Texas at it again

[CBEMT]

Anyway, I'll just go ahead and put my trust in trained law enforcement professionals rather than Bob down the block with the sawed off, but that's just me.

Me to- a sawed-off is illegal. Duh.

I mentioned that if you whip out a firearm and scare the bejeezus out of somebody, you're guilty of the crime of menacing.

No, that's NOT what you said. You said that if I scare a criminal with a weapon, I'm committing a crime, which is so laughable that I almost didn't respond to you because you clearly aren't going to be able to grasp the concepts we're talking about.

Now actually what I was really getting at is when Mr. Armed Champion of the 2nd admendment goes off and makes a mistake. Lets say you go and stop that rape in progress with your gun and then, oh crap, it wasn't a rape it was a boyfriend and girlfriend making out and you just pointed a gun at them, which, statistically, is a far more likely scenario than you, Smith, and Wesson saving the day.

Which is NOT WHAT YOU SAID. Stop being such a typical liberal and changing the goalposts everytime you get proven wrong.

I'll also ask you to stop thinking so little of my intelligence that I can't tell the difference between two makeout artists and a woman being raped. Typical elitist...

That's why we TRAIN police officers and hold them to STANDARDS, which in my opinion anyone who is armed and out there cleaning up the streets should be held too.

Who said anything about cleaning up the streets? God, you really DO think gun owners are out every day looking to shoot somebody don't you? Could you BE anymore self-righteous?

Anyway, CB, if you really have that dim a view of the police and government in general, there's some nice men in a compound in Idaho who will sign you up

More assumptions and elitism....

Until then, I'll trust you to stop driving on those nicely maintained interstates the government provides for you.

They build roads just fine. It's my life I don't trust them with.

(You see HDFF? This is exactly the type of person I'm talking about. )

Yeah, you're just smarter than everyone, aren't you.

[CBEMT]

The European mindset, since you brought that up, on this issue, is that we do not want the general public settling their disputes with firearms,

Neither do we. But in typical European fashion, you assume that this is what gun owners do.

We have, conveniently, entrusted the task of handling that matter to that common body of ours that I mentioned earlier.

So have Americans, because that's what the government wants- citizens to be dependant on them. The dirty little secret is, they can't protect you. Personal Responsibility. "Know it. Learn it. Live it."

[Dustdevil]

Minus 5 for posting in the wrong forum.

[nbsp]

First of all, any American who has taken history knows that the constitution was written intentionally vague, and the 2nd amendment is no exception.

Since gun advocates commonly ignore the first half, (such as the NRA,) here's the full text:

"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."

This can be interpreted in any number of ways, including but not limited to,

1. Guns for everybody.

2. Guns for members of a militia.

3. Guns if and only if a militia has been created and is necessary for the security of a free state.

That being said, I continue onto my crazy rantings.

The problem is that some people are arguing Guns-for-everybody-everywhere and some people are arguing Guns-for-nobody-anywhere, while in reality it is situational.

Take my situation. I grew up in a suburb. The people who lived there were a good people, nearly 100% college graduates; Doctors, Engineers, Businessmen, and Lawyers. I know of nobody who has ever been a victim of a gun-related crime, and nobody who has had any reason to defend himself with a gun. The swat team has an 8-minute response time. (hearsay back in high school from someone who rode along with the cops because he wants to become a career cop.) If someone there bought a gun for "defense" purposes, I would consider him an idiot. There was one time I heard a noise outside my house when I was home alone for a week, but I felt perfectly safe knowing exactly where my little-league baseball bat was.

Also, consider this: In all of the school shootings you've heard about, where did the shooters obtain their guns from? Did the people who owned these guns obtain them illegally? (I was going to research this, but then I realized why it would be a bad idea to search "school shootings guns" on a university network.)

In rural and high-crime urban areas, keeping a gun at home is perfectly understandable, if children have no access to them. (In a majority of cases, I believe "no access" would require not having guns if you have children.) I would frown upon carrying a gun around in public.

And you guys need to learn the concept of validity of evidence. Videos of some gang members shooting each other are not good evidence. Anecdotes of some woman saving the day with a gun are not good evidence. "What if you got robbed and the guy decided to attack you instead of simply leaving quickly and you had no gun" is not good evidence.

"USA: 9.10

Germany: 1.65

Spain: 1.49

Australia: 1.88

New Zealand: 1.35

USA: 39.5%

Germany: 28.57%

Spain: 16.41%

Australia: 16.34%

New Zealand: 13.46%" is not good evidence.

Since y'all don't seem to know your stuff, these people might be able to give you a hand.

