My permanent reply to gun control

The young lady makes numerous valid points. Unfortunately, she is using logic to try to persuade politicians who are most likely only interested in what will get them re-elected, which in this case it is the use of emotions in a knee-jerk reaction, which NEVER results in anything remotely resembling decent legislation.

That is part of the problem. The democratic party has turned the idea behind our government on it's head. The Senate was supposed to act slowly while the House acted fast. The Senate was to slow down the emotional reaction to things. Now we have these bills coming out the Senate full of angst and heated emotion.

I never said she had a RIGHT to a scholarship. I said she had worked to EARN a scholarship. It's understandable, of course, that you don't get that...being a typical libtard looking for handouts. Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

Do you honestly believe that "gun scholarships" are a good reason to keep the status quo? First of all, they likely make up a small percentage of total scholarships given. Second, it's absurd to believe that everyone should have the chance to get a scholarship for their particular hobby.

Excellent point in the first paragraph. Please explain that to the citizens in Australia.

Another excellent point in the second paragraph. Please let us know how your petition to repeal the 2nd Amendment is going. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Again, the point still stands. If you have no guns, you'll have no gun violence.

Quite possibly the dumbest statement on here, ever. And that is something previously thought impossible.

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Which part of that post do you believe is the dumbest part ever? The part where I said you should leave a bad situation? Or are you arguing that you should try to stand and fight a person with a knife if you're unarmed? Or maybe the part where I said it's easier (in the worst case scenerio) to fight against a knife or a bat than against a gun?

:

Drugs don't kill people, people kill people

jbravo_123

Presuming I don't myself have a knife or bat? I could much more easily just leave the premises or in the worst case scenario, physically defend myself from a knife much more easily than I could against a firearm.

If you are ever confronted with this scenario and you are alone, leaving the house is not such a terrible option. But if you have a family thats not feasible. Even if you have a knife or even a bat you have a 50/50 chance of this turning in your favor and thats if you're somewhat trained. If you had no time to arm yourself with a household implement and you aren't well trained to defend yourself against a subject with a knife you have a 95% chance of being a statistic. The remaining 5% chance of your survival depends on if your intruder decides to leave because he wasn't counting on being discovered. But if you were armed it's all in your favor cause you have a right to protect yourself and your home and you have a right to use deadly force if an intruder enters your home armed or unarmed. That means you don't have to run out the backdoor, grab a bat or fumble for a kitchen knife. Originally Posted by acp5762

Of course it completely depends on the situation. For example, if you have a bunch of teenage sons, your intruder might think again when a mob of angry males comes at him. Many thieves will simply leave if confronted with an occupied house (which is why most criminals will break into unoccupied houses - it's easier and safer for them).

Most people don't have training with a weapon so I would say if you have training in one, you're going to be much better off against the intruder (again, presuming you have to fight).

Again, a knife is not as lethal a weapon (I don't know where you're getting your numbers from) a gun. A gun isn't even going to have a 95% chance of killing you so I don't see why you think a guy with a knife would.

Simply having a gun in your house doesn't mean it's all in your favor either. Unless it happens to be nearby you and you happened to go and get it before checking on the weird noise you heard, it's not going to do you much good especially if the intruder has a gun themselves.

Do you honestly believe that "gun scholarships" are a good reason to keep the status quo? Never said that. This is about the Constitution, not status quo. First of all, they likely make up a small percentage of total scholarships given. Second, it's absurd to believe that everyone should have the chance to get a scholarship for their particular hobby. In this instance, it's not a hobby, it's a legitimate college sport.

Again, the point still stands. If you have no guns, you'll have no gun violence. Uhhh...wow.

Which part of that post do you believe is the dumbest part ever? All of it. The part where I said you should leave a bad situation? Or are you arguing that you should try to stand and fight a person with a knife if you're unarmed? Or maybe the part where I said it's easier (in the worst case scenerio) to fight against a knife or a bat than against a gun? Originally Posted by jbravo_123

Holy shit, JB, I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you. You sound dumber and dumber with every reply in this thread.

:

Drugs don't kill people, people kill people Originally Posted by WTF

Absolutely agree. Like a gun, a drug is an inanimate object that must be acted upon by outside forces to be lethal. Excellent point, WTF!!

Holy shit, JB, I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you. You sound dumber and dumber with every reply in this thread. Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

Look in the mirror if you want to feel sorry for an ignorant SOB.

Holy shit, JB, I'm actually starting to feel sorry for you. You sound dumber and dumber with every reply in this thread. Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

Since you've been resorting to insults as your only form of argument in the past couple of posts, I'll have to respectfully decline your pity.

I mean really? You believe if you have multiple armed people coming at you, you should try and fight all of them at once as opposed to just leaving?

