Another shooting of innocents in US

[monadvspec]

Here we go again. Five people killed in Georgia. Suspected murder suicide. Someone has to step up to the plate and resist this mess that is crippling the US. How can such a great country be held at gun point(sic) by an amendment in the constitution which in fact is so clear that there is no right to the individual to own a firearm if there is no standing militia. The intent could not be more obvious.
I don't oppose the right to own hunting weapons and a gun for protection. What I abhor is the complete ostrich stance by those that feel that there is no limit to the number and type of guns an individual may have. On top of that the ability to sell from the trunk of your car in a private sale reeks of lunacy.
Doing nothing is what caused all the the mass shootings over the past few years yet the politicians on both sides are afraid of the NRA. Why is that?

[Eki]

Sadly, that's not an American phenomena anymore. Last Saturday an ex-con shot two immigrants and himself in an immigrant operated pizzeria in Finland, and a local Councillor had the nerve to praise him. Pretty sick:

Helsingin Sanomat - International Edition - Home (http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Police+to+investigate+comments+made+on+Facebook+by +Finns+Party+councillor/1329103486571)


Police to investigate comments made on Facebook by Finns Party councillor


Finns Party chairman Timo Soini says that the party member’s comments are disgusting and racist

The Satakunta Police Department has launched an investigation into comments made on Facebook by a Köyliö councillor from the Finns Party.

The crime designation is incitement against an ethnic group.
A Moroccan-born pizzeria entrepreneur was shot and killed in Oulu on Saturday night.

On Sunday, a member of the Finns Party and board member of the party's Satakunta district wrote on Facebook that the shooter should be given a medal, and that "there is already a war going on and in every war decorations are handed out".
The writer of the comments Tommi Rautio is also a local councillor in the small municipality of Köyliö, having been elected on the Finns Party ticket in 2008.
Timo Soini, Chairman of the Finns Party, has forefully condemned Rautio’s remarks.
”That kind of text is disgusting and even racist”, the late-edition tabloid Iltalehti quoted Soini as saying on Tuesday.

Soini said that Rautio is likely to be dismissed from the party.
”No one has told people to applaud killings. This is utterly shocking and inhuman”, Soini noted.
According to Soini, the issue will be discussed at a meeting of the party board on March 3rd, after Rautio’s oral arguments have been heard first.

The apparent killer in the Oulu incident turned his gun on himself and died later in hospital.
Initial investigations by police in Oulu have not thrown up any sign of a racist motive for the crime, nor any previous connection between the shooter - believed to have been a member of a criminal gang - and his victims.

[Bob Riebe]

Sadly, that's not an American phenomena anymore. Last Saturday an ex-con shot two immigrants and himself in an immigrant operated pizzeria in Finland, and a local Councillor had the nerve to praise him. Pretty sick:
I believe this article say more that than your quotes, but it is an odd one. It seems he was short tempered, and violent criminal and a coward, as he popped himself.
Helsingin Sanomat - International Edition - Home (http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Local+pizzeria+became+murder+scene+in+Oulu+gunman+ died+of+self-inflicted+wounds+on+Sunday/1329103474672)

Meanwhile, some happy news.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-20/women-shooting-guns/53172380/1

[Eki]

I believe this article say more that than your quotes, but it is an odd one. It seems he was short tempered, and violent criminal and a coward, as he popped himself.
Helsingin Sanomat - International Edition - Home (http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Local+pizzeria+became+murder+scene+in+Oulu+gunman+ died+of+self-inflicted+wounds+on+Sunday/1329103474672)

Meanwhile, some happy news.
Women, girls taking up guns, shooting in higher numbers (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2012-02-20/women-shooting-guns/53172380/1)

Happy news? Finland has already gotten a taste of "pistol packing princesses":

Sanna Sillanpää - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanna_Sillanp%C3%A4%C3%A4)


Sanna Riitta Liisa Sillanpää (born April 15, 1968) is a Finnish woman, who shot three men to death with a rented pistol on 21 February 1999 in a shooting club on Albertinkatu, Helsinki, and wounded another man, who received lifetime injuries. One man present was not harmed. The dead were the shooting club's 23-year-old supervisor, a 25-year-old car mechanic and a 37-year-old car driver.
As Sillanpää was leaving the club, she said: "This is what they taught us at the FBI academy, isn't it?". She then travelled from the Helsinki centre to the Helsinki-Vantaa Airport in a city bus, carrying a gun and ammunition. At the airport she was trying to buy a ticket "somewhere". Sillanpää was caught after four hours as she was boarding a plane to London. Before boarding the plane she left the murder weapon in a trash can in the airport terminal. It was discovered by a cleaner.
At the trials and hearings Sillanpää did not speak at all. No motive for the act was found.
Sillanpää was sent to a mental health examinations on 2 June 1999. She was found to suffer from paranoid schizophrenia. In district court, the state prosecutor Maarit Loimukoski demanded Sillanpää be imprisoned for three acts of manslaughter without full understanding (partially insane) and for two attempted acts of manslaughter, but on 11 October 1999, the district court found Sillanpää to be without understanding (legally insane).
Loimukoski appealed the decision to the Helsinki Court of Appeal, but the decision was upheld on 11 October 2000. Loimukoski explained that the reason for her demand for punishment was that Sillanpää had acted with premeditation in attempting to flee Finland and hiding the gun after the act. Sillanpää was sent to the Niuvanniemi mental hospital in Kuopio.
Sillanpää, 30 years old at the time, has a Master's degree in computer science and is an IT expert.[citation needed]
After the incident, a public discussion about renting firearms on shooting ranges started in Finland. Many wanted to tighten the availability of weapons. New propositions were made by the authorities and in shooting clubs.[citation needed]

[monadvspec]

Whilst the killings in Finland are certainly regrettable, the point is that there is no other industrialized country in the world with statistics of death due to firearms as there is in the US.
Is it fear that causes these situations to occur at least twice a year? 300 million people and 200 million guns. Something is wrong with that picture. (Approximate numbers) probably erring on the low side.

[Alexamateo]

Monadvspec, it's not guns per se, it's the way culture ties into it. Like the old trite saying, guns don't kill people,people kill people. It appears that this was murder-suicide,so those factors come into play, but they are still investigating.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Where are you from? Your cultural references will frame your views.

I am from Tennessee. We are a castle doctrine state. In my home, there is no duty-to-retreat, and I am allowed to use deadly force to defend my home. Indeed, every year you hear about some would be burglar getting blown away by a homeowner. As you would expect, break-in rates are pretty low, certainly lower than the UK.

Guns | British Crime Rates Higher Than the U.S. (http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/guns/britishcrimerates.htm)

Hey! I don't even own a gun, but the fact that so many people do here protects me and my family.

[EuroTroll]

I'm inclined to think that nutters will kill... somehow. If it's not with a gun, it's with a knife. If it's not with a knife, it's with a bomb. It's just something we have to live with, and I don't think much can be done about it.