[Andrewtx]

The pre-existing right to keep and bear arms was premised

on the commonplace assumption that individuals would use

them for these private purposes, in addition to whatever militia

service they would be obligated to perform for the state. The

premise that private arms would be used for self-defense accords

with Blackstone’s observation, which had influenced thinking

in the American colonies, that the people’s right to arms was

auxiliary to the natural right of self-preservation. See WILLIAM

BLACKSTONE, 1 COMMENTARIES *136, *139; see also Silveira,

328 F.3d at 583-85 (Kleinfeld, J.); Kasler v. Lockyer, 2 P.3d

581, 602 (Cal. 2000) (Brown, J., concurring). The right of self-

preservation, in turn, was understood as the right to defend

oneself against attacks by lawless individuals, or, if absolutely

necessary, to resist and throw off a tyrannical government. See

Silveira, 328 F.3d at 583-85 (Kleinfeld, J.); see also id. at 569-70

(Kozinski, J., dissenting from the denial of rehearing en

banc); Kasler, 2 P.3d at 605 (Brown, J., concurring).9

When we look at the Bill of Rights as a whole, the setting

of the Second Amendment reinforces its individual nature. The

Bill of Rights was almost entirely a declaration of individual

rights, and the Second Amendment’s inclusion therein strongly

indicates that it, too, was intended to protect personal liberty.

The collective right advocates ask us to imagine that the First

Congress situated a sui generis states’ right among a catalogue

of cherished individual liberties without comment. We believe

the canon of construction known as noscitur a sociis applies

here. Just as we would read an ambiguous statutory term in

light of its context, we should read any supposed ambiguities in

the Second Amendment in light of its context. Every other

provision of the Bill of Rights, excepting the Tenth, which

speaks explicitly about the allocation of governmental power,

protects rights enjoyed by citizens in their individual capacity.

The Second Amendment would be an inexplicable aberration if

it were not read to protect individual rights as well.

Parker v. District of Columbia

http://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/docs/common...03/04-7041a.pdf

A masterfully written opinion, I recommend you read it in its entirety.

[dreatx]

A well armed society keeps the cops in order. I have never heard of the cos plunger raping someone in Texas. (Which is where I live).

[Asysin2leads]

A well armed society keeps the cops in order. I have never heard of the cos plunger raping someone in Texas. (Which is where I live).

http://www.texnews.com/texas97/corrupt092597.html

I'm sorry, were you saying something? I was too busy reading about the Texas cops being hauled off to jail for drug charges. Smuggling reefer over the border, yeah, the cops look real terrified.

[DwayneEMTP]

Perhaps I missed it, my apologies if I did...

Now that everyone and their ugly sister has a weapon, how do we unring the bell?

Nothing would make me happier than to beat my gun into a paperweight in a gun free country. All I need is an intelligent explaination as to how we disarm the country without leaving the scariest people the only ones with guns....

I don't believe those of us that have been victims of violent, life altering crimes will consider the gunless options until this question is answered.

Dwayne

[hfdff422]

nbsp- Please read the entire posts before you use them against me, as I was illustrating the mindset of the sheep, not providing evidence in favor of gun laws. Either side could illustrate their ideals with such anecdotes. I also stated that statistics were not an effective way to debate a philosophical issue.

[Lone Star]

Well, when someone has more Guns n' Ammo magazines than National Geographics laying around, I'm guessing they aren't planning on donating to the Red Cross. You know, you and Lone Star can talk about how you don't look forward to shooting anyone all day long, but your actions and rhetoric speak differently. If the world is full of "predators", all I can say is you watch wayyyyy to much TV.

I've intentionally left the rhetoric out of it. I mean, I could start spouting all sorts of pro-gun statements, statistics and examples to the point that I sound like a poster child for every pro-gun organization (NRA included). I've left that for those that feel the need to 'convince' others to change their minds and become 'card carryin', gun totin' proud NRA Lifetime members'.

Obviously not all of us live and work in such a well protected bubble as you do. Not all of us live in some affluent closed gate community. Having lived and worked in such places as metro Detroit, and having been the victim of gun related crime, I DO believe in a 'proactive approach' to not only MY safety, but the safety of my loved ones!

I'm sure that if you've ever been in the position to look down the muzzle of a handgun (whether legally obtained or not), you'd have a different outlook. Just the feeling of having to hope and pray that you're not going to get shot because you've only got $30.00 in your pocket at the time that someone sticks a gun in your face, is not a real good feeling! And, if you can't outrun a bullet....let's see you just turn tail and run out of the 'situation'.

If taking a proactive stance comes from 'watching wayyyy too much tv', then the converse also applies; since you seem to think that the police are always standing around just waiting to protect you from the 'bad guys', you've had your head in the sand WAAAYYYYY too long.

Personally, I don't care if you own a gun or not. I don't care if you hunt or not. To tell the truth, I have better things to think about. I've given your points of view the respect that they deserve, because they're YOUR views and beliefs. All I asked for was the same in return.