|
Video Blogs
More Video
Navigation |
Second Amendment Rights: AFFIRMED!!!First, let me thank Jesus for Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Roberts. Now let me practice the forgiveness my Lord demands and thank Him for - that bastard Kennedy, as well. Oh Glory Day! Our rights affirmed! The Second Amendment is alive and well and to those four liberal Justices who voted against our right to own and keep guns - shame on you! This was too close, people. This is why I will hold my nose and vote for McCain. They came one vote shy of repealing the friggen Second Amendment! One vote. This tyranny must be defeated. Submitted by cylonangel (1468 posts) on June 26, 2008 - 7:50pm. |
News, Reviews & Commentary on Lesbian and Bisexual women in Entertainment and the Media
Cylonangel, have you heard
Cylonangel, have you heard of the Pink Pistols? Its a pro-gun rights gay (and allies) group. Before I heard about them I thought all gay people were against guns.
http://www.pinkpistols.org/index2.html
I don't understand those against the second amendment. I mean Washington DC has one of the strictest gun laws and they still have one of the highest crime rates. Glad this decision went the right way. Apparently Obama is also in support of the second amendment. It makes me wonder what made those 4 Justices vote against it.
Oh well. Long live the second amendment. If this decision had gone the other way I was seriously considering joining the NRA to protect our gun rights.
Great to see you back cylonangel. :)
Forget hate crimes. Gay groups should be supporting gun rights. If someone comes to bash or rape me or my gf I will exercise my second amendment rights and blast their brains out. Come and get me haters and you'll be sorry. I won't miss as I have had years of target practice.
Let us celebrate this moment.
Guns are Hot.
Girls with smoking guns even hotter.
Ok I'm going to stop now. But as you can tell I'm excited.
Girls and Guns!
This has made my day and it does get better! Who knew there was such a group as the Pink Pistols and in Houston? Count me in! Thanks for the post.
Rita you can keep the pictures coming. Words will not be necessary for me. :)
Glad you liked it. I will
Glad you liked it. I will keep the pictures coming. :)
Let's not forget this case was brought forward by a woman.
The gun does not make the woman
Forget hate crimes. Gay groups should be supporting gun rights. If someone comes to bash or rape me or my gf I will exercise my second amendment rights and blast their brains out. Come and get me haters and you'll be sorry. I won't miss as I have had years of target practice.
Haha. I think in da hood they call this "talking shit".
Anyway, I honestly have never understood the fascination some people have with guns. It almost seems like a fetish (speaking of which, nice gun porn btw :p ). Worse, they often seem to almost worship firearms as some sort of perverse form of "empowerment". Thing is until you have actually been attacked by someone, and faced the implications of killing them in cold blood, I don't think most people really know how they are going to react. It's great to have a gun and to "know how to use it" (which frankly isn't much of an achievement), but the real test is how well you function under extreme physical and psychological stress, and this is so far beyond most peoples' everyday experience that I think what the gun mostly does is give them a false sense of security. Realistically, no amount of target practice can prepare you for it.
Beyond that, as a practical matter an attacker isn't going to declare his intentions and then wait for you to get out your gun and shoot him. He's either going to get a gun on you first (which he can generally do because he has the advantage of surprise), or he's going to overpower you to ensure that if you are armed you won't have the opportunity to use it. This is why the rationale that concealed carry laws make criminals "think twice" doesn't hold up btw (and isn’t reflected in crime statistics): what they do is make criminals approach every potential victim on the assumption that they are armed and therefore that they must initiate the encounter with enough force to incapacitate or overpower them before they can react.
If you want to take responsibility for your own safety (and you should) then do what kbeen1 said and take a self defence course, use common sense and take reasonable precautions, and work on developing the physical and mental (especially the mental) capacity to survive adversity. Without these things the gun IMO is just a crutch.
And for what it is worth is most parts of the world, including the US, most people walk around unarmed without living in mortal fear of their safety. If you don’t feel safe without a gun you should probably be questioning whether its healthy to be psychologically dependent on a piece of steel whose sole purpose is to kill other human beings…
EXACTLY!!!
Thank you Tigerlily for being the voice of reason
and yes, why do most gun enthusiasts seem like they wouldn't pass the psyche eval. to own a gun?
