Concealed weapons

Posts: 1173 - Karma: 22

Karma: 22

Posts: 1173

Insane

Your absolutely right that criminals will get guns no matter what.
But there was a ban on individuals owning handguns in DC until the 2008 .

Jan 20 2011 7:05PM

0 0

Squid.

Posts: 1904 - Karma: 23

Karma: 23

Posts: 1904

Insane

and THAT is one of the meanings of "the security of a free state." The other meaning is that people with guns will keep the government from going out of control. The writers didn't mean free states, they meant state as in "the civil government of a country." p.p1 {margin: 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px 0.0px; font: 16.0px Times}

Jan 20 2011 7:43PM

0 0

Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59

Karma: 59

Posts: 7162

Crazy Fool

it's literally exactly what he was saying on the radio two days ago: the Second Amendment does not apply to individuals’ “right to keep and bear arms” unless they are part of a “well-regulated militia.

in cases where there is ambiguity you defer legislation to elected officials with relative knowledge of their local and not let uninformed judges in Washington decide "what is best"

Jan 20 2011 9:00PM

0 0

Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59

Karma: 59

Posts: 7162

Crazy Fool

curious as to how i could arrive at such a position to work back from without actually knowing the text of the 2nd amendment. I'd appreciate it if you could embrace the principle of charity just a little bit.

I read:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"

as setting up the context for the following

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" (military weapons)

being stated in regards to the keeping of a state militia

shall not be infringed.

This either means that 1.it's meant to apply only to state militias or 2. I want an Apache helicopter.

you don't have to agree with me in that particular interpretation, but you have to acknowledge that it is a tenable position; it was the standard interpretation between 1791 to 2008.

As for the appropriate method for interpretation of the constitution, because I make up my own mind, I'm not sure where I stand.

I know that if you're going to say it needs to be interpreted and you run into ambiguity you ought to defer to the decisions made through local elections.

I also know that the constitution could not be written with the knowledge that someday we would have a weapon that could enable 1 person to kill more people than were alive in the USA in 1776.

Because technology advances so quickly i do not think the SCOTUS is actually capable of providing adequate adaptations to these advances and would be inclined to support a legislation that is the byproduct of state elections

On the other hand if you open it to interpretation then it becomes almost meaningless. And unfortunately that point is actually pretty true today.

still, if strict scrutiny results in the unavoidable conclusion that:

the amendment 14th amendment doesn’t apply to discrimination against women because that use of the measure was not intended in 1868.

then i'm going to reject that view.

Jan 20 2011 11:34PM

0 0

Posts: 17711 - Karma: 564

Karma: 564

Posts: 17711

Post Whore

The point of the second amendment as I have learned it in all 4 of the gov't classes I have taken is it was designed so that the average citizen could own a firearm to hunt with (remember, at this time most people hunted for their meat/protein) and in times of war they could pull the gun off the wall and be ready for battle without the States supplying a gun.

Jan 20 2011 11:37PM

0 0

Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59

Karma: 59

Posts: 7162

Crazy Fool

1. the text has no mention of hunting... where would you get such a notion
2. why overlook the very real threat of the British rule & distrust of a federal government that would also provide a rationale for the 2nd amendment

Jan 20 2011 11:57PM

0 0

Posts: 17711 - Karma: 564

Karma: 564

Posts: 17711

Post Whore

1. Who gives a shit what the text SAYS explicitly and take a look at the times they lived in. Guns were common in houses and were used in day to day lives so that people could get their food. Why take something away from the people that they use for their ability to live?

2. The 2nd Amendment was their for ultimately two reasons. State militias so that the state wouldn't have to pay for the weapons that the militias brought to battle with them and as a deterrent for people that wanted to become totalitarian dictators.

I think our founding fathers had the right idea.

Jan 21 2011 12:01AM

0 0

Inbred_Redneck

Posts: 2776 - Karma: 28

Karma: 28

Posts: 2776

Addict

But you can get an Apache heli...

Its just gonna cost you more than your life fortune.

Jan 21 2011 10:17AM

0 0

little1337

Posts: 8159 - Karma: 45,773

Karma: 45,773

Posts: 8159

Crazy Fool

beat me to it. lol. i watched that same one last night

Jan 21 2011 10:26AM

0 0

Cincher

Posts: 3403 - Karma: 535

Karma: 535

Posts: 3403

Addict

Aw man, don't take my hidden blade now!

