Right To Bear Arms,A lesson for liberals

I think the Dems have learned their lesson. The wake of the Virginia Tech shootings would have been the perfect time for Pelosi and crew to start pushing for tighter gun control laws, but they barely said a peep. They know this is an untenable position for them. Heck, more than a few of the new Dems in Congress were supported by the NRA in the last election.

 

Please do not paint everyone with the same brush.

Democrats, historically as a platform, have not really
been against guns. Just certain types.

I lean so far to the left politically that I would fall
over sometimes if there was not a wall there to
hold onto.

Yet, I enjoy going to the range, and blowing
up targets with abandon is great stress relief.

Edited for spelling: D'oh!

 

If you go by our "Political Compass" chart here on FHOP, I'm the closest guy who could reach out and grab patrickindallas if he was falling off the chart.

I have no problem with responsible people owning guns. While I don't shoot much these days, I was a gunnery officer in the Navy, and was awarded expert marksman medals for pistol and rifle. So I'm not one of those liberals who faints at the sight of a gun. However, I believe in reasonable gun control laws such as background checks and waiting periods. We recognize the necessity to have regulations for things such as automobiles in the interest of public safety; it only seasons reasonable to apply the same type of controls to guns. The NRA has fought tooth-and-nail against the slightest measures to regulate guns, and thus I don't think that the represent the point of view of responsible gun owners (certainly not since the time their executive director referred to government agents as "jackbooted thugs"). I know people who hunt or target shoot, but refuse to join the NRA for that reason.

The Democrats have realized that gun control is a no-win issue for them, and have eased up on it. Also, much of the new constituency of the party, as evidenced by the 2006 elections, comes from the Western states, where guns are much more a part of the culture.

 

I own firearms and would not mind registering at least to the same level I register my automobiles.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Swanny1172 @ Jun 4 2007, 06:31 AM) [snapback]454860[/snapback]</div>

Too bad one of the students at V Tech was not carrying! That would have ended that boys nightmare becoming a reality quicker than waiting for him to off himself at the time and place of his choosing.

Also, i think there are a few million Venezualans wishing they had a similar Amendment as we do - and at least one of the [Mr. Chavez] thanking God they don't.

 

Somewhere along the line people were convinced that Dems would take away your guns and raise your taxes. Two very unpopular things, particularly among the lower classes. A great way to get people who should be voting democratic to vote republican.

People hear gun control and equate it with fascism and being oppressed, Unfortunately people in general are un able to educate them selves to facts when propaganda is easier to view and understand.

As for school shootings...As someone who has friends who were at the Columbine Shooting, someone who knows family members and friends of both the shooters and the victims no matter how many controls you put in place anyone who is dedicated to a cause like that will find a way to do it.

knowing what I know about the situations and people involved I quite frankly am not surprised at what happened at columbine and I dont care who you are or what you say but generally any time weapons are used in a situation the damage to people is enhanced.
Any person on a suicide mission with the goal of the highest body count possible will achieve a factor of that goal.
1 The camp that says take away and register all guns does not mean that creative goal oriented people will not be able to find them and use them.
2. The camp that says let everyone be armed does not mean we have a cold war stand off all the time between people, body counts could be lower but if someone pulls out a gun in a class room by the time another armed person figures out what is going on many shots will already have been fired, people have no idea how fast and how short most shootings and gun fights are. Most are with in just a few seconds and usually pretty one sided, Its not like the movies, there is no time to think. Talk to any Veteran of any war who has seen such action (if willing to talk about it) and you will understand what I am talking about.

There is no correct answer, or safe one. no cure all or way to fix it. We can try, but we have to accept that this is a part of our society and use common sense when looking for warning signs.

 

I support the right to arm bears. I think a large population of well-armed bears patrolling our city streets would make everyone safer, happier, and wealthier, and would make it easy for every guy to get laid, and every gal to find a companion who would respect her. If the bear population were well-armed the national budget would become balanced and the national debt would disappear. The war on terror would end because the terrorists would recognize that our way of life was the will of Allah, and would-be immigrants would all apply for legal entry and would wait their turn patiently. Christian fundamentalists and homosexuals would find common ground, would embrace in the streets, and would agree on a solution to the marriage issue that would be satisfactory to both sides. The abortion issue would disappear because there would be no more unwanted pregnancies. Creationists and evolutionists would stop quarreling and join glee clubs together and spend their days singing in barbershop harmony. And everybody on PriusChat would agree that it's not whether or not the BT Plate works that's important, it's the beautiful annodized aluminum finish that really matters, and both sides of the debate would just drive their Priuses in the blissful knowledge that they are using less gas than all those unenlightened people in non-hybrid cars.

Vote for me for Emperor of the World, and I promise that every bear in the land will be issued a coupon redeemable in any gun shop or any gun show for all the firearms and ammunition he can carry.

Boy, I'm glad I said that. It felt good.