I'm also under the impression that the right to bear arms is one of the fundamentals in the USA, and the populace will not easily give it up. It's not just about the NRA. And: would it even be wise to try to limit this freedom, I wonder. "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."

[Eki]

Monadvspec, it's not guns per se, it's the way culture ties into it. Like the old trite saying, guns don't kill people,people kill people. It appears that this was murder-suicide,so those factors come into play, but they are still investigating.

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

Where are you from? Your cultural references will frame your views.

I am from Tennessee. We are a castle doctrine state. In my home, there is no duty-to-retreat, and I am allowed to use deadly force to defend my home. Indeed, every year you hear about some would be burglar getting blown away by a homeowner. As you would expect, break-in rates are pretty low, certainly lower than the UK.

Guns | British Crime Rates Higher Than the U.S. (http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/guns/britishcrimerates.htm)

Hey! I don't even own a gun, but the fact that so many people do here protects me and my family.

Somehow the three men in this incident couldn't protect themselves or each other, and I'm quite sure they had guns too (they were after all at a shooting club):


Sanna Riitta Liisa Sillanpää (born April 15, 1968) is a Finnish woman, who shot three men to death with a rented pistol on 21 February 1999 in a shooting club on Albertinkatu, Helsinki, and wounded another man, who received lifetime injuries. One man present was not harmed. The dead were the shooting club's 23-year-old supervisor, a 25-year-old car mechanic and a 37-year-old car driver.

[Alexamateo]

Like I said, I don't own a gun, I don't feel the need to, but I fully support your right to do so. If someone goes nuts and wants to shoot someone, they will. People have been intentionally run down by cars, but we are not banning private car ownership.

[janvanvurpa]

More to the point, a gun has never, ever, in the history of firearms killed or injured anyone.

People, either on purpose or through ignorance and misuse, have used guns (as well as many other things) to kill other people. Guns are innocent and should be left alone. The logic is clear. If you want to stop the violence then we must ban people.

Man, you guys never tire of repeating tired, worn out, platitudes with jack booted precision, do you?
Lett's be more precice;
Guns don't kill people, but they sure make it easier for PEOPLE to EASILY and RAPIDLY kill people, even insane people, even incompetent people, even drunk people GUNS MAKES IT EASIER for a stupid, drunk, insane, twisted WHIM to turn into a tragedy...

No if all the gun whack jobs would ONLY kill themselves when they get depressed or angry, then OK...

But for anybody to suggest there is not a deep and vast problems in USA with a murder rate 10 to 20 times most other civilised countries, shows the inability of many to reason..
And the use of cliches shows further disconnect from thinking...and a potential irrational person...

Let's see simplistic thinking, reliance on cliches, add firearms...... doesn't sound like a good mix to me.

[monadvspec]

Like I said, I don't own a gun, I don't feel the need to, but I fully support your right to do so. If someone goes nuts and wants to shoot someone, they will. People have been intentionally run down by cars, but we are not banning private car ownership.

As another poster stated that simplifying and using clichés is as an argument and nothing to do with the problem is very narrow thinking. In order to make a rational intelligent analogy between two objects they must be within the boundaries of their purpose or intent. Cars are for transportation. Guns are made to kill. Neither are analogous to one another. So when someone uses accidental death by car or drowning to produce a valid argument they are not living in reality.

[monadvspec]

More to the point, a gun has never, ever, in the history of firearms killed or injured anyone.

People, either on purpose or through ignorance and misuse, have used guns (as well as many other things) to kill other people. Guns are innocent and should be left alone. The logic is clear. If you want to stop the violence then we must ban people.

Logic? Pure absolute tripe. If you continue to ignore the root issue and the glaring problem that is crime committed through violence with a gun, accidental death and according to the AMA that a gun in the home is seven times more likely to be used in suicide than a home without one.
A analogy as simplistic and inane would be that pills don't kill people. They are inert and "innocent". How do you apply emotion to make your argument when your initial point is to take away the issue of the gun and dehumanize it as it should be. In the next point you bring emotion to the thread using a term such as innocence.
I have often wondered why the gun laws have remained so lax in the US and that there is such a hue and cry when a law pertaining to it is about to be passed. There was no such outcry when one of the most effective sedative drugs manufactured and used as prescribed is banned because some idiots used it with alcohol and it became the "date rape" drug. Not a peep from the population when this occurred. The country has a problem with benzodiazepine abuse and has set up monitoring programs to view prescribing habits because of the amount of drug used( state mandated). The issue would not be one if there was a protest as great as that used when guns are the issue.

[donKey jote]

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
hmmm... Patriot Act anyone? :p

[Firstgear]

More to the point, a gun has never, ever, in the history of firearms killed or injured anyone.

By the same logic then "an atomic Bomb has never, ever, in the history of weapons killed or injured anyone.

So why is the US (and other nations) trying to stop Iran and N Korea from possessing them?

[EuroTroll]

hmmm... Patriot Act anyone? :p


One of the most dangerous and ill considered pieces of legislation passed in modern times in this country.

Yup..

[Alexamateo]

As another poster stated that simplifying and using clichés is as an argument and nothing to do with the problem is very narrow thinking. In order to make a rational intelligent analogy between two objects they must be within the boundaries of their purpose or intent. Cars are for transportation. Guns are made to kill. Neither are analogous to one another. So when someone uses accidental death by car or drowning to produce a valid argument they are not living in reality.

I take it you didn't read the Harvard study. Again, I don't like guns, I don't own one, but I understand them and why some fell it necessary to keep and bear arms and will always support your right to do so.

[schmenke]

...As for accidental gun deaths, there is no way you can fix stupid and there is always some cost to being a free society. Personally, I accept that risk as do millions of others.

A "free" society is one in is which armed self defence is required for personal security?

[Rollo]

[/QUOTE]Why would you need one in your home for self defense?[/QUOTE]

Then answer is contained here:

[/QUOTE]there is no way you can fix stupid and there is always some cost to being a free society. Personally, I accept that risk as do millions of others.[/QUOTE]

Dead Americans are an acceptable cost to being a "free society"; I suppose that they must be if "millions of others" also accept that cost.
Meanwhile I live in a far safer and far less violent society.

[Rollo]

Why would you need one in your home for self defense?

Then answer is contained here:


there is no way you can fix stupid and there is always some cost to being a free society. Personally, I accept that risk as do millions of others.

Dead Americans are an acceptable cost to being a "free society"; I suppose that they must be if "millions of others" also accept that cost.
Meanwhile I live in a far safer and far less violent society.

[schmenke]

As you well know, the answer is that as a citizen of the US you are not required to be armed, but you do have that personal choice should you choose to go that route.

Sorry, perhaps my post was misleading.

There seems to be a general perception that U.S. citizens feel the need to arm themselves for self-protection from “the bad guys”.