Oh wait...I'm in canada, it's already illegal...

Nevertheless, I alredy made it, I'm keeping it! here's some schematics:

Jan 21 2011 10:26AM

0 0

Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59

Karma: 59

Posts: 7162

Crazy Fool

Clearly...

Are you incapable of understanding the validity of positions contrary to your own and treating people with respect?

Jan 21 2011 11:11AM

0 0

Posts: 1066 - Karma: 131

Karma: 131

Posts: 1066

Insane

To the people arguing about the "constitutional right" to carry a weapon, I'm not sure that something a couple of guys wrote over 200 years ago that was referring to muskets has any relevance today. The constitution is a good document but it is for sure flawed. Among other things it allowed for slavery, so lets not treat it like some holy document that we can fully apply to life in the 21st century, a time that the founding fathers would have had trouble fathoming.

As for the person who mentioned the "More Guns, Less Crime and the Second Amendment" book, not only have there been numerous studies (look at Donahue and Ayres for one) discounting that load of bs, but if you look at the results of his study you will notice a number of ridiculous findings, for instance that decreasing the number of elderly black women is statistically the most relevant to decreasing crime. The authors of that book used uncorrelated data sets without statistical control and purposely tailored their analysis to fit their results. It is junk science. Recently, it has been shown much more convincingly that lower gun control leads to higher violent crime rates while non violent crime is more or less stable.

Also, this is just my opinion, but when you have Mexican Drug cartels coming to the US to get guns because it is easier to get them here than in Mexico, I'm going to go ahead and say that we have some problems. For one of the wealthiest countries in the world, our homicide rates are ridiculously high and though the gun nuts at the NRA will spend tons of money and time coming up with obscure arguments for why there should be fewer regulations, our nations love for guns is an archaic tradition and an embarrassment that needs to be corrected.

Jan 21 2011 12:02PM

0 0

Rumi.

Posts: 1231 - Karma: 556

Karma: 556

Posts: 1231

Insane

threads

Jan 21 2011 12:05PM

0 0

Posts: 17711 - Karma: 564

Karma: 564

Posts: 17711

Post Whore

1. Sorry but you know those parts about slavery you mentioned... I do believe there are little things called Amendments that are there now that overwrite those portions. The Constitution was written with the idea in mind that times change and it could be changed to reflect those times. So sorry, yes it has relevance today.

2. Banning guns/gun control doesn't do shit for crime. Criminals are either felons or soon to be felons and the repeat offenders notice something. When they are a felon that doesn't mean they suddenly start committing crime WITHOUT a gun. They just buy it out of the back of someone's car that wears the same colors as them or some shit.

3. You bring up Mexican Cartels. You really think they are buying their guns at gun shows or gun stores where there are BC checks and paper work to be filled out? No, they too are buying them out of some thief's trunk.

Jan 21 2011 2:00PM

0 0

hoodratz47

Posts: 11992 - Karma: 9,212

Karma: 9,212

Posts: 11992

Crazy Fool

guns are not going any where anytime soon........ so i have mine....... and plenty of ammo.

Jan 21 2011 2:00PM

0 0

Posts: 17711 - Karma: 564

Karma: 564

Posts: 17711

Post Whore

Now I just need to buy myself a .357

Jan 21 2011 2:02PM

0 0

kilo.

Posts: 29 - Karma: 7

Karma: 7

Posts: 29

Lame

in America its gettin the most bang fer your buck. I dont feel it necessary to carry a gun around with me but its a right that we are all promised. yes times have changed since the constitution was written but same basic principles apply. we gotta fight for our right to pack

Jan 21 2011 2:04PM

0 0

Rbamf

Posts: 792 - Karma: 15

Karma: 15

Posts: 792

Ridiculous

i <3 my guns

Jan 21 2011 2:55PM

0 0

Posts: 709 - Karma: 17

Karma: 17

Posts: 709

Ridiculous

The problem is the minute you let one little rule for gun control to change, anti-gun groups will fight tooth and nail for all them to change. Look at smoking, it's got to the point of stupidity(All from give up some tiny rights). I don't blame the NRA for being so strong with the issue, they know exactly what will happen if they give in just a little. Having assault rifles and machine pistols legal is fucking stupid, but whats next if they give that up?

