Disturbing

[Mibrilane #56]

Am I alone in thinking that people like this (http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006520347,00.html) should just be shot on sight?

[82CardsGrad]

Am I alone in thinking that people like this (http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006520347,00.html) should just be shot on sight?


No.. you're not alone...:mad2:

[NJCardFan]

Do you think this nut would be doing this if he thought dad in the next room had a .357 Magnum in the house? This is what you get in a gun free society.

[Saturn5]

Actually there was a better chance that this nut would have found the .357 magnum and blew away the parents as he has already shown a predilection for audacious criminal activity.

And thank God we as the citizens of the United States have just recently elected to make our land a safer place in which to live.

Good Night for Gun Control Advocates
By Susan Jones
CNSNews.com Senior Editor
November 08, 2006

(CNSNews.com) - The nation's leading gun control group called Tuesday "a very good night for all of us who want to do something to reduce gun violence in America."

Paul Helmke, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, noted that in key races throughout the nation, "more and more supporters of sensible gun laws" were winning.

The Brady Campaign was particularly pleased that voters in Maryland chose Democrat Ben Cardin for the U.S. Senate and Martin O'Malley for governor, thereby rejecting candidates endorsed by the National Rifle Association.

In Minnesota, Rep. Mark Kennedy, a Republican endorsed by the NRA, lost to Amy Klobuchar, whom the Brady Campaign described as a "moderate" on gun issues.

Gun control advocates winning re-election included Sens. Debbie Stabenow of Michigan and Herb Kohl of Wisconsin; Govs. Jim Doyle of Wisconsin, Rod Blagojevich of Illinois, Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas and Janet Napolitano of Arizona, all of whom have "stood up to the gun lobby," Helmke said.

And the Brady Campaign expressed delight that voters in New York elected Democrat Elliott Spitzer as governor, while voters in Massachusetts elected Democrat Deval Patrick as governor.

The National Rifle Association reacted Wednesday to what it considered to be the "biggest election disaster in nearly 15 years."

"The gun lobby's foot soldiers went AWOL in this election," said NRA Violence Policy Center legislative director Kristen Rand said in a statement.

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200611/CUL20061108f.html

[AzRedCard]

The guy should be beaten to a "Bloody pulp" put him on a room with some English hooligans for 10 minutes, see if he survives that.

[NJCardFan]

No Saturn, thank God for the 2nd Amendment.

[arizona_cards_11]

No Saturn, thank God for the 2nd Amendment.

No, you're not speaking to him in his terms...........thank the big bang and evolution for the 2nd amendment.

[Saturn5]

Citizen soldiers are not now a neccessary part of society, though there's enough gun nuts out there that still think the 2nd amendment means absolute freedom to own firearms.

As a matter of fact, many times a gun in the house has the exact opposite effect of what the gun lobbyists say.

Residents of homes where a gun is present are 5 times more likely to experience a suicide than residents of homes without guns.(Arthur L. Kellermann, MD, MPH; Frederick P. Rivara, MD, MPH; Grant Somes, PhD; Donald T. Reay, MD; Jerry Francisco, MD; Joyce Gillentine Banton, MS; Janice Prodzinski, BA; Corinne Fligner, MD; and Bela B. Hackman, MD, Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership, The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 327, No. 7, August 13, 1992, pp. 467-472.) Although the reader may or may not disagree with the morality behind suicide being illegal, the fact remains that a gun makes it easier to commit suicide in a fit of rage, depression, or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Furthermore, there is conflicting evidence as to whether any kind of substitution occurs.


And research has shown that a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household, or friend, than an intruder.(Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm Related Deaths in the Home." The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60.) The use of a firearm to resist a violent assault actually increases the victim's risk of injury and death(FE Zimring, Firearms, violence, and public policy, Scientific American, vol. 265, 1991, p. 48).

[Oaken1]

Citizen soldiers are not now a neccessary part of society, though there's enough gun nuts out there that still think the 2nd amendment means absolute freedom to own firearms.

As a matter of fact, many times a gun in the house has the exact opposite effect of what the gun lobbyists say.

Residents of homes where a gun is present are 5 times more likely to experience a suicide than residents of homes without guns.(Arthur L. Kellermann, MD, MPH; Frederick P. Rivara, MD, MPH; Grant Somes, PhD; Donald T. Reay, MD; Jerry Francisco, MD; Joyce Gillentine Banton, MS; Janice Prodzinski, BA; Corinne Fligner, MD; and Bela B. Hackman, MD, Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership, The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 327, No. 7, August 13, 1992, pp. 467-472.) Although the reader may or may not disagree with the morality behind suicide being illegal, the fact remains that a gun makes it easier to commit suicide in a fit of rage, depression, or under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Furthermore, there is conflicting evidence as to whether any kind of substitution occurs.


And research has shown that a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household, or friend, than an intruder.(Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm Related Deaths in the Home." The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60.) The use of a firearm to resist a violent assault actually increases the victim's risk of injury and death(FE Zimring, Firearms, violence, and public policy, Scientific American, vol. 265, 1991, p. 48).


During a home invasion an unarmed family is 100% more likely to get robbed, punked, beaten and likely killed. (oaken1, November 2006)

[Saturn5]

During a home invasion an unarmed family is 100% more likely to get robbed, punked, beaten and likely killed. (oaken1, November 2006)

Very, very low total of all gunshot deaths in the home.

A study of 743 gunshot deaths by Dr. Arthur Kellermann and Dr. Donald Reay published in The New England Journal of Medicine found that 84% of these homicides occurred during altercations in the home. Only 2 of the 743 gunshot deaths occurring in the home involved an intruder killed during an attempted entry.

[Oaken1]

Very, very low total of all gunshot deaths in the home.

A study of 743 gunshot deaths by Dr. Arthur Kellermann and Dr. Donald Reay published in The New England Journal of Medicine found that 84% of these homicides occurred during altercations in the home. Only 2 of the 743 gunshot deaths occurring in the home involved an intruder killed during an attempted entry.



If some freak invaded my home and I was forced to shoot them, it is very likely I would not leave their body in the home. Rather, a dumpster in a dark alley might be a good place for the body to be found. I am sure I am not the only one who would rather not leave their fate to this farce of a justice system we have in America.

[Mibrilane #56]

During a home invasion an unarmed family is 100% more likely to get robbed, punked, beaten and likely killed. (oaken1, November 2006)

Very, very low total of all gunshot deaths in the home.

A study of 743 gunshot deaths by Dr. Arthur Kellermann and Dr. Donald Reay published in The New England Journal of Medicine found that 84% of these homicides occurred during altercations in the home. Only 2 of the 743 gunshot deaths occurring in the home involved an intruder killed during an attempted entry.
My question is: how many home invasion deaths occur in homes without firearms? Oaken's thesis is that these would be reduced by having weapons present for use against home invaders, not that gunshot wounds are a large percentage of the current in-home fatalities with guns.

[Cardsfan2000]

My question is: how many home invasion deaths occur in homes without firearms? Oaken's thesis is that these would be reduced by having weapons present for use against home invaders, not that gunshot wounds are a large percentage of the current in-home fatalities with guns.

I don't dispute that a lot of bad people have access to guns. However, I do argue the notion that potential murders wouldn't go to most any (potentially illegal) lengths to obtain firearms. Moreover, law-abiding veterans and sportsmen such as myself WOULD NOT violate the law to seek our beloved 12-gauge. In other words, the "bad guys" and not the "good guys" would be the only people who were equipped.
I also fear that a criminal would be more likely to summon up the necessary gall to break and enter into someone's house if (in a hypothetical USA with complete gun control) they knew that their victims would NOT be equipped.
Moreover, gun control's effectiveness in reducing crime is dubious at best. Just take Washington D.C. for example, rampant crime with some of the strictest gun control laws in the country.