 

I own several guns .. h34r:
1. mossberg pump 12ga.
2. savage 30/30 lever.
3. taurus pt92c 9mm
4. s&w 6906 9mm
5. rossi 44spl
6. taurus 85 38spl
7. sig-saur 357auto


I don't know what standing I am anymore.. :wacko:

:lol: :lol:

Your just jealous, because the voices in my head really talk to me..

 

As usual "gun control" (or more correctly gun regulation) is totally mixed with "banning guns".

And used to paint liberals black.

Right now I'd say it's the fascist right that should be looking to ban guns, as they are the very ones Tom and Ben were talking about. And plenty of Democrats (and liberals) own guns. I don't own one but could get my hands on one very easily with no waiting period, no paperwork, no nothing.

 

Problem is there aren't many Bears anymore.

Look, why is it a big deal??? If you live in a city like LA, well guess what you not going to be able to own an UZI. What is wrong with banning certain guns from the cities THAT WANT TO??? Remember Tombstone and other old western towns, they could care less what guns you owned just not bringing them into the city. If you are caught with certain guns or clips in a city that bans them you will be punished or they will be confiscated. If you want to shoot them then have lockers and such at gun ranges. We just cant tell cops in certain cities Sorry but you are outgunned 10 to 1 because the NRA says its against the constitution to ban certain guns.

I do not want bans just reasonable protection for our law enforcement. Jesus how would you like to go against a 50 caliber sniper rifle, machine guns and other weapons with a handgun and shotgun before the Swat team gets there. I know everyone will jump in here but there are certain weapons I do not feel safe knowing nutcases can buy. I am not going to go to Rural areas and take them but if they are used in a crime then there should be additional punishment. I mean with some of these huge sniper rifles out there, one shot would tear a Jetliners cockpit to shreds and that would be very deadly. So why cant the NRA and the extreme liberals on this just talk to law enforcement and gun owners, legal of course, and find a reasonable position. Oh yeah the NRA needs dues and no better way than scare tactics...

If one of the other students had been armed in VA then many more could have possibly died in the crossfire.

Just so you know I love target shooting and have no wants of taking guns away but there are some, and I realize that is tricky to define, that have no purpose for civilians. Look I would love to fire one of the big caliber sniper rifles to see what it is like but I will forgo that want so many people can live. That is what being a citizen is about:

Sometimes giving up to help the overall populace. I realize that our politicians have taken this wayyyyyy toooo farrr but with guns it is a tricky issue that I think the NRA and extreme no gun people have made into a stupid fight and probably cost Kerry the election so we have more of war for the next four...

This is the same type fight as Global Warming:

The people dont want to give up their semi truck pickups to make the country safer. You have the oil companies scaring everybody that the environmentalist want to take all but the small cars off the road. Rush making the environmentalist the bad guy and so on and so on...

We need politicians that have the necessary backbone to stand up to the people and educate them on the problem and give choices of how to fix and get going with them. But NO we have spineless ones that state a problem and then run as fast away from it as can because it requires give in the populace...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(daniel @ Jun 4 2007, 08:08 AM) [snapback]454937[/snapback]</div>

 

More guns=less violence...?

I'm not feeling it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jun 4 2007, 01:39 PM) [snapback]455014[/snapback]</div>

Criminals do not attempt violent crime as much in areas where people have the right to carry firearms. There is a reason people who don't own guns, and don't feel the population should have them don't have huge signs outside their homes saying that their home is a "firearm free residence". The promise of compliant victims is a huge draw for those who want to do violence. Criminals looks for the easiest prey.

You don't think like a criminal, which is good. It also skews people's opinions. Violent criminals practice violence as a means of extracting what they want. Anybody who commits violence as a form of life, would rather commit it against someone who won't fight back.

Exactly how many crimes have been committed with .50 caliber rifles in the US? I'll even give you some time to look up the answer, which is either zero, or so close to zero, that it would be like banning laser pens for the fear that they could blind drivers and pilots, causing mayhem. They are just not used in crime, mostly due to their weight. Anybody who spouts off anything about hitting a target moving hundreds of miles an hour, at distances over 1000 yards, are ignorant of shooting at long distance.

You know how you attempt to hit an airplane at distance, at least for the past 50 years?


and

 

I don't think that we should let civilians buy ground-to-air missiles; or at least, they should be subject to a background check and a seven-day waiting period.

 

Shouldn't there be some sort of manditory training included? Or at least, a complimentary trigger lock...?

I'm feeling like that AA gun might have a bit of recoil.

Soooo, can I get one with a pretty finish, that fits in my handbag?

 

I saw this posted on another site's forum and thought it was pretty good:



"I the gun owner apologize for why I feel the need to own a gun.

I am sorry for being afraid. I am afraid of people who want to do harm to those I love for no logical reason. I am afraid that I do not have the ability to stop an armed man from harming them. They will be hurt or raped or killed. A gun gives me an equal or advantage, a gun makes them safe at night.

I am sorry for being scared. I am scared I can not run from all fights that I can not win. I am scared that I will be cornered and out numbered. I try to avoid those situations but those situations may not always avoid me. I am scared of the man in the crowd with the gun randomly shooting. I have been shot by him once before and only by luck was I not more seriously injured. The gun is my security blanket, it is my cape.

