View Full Version : "Are you serious? Are you serious?"
Belmont31R
10-23-09, 14:37
That was Nancy Pelosi's response when a reporter asked her if mandating people buy health insurance is constitutional. She then took another question, and had her staff follow up by saying their authority to mandate people buy health insurance comes from the commerce clause.
How does "REGULATE" commerce between the states get twisted to 'each and every person must buy XYZ product' or face fines and/or jail time?
Oh but they don't think owning a gun is an individual right? Carrying a gun isn't a right?
This how these nitwits go about themselves. Twist some very specific language into whatever they want it to mean even though the words are very clear as is their definition. To top if off you can't even buy health insurance "between the states"...
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/55971
"Stretch's" stupidity is rivalled only by Shela Jackson Lee or "Patches" Kennedy.
i wish there was an emoticon where the lil smiley face just hangs in head in disgusting and shaking it from side to side. thats about all i can do when it comes to the administration and crap like this. (not the post here, but the actual issue at hand in the world)
I stopped being surprised by anything when the SCOTUS ruled Eminent Domain could be used for private use.
Never has the Constitution been more clearly worded or ignored.
She is her own worst enemy. What a foul woman, no less overall individual. Just rotten.
One of numerous human train wrecks on the far left, but in her case wielding far too much power.
"Yes. I AM serious. Answer the f%cking question."
Hubus Maximus
10-25-09, 04:07
i just wanted to say, owning a gun is a right. carrying a gun, however, is a privilege.
How is this pertinant.........and WTF?!!!:mad:
"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."
One would think that anyone that was in the government would have a working knowledge of the constitution.
The current "government" does not give a s**t about the constitution. To them it is just a piece of paper to be ignored/manipulated for their own uses.
My father lives in MA which mandates health insurance. He has to pay $700/ month. If you don't get health insurance then they fine you. I can't remember how much but it's about the same amount as having to buy health insurance. I think the insurance companies know this and charge more in MA than other states. Of course if you're an illegal alien it doesn't apply.
Belmont31R
10-25-09, 10:28
My father lives in MA which mandates health insurance. He has to pay $700/ month. If you don't get health insurance then they fine you. I can't remember how much but it's about the same amount as having to buy health insurance. I think the insurance companies know this and charge more in MA than other states. Of course if you're an illegal alien it doesn't apply.
But the dems HATE evil big business! (except when its election time and they want their money)
Outlander Systems
10-25-09, 10:59
She is her own worst enemy. What a foul woman, no less overall individual. Just rotten.
One of numerous human train wrecks on the far left, but in her case wielding far too much power.
This.
Belmont31R
10-25-09, 11:17
i just wanted to say, owning a gun is a right. carrying a gun, however, is a privilege.
Thats like saying freedom of speech is a right but talking is a privilege.
The two go hand in hand together. No point in owning a gun if you can't carry it...
The two go hand in hand together. No point in owning a gun if you can't carry it...
This is a very flawed, idealogical statement.
I can't carry here in NJ. Shall I sell off my collection?
Gutshot John
10-25-09, 11:43
Nancy Pelosi...the gift that keeps on giving. :)
What would Republicans do without her?
Belmont31R
10-25-09, 11:51
This is a very flawed, idealogical statement.
I can't carry here in NJ. Shall I sell off my collection?
From a practical standpoint my statement is correct. Just like SCOTUS smacked down DC's rules on keeping weapons disassembled and carried within your home. If you can't carry a gun you can't use it for its purposes unless you count range time as being the purpose of your gun ownership.
"....keep and bear arms..." I dont think BEARING arms is a privilege.
i just wanted to say, owning a gun is a right. carrying a gun, however, is a privilege.
This for post #1? You're off to a great start. :rolleyes:
i just wanted to say, owning a gun is a right. carrying a gun, however, is a privilege.
I thought the language is "keep and bear"?
Keep = owning
bear = carry
'nuf said.
Hubus Maximus
10-28-09, 12:27
I understand that people want to carry their guns on them, and that's fine. But my question to you all is, what do you achieve by having a gun on you, compared to not having it on you? Some are making it seem like it's a necessity to carry a gun. I'm not trying to start some arguments, I'm just simply interested.
I understand that people want to carry their guns on them, and that's fine. But my question to you all is, what do you achieve by having a gun on you, compared to not having it on you? Some are making it seem like it's a necessity to carry a gun. I'm not trying to start some arguments, I'm just simply interested.
An effective defensive tool.
I understand that people want to carry their guns on them, and that's fine. But my question to you all is, what do you achieve by having a gun on you, compared to not having it on you? Some are making it seem like it's a necessity to carry a gun. I'm not trying to start some arguments, I'm just simply interested.
I achieve the ability to protect myself should something bad happen.
Trouble never makes an appointment, and usually occurs at places you are least likely to be able to defend yourself.
Like a condom or fire extinguisher it is better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.
thopkins22
10-28-09, 12:54
Are we really surprised that Pelosi said this? Can anyone show me a single piece of legislation she's introduced or supported that's constitutional?
Regulate meant something different to the framers. It literally meant "to keep regular." Regular meaning that Connecticut cannot keep it's residents from buying products from New York, it's there to keep states from erecting protectionist policies against other states.
This for post #1? You're off to a great start. :rolleyes:
My guess is that he has zero interest in actually participating in meaningful debate, nor any intention of voluntarily sticking around. It would take a real masochist to intentionally hang out with people who have a fundamentally different view of freedom and politics than you do.
Perhaps I'm wrong.
faithmyeyes
10-28-09, 12:56
what do you achieve by having a gun on you, compared to not having it on you? Some are making it seem like it's a necessity to carry a gun.