[Saturn5]

In order to thwart an intruder, one would most likely need a handgun, already loaded, and it is FAR more likely that it would be the cause of a fatal shooting of an aqaintance or relative than it would be used for protection.

[AZFAN777]

All of these arguments are based on the assumption that the gun owner dosn't know how to use it.

If people who own hand guns or home defense weapons of any kind would do as the government, the manufacturers, the NRA all recommend and take a Gun Safety and Home invasion class before they go home and put the loaded .45 in their sock drawer, then these types of accidents wouldn't happen.

I would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. I know how to use my gun and I assure you I wont be shooting any friendlies....

[Avondale_Larry]

I happen to agree that a loaded handgun under my pillow would do more to endanger me and mine than any potential invader.

But I think it's an individual's choice.

Having said that, Americans have the privelege of owning guns based upon the laws created by individual state legislatures, not the second amendment.

United States v. Miller

U.S. v. Miller is the Supreme Court's fullest discussion of the Second Amendment. In this case, the court rejected a Second Amendment challenge to a federal law prohibiting the interstate transportation of sawed-off shotguns. It held that, "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument." The court also held that the “obvious purpose” of the Amendment was to “assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness” of the state militia and it “must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” (emphasis added)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #United_States_v._Miller

So it's not just my opinion. Since Miller, the court has let stand over 200 lower court decisions based on its previous ruling.

[Saturn5]

All of these arguments are based on the assumption that the gun owner dosn't know how to use it.

If people who own hand guns or home defense weapons of any kind would do as the government, the manufacturers, the NRA all recommend and take a Gun Safety and Home invasion class before they go home and put the loaded .45 in their sock drawer, then these types of accidents wouldn't happen.

I would rather have it and not need it, than need it and not have it. I know how to use my gun and I assure you I wont be shooting any friendlies....

It's not just the owner, but all those that come into your home, whether they be friends, relatives or friends of your children.

Taking a class and storing your gun properly are prudent precautions, but it does not automatically make your weapon 100% safe. Handguns are manufactured with the intent of killing human beings. And statistics show, you are more likely to have a friend or relative shot by your handgun, then you are a home intruder.

[NJCardFan]

I think Jeff Foxworthy said it best(and I'm paraphrasing):

"There's a reason why an intruder won't break into a rednecks house(describes what a redneck house looks like) because chances are that's where a gun lives."

What I want to know, in all seriousness, is in what percentage of houses with a gun to how many were used to shoot or be shot by an "acquaintance or relative." The reason why I ask is because more people are killed by "acquaintances or relatives" with kitchen knives than with guns. Also, I'd venture to say that there are more shotguns in homes than handguns so the percentage of relatives or acquaintances killed by firearms is going to be significantly less than knives. So, why don't we have "knife control". I'd be willing to bet that blunt force trauma has been more of a cause of death than handguns in the home yet we don't have bat control but people scream for gun control because it's a political lightning rod. I'd bet that if I had the time to do so, I could come up with a study and have the stats fit my agenda as well.

For me, since I'm a law enforcement officer, owning and even carrying a concealed handgun comes with the job so I don't have to worry...and I own a vest but my wife is going to learn how to shoot and handle it as well before she gets a key to my safe.

[CardinalChris]

Do you think this nut would be doing this if he thought dad in the next room had a .357 Magnum in the house? This is what you get in a gun free society.

Funny post.
I wonder why anything happens in America then?
I guess all the losers who sneak into a house and abducts or even kills a little girl KNOW there is no gun in the house... OK.

[NJCardFan]

Funny post.
I wonder why anything happens in America then?
I guess all the losers who sneak into a house and abducts or even kills a little girl KNOW there is no gun in the house... OK.

As I said in my last post, do you think a creep like this would go to a house with an unkempt lawn, a few dogs in the yard, a rusted old car on the front lawn, and a pickup truck w/ a gun rack? Not a chance. That said, as usual, CC, you decide to glean what you want from what I post so this is as far as I'll go with this one.

[CardinalChris]

As I said in my last post, do you think a creep like this would go to a house with an unkempt lawn, a few dogs in the yard, a rusted old car on the front lawn, and a pickup truck w/ a gun rack? Not a chance. That said, as usual, CC, you decide to glean what you want from what I post so this is as far as I'll go with this one.
Sorry NJ. I was just posting my opinion regarding the post of yours that I quoted.
Peace.

[Saturn5]

Advocates say administration ‘in denial’ about weapons’ role in violence


WASHINGTON - It’s an American way of death. More than 30,000 people die from gunshot wounds every year, through murder, suicide and accidents.
That is an average of 82 a day, and prospects for reducing the toll are dim.
The debate between gun control advocates and the pro-gun lobby was reignited briefly this month by four school shootings between Sept. 26 and Oct. 9.

In one, a man carrying a pistol, a shotgun and 600 rounds of ammunition shot 10 girls execution-style at an Amish school in Pennsylvania, killing five of them, and then killed himself. In another, a 13-year-old took an AK-47 assault rifle to his school in Missouri, pointed it at administrators and other students and fired it into a ceiling.

At a hastily arranged White House Conference on School Safety on Oct. 10, panelists covered topics ranging from metal detectors and school bullies to the value of religious beliefs and good communication between parents and schools.
But the word “gun” was not mentioned until a plucky teenager pointed out to a panel moderated by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that the common factor was easy access to high-powered firearms. President George W. Bush and his wife Laura Bush attended separate parts of the conference but avoided mention of guns.
“The Bush administration is in complete denial regarding the catalytic role that guns play in school violence,” said Kristen Rand of the Violence Policy Center, which like other gun control advocates was not invited to the conference.
“How is it even possible to have a discussion about preventing school shootings without talking about guns?”

'Far out of line'
Justice department figures put the number of guns in private hands at more than 200 million —more than any other country — and swelling by several million every year.
The annual U.S. production of pistols, revolvers, rifles and shotguns for the domestic civilian market has been running at between 2.6 million and more than three million for the past seven years, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco and Explosives.
“The U.S. level of lethal violence is far out of line with those of other industrialized nations,” said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. “The fact that most of our lethal violence involves firearms lends credence to the hypothesis that the prevalence of guns is a prime reason.”
That hypothesis, widely accepted in much of the rest of the world, is hotly contested by American advocates of unfettered access to guns, led by the National Rifle Association, who say that the second amendment to the Constitution gives all law-abiding citizens the right to bear arms.
“It’s not guns that kill people,” the gun lovers’ mantra goes, “people kill people.”
The NRA wields enormous influence in Washington and traditionally backs candidates in local and national elections on the basis of their stand on one issue — gun ownership — regardless of their party affiliation.
Successful lobbying has led to a string of NRA of victories over its gun control adversaries. In 2004, Congress allowed a ban on assault weapons — such as the AK47 used in the Missouri school shooting — to lapse.
“Clearly, the past two years represent one of the most successful congressional sessions that gun owners have ever had,” the NRA said in a message to its four million members this month, in advance of midterm congressional elections on Nov. 7. “All our hard work and vital victories must be protected.”

Congress 'in denial'
Proponents of tighter gun controls see things differently. “Congress has been in denial about gun violence ... and is moving in the wrong direction,” said Joshua Horwitz, the executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. He noted that the annual death toll from gun violence in the United States is ten times the total of U.S. combat deaths, to date, in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Statisticians say such comparisons are misleading but the parallel has been drawn before, most notably by then-President George H.W. Bush, the present president’s father, after the end of the first Gulf War.