Regarding the Constitution, not one of the pro-gun posters have given any kind of argument as to why the purpose for the Second Amendment (to form militias) is still necessary in today's world. Still waiting...

Since you've been resorting to insults as your only form of argument in the past couple of posts, I'll have to respectfully decline your pity.

I mean really? You believe if you have multiple armed people coming at you, you should try and fight all of them at once as opposed to just leaving?

Regarding the Constitution, not one of the pro-gun posters have given any kind of argument as to why the purpose for the Second Amendment (to form militias) is still necessary in today's world. Still waiting... Originally Posted by jbravo_123

BooHoo, you big pussy. If you're going to post stupid, uniformed comments, I'm going to call you out as being stupid and uniformed.

In the interest of correcting your ignorance, see the article below on the purpose of the Second Amendment. No, it was not to form militias, it was to allow the citizenry to protect itself from the tyranny of government. The Founders knew there would be morons like you who would be perfectly happy with a nanny state government controlling their lives, and put in place multiple mechanisms to prevent that from happening. Read and be enlightened...

From RedState.com:

The Purpose of the Second Amendment
By: Erick Erickson (Diary) | January 15th, 2013 at 10:09 PM

The President is ready to announce his plans to restrict gun ownership. Most likely, nothing the President proposes will do anything to stop a future Sandy Hook. We know the President understands he is putting Democrats in a terrible spot. We know because he did nothing after the Aurora, CO shooting in the midst of a political campaign. He had to wait so he wouldn’t spook voters.

Now he will put the Democrats on the line. Senators Baucus, Begich, Hagan, Johnson, Landrieu, and Pryor — all Democrats from very pro-second amendment states who are up for re-election in 2014 — will be in jeopardy when, not if, the President overreaches.
In all the talk that has happened and will happen, the press and the general public seem willing to ignore the actual purpose of the second amendment.

The amendment is not about sports. It is not about recreation. It is not about hunting. It is only partly about defending yourself from a criminal.

The second amendment is about ensuring a “free state.”

On April 19, 1775, British regulars marched on Lexington and Concord to seize the guns of American colonists that had been stockpiled in case of revolution.

It may be an abstract concept for us. It may be distant. But when the 1st Congress of the United States met in 1789, the memory of 1775 was fresh. More so, what they saw as an abridgment of their freedoms in 1775, they viewed as an abridgment of their freedoms going back to the Glorious Revolution of 1688.

Many historians have come to view the American Revolution as a conservative revolution. The revolutionaries believed they were protecting their English rights from the Glorious Revolution of 1688. They were, in effect, revolting to demand the rights they thought they already had as English citizens. It is why, for much of 1775, they petitioned the King, not Parliament, for help because they had, separated by distance and time, not kept up with the legal evolution of the British constitutional monarchy in relation to Parliament. The colonists believed themselves full English citizens and heirs of the Glorious Revolution.

One of the rights that came out of the Bill of Rights of 1689 in England following the Glorious Revolution was a right to bear arms for defense against the state. The English Bill of Rights accused King James II of disarming protestants in England. That Bill of Rights included the language “That the Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.”

The Americans, however, saw the British government, via Parliament, begin curtailing the rights of the citizenry in the American colonies. When they formed the federal government with ratification of the Constitution, the colonists, now Americans, were deeply skeptical of a concentrated federal power, let alone standing armies to exercise power on behalf of a government. This is why, originally, the colonists chose to require unanimity for all federal action under the Articles of Confederation that the Constitution would replace. Likewise, it is why many early state constitutions gave both an explicit right to keep and bear arms, but also instructed that standing armies in times of peace should not be maintained.

Prior to the Civil War, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government and that first Congress dropped references to “as allowed by Law” that had been in the English Bill of Rights. The Founders intended that Congress was to make no law curtailing the rights of citizens to keep and bear arms.

The 2nd Amendment, contrary to much of today’s conversation, has just as much to do with the people protecting themselves from tyranny as it does burglars. That is why there is so little common ground about assault rifles — even charitably ignoring the fact that there really is no such thing. If the 2nd Amendment is to protect the citizenry from even their own government, then the citizenry should be able to be armed.

There are plenty of arguments and bodies to suggest that we might, as a nation, need to rethink this. The Founders gave us that option. We can amend the Constitution.
In doing so, we should keep in mind that in the past 100 years Germany, Italy, Russia, Japan, China, and other governments have turned on their people at various times and, in doing so, restricted freedoms starting often with gun ownership. You may think a 30 round magazine is too big. Under the real purpose of the second amendment, a 30 round magazine might be too small.

Regardless, as the President announces how he will curtail the freedoms of the second amendment, we should remember Justice Robert Jackson’s opinion in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943):

"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections."

http://www.redstate.com/2013/01/15/t...ond-amendment/

Of course it completely depends on the situation. For example, if you have a bunch of teenage sons, your intruder might think again when a mob of angry males comes at him. Many thieves will simply leave if confronted with an occupied house (which is why most criminals will break into unoccupied houses - it's easier and safer for them).

