The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution states:

"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."

Do you know the history behind those words?

Should Ordinary Citizens be allowed to own, carry, & use Firearms to defend their own lives, & the lives of their family & friends?

Was the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution created to just protect a Citizen's right to target shoot & hunt, or was it created so that all Citizens could defend their Right to be free from a Tyrannical & Abusive Government --- along with having the ability to target/sport shoot & hunt as simply an added bonus -- merely a by product?

Can Governments legislate 'Gun Control' effective enough to completely protect their Citizens from deranged shooters & criminals, hell bent on killing the innocent & disobeying all law?

If not, do Ordinary Citizens have a 'Natural Right' to self-defend -- to protect their own lives, & the lives of their loved ones?

Will American Citizens, or any citizens of any country for that matter,  be safer & better off if only the Government & Law Enforcement had Firearms? Does recent History (within the past 100 years or so) show this to be fact?

What do you think, & most importantly ----   why?

This thread was created as a continuation of a thread in the old MyOpera Forum, which will be closing March ^1st., 2014

These new teaching methods. In my day it used to be detention, now it's learn or die.

Better yet, learn & survive.

In a gunfight, bring a gun......it's more effective than flesh & bone.

Know full well that the crazies won't be playing by the rules, & will be armed to the teeth --- intent on killing all your children.

So, when push comes to shove, which would defend them better ---- a fully trained teacher, or security agent, carrying & ready to use a firearm to defend them, or a brave teacher or other adult who is willing to throw their flesh & bone body between your kids & the raging bullets of the crazy, unopposed shooter?

Give me a good guy with a gun anyday.

The Crazies are cowards anyway, that's why they almost always choose "Gun Free Zones" (schools, theaters, sporting venues, etc... where guns are forbidden--except those carried by crazies because they never obey the law). Crazies are cowards, & if they knew that armed resistance to thier plot was in the cards, they'd either look for a more opportunistic target , or give up on their plans all together.

If they didn't know there were trained shooters armed to resist them when they got there, when they see that they are being opposed by trained shooters, mindset on killing them, they'd probably turn tail, & run off like the cowards they are ---It happens every day!

The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun, is with a good guy with a gun.

Legislation will never stop a crazy bad guy.

Bad guys never play by the rules, & they never ever obey the law.

So, learn, learn to survive.

The Crazies are cowards anyway,...

Wrong. The most sure thing you can say about the crazies is that they are crazy. Everything else is arguable and varies. And even craziness may not be detected early enough, because pretty much everyone is crazy these days, including the psychiatrists.

Wrong. The most sure thing you can say about the crazies is that they are crazy.

And they go to those places not because it's "gun free," but because that where people congregate. If somebody's that insane, the thought another person might be armed might not even cross their deranged brain. Everybody knows that gun control will not be 100% effective, the object is to reduce the number of criminals and lunatics from getting guns.

What SF is also not considering is that the insane mass shooters often want to die. They create the situation knowing full well they won't survive. I guess he never heard of "suicide by cop" , either.

Any society where access to guns is not regulated at least on the level of drivers licenses is insane.

Adam Lanza of Sandy Hook Elementary fame was an ordinary citizen. And he had a gun which he used to kill 26 people.

Of course ordinary people should be allowed to own a gun. They're allowed for hunting in England where over a ten year period three people were shot, five less than were killed in my hometown last year. Damned English!

The Poll is somewhat dysfunctional because it uses a heavily loaded question. With that in mind I would have voted for a beer but unfortunately that option requires me to continue pondering the basic insanity which is that everyone lives in a place where a lack of firearm regulation has apparently allowed gangs dripping with armament to flourish.

I think you'll find some answers in this article and the report to which it refers:
High gun ownership makes countries less safe, US study finds

Guns do not make a nation safer, say US doctors who have compared the rate of firearms-related deaths in countries where many people own guns with the death rate in countries where gun ownership is rare.[/quote]

It's like this . . .  If you ensure that everyone has a telephone then the number of telephone calls will increase, if you ensure that everyone has drugs then drug use will go up, if thou let everyone have guns then ......  well it's obvious is it not!