I'm in the military and I can shoot a target till my arms fall off.
I don't know much about hunting but I'm pretty sure the animals are running away from you instead of charging after you.
My detachment just sent me to combat training. I did some simulation drills. All that target practice didn't do shit for me when I was faced with someone pointing a pistol in my face.
Action always beats reaction. If someone's got the drop on you...you're ass out. That gun's not gonna do shit for you. Unless you've got a bullet proof vest in your arsenal... like the criminals do. Even if someone pulls a knife on you, most people can't react quick enough to defend themselves with a gun.
We're not playing Hollywood. If someone comes up on you, they're right in your face. They don't pull their shit out 15ft in front of you and wave it around like a moron giving you a chance to shoot them.
Guns do provide a false sense of security. Criminals have a lot more practice than law abiding citizens do. Unless your practice includes shooting at people who are threatening you, you're really not doing shit in learning how to defend yourself.
It really tickles me hearing gun advocates scoff at mandatory training. A law abiding citizen without training will more likely hurt themselves than defend themselves.
Which is why learning hand to hand combat is better self defense than just buying a gun. At least you're learning how to deal with an attacker and not just wasting bullets with target practice.
That being said, I have no problem with this ruling. My state's constitution already allows for gun ownership for self defense purposes... All I can say is, good luck with that.
Hm
Just wondering what four Liberal judges you mean? 7/9 of the Justices were appointed by Republicans.
_________
The Gentleman Who Fell
An interesting point....
... so i just had to see the details:
Appointed by George W. Bush (R): John Roberts Jr and Samuel Alito Jr
Appointed by Bill Clinton (D): Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer
Appointed by George H.W. Bush (R): David Souter and Clarence Thomas
Appointed by Ronald Reagan (R): Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy
Appointed by Gerald Ford (R): John Stevens
Oh, come on...
,,,just becuase they were appointed by Republicans does not make them conservative justices. Souter, appointed by GHWB, is a prime example.
We came late to this game. Now we're playing for all of the marbles.
Exactly!
Join your local Pink Pistol Chapter!
"Thirty-one states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons. In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets as much publicity as possible. "
http://www.pinkpistols.org/index2.html
We did. There are now over 45 Pink Pistols chapters nationwide, and more are starting up every day. We are dedicated to the legal, safe, and responsible use of firearms for self-defense of the sexual-minority community. We no longer believe it is the right of those who hate and fear gay, lesbian, bi, trans, or polyamorous persons to use us as targets for their rage. Self-defense is our RIGHT.
The Pink Pistols get together at least once a month at local firing ranges to practice shooting, and to acquaint people new to firearms with them. We will help you select a firearm, acquire a permit, and receive proper training in its safe and legal use for self-defense. The more people know that members of our community may be armed, the less likely they will be to single us out for attack. Join us today. It is your RIGHT
What are the "Pink Pistols"?
We are a shooting group that honors diversity and is open to all shooters. We help bring new shooters into the sport and provide a fun social environment for all our members. We work to build bridges between the shooting community and other communities, such as those based on alternative sexualities.
Do I need to be gay to join?
You don't have to be gay to join us, any more than you have to be Black to support civil rights, or be Jewish to support the JPFO (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership). We include members from the GLBT, Polyamarous, and BDSM communities, but you don't need to be gay or have an alternative sexuality to join and shoot with us.
Do I need to know how to shoot, or have my own equipment?
No, want to make the sport accessible and we are friendly to new shooters. We can give you basic instruction, and on all our range trips you can either rent guns and ammunition or club members will bring extra for you.
Do I need a Permit to participate?
This will depend on which Pink Pistols chapter you are shooting with. Check the FAQ for the chapter you are interested in.
How do I know what's going on with the "Pink Pistols"?
Simple, not only can you to access this website for updates, but we also have a mailing list. The mailing list is pinkpistols-request@egroups.com.
Can I purchase a pistol or other firearm?
Sure you can. However, depending on the state you live in, there are steps to be taken to make this legal. Check the FAQ for the local chapter for more information on your local laws.
What kind of gun is right for me?