With training and practice, a carried firearm provides me the means to deter or defend against an opportunistic or deranged criminal attack on myself or my family. My wife has been slow to internalize the need for awareness and a defensive mindset, and my four children range in age from five years down to ten months. Their only line of defense is me. I feel that being able to defend my family is a sacred duty, and so I choose the best tools for the job. Obviously, the gun has to be with me or it won't be very useful.
Not everybody can or should carry a gun. I do think that everybody should give some thought to personal and family defense, and settle on a plan that meshes with their convictions and abilities. To pretend threats don't exist or that you'll never be threatened seems one hell of a gamble, not to mention ignorant of reality.
My father lives in MA which mandates health insurance. He has to pay $700/ month. If you don't get health insurance then they fine you. I can't remember how much but it's about the same amount as having to buy health insurance. I think the insurance companies know this and charge more in MA than other states. Of course if you're an illegal alien it doesn't apply.
Actually the high costs in MA for health insurance are only partly due to this mandate to buy insurnce. MA has lots of mandates on what must be covered which makes the insurance costs go way up. They may also have community rating, I am not sure, which makes costs go up. Their market is highly regulated.
I understand that people want to carry their guns on them, and that's fine. But my question to you all is, what do you achieve by having a gun on you, compared to not having it on you? Some are making it seem like it's a necessity to carry a gun. I'm not trying to start some arguments, I'm just simply interested.
Read.
http://www.gleamingedge.com/mirrors/onsheepwolvesandsheepdogs.html
My favorite part because its true.
"Then there are the wolves," the old war veteran said, "and the wolves feed on the sheep without mercy." Do you believe there are wolves out there who will feed on the flock without mercy? You better believe it. There are evil men in this world and they are capable of evil deeds. The moment you forget that or pretend it is not so, you become a sheep. There is no safety in denial."
John_Wayne777
10-28-09, 13:44
I understand that people want to carry their guns on them, and that's fine. But my question to you all is, what do you achieve by having a gun on you, compared to not having it on you?
Question: Have you ever faced someone who wanted to kill you?
I'm guessing "no", because nobody who had ever been forced to defend themselves from some asshole who was trying to end their life would ever ask such a monumentally stupid question.
Some are making it seem like it's a necessity to carry a gun.
It's only necessary if you want to have a reasonable chance at defending your life from scumbags. If dying doesn't bother you then you might not see the point.
These scumbags are dangerous enough that we equip police officers we expect to arrest them with firearms, body armor, and an array of weaponry. We train them to use all of that stuff to kill bad people if that is necessary to stop their hostile actions.
The people that the police need firearms, body armor, and training to deal with only come to the attention of the police after they have victimized someone like...well...you.
The NJ state trooper that beat the living hell out of Ryheem Jackson several years ago only interacted with Ryheem Jackson because the ****er tried to kill me before he decided to try and grab the trooper's P7M13 when pulled over.
i just wanted to say, owning a gun is a right. carrying a gun, however, is a privilege.
You are wrong. Owning a gun is a right and carrying a gun so that I may protect myself and my family is a right regardless of what the government says.
I understand that people want to carry their guns on them, and that's fine. But my question to you all is, what do you achieve by having a gun on you, compared to not having it on you? Some are making it seem like it's a necessity to carry a gun. I'm not trying to start some arguments, I'm just simply interested.
Where do you live? Do you not have any crime in your area? Do you believe that bad things don't happen to good people?
ETA: here's one example why I carry: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?p=483697&posted=1#post483697
FlyAndFight
10-28-09, 14:25
Someone needs to check and see if there's a link to m4Carbine.net over at MoveOn.org...
There's been an influx of some interesting characters within the last year. ;)
MarshallDodge
10-28-09, 14:54
I understand that people want to carry their guns on them, and that's fine. But my question to you all is, what do you achieve by having a gun on you, compared to not having it on you? Some are making it seem like it's a necessity to carry a gun. I'm not trying to start some arguments, I'm just simply interested.
I have the right to defend myself whether it is with my fists, knife, baseball bat, or a light saber. Carrying a gun, which I have trained with, increases my ability to survive a confrontation by a criminal.
When the world becomes a peaceful place filled with rainbows and unicorns, and you can guarantee my safety, then I would be more than happy to leave my gun at home in the safe but until that time, I refuse to be a sheep. :cool:
When the world becomes a peaceful place filled with rainbows and unicorns...
Will there still be strippers and cheap beer (PBR) in this utopia? Can I have my own stream filled with Gin & Tonic and lined with Lime trees?
:D
I carry cause my penis is small. Do you guys really think anything you say is going to make this kid change his tune? :rolleyes:
Was thinking the same thing.
Why are you thinking about my penis? :confused: :D
Stop acting like such a dick.
:D
I understand that people want to carry their guns on them, and that's fine. But my question to you all is, what do you achieve by having a gun on you, compared to not having it on you? Some are making it seem like it's a necessity to carry a gun. I'm not trying to start some arguments, I'm just simply interested.
It is a necessity that I answer the moral and ethical calling to defend my life and the lives of those in my charge against those who would do us harm. Therefore, I carry the equipment necessary to carry out that responsibility.
I carry a gun so that in the face of that adversary I can stand and deliver, rather than pissing down my leg as I wait for him to execute me.
Hubus Maximus
11-10-09, 01:39
I appreciate the logical, and mature responses. I seriously am not posting here to start any arguments, but rather trying to get a better understanding of those who feel it is necessary to legally carry a gun.
Personally, I totally agree with all of you who feel that we have a responsibility and right to protect ourselves, and our loved ones. Believe me, if my life or anyone in my family's life was seriously threatened there will be some hell to pay.
However, I was just trying to get some points across that are worth hearing. Every argument has two sides.