It's that kind of thinking that I find difficult to understand; I.e. "We need guns because we live in a violent society". Is that not merely enforcing the acceptance of a violent society. Should citizens not be asking what is the root cause for the violence in the first place and take measures to change their society, or way of life, so that guns wouldn’t be required as the first and immediate solution? I don’t know what the answer is, and it’s obviously not a simple or short-term one, but I can’t help but think that there’s something intrinsically wrong with the socio-economics of a nation that instils violent crime.

[schmenke]

Your contingency is a gun.
I would move ;)

[monadvspec]

You are looking at it the wrong way. The chances of any American, save those living in certain inner city areas, having a violent encounter with a criminal, particularly in their home, is very small. That's not the issue. I look on it as a contingency measure. It is statistically very unlikely I would ever have a house fire yet I have fire insurance (and some have sprinklers installed); unlikely I'll ever have a car stolen yet carry theft insurance; highly unlikely I'll get smallpox yet was vaccinated as a child. It's just one of those things which responsible people do to mitigate possibilities which, should they occur, could have very serious consequences for me and my family.
So what you are saying is that there is absolutely not way that you would ever give up any type of gun? Are you fine with assault rifles, fully automatic weapons even military type weapons are allowed. To me this is insane and actually quite sad if true. It shows deep seated paranoia. I would not stop an individual owning a gun. However, buying them out of the trunk of a car and not having to undergo a security check; and that is legal, makes no logical sense to me since you can't even bring a bottle of water onto a plane. There is a misplaced list of priority here. With smallpox there is no need for vaccination.It has been eradicated but a new disease has taken hold and it is spreading rapidly. I recall four police officers in Philadelphia shot dead because some lunatic was told president Obama was going to take his guns. Logic here?? Kill the police and end dead yourself or imprisoned or electrocuted. Seems like these mental health checks that should occur are not working.

[Bob Riebe]

. Guns are made to kill.
Nice cliché.

[Bob Riebe]

By the same logic then "an atomic Bomb has never, ever, in the history of weapons killed or injured anyone.

So why is the US (and other nations) trying to stop Iran and N Korea from possessing them?That supposed analogy is moronic.

[Bob Riebe]

A "free" society is one in is which armed self defence is required for personal security?Even Never Land had an evil pirate, so what is your point?

[Bob Riebe]

Then answer is contained here:



Dead Americans are an acceptable cost to being a "free society"; I suppose that they must be if "millions of others" also accept that cost.
Meanwhile I live in a far safer and far less violent society.Your mourning for the criminals shot dead seems rather silly.

[Bob Riebe]

Sorry, perhaps my post was misleading.

There seems to be a general perception that U.S. citizens feel the need to arm themselves for self-protection from “the bad guys”.

It's that kind of thinking that I find difficult to understand; I.e. "We need guns because we live in a violent society". Is that not merely enforcing the acceptance of a violent society. Should citizens not be asking what is the root cause for the violence in the first place and take measures to change their society, or way of life, so that guns wouldn’t be required as the first and immediate solution? I don’t know what the answer is, and it’s obviously not a simple or short-term one, but I can’t help but think that there’s something intrinsically wrong with the socio-economics of a nation that instils violent crime.
I will say this one more time as the truth seem to irrelevant or unknown to many here who have heard it before; The Second Amendment exists to protect us from our government, not criminals.
The fact it can be used to protect one's self from criminals is bonus.

[Bob Riebe]

So what you are saying is that there is absolutely not way that you would ever give up any type of gun? Are you fine with assault rifles, fully automatic weapons even military type weapons are allowed. To me this is insane and actually quite sad if true. It shows deep seated paranoia. I would not stop an individual owning a gun. However, buying them out of the trunk of a car and not having to undergo a security check; and that is legal, makes no logical sense to me since you can't even bring a bottle of water onto a plane. There is a misplaced list of priority here. With smallpox there is no need for vaccination.It has been eradicated but a new disease has taken hold and it is spreading rapidly. I recall four police officers in Philadelphia shot dead because some lunatic was told president Obama was going to take his guns. Logic here?? Kill the police and end dead yourself or imprisoned or electrocuted. Seems like these mental health checks that should occur are not working.

You are correct, in Minnesota a gent disarmed a car hi-jacker and held the criminals gun on him when a police pulled up, pulled out his shotgun, and shot the man dead infront of his wife.
You are correct the police should have mental checks, not guns.

Full automatic firearms in Sweden are governed by the same rules as hunting rifles, so they are much easiier to own there.
I have never considered Swedes to be insane.

There is no difference between a military (there is no such thing as an assult rifle except for sales hype{ the only truly designated assult rifle was a German one from WWII}) styled semi-auto and a so called hunting semi-auto except to people who are totally ignorant of firearms.
No one sells them out of the trunk of their car except in the minds of the ignorant or paranoid, with a rare possible exception of a criminal moron but unlike movies, they are far more sophisticated than that bs cliché.

[monadvspec]

Nice cliché.

Seems as though you don't know when a person is stating a fact.
In addition but not surprising you are once again oblivious to the meaning and usage of certain aspects of the language.

[monadvspec]

You are correct, in Minnesota a gent disarmed a car hi-jacker and held the criminals gun on him when a police pulled up, pulled out his shotgun, and shot the man dead infront of his wife.
You are correct the police should have mental checks, not guns.

Full automatic firearms in Sweden are governed by the same rules as hunting rifles, so they are much easiier to own there.
I have never considered Swedes to be insane.

There is no difference between a military (there is no such thing as an assult rifle except for sales hype{ the only truly designated assult rifle was a German one from WWII}) styled semi-auto and a so called hunting semi-auto except to people who are totally ignorant of firearms.
No one sells them out of the trunk of their car except in the minds of the ignorant or paranoid, with a rare possible exception of a criminal moron but unlike movies, they are far more sophisticated than that bs cliché.
ATF Online - Firearms - Guides - Identification of Firearms (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/identification-of-nfa-firearms.html#assault-rifles)

Riebe, care to tell us again that there are no assault rifles?!
Again, Riebe, before you get on your podium and pontificate nonsense below is from the new England Journal of medicine citing state and federal law.

However, under federal law you can also legally buy as many guns as you want from a private party, and none of those procedural safeguards will apply. Private-party gun sales can be completely anonymous and undocumented. Private sellers are not required to see identification or keep records, and they cannot initiate background checks. A brief negotiation over price, an exchange of cash, gun, and a handshake, and your purchase is complete.
This would include trunks/boots of cars which is a moot point.

In the above post you have castigated and libeled the good name of the officers in question from my previous post with your veiled and unctuous and insipid character assault suggesting that those officers shot dead needed a mental exam.