Only you can say for sure, but anyone who has any clue about firearms will tell you to start by renting. Rent several and try different makes and models of firearm with varying calibers. Most important, start with a light caliber. For a first time shooter, the muzzle flip and recoil can be a bit of a surprise. There is no shame in building up to something you're sure you can tolerate. Besides, the primary concern here is safety. Biting off more than you can chew with a firearm can be very dangerous. If you need help in finding what's right for you there will be people there to help.
I've never touched a gun before. How will I know how to shoot it?
Simple. Ask. We any questions you might have about the firearm you've chosen and how it works. If you've never fired a weapon before, please let us know in advance. It's better to learn the right way to load, unload, and fire a weapon, than to learn the hard way.
Why is your group an "Activists Association"?
We want to be able to endorse candidates that will support the Second Amendment as well as the rights of consenting adults to love each other how they wish however they wish. We also chose to go this route, rather than filing as a PAC because it means we are free of the legal paperwork PAC's are required to file.
Are you part of the NRA?
No. Although we do work with the NRA. For example, in California the NRA-ILA contacted us and asked us to take a look at some legislation before the State Assembly and submit written testimony with our take on the bills. On the other hand, many of our members dislike the NRA due to the positions they have taken, such as helping push through "Instant Background Checks" on a federal level.
Are you associated with a political party?
No. We are strictly non-partisan. If the responses to our questionnaires looks slanted, it is because only some people who receive the questionnaire respond. For example, each time when copies were emailed to everyone elected to the Massachusetts State House and Senate, only 1 politician responded.
I like this idea, but I'm not in the area. How do I start a local group?
Contact Doug Krick at dkrick@pinkpistols.org for more information. Also, see the page on starting a group in your area. (Link is on the main page.)
Also, please note: You do not have to be a citizen or resident of the United States to start a chapter. If you live elsewhere, you are still welcome to form a chapter. We just require that you follow all applicable laws in your jurisdiction.
Can my gun be lavander?
I'm not to keen on pink but I like the idea of the group. Does this include all weapons like swords, daggers, ninja stars etc.? You's be surprised that these items are regulated just as heavily as guns (maybe not but still).
Either way we all can see the aesthetics in creating guns, you have to be blind to say "oh that's an ugly gun!" Guns to me atleast have an aesthetic value, I don't want to get into it, but for me guns has it's other means than to protect. Some collect guns as they collect vynil records, they apperiacte the history and why do we want to eliminate that? This also goes to show with hot women and guns, is just sexy!!!!! Thanks for the pictures in the other thread ^_^!!!!
Sure your guns can be any
Pink Pistols
Now I remember where I heard of the Pink Pistols - In that clip of O'Reilly talking about the Lesbian Gangs. Heh. Not saying this is a gang, just the only time I've ever heard about them.
Silliest 'news article' ever. Quite offensive in places even.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rzkypahxcc
_________
The Gentleman Who Fell
HA!
zi remebered that, too. He did a story about threatening lesbian gangs, calling themselves Pink Pistols and was raked over the coals for it. I had never heard of them either until Rita posted her info.
It's hilarious - there really is a Pink Pistol Posse after all!
Don't want to dampen
Don't want to dampen celebration of this important moment for all of you. I'm sure its a great thing to know a gun can protect you from violence. But let's not discount the many deaths that occur every year due to gun violence. That doesn't mean guns should be banned but reasonable precautions should be taken to protect those who are vulnerable and cannot afford guns to protect themselves. Sure other weapons could also be used but the fact that guns are predominantly used should mean something.
http://www.childrensdefense.org/site/PageServer?pagename=newsroom_20080626_SCOTUS
Children's Defense Fund Disappointed by Supreme Court's Decision in District of Columbia v. Heller
WASHINGTON, D.C.—Children’s Defense Fund (CDF) General Counsel Susan Gates today released the following statement concerning the Supreme Court’s decision in the District of Columbia v. Heller case, which struck down Washington, D.C.’s decades-old handgun ban. Earlier this year, CDF and several other organizations submitted an amicus curiae brief to the Supreme Court urging the Justices to uphold the ban.
"The Children's Defense Fund is disappointed with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to strike down D.C.'s handgun ban. Laws such as the D.C. ban not only provide reasonable restrictions, but also are critical to protecting children and teens who are extremely vulnerable to gun violence, as highlighted by CDF’s recently released gun report, Protect Children, Not Guns.
