it happens-- seen it, seen a man freeze in his tracks when it wasnt very
prudent to do. i highly trained soldier, seen rangers refuse to go
outside the wire for fear of te same magnitude. a hunter even gives
pause to the prey. (you can quote that one on me)



doc

Armydoc>

I agree some people should never be allowed to touch a gun.

I think we should limit the right bear arms to those that have shown the
responsibility to bear them with honor and common sense.

Veterans.

If someone has not served they should not carry.

Would take them out of the hands of most of the criminal element, gangs,
and thugs.

I know that this is not going to be a popular post so be it.

Yes, no doubt, it does. But some people will act intelligently.

In the VA Tech event- there were accounts of at least a dozen people
who came up with a plan in the emergency. Like blocking doors or busting
out windows to escape.

If those people (or their less capable classmates) had firearms- a real
defence could have been mounted. It only takes one bullet to stop a
killing spree.


I'm not saying we put guns in the hands of everyone. But their
availability should not be hindered.




Not long ago, there was a psycho who started a killing spree in the
mall. An off-duty cop, who had his gun, fired back and killed the guy.
There's not even a hint of doubt that he saved lives that day.

I dunno if only Veterans should be able to have guns...I've known a few
that were one fry short of a happy meal.

"Those who don't study history are doomed to repeat it". In the 1920s
we learned that prohibition didn't work, it didn't work with booze, but
we tried it again with drugs and it didn't work there so what the hell
makes anyone thing it will work with guns? All it will do is make more
criminals rich and turn othewise law abiding citizens into criminals.
Whenever anything tragic happens, our lawmakers seem to think that
passing another feel good law will solve the problem. How about we
start enforcing all the laws that are on the books to the letter before
we enact any more of them. All that our society has taught us for the
last 50 years is how to be a perfect victim. "Just give them what they
want, don't cause trouble, be nice and they will go away." Well here is
a flash from the front for ya, those tactics didn't work. The police
are ineffective in a situation such as happened at Virginia Tech.
Someone sure as heck called 911 there were cops running all over the
place with enough firepower to start a small war. problem is there were
already 32 people dead. I fail to see how disarming me or the rest of
the honest citizens is going to lower the crime rate or stop violence.
The crooks with a gun are already breaking the law just by carrying one
without a permit, or perhaps being a convicted felon in possession of a
gun. Here is another flash from the front for you, they don't care.

As for the comment that perhaps we should give every nation nuclear
weapons because I posses a gun, that is another lame liberal argument,
when you run out of facts escalate to the highest degree. My firearms
are not weapons of mass destruction capable of taking out millions of
people.

The fact is with this kook in Virgina the handwritting was on the wall
for one hell of a long time and everybody dropped the ball now they are
scrambling to cover their asses because a lot of people knew he was a
fruitcake and did nothing. As we know, liberals can never be
responsible for anything so they have to have something to blame their
failure on and in this case it is once again the gun. Just remember
that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. If you want
to live on your knees that is your right, but don't expect me to join
you.

GardenForge said:

"The fact is with this kook in Virgina the handwritting was on the wall
for one hell of a long time and everybody dropped the ball now they are
scrambling to cover their asses because a lot of people knew he was a
fruitcake and did nothing. As we know, liberals can never be
responsible for anything so they have to have something to blame their
failure on and in this case it is once again the gun."

Last I checked, Virginia was hardly a bastion of liberalism, most
especially on its restriction of who could buy handguns. If anyone is
trying to 'cover their ass', it's the conservatives beholden to the gun
lobby who can't come up with a credible answer as to why a resident
alien whom law enforcement deemed 'a danger to himself and others'
slipped through the cracks, and with demonstrably tragic results.

Judging by your rhetoric, I'd hazard a guess that you don't favor
background checks and probably have rarely seen *any* gun legislation
that you've approved of. You dance around it pretty well, but I'd bet
you think that anyone but a violent felon should be able to own most any
kind of weapon as a birthright bestowed upon them by their creator.

I don't, and though I may be socially progressive, on this issue I'm
lean more towards being Libertarian. I think the government (Who I think
is Us, BTW) has a perfect right to deny ownership or permission to carry
in public to someone who has shown by their actions that they are
unstable, irresponsible and/or just plain lack the training to do so
responsibly.

Driving is a privilege, I see no reason why owning deadly weapons should
be any different. And the deadlier the weapon, the higher the bar.

While you see the government being kept in check by the Second
Ammendment, I see the government being kept in check by ALL the
ammendments and Constitution itself.

GardenForge: " Just remember
that when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns. If you want
to live on your knees that is your right, but don't expect me to join
you."


Most employers have a legal right to prevent a person from bringing
firearms to the workplace, even though they have a permit to carry. Are
they liberal treehuggers? Or, just don't want the liability of having
someone go postal at their place of business?

Funny, isn't it, how the same people who prop up the gun lobby have a
different set of rules for the Little People, innit?