These are my points:
1) Harder to identify harmful people or criminals
2) If actually used, innocent people nearby are significantly in more danger
3) Since it'd be legal, what's gonna stop the attacker from having a gun too? Will you still have an advantage over the attacker then? I feel that this negates the fact of having a firearm on you in the first place
4) You are more probable to using a weapon in any type of heated altercation. This also leads to more danger, not only to yourself but to others around as well
5) Harder for law enforcement to peacefully resolve problems
All of these points are assuming that the person in the altercation IS carrying. Also, perhaps these points are only applicable in certain areas. I'm from Southern California, so it'd be awkward seeing businessmen carrying pistols while walking the streets of Downtown San Diego haha.
These are my points:
1) Harder to identify harmful people or criminals
2) If actually used, innocent people nearby are significantly in more danger
3) Since it'd be legal, what's gonna stop the attacker from having a gun too? Will you still have an advantage over the attacker then? I feel that this negates the fact of having a firearm on you in the first place
4) You are more probable to using a weapon in any type of heated altercation. This also leads to more danger, not only to yourself but to others around as well
5) Harder for law enforcement to peacefully resolve problems
None of your points are justifiable. To address your 5 points:
1) Guns are usually carried concealed. You do not "identify" anyone that way. Moot point.
2) In practice that is not true. Most states allow carrying of concealed weapons now and the "collateral damage" from actual use is negligible. I'd say that there is more risk to nearby people from a criminal running loose who could target them next.
3) What's going to stop an attacker from having a gun now, whether legal or not? Think this one through very very carefully.
4) Again, experience has shown this to not be true. Approximately 80% of the US States allow concealed carry by civilians. This was claimed to be the case before these states allowed CCW but actually it has not happened. So the evidence does not support your claims. (And in most areas crime went down in comparison to areas you are not allowed to carry -- this point also applies to #2 above)
5) Again, this has not happened. The evidence does not support it.
3) Since it'd be legal, what's gonna stop the attacker from having a gun too? Will you still have an advantage over the attacker then?
Yes, and I believe that most of the members of this forum that you have for some reason chosen to post on would have the advantage as well. I (we) take our Second Amendment rights seriously and train as such. Defensive firearms are for gunfights, not target practice. This is they way most of us train to use them. In my experience most of these "attackers" you speak of do not. If they do, they would most likely be counting on their victims to be just that, victims....they would not be counting on an armed, well trained response to their actions.
Hubus Maximus
11-10-09, 02:55
Thanks for being mature about this. Some things I do want to address:
4) Again, experience has shown this to not be true. Approximately 80% of the US States allow concealed carry by civilians. This was claimed to be the case before these states allowed CCW but actually it has not happened. So the evidence does not support your claims. (And in most areas crime went down in comparison to areas you are not allowed to carry -- this point also applies to #2 above)
Do you have stats on this? Unless you can show me stats on the differences in crime rates in one area (shows crime rate in a certain area before and after carrying is allowed), then this is no more proof than my point. Also, to legitimize this argument, the area has to be an area of a decent amount of crime.
Places like Compton, CA and Detriot would be the first to see a significant difference. Places like those with high crime rates don't allow carrying perhaps because of their high crime rates? Areas that DO allow carrying have lower crime rates? That makes sense to me at least.
1) Guns are usually carried concealed. You do not "identify" anyone that way. Moot point.
3) What's going to stop an attacker from having a gun now, whether legal or not? Think this one through very very carefully.
It's not going to stop them at all, and that's not what I'm trying to say.
If it is not legal to carry, and you find someone with a gun in public, this would be classified as a crime. This meaning that it is easier to identify if someone has ill intentions. After all, why would someone carry a gun while knowing it is illegal to carry one in public right? You'd just get yourself into more trouble. So, if it were legal to carry, you wouldn't be able to immediately assume the person had bad intentions, furthermore making it harder to identify criminals.
As far as the gun being concealed....are you implying that no one has ever discovered hidden guns on criminals? Allowing to carry a concealed weapon is just legitimizing it for criminals.
But my question has still yet to be answered. What if your attacker is carrying a gun as well? If it is legal, chances are... he probably will be carrying one too. So what would you do? Does having a gun on you at that time give you an advantage? I'd say no. I think it'd turn into a draw match, first to pull the gun would be the one that leaves safely.
Hubus Maximus
11-10-09, 02:59
You bring a good point PoPo.
But also consider that the attacker could as well have proper training as well....and if he didn't, is it possible that he (if not you) accidentally shoots an innocent person? Kid?
Attackers aren't always the dimwitted idiots that we all picture. An attacker could be just a normal guy like us who just was having a bad day and someone just got to his nerves.
Also, the members who have posted on this thread have made it clear that they feel that it is their RIGHT to carry a gun. If it is our right to carry a gun, it will not, and should not be required to take classes for proper training. Having this said, chances are, most people will not have proper training.
Thanks for being mature about this. Some things I do want to address:
4) Again, experience has shown this to not be true. Approximately 80% of the US States allow concealed carry by civilians. This was claimed to be the case before these states allowed CCW but actually it has not happened. So the evidence does not support your claims. (And in most areas crime went down in comparison to areas you are not allowed to carry -- this point also applies to #2 above)
Do you have stats on this? Unless you can show me stats on the differences in crime rates in one area (shows crime rate in a certain area before and after carrying is allowed), then this is no more proof than my point. Also, to legitimize this argument, the area has to be an area of a decent amount of crime.
I'd advise you read John Lott's book "More Guns, Less Crime" amongst other sources
Places like Compton, CA and Detriot would be the first to see a significant difference. Places like those with high crime rates don't allow carrying perhaps because of their high crime rates? Areas that DO allow carrying have lower crime rates? That makes sense to me at least.
Again, read the above book. It analyzes before/after data in states that changed their laws to allow concealed carry of handguns.
1) Guns are usually carried concealed. You do not "identify" anyone that way. Moot point.
3) What's going to stop an attacker from having a gun now, whether legal or not? Think this one through very very carefully.