"The gun report reveals that in 2005, the most recent year for which data are available, 3,006 children and teens were killed by firearms, marking the first increase of children and teens killed by gun violence since 1994. It is also the first rise in firearm deaths of children and teens since Congress allowed the Assault Weapons Ban to expire in 2004.- In 2005, more preschoolers were killed by guns than were law enforcement officers in the line of duty.
- The number of children and teens killed by guns in 2005 would fill 120 public school classrooms of 25 students each.
- Eight children and teens are killed each day by gun violence, a death toll that is the equivalent of one Northern Illinois University shooting every 15 hours or one Virginia Tech massacre every four days.
- Additionally, more than five times as many children and teens suffered non-fatal gun injuries in 2005.
"While this decision will have a devastating impact on D.C.'s handgun laws, the Supreme Court did recognize that 'the Second Amendment is not unlimited' and that prohibitions on possession and use of handguns are constitutional. Federal, state and local governments must enact laws to prohibit use of handguns by and around children and youth to stop tragic deaths and injuries. We also must urge Congress to enact common sense gun safety measures by requiring criminal background checks on those who purchase guns from unlicensed gun dealers. Finally, we must confront America's culture of violence by stressing more non-violent values and conflict resolution. In light of the Supreme Court's decision, every citizen must take action to help ensure our children a safe future."
If someone wants to hurt
Straw Man Alert!
This argument is ridiculous. Far, far more children die in automobile accidents. Do we ban cars? No.
They choke on toys. Do we ban toys? No.
Guns are a tool. To own a gun one accpets personal responsibility over that gun. If my gun kills a child then arrest and prosecute me. DO NOT try to take the guns from other , more responsible people.
This is our right - to Life - and that included defending that Life.I prefer to do it with my guns - of which I have four and am damned good with all of them.
They don't necessarily ban
They don't necessarily ban the car but they make safety restrictions and laws to protect the passengers and the other drivers on the road. If necessary the car will be recalled and problems will be fixed.
When a toy is deemed dangerous is it recalled and the originals are destryoyed and the necessary adjustments are made and a newer version may be produced if the company feels like it. But again..there are laws and restrictions trying to prevent the harm of children playing with said toy.
Will everyone be safe with restrictions and laws..obviously not..but just as you claim it is the "right to life" to have a gun...it is my right to life not to get shot by some random idiot who walked into a Wal-Mart one day and picked up a shiny "toy".
Good for you..you did it the right way and trained yourself..Unfortunately the more responsible do not out weigh the other... not everyone will do what they need to do. Again..people are stupid. I would rather not arm them.
fighting fire with fire just leaves everything scorched.
Good points but..
...no one has a Constitutional Right to cars and toys - I was merely attacking the "oh, God, the children" argument.
I own guns, yes, to protect myself - not just from men but from GOVERNMENT! No power on Earth can more easily take my rights from me. This was the Founder's Intent. We, the People, will never accept tyranny, nor will we allow ourselves to be made defenseless.
The biggest danger the Founders could foresee was from Government. I agree.
I'm not in any stupid backwoods militia, nor do I think that that is neccessary. Right now, my guns are for personal protection and pleasure - I enjoy firing my weapons - all four of them. But should there come a day - which seems more and more likely with the 5-4 decision from this Court, that my Government decides that I can not keep my guns - well, then all bets are off.
They can come get them.
This may seem outragous to those of you who put all of your faith in Government, but you're wrong. Communism, Facism - forms of Government have killed far, far more people - their OWN people - then armed conflict between opposing Nation States. It can happen here and if it does I won't go easy.
This is why I will never give up my Second Amendment Rights. No matter what.
Paranoid much?
"This may seem outragous to those of you who put all of your faith in Government, but you're wrong. Communism, Facism - forms of Government have killed far, far more people - their OWN people - then armed conflict between opposing Nation States. It can happen here and if it does I won't go easy."
Religion is the cause for more wars and deaths than any Government. Do you really think Kentucky is going to attack Iowa? What war are you waiting for?
"I own guns, yes, to protect myself - not just from men but from GOVERNMENT! No power on Earth can more easily take my rights from me. This was the Founder's Intent. We, the People, will never accept tyranny, nor will we allow ourselves to be made defenseless."