I think you'll find some answers in this article and the report to which it refers:
High gun ownership makes countries less safe, US study finds

Guns do not make a nation safer, say US doctors who have compared the rate of firearms-related deaths in countries where many people own guns with the death rate in countries where gun ownership is rare.[/quote]

It's like this . . .  If you ensure that everyone has a telephone then the number of telephone calls will increase, if you ensure that everyone has drugs then drug use will go up, if thou let everyone have guns then ......  well it's obvious is it not!

+1

Agreed

Any society where access to guns is not regulated at least on the level of drivers licenses is insane.

Er-- ahhhh--- If you could see some of the stuff I see, you'd wonder how some of these folk-- including "professional" truck drivers-- ever got drivers licenses. When you get passed on a snow and black-ice covered road by an 18-wheeler who is trying to do the posted speed when maintaining forward motion is driving too fast for conditions, you just know that they're giving out driver's licenses a little too easily. Frightening thought: that driver may be licensed to be able to conceal-carry as well.

Er-- ahhhh--- If you could see some of the stuff I see, you'd wonder how some of these folk-- including "professional" truck drivers-- ever got drivers licenses. When you get passed on a snow and black-ice covered road by an 18-wheeler who is trying to do the posted speed when maintaining forward motion is driving too fast for conditions, you just know that they're giving out driver's licenses a little too easily. Frightening thought: that driver may be licensed to be able to conceal-carry as well.

Please don't tar all truck drivers with the same brush.  My husband drives truck and NEVER drives too fast for conditions - it's insane to do so with an 18 wheeler and those who do earn scorn and disgust from good truck drivers as well.  If the weather is really poor, he won't drive at all.  Period.  Some truck drivers are exemplary and deserve respect - same with some car drivers.

Blame the schools who give those poor drivers truck driving licenses.  There used to be one here who gave out truck driving licenses to drivers who could NOT back up with a 53 foot trailer in tow.  It is now, thankfully, out of business due to complaints.

The Poll is somewhat dysfunctional because it uses a heavily loaded question. With that in mind I would have voted for a beer but unfortunately that option requires me to continue pondering the basic insanity which is that everyone lives in a place where a lack of firearm regulation has apparently allowed gangs dripping with armament to flourish.

And, would you submit that legislation (laws) will stop the insane & hard core (gangs dripping with firearms) criminals from procuring & using firearms in commission of their crimes?

Wouldn't the only answer then possibly be (if you actually think it could be done) an outright ban on all firearms? 

Will the criminals & insane honor your total ban?

Haven't you forgotten that there are millions upon millions of legal, honest, law abiding firearm owners (more firearms owners here than you have people) that never have, nor ever will break the law & use their firearms in the commission of any crime.

The only people that will honor most all gun control regulations are these honest & law abiding firearm owners.

The insane, & the hard core criminals will laugh their asses off at any regulations knowing that all you'll be accomplishing is (that is if any government on the planet could ever confiscate our firearms in the first place ) is disarming the opposition, making their career path much easier to follow.


                                         

                                   

I think you'll find some answers in this article and the report to which it refers:
High gun ownership makes countries less safe, US study finds

Guns do not make a nation safer, say US doctors who have compared the rate of firearms-related deaths in countries where many people own guns with the death rate in countries where gun ownership is rare.

It's like this . . .  If you ensure that everyone has a telephone then the number of telephone calls will increase, if you ensure that everyone has drugs then drug use will go up, if thou let everyone have guns then ......  well it's obvious is it not!


+1

Agreed

Comparing statistics in other countries does not prove anything. All it verifies is that the American Gun Culture is quite unique, & American Gun owners can not be compared to European, or Asian, or Australian, or African gun owners & or their respective societies.

May I say firstly, argue as you may, there is one constant you are forgetting to employ --- one variable you seem to never admit to or include in your Gun Control Crusades.

The American Gun Owners....the legitimate ones.....will never, ever allow their firearms to be confiscated, nor will they ever consider turning their firearms over to law enforcement because someone somewhere passed a law saying that they must.