It's not going to stop them at all, and that's not what I'm trying to say.
If it is not legal to carry, and you find someone with a gun in public, this would be classified as a crime. This meaning that it is easier to identify if someone has ill intentions. After all, why would someone carry a gun while knowing it is illegal to carry one in public right? You'd just get yourself into more trouble. So, if it were legal to carry, you wouldn't be able to immediately assume the person had bad intentions, furthermore making it harder to identify criminals.
Again, think this through very carefully. How are you going about finding people with guns in your scenario? Concealed means you cannot see it...
As far as the gun being concealed....are you implying that no one has ever discovered hidden guns on criminals? Allowing to carry a concealed weapon is just legitimizing it for criminals.
How do you know they were criminals? Why did you stop and search them? It is illegal, even in places where concealed carry is allowed, for felons to carry any sort of weapon and also to carry a weapon with the intent to commit a crime.
What's your point, please?
But my question has still yet to be answered. What if your attacker is carrying a gun as well? If it is legal, chances are... he probably will be carrying one too.
Laws against carrying a weapon have not stopped criminals from doing so so you statement makes no sense.
So what would you do? Does having a gun on you at that time give you an advantage? I'd say no. I think it'd turn into a draw match, first to pull the gun would be the one that leaves safely.
Look at criminological data: firearms are used many many times (million plus to several million times a year) to thwart crime. Most criminals are cowards and avoid people they think might resist or fight back. Guns are used daily to thwart crime.
You bring a good point PoPo.
But also consider that the attacker could as well have proper training as well....and if he didn't, is it possible that he (if not you) accidentally shoots an innocent person? Kid?
Attackers aren't always the dimwitted idiots that we all picture. An attacker could be just a normal guy like us who just was having a bad day and someone just got to his nerves.
Also, the members who have posted on this thread have made it clear that they feel that it is their RIGHT to carry a gun. If it is our right to carry a gun, it will not, and should not be required to take classes for proper training. Having this said, chances are, most people will not have proper training.
I have been a police officer for over 12 years and in my experience, the majority of those who would use a firearm indiscriminately are "dimwitted idiots." But let's say someone legally carrying a firearm is having a bad day and I, or someone else "got on" his nerves. I would rather be able to defend myself and those around me as I was trained than be at the mercy of someone so mentally deranged that they believed the solution to whatever problem he (or she) was having is violence. That being said.....I like my odds in that situation. ;)
As for your last comment about the "RIGHT" to carry a gun and proper training. The last time I checked the "RIGHT" to keep and bear arms is the second amendment to the Constitution. The first amendment (apparently only slightly more important to our founding fathers) is, among other things the "RIGHT" to free speech. Maybe the government should require you to attend some sort of training before you exercise that "RIGHT" on a forum where the majority of the members viewpoints are diametrically opposed to your own.
However, this discussion has little to do about the constitutionality of the current health care bill in Congress as was the original intent of this thread. I would recommend you start a new thread if you wish to debate your views about "our" "RIGHT" to keep and bear arms.
Laws against carrying a weapon have not stopped criminals from doing so so your statement makes no sense.
Neither does this ridiculous debate. Reminds me of RR inspired nonsense. Useless and getting silly.
Hubus Maximus, I first want to open my reply to you with this:
"Thou shalt not be a victim. Thou shalt not be a perpetrator. Above all, thou shalt not be a bystander." ~ Holocost Museum in Wash. DC.
In Mass a few weeks ago there were a few Terrorists who were arrested after trying to procure Automatic weapons to shoot up a mall. ( http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2009/10/feds_bust_mass_man_in_terror_p.html ) I ask you to put yourself in that mall with that POS shooting it up, not being armed you are just a sheep running awaiting slaughter, as an Armed Citizen, you have the ability to stop the threat before more harm can be done. At the very least I could stop or draw the threats attention while whomever is with me or more people can get to safety. I would want to take that chance. But perhaps I (we) are of a completely different mindset than most. I dont rely on the Police being there to stop the threat immediately, not that I dont trust the Police, I trust Murphy's Law. There is far too much traffic around our local malls (and bad Rhode Island Drivers) that I fear the Police would be delayed. Even if for a few minutes that delay could mean the difference between someone's life and death. There is an Officer on duty at the malls most days, But Murphy's Law would take over and they would be attending to another call. I hope that this helps to shed the Sheep status.
This is a very flawed, idealogical statement.
I can't carry here in NJ. Shall I sell off my collection?
Naw they would just say you were arming the bad guys. They are safer in your possession than "on the streets".
I appreciate the logical, and mature responses. I seriously am not posting here to start any arguments, but rather trying to get a better understanding of those who feel it is necessary to legally carry a gun.
Personally, I totally agree with all of you who feel that we have a responsibility and right to protect ourselves, and our loved ones. Believe me, if my life or anyone in my family's life was seriously threatened there will be some hell to pay.
However, I was just trying to get some points across that are worth hearing. Every argument has two sides.
These are my points:
1) Harder to identify harmful people or criminals
Tough shit. Freedom is not predicated on making life easier for LE.
2) If actually used, innocent people nearby are significantly in more danger
Brady-esque emotional appeal.
3) Since it'd be legal, what's gonna stop the attacker from having a gun too? Will you still have an advantage over the attacker then? I feel that this negates the fact of having a firearm on you in the first place
You have to be kidding me...you think someone who has no inclination to comply with laws prohibiting assault/battery, robbery, rape, murder, etc will have an inclination to follow a law prohibiting the carriage of a weapon?
Nothing will stop an attacker from having a gun; certainly not a law.
I fail to see how not having a gun > having a gun when faced with an armed attacker. I'll file that one in between "the sun rises in the west" and "Obama is a conservative". You can "feel" whatever the hell you want, doesn't make it so.