During the first three days of the ground offensive, more Americans were killed in some American cities than at the entire Kuwaiti front,” Bush said at the time.
“Think of it, one of our brave National Guardsmen may have actually been safer in the midst of the largest armored offensive in history than he would have been on the streets of his home-town.”
That was in 1991, when the U.S. murder rate, driven by turf wars between crack dealers, reached an all-time peak of 24,700, according to FBI statistics. It declined steadily in the 1990s and stood at just under 17,000 last year. Guns accounted for two thirds of the killings.
“There are signs of changing attitudes towards guns, particularly among younger Americans, said the Violence Policy Center’s Rand. “But change will come slowly, over the next 20, 30 years.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15386044/

[az602]

2 years and 3 months for systematically abusing a 12 year old girl. I would castrate him first before I hung him. This having happened in England, I would reenact the William Wallace style execution on him.

All anti-gun activists should be shot...

[az602]

Advocates say administration ‘in denial’ about weapons’ role in violence


WASHINGTON - It’s an American way of death. More than 30,000 people die from gunshot wounds every year, through murder, suicide and accidents.
That is an average of 82 a day, and prospects for reducing the toll are dim.
The debate between gun control advocates and the pro-gun lobby was reignited briefly this month by four school shootings between Sept. 26 and Oct. 9.

In one, a man carrying a pistol, a shotgun and 600 rounds of ammunition shot 10 girls execution-style at an Amish school in Pennsylvania, killing five of them, and then killed himself. In another, a 13-year-old took an AK-47 assault rifle to his school in Missouri, pointed it at administrators and other students and fired it into a ceiling.

At a hastily arranged White House Conference on School Safety on Oct. 10, panelists covered topics ranging from metal detectors and school bullies to the value of religious beliefs and good communication between parents and schools.
But the word “gun” was not mentioned until a plucky teenager pointed out to a panel moderated by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales that the common factor was easy access to high-powered firearms. President George W. Bush and his wife Laura Bush attended separate parts of the conference but avoided mention of guns.
“The Bush administration is in complete denial regarding the catalytic role that guns play in school violence,” said Kristen Rand of the Violence Policy Center, which like other gun control advocates was not invited to the conference.
“How is it even possible to have a discussion about preventing school shootings without talking about guns?”

'Far out of line'
Justice department figures put the number of guns in private hands at more than 200 million —more than any other country — and swelling by several million every year.
The annual U.S. production of pistols, revolvers, rifles and shotguns for the domestic civilian market has been running at between 2.6 million and more than three million for the past seven years, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Firearms, Tobacco and Explosives.
“The U.S. level of lethal violence is far out of line with those of other industrialized nations,” said David Hemenway, director of the Harvard Injury Control Research Center. “The fact that most of our lethal violence involves firearms lends credence to the hypothesis that the prevalence of guns is a prime reason.”
That hypothesis, widely accepted in much of the rest of the world, is hotly contested by American advocates of unfettered access to guns, led by the National Rifle Association, who say that the second amendment to the Constitution gives all law-abiding citizens the right to bear arms.
“It’s not guns that kill people,” the gun lovers’ mantra goes, “people kill people.”
The NRA wields enormous influence in Washington and traditionally backs candidates in local and national elections on the basis of their stand on one issue — gun ownership — regardless of their party affiliation.
Successful lobbying has led to a string of NRA of victories over its gun control adversaries. In 2004, Congress allowed a ban on assault weapons — such as the AK47 used in the Missouri school shooting — to lapse.
“Clearly, the past two years represent one of the most successful congressional sessions that gun owners have ever had,” the NRA said in a message to its four million members this month, in advance of midterm congressional elections on Nov. 7. “All our hard work and vital victories must be protected.”

Congress 'in denial'
Proponents of tighter gun controls see things differently. “Congress has been in denial about gun violence ... and is moving in the wrong direction,” said Joshua Horwitz, the executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. He noted that the annual death toll from gun violence in the United States is ten times the total of U.S. combat deaths, to date, in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Statisticians say such comparisons are misleading but the parallel has been drawn before, most notably by then-President George H.W. Bush, the present president’s father, after the end of the first Gulf War.


During the first three days of the ground offensive, more Americans were killed in some American cities than at the entire Kuwaiti front,” Bush said at the time.
“Think of it, one of our brave National Guardsmen may have actually been safer in the midst of the largest armored offensive in history than he would have been on the streets of his home-town.”
That was in 1991, when the U.S. murder rate, driven by turf wars between crack dealers, reached an all-time peak of 24,700, according to FBI statistics. It declined steadily in the 1990s and stood at just under 17,000 last year. Guns accounted for two thirds of the killings.
“There are signs of changing attitudes towards guns, particularly among younger Americans, said the Violence Policy Center’s Rand. “But change will come slowly, over the next 20, 30 years.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15386044/

:sleep: Booooring.

[Saturn5]

I suppose to some people, it's more exciting to read headlines of handgun murders than to read the actual statistics behind those murders.

[NJCardFan]

I suppose to some people, it's more exciting to read headlines of handgun murders than to read the actual statistics behind those murders.

And as I said and you conveniently ignored that there are more murders committed with kitchen knives than with handguns. Oh, and you had to go here:

More than 30,000 people die from gunshot wounds every year, through murder, suicide and accidents.

So, Saturn, by contrast, more people are killed in automobile accidents than with any gun, knife, bat, ect. Should we start taking cars away from the people? You just keep reading from your liberal playbook and keep paying attention only to statistics that fit your agenda. And while you're at it, go sell crazy someplace else. We're all stocked up here.

[Saturn5]

The reason automobiles are manufactured is not to kill people. Unlike handguns.

[Oaken1]

The reason automobiles are manufactured is not to kill people. Unlike handguns.



Very narrow minded of you.

Handguns are IN FACT manufactured for the specific purpose of AVOIDING CONFLICT!!

I bet you $20 if I have my .40 pointed at your head you are going to agree with me.

On the other hand, if you ALSO have your .40 pointed at my head, we will most likely work to a compromise.Thus, avoiding conflict.

Welcome to enlightenment.

edit for spelling correction, sorry.

[NJCardFan]

The reason automobiles are manufactured is not to kill people. Unlike handguns.


Neither are kitchen knives yet more of them are used to kill(murder) people than handguns but, again, you seem to avoid this point.

[Saturn5]

Very narrow minded of you.

Handguns are IN FACT manufactured for the specific purpose of AVOIDING CONFLICT!!

I bet you $20 if I have my .40 pointed at your head you are going to agree with me.

On the other hand, if you ALSO have your .40 pointed at my head, we will most likely work to a compromise.Thus, avoiding conflict.
.

Narrowmindedness is settling a debate with a gun. You cannot force people to believe something which is not the truth. Blowing someone's brains out is NOT avoiding conflict.

Handguns are manufactured for the purpose of killing human beings.

Avoiding conflict takes a bit more than just a gun.

[Saturn5]

Neither are kitchen knives yet more of them are used to kill(murder) people than handguns but, again, you seem to avoid this point.

But you can do little else with a handgun, besides killing human beings.

That is the entire point that is completely disregarded by the gun lobby.
and the proliferation of handguns makes the killing that much easier.

handguns are particularly tough on law enforcement:

In a ten year span, 1988 to 1997, 633 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed by firearms in America. A handgun was the murder weapon in 78% (492 victims) of the fatal incidents. Over the same period of time, rifles killed 106 officers and shotguns killed 35 officers. A total of 253 law enforcement officers were slain while equipped with body armor.

- U.S. Department of Justice

[Saturn5]

Neither are kitchen knives yet more of them are used to kill(murder) people than handguns but, again, you seem to avoid this point.

not when the combatants know each other.

Guns are overwhelmingly the weapon of choice:

Relationship of
victim to offender

Husband
100%
gun 69%
knife 26%
blunt object 2%
force 1%
other weapon 2%


Ex-husband
100
Gun 87
Knife 9
Blunt Object 1
Force 0
Other 2

Wife
100
Gun 68
Knife 14
Blunt Object 5
Force 10
Other 4

Ex-wife
100
Gun 77
Knife 12
Blunt Object 2
Force 6
Other 3

Boyfriend
100
Gun 46
Knife 45
Blunt Object 3
Force 3
Other 3

Girlfriend
100
Gun 56
Knife 20
Blunt Object 5
Force 14
Other 5

Source: FBI, Supplementary Homicide Reports, 1976-2004.