American Gun Owners will fight any such Unconstitutional actions more violently than anything the world has ever seen.

Matter in fact, I firmly believe the very moment any such law is passed, American Gun Owners will band together by the millions to violently overthrow any government so ignorant to believe that passing any law, or any gradual groups of systematic laws, would ever be obeyed or supported by the American People.

It would surely be Armageddon!

There isn't a standing army on earth that outnumbers us, & furthermore, amongst the American troops & law enforcement community, we include in our ranks many of the ranking leaders & rank in file members --- far more than half would never fire upon American Citizen regardless of where the orders come!

Now, back to responding more directly to the above quote(s).

...."International evidence and comparisons have long been offered as proof of the mantra that more guns mean more deaths and that fewer guns, therefore, mean fewer deaths. Unfortunately, such discussions [have] all too often been afflicted by misconceptions and factual error and focus on comparisons that are unrepresentative," ..........

...the burden of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially since they argue public policy ought to be based on that mantra. To bear that burden would at the very least require showing that a large number of nations with more guns have more death and that nations that have imposed stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are not observed when a large number of nations are compared across the world......

In the 46-page study........... Kates and Mauser looked at and compared data from the U.S. and parts of Europe to show that stricter laws don't mean there is less crime......

The Boston Magazine 

The 46 Page Harvard Law School Study PDF


American Statistics:


Source: FBI Uniform Crime Reports.


Source: The US Department of Justice

                                           For those living in countries where semi-automatics are frowned upon,
                                                   or pump-action shotguns are none to welcome
                                            -- in England (Great Britain) & Australia for example --
                                                      try one of these beauties on for size

                                   
                                                                         The Chiappa Triple Crown Shotgun - Video



                                                       
                                                                The Chiappa 1887 Lever Action Shotgun - Video

What do you think?

Chicago gun sale ban unconstitutional, judge rules

A federal judge on Monday overturned Chicago's ban on the sale and transfer of firearms, ruling that the city's ordinances aimed at reducing gun violence are unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Edmond E. Chang said in his ruling that while the government has a duty to protect its citizens, it's also obligated to protect constitutional rights, including the right to keep and bear arms for self-defense..........

National Rifle Association lobbyist Todd Vandermyde applauded Chang's decision, saying the fact a federal judge appointed by President Barack Obama "ruled in favor of the Second Amendment, shows how out of step and outrageous Chicago's ordinances really are." .........Continued

Read it all here


BTW ........... Chicago still has a bans on imaginary assault style weapons, & those lawsuits are yet to be ruled on, but the NRA & the pro-gun lobby are cautiously optimistic that they will be overturned as well.



What do you "Gun Grabbers" think about that wonderful news?



                                                                 

...... they go to those places not because it's "gun free," but because that where people congregate. If somebody's that insane, the thought another person might be armed might not even cross their deranged brain.

.........What SF is also not considering is that the insane mass shooters often want to die. They create the situation knowing full well they won't survive. I guess he never heard of "suicide by cop" , either.

Being you have such an incredible insight into the mind of the insane mass shooter, just one little immaterial question if I may ....... How many of your bravely insane mass shooters -- the shooters you know oh so well -- how many ever chose a shooting range to do his/their deadly deeds in? I hear people congregate there too.

So, 'Cooney, how many?  Inquisitive minds want to know. 

Tic....toc......tic.....toc....Tic....toc......tic.....toc....Tic....toc......tic.....toc........ <whisper>.......................none, not one -- ever

I say that's because they're yellow bellied cowards who almost always choose "Gun Free Zones" because before they take their own cowardly sick lives, they want the least possibility of being stopped or interrupted before they complete their murderous rampages.

Where better to guarantee the least possibility of any armed resistance while committing their heinous crimes..................

Why "Gun Free Zones", but of course, where all the little children, the teachers, & the horrified weaponless people they mercilessly slaughter have for their defense is their soft tissue & bone -- maybe a book or two! 

How brave are your poor misunderstood, insane mass shooters again 'Cooney?