Jan 21 2011 3:05PM

0 0

manzear

Posts: 843 - Karma: 849

Karma: 849

Posts: 843

Insane

Im glad that i dont worry about guns or criminals. I will walk down the street with no gun on me and never think twice about it.

Jan 21 2011 3:41PM

0 0

Posts: 1066 - Karma: 131

Karma: 131

Posts: 1066

Insane

1. Exactly, as you say, "there are little things called amendments that are there now that overwrite those portions". Well, the second amendment was written over 200 years ago and is no longer applicable. It needs to be "overwritten". You treat the second amendment like it is something sacred that could never be altered but when something like slavery is presented you say "well of course that was repealed so it doesn't matter". Your logic is not sound.

2. Yes, it does. The second part of your argument here isn't exactly cohesive so I'm not exactly sure what you were trying to say. However, the part about criminals not buying guns in gun shows is stupid. First of all, many soon to be criminals do exactly this. Second, it doesn't matter that many of the guns are sold illegally, it is due to the lax gun laws that there has been such a large proliferation of weapons in the US over the last several decades. There wouldn't be any black market guns to buy if they hadn't been sold them in the first place. I realize the black market that is already there won't go away overnight, but there would be a gradual decline in the number of weapons available if there were more stringent anti-gun laws.

3. See #2

This is what obsessive gun lovers like you always do to make your arguments. You come up with spurious arguments contrived with convoluted logic. It comes down to one simple fact; If there are no guns, people can't shoot each other.

Jan 21 2011 4:39PM

0 0

katalina

Posts: 794 - Karma: 16

Karma: 16

Posts: 794

Ridiculous

correct me if i'm wrong...

but the cities where guns were MORE prevalent (concealed weapons) had MORE crimes than those who had less guns, heard about 10 times on the news this past week after the shooting in AZ.

also, during that shooting, a man saw what was going on and so did another man. they BOTH had concealed weapons... the first man who saw the commotion was pointing his loaded gun towards the shooter, the other man came out of the store quickly and the first thing he saw was the innocent man trying to be a hero, he then pointing his gun at the civilian who was only trying to help. he admitted that if someone else hadn't seen what he was doing, he would have shot and killed the man who was only trying to do the exact same thing he was, be a hero and kill the REAL shooter.

that's why i have a problem with concealed carry. other than that, i'd love to pack some heat yaddaamean? nope.

Jan 21 2011 4:47PM

0 0

Posts: 17711 - Karma: 564

Karma: 564

Posts: 17711

Post Whore

Ok, then I say freedom of speech/expression is outdated and anyone that speaks out against anything should be thrown in jail. Fuck, you want a trial by jury? Too bad, overwritten. The Bill of Rights was written so that those amendments would never be repealed, those are the "rights" that everyone is entitled to if they are a citizen of the United States.

And I am not going to even get involved in the part about guns used in crimes being bought legally. Sorry, you ban guns and you still would have gun violence. You would also see an increase in violence with blades and other weapons like that. Should we ban steakknives and broomsticks? You can stab a dude with a broken in half broomstick. Fuck, ban pen and pencils as those can be turned into shanks. So, your argument of no guns people can't shoot each other is retarded. At least if someone is shot they usually end up dieing rather than living with scars for the rest of their lives:

I personally would rather have a closed casket funeral as opposed to living with something like that for the rest of my life.

Jan 21 2011 4:47PM

0 0

Inbred_Redneck

Posts: 2776 - Karma: 28

Karma: 28

Posts: 2776

Addict

And then we law abiding citizens that are responsible enough to own and use guns are left out on the fun.

Jan 21 2011 4:49PM

0 0

Posts: 1173 - Karma: 22

Karma: 22

Posts: 1173

Insane

And this is what candy ass liberals always run too as their be all- end all anti gun rants. Your right if there were no guns people wouldn't shot each other they would stab, hack, run over, burn or dismember people. Violence is absolutely inevitable. The tools of violence don't bread the act the brain and body weilding them do.

Look at British knife crime in correlation with their increasingly strict gun control laws...

People will kill, maim and hurt people. Gun control will never effect that. It will just limit and inconvienance ` the people who jump through the hoops and responsibly own firearms with no intention of harming anyone.

Jan 21 2011 4:54PM

0 0

Posts: 1173 - Karma: 22

Karma: 22

Posts: 1173

Insane

hahahhah well keep soaking up TV.

