Supreme Court & Second Amendment

[Tomorrow]

For what its worth, nothing in the bill of rights (the first 10 amendments) has been altered or changed by a subsequent amendment.

It is an incredible, historic document which is the cornerstone of our country. (For what it's worth, no one said that the Bill of Rights was changed.) Subsequent Amendments to the Constitution were indeed not necessarily as well conceived.

 

[Halon451]

I can offer a solution, you say you're "concerned" that gun owners cause accidents, well I'm in the camp that says that if you buy a gun you should take safety classes, I'm on the minority on this issue. But to be fair, people buying drills, knives of any type, cars, sports equipment, etc. that have potential for dealing death should be mandated to take safety classes.

Really? Everyone that I know who owns a gun (and some of them own several all highly promote gun safety training as a minimum. I believe it's been discussed already however, that the Concealed training is a joke - yet there are more advanced classes that can be taken beyond what is required, and most of the people I reference have all taken them. I personally can't vouch for it enough - there are far too many morons out there who can't even handle their own bathwater properly, let alone a pistol, and no amount of training will overcome basic human stupidity.

So here's a solution: Give an unbiased IQ test to any individual who applies to purchase a firearm. Score below a certain point and no gun for you! But wait, our incessant Political Correction system would have a field day with that proposal, and I may even get slammed for mentioning such a thing, but fair's fair and it's worth calling it like it is.

I believe Forrest Gump said it best when he said, "Stupid is as stupid does."

So back to the point - of course, of course of course - gun safety should go without saying. Strat is attempting to wash out your argument that improper and mishandling of guns has led to many tragic accidents (often involving young children), and it certainly has. But so has boating, so has swimming, so has driving a car, so has tornadoes, and other natural disasters, and knives, bulls, rabid chickens, pyrotechnics, gravity, and the occasional bear.

My point is simple - you cannot possibly ever eliminate 100% probability that something awful may happen in any given set of circumstances, and it is up to personal accountability and your own wits and wherewithal to ensure that you don't become the next statistic when it does.

Not the Governments...

 

[stratman]

Really? Everyone that I know who owns a gun (and some of them own several all highly promote gun safety training as a minimum. I believe it's been discussed already however, that the Concealed training is a joke - yet there are more advanced classes that can be taken beyond what is required, and most of the people I reference have all taken them. I personally can't vouch for it enough - there are far too many morons out there who can't even handle their own bathwater properly, let alone a pistol, and no amount of training will overcome basic human stupidity.

So here's a solution: Give an unbiased IQ test to any individual who applies to purchase a firearm. Score below a certain point and no gun for you! But wait, our incessant Political Correction system would have a field day with that proposal, and I may even get slammed for mentioning such a thing, but fair's fair and it's worth calling it like it is.

I believe Forrest Gump said it best when he said, "Stupid is as stupid does."

So back to the point - of course, of course of course - gun safety should go without saying. Strat is attempting to wash out your argument that improper and mishandling of guns has led to many tragic accidents (often involving young children), and it certainly has. But so has boating, so has swimming, so has driving a car, so has tornadoes, and other natural disasters, and knives, bulls, rabid chickens, pyrotechnics, gravity, and the occasional bear.

My point is simple - you cannot possibly ever eliminate 100% probability that something awful may happen in any given set of circumstances, and it is up to personal accountability and your own wits and wherewithal to ensure that you don't become the next statistic when it does.

Not the Governments...

That's 100% correct. Gun owners aren't any more prone to "accidents" than a non-owner, gun accidents "make" the news more often than car deaths because it was done with "the gun" and the media loves any chance to put gun owners in a bad light, period. I have never negated the fact that guns, through fault of owner have caused tragedy, but then again the same can be said for pools, cars, etc. Basic safety in my opinion should be mandatory, some people buy guns on a whim without knowing basic handling procedure. The government's job is to stop criminals not to coddle them, but that's just sooooo un-pc.