What do you "Gun Grabbers" think about that wonderful news?

How would any of know what the gun grabbers think?

If one is committing suicide, it doesn't mean he's  brave in the face of death. It means mental illness or series of incidents has driven them to that point. I guess I have to repeat to you that the mass shootings are often killer's suicide.

the shooters you know oh so well -- how many ever chose a shooting range to do his/their deadly deeds in?

Often they go to places that are meaningful to them. Why open fire at a Batman movie wearing a Joker outfit? Because the killer identified with Joker. You're trying to approach this as if  mass shooters are rational, socially adjusted individuals. They're not. The "Gun Free Zones" are an attempt to reduce crime and violence by more sane people. Take down that "Gun Free" sign and I guarantee most of the mass shooters will still go to the same places because 1) If they're suicidal they know the police will arrive shortly to gun them down and 2) Again, the go after places and people that are meaningful for them in a positive or negative way. The teenage mass killers would have had to go the gun range previously and likely would have had to bullied there. They wouldn't have been allowed in because of their age without their parents for that to have happened.  Have you really forgotten that the school shooters are minors (average age, 16)

In consequence of the vile attack that Southern European countries are suffering, my position, contrarily to what I defended at the D&D version of this same thread, is that all citizens have the right to be armed.

Probably, more than a right, it's a duty. These are not times of peace.

Often they go to places that are meaningful to them. Why open fire at a Batman movie wearing a Joker outfit? Because the killer identified with Joker. You're trying to approach this as if  mass shooters are rational, socially adjusted individuals. They're not. The "Gun Free Zones" are an attempt to reduce crime and violence by more sane people. Take down that "Gun Free" sign and I guarantee most of the mass shooters will still go to the same places because 1) If they're suicidal they know the police will arrive shortly to gun them down and 2) Again, the go after places and people that are meaningful for them in a positive or negative way. The teenage mass killers would have had to go the gun range previously and likely would have had to bullied there. They wouldn't have been allowed in because of their age without their parents for that to have happened.  Have you really forgotten that the school shooters are minors (average age, 16)

"Gun Free Zones" kill innocent people.....they are just as much to blame for the death & carnage as the killers that pull their murderous triggers in them.

"Gun Free Zones" are the worst damn piece of errant legislation the ignorant could have ever devised.

Calling it Retarded legislation would be an insult to the retarded.

"Gun Free Zones" will never save anyone, on the contrary they will, as long as they exist, they will provide a safe haven for every murderous criminal -- insane or not -- until they are all removed from the homeland of sane, responsible, people.

The legislation that created them will forever be known as the bastard result of a bad crack smokers horror nightmare, except innocent people get to experience the nightmare over & over each time there is a mass shooting, & the crack smoking liberals will continue to pontificate on how we need more of the same.

Your response to my post, though I do believe you honestly do believe in what you say, is the biggest ration of bullshit  I have ever read in my long life, & probably the biggest load of bullshit anyone could have ever offered up. If I could prove it....after reading it over & over, I could swear it were written by someone quite high....either on drugs or booze.

Time to get off that psycho-spasmodic carousel your on there sonny boy, & join the sober thinking & sane real world.

No harm....no foul.

Except for every word you attempted to regurgitate from your leftist handbook, you heart seems pure to a fallible, dead end conviction ---- consistently pure.

In consequence of the vile attack that Southern European countries are suffering, my position, contrarily to what I defended at the D&D version of this same thread, is that all citizens have the right to be armed.

Probably, more than a right, it's a duty. These are not times of peace.

Well said brother, well said & spot on!

We could disagree on other subjects from time to time, but on this you hit all the right notes, & precisely on target!

Any society where access to guns is not regulated at least on the level of drivers licenses is insane.

Er-- ahhhh--- If you could see some of the stuff I see, you'd wonder how some of these folk-- including "professional" truck drivers-- ever got drivers licenses. When you get passed on a snow and black-ice covered road by an 18-wheeler who is trying to do the posted speed when maintaining forward motion is driving too fast for conditions, you just know that they're giving out driver's licenses a little too easily. Frightening thought: that driver may be licensed to be able to conceal-carry as well.