[monadvspec]

Riebe, I had more to say but the moderator chose to delete it. It was not an insult just an observation with a qualifier. It seems that the moderator views my posts with very rigid guidelines but once again ignores the comments of others.
That in my opinion is why moderators should not be involved. If to participate in a thread means that you delete the comments which are statements and observation then you have no business "moderating" and sending waring notices. If I stated to someone that if they believed that an officer of the law killed on duty (three in fact) were in need of mental help I would be banned immediately. You say it and it gets to stay. If on the otherhand I state that if one writes as a poster does here and his comments are to be believed and that is deemed as an insult then I am at a total loss.
The moderator believes that the person stating that the policemen to whom you are referring,not the case you are quoting but the Pittsburgh incident that I wrote about, and since your comment was directed at them through my post;why isn't your sick comment redacted as was mine which was less incendiary and not insulting anyone except through the perceptive/neutral eye of the moderator.

[Eki]

Even Never Land had an evil pirate, so what is your point?
Peter Pan didn't have a gun, yet he survived.

[janvanvurpa]

Nice over reaction to what was, clearly, a tongue in cheek statement.

Didn't look funny. Didn't sound funny. Didn't smell funny.
But You say it was funny.. Thanks for clarifying that.



It's too bad that most liberals in this country have so much trouble in thinking clearly.You know all the liberals in thsi country?
You know all the liberals in your State?
You know all the liberals in your County?

Too made Authoritarians in this country are so self deluded that they think they can speak for and know the thought processes of millions of people they have never met.



Must be hard to drive and go through life with those rose colored glasses on.More implied insults,


Let's talk about reality for a moment.Am I supposed to believe that you have some inkling of what reality is? I have not previously seen anything to indicate that...


In life,blah blah blah

There are many, many guns of all types in America and there is no reasonable way you will ever get them under control -Oh so you should not ever begin to try... There are many thousands of murderers in America , no reasonable way you will ever get them under control, so by your self described expert clear thinking ( see a few inches above ^ where you imply you can think) we should never make any efforts to control them.



short of a house to house search but I guess you would advocate that,More insults from a man not fit to be a moderator...



the Constitution just being a minor inconvenience of course.More insults. Aren't you subject to any disciplinary action when you continually insult other people?



The vast majority of guns in this count blah blah blah..Again i ask: Do you"sort" never tire of lecturing people with empty platitudes. Do you understand that 87% of everything you guys write is just repeating obvious things known to all but presented as if it was some Road to Damascus Revelation
?


They are used for self defense in the home,How many times a year? Oh yeah you guys claim "1,8 million felonies thwarted" Yeah, right.



hunting and, to a lesser extent, sports like target and blah blah
Why would you need one in your home for self defense? Let's say someone decides that they blah blah blah blah.That has nothing to do with the ease that a gun allows even the most retarded Redneck Meth head make mayhem and death on the merest whim, effortlessly....


To sum up: 1) In the USA the guns already exist in the millions and there is no way you will ever take more than some of them out of circulation. Didn't we all just see the utter inanity of your absurd so called "logic" just a few lines ago? "Ooooooo can't get all the bad guys, so may as well do nothing".
And YOU have the gall to presume you can think AND ridicule the reasoning ability of others?



2) Criminals could really care less whether guns or anything else are legal or not. Well do you, you who continually insult members?
The phrase is "could NOT care less". You insult with "fuzzy thinking" and "clear thinking" and you use a phrase illogical in and of itself. Obvious to any half educated 10 year old.
"Could" care less indicates clearly that a person cares..




3) As a result criminals will have guns if they wish to. That is reality and all the wishful thinking and liberal fuzzy mindedness and ignoring of facts will not change it.You still regurgitating that same "we can't even try to do anything" deal. You OCD?


As for accidental gun deaths, there is no way you can fix stupid and there is always some cost to being a free society. Personally, I accept that risk as do millions of others.Flippant dismissal, clear thinking there Moderator. Can't fix stupid, yep yep that's the answer.
Well Moderator, yesterday not 15 miles from here a stupid 9 year old took his stupid daddy's .45 pistol to his stupid 3rd Grade class at his stupid school and you know what they can't fix now, clear thinking Moderator? They can't fix the big fawking hole in the little 8 year old girls belly where the stupid 9 year old plugged her.
She must be stupid..
Oh I can hear your brilliant rejoinder now "if she was armed she wouldn't be a victim"...

Moderator, before you insult people, and criticize the speck in their eye, you might look at the beam in your own eye, Mr Clear thinking..

And in case it escapes you, or you pretend you don't understand, insults can overt like calling somebody an idiot, or implicit like every line of your post drips and reeks of..

[Rollo]

Your mourning for the criminals shot dead seems rather silly.

I must have missed that. Please provide proof.

[schmenke]

I will say this one more time as the truth seem to irrelevant or unknown to many here who have heard it before; The Second Amendment exists to protect us from our government, not criminals....

I perfectly understand that.
However, I’m not sure many Americans do.

[Bob Riebe]

Seems as though you don't know when a person is stating a fact.
In addition but not surprising you are once again oblivious to the meaning and usage of certain aspects of the language.

Fact: Guns do not kill people, people do.
What is your point?

[Bob Riebe]

ATF Online - Firearms - Guides - Identification of Firearms (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/guides/identification-of-nfa-firearms.html#assault-rifles)

Riebe, care to tell us again that there are no assault rifles?!
Again, Riebe, before you get on your podium and pontificate nonsense below is from the new England Journal of medicine citing state and federal law.

However, under federal law you can also legally buy as many guns as you want from a private party, and none of those procedural safeguards will apply. Private-party gun sales can be completely anonymous and undocumented. Private sellers are not required to see identification or keep records, and they cannot initiate background checks. A brief negotiation over price, an exchange of cash, gun, and a handshake, and your purchase is complete.
This would include trunks/boots of cars which is a moot point.

In the above post you have castigated and libeled the good name of the officers in question from my previous post with your veiled and unctuous and insipid character assault suggesting that those officers shot dead needed a mental exam.
Sure, just as I said, the STG-44 is the ONLY properly called assault rifle as it has been called since the get go.
There is no classification of "assault rifle". IF you had read the site, you would have seen that.
Beyond that the term was a sales gimmick used by a firearm magazine that ignorants and liberals glammed onto and some years after saying it the magazine said in print it truly regretted having done so.

The bs about trunks of cars is just the same dung liberal ignorants, and some who know the truth full well, defecate out of their mouths continually.

[Bob Riebe]

Peter Pan didn't have a gun, yet he survived.NO he used a sword which the liberals are trying to get into ATF rules, more than they already are.

[Bob Riebe]

I must have missed that. Please provide proof.Read your post.

[Bob Riebe]

I perfectly understand that.
However, I’m not sure many Americans do.
Why do you say that?

To a large degree I agree with that statement.

[schmenke]

Why do you say that? ...

Because many Americans use the Second Amendment to justify gun ownership for the purpose of self-protection.
The original purpose of the Amendment, as you elude, was to ensure gun ownership in order to assemble a quickly mobilised militia to defend against organised attacks against the state, not the individual. This has been the core debate of all U.S. supreme court case rulings where the Second Amendment has been used in argument.