4) You are more probable to using a weapon in any type of heated altercation. This also leads to more danger, not only to yourself but to others around as well
Emotional appeals and projection.
5) Harder for law enforcement to peacefully resolve problems
See number 1.
Thanks for being mature about this. Some things I do want to address:
4) Again, experience has shown this to not be true. Approximately 80% of the US States allow concealed carry by civilians. This was claimed to be the case before these states allowed CCW but actually it has not happened. So the evidence does not support your claims. (And in most areas crime went down in comparison to areas you are not allowed to carry -- this point also applies to #2 above)
Do you have stats on this? Unless you can show me stats on the differences in crime rates in one area (shows crime rate in a certain area before and after carrying is allowed), then this is no more proof than my point. Also, to legitimize this argument, the area has to be an area of a decent amount of crime.
Places like Compton, CA and Detriot would be the first to see a significant difference. Places like those with high crime rates don't allow carrying perhaps because of their high crime rates? Areas that DO allow carrying have lower crime rates? That makes sense to me at least.
Rights guaranteed by (and in existence prior to) the Constitution are not mitigated by social demographics or crime rates, and are not valid only in certain geographic areas.
1) Guns are usually carried concealed. You do not "identify" anyone that way. Moot point.
3) What's going to stop an attacker from having a gun now, whether legal or not? Think this one through very very carefully.
It's not going to stop them at all, and that's not what I'm trying to say.
If it is not legal to carry, and you find someone with a gun in public, this would be classified as a crime. This meaning that it is easier to identify if someone has ill intentions. After all, why would someone carry a gun while knowing it is illegal to carry one in public right? You'd just get yourself into more trouble. So, if it were legal to carry, you wouldn't be able to immediately assume the person had bad intentions, furthermore making it harder to identify criminals.
“The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”
What is your preoccupation with prohibiting concealed carry by people who don't have badges? Identification of criminals is not justification for the incredible restriction in personal liberty that you are proposing.
As far as the gun being concealed....are you implying that no one has ever discovered hidden guns on criminals? Allowing to carry a concealed weapon is just legitimizing it for criminals.
Prohibiting the carrying of a weapon is just ensuring that only criminals will have guns. Why exactly are you here? It's quite strange that someone with such negative views of the use of firearms for self-defense would want to be a part of this community for any reason other than trolling.
But my question has still yet to be answered. What if your attacker is carrying a gun as well? If it is legal, chances are... he probably will be carrying one too.
Why do you insist on continuing down this line of discussion with this so obviously flawed premise? If they don't care that assault with a deadly weapon is illegal, why would they care that CCW is illegal? It does not make sense.
So what would you do? Does having a gun on you at that time give you an advantage? I'd say no. I think it'd turn into a draw match, first to pull the gun would be the one that leaves safely.
I'll take the option you present here a hell of a lot sooner than I'd choose door number 2 (cower on your knees as a bullet is put into your skull).
if my life or anyone in my family's life was seriously threatened there will be some hell to pay.
And exactly how do you expect to bring this about when it happens in a public place with your guns safely at home?
3) Since it'd be legal, what's gonna stop the attacker from having a gun too? Will you still have an advantage over the attacker then? I feel that this negates the fact of having a firearm on you in the first place
No, it doesn't negate having a firearm it makes it even more important that you are able to meet or exceed the level of force with which you are being attacked. If he has a gun I want at least a gun to be able to effectively defend myself against him. I just need to hope that I am better trained or luckier than he is. To that end I do what I can to stay proficient with my weapons and tactics.
4) You are more probable to using a weapon in any type of heated altercation. This also leads to more danger, not only to yourself but to others around as well
I've been carrying for over 14 years now and I'm actually less likely to get into an altercation than I was before I started carrying because I know the outcome could be much more serious.
decodeddiesel
11-10-09, 11:51
I have seen the light! I'm destroying all of my guns (wouldn't want them to fall into the wrong hands :rolleyes:) and burning my CCW permit so I can be an easier victim! You are so right Hubus Maximus!
Believe me, if my life or anyone in my family's life was seriously threatened there will be some hell to pay.
Somehow I kinda doubt it.
However, I was just trying to get some points across that are worth hearing. Every argument has two sides.
These are my points:
1) Harder to identify harmful people or criminals
2) If actually used, innocent people nearby are significantly in more danger
Possibly true, in SOME scenarios, but please consider this. If a violent felon attacks me with a knife or firearm and puts me in position where I am compelled to use deadly force, and IF a bystander was hit by a stray or pass-through round, does the felon not bear some or all of the responsibility? We train to avoid this kind of thing but in some very rare circumstances it can happen. The system *might* hold me to account if this happened, but the moral responsibility would rest on the shoulders of the attacker, who initiated the armed confrontation, IMO.
3) Since it'd be legal, what's gonna stop the attacker from having a gun too? Will you still have an advantage over the attacker then? I feel that this negates the fact of having a firearm on you in the first place
4) You are more probable to using a weapon in any type of heated altercation. This also leads to more danger, not only to yourself but to others around as well
5) Harder for law enforcement to peacefully resolve problems
All of these points are assuming that the person in the altercation IS carrying. Also, perhaps these points are only applicable in certain areas. I'm from Southern California, so it'd be awkward seeing businessmen carrying pistols while walking the streets of Downtown San Diego haha.
Many good replies to this derailment. Sorry.
I understand that people want to carry their guns on them, and that's fine. But my question to you all is, what do you achieve by having a gun on you, compared to not having it on you? Some are making it seem like it's a necessity to carry a gun. I'm not trying to start some arguments, I'm just simply interested.
I've only read up to this post so far but you definitely just stuck your dick in a hornet's nest.
Originally Posted by Hubus Maximus
I understand that people want to carry their guns on them, and that's fine. But my question to you all is, what do you achieve by having a gun on you, compared to not having it on you?