That is just completely false

Overwhelmingly cities which have loosened restrictions on CCW over the years have seen downward spikes of violent crime and murder..

Jan 21 2011 5:00PM

0 0

Posts: 1066 - Karma: 131

Karma: 131

Posts: 1066

Insane

Jesus, this is why I don't like to argue online. You admitted earlier that parts of the constitution could be outdated. I was saying that this one part is outdated, not the entire document. There is a reason that people are still for freedom of speech, that it is as important today as it was when it was written. So no, I am not for getting rid of trial by jury either. Once again you show your inability to think logically. The fact that both I and the framers of the constitution believe that there is room for improvement does not automatically imply that I think that we should throw the whole thing out. We do need to carefully tweak that which has become outdated.

Yes, you would still have violence. Though I would much rather be confronted by a guy with a knife than a guy with bullets. It is harder to outrun bullets. No we should not ban steak knives, they were not created with the purpose of killing people, guns were. Just because we will never eliminate violence does not mean that we should not strive to do just that.

As for your last comment, are you outrageously vain or something? I would indeed rather be alive with some scars than be dead. I think you should rethink your priorities.

Jan 21 2011 5:08PM

0 0

Posts: 1066 - Karma: 131

Karma: 131

Posts: 1066

Insane

Good comparison, the US homicide rate is 3.9 times higher than in the UK.

No the tools do not bread the violent thoughts, they allow the people to carry out those thoughts. That is why we should not encourage the proliferation of guns.

If it is a bit harder for a couple of rednecks to get a hunting rifle and impossible to get other guns such as assault rifles, the purpose of which is to kill humans, in exchange for fewer people being gunned down everyday then I am alright with that.

Jan 21 2011 5:14PM

0 0

Posts: 1066 - Karma: 131

Karma: 131

Posts: 1066

Insane

*breed

Jan 21 2011 5:15PM

0 0

Posts: 17711 - Karma: 564

Karma: 564

Posts: 17711

Post Whore

Steak knives are evolved from the fucking sword which were used to kill people. Rifles and handguns also evolved from the cannon.

Sorry, but most people that own guns and buy them legally use them for little more than shooting cans or targets. The only living targets they may be used on are deer or bears.

And sorry, I would much rather be dead than have knife wounds. Knife wounds means you survived and that can fuck you up emotionally/mentally and then you may need life long counseling. Better to be dead than pay to lay on a couch whining.

Jan 21 2011 5:17PM

0 0

Inbred_Redneck

Posts: 2776 - Karma: 28

Karma: 28

Posts: 2776

Addict

I take it youve never fired a gun before.

Jan 21 2011 5:25PM

0 0

Posts: 709 - Karma: 17

Karma: 17

Posts: 709

Ridiculous

You win for being the biggest fucking idiot on this website.

Jan 21 2011 5:26PM

0 0

Posts: 17711 - Karma: 564

Karma: 564

Posts: 17711

Post Whore

Why is that? My opinions differ from yours? lulz

Jan 21 2011 5:27PM

0 0

Posts: 1066 - Karma: 131

Karma: 131

Posts: 1066

Insane

This is getting stupid so this is my last post.

Yes, steak knives may indeed have evolved from swords. Your point? Nuclear power plants evolved from the atomic bomb. Yet they are not the same thing.

Yup, most people do, I already said I am for very limited and highly regulated numbers of hunting rifles to be sold. Weapons made to kill people are not automatically necessary because you can shoot a can with it too.

Once again I will say that it is fucked up that you would rather die, but anyway that does not mean you get to decide for other people. Don't worry, if you get stabbed I will personally come smother you with a pillow. Also, it is not as though you cannot be wounded by a gun. You can find thousands of pictures of little kids who have had limbs blown off by guns. Though, this isn't that important to my argument because it is my belief that it is better to be missing an arm than to be dead.

Jan 21 2011 5:29PM

0 0

Posts: 1173 - Karma: 22

Karma: 22

Posts: 1173

Insane

Hahah angry hippy

Jan 21 2011 5:31PM

0 0

Posts: 17711 - Karma: 564

Karma: 564

Posts: 17711

Post Whore

Just to let you know, people use AR type rifles for hunting too:

ARs were designed for a way to easier carry ammo and allow people to shoot without having to cock the gun every shot like the bolt action rifles had to be. You can use them for hunting and many people do. Especially for hog and boar hunting as those fuckers charge you in packs.