[Bob Riebe]

Because many Americans use the Second Amendment to justify gun ownership for the purpose of self-protection.
The original purpose of the Amendment, as you elude, was to ensure gun ownership in order to assemble a quickly mobilised militia to defend against organised attacks against the state, not the individual. This has been the core debate of all U.S. supreme court case rulings where the Second Amendment has been used in argument.

You are wrong there, a militia had absolutely nothing to do with it. The comma in statement in the Amendment makes that grammatical point clearly.
It exists solely for the purpose of SELF-PROTECTION against the government by the individual.
The Supreme Court came out and said a few years back that the Second Amendment gives every individual the legal right to keep and bear arms, period.

Without the NRA, although it took it decades longer to do the job they should do than it should have, the 2nd Amendment would be as worthless at the 10th.

[Bob Riebe]

No, I wouldn't say that. I would say that the parent who had a firearm where it was so easily accessible a 9 year old could get it should be prosecuted for negligent homicide. Once again you are blaming the gun instead of the real cause.It has nothing to do with easy access. It has to do with what was, or was not, in the child's head, I do not accept for one second that a nine year old child cannnot know what a firearm can do.
If the parent had not already taught his child what a firearm can do, then it is that parents fault simply for bad parenting.
If the child knew full well then it should be incarcerated for at least 12 years.

Home defense firearms have to have easy access or they are worthless as a defense tool.
-----------------------------
To save space I will put this here:

Happy news in Minn. as the liberal cancer that was spreading across the state seems to be in remission.

http://www.marshallindependent.com/page/content.detail/id/159028/Deadly-force-bill-now-on-fast-track-to-Gov--Dayton.html?isap=1&nav=5028

[schmenke]

You are wrong there, a militia had absolutely nothing to do with it. The comma in statement in the Amendment makes that grammatical point clearly.
It exists solely for the purpose of SELF-PROTECTION against the government by the individual.
The Supreme Court came out and said a few years back that the Second Amendment gives every individual the legal right to keep and bear arms, period.
...

I don’t know if I’m wrong or right – I’m not a grammar or linguistic expert. All I know is that the wording of the 2nd Amendment has been fiercely disputed for 230 years with arguments that it must be read in context with the fragile and problematic geopolitical situation at the time.

I for one, have a hard time believing that it was written in 1790 to ensure individuals’ protection against, for example, home invasions the purpose for which many Americans argue today.

[monadvspec]

Sure, just as I said, the STG-44 is the ONLY properly called assault rifle as it has been called since the get go.
There is no classification of "assault rifle". IF you had read the site, you would have seen that.
Beyond that the term was a sales gimmick used by a firearm magazine that ignorants and liberals glammed onto and some years after saying it the magazine said in print it truly regretted having done so.

The bs about trunks of cars is just the same dung liberal ignorants, and some who know the truth full well, defecate out of their mouths continually.
Are you of the opinion that we are all stupid and that you are all knowing? Just because the FACTS do not fit your very very narrow viewpoint does not make you correct. It in fact shows that you are unable to distinguish between what is written by reputable organizations, ie, the facts and figures that dispute what you and your ilk seem to try to dismiss.

The ATF or BATF site is not stating that the weapons were assault guns? Tell where it says that.I provided a link and according to you Riebe the ATF does not know what an assault weapon is. I however will choose the opinion of the ATF and the AMA with reference to the guns and their types and how they can so easily be acquired.
You are now suggesting that the weapons, assault or otherwise can't be bought privately without a check by criminals, mentally disturbed people and terrorists. You do this even though foreigners can access up to date information on your laws and see for a fact that what I linked to is correct. When you dispute my post you are disputing academia. I have them listed below.


Source Information

From the Violence Prevention Research Program and the Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento (G.J.W.); the School of Criminal Justice at Rutgers University, Newark, NJ (A.A.B.); the Program in Criminal Justice, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA (A.A.B.); and the Center for Crime Prevention and Control, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, New York (D.M.K.).

[chuck34]

You are wrong there, a militia had absolutely nothing to do with it. The comma in statement in the Amendment makes that grammatical point clearly.
It exists solely for the purpose of SELF-PROTECTION against the government by the individual.
The Supreme Court came out and said a few years back that the Second Amendment gives every individual the legal right to keep and bear arms, period.

Without the NRA, although it took it decades longer to do the job they should do than it should have, the 2nd Amendment would be as worthless at the 10th.

It's funny that you mention the 10th Amendment. This Amendment is actually one that most people completely mis-understand, or outright ignore, particularly in how it relates to the rest of the US Bill of Rights. If you actually want to adhear to the 10th Amendment, which I believe you do, then it actually is Constitutional for a State or locality to ban guns. That is of course dependent upon that State's Constitution. Same for all the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights, as they pertain to the Federal Government, not State governments.

Now as I live in Indiana, my gun rights are defined by the Indiana Constitution. In that document my rights are better defined than the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.

Indiana Constitution - Article 1 (http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/inconst/art-1.html)

The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.

So for the particular case of someone living in Indiana, there can be absolutely zero doubt that said person has the right to carry a gun for personal protection. The "well regulated malitia" argument has ZERO to do with my right to carry a gun in Indiana. I imagine other states to have simmilar wording in their respective Constitutions.

*** NOTE: I do not personally own a gun, but I do support the rights for anyone to own one if they so choose.

[chuck34]

I don’t know if I’m wrong or right – I’m not a grammar or linguistic expert. All I know is that the wording of the 2nd Amendment has been fiercely disputed for 230 years with arguments that it must be read in context with the fragile and problematic geopolitical situation at the time.

I for one, have a hard time believing that it was written in 1790 to ensure individuals’ protection against, for example, home invasions the purpose for which many Americans argue today.

The Indiana Constitution was written in 1851, and it expressly states that one can own a gun for personal protection. Do you believe that time and place to be that much different than the nation as a whole in 1790? That was a time when police protection was minimal at best and non-existant generally. So do you honestly believe that personal protection was not on the minds of the writers of Constitutions?

Granted I do not necessarily believe that the US 2nd Amendment to apply to every State.

[Bob Riebe]

You own guns to protect yourselves against your own government? Surely that doesn't apply to modern day life? :s
Why?
Has the nature of man changed?

[monadvspec]

I see that another poster has had his comments edited. Is this the modus operandi of this particular "moderator". He allows people that most of us know to parrot nonsense and insult at will yet the post is allowed to stand. This other poster had a series of comments that were up and then his post was edited.
Moderator, you allow a certain individual to blatantly insult,disparage posters and what they are saying and yet you do nothing. You then allow the same individual make fun of policemen shot dead and state that they were mentally ill. You allowed that and then you edited my post which stated that if the comments made were in fact his thinking then I would suggest he needs mental help. Now, where am I calling him names? Why is he allowed to disparage the slain police officers three of them, the fourth (my correction) survived, and their families. I suggest to anyone to go the You Tube and listen to the families that the poster has ridiculed and made fun of without being admonished.
Moderator, why have you edited the post that was up this morning? where was the insult by the poster. it is on page 2. I saw what was said and there was absolutely nothing insulting or obscene mentioned.