Well, I think he has had some excellent philsophical reasons given him . ... now here are just a couple, personal, real world, actually happened type reasons:
1. Burglary with intent to rape - the scum broke into a house (my best friend's)he'd cased and intended to "have at" my best friend's wife while he was still tied up in Kabul. The burglar met me instead. He still tried to force his way upstairs until I drew . . . then he remembered some place else to be. No return visits.
2. Mugging - the scum hiding between cars in a parking lot jumped out & produced a really large screw driver I would not want to be stabbed with. Me making the motion to prepare to draw was enough . . . he took off.
3. Not sure - Was walking out of the grocery with my little girl (2) and a couple bags of groceries. I noticed a scruffy fellow fall in behind us, not carrying bags but with his hands in his pockets. He was walking to catch up. I switched the bags and the hand on my little girl to free my gun hand, turned and squared off with him. He veared off at a 45 degree angle. He approached a woman who was putting groceries in her car from behind checked over his shoulder and saw that I was still watching and changed course again to leave the lot. Both the old lady and my daughter and I left without incident . . . don't know if he intended to do some aggressive pan handling, mugging, car jack or what, but it didn't happen.
4. Mugging - My neighbor was walking to a neighborhood store about a week ago. He got jumped by three guys, he didn't fight back, gave them what they wanted and they beat him bad enough to detach one of his retinas. Three on one are pretty bad odds and they could have killed him had they been inclined. I want to be his neighbor I don't want to be my neighbor. These things happen, and while I try and avoid them I am trained and equipped to end the fight so I can continue to provide for my family.
Now in all four scenarios nobody got shot. In only one, was someone injured and that was the guy who wasn't carrying. When I have my children with me, I can't realistically run from trouble. I can try and avoid it, but sometimes crime pops up. It be terrible not to be able to feed these little mouths because I went about the world assuming that just because nothing bad should happen, that nothing bad will. Far better to go about the world equipped and never have to use it.
I appreciate the logical, and mature responses. I seriously am not posting here to start any arguments, but rather trying to get a better understanding of those who feel it is necessary to legally carry a gun.
Personally, I totally agree with all of you who feel that we have a responsibility and right to protect ourselves, and our loved ones. Believe me, if my life or anyone in my family's life was seriously threatened there will be some hell to pay.
However, I was just trying to get some points across that are worth hearing. Every argument has two sides.
These are my points:
1) Harder to identify harmful people or criminals
2) If actually used, innocent people nearby are significantly in more danger
3) Since it'd be legal, what's gonna stop the attacker from having a gun too? Will you still have an advantage over the attacker then? I feel that this negates the fact of having a firearm on you in the first place
4) You are more probable to using a weapon in any type of heated altercation. This also leads to more danger, not only to yourself but to others around as well
5) Harder for law enforcement to peacefully resolve problems
All of these points are assuming that the person in the altercation IS carrying. Also, perhaps these points are only applicable in certain areas. I'm from Southern California, so it'd be awkward seeing businessmen carrying pistols while walking the streets of Downtown San Diego haha.
Don't feed this troll gentlemen.
I appreciate the logical, and mature responses. I seriously am not posting here to start any arguments, but rather trying to get a better understanding of those who feel it is necessary to legally carry a gun.
Personally, I totally agree with all of you who feel that we have a responsibility and right to protect ourselves, and our loved ones. Believe me, if my life or anyone in my family's life was seriously threatened there will be some hell to pay.
However, I was just trying to get some points across that are worth hearing. Every argument has two sides.
These are my points:
1) Harder to identify harmful people or criminals
2) If actually used, innocent people nearby are significantly in more danger
3) Since it'd be legal, what's gonna stop the attacker from having a gun too? Will you still have an advantage over the attacker then? I feel that this negates the fact of having a firearm on you in the first place
4) You are more probable to using a weapon in any type of heated altercation. This also leads to more danger, not only to yourself but to others around as well
5) Harder for law enforcement to peacefully resolve problems
All of these points are assuming that the person in the altercation IS carrying. Also, perhaps these points are only applicable in certain areas. I'm from Southern California, so it'd be awkward seeing businessmen carrying pistols while walking the streets of Downtown San Diego haha.
I think the reason you're having trouble understanding our thoughts on carrying and why your arguments are incorrect are because of where you're from. You can't even legally own most of the guns discussed on this forum where you live.
You're a product of flawed politics and the nanny state. Just because someone tells you that carrying a gun isn't a right, doesn't make it so. Just because someone tells you there would be wild west shootouts in the street if everyone carried, doesn't make it so.
You lack one of the basic tenants of a free society, self-reliance. You're dependent upon the police for the fight portion of the "fight, flight or freeze" response to a lethal threat. Those of us in less freedom restricted states do not need to rely on the police for this. It's a good thing too because they rarely arrive in time to keep you out of a body bag (Ft. Hood is a perfect example).
Carrying a firearm is all about safety and self-reliance. Carrying is an insurance policy against premature death due to violence. Carrying has nothing to do with resolving problems. A great line about carrying is "When you get your concealed carry permit and strap on a gun, you loose the right to fly off the handle." Carrying is about responsibility.
Do some research that doesn't include the State of California or HCI and you might find the answers you're looking for. Otherwise, you're just trolling and giving us newbies a bad rep. :D
This MY definition
Hubus Maximus: Shit NOT needed on m4!!!!!
Can't have a battle of the witts with an unarmed thing.
Aw, don't be so hard on the guy. Having lived in the southern part of the PRK for 8 years, I can tell you he is merely regurgitating the BS that is fed to the masses there.
His confusion is understandable as many have a difficult time differentiating "legally right" from "morally right". Just because something is "legal" does not make it moral. Conversely, just because the civil authorities enact a law against something, that does not automatically make that thing immoral. Morally, I am under no obligation to submit to immoral laws - I may face civil prosecution as a result, but I'd rather do so with a clear conscience.