[Saturn5]

Neither are kitchen knives yet more of them are used to kill(murder) people than handguns but, again, you seem to avoid this point.


And actually guns were the overwhelming choice for all homicides, of which handguns were the vast majority of weapon used.

Weapons
Of those incidents in which the murder weapon was specified, 70.3 percent of the homicides that occurred in 2004 were committed with firearms. Of those, 77.9 percent involved handguns, 5.4 percent involved shotguns, and 4.2 percent involved rifles. Approximately 12.4 of the murders were committed with other types or unspecified types of firearms. Knives or cutting instruments were used in 14.1 percent of the murders; personal weapons, such as hands, fists, and feet, were used in 7.0 percent of murders, and blunt objects (i.e., clubs, hammers, etc.) were used in 5.0 percent of the homicides. Other weapons, such as poison, explosives, narcotics, etc., were used in 3.6 percent of the murders. (Based on Table 2.9.)

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/violent_crime/murder.html

[Steve85308]

A little bit of Southie Justice is all that kid needs

[NJCardFan]

OK, Saturn, I got a few numbers wrong but, it does not take away the fact that knives kill people. Do we take them away? You still haven't answered that question.

Oh, one more thing. If you're all for changing and amending the 2nd Amendment, which other amendments are you for amending? 1st? 4th? 8th?

[Saturn5]

The question in and of itself is a bit far fetched.

If knives have a purpose other than killing people (they do) and they account for a fraction of the murders in this country as compared to guns(they do) then, no they shouldn't be banned.

Kept in safe places perhaps, but not banned. There are certain types of knives that should be banned or highly regulated, and currently as far as I know there are different laws in most states that regulate certain types of knives and how they may be carried. What's inexplicable is those same laws don't always apply to handguns.

And I've never advocated rewriting the second amendment. It should however be interpreted in it's original intent and not distorted to fit the warped sensibilities of the gun lobby.

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

It obviously refers to and is associated with the need for a well regulated militia, and should be interpreted as such by law. Handguns in particular have almost nothing to do with a well regulated militia and have one major purpose and that is to kill human beings. Therefore they serve no purpose to the general citizenry other than to make it expontenially easier for them to kill and maim each other. Should police officers, security officers and state militia be allowed to carry handguns? of course. That fits the intent of the amendment. Does joe blow have a need for a handgun or be allowed to carry one? absolutely not. Nor do they have a need for an assault rifle, an AK-47 a submachine gun or any other semiautomatic weapon. The streets will be safer for everyone, including the police by ridding this country of the proliferation of all of these type of weapons. And it bears absolutely no infringement on all the hunters and sportsmen who enjoy hunting. Though getting a shotgun or any gun for that matter out of Dick Cheney's hands will make everyone safer, especially his so-called "friends".

[Mibrilane #56]

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

It obviously refers to and is associated with the need for a well regulated militia, and should be interpreted as such by law. Handguns in particular have almost nothing to do with a well regulated militia and have one major purpose and that is to kill human beings.
You're reading it wrong.

It is not saying that "the right of people to keep and bear arms only in order to form a well regulated militia" - it is saying that, recognizing that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state (the first part), the government shall not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms (the second part).

"Not infringe" is the key element - this means not restrict or remove the right to keep and bear arms. Restricting the bearing of arms to militia-only peoples or weapons would be an infringement and would violate the stated language of the amendment.

I'm not a fan of handguns myself, but there is no restriction in the Second Amendment that arms just be for militias, they just cited that as a good reason to not infringe the right of people to keep and bear arms.

[Saturn5]

You're reading it wrong.

It is not saying that "the right of people to keep and bear arms only in order to form a well regulated militia" - it is saying that, recognizing that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state (the first part), the government shall not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms (the second part).

"Not infringe" is the key element - this means not restrict or remove the right to keep and bear arms. Restricting the bearing of arms to militia-only peoples or weapons would be an infringement and would violate the stated language of the amendment.

I'm not a fan of handguns myself, but there is no restriction in the Second Amendment that arms just be for militias, they just cited that as a good reason to not infringe the right of people to keep and bear arms.

No. I didn't "read it wrong" I understand the original purpose of the amendment to allow the citizens to fight back if the militia was to use force against it's own citizens such as what the British troops did while governing the original colonies. Although that original intent is now a bit past reality as this country witnessed during race riots and lawlessness that occurred during the sixties and at other times in the late twentieth century. People had the ability to fight back against the national guard with guns but rarely did so. There was a general feeling by many citizens that the government was over-reaching it's bounds and suppressing the citizens in many ways, yet we didn't see a full on battle in the streets with gunfights. There was the freedom to fight back with guns but the citizenry elected to fight mostly with words and protest. That may have had more to do with the nature of the protest and the issues involved but the opportunity for resistance using weapons was certainly available to all citizens, but was rarely if ever excercised.

But irregardless, that has almost nothing to do with a need to own a handgun. The idea of handgun ownership has taken the 2nd amendment and perverted it to fit the greed of gun manufacturers. It correlates to the auto industry selling SUV's to people who will most likely never take that vehicle off pavement. The dealers know and understand that people of this country need to fulfill and excercise that sense of freedom even when the end product of that freedom makes no sense and has no purpose.

It's a way to make money and ultimately only causes the streets to be less safe, not more so, as the gun advocates somehow have convinced people into believing. The mistaken statistics in this thread are proof of that misguided belief. People who believe in gun ownership and in the gun lobby want to believe it to be true, even when it is false. And don't bother to research the actual truth.

[NJCardFan]

No. I didn't "read it wrong" I understand the original purpose of the amendment to allow the citizens to fight back if the militia was to use force against it's own citizens such as what the British troops did while governing the original colonies. Although that original intent is now a bit past reality as this country witnessed during race riots and lawlessness that occurred during the sixties and at other times in the late twentieth century. People had the ability to fight back against the national guard with guns but rarely did so. There was a general feeling by many citizens that the government was over-reaching it's bounds and suppressing the citizens in many ways, yet we didn't see a full on battle in the streets with gunfights. There was the freedom to fight back with guns but the citizenry elected to fight mostly with words and protest. That may have had more to do with the nature of the protest and the issues involved but the opportunity for resistance using weapons was certainly available to all citizens, but was rarely if ever excercised.

But irregardless, that has almost nothing to do with a need to own a handgun. The idea of handgun ownership has taken the 2nd amendment and perverted it to fit the greed of gun manufacturers. It correlates to the auto industry selling SUV's to people who will most likely never take that vehicle off pavement. The dealers know and understand that people of this country need to fulfill and excercise that sense of freedom even when the end product of that freedom makes no sense and has no purpose.

It's a way to make money and ultimately only causes the streets to be less safe, not more so, as the gun advocates somehow have convinced people into believing. The mistaken statistics in this thread are proof of that misguided belief. People who believe in gun ownership and in the gun lobby want to believe it to be true, even when it is false. And don't bother to research the actual truth.

Unbelievable. Only in the mind of Saturn can this all be about money. So, your entire basis is rooted in your hatred for those who have more than you. Money for who, genius? It's people like you who want to take away the guns from the law abiding citizens so the only people who have guns are the police, military, and the bad guys. Oh, forgot about that last group there, huh? You take away complete gun ownership in this country and I'll guarentee you that home invasions and robberies increase ten fold. Well, to coin a phrase: You can pry my gun from my cold, dead hands.

[Mibrilane #56]

No. I didn't "read it wrong".
Yes, you did. You're clearly of the mindset that the initial part of the amendment (the rationalization) is a limiting factor on the last part of the amendment (the non-infringement of the right to bear arms). I contend that it is not. The first part is only an explanation of why they are not infringing upon the right to bear arms, not a limiting factor to the right to bear arms.