 

[unreal.freak]

i really think this has been over debated. I dont think we will solve the USA's gun issues in this thread.... I hope everyone that owns a firearm and reads this thread gets one thing from it. "As an armed citizen, anything you do unsavory may affect the rest of us law abiding armed citizens, so be safe and dont give the Biased media any reason to air you negatively on the news." Guns arent the only thing that the media is very biased about. Another example is Christianity, they will report on anything negative about Christianity. Look at the Jim Bakker scandle for example. The scandle is probably what most people remeber about Jim and Tammy Bakker. They were very good people and did many good things. Maybe its just me, but i think we all would be much better off without up to the minute news. Why cant we all just get along........

Peace,
Tommy

 

[Joe Schmoe]

The one certainty in all this is that I would feel far safer in a society where nobody has guns than a society where many people do.

 

[Rickster71]

The one certainty in all this is that I would feel far safer in a society where nobody has guns than a society where many people do.

I would feel safer with less criminal intent.

 

[stratman]

Yes, I would feel safer with no criminals.

 

[Pyrrho]

What's the point? There are more people killed in medical "accidents" at hospitals every year in the U.S. than all the gun killings combined (those including law enforcement shootings).

The point is really quite simple. stratman stated something that was inaccurate, and I pointed that out. Curiously, some of you now imagine that I was suggesting something more than that. I defy any of you to find anywhere in this thread a claim from me that gun ownership should be banned. Indeed, as I already stated, "I did not offer a solution to the problem".

Even more curious is the fact that stratman has asserted that he stands by his erroneous statement. People do have reason to be concerned about some of the "law abiding" citizens who own guns. If you are so rabidly pro-gun that you can't see that, then I am sorry for you.

 

[unreal.freak]

People do have reason to be concerned about some of the "law abiding" citizens who own guns. If you are so rabidly pro-gun that you can't see that, then I am sorry for you.

LOL..... you can catagorize me as "Rabidly pro-gun" but do be sorry for me though. Cause I do think there are law abiding citizens that own guns and have no idea the how to handle guns, therefore we should be concerned. Law abiding, and practicing gun safety, are two different catagories.

Peace,
Tommy

 

[Tomorrow]

The point is really quite simple. stratman stated something that was inaccurate, and I pointed that out. Curiously, some of you now imagine that I was suggesting something more than that. I defy any of you to find anywhere in this thread a claim from me that gun ownership should be banned. Indeed, as I already stated, "I did not offer a solution to the problem".

Even more curious is the fact that stratman has asserted that he stands by his erroneous statement. People do have reason to be concerned about some of the "law abiding" citizens who own guns. If you are so rabidly pro-gun that you can't see that, then I am sorry for you.

Thanks for the pity, Pyrrho. I have stated that no one is perfect and far from it, people from all walks of life make mistakes and do stupid, moronic things. I think S-man would agree. If your point was also that you have no solution, then there was no point to your post.

My pro-gun stance revolves 100% around the issue of personal freedom to protect myself. If I am careless and injure someone as a result, then I also should take personal responsibility for that act. But this is as it should be in ALL things (driving, medical treatment, sports, hot coffee drinking , etc.). When others want to take your individual rights away because they fear what 'might' happen (because of error or carelessness), the point S-man and others have been making to you is that no one would ever end up doing anything. E.G...no one should drive because auto accidents happen. That is a correct analogy to your post and one that I think S-man was making.

I'll make you a deal. I won't shoot any innocent people (I'm well trained, but I'll take extra care). And I will not force you to carry a gun to protect others from criminal attack. Limiting freedom of choice is a serious matter and not to be taken lightly. (In fact, one should have reams of research available to even start such a suggestion.) One does get hackles up when another suggests such an action. Calling what has been said in this thread as "rabid" is inflamatory and means you haven't read carefully enough the thoughts and feelings of the posters. We all care. We all want to avoid carelessness. It's a "rights" issue discussed amidst behaviors, and you should read it from that perspective.

 

[Pyrrho]

... Cause I do think there are law abiding citizens that own guns and have no idea the how to handle guns, therefore we should be concerned. Law abiding, and practicing gun safety, are two different catagories. [emphasis added]

Peace,
Tommy

Absolutely.