[Bob Riebe]

Are you of the opinion that we are all stupid and that you are all knowing? Just because the FACTS do not fit your very very narrow viewpoint does not make you correct. It in fact shows that you are unable to distinguish between what is written by reputable organizations, ie, the facts and figures that dispute what you and your ilk seem to try to dismiss.

The ATF or BATF site is not stating that the weapons were assault guns? Tell where it says that.I provided a link and according to you Riebe the ATF does not know what an assault weapon is. I however will choose the opinion of the ATF and the AMA with reference to the guns and their types and how they can so easily be acquired.
You are now suggesting that the weapons, assault or otherwise can't be bought privately without a check by criminals, mentally disturbed people and terrorists. You do this even though foreigners can access up to date information on your laws and see for a fact that what I linked to is correct. When you dispute my post you are disputing academia. I have them listed below.


Source Information

From the Violence Prevention Research Program and the Department of Emergency Medicine, University of California Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento (G.J.W.); the School of Criminal Justice at Rutgers University, Newark, NJ (A.A.B.); the Program in Criminal Justice, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA (A.A.B.); and the Center for Crime Prevention and Control, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, New York (D.M.K.).NO, you show me where it says they are beyond the STG-44.
The ATF uses classification to determine weapons status, that is the only term, item that matters to them. Show me where it says otherwise.

The AMA, lordy, that is the snafu of the year so far.

Criminals do what ever they please REGARDLESS of the laws. THAT is why they are criminals.
A gunrunner that sells out of his trunk and is not in jail, is an extremely fortunate criminal,
or he lives in an area where cries of the ACLY and " profiling" have neutered law enforcement.

[monadvspec]

It has nothing to do with easy access. It has to do with what was, or was not, in the child's head, I do not accept for one second that a nine year old child cannot know what a firearm can do.
If the parent had not already taught his child what a firearm can do, then it is that parents fault simply for bad parenting.
If the child knew full well then it should be incarcerated for at least 12 years.

Home defense firearms have to have easy access or they are worthless as a defense tool.
-----------------------------
To save space I will put this here:

Happy news in Minn. as the liberal cancer that was spreading across the state seems to be in remission.

Deadly force bill now on fast track to Gov. Dayton - MarshallIndependent.com | News, Sports, Jobs, Community Info. - Marshall Independent (http://www.marshallindependent.com/page/content.detail/id/159028/Deadly-force-bill-now-on-fast-track-to-Gov--Dayton.html?isap=1&nav=5028)

My god. I have seen it all now and it is completely a waste of time responding to drivel where this thing now blames the child for the incompetence of the parents or parent.

[donKey jote]

Depends if you are paranoid I suppose.

Senile Paranoia (http://www.bestlifein.com/senile-paranoia.html)

[monadvspec]

It has nothing to do with easy access. It has to do with what was, or was not, in the child's head, I do not accept for one second that a nine year old child cannnot know what a firearm can do.
If the parent had not already taught his child what a firearm can do, then it is that parents fault simply for bad parenting.
If the child knew full well then it should be incarcerated for at least 12 years.

Home defense firearms have to have easy access or they are worthless as a defense tool.
-----------------------------
To save space I will put this here:

Happy news in Minn. as the liberal cancer that was spreading across the state seems to be in remission.

Deadly force bill now on fast track to Gov. Dayton - MarshallIndependent.com | News, Sports, Jobs, Community Info. - Marshall Independent (http://www.marshallindependent.com/page/content.detail/id/159028/Deadly-force-bill-now-on-fast-track-to-Gov--Dayton.html?isap=1&nav=5028)
Moderator, I am sure you have seen this and the other posts that this individual has blatantly insulted people he believes are liberals. Liberal or not it is insulting to have to view the tripe and then see you ignore it and edit the posts of others. Shame on you!

[monadvspec]

NO, you show me where it says they are beyond the STG-44.
The ATF uses classification to determine weapons status, that is the only term, item that matters to them. Show me where it says otherwise.

The AMA, lordy, that is the snafu of the year so far.

Criminals do what ever they please REGARDLESS of the laws. THAT is why they are criminals.
A gunrunner that sells out of his trunk and is not in jail, is an extremely fortunate criminal,
or he lives in an area where cries of the ACLY and " profiling" have neutered law enforcement.

Riebe, it is there as plain as day. I don't have to point out anything. I provided the link.

In addition you once more make a derogatory remark to an organization that published a study. With it you have cast the Department of Emergency Medicine, California Davis School of medicine, Harvard and more as what...... a snafu?
Riebe, in future, don't respond to my posts. I find that you lack the social decorum necessary to conduct a reasonable discussion. In fact that will probably be edited too.

[Bob Riebe]

It's funny that you mention the 10th Amendment. This Amendment is actually one that most people completely mis-understand, or outright ignore, particularly in how it relates to the rest of the US Bill of Rights. If you actually want to adhear to the 10th Amendment, which I believe you do, then it actually is Constitutional for a State or locality to ban guns. That is of course dependent upon that State's Constitution. Same for all the other Amendments in the Bill of Rights, as they pertain to the Federal Government, not State governments.

Now as I live in Indiana, my gun rights are defined by the Indiana Constitution. In that document my rights are better defined than the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution.

Indiana Constitution - Article 1 (http://www.law.indiana.edu/uslawdocs/inconst/art-1.html)


So for the particular case of someone living in Indiana, there can be absolutely zero doubt that said person has the right to carry a gun for personal protection. The "well regulated malitia" argument has ZERO to do with my right to carry a gun in Indiana. I imagine other states to have simmilar wording in their respective Constitutions.

*** NOTE: I do not personally own a gun, but I do support the rights for anyone to own one if they so choose.Wrong, at least to a degree.
States have the right, or at least in theory do, to control anything not addressed in the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments.
The U.S. Constitution trumps any and all States, or territorial Constitutions.
(As an aside, the U.S. Supreme Court is also the last legal resort when a States Supreme Court breaks its own Constitution as shown by the case in Florida)

In its recent decision the U.S. Supreme Court said your gun rights are NOT defined by the Indiana Constitution, but soley by the U.S. Constitution.
Despite this many localities are trying to make owning a firearm so hard, beyond banning, that people simply give up.
Thank God the NRA, and other firearms organizations are now fully assisting gun owners in defeating these political attacks on their 2nd Amendment rights.

[Bob Riebe]

Depends if you are paranoid I suppose.Use that smart remark on women who has been raped. It will expose your rhetoric for the value it has.

[Bob Riebe]

Granted I do not necessarily believe that the US 2nd Amendment to apply to every State.LOL, for heavens sake Chuck, then the Constitution and its Amendments do not apply to every State also.
I do not think you thought that one out to well.