I see such drivers often enough. Also, I see them ticketed often enough. It would be less frightening if you knew gun licenses are not as easy to obtain as drivers licenses and punishments for the violations are prompt.

Er-- ahhhh--- If you could see some of the stuff I see, you'd wonder how some of these folk-- including "professional" truck drivers-- ever got drivers licenses. When you get passed on a snow and black-ice covered road by an 18-wheeler who is trying to do the posted speed when maintaining forward motion is driving too fast for conditions, you just know that they're giving out driver's licenses a little too easily. Frightening thought: that driver may be licensed to be able to conceal-carry as well.

Please don't tar all truck drivers with the same brush.  My husband drives truck and NEVER drives too fast for conditions - it's insane to do so with an 18 wheeler and those who do earn scorn and disgust from good truck drivers as well.  If the weather is really poor, he won't drive at all.  Period.  Some truck drivers are exemplary and deserve respect - same with some car drivers.

Blame the schools who give those poor drivers truck driving licenses.  There used to be one here who gave out truck driving licenses to drivers who could NOT back up with a 53 foot trailer in tow.  It is now, thankfully, out of business due to complaints.

I see some of both to be sure. The truck-stops and rest areas fill up in bad weather with drivers who have concluded that it is insane to drive when the roads are icy, and on the flip side I've seen the writings of those who think that because they weigh 80K and have five axles the laws of physics don't apply to them. You usually see them later, in the ditch on their sides after having proven that the laws of physics do, indeed apply to them the same as to everyone else. Once those tires break traction with the road, it doesn't matter how much you weigh or how many axles you have. You're not driving any more at that point, you're just along for the ride.

Back on thread: I wondered if Smiley was gonna pick up on what the judge said about Chicago's gun laws. Seems that restrictive laws are failing the "Constitution Test" right and left lately.

Back on thread: I wondered if Smiley was gonna pick up on what the judge said about Chicago's gun laws........

Well, I have my own views on just about everything gun related, but this judge seemed to address the fundamental interpretations of the 2^nd Amendment to the United States Constitution quite squarely & favorably to all of Chicago's Citizens.

What I will say is that the Judge basically said  that all of Chicago's Citizens have a fundamental Constitutional Right to keep & bare arms, & Chicago's excuse/reasoning posed as rational in making legitimate firearm sales, purchases, & ownership extremely difficult, if not impossible to it's Citizens, are invalid in total as argued, & therefore Chicago's Firearm Laws being contested before him are declared Unconstitutional.

"Today's ruling is a vindication of the constitutional freedoms of Chicago's law-abiding citizens," said Chris W. Cox, Executive Director of the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action in a released statement. "Chicago's continued refusal to follow the U.S. Supreme Court's clear directive in its landmark ruling in McDonald v. City of Chicago is unacceptable, and the NRA will continue to challenge the city until it fully respects the right of its law-abiding residents to keep and bear arms."

Rather than me defining what I personally see as the crucial points related to Judge Chang's rulings, I think you all should read the rulings 35 short pages, & we can then discuss Judge Chang's rulings here if you wish.

Judge Chang's 35 Page Ruling on Chicago's Gun Laws (PDF)

Some additional information on this particular subject.

After reading the above links, what do you think about these rulings?

"Gun Free Zones" kill innocent people.....they are just as much to blame for the death & carnage as the killers that pull their murderous triggers in them.

Bullshit. You're looking for the easy solution. Of course, mass killing are a type of strawman, anyway. Those are a tiny percentage of the killings. We're also trying to reduce total crime, which making guns less accessible to criminals and the mentally ill. Properly enforced gunfree zones can help do that.  You can't just say gunfree zones ha

Your response to my post, though I do believe you honestly do believe in what you say, is the biggest ration of bullshit  I have ever read in my long life, & probably the biggest load of bullshit anyone could have ever offered up.

No. It's basic psychology and criminology. Even in single killings, the murderer usually knows the victim and the victim was part of the killer's life. Usually even the insane don't just kill at random