"Shall not be infringed" means "shall not infringed" - period. You can't spin it otherwise.

I understand the original purpose of the amendment to allow the citizens to fight back if the militia was to use force against it's own citizens such as what the British troops did while governing the original colonies.
A militia is an army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers. Allowing citizens to be armed to fend off a militia is non-sensical. The citizens are the militia.

The "original intent", if you want to go there, is to have it so they can raise a militia if need be and have said militia already equipped with firearms, in case the British, indians, French Canadians, or what have you decided to raise a ruckus with invading troops.

The whole point of the Second Amendment was to make it so that American citizens wouldn't be unarmed and helpless should an invading army come and a militia be required to repel said army.

[NJCardFan]

Yes, you did. You're clearly of the mindset that the initial part of the amendment (the rationalization) is a limiting factor on the last part of the amendment (the non-infringement of the right to bear arms). I contend that it is not. The first part is only an explanation of why they are not infringing upon the right to bear arms, not a limiting factor to the right to bear arms.

"Shall not be infringed" means "shall not infringed" - period. You can't spin it otherwise.


A militia is an army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers. Allowing citizens to be armed to fend off a militia is non-sensical. The citizens are the militia.

The "original intent", if you want to go there, is to have it so they can raise a militia if need be and have said militia already equipped with firearms, in case the British, indians, French Canadians, or what have you decided to raise a ruckus with invading troops.

The whole point of the Second Amendment was to make it so that American citizens wouldn't be unarmed and helpless should an invading army come and a militia be required to repel said army.

Which we still have today but instead of an invading foreign force, we have gangs. Well armed gangs. For me, like I said, this isn't an issue as I'm a law enforcement officer but everyone has a right to protect what is their's...unless you live in NJ.

[Oaken1]

Narrowmindedness is settling a debate with a gun. You cannot force people to believe something which is not the truth. Blowing someone's brains out is NOT avoiding conflict.

Handguns are manufactured for the purpose of killing human beings.

Avoiding conflict takes a bit more than just a gun.



Wrong.

Equal armament avoids conflict. Balance of power.

[Mibrilane #56]

"Shall not be infringed" means "shall not infringed" - period. You can't spin it otherwise.
This is what happens when I write posts on a Windows/Internet Exploiter machine at work instead of my trusty Mac - words get dropped. This should say:

"Shall not be infringed" means "shall not be infringed" - period. You can't spin it otherwise."

[Saturn5]

Equal armament avoids conflict. Balance of power.


So the answer to conflict is to pull a gun.

No wonder there's so many murders in America.

Equal armament only heightens tension and mistrust.

[Saturn5]

You're clearly of the mindset that the initial part of the amendment (the rationalization) is a limiting factor on the last part of the amendment (the non-infringement of the right to bear arms). I contend that it is not. The first part is only an explanation of why they are not infringing upon the right to bear arms, not a limiting factor to the right to bear arms.

"Shall not be infringed" means "shall not infringed" - period. You can't spin it otherwise.


A militia is an army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers. Allowing citizens to be armed to fend off a militia is non-sensical. The citizens are the militia.

The "original intent", if you want to go there, is to have it so they can raise a militia if need be and have said militia already equipped with firearms, in case the British, indians, French Canadians, or what have you decided to raise a ruckus with invading troops.

The whole point of the Second Amendment was to make it so that American citizens wouldn't be unarmed and helpless should an invading army come and a militia be required to repel said army.

No I didn't.

The point of the amendment is to allow the citizenry to keep arms in case of the US military attempting to forcibly curtail civil liberty, as the British army had recently attempted to do. It is all about relevancy in THOSE times:

Among their objections to the Constitution, anti-Federalists feared creation of a standing army that could eventually endanger democracy and civil liberties as had happened recently in the American Colonies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Colonies) and Europe. Although the anti-Federalists were ultimately unsuccessful at blocking ratification of the Constitution, through the Massachusetts Compromise (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_Compromise) they laid the groundwork to insure that a Bill of Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_Rights) would be drafted, which would provide constitutional guarantees against encroachment by the government of certain rights.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The Constitution and especially the subsequent amendments thereafter are as much about restricting government as it is about liberty.

[Saturn5]

It's people like you who want to take away the guns from the law abiding citizens so the only people who have guns are the police, military, and the bad guys. You take away complete gun ownership in this country and I'll guarentee you that home invasions and robberies increase ten fold.

Actually it's not what is wrong about personal gun ownership, it is though a major contributing factor.

Who do you think "contributes to" and supports the federal gun lobby?

Firearm manufacturers. They have plenty to gain by allowing citizens to carry firearms.

And no one has advocated completely taking away all gun ownership.
Get rid of all handguns, semiautomatic weapons and regulate all other guns.

[Saturn5]

the original purpose of the amendment to allow the citizens to fight back if the militia was to use force against it's own citizens such as what the British troops did while governing the original colonies.


Actually I meant military, not militia.

The point is, handguns serve no puprpose in fighting back the military, it only serves to allow citizens the ability to more freely kill and maim each other, and kill a police officer now and then as well.

[NJCardFan]

Actually it's not what is wrong about personal gun ownership, it is though a major contributing factor.

Who do you think "contributes to" and supports the federal gun lobby?

Firearm manufacturers. They have plenty to gain by allowing citizens to carry firearms.

And no one has advocated completely taking away all gun ownership.
Get rid of all handguns, semiautomatic weapons and regulate all other guns.

*laughing out loud* you just can't stand it can you Saturn? You absolutely hate anyone making money. Do yourself a favor. Move to Cuba already.

[Mibrilane #56]

Sounds like Saturn wants to eliminate manufacturing jobs - the livelihood of the "working class" his political ideology purports to represent. :wink:

[kjbad]

I have to agree with the title of this thread - there are some disturbing posts in here. :eek:

No, you cannot have my handgun.
No, you cannot take away my right to carry a gun.
No, you cannot take away my right to teach my kids how to use a handgun.

Equal armament means you must rely on more than just physical force to be successful - it takes skill and brains, things America used to covet and value before Ebonics, Hooked on Phonics, and Snoop Dogg smoking the Chronic.

(Look, ma, I can be Jesse Jackson! :))

Any government scholar can tell you that a government attains its power by taking it from the liberties of individual citizens. Thomas Jefferson said it best - "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."

Narrowmindedness is dying because you lacked the foresight to protect yourself and your family. News flash - there is evil present in the world, in this country, in your city, in your neighborhood, lurking around a corner you often pass by, and what are you going to do about it? Have an open mind?

People have proven that they don't need guns to kill other people...planes and cars work just fine, so do chemicals and hardware supplies. But that said, our government can't even round up illegal immigrants, much less stop illegal gun trafficking. The only thing that they can reasonably do is go after the law-abiding citizen by fallaciously telling him that his biggest fear is from other gun-toting, law-abiding citizens!!! They know where the law-abiding people are; they DON'T KNOW where the next terrorist is. So of course they restrict what they can find.

[Mibrilane #56]

Equal armament means you must rely on more than just physical force to be successful - it takes skill and brains, things America used to covet and value before Ebonics, Hooked on Phonics, and Snoop Dogg smoking the Chronic.

(Look, ma, I can be Jesse Jackson! :))
:thumbsup:

[Tangodnzr]

I don't even want to get too heavily involved in this discussion.

With guys like GI NJ and Mr. intelletual Mibrilane involved means normal rational discussion is not too likely.

I will say one thing, however, 10-15 years ago I lived on 28th ave and Cactus, about 2 blocks east of the Cactus police station and literally across the street a school....Peoria I think...but don't remember for sure.

My proberty was right on Cactus. One afternoon I was out in my front yard doing some yard work and some kid, no more than 12-13 at the most, walked by on the sidewalk, headed west, towards the school.
As he walked by me I saw a handgun partially protruding out of his pants pocket.