Jan 21 2011 5:33PM

0 0

Posts: 1066 - Karma: 131

Karma: 131

Posts: 1066

Insane

Fine, this is my last post.

First of all relevance?

Second, I grew up with guns, my father loves them and I have been trained to use guns since the age of about 10. Since then I have gained the capacities necessary to see that the US has a gun problem and I would never want to contribute to that by buying one myself.

Jan 21 2011 5:33PM

0 0

katalina

Posts: 794 - Karma: 16

Karma: 16

Posts: 794

Ridiculous

source? you can't just say that because its what YOU think.
i know i didnt list my source but that's because there are numerous sources.

Jan 21 2011 5:39PM

0 0

tbayskier

Posts: 1136 - Karma: 1,639

Karma: 1,639

Posts: 1136

Insane

because they're fighting for their lives....not because they're "fuckers"

Jan 21 2011 7:09PM

0 0

Posts: 1173 - Karma: 22

Karma: 22

Posts: 1173

Insane

http://utahshootingsports.com/usscstudy.htm

http://www.texaschl.us/ccwinus-effectsoncrime

Using publicly available media reports, the Violence Policy Center claims that from May 2007 through the end of 2009, concealed carry permit holders in the U.S. have killed at least 117 individuals, including 9 law enforcement officers (excluding cases where individuals were acquitted, but including pending cases). There were about 25,000 murders by firearm that period,[77][78] meaning that concealed carry permit holders committed less than 1% of the murders by firearm. Furthermore, a large number of the victims were killed in extended suicides, most of which took place in the home of the shooter, where arms can be possessed without special permits.[79]

In 2008, there were 16,272 murders and 245 legally justified/self defense killings in the United States.[80] However, the FBI Uniform Crime Report states that the justifiable homicide stat does not represent eventual adjudication by medical examiner, coroner, district attorney, grand jury, trial jury or appellate court; few US jurisdictions allow a police crime report to adjudicate a homicide as justifiable, resulting in a undercount in the UCR table. The vast majority of defensive gun uses (DGUs) do not involve killing or even wounding an attacker, with government surveys showing 108,000 (NCVS) to 23 million (raw NSPOF) DGUs per year, with ten private national surveys showing 764,000 to 3.6 million DGU per year

i don't have time to research sources and build you a citation of the facts but frankly your the only one claiming things you "think" or heard on TV... this isn't opinion based no one argues that concealed carry increases crime not even dbag liberals like Rachel Maddow

Jan 21 2011 7:15PM

0 0

Posts: 1173 - Karma: 22

Karma: 22

Posts: 1173

Insane

they are unbelievably agressive and an invasive species

Jan 21 2011 7:17PM

0 0

Posts: 709 - Karma: 17

Karma: 17

Posts: 709

Ridiculous

I like guns and minorities, I am not a hippy. But comparing a kitchen knife to a sword is idiotic.

Jan 21 2011 7:28PM

0 0

Posts: 709 - Karma: 17

Karma: 17

Posts: 709

Ridiculous

hate minorities*

Jan 21 2011 7:29PM

0 0

Posts: 1173 - Karma: 22

Karma: 22

Posts: 1173

Insane

hate minorities?

Jan 21 2011 7:31PM

0 0

XtRemE11

Posts: 5680 - Karma: 268

Karma: 268

Posts: 5680

No Life

the problem with getting rid of guns is that the government will still have them. and citizens wont. which is a horrible horrible idea, common sense and history will tell you that.

IMO you should be able to own whatever a foot soldier can carry.

yes guns make it easier to kill people, and ill even agree that guns just add to the number of deaths. but people have been killing people since were living in caves. we have been through much more cruel violent times without guns. guns are simply another weapon like hundreds before it that will never go away. taking away the individuals right to defend himself wont decrease the number of deaths, it will just be different people doing the killing, but personally, i like the idea of a more even distribution of power between the people and government.

Jan 21 2011 10:29PM

0 0

Posts: 7162 - Karma: 59

Karma: 59

Posts: 7162

Crazy Fool

i mean I understand how to get to this conclusion; i just think when you get there you reject the first premise.

Jan 21 2011 10:44PM

0 0