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

You still can't address my points directly, so you resort to insults. It clear that I'm the one who actually thought about the situations. What civilian could have actually shoot Holmes through the tear gas? Basic psychology, criminology, sociology tell us that most of the time, even in mass shootings, there's a reason the killer's choose their victims. You can't answer that. You really and truly believe a signs alone caused the killings. Nonsense, especially since some of the gun-free zones actually have armed guards.

People say things like "In a way, this is no surprise. If there's someone present with a gun when a mass shooting begins, the shooter is likely to be shot himself. And, in fact, many mass shootings -- from the high school shooting by Luke Woodham in Pearl, Miss., to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo., where an armed volunteer shot the attacker -- have been terminated when someone retrieved a gun from a car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter."  source That article opposes gun-free zones. By saying this, author's such as this unwitting actually support my point. Killers go into places knowing full well that despite the "no guns allowed" sign, there are guards with guns. The gun-free zones are not necessarily gun-free. The perpetrators don't even value their own lives.The know they're going to get shoot and often already planned on ending their own lives.  Oh yeah, from s link with the article it wasn't a random congregation member that took out the killer. It was guard . Do you get it now? The "No guns allowed" sign often, if not usually means, only authorised people are allowed to have a gun. We have freakin' Metro Police in the high schools. Yet, if an incident happens here, the NRA and their disingenuous ilk will say "Another killing in a gun-free zone." Likewise in the nearby malls.

To put it another way, rational people value their lives and will take steps to perversive it. These people are not rational. NRA types say "Mass killings happen in gun-free zones." Yes, because those are public places where there are people to kill. The tactical situation is against a random civilian being able to defeat the murderer: noise, confusion, the chaos of people running for their lives, in Aurora add tear gas. What the gun-free zones (yet again, this often means on certain people can have guns, since you're slow on that) is try to reduce likelihood of more mundane incidents, such as the shooting in Florida over the pizza line. In mass shootings, the legal status of the killer having a gun there or not is irrelevant.

It's not that I don't understand your position. It's that you're overlooking a whole lot of other factors.

To put it another way, rational people value their lives and will take steps to perversive it.

They will take steps to preserve their lives, that is unless the legislature takes their legal guns out of their hands by declaring where they are going as a Gun Free Zone. Because they are law abiding citizen gun owners, they won't break the law, & if they choose to enter, they become a sitting duck.....this will no longer be the case.....read on.......

These people are not rational. NRA types say "Mass killings happen in gun-free zones." Yes, because those are public places where there are people to kill.

BTW JFYFI........I am one of those NRA Types, & proud of it.

And what you refuse to acknowledge, is the overwhelming statistic, Mr.Statistic, the overwhelming statistic --- which you can't deny or refute --- is "With just one single exception, the attack on congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords in Tucson in 2011, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns."

The overwhelming logical reason is because "Gun Free Zones" are TOTALLY UNSAFE, Criminal-Empowering, & as you grudgingly concede, they are a "target rich zone" full of defenseless people, not because they want to be, but because they are honest & law abiding,  they leave their legal firearms ----- that they are legally permitted to carry elsewhere ------ they leave their firearms elsewhere making themselves unarmed targets solely due to government legislation!

Well, the worm is beginning to turn, the gun owners permitted to carry, now blindly abiding by this law, will become a thing of the past, & now start carrying illegally in your precious "Gun Free Zones", & this year they will be openly stating that they will be doing so.....so take your "gun-free zone" legislation & shove it deep & sideways up where the sun don't shine!

I personally have carried illegally in "gun-free zones"  over the past 3 years, & I have only been approached 2x, but I have never been stopped from carrying my legal firearms. I don't know any carrier who has.

We, along with 2^nd Amendment friendly law enforcement communities, will effectively nullify your legislation.

We have been told by many prosecutors all across America that they won't prosecute, & by many law enforcement organizations that their rank in file will not enforce.

Does that mean everyone?

Not by a long-shot ----------- yet, but those that need legal representation will be getting the very very best money can buy  -------- until the legislation is eventually overturned, or they becomes meaningless, whichever comes first.

Not true.  Ihop. Carson City Nevada. No "no guns allowed" type sign.  9/6/2011 five dead.  7/18/1984 McDonald's San Ysidro 22 dead. 10/7/2007 Crandon, Wi apartment complex, 7 dead. Louisville, Ky  9/14/1989. Forum Roller World in Grand Prairie, Tx  July 24, 2011 five dead.   Need I continue? The incidents that make the national and international news tend to happen in schools, etc but public shooting can and do occur where citizens are allowed to carry guns.  The NRA pithy sayings you repeat like a parrot are lies.

Mass shootings are only a tiny percentage of homocides. The far more common occurances are guns fired in anger (just as at Domino's Pizza.) You parrot "criminals don't obey the law" like doll with a speech string, but most of those shooters were not criminals before. The object is total reduction in violent incidents.