Now you tell me that some 12-13 year old kid should be walking down Cactus towards the school with a handgun in his pocket.
Where did he get it? Why was he even carrying it?

C'mon GI joe and crew......answer that if you can.

BTW, I promptly ran inside called 911 and reported it, giving the police a description of the kid.

[Tangodnzr]

I hit the wrong button earlier, and missed posting the latter part of my post which was:

I have to side with Saturn a little bit here.

I grew up on an indian reservation and started carrying a gun and hunting with my dad when I was 11-12 years old.
I was into the whole hunting/fishing culture as much as anyone.
After Viet Nam, after my discharge from the Army, I sold all my rifles and have never touched a gun since.
Now I'm "back in the boonies" again, on a Nez Perce reservation where 80-90% of the poplulation are redneck gun toting "hunters".
(It cracks me up now, that present day hunters call themselves "sportsmen". What a joke. Killing defenseless animals is a sport only in some twisted/perverted mind. It's mainly EGO. Just like GI NJ.

Strangely enough, here in the boonies, where rifles, not handguns, normally occupy most pickup rear windows, you seldom see them misused.

I don't buy this, "I taught my kid how to safely use a gun" stuff. No child needs to know that. And if you aren't rurally "hunting", or a police officer who needs one for their job, then I agree Saturn makes some very impressive ooints.

This is not 1776. The world has changed. Not all for the good, regrettably. Gun control is not, or should it be, IMO, a method to prevent people from owning guns, but to register them and put intelligent limits put on the type of weapon purchased.
Registering a gun doesn't mean you can't have one....which is the exteme that the gun freaks always seem to try and feature in most of their hollow rants.

As Saturn said, there is no reason for a "normal" citizen to own any kind of automatic weapon, or even handgun. If you want to legally defend your "property" or whatever, then just stick with the pit bulls or doberman's, which many of the tough guys do anyway or legally purchase a rifle or shotgun, with the corresponding red tape that comes with it.
If you don't have time to do that, then you probably don't have any real legal need for it anyway.

And in the year 2006 and beyond, if I have to resort to guerilla warfare and my trusty self owned firearm to combat my government, or any foreign invasion, then I'm just pizzing into the wind anyway.

[Mibrilane #56]

With guys like GI NJ and Mr. intelletual Mibrilane involved means normal rational discussion is not too likely.
It's always fun to see Tango make ad hominem attacks on "intelletuals". :wink:

[NJCardFan]

It's always fun to see Tango make ad hominem attacks on "intelletuals". :wink:

LOL, but it doesn't bother me because I've had them ignored for months now.

[Tangodnzr]

Keep laughing "dudes".

Your mutual admiration society seems to total about 2 in number.

BTW.....I notice all you can do Mibby, is divert the subject at hand by focusing on a typo.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that is all the better you can do. Substance seems beyond your capabilities.

Like I said before, trying to hold any kind of semi-reasonable discussion with you two, is pretty much a lost cause.

[Oaken1]

I hit the wrong button earlier, and missed posting the latter part of my post which was:

I have to side with Saturn a little bit here.

I grew up on an indian reservation and started carrying a gun and hunting with my dad when I was 11-12 years old.
I was into the whole hunting/fishing culture as much as anyone.
After Viet Nam, after my discharge from the Army, I sold all my rifles and have never touched a gun since.
Now I'm "back in the boonies" again, on a Nez Perce reservation where 80-90% of the poplulation are redneck gun toting "hunters".
(It cracks me up now, that present day hunters call themselves "sportsmen". What a joke. Killing defenseless animals is a sport only in some twisted/perverted mind. It's mainly EGO. Just like GI NJ.

Strangely enough, here in the boonies, where rifles, not handguns, normally occupy most pickup rear windows, you seldom see them misused.

I don't buy this, "I taught my kid how to safely use a gun" stuff. No child needs to know that. And if you aren't rurally "hunting", or a police officer who needs one for their job, then I agree Saturn makes some very impressive ooints.

This is not 1776. The world has changed. Not all for the good, regrettably. Gun control is not, or should it be, IMO, a method to prevent people from owning guns, but to register them and put intelligent limits put on the type of weapon purchased.
Registering a gun doesn't mean you can't have one....which is the exteme that the gun freaks always seem to try and feature in most of their hollow rants.

As Saturn said, there is no reason for a "normal" citizen to own any kind of automatic weapon, or even handgun. If you want to legally defend your "property" or whatever, then just stick with the pit bulls or doberman's, which many of the tough guys do anyway or legally purchase a rifle or shotgun, with the corresponding red tape that comes with it.
If you don't have time to do that, then you probably don't have any real legal need for it anyway.

And in the year 2006 and beyond, if I have to resort to guerilla warfare and my trusty self owned firearm to combat my government, or any foreign invasion, then I'm just pizzing into the wind anyway.



Handgun= Personal Protection. I cannot fit a 12 guage under my jacket, and as you pointed out, this is no longer a safe world to be in.

I agree on the automatics, but I do like the collectors license law we have in affect now. Most criminals are not going to bother getting their collectors license just to own a few assault rifles.

Do you want to be broken down on the side of the road in the middle of the night without a weapon? Not me. Nor do I want to stop in L.A. for gas without a weapon, been there done that.

But you know what?? Guys like Saturn can go ahead and pass as many laws as they want to ban handguns. They still will not get mine, and when some criminal slams one in his eye socket and takes everything he has worked for, well, poetic justice I guess.

[Oaken1]

Just saw this on azcentral.com and thought it fit in well here, LOL.



Suspect shoots self in groin

Associated press
Nov. 15, 2006 02:35 PM


WICHITA, Kan. - A botched kidnapping ended with one of the assailants shooting himself in the groin, Wichita police said. The man had just stuck the gun back into his waistband when it fired, shooting him in the left ********.

He cringed, causing the gun to fire again and strike him in the left calf.

When the shooting ended, the 23-year-old man managed to walk himself into the hospital for treatment, police said. He and his two accomplices, ages 18 and 20, were arrested for aggravated attempted kidnapping and conspiracy to obstruct justice.

The men were attempting to kidnap a teen in a dispute over stereo speakers, police said.





These criminals and their handguns sure are a THREAT!!! Watch out for the guy with the LIMP and only ONE teste!!:redtowel:

[Cardsfan2000]

It's always fun to see Tango make ad hominem attacks on "intelletuals". :wink:

If he's insulting your intelligence imho he's probably insecure about his own mental abilities (or lack thereof) :wink:
There are smart and not so smart people on each side of the spectrum. Whether or not more are allocated to one side or another is a matter of statistics, :taunt: but you should keep your opinions regarding individual people's intelligence to yourself tango... Otherwise you're putting yourself in a bad spot.

[Mibrilane #56]

BTW.....I notice all you can do Mibby, is divert the subject at hand by focusing on a typo.
I guess you didn't notice the winking guy ( :wink: ) that says I was quoting my good friend Joe King.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that is all the better you can do. Substance seems beyond your capabilities.
My motivation to do any sort of point-by-point discussion of your personal odyssey with guns is especially low after you came out of the gate with a poorly formed insult at my expense. My argument in this thread has already been made. Over are the days where I'm going to waste large chunks of time arguing against people's opinions that differ from mine.

Perhaps you just completely missed it in your zeal to insult me, but the substance my argument here so far has been about the interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and only that. I myself am not especially pro or anti gun. I'm not a gun collector and I don't own a gun, so I'm hardly a pro-gun zealot, but if I wanted to obtain a gun, including a handgun, through proper channels with some protections in place to prevent criminals from easily obtaining weapons, I don't see anything in the text of 2nd amendment that says I shouldn't be able to do that.