-Kerry O.

why do the liberals think if everyone carried a piece there would be
carnage in the streets. history does not bear that out at all. the
strictor the gun control laws, the higher the crime rate. everytime. the
maniac will be armed whatever the laws are. the real question is will
there be anyone able to defend themselves against the maniac?

why is it that liberals feel all that is ever necessary is to pass
another law. If that was all that was necessary we would have no
underage drinking, no drug problem, no crime, no speeding on the
highways and we would live in the perfect uptopian society. When their
argument begins to fail the come up with tangents like I suppose you
have never seen a gun law you like, or question whether I have had a
background check, I have in order to get my carry permit and that must
be re done every time the permit is renewed. But the point is if gun
laws are effective then Washington DC where it is illegal to have a
handgun should have a lower murder rate than South Dakota where I live
and where it is not only legal to own a handgun but also legal to carry
it concealed if you have the proper permit.

The irony is- "liberals" are supposed to be ANTI laws. Hence the phrase
"liberal". Fascists are the ones who are supposed to like making laws
all the time.

gun ownership should be open to all that have not been
convicted of a violent crime

nor been proven to be harm to themselves or others

they tried this right resticting methods
on voting in the south did not work then

and wont be right now

if anyone can say you can not just because

then it is no longer a freedom

Time to come to Jesus, Pro Gun lobbyists. If you belive your rhetoric so
strongly, go plead your case to the various legislatures. Tell them you
think private business owners should have no right to prohibit guns
being brought into their place of business by those they employ.

And since you think guns are the panacea to crime prevention, make gun
ownership mandatory. Go even farther, and grant a special exemption in
the tort laws for wrongful death when untrained loose cannons blow away
innocent bystanders.

Any attempt at an explanation would be better than hearing people
stupiding their way through this debate by constantly invoking the
L-word in lieu facts or logical argument.

-Kerry O.

kerry-

you made a comment about making it mandatory to own a gun,,,

believe it or not there is a town in georgia named Kenshaw that did just
that, 25 years ago, guess what, no murder there for the last 25yrs. it
is fact, you can google it if you'd like.

seems gun laws worked in that town- just not the kind of laws lib's were
looking for.


doc

Thank you Doc and bless you my friend. You hit it right on the head.

rambill, I vehemently disagree with you. Only those RESPONSIBLE enough
to correctly use a firearm should have the PRIVILEGE of owning one.

Do you think the VA Tech assailant had a "right" to own one, for
instance? I sure as hell don't.

well jean

thing is he had the right to own a gun

but only because those that should have acted did not

if he would have been convicted of stalking he
would have lost his RIGHT to bear arms

if he were fond mentally incompetant he would have
lost his RIGHT bear arms

do not blame the gun blame those that knew and did nothing
and the person that pulled the trigger

do you consider it a privaledge to speak as you wish

I don't think ANYONE has a "right" to walk into a store and buy a gun,
because it gives that "right" to mentally ill people who or criminals
who have NO business owning one. Granted, they could obtain one legally,
but that doesn't mean that they have the "right" to own one.

Freedom of speech IS a "right," because, last I checked, I've never
known anyone's mere words to directly cause the death or maiming of
another human being.

And the statement about "don't blame the gun?" I'm sorry, but that's a
bit ..well, silly? How can an inanimate object (i.e., the gun) pick
itself up and kill someone with it? Of COURSE guns don't kill people;
people kill people, so I'm not sure what the point of that saying is,
even.

I mean "illegally."

excerpt from previous post


Freedom of speech IS a "right," because, last I checked, I've never
known anyone's mere words to directly cause the death or maiming of
another human being.
_______________

so you are saying that there was never a lynch mob

raised to anger by the rantings of someone screaming

that man did such and such to so and so

and someone yells string em up and they hang them from a tree

---------------------

or there has never been a gay killing because of the antics

of homophopics preaching their hate for those that are not

of the same sexual orintation that they are
_____________________

i am not sure where you are living but you definatly live in a differnt
world than i see
________________

oh yea
inever seen a mere gun kill anyone neither

maybe if yoyu hit them hard enough with it

it could break their head open and thus

possibly killing them
________________________

just something to think about

"so you are saying that there was never a lynch mob raised to anger by
the rantings of someone screaming, that man did such and such to so and
so and someone yells string em up and they hang them from a tree, or
there has never been a gay killing because of the antics of homophopics
preaching their hate for those that are not of the same sexual
orintation that they are"

I'm sorry, but could you show me where I said that, or even IMPLIED it?
I say what I mean and mean what I say.

You made the comparison of the right to own a gun with the right to free
speech (though, frankly, I don't see what one has to do with the other),
to which I responded with, "But WORDS themselves (DIRECTLY) do not kill
people."

I also added that guns THEMSELVES do not kill people, either, so I've
always found that saying to be rather silly and pointless.

What I AM saying is that if you point a gun at someone and pull the
trigger, they're very likely to be killed--or at least injured. If you
yell something at someone, even vicious, hateful words, the words are
not going to, in and of themselves, cause their death or even physical
injury.

I am wondering how he got the weapons.

Right to bear arms in the US is extended to CITIZENS. Not registered
card carring aliens.

Unless I read the amendment wrong.