[donKey jote]

Use that smart remark on women who has been raped. It will expose your rhetoric for the value it has.
->

Nice cliché. :dozey:

[Bob Riebe]

My god. I have seen it all now and it is completely a waste of time responding to drivel where this thing now blames the child for the incompetence of the parents or parent.
Put your reading glasses on.

"If the parent had not already taught his child what a firearm can do, then it is that parents fault simply for bad parenting."

You were saying?

[schmenke]

Why?
Has the nature of man changed?

In 1790 the concept of peoples’ governance through popular election was still a new concept. There was still much mistrust in the newly formed U.S. government, hence the introduction of the 2nd Amendment.
230 years and dozens of elections have done much to dispel that mistrust, to the point where it is arguable if the provision of armed defence against today’s U.S. government is really a necessity.

[Bob Riebe]

->
:dozey: Your point? :dozey:

[Eki]

Why?
Has the nature of man changed?
How many times have Americans used their guns against their government since the Constitution was signed?

[Bob Riebe]

In 1790 the concept of peoples’ governance through popular election was still a new concept. There was still much mistrust in the newly formed U.S. government, hence the introduction of the 2nd Amendment.
230 years and dozens of elections have done much to dispel that mistrust, to the point where it is arguable if the provision of armed defence against today’s U.S. government is really a necessity.That is your opinion.
Fortunately it does not carry the day in the U.S.

[donKey jote]

Your point? :dozey:
Put your reading glasses on, use a mirror.

[Bob Riebe]

Senile Paranoia (http://www.bestlifein.com/senile-paranoia.html)Don't worry donK, you can take pills for it.

[Bob Riebe]

Put your reading glasses on, use a mirror.
Your point, if you have one beyond increasing your post total?

[chuck34]

Wrong, at least to a degree.
States have the right, or at least in theory do, to control anything not addressed in the U.S. Constitution and its Amendments.
The U.S. Constitution trumps any and all States, or territorial Constitutions.

That is one way to look at it, but looking at the Bill of Rights in toatlity, particularly looking at the 10th Amendment, many (including James Madison) interpret the Bill of Rights to be limits upon the Federal Government. That is at least untill 2010 whe the Supreme Court in McDonnald vs. Chicago "incorporated" the 2nd Amendment, an act which I believe to be Unconstitutional in itself.


(As an aside, the U.S. Supreme Court is also the last legal resort when a States Supreme Court breaks its own Constitution as shown by the case in Florida)

On that you are 100% correct, but that is a seperate issue than gun rights.


(In its recent decision the U.S. Supreme Court said your gun rights are NOT defined by the Indiana Constitution, but soley by the U.S. Constitution.
Despite this many localities are trying to make owning a firearm so hard, beyond banning, that people simply give up.
Thank God the NRA, and other firearms organizations are now fully assisting gun owners in defeating these political attacks on their 2nd Amendment rights.

Actually the McDonald case (I believe that to be what you are refering to here) was a mis-application of the law. The Supreme Court does that quite often anymore, as I'm sure you will agree.

[chuck34]

LOL, for heavens sake Chuck, then the Constitution and its Amendments do not apply to every State also.
I do not think you thought that one out to well.

No I have thought it out quite clearly. I once thought as you did. Then I read more and more about the Founders, their writings, the Federalist Papers, the anti-Federalist Papers, and so on. From reading as much as I can, I can clearly see that the US Constituion, and the Bill of Rights, are documents specifically written to create a coheasive national government, but to also severely limit the powers of what they were creating.

[Bob Riebe]

How many times have Americans used their guns against their government since the Constitution was signed?We had a civil war, in which the correct side lost.
If you want to educate yourself on U.S. history read up on the Kansas-Missouri Border War before the Civil War.

[schmenke]

That is your opinion.
...

O.k.Rob, I’ll accept your argument that paranoia towards possible oppression from today’s government is reason to maintain the 2nd Amendment :) . In your opinion, do the majority of Americans share this paranoia?
How about you chuck?

[chuck34]

In 1790 the concept of peoples’ governance through popular election was still a new concept. There was still much mistrust in the newly formed U.S. government, hence the introduction of the 2nd Amendment.
230 years and dozens of elections have done much to dispel that mistrust, to the point where it is arguable if the provision of armed defence against today’s U.S. government is really a necessity.

Actually I think quite the opposite. If Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, George Mason, etc. were around today to see what is going on, they would stand in wonder at all the rights the people have let slip out of their grasp, and wonder why the people had not exercised their right to change government yet.

[donKey jote]

Your point, if you have one beyond increasing your post total?

->

Read your post.
:dozey:

[Bob Riebe]

No I have thought it out quite clearly. I once thought as you did. Then I read more and more about the Founders, their writings, the Federalist Papers, the anti-Federalist Papers, and so on. From reading as much as I can, I can clearly see that the US Constituion, and the Bill of Rights, are documents specifically written to create a coheasive national government, but to also severely limit the powers of what they were creating.Then you best read it again as either they apply to all States or to none. There is no other form, and the U.S. Supreme Court says you are wrong.
Yes they exist to limit the Federal Government, but anything covered by the Constitution and its Amendments is absolute. For it to be any other way makes it meaningless.
Now how the 10th is being ignored, that is a different story, but the Republicans are as guilty, or maybe more so, in that failure.

[Bob Riebe]

->

:dozey: :dozey:

[chuck34]

O.k.Rob, I’ll accept your argument that paranoia towards possible oppression from today’s government is reason to maintain the 2nd Amendment :) . In your opinion, do the majority of Americans share this paranoia?
How about you chuck?

Actually yes. I do fear the oppression of my government. I feel that the Federal government, as well as most State governments, have well oversteped the bounds placed upon them by their respective Constitutions. However, I do not believe that we are to the point of an armed rebellion. But I do believe that option should be preserved.

[Bob Riebe]

O.k.Rob, I’ll accept your argument that paranoia towards possible oppression from today’s government is reason to maintain the 2nd Amendment :) . In your opinion, do the majority of Americans share this paranoia?
How about you chuck?Prohibition existed because it was created by an Amendment which a majority allowed to be voted in.
People realized that it was oppressive and it was eliminated.

If the 2nd Amendment was found to be, equally wrong, it would be gone but it is not.

[Eki]

We had a civil war, in which the correct side lost.

You're in favor of slavery?

[chuck34]

Then you best read it again as either they apply to all States or to none. There is no other form, and the U.S. Supreme Court says you are wrong.

At at one point in history the Supreme Court said that slavery and segregation were ok (or how about murder of innocent children). Forgive me for not bowing down at the alter of the Court. They can be, have been, and are wrong on this issue.


Yes they exist to limit the Federal Government, but anything covered by the Constitution and its Amendments is absolute. For it to be any other way makes it meaningless.
Now how the 10th is being ignored, that is a different story, but the Republicans are as guilty, or maybe more so, in that failure.