On that point, Saturn's link to the Wikipedia discussion of that legal point was quite interesting. I disagree with his interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and much of the legal precedent supports my interpretation, but it's still a debatable issue (hence us debating it here).

By the way, I actually agree with this bit of what you said:

Gun control is not, or should it be, IMO, a method to prevent people from owning guns, but to register them and put intelligent limits put on the type of weapon purchased.

Registering a gun doesn't mean you can't have one.
Indeed. Reasonable controls on guns are expected in a civilized society where gun ownership is allowed. I also agree that no "hunter" really needs an AK-47 to engage in their "sport".

Perhaps your point would be better made if you didn't feel the need to insult people before making it.

[NJCardFan]

I do agree with the assult rifle thing. I mean, do you really need an AR-15 or M-16 or AK-47? No. No one does. There's no point to public ownership of such weapons. But to take away my H&K USP Compact because some crook "might" take it away from me and use it on me is a poor argument against me owning one. But the Saturn's of the world don't have to worry because with state laws like we have in NJ, even if you own a gun, if someone breaks into your home, it will be impossible to get it and use it on the crook let alone the crook getting it from you. The law I'm referring to is the one where you have to keep your gun in one safe and your ammo in another(only if you have children in the house). Convenient, no?

[Saturn5]

You absolutely hate anyone making money.

No I hate the concept of someone profiting from the sale of AK-47's, assault rifles etc, on the flimsy basis of promoting personal protection and gun safety.

That is the bane of law enforcement everywhere, and should be dealt with in a common sense perspective and not from a profiterring standpoint.

[Saturn5]

Sounds like Saturn wants to eliminate manufacturing jobs - the livelihood of the "working class" his political ideology purports to represent.

I am quite sure the gun manufacturers could substitute another product and keep those employed that would be formerly building and assembling assault rifles.

Perhaps bullett proof vests might be an appropriate product line.

[Saturn5]

Equal armament means you must rely on more than just physical force to be successful - it takes skill and brains, things America used to covet and value





Armed Hunters No Match For SKS Assault Rifle (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1289186/posts)
Violence Policy Center ^ (http://www.freerepublic.com/^http://www.vpc.org) | November 22, 2004 | Press Release

Posted on 11/26/2004 9:30:40 PM PST by LibertyRocks (http://www.freerepublic.com/~libertyrocks/)
Wisconsin Hunter Murders Show Need For Effective Assault Weapons Ban—Armed Hunters No Match For SKS Assault Rifle
President Has Power to Fully Ban Import of All Foreign-Made Assault Rifles Such as SKSs And AK-47s

Washington, DC—SKS assault rifles like the one reported to have been used to murder five hunters and wound three others in Wisconsin over the weekend are a primary threat to police, the Violence Policy Center (VPC) reported today. So far in 2004, at least six law enforcement officers have been slain by SKSs. In the wake of the shooting, the VPC called on President George W. Bush today to use the Administration's executive authority over firearm imports to fully ban the import of all foreign-made assault rifles. Such an action would not require Congressional approval. The Bush Administration has specifically authorized the importation of SKS assault rifles from both Yugoslavia and Albania.

"Armed hunters were no match for one person firing an SKS assault rifle," said Kristen Rand, VPC legislative director. "This sad incident illustrates why the SKS is also a leading cop-killing rifle in America today."

Rand pointed out that the SKS assault rifle was not covered by the recently expired 1994 federal assault weapons ban. The VPC criticized the 1994 law as inadequate and favors enactment of a tougher version of the law that would ban the SKS and many other assault weapons that easily slipped through the old law's loopholes.

"Even though the 1994 law was easily circumvented by the gun industry, Congress has failed to move on a strong replacement law. President Bush could, with the stroke of a pen, tighten the import ban and stop the import of all foreign-made assault rifles," Rand said.

She noted that both the President's father, former-President George H.W. Bush, and former-President William J. Clinton stopped the import of hundreds of thousands of assault weapons by using their executive authority under firearms import and trade laws. Under the current Bush Administration, specific foreign-made assault rifles, including some SKSs, have returned to the marketplace.

For more information on the SKS assault rifle and the use of it and other assault weapons against law enforcement personnel, please visit www.vpc.org.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1289186/posts

[Saturn5]

Handgun= Personal Protection. I cannot fit a 12 guage under my jacket, and as you pointed out, this is no longer a safe world to be in.

when some criminal slams one in his eye socket and takes everything he has worked for, well, poetic justice I guess.


Chances are better you or someone you know or love will take one before I do.

And that's not justice, nor poetic justice. Just sad. Sad for your family. Sad for your friends. Sad for society and American freedom.

[Saturn5]

What The Second Amendment Really Says
"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."--The Second Amendment "The Second Amendment has been the subject of one of the greatest piece of fraud, I repeat the word, 'fraud', on the American public. The distortion of the intent of the framers of the Bill of Rights by the gun lobby is glaring, as they focus their argument on the last half of the amendment, while ignoring the first half, on which it was based".--Former Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren E. Burger (1991)Is There A Constitutional Right To Own A Gun?*According to the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other opponents of rational firearms control measures, the Second Amendment guarantees the absolute right of every American to privately possess firearms without restriction. Although this interpretation is accepted as fact by many Americans, it has absolutely no basis in law. To the contrary, nearly 100 years of uncontradicted legal precedent make clear that the Second Amendment only protects the right to keep and bear arms in connection with service to an organized state militia.

In support of its interpretation, the gun lobby focuses exclusively on the words of the second half of the Second Amendment - "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" - omitting all reference to the first phrase - "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" - even though that language clearly links the right to bear arms to a "well regulated Militia". Based on this distortion of the constitutional text, the gun lobby insists that the Second Amendment is a barrier to virtually all proposed firearms regulations.

The gun lobby has led many Americans to believe that rational gun control regulations are unconstitutional, significantly undermining efforts at the federal and state level to address the national epidemic of gun violence. However, the Second Amendment is not a barrier to laws regulating the private use, sale or ownership of firearms, whether enacted by federal, state or local governments.
Historical Context
When analyzing the Second Amendment, it is useful to understand the historical context in which it was written. Prior to the adoption of the U.S. Constitution, each of the states operated independently under the Articles of Confederation. Each state had its own "militia" composed of ordinary citizens serving as part-time soldiers to protect against external threats and internal insurrection. Individuals serving in the militia were required to supply their own equipment, including horses and guns, for militia use.

The U.S. Constitution, as originally drafted, established a permanent army of professional soldiers controlled by the federal government. When the Constitution was sent to the states for ratification in 1787, the continued existence of the state-run militia was in question. Many colonial leaders, With the memory of British tyranny fresh in their minds, mistrusted centralization of power. Although they saw the continuation of the state militia as an effective counterpoint to the power of the standing army, these leaders were concerned that the federal government had excessive control over the militia.

In The Federalist #46, James Madison, the principal author of the Bill of Rights, defines the militia as a military force "conducted by {state** governments". This state-run militia, he argued, would counterbalance the power of the federal army. Thus, the Second Amendment was written to ensure that every state would have the ability to maintain its own militia. It was not, as the gun lobby argues, intended to establish an unlimited, private right of gun ownership or possession. If the drafters of the Bill of Rights had intended to guarantee such an individual right, they could (and would) have done so.

What the Second Amendment does is define limitations of the federal government's right to restrict--as opposed to a state's right to maintain--a "well regulated militia". Its purpose is to give the states responsibility and guarantee their right to train, maintain and to "keep and bear arms" for militias composed of state residents available to be called upon should there be a threat to security.