When the Founder wrote that, they were saying WE as a whole..as a nation would not be left defenseless. So we will call on out citizens to be our army. But we now HAVE and military and a police force to protect the people.
Just because you have rights doesn't mean you don't have to follow the law.
More? Really?
"Religion is the cause for more wars and deaths than any Government."
More than Idi Amin? Pol Pot? Stalin? Hitler? Mao? Castro? Franco? Ceausescu?
You get the point...
Religion and Wars
I don't know whether religion has spawned more wars than nationalism, but it is possible. Wars of religion were either isolated or mostly non-existant until the Current Era (A.D.) and centuries were spent with one religion at war against another. The earliest one I can think of are the Jewish-Roman Wars.
Converting has almost always been a part of war, so one can argue that religion is an underlying cause for many of them. Even Hitler had religious reasons for going to war.
Anyway, atleast wars between Christians have mostly been prevented since the Reformation.
_________
The Gentleman Who Fell
I understand
what you're saying Harpy. And I don't know the specific numbers either.
But despite how much we hear about ancient/religious/etc. wars, many of them resulted in thousands of deaths over hundreds of years.
My point with the above is that tens (hundreds?) of millions of people were murdered by their very own 'governments', in time frames spanning decades at most. They were purged en masse in numbers that obliterate other historical/religious purges in comparison.
I would invest in
You learn Karate
I'll keep my guns, thank you very much.
I don't care what other people do, really. More power to you. Just don't try to impose your decisions on me. And never try to take my rights from me.
gun accidents can occur and
gun accidents can occur and guns are made for distance. when a woman is assualted the assalinte can block the gun or take it from her. Anyone who owns a gun must go to the firing range at least everyday. especially with small arms fire... the firing range is that trianing yourself for a shot with distance...in the real world an ordainary person will not have that distance in an attack. with a practice and knowledge of self-defense tackticks one can at least get away. gun owner must really know thier weapon, a misfire could occur as well.guns are not 100% sure thing. I am very much agianst the promotion of pink guns ...that is very irresponisble.
sorry for the doulble post, meant to include these points.
If you had to pick the 1st or 2nd Amendment?
I would pick the first. Thus I am a Liberal. However, I don't believe gun control should be handled at the federal level.
Guns should be a local and state issue. This ruling overturns the laws created by local and state governments. Whether rural, urban or suburban, each area has unique crime levels, unique types of crime and different reasons for needing or not needing guns. If NY City has a gun control problem, it should have the right to make laws that are different from a rural area of Montana.
I would pick the Second
Thus I am a Republican.
My right to self defense is central to all of my other rights. If I can't live, what good are these rights to me?
Liberals need to find another ox to gore - this one will backfire on them every time.
Oh the Irony
Interestingly enough, today John McCain came out in favor of a Constitutional amendment in California that defines marriage as between a man and a woman. Being the boring Republican that he is, McCain railed against activist judges that usurp the will of the people.
But...that's exactly what happened today and look at the Right cheer.
Give me a freakin' break--fuckin' hypocrites. It's true, I guess, what Molly Ivins once wrote: "It’s a joke that the Right wing claims it is against 'judicial activists.' What they want are judicial activists who agree with them."
Which isn't to say, for the record, that I'm opposed the rights of people to own guns; I just don't think it's inherent from the second amendment.
But, I'm what you'd call a genuine strict constructionist...
-----
Geoffrey: You fool! As if it matters how a man falls down.
Richard: When the fall is all that is left, it matters a great deal.
- The Lion in Winter
What a load of shit!
Affirming our rights under the Constitution is EXACTLY what the original constructionalists are supposed to do. It's the Fab Four who voted to repeal our rights who were trying to reinvent the Constitution.
Get over yourself.
Okay...
You know, cyclo...for someone who constantly bitches about the disrespect folks in the forum have for gay conservatives, how is it that you can't offer a single response without throwing an insult? Seriously.
I know you're capable. Just try it.
Until then...
-----
Geoffrey: You fool! As if it matters how a man falls down.
Richard: When the fall is all that is left, it matters a great deal.
- The Lion in Winter
Oh yeah...
