Originally Posted By TomSawyer They could be thinking that getting rid of guns will be better protection than having them all over.
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 No, peeaanuut, they are making assumptions. People assume that the City Police will be able to protect them. They assume they will be at your house faster than 20 minutes from the 911 call. They assume that the government only has thier best interests at heart. They assume that they can sweet talk a rapist. They assume that "guns kill" and not people and if you take away the guns, we'll all be safe. Last but not least, they assume to know better than the founders of the Constitution, but that is a different subject.
Originally Posted By peeaanuut So you simply trust someone to do something because you pay taxes? Wow, you are trusting.
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 >>Frankly, unless you are a drug dealer or have the misfortune of living in a really bad part of town, your chance of needing a gun to protect yourself is more remote than your chance of getting hit by lightening.<< Which supports my personal opinion that anti-gun laws only hurt the most vulnerable....law abiding citizens who are also poor.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I have never understood how people understand that automobile ownership (which has far, far more practical application than gun ownership) requires training and licensing, but gun ownership does not.> You don't have to have training and a license to own a car, only to drive one on a public street. Similarly, you shouldn't have to have training and a license to own a gun, unless you want to carry it on a public street.
Originally Posted By peeaanuut now I do agree that anyone who owns a gun should get the proper training. Just as with a car (which most people dont get enough training either). Gun ownership is a perfect example of checks an balances. Our country was supposedly founded on checks and balances. If only cops have guns, what is there to check them from using them improperly. (Yes I have a HUGE distrust for cops. the only people I trust less are politicians)
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Authority and power are drugs. I was friends with a San Diego police officer once. I think he partook of those two particular drugs a little too often.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<People assume that the City Police will be able to protect them. They assume they will be at your house faster than 20 minutes from the 911 call. They assume that the government only has thier best interests at heart. They assume that they can sweet talk a rapist. They assume that "guns kill" and not people and if you take away the guns, we'll all be safe. Last but not least, they assume to know better than the founders of the Constitution, but that is a different subject.>> Somehow the people in every other Western country on earth seem to get by without widespread gun ownership, and they all have crime rates considerably below our own. As for the Constitution... <<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.>> Since when does Joe Blow with a Glock in his nightstand constitute a "well regulated Militia"???
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Since when does Joe Blow with a Glock in his nightstand constitute a "well regulated Militia"???> Since those words were adopted. An armed citizenry keeps the militia well-regulated. An army that tried to seize power would be met with armed resistance by regular citizens.
Originally Posted By itsme >>I'm glad my NRA membership dues are going to such a good cause as providing those "talking points". (Tongue in cheek sarcasm, if your confused) ----- Sarcasm or not, Im a ex-member of the NRA cause of stuff like that.
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Really? That's too bad Itsme. I don't really like the politics either, but I do like the magazine subscription.
Originally Posted By CrouchingTigger <Since when does Joe Blow with a Glock in his nightstand constitute a "well regulated Militia"???> FYI: the Militia Act of 1792 (enacted by some of those same wackjobs that wrote the Constitution) defines the militia as "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years". It further directs "That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power..."
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<It further directs "That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power...">> Nothing there about handguns...
Originally Posted By TomSawyer If every citizen is in the militia, and if Congress has the power to train and organize the militia, then why can't Congress have every gun owner register his or her weapon and mandate basic safety training for all gun owners?
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder "Since those words were adopted. An armed citizenry keeps the militia well-regulated. An army that tried to seize power would be met with armed resistance by regular citizens." I'd be a lot more worried about that in this country if this were still the late 1700's as opposed to the early 21st Century.
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder And therein lies the crux. The right to bear arms has so much more to do with the state of the country in 1792 than it does now. Yet, people today use that as a way too justify handguns, semi-automatics, Ak-47s, whatever. What we ought to do is make people follow the letter of the law and arm themselves with a good musket if they're so hell bent on owning firearms.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<I'd be a lot more worried about that in this country if this were still the late 1700's as opposed to the early 21st Century.>> Besides... how are some guy and his neighbors with a bunch of handguns going to stop an army equipped with bombs, missiles, etc? If some rogue General decides he's going to take over Las Angeles and he gets his troops to follow him... you're screwed. The only thing going to stop him is another Army outfit with MORE troops. Although the mental image of you second amendment guys trying to take down General Wackjob and his troops with your little six-shooters is amusing as hell. Hastalavista Baby!!
