[Love2cruise]

Originally Posted by Bogie Shooter

Now that make sense!

This is the best post I have read! I agree!

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

I truly believe that the framers of the constitution never intended for the average citizen to OUT ARM the police or military.

Umm...actually they did. Part of the argument over the second amendment was that the people should be able to protect themselves from a government that has run amok and become tyrannical.

One of the first things that Hitler and the Nazis did when they took over in the 1930s was to confiscate all the gun.

[Dr Winston O Boogie jr]

Originally Posted by downeaster

"As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
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." (My emphasis).

It would appear the reason for our right to bear arms is to protect the state. Along with that right goes the responsibility to muster in a state militia unit when called upon.

It might appear that way to some reading only this quote, but after reading all the supporting papers and arguments of the founding fathers, the US Supreme Court has decided that your interpretation is incorrect. In fact one of the arguments that was made at the time of the constitutional convention was that the people have the right to keep and bear arms in order to protect themselves from the government should it become a tyrannical force. Even by the short sentence that you posted it is apparent that the founders felt that freedom was tied directly to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. They believed that a people whose right to bear arms was taken away would not be truly free.

By the way, in the USA there are 88.8 guns per 100 people. In Iran there are 7.3 guns per 100 people.

[Jim&Fran]

Doesn't matter what side of the isle I'm on or what position I take here but this thread is walking the line of Politics.
Gee, isn't that banned from "Talk of the Villages"?

[justjim]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

Umm...actually they did. Part of the argument over the second amendment was that the people should be able to protect themselves from a government that has run amok and become tyrannical.

One of the first things that Hitler and the Nazis did when they took over in the 1930s was to confiscate all the gun.

Bow and arrow/musket, knives etc in the days the second amendment was written are a far cry from the weapons of today. Your points are well taken but a bit out of context IMHO. It is a huge stretch to think that the right to bear arms include many of the weapons of today.

[Wing-nut2]

The cars of today are much different then the horse and carrage of yesterday. Would you like to go back to the horse and carrage? Times change.

Please, lets not start the gun thing again. It's the law live with it.

[John_W]

Originally Posted by janmcn

I know nothing about guns, but I believe the coroner that did the autopsy on some of these children, said they all died after being hit several times by semi-automatic weapons at close range.

Here's a Glock 19 and a Sig Sauer P238, there is probably at least 500 to a 1000 of each right now among the 40,000 homes in TV. Both are very popular and well made handguns that sell for about $600 apiece. Each and every gun has a safety, and that starts between your ears, not with something you hold in your hands.

Florida will soon issue it's 1,000,000 concealed weapons permit. That means 1 in every 18 Floridian is probably carrying a gun legally. I believe that's one of the reasons we don't see events like this in florida.

I think its pretty sad that you can only put three slugs in a shotgun when your hunting deer but you can put a hundred round it a semi-automatic gun for protection. I think the deer are safer than we are.

Hunting deer with a shotgun seems awfully inhumane, I much rather you use a single shot from high powered rifle if you have to kill wildlife. At least the deer would be dead before he even hears the shot. I wonder how many would be hunting if the deer shot back, it seems like it's not a sport if only one side knows they're playing.



.

[njbchbum]

Originally Posted by Dr Winston O Boogie jr

It might appear that way to some reading only this quote, but after reading all the supporting papers and arguments of the founding fathers, the US Supreme Court has decided that your interpretation is incorrect. In fact one of the arguments that was made at the time of the constitutional convention was that the people have the right to keep and bear arms in order to protect themselves from the government should it become a tyrannical force. Even by the short sentence that you posted it is apparent that the founders felt that freedom was tied directly to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. They believed that a people whose right to bear arms was taken away would not be truly free.

By the way, in the USA there are 88.8 guns per 100 people. In Iran there are 7.3 guns per 100 people.

doc - i pretty much agree with the argument re protection from a tyrannical govt...but...in reading of the supporting arguments, i could not find one that promoted or protected the keeping of guns for the purpose of assault. protection from - yes...assault - no. did i miss a supporting argument for assault?

[AJ32162]

While we are banning assault weapons and high-capacity "clips" (The correct term is actually "magazines"), perhaps we should ban the sale and use of heroin and other hard drugs. That will eliminate the addiction and deaths they cause, as they will no longer be accessible. Oh, wait they are already illegal aren't they? How's that working out? There are already over 18,000 firearm regulations, why not add a few more?

[janmcn]

It's been reported that one of the children was shot 11 times at close range with this assault weapon. There will be 28 funerals in Newtown, CT before Christmas. I just hope that no poster on this forum had a grandchild killed.

[Bucco]

It is becoming apparent that some folks believe that if you do not support tougher gun laws, that you are somehow not sensitive to the horror that occurred in CT.

THAT is extremely unfair...TOTALLY unfair....and I would hope the same exact logic will be allowed for anyone killed by someone in the State of Washington who is using what is now legal drugs !

[buggyone]

"Florida will soon issue it's 1,000,000 concealed weapons permit. That means 1 in every 18 Floridian is probably carrying a gun legally. I believe that's one of the reasons we don't see events like this in florida."

The killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman was not a mass killing but still is drawing national scrutiny to Florida.

[AJ32162]

Originally Posted by buggyone

"Florida will soon issue it's 1,000,000 concealed weapons permit. That means 1 in every 18 Floridian is probably carrying a gun legally. I believe that's one of the reasons we don't see events like this in florida."

The killing of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman was not a mass killing but still is drawing national scrutiny to Florida.

Since the case is yet to be adjudicated, I'd say it's due more to politics than anything else.

[eweissenbach]

Originally Posted by Bucco

It is becoming apparent that some folks believe that if you do not support tougher gun laws, that you are somehow not sensitive to the horror that occurred in CT.

THAT is extremely unfair...TOTALLY unfair....and I would hope the same exact logic will be allowed for anyone killed by someone in the State of Washington who is using what is now legal drugs !

Who is saying that? Who, bucco? Let's keep the issues clear and not try to play the martyr. Gun safety issues need to be a PART of the dialogue, along with mental health and security issues. On the other side, I am tired of being shouted down by the NRA and told that I am not a defender of the contstitution on this issue. Everyone needs to shed their biases and think and work through the issues that may be controllable, recognizing that not all the issues are controllable.

[Bucco]

Originally Posted by eweissenbach

Who is saying that? Who, bucco? Let's keep the issues clear and not try to play the martyr. Gun safety issues need to be a PART of the dialogue, along with mental health and security issues. On the other side, I am tired of being shouted down by the NRA and told that I am not a defender of the contstitution on this issue. Everyone needs to shed their biases and think and work through the issues that may be controllable, recognizing that not all the issues are controllable.

While I do not understand how you say what you say about me playing a martyr, I suggest you read the comments that accompany folks who do not endorse any more regulation....hoping that they did not have any children killed or grandchildren or a reminder of the kind of bullet used.

NOBODY, for sure me..is touting the NRA.....my posts on this have been crystal clear.....there are no biases from me. If I have ever touted the NRA, I would love to have a copy of that post. A poster has followed a few folks who want no further legislation with comments that are pointed at "hoping that those posters did not have a grandchildren killed"

That is unfair...not sure why you feel so strongly about me...my posts have supported your position, but I do not like the guilt trip being laid on other folks....it is not fair !

Sorry if you find my posts offensive !! I find the kind of posting I referred to as very offensive and political

I do not and never have supported the NRA.....I made that clear....it is not an issue with me..fairness is