Not by a long-shot ----------- yet, but those that need legal representation will be getting the very very best money can buy  -------- until the legislation is eventually overturned, or they becomes meaningless, whichever comes first.

What of the businesses that don't allow guns? Would interfere with private enterprise like a communist and force them allow guns the premises? Notice the shooting incidents happening on organisation owned property and not property owned by any government entity.

Just a simple question:

Does Avis rent armoured cars in the US? It seems advisable. Perhaps one with a rear gunner?

Does Avis rent armoured cars in the US? It seems advisable. Perhaps one with a rear gunner?

Do you have a problem with front mounted guns?

Does Avis rent armoured cars in the US? It seems advisable. Perhaps one with a rear gunner?

Do you have a problem with front mounted guns?

No - I think that would be an admirable choice of transport. I imagine that if you get hit by that gun it Hertz.

I am in the somewhat weird position of being pro-second amendment while at the same time being more than a little afraid of some of the pro-concealed carry crowd. I read some of what these guys write on various forums, and so help me they're some of the very last people who should be allowed to have guns. The reason is that in too many cases it's apparent that gun ownership has more to do with their manhood issues than it does with any legitimate need for protection, hunting, target shooting or any perceived threat a renegade government might provide. Before you have a conniption, Smiley-- I'm calling it the way I sees it, according to way too many posts on forums other than these D&D forums. I state again that way too many people want to carry because the gun seems to help them with their manhood issues-- which is one of the worst reasons imaginable for packing heat. Regrettable incidents have a way of happening when folk like that are armed, and they perceive they've been "slighted" in some way.

How about something else to think on. Look at the photo below, and ask: What could possibly go wrong?

No - I think that would be an admirable choice of transport. I imagine that if you get hit by that gun it Hertz.

I imagine so. The Rooskies had a nice one, too, but a bit dated.

RARE WWII RUSSIAN 1944 T34-85 COMBAT TANK
This Unit was built in mid to late 1944 in the Omsk, Russia factory. Many historians have rated this the #1 tank of all time. The unit is original and complete at $100,000. We have the facilities and will; restore it for an additional $25,000 . However you may want to leave it as is.

PRICE (AS IS ) $100,000.00
PRICE ( fully restored ) $125,000.00

Is that the wagon of choice in Detroit mjm?

Is that the wagon of choice in Detroit mjm?

Search me. I don't hang around Detroit enough to know and go by reports, mostly. I have a brother who lives near there in Novi, Michigan, but his area is pretty quiet. Jimbro probably is more up-to-date with Detroit than I am.

I am in the somewhat weird position of being pro-second amendment while at the same time being more than a little afraid of some of the pro-concealed carry crowd. I read some of what these guys write on various forums, and so help me they're some of the very last people who should be allowed to have guns. The reason is that in too many cases it's apparent that gun ownership has more to do with their manhood issues than it does with any legitimate need for protection, hunting, target shooting or any perceived threat a renegade government might provide. Before you have a conniption, Smiley-- I'm calling it the way I sees it, according to way too many posts on forums other than these D&D forums. I state again that way too many people want to carry because the gun seems to help them with their manhood issues-- which is one of the worst reasons imaginable for packing heat. Regrettable incidents have a way of happening when folk like that are armed, and they perceive they've been "slighted" in some way.

Agreed. I'm pro-second amendment too. I just question the wisdom of allowing anyone that feels like to stroll into the school, courthouse, etc with a gun. I'm also for universal background checks, but don't suffer the delusion that they'll stop all criminals and lunatics from getting guns.

As far as the NRA itself goes, my own father is a member. He took me hunting in Louisiana. (Surprised, Smiley. How many times did I tell you I'm not what think I am.) But their leadership is off its rocker lately. They want to remove "gun-free" zones claiming all mass killings happen in in those zones. Thirty seconds and Google is all it takes to cast serious doubt on those claims, as I did above. It's not that the zones are "precious" as Smiley puts it; it's that the NRA will need to a lot better than that to support the claim the gun-free zones are more dangerous.

I am in the somewhat weird position of being pro-second amendment while at the same time being more than a little afraid of some of the pro-concealed carry crowd. [...]

Agreed. I'm pro-second amendment too. I just question the wisdom of allowing anyone that feels like to stroll into the school, courthouse, etc with a gun. I'm also for universal background checks, but don't suffer the delusion that they'll stop all criminals and lunatics from getting guns. [...]

Perhaps that's somewhat weird in the US, but it doesn't sound like a particularly weird position to me.

I am in the somewhat weird position of being pro-second amendment while at the same time being more than a little afraid of some of the pro-concealed carry crowd. [...]

