Thread: Ultimate Test of Civility ~ 2nd Amendment

Great thread and so far a sensible discussion.

I've used guns and seen the results of their use. Very ugly and unpleasant. If I had not used them I would have been the ugly one.

Lets get one thing perfectly clear. Guns are made to kill something.

Luckily I feel I don't live in an environment now where I need to arm myself or my family.
Would I arm myself and my family if I thought there was a possible threat. ? In a heartbeat.

Oh yeah...and if someone hurts my family then the flaming sword of Damoclese will follow.

Gary

Bill, your argument seems to be focused on defense of home and person. Let's examine the home invasion incident...

1) With guns -- they start shooting through the door, I start shooting, bullets flying all over the place, family at grave risk.
2) No guns -- they start trying to break down the door. The police are already on their way as I used my cell phone to call them (I always have it with me). By the time they break down the door, I already have a bunch of objects I can throw at them, which will buy me some time, the handle half of my pool cue and my martial arts training (proven under attack) to keep them at bay or to just kick the living s*** out of them, depending on their fighting ability.

Guns don't have to be eliminated by tuesday. They can be gradually legislated and educated out of the general population, but the governments woul have to go against gun manufacturers who have strong lobbies and lots of money to back them up.

I'd be feel a heck of a lot safer without a gun and in a state where guns are rare than packing heat in a state where any illiterate drunken yahoo has the power to take out a piece of metal, point it my way and kill me with it at any time.

Ilija...

If you are going to rely on law enforcement or good samaritans to save you from an ugly situation, just bend over, stick your head between your legs, and kiss your butt goodbye. It'll be all over by then. Police will take a while to get there and no one else will get involved, believe me.

Just tell me what is wrong with making people responsible for their actions. You can't blame criminal behavior on poverty. Poor people have morals, maybe just as many as you. The kind of programs you want to generate will not help or change the behavior of the target group causing all the damage. These guys are violent, they are predators, and they don't have the slightest problem with wiping you off the face of the earth... just because they feel like it.

Fight addiction? Here's how I would fight it. Give anyone who wants them, all the drugs they can possibly use... for free. Make sure you give them enough so they can overdose if they want. These are weak people and don't need to be in the gene pool.

Otherwise, point them in the direction of the churches that will help with their addiction. It's not something that should be a taxpayer's responsibility. Generosity should come from a desire to give, not out of a mandatory requirement of those who had nothing to do with the behavior. And hey, if you give the drugs away for free, it will eliminate the criminal who will rob or kill you to buy them. Eliminates the dealers too. Problem solved...

Ilija...

You say you feel a lot safer without guns. I can guarantee you that I know a ton of bad asses that could make short work out of you in the fairest of fights. Me, as well. But you say you have the ability to fight them off to buy time. Naw... ain't happenin'

Even if you could, what you are basically telling me is that you don't care much about everyone else in the world who cannot use martial arts to help defend themselves. Y'see I want everyone to be able to defend themselves. A gun does just that.

You assume the criminal is breaking in with a blaze of bullets. Maybe not. If the law abiding citizen has no weaponry available, they can rip you up with a baseball bat or tire iron.

Please. Put a sign out in front of your house that reads... I proudly declare that there are no guns in this house. Make sure your neighbor's house says... Intruders will be buried where they are shot. Whose house will more likely be broken into? If you eliminate guns altogether, you will be putting that no gun sign up in front of everyone's house.

And what if you were injured or had surgery like Josh? You ain't kickin' anybody's butt for a while... no?

Sec162...

I sure did like your posts and, especially, the sheep story.

Originally Posted by urleebird

Ilija...

If you are going to rely on law enforcement or good samaritans to save you from an ugly situation, just bend over, stick your head between your legs, and kiss your butt goodbye. It'll be all over by then. Police will take a while to get there and no one else will get involved, believe me.

Just tell me what is wrong with making people responsible for their actions. You can't blame criminal behavior on poverty. Poor people have morals, maybe just as many as you. The kind of programs you want to generate will not help or change the behavior of the target group causing all the damage. These guys are violent, they are predators, and they don't have the slightest problem with wiping you off the face of the earth... just because they feel like it.

Fight addiction? Here's how I would fight it. Give anyone who wants them, all the drugs they can possibly use... for free. Make sure you give them enough so they can overdose if they want. These are weak people and don't need to be in the gene pool.

Otherwise, point them in the direction of the churches that will help with their addiction. It's not something that should be a taxpayer's responsibility. Generosity should come from a desire to give, not out of a mandatory requirement of those who had nothing to do with the behavior. And hey, if you give the drugs away for free, it will eliminate the criminal who will rob or kill you to buy them. Eliminates the dealers too. Problem solved...

Preach it, brother! And to Sec162...that might be the best post I've ever read.

Originally Posted by urleebird

OK, X... you say no one should carry guns.

No, I say I prefer it when they don't. I understand that they do. AND I understand why. I just like it when we don't have to.

X

Originally Posted by xman

No, I say I prefer it when they don't. I understand that they do. AND I understand why. I just like it when we don't have to.

X

Well you never have too...until you have too, but by then its to late. Hence the planning ahead, the same reason I carry a multitool...I dont think I'll eve have to use half those tools, but I want them because its better to have them and not need them than need them and not have them.

Originally Posted by JLStorm

Well you never have too...until you have too, but by then its to late. Hence the planning ahead, the same reason I carry a multitool...

Yup, that would be the why.

Anybody ever see a very cool movie from the late 90's starring Kyle McGlaughlin called The Trigger Effect? Very cool, about the California blackouts and guns. Smart movie.

X

I think that Bill's sensitivity is in part due to the state in which we both live. Some time in the last 45 years, the NRA has become a demon with members that are "Right Wing wackos". When I was in high school, one of the teachers started a rifle club. This was Los Angeles Unified. Now, if a school has an ROTC, the color guard doesn't even carry a toy gun. I was taught to shoot at an indoor range at a high school by LAPD. Now, if you are carrying a gun within 1000(?) feet of a school, they just take you to jail. When I was in high school, I would carry a pocket knife. Now, a student that has a nail clipper with a built in file gets expelled. A knife on school grounds with a blade in excess of 2.5(?) inches is a felony.

I would guess that respect for individual freedoms and ideas as well as respect for the individual has declined. Some people have the idea that because they are offended by something like a gun; then nobody should be allowed to have a gun. Unfortunately, if these people are in power and have a voice, they can force the issue. One of our U.S Senators had a CCW. However, she sponsered a bill to eliminate ownership of handguns in one of our major cities.

Tort law is based on what a reasonable man would do. The phrase "the right of the people , shall not be infringed" appears in some form maybe four times in the first ten amendments of the Constitution. Why is it that when it comes to the second amendment, it suddenly doesn't mean "the people"? There was a case around 1935, involving a shotgun, that is widely cited as a decision that poeple ment the army. Those that use this explaination , never read the case. The U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals, upheld the Second Amendment to mean PEOPLE.

"Here is my take on guns. Everyone should have a gun and know how to use it, with one single rule for the ownership... each person is held accountable for its use. Here's a catch phrase that California uses for the commission of crimes. 'Use a gun and you're done.'" The State dances all around enforcement when it comes to murder during a crime. It is generally 25 to life. With use of television, weight rooms etc. I like the idea of Pelican Bay. Lockdown 23 hours a day and no prisoner interaction. I think this idea was first tried at Port Arthur, Tazmania.

Rick