Evil men have mastered the ability to make people think that immoral activities are the right thing to do and many millions have suffered as a result.
As to the Second Amendment: The Bill of Rights grants nothing in and of itself, only recognizes that which was understood at the time to be necessary characteristics of a "free" society.
Self defense was considered a moral obligation, thus the right to keep and bear arms was recognized as critical to execution of said obligation and the gov't has no right to infringe upon (interfere with) it's citizens' ability to provide for their own protection. Some of us still hold to the idea of self defense as a moral obligation.
I consider it immoral to cower helplessly in the face of evil waiting for someone else to come to my (or my family's) defense.
The current "government" does not give a s**t about the constitution. To them it is just a piece of paper to be ignored/manipulated for their own uses.
I dunno.
How about DC v Heller? Or , maybe , the last half dozen gun rights votes in Congress?
I dunno.
How about DC v Heller? Or , maybe , the last half dozen gun rights votes in Congress?
What did DC VS Heller do for us?
I understand that people want to carry their guns on them, and that's fine. But my question to you all is, what do you achieve by having a gun on you, compared to not having it on you? Some are making it seem like it's a necessity to carry a gun. I'm not trying to start some arguments, I'm just simply interested.
For the reason that you are ready to defend yourself, if necessary, against the criminal that does not follow the law. Gun control laws are based off of fear and ignorance. By imposing strict carry laws you only serve to disarm the law abiding citizens and empower the criminals. The only way to get the message across to the criminals is to impose more strict punishment for using firearms in unlawful acts.
If the anti-gun laws are allowed to continue down their current path, the only people left armed will be the rich and the criminals.
What did DC VS Heller do for us?
Read it and you won't need to ask.
Aw, don't be so hard on the guy. Having lived in the southern part of the PRK for 8 years, I can tell you he is merely regurgitating the BS that is fed to the masses there.
His confusion is understandable as many have a difficult time differentiating "legally right" from "morally right". Just because something is "legal" does not make it moral. Conversely, just because the civil authorities enact a law against something, that does not automatically make that thing immoral. Morally, I am under no obligation to submit to immoral laws - I may face civil prosecution as a result, but I'd rather do so with a clear conscience.
Evil men have mastered the ability to make people think that immoral activities are the right thing to do and many millions have suffered as a result.
As to the Second Amendment: The Bill of Rights grants nothing in and of itself, only recognizes that which was understood at the time to be necessary characteristics of a "free" society.
Self defense was considered a moral obligation, thus the right to keep and bear arms was recognized as critical to execution of said obligation and the gov't has no right to infringe upon (interfere with) it's citizens' ability to provide for their own protection. Some of us still hold to the idea of self defense as a moral obligation.
I consider it immoral to cower helplessly in the face of evil waiting for someone else to come to my (or my family's) defense.
Are you some kind of "Friend" "Relative" "Sympathiser" of Hubus Maximus?
People cannot think for themselves anymore. It is NOT a right to bear arms but a frickin "DUTY". Why the hell do you think this "Country" was founded?
Enough of this s...! I'm sick of sheople turning evry thing from black and white, to color so as to make it be as "They WANT it to be to suit them".
This may be counter to me but WHY this country was founded in the first place, to me tells it ALL. With this admin WE are loosing it ALL right frickin now. Ban me if need, but I'M NO FRICKEN SYPATHISER WITH THIS SHIT!
Read it and you won't need to ask.
Humor me, what did Heller VS DC do for us?
Gramps,
You obviously missed the sarcasm in the first part of my post. All I meant was that this is the BS being fed to our young in the "enlightened" States and I recognize it for what it is.
I in no way sympathize with his point - as I stated, I consider it a moral obligation to defend myself and my family (with whatever means necessary).
Study the writings of the FFs, the Bill of Rights does not grant us rights per se. It recognizes certain fundamental rights granted to us by our Creator by which citizens of a free society are entitled to live. These rights were widely recognized well before the drafting of our Constitution (ff: rights of Roman Citizens during the Republic, Magna Carta, et al.). Natural Law, if you will.
Sorry for confusing you and pissin in your wheaties...
decodeddiesel
11-11-09, 10:31
Read it and you won't need to ask.
I've read it thoroughly, and the question still stands. What did Heller vs. DC do for us, the citizens of the United States of America?
thopkins22
11-11-09, 10:35
I've read it thoroughly, and the question still stands. What did Heller vs. DC do for us, the citizens of the United States of America?
Validated the notion that certain types of firearms are too dangerous for you and I, packaged in a way that the masses thought was fantastic.
I've read it thoroughly, and the question still stands. What did Heller vs. DC do for us, the citizens of the United States of America?
DD - We could always ask the gun owners and people who want to own guns in Washington D.C., New York, Illinois or California what it's done to help them. Pardon my sarcasm but I think you know where I'm coming from here.
I honestly think it did nothing to help the cause of the people in recognizing their Constitutional freedom to own firearms for the protection of themselves and their loved ones. If I'm not as informed as I should be please feel free to educate and correct me gbear48.
Then again, you can now buy a S&W .38 with a cute little engraving on it so it must've been monumental... stupid trigger lock :p
http://img694.imageshack.us/img694/2664/150505engrav.jpg (http://img694.imageshack.us/i/150505engrav.jpg/)
PRGGodfather
11-11-09, 12:27
Well, if HM is really interested in reading stats, he will follow the advice given and read Prof. Lott's book.
If this "discussion" continues, since it is definitely not just a conversation -- as I learned from the ACLU, "People just don't let facts change the way they feel."
As a cop for 24 years, I know that responsible, armed people tend NOT to get into verbal contests about whose genitals are longer. The price is too high to pay if things get out of hand. We would rather scoot than end up shooting someone for something so petty.