Agreed. I'm pro-second amendment too. I just question the wisdom of allowing anyone that feels like to stroll into the school, courthouse, etc with a gun. I'm also for universal background checks, but don't suffer the delusion that they'll stop all criminals and lunatics from getting guns. [...]

Perhaps that's somewhat weird in the US, but it doesn't sound like a particularly weird position to me.

Except that in Europe there's no second amendment. This constitutional amendment is interpreted by pro-gunners as a declaration of total freedom to shoot and bomb without any restriction or regulation. Nothing makes them back down from this interpretation, no reason, logic, nor even facts on how any point of constitution is actually implemented. For example, there's the first amendment, guaranteeing freedom of speech, but can you say absolutely anything without restriction or regulation?

No, I am not arguing. Enemies of reason don't make good discussion partners.

Naturally. The things people (Americans!) say about the US constitution can be downright bizarre. At the risk of going off topic, although I intend this to be about interpretation of legal frameworks, just a few weeks ago an American asked another American to "provide where in the US Constitution, separation of church and state is mentioned."

In other news, it's okay not to tell the truth because it's not lying.

Separation of church and state is a means to succinctly describe the much more specific language in the first amendment, and that's similar to the way it is in most Western nations. Afaik only France and Turkey have laws that use the words separation between church and state, but that is followed by further qualifications because on its own that doesn't suffice.

Also, again in just about every modern democracy--and I hope you're not one of those silly "the US is a republic, not a democracy" people--there is a tradition of interpretation called (legal) precedent. The details of course vary. In Dutch it's called legal peace; in English it's called stare decisis (to remain by the decided, or something along those lines). The result is much the same: courts are generally supposed to follow precedent unless there's a really good reason not to. To avoid setting a precedent, a court might also produce a brief (if that's the right word) that says it's a one-time-only exception. I don't know if the US has something similar in place, but I'm already straying from the point.

So, what's my point here? Even if your interpretation of the words were correct; even if saying government and church aren't allowed to be the same thing were somehow not separating them: legally speaking all that would matter is how it has been interpreted over the past two centuries. And in the rare case that interpretation does seem to differ wildly from what is written, it's probably most likely that some aspect of the language changed since.

A guy walked into a crowded bar, waving his 1911 Colt
45 with an 8 shot magazine, and yelled,
"Who in here has been screwing my wife?"

A voice from the back of the bar yelled back,
"You're gonna need more ammo."

"The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," goes another false refrain from the gun lobby. As with the claim that only mass shootings only happen in gun-free zones, this doesn't appear to be true either.  Antoinette Tuff , for example, talked down a would-be school shooter who had already fired into the police. She gives credit to her faith, but her actions also speak of personal courage and at every point she knew the next word she spoke could be the difference between life and death. Choose your example of killers talked down.

This isn't to say that an armed guard, or other personnel authorised to carry a gun can't be helpful or used as a last resort. Having said that, there seem to a lot of pro-gun sites and posters and various forums that call for complete abolition of gun-free zones. None seem to be able address that it really isn't a good idea to allow guns in the court house (the criminals family, friends, fellow gang-members making an ill-conceived effort to rescue him, vengeance from the crime victim,etc ) nor can the address the fact that gun-free zones can be properly enforced . Nor even what such legislation would consist of. The school is no longer a gun-free zone; can just facility carry  a gun or can any idiot (possibly with malicious intent) stroll in with a gun? If fact, do even legislators given a high rating by the NRA actually support abolishing without questions like that being answered, or are they just playing people like Smiley for fools and are in fact relieved to know such legislation would fail? 

How about abolishing the gun-free zones on planes and seeing how that goes.

One could start with transatlantic flights.

Better yet, arm the flight attendants.

"Coffee, tea, a slug between the eyes?"

Then somebody can play Samuel L Jackson

Enough is enough! I am tired of these mother fscking snakes on this mother fscking plane!

watch

Arm store clerks! "I am tired of these mother fscking shoplifters in this mother fscking store!"

Arm Dallas Cowboys fans!

"I am tired of these mother fscking Redskins in this mother fscking stadium!"

On the local front in my town of Grand Rapids, there's this gem.

GRAND RAPIDS, MI - Prompted by more school shootings and a local open-carrier's desensitization trainings, Mayor George Heartwell criticized Congress for being too lax on guns and called on like-minded people to "arm yourselves with the righteousness of our position."

I'm speechless.

I'll believe that when I don't hear it

I'll believe that when I don't hear it

[whispering]Always parroting somebody.[/whispering]

Seems on topic:
Pupils in one of Moscow schools shot a bunch of people including a guard, a law enforcing guy, couple of mates, and a geography teacher, the last reportedly being the cause of the incident.
It was a rifle and maybe something else or not, I didn't get...
BBC Cambridge

My personal contribution to gun violence. I can pull it down at a moments notice.