The modern militia was officially created by the National Guard Act of 1902, in which all state militias were formalized under the authority of the National Guard. Gun rights advocates argue that since the militia included most able-bodied men, the militia is now everyone. However, because laws regulating firearms do not interfere with the modern militia, no gun control law has ever been overturned by the federal courts on Second Amendment grounds.
Judicial Interpretation
Legal history demonstrates that the Second Amendment is not a barrier to reasonable gun control laws. Six Supreme Court and forty lower court decisions have reaffirmed that there is no right of an individual to own a gun, and that it is a collective right of the militia, not the individual. The Supreme Court rarely speaks in this area and when it does, it begins with the idea that the Second Amendment protects a state's right to keep arms for the militia. Historically, the legal and judicial view has been that the Second Amendment only guarantees a state's right to be armed, with no explicit reference to the individual.
Major Legal Decisions On Gun Laws
U.S. v. Cruikshank-1876,The right to bear arms "is not a right granted by the Constitution" or by the Second Amendment, which the Supreme Court says restricts the power of Congress--but not the states--to regulate firearms.

U.S. v. Miller-1939,A defining U.S. Supreme Court case. Miller stated that restrictions on a sawed-off shot gun violated a person's Second Amendment rights. The U.S. Supreme Court considered a Second Amendment challenge to the prosecution of two individuals who transported a sawed-off shotgun in violation of the National Firearms Act. The court held that the "obvious purpose" of the amendment was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of the state militia, and that it "must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." Because there was no evidence that possession or use of a sawed-off shotgun had any "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia," the court found that the Second Amendment had not been violated. Subsequent cases have held that the modern equivalent of the "militia" is the National Guard. Miller has never been undermined.

Eckert v. City of Philadelphia-1973,6th Circuit Court, "it must be remembered that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right given by the U.S. Constitution."

Lewis v. U.S.-1980,states that the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have some reasonable relation to preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.

Quilici V. Village of Morton Grove-1982,In a nationally-watched case, a town in Illinois banned handguns. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Second Amendment restricts federal authority in this area, not that of state and local governments, "We conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment" and "The right is for the militia, not the right to keep handguns". The U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal in Quilici.

U.S. v. Hale - 1992,The Eighth Circuit read Miller (above) as protecting only those weapons which are actively being used by a militia member for a legitimate, militia-related purpose. A weapon is not constitutionally protected simply because it is "susceptible to military use". Indeed, as observed by the court, it would be difficult to find a lethal weapon which does not have a "potential military use". Instead, a plaintiff must prove that "his or her possession of the weapon was reasonably related to a well regulated militia". Membership in an unorganized militia, or a private, nongovernmental military organization, is not enough to satisfy the "reasonable relationship" test.
The Legal And Legislative Future For Gun Control
Eleven U.S. Circuit Courts of Appeals have analyzed the Second Amendment with this narrow view. Additionally, while the courts have chosen to apply many other provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, they have explicitly declined to do so with the Second Amendment. The Court is not going to expand any individual rights, so any personal right to bear arms would have to be balanced against the needs of the community. Therefore, the Second Amendment is not an obstacle to rational gun control laws, it does not preclude federal, state or local regulation of the sale, use or ownership of guns for private purposes.

For the NRA, firearms equal freedom, and they want to change the subject from death, injury and statistics. There is a good chance, however, that the cost of violence is winning more converts than the "constitutional right" to "keep and bear arms"--especially when that right, as it affects gun ownership, is illusory.
This article is a brief synopsis, plus edited excerpts, from an analysis of the Second Amendment prepared by the Legal Community Against Violence which was organized after the July 1, 1993 massacre at 101 California Street in San Francisco. This organization, a Community Fund of the San Francisco Foundation, may be reached at (415) 433-3550, fax (415) 433-3557.

http://www.sbcoalition.org/second_amendment.html

I suppose a case could be made that the original intent of the militia was to both counterbalance the American military, as well as to thwart outside military threats. Although then what would be the purpose of the National military forces if not to thwart outside attacks, that being said, the intent may have been to assist and provide support to our national army. If that is so, it's not completely clear in the amendment's wording. But, irregardless though it remains obvious that the NRA and gun lobbyists have over-reached on the concept of personal gun ownership to the point of absurdity in their lobbying for the right of private citizens to purchase and own handguns, assault weapons, semi-automatic weapons etc etc.

[NJCardFan]

No I hate the concept of someone profiting from the sale of AK-47's, assault rifles etc, on the flimsy basis of promoting personal protection and gun safety.

That is the bane of law enforcement everywhere, and should be dealt with in a common sense perspective and not from a profiterring standpoint.

Actually, you've made it quite clear that you hate the concept of anyone making a profit on anything.

[Saturn5]

Actually, you've made it quite clear that you hate the concept of anyone making a profit on anything.

And you've made it quite clear that anything goes including murder, in the glorious name of your almighty God - The Dollar$$$

[NJCardFan]

And you've made it quite clear that anything goes including murder, in the glorious name of your almighty God - The Dollar$$$

Oh really? Well, can you please provide some examples how my "almighty God" is the dollar? C'mon, genius. You want to say something stupid like this at least prove it. Oh, and while you're at it, show us where I "made it quite clear that anything goes including murder"? Huh, please. Enlighten me.

[Saturn5]

Of those incidents in which the murder weapon was specified, 70.3 percent of the homicides that occurred in 2004 were committed with firearms. Of those, 77.9 percent involved handguns

So the most common method of homicide in the United States is with a firearm and the most common firearm used is a handgun. The primary purpose of a handgun is to kill human beings. Approximately 1-1.5 million handguns are sold every year in America.

"You can pry my gun from my cold, dead hands."

[NJCardFan]

Of those incidents in which the murder weapon was specified, 70.3 percent of the homicides that occurred in 2004 were committed with firearms. Of those, 77.9 percent involved handguns

So the most common method of homicide in the United States is with a firearm and the most common firearm used is a handgun. The primary purpose of a handgun is to kill human beings. Approximately 1-1.5 million handguns are sold every year in America.

"You can pry my gun from my cold, dead hands."

So, in your warped mind, me being protective of the 2nd Amendment means that I support murder? You are worse off than I thought. Since I support the 1st Amendment does that mean I support hate speech too? You're a knucklehead, Saturn. You just made that abundantly clear.

[Saturn5]

me being protective of the 2nd Amendment means that I support murder?

No, you defending the sales and proliferation of handguns, means you support murder and the million$$$ profitting from it. And it's absolutely NOT about self protection and personal safety, as it's clear that a person is more likely to kill or maim an aquaintance or relative than to stop an intruder. The odds are against you.

But from someone who believed knives were the most common weapon of choice in homicides, it's not really surprising.

Sheesh, the NRA really has done a number on some people. We may never be able to get them back to reality.

[Saturn5]

Neither are kitchen knives yet more of them are used to kill(murder) people than handguns but, again, you seem to avoid this point.

misguided "facts" to support his preconceived notions.

[NJCardFan]

Here he goes again resurrecting a thread that's been dead for 2 months. Saturn really, really needs to get a life.

[Wide Left Rackers]

I must be the only one here who respects Saturn

[Mibrilane #56]

Here he goes again resurrecting a thread that's been dead for 2 months. Saturn really, really needs to get a life.
"This message is hidden because Saturn5 is on your ignore list."

:thumbsup:

[BigDinGlenDale]

I'm just going to throw this out there:

It's one thing to have hoodlums, terrorists, and gangsters having guns...it's another thing for hunters to have guns.


Leave the hunters alone. Period. Meat is so much cheaper that way.


Freaking liberals.

[Saturn5]

a thread that's been dead for 2 months.

Yet you still cannot find your way out of your own cloud of delusional indifference.

[Saturn5]

It's one thing to have hoodlums, terrorists, and gangsters having guns...it's another thing for hunters to have guns.





hunters do not need AK-47's.

[DallasNiner]

Am I alone in thinking that people like this (http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2006520347,00.html) should just be shot on sight?

Yes, because shooting people on sight is anti-american and very fascist.

[NJCardFan]

Yes, because shooting people on sight is anti-american and very fascist.


This coming from someone with the Soviet flag as their avatar.