Yet, the restriction mentality is based precisely on the fear of that scenario. Usually, it is because the emotionally driven realize they cannot trust THEMSELVES -- so trusting others (except for the sacred government) is anathema.
Self-defense proponents understand responsible carry demands the best strategy is to avoid trouble WHEN POSSIBLE -- not acting foolishly, like so many drunk college kids who believe stumbling down the sidewalk is a right -- and since trouble is not always avoidable and deadly conflict is most usually a surprise, an armed populace is what makes us free and provides the best chance of survival.
Yet, the emotionally driven do not believe.
Our logic is simple.
Certainly, we can see all of the "points" listed could ALSO be the basis to disallow concealed carry by off-duty police, as well.
When the advance premise is "the risk outweighs the benefits," and these conclusions are achieved before real force-on-force study has occurred -- we have a long way to go to "educate" this curious individual.
Many people from the PRK don't understand -- and they truly believe those of us who carry guns (even LEGALLY) are part of the problem. It doesn't really matter if the concealed carry folks are cops or civilians -- since the argument he makes would apply to LE, also. After all, what happens when LE confronts a better-trained, or better equipped attacker?
We respond regardless. Stuff happens.
Sociology cannot defend us from an armed attack. What happened at Ft. Hood should be the example. Perhaps the killer was "better trained" than Sgt. Kim Munley was -- but she neither had the time nor inclination to ask and SHE DID HER JOB -- a job most people do not have the personal courage to perform. She did her job -- without considering the silly "what ifs" so many insist on posing.
And yet, are we surprised that even the Ft. Hood incident has been peppered with denial, political correctness and pseudo-sociological crap that makes it even harder for us to speak the truth?
Considering how the attacker could be stronger is the very nature of planned reliance on the government. As well-intentioned as this off-topic assertion may have been framed, it is clear HM's position is based on the complete denial that we are ever capable of relying upon ourselves -- as the argument is directed towards the superiority of the attacker -- and the lack of training we might have.
I can say this, as a professional trainer for over 20 years -- many of the civilians on this board volunteer and receive superior training than the police receive -- the very training so many police officers insist on being paid to attend! Blasphemy! This truth is also foreign to those who want to disarm or preclude concealed carry.
That's because taxpayers want service, without having to pay for it. We all want great training -- we just want someone else to foot the bill. Maybe the Japanese and Chinese can bail us out of that one, too.
While there are many outstanding police trainers, the current crop of LE and .mil trainers have more global experience than ever before in human history -- even as Right to Carry states have increased in number. Gun-related accidental death is at all time low -- as are stranger murders -- even as aggravated assaults are at all-time high. Yes, the FBI Uniform Crime Report confirms this, and real students already know this to be true.
I have learned more technical truths via osmosis from this board, than I have from any of my previous training successes. Those of us who truly study these issues should be insulted that this interloper has been allowed to troll, because he "curious" about everyone's polite perspective. If this was unbiased research, it would not have started here.
With all due respect, IMHO, the points raised by HM are NOT intended to ask questions -- as they began with a statement. He has falsely positioned himself to be persuaded, when in fact, he is attempting to validate himself and his flawed position.
A troll by any other name, still lives under the same bridge -- so I call BS, and 24 years as a cop has made me familiar with the scent.
I've read it thoroughly, and the question still stands. What did Heller vs. DC do for us, the citizens of the United States of America?
It validated the idea that the 2A is an individual right and is not connected to "sporting purposes".
The case was about a specific question and the opinion was written as broadly as could be in the narrow question. They did not attempt to write a super broad opinion to a narrow question. It provides a foundation for years of litigation to come to build upon it and enhance it.
thopkins22
11-11-09, 21:53
The case was about a specific question and the opinion was written as broadly as could be in the narrow question. They did not attempt to write a super broad opinion to a narrow question. It provides a foundation for years of litigation to come to build upon it and enhance it.
It did open doors to other litigation, of that there's little doubt. But it was also written in such a way as to allow many specific items to be banned...at least as I read it.
Gramps,
You obviously missed the sarcasm in the first part of my post. All I meant was that this is the BS being fed to our young in the "enlightened" States and I recognize it for what it is.
I in no way sympathize with his point - as I stated, I consider it a moral obligation to defend myself and my family (with whatever means necessary).
Study the writings of the FFs, the Bill of Rights does not grant us rights per se. It recognizes certain fundamental rights granted to us by our Creator by which citizens of a free society are entitled to live. These rights were widely recognized well before the drafting of our Constitution (ff: rights of Roman Citizens during the Republic, Magna Carta, et al.). Natural Law, if you will.
Sorry for confusing you and pissin in your wheaties...
OK, jets cooled down now. (I don't like cold serial anyway, so no harm there)
Thanks
Here's a very concise answer:
It validated the idea that the 2A is an individual right and is not connected to "sporting purposes".
The case was about a specific question and the opinion was written as broadly as could be in the narrow question. They did not attempt to write a super broad opinion to a narrow question. It provides a foundation for years of litigation to come to build upon it and enhance it.
Eguns won't get any argument from me.
If anybody really wants more , some free info can be gleaned from the 8 ( 7+ 1 )reviews here:
www.amazon.com/gp/product/product=description/188963221X/ref=dp_proddesc_0?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books
If that's not enough , "The Heller Case : Gun Rights Affirmed" by Alan Korwin & David Kople is available: Used & new. 443 pages. From $16.75 (plus S & H).
I dunno if the Amazon books are autographed or not.
why the hell do you think we the people, the founders of the constitution wanted to own a gun...to carry it to protect ourselves, our property, and our liberty!
If this was your first post you might want to consider it you last as well......wrong forum to stir the pot....try another one.
R
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.