I am sorry for being greedy. I enjoy all that I own. I have built my empire from nothing and no one will ever take it away from me again. Not a piece, not in whole. No one shall enter my castle to rob me, no one shall violate the sanctity of my temple. My gun is on the parapet of this fortress that none shall destroy.

I am sorry for my lust. I find my guns an addiction of sorts. Mechanical marvels that are beautiful in their form. I desire to own one of every variety of sensual form that fits in my hands. I lovingly clean and caress the supple lines. Happiness is a warm gun.

I am sorry for being stern. I follow the words of our rights as how they are written, not how they are interpreted to be. The national Guard is not "a militia" and the right to bear arms is not only for that militia to have. You would be pissed if I tried to take away your right to free speech but try to take away my right to protect yours. I can not give up.

I am sorry for being a killer. I kill animals, I kill paper, I kill targets, and if I have to I will kill a person. I have been a killer for most of my life. nothing is going to change here, I hone my skills for one day when they will be needed. I can no more practice my killing without a gun than a flutist without a flute. But I have never seen anyone kill something with a flute. Maybe you just have to throw it hard enough.

I am sorry for being sceptical. Police will not always protect me. The government will not always be for the people. the politicians will never be truthful. The criminals will never reform. My gun assures that these can indeed change.

I am sorry for not being a ######. I am sorry that I am a man, a real man, with the honor and pride of the "men" in America who came before me. I was raised by a woman and a woman alone and oddly I have more balls and integrity then most of the "men" in this country. My upbringing may have caused me to have role models of the "men" who founded this country, who built this country, who saved this country, not the ###### nice person weak mentality of a ###### nice person father. The men in my life rode white horses and had a gun, they stormed beaches and had a gun.

And I have a gun."

-Gilman Fortin

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Army5339 @ Jun 4 2007, 01:43 PM) [snapback]455056[/snapback]</div>

Even if carrying a concealed firearm is legalized for every American adult citizen...and, even if they're given to us free by the government...I will, still, *not carry one.*

It's against my principles. Period.

And besides, if that sort of thing is legal, how would the criminal know that I'm *not* armed in the first place?
[wink]

Here's the thing. Criminal=anyone who uses force against me.

Why do you assume that one is always a "criminal" or always "not a criminal"? That "good people" always stay "good"...always...?

How do you know that if I'm armed, it won't arouse some sort of desire that I never really thought of, not having access to a gun? How do you know that I won't act out, in anger or vengenance, something that I wouldn't have if I wasn't armed?

People change, sometimes in an instant, and then can change back just as quickly. I appreciate your mentioning that I don't think like a criminal...but, honestly, you really don't --and can never-- know that about me, for sure.

As you can't, about anyone.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jun 4 2007, 03:45 PM) [snapback]455113[/snapback]</div>

Nobody is forcing you to own a firearm.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jun 4 2007, 03:45 PM) [snapback]455113[/snapback]</div>

Well, in some areas it is illegal, and in those areas, most people are effectively disarmed. Except the criminals.

In areas where people can be armed, you would receive the benefits that others who choose to carry concealed firearms would. I know that if I saw someone attacking or raping you, I would come to your assistance. Criminals choose not to commit crime as much in areas where the threat of violence against them from the victim is much higher.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Jun 4 2007, 03:45 PM) [snapback]455113[/snapback]</div>

The stats for people who are legally allowed to carry firearms and exercise that right, show that they are one of the lowest crime committing demographics. In FL for example, only a dozen or so have committed a crime that would legally strip them of their ability to carry or own a firearm, since concealed carry has been legalized. These crimes are not necessarily violent, and do not necessarily involve a firearm. That about 12-24 people over 20 years who have been convicted of a crime.

Why should we assume you won't be driving around in your Prius, and have the sudden urge to plow through 30 school children to see how many you can take out? Because it really doesn't happen often enough to make that connection. You still have the ability though, like that lady that plowed through the church group at 70 mph.

Hitting/killing people with your car on purpose is against the law. Saying people shouldn't own or drive a car to protect children from vehicular attack is a silly argument though. We assume people are responsible enough to not kill people with their vehicle. If they do, we hold them responsible.

Assuming that people could use any object to commit violence randomly can go on forever. As George Carlin said, he could beat someone to death with a Sunday New York Times if you gave him enough time.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Army5339 @ Jun 4 2007, 03:34 PM) [snapback]455157[/snapback]</div>

But cars are designed to move people and things from one place to another.

And the Sunday Times is meant to be read.

First and foremost, these two items are not designed from the ground up to cause bodily harm or death --they're both, only secondarily, weapons-- while guns are designed first and foremost to kill (oh, yeah, and for 'target practice' and 'sport' too...)

So I'm not sure your analogy really holds up. It's about intended vs. actual usage. My car might be perverted into a weapon (as can my bare hands), but a gun was DESIGNED to perform the hurting/killing function by the manufacturer.

As manufactured, commercially available items, the designed-in killing ability of guns is rather unique...and unlike just about everything else we encounter on a daily basis.