Most people don't have training with a weapon so I would say if you have training in one, you're going to be much better off against the intruder (again, presuming you have to fight).

Again, a knife is not as lethal a weapon (I don't know where you're getting your numbers from) a gun. A gun isn't even going to have a 95% chance of killing you so I don't see why you think a guy with a knife would.

Simply having a gun in your house doesn't mean it's all in your favor either. Unless it happens to be nearby you and you happened to go and get it before checking on the weird noise you heard, it's not going to do you much good especially if the intruder has a gun themselves. Originally Posted by jbravo_123

The bottom line is, and you missed the point for the most part. Gun control to the extent of banning weapons or making them harder to obtain may give rise to criminals becomming more bold.

BooHoo, you big pussy. If you're going to post stupid, uniformed comments, I'm going to call you out as being stupid and uniformed.

In the interest of correcting your ignorance, see the article below on the purpose of the Second Amendment. No, it was not to form militias, it was to allow the citizenry to protect itself from the tyranny of government. The Founders knew there would be morons like you who would be perfectly happy with a nanny state government controlling their lives, and put in place multiple mechanisms to prevent that from happening. Read and be enlightened...



/ Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

Sounds like you're all for Bill Ayers and the Weather underground! How about the Black Panthers, were you for them arming aganist the state? How about that cop out in Cali....unjustly fired, you for wtf he did?

Have you figured out who that dumb SOB is that is looking back at you in the mirror?

BooHoo, you big pussy. If you're going to post stupid, uniformed comments, I'm going to call you out as being stupid and uniformed. Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

Funny, you seem to believe that because I'm not resorting to name calling that you believe that somehow that validates your argument (or lack thereof)?

Too bad we can't all be internet badasses like you:

In the interest of correcting your ignorance, see the article below on the purpose of the Second Amendment. No, it was not to form militias, it was to allow the citizenry to protect itself from the tyranny of government. The Founders knew there would be morons like you who would be perfectly happy with a nanny state government controlling their lives, and put in place multiple mechanisms to prevent that from happening. Read and be enlightened... Originally Posted by EXTXOILMAN

Ok, let's go back to the source:

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. Originally Posted by The Second Amendment

There. I bolded part of that for you.

Now go ahead and tell me again that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was not to form militias?

Yes, the purpose of said militias were to protect from foreign invasions and to curtail the power of the federal government.

So let's go over the two reasons for the militias.

1) Protect from foreign invasions: In today's world, our military is by far the largest and strongest. The idea that any country could possibly invade the United States proper is laughable at best.

2) Curtail the power of the federal government: Do you really think that you and your 10 buddies in your local militia could actually feasibly overthrow the federal government? Even many of your fellow gun owners admit that it is no longer possible to overthrow the federal government through violence.

So, go ahead and try and explain why the original purposes the Second Amendment was created are still around?

Now, the only true remaining argument I can see for gun ownership is that of defending yourself and your property from intruders. That right is not one that the Second Amendment was created for. That idea of protecting yourself and your home is called the Castle Doctrine and comes from English Common Law (the idea that a man's home is his castle). While I believe you do have a right to protect yourself and your property, I believe everyone is safer if there are no guns around (which again, no one has actually taken the time to refute that argument).

Funny, you seem to believe that because I'm not resorting to name calling that you believe that somehow that validates your argument (or lack thereof)?

Too bad we can't all be internet badasses like you:





Ok, let's go back to the source:

[/COLOR]

There. I bolded part of that for you.

Now go ahead and tell me again that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was not to form militias?

Yes, the purpose of said militias were to protect from foreign invasions and to curtail the power of the federal government.

So let's go over the two reasons for the militias.

1) Protect from foreign invasions: In today's world, our military is by far the largest and strongest. The idea that any country could possibly invade the United States proper is laughable at best.

2) Curtail the power of the federal government: Do you really think that you and your 10 buddies in your local militia could actually feasibly overthrow the federal government? Even many of your fellow gun owners admit that it is no longer possible to overthrow the federal government through violence.

So, go ahead and try and explain why the original purposes the Second Amendment was created are still around?

Now, the only true remaining argument I can see for gun ownership is that of defending yourself and your property from intruders. That right is not one that the Second Amendment was created for. That idea of protecting yourself and your home is called the Castle Doctrine and comes from English Common Law (the idea that a man's home is his castle). While I believe you do have a right to protect yourself and your property, I believe everyone is safer if there are no guns around (which again, no one has actually taken the time to refute that argument). Originally Posted by jbravo_123

Two words for you, JB...Federalist Papers.

Three more words...read and learn.