Clearly, but you are ignoring the 10th Amendment as well.

[donKey jote]

You're in favor of slavery?

In favour of freedom, liberty, guns, nutters and trollery. :dozey:

[Bob Riebe]

You're in favor of slavery?I should have guessed you would babble that out, the side that should have lost, lost. The fact they lost was morally correct.

[Bob Riebe]

In favour of... nutters and trollery. :dozey: Yes, I think you should be allowed to post.

[chuck34]

Then you best read it again as either they apply to all States or to none. There is no other form, and the U.S. Supreme Court says you are wrong.
Yes they exist to limit the Federal Government, but anything covered by the Constitution and its Amendments is absolute. For it to be any other way makes it meaningless.
Now how the 10th is being ignored, that is a different story, but the Republicans are as guilty, or maybe more so, in that failure.

Read up on Incorporation, the true meaning of the 14th Amendment vs how it is used today, and since you rely so much on the Supreme Court, US vs Cruikshank. Once you fully understand those issues, particularly how Incorporation and the 14th Amendment have been horribly misused you will see things much more clearly.

[schmenke]

...If you want to educate yourself on U.S. history read up on the Kansas-Missouri Border War before the Civil War.

Rob, you keep using (at times refreshingly intelligently) events that took place ~200 years ago as if similar situations could realistically happen today. As previously mentioned the social and political situation has changed dramatically today. Perhaps if you could provide arguments for the maintenance of the 2nd Amendment as it applies to today’s context we could perhaps acquiesce your opinions in a more acceptable manner :) .

[Bob Riebe]

At at one point in history the Supreme Court said that slavery and segregation were ok (or how about murder of innocent children). Forgive me for not bowing down at the alter of the Court. They can be, have been, and are wrong on this issue.



Clearly, but you are ignoring the 10th Amendment as well.I am not defending all Supreme Court decisions, and may God have mercy on us if Obama is reelected and appoints more Justices.
The 10th Amendment in no way can take away the absolute power of the 2nd to apply to all citizens on U.S. Territory and their aboslute right to keep and bear arms.
One thing that so many Republicans ignore is that term "bear arms", that does not mean keep them locked away in a closet or leave them at home.

[schmenke]

Actually yes. I do fear the oppression of my government. I feel that the Federal government, as well as most State governments, have well oversteped the bounds placed upon them by their respective Constitutions. However, I do not believe that we are to the point of an armed rebellion. But I do believe that option should be preserved.

As an outsider I honestly did not realise that Americans today continue to feel possible oppression from their government. I’ve always thought the U.S. a nation to provide more personal freedoms than the vast majority of other countries. Ironically, the 2nd Amendment is a prime example :mark: .

[donKey jote]

Yes, I believe everybody has a god given constitutional right to post with bare arms.
.

[Bob Riebe]

Rob, you keep using (at times refreshingly intelligently) events that took place ~200 years ago as if similar situations could realistically happen today. As previously mentioned the social and political situation has changed dramatically today. Perhaps if you could provide arguments for the maintenance of the 2nd Amendment as it applies to today’s context we could perhaps acquiesce your opinions in a more acceptable manner :) .
Have you ever considered that past events are the reason that current events have not duplicated them.
Those who fail to learn from the past are condemned to relive it.

We learned from the past the armed citizenry has put a large wall up to prevent government, State and Federal from becoming more dictatorial at rate greater than it already is.

At the same time, when LA had it riots because a criminal supposedly was mistreated by police, the Asian community let it be know that anyone violating their territory would be shot dead, while standing on their shop roofs with semi-automatic rifles.
They were left alone not because of police or State Gov. protection but because they fully exercised their 2nd Amendment Rights, despite what they did was questionably legal.
The State of California did not press a case against them.

When Hurricane Katrina hit, Govt. forces forcibly disarmed local civilians. When this news went out the said same civilian were assaulted by criminals.
The courts later said that this action was illegal and laws have now been passed so that if it ever happens again the Govt. will be charged in court with criminal action.

There is an old saying that says something about if you wait till misery is knocking at your door before you do anything, it is already too late and you deserve any misery that failure brings upon you.

So if I could give you recent events that are on a equal scale to the Kansas-Missouri Border War, then we would not be having this conversation as the U.S. would probably be more like Egypt, or Mexico right now.

[Bob Riebe]

.
Yes, I post bare arms, and I am not wearing pants either.
``

[Bob Riebe]

Whats that got to do with the price of fish?

I see you and donKey are posting while not wearing pants.

[monadvspec]

NO, you show me where it says they are beyond the STG-44.
The ATF uses classification to determine weapons status, that is the only term, item that matters to them. Show me where it says otherwise.

The AMA, lordy, that is the snafu of the year so far.

Criminals do what ever they please REGARDLESS of the laws. THAT is why they are criminals.
A gunrunner that sells out of his trunk and is not in jail, is an extremely fortunate criminal,
or he lives in an area where cries of the ACLY and " profiling" have neutered law enforcement.

As usual pure unadulterated garbage and not an attempt to disguise the ignornance implicit in these sorry comments.

[donKey jote]

When I close my eyes I see you and donKey posting while not wearing pants and I like what I see.
strange fantasies you have, even for what's left of your senile brain. Sure you're not catholic ?

[Bob Riebe]

As usual pure unadulterated garbage and not an attempt to disguise the ignornance implicit in these sorry comments.Then you should quit making them.

[Bob Riebe]

I have strange fantasies, even for what's left of my senile brain. I am not sure I'm not catholic. :confused:

[monadvspec]

Then you should quit making them.

Surprisingly you understood the context of the post, not so surprising you missed that it was intended for you and glaringly so,Riebe.

[Bob Riebe]

Surprisingly you understood the context of the post, not so surprising you missed that it was intended for you and glaringly so,Riebe.
No **** sherlock!

[monadvspec]

No **** sherlock!

At long last an admission of ignorance.

[airshifter]

This thread is a prime example of why any thread about guns in the US is a waste of time. I can count on a single hand the number of posters making reasonable statements and/or questions and being civil. The rest of the thread is mostly people insulting each others opinions, while remaining completely closed minded to anything other than their original view.


My short version... both the US and my states constitutions allow that I own guns, and I choose to do so. I don't feel I would likely ever need them for self defense. This state also allows concealed carry of a firearm and I don't feel I have any need to do so. Come in my house and steal things, steal my car if you want. I have insurance. But if for any reason a home invasion threated any of my family in a physical sense, I have the option to protect them with lethal force.

I also had a member of my family who survived such a home invasion situation due to owning a gun. Having never met her until years after that incident I'm glad she had that option. And she was a democrat to boot. :D

[Bob Riebe]

At long last an admission of ignorance.I do not think you are ignorant, even if you want to admit it.

[Mark]

Perhaps we should just ban political threads. Sigh.