia, England, etc. We are the U.S.A. The second amendment was passed to protect ourselves form our government. It specifically states our rights to own a gun WILL NOT BE INFRINGED!

If your so happy you don't own a firearm - put a sign in your front lawn that states so! Originally Posted by dante0322

+1

+1 Originally Posted by JustJane

Sorry Jane, I like you, but you're wrong.
-
The right of the people to keep and bear arms has been infringed too many times to count. Or did I miss the part where I can use a mortar to take out my neighbor three blocks over because his too-loud party at 3 a.m. is keeping me awake?
Did I miss the part where I can mount a twin fifty caliber machine gun over the basketball hoop on my garage?
Did I miss the part where I can go to Walmart and buy a bazooka, or a rocket launcher?
And hey, wouldn't I like an M1A1 Abrams main battle tank to help me get through traffic on the way to work? As long as I can afford it, why not? The Second Amendment gives me the right to bear arms, doesn't it? And it doesn't limit the arms, does it?
-
The reality is that our right to bear arms is not absolute, just as our right to free speech isn't absolute. If you think that it is, try yelling 'Fire' in a crowded theater, or speaking aloud in public of your desire to off the President. You'll find out real quick just how 'free' our speech is. And it's the same with guns. The problem we're having now is that all of the no-brainer-even-for-the-NRA weapons have been successfully banned or taken out of circulation, so the anti-gun folks are going after other weapons.
-
I honestly don't know where I stand on this issue, except that we need serious people with serious ideas, not clowns who tell me that we need to ban cast iron skillets because some abused housewife used one to kill her husband in Peoria. To the absolute morons who pose that scenario, tell me this: when's the last time a knife, baseball bat, axe, tire iron, or cast iron skillet killed 20 people and wounded 20 more in less than two minutes, or killed someone from a range of a thousand yards?

When someone is trying to kick in your front door you yell stop and you better leave I'm calling the cops. What you are really saying is I'm calling someone who has a gun. The most important thing to remember about this situation is that when seconds count the police are only minutes away.
The world has all kind of problems and we dont know what is going to happen from one day to the next, the rights that were granted to us are not just ours they are for future generations also. If you dont want a gun in your house because you worry it might hurt you, fine by me. This is America and you can do what you want, but dont try to tell me what to do.
If you are worried about being safe in you home and think removing a gun from house will do that then go ahead. But following that line of logic what you really should remove from your home to be safe is your bathroom.

In 2008 54.500 people died in a accident in there home. Just think of all the lives we could have saved if we did away with homes. Think about the children and the old people, dont you have a heart.

If you really care about these people you can send me money so we can stop this senseless waste of life.

In 2008 54.500 people died in a accident in there home. Just think of all the lives we could have saved if we did away with homes. Think about the children and the old people, dont you have a heart.

If you really care about these people you can send me money so we can stop this senseless waste of life. Originally Posted by thisguy23

I rest my case.

Let me put it like this, anytime someone blames problems they are having on an inanimate object be it guns, drugs, alcohol, bats, forks, plates, homes dont believe them.

If guns kill people then all mine must be broken

To the absolute morons who pose that scenario, tell me this: when's the last time a knife, baseball bat, axe, tire iron, or cast iron skillet killed 20 people and wounded 20 more in less than two minutes, or killed someone from a range of a thousand yards? Originally Posted by Poet Laureate

Guess I'm an absolute moron ?
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/12...eing-in-panic/
If he stabbed to the neck there would have been no survivors .

Also in agreement.
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

It doesn't say: unless Smokin Joe thinks that "one would need missles, tanks, jets, ships, and things like that to truly be armed. I don't think anyone's going to make much of a stand against an army with a handgun" Originally Posted by endurance

Once again, you are correct sir. It doesn't say anything about missles, tanks, jets, ships, pistols, rifles, hand grenades, IEDs, land mines, swords, knifes, switchblased, brass knuckles, hammers, axes, and on and on.

It only talks about arms in the context of a well regulated militia. You seemed to have to left out so i can understand your confusion. Of course the needs of a militia when the ammendment was written are different than the needs of a militia now.

Guess I'm an absolute moron ?
http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/12...eing-in-panic/
If he stabbed to the neck there would have been no survivors . Originally Posted by rockerrick

Well done. I hadn't seen this. But it actually underscores my point. I read the story and there was no one killed. And we know that this sicko only used a knife because Chinese citizens can't own guns. He stabbed and injured two dozen innocent people. Imagine the carnage if he'd had an Uzi or an AK-47.

That's why I made the neck comment , he was a slasher . And hitting moving targets with an AK is not as easy as you think .

Thanks Sue Nami. Its interesting to read peoples thoughts and ideas even if they may differ from my own.

That's why I made the neck comment , he was a slasher . And hitting moving targets with an AK is not as easy as you think . Originally Posted by rockerrick

So RR, you just as soon be in the room with a slasher who had a knife as a shooter with an AR-15 or AK-47 that had a 30 round clip or tow?

In the Gun Appreciation gatherings yesterday there were five accidental shootings among supposedly trained gun enthusiasts. The one thing we do know is where there are more guns whether it is in the home or in a society there are more shootings and deaths than when there are few or no guns around. When there are lots and lots of guns and ammo there are lots of shootings and deaths. Yes, people can be killed with lots of other things like bats, knives, cars, etc.. but not nearly so easily. As one graphic stated I challenge any of you hunters to go out and kill a deer, duck or hog with a bat, car or knife.

I honestly don't think that the an assault weapons ban will do all that much (except perhaps over time) after all it is pistols that cause most of the death and mayhem. Universal background checks and bans of large capacity magazines (along with buy backs) will help some over time. If we could guarantee the owners (were sane) could just keep their guns and ammo locked up securely and we could find some way to take guns away from mentally unstable people until they are well it might do more.

I don't hear the gun lobby, 2nd Amendment fanatics or even many gun owners (except perhaps myself) coming up with any alternative strategies that might be effective. Their nearly universal response is that they don't want anything at all done. IMHO it is unconscionable to not try some things to limit the violence and it is very sad that it took the killing of first graders to really get started. Teenagers, college students and innocent movie goers just weren't enough. What does that say about us as a society? Not much I'm afraid.