 

[Pyrrho]

The point is really quite simple. stratman stated something that was inaccurate, and I pointed that out. Curiously, some of you now imagine that I was suggesting something more than that. I defy any of you to find anywhere in this thread a claim from me that gun ownership should be banned. Indeed, as I already stated, "I did not offer a solution to the problem".

Even more curious is the fact that stratman has asserted that he stands by his erroneous statement. People do have reason to be concerned about some of the "law abiding" citizens who own guns. If you are so rabidly pro-gun that you can't see that, then I am sorry for you.

.... If your point was also that you have no solution, then there was no point to your post.
...

Why don't you try reading a post before responding to it? I said:

The point is really quite simple. stratman stated something that was inaccurate, and I pointed that out.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Why do you imagine it means something other than what it says? It is really very simple. Too bad it is evidently too difficult for some to comprehend.

 

[stratman]

Why don't you try reading a post before responding to it? I said:

The point is really quite simple. stratman stated something that was inaccurate, and I pointed that out.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Why do you imagine it means something other than what it says? It is really very simple. Too bad it is evidently too difficult for some to comprehend.

My statement was painted with a broad brush stroke just like yours, I never have denied that gun owners haven't caused accidents, by and large gun owners tend to be serious, safety-concious individuals. But your statement as "broad" as mine was alludes to " gun accidents" being such an everyday occurrence that the average person needs to be in deathly fear of gun owners. I pointed out to you, more dangerous than guns are cars, which do cause everyday mayhem, should people walk around being deathly afraid of cars? Of course not and of gun owners neither, lest we go back to the "moron" arguement.

 

[Joe Schmoe]

Nobody who is serious about owning and using guns safely should object to a very strict licensing process, as they are presumably willing to undertake the neccessary training. I also think that an in-depth background check and proof of mental stability (including lack of criminal tendencies) should be required for gun ownership.

 

[stratman]

Nobody who is serious about owning and using guns safely should object to a very strict licensing process, as they are presumably willing to undertake the neccessary training. I also think that an in-depth background check and proof of mental stability (including lack of criminal tendencies) should be required for gun ownership.

There are strict licensing checks in place, the harm will not come from the lawful, but the criminal, they don't care about licences, cops, you or the system. So why punish those, even more, who already follow the rules? Why not come down hard, brutally hard, on those that commit crimes with or without guns? What are criminal tendencies? Petty theft? Stealing a Slurpee from a 7-11?, this reminds me of the Minority Report.

 

[Tomorrow]

Why don't you try reading a post before responding to it? I said:

The point is really quite simple. stratman stated something that was inaccurate, and I pointed that out.

Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Why do you imagine it means something other than what it says? It is really very simple. Too bad it is evidently too difficult for some to comprehend.

Well, now you're shouting. No need, Pyrrho. And you can insult me as much as you like. It's a charged topic, so I forgive you. (And anyway, I think everyone will agree that I am comprehension-deprived. It's the natural born right of old people. Right everyone? )

Actually, I think if you'll calm down for a moment, perhaps reread what I posted, you'll realize that this is the essential thing you said that I was responding to.

People do have reason to be concerned about some of the "law abiding" citizens who own guns. If you are so rabidly pro-gun that you can't see that, then I am sorry for you.

Please, return to discussing the issues without the drama and personal attacks. Things really go better that way.

 

[Highlander]

It's the natural born right of old people. Right everyone?

I wouldn't know.

 

[stratman]

We're all getting there!

 

[AverageJoe]

Nobody who is serious about owning and using guns safely should object to a very strict licensing process, as they are presumably willing to undertake the neccessary training. I also think that an in-depth background check and proof of mental stability (including lack of criminal tendencies) should be required for gun ownership.

I disagree. Again, we're talking about two different things - Learning to use a firearm safely, or allowing yet another means for our government to "get around" the Second Ammendment.

Background checks are already in place, but now you want a psychiatric evaluation prior to purchase? Proove a "lack of criminal tendancies"? In my opinion, EVERY government-mandated restriction that's placed on firearm ownership, is just another violation of our Constitution.

I don't recall ever seeing any requirements or restrictions placed on someone writing a article in the paper. Should freedom of the press only apply to journalism graduates?

 

[Tomorrow]

I wouldn't know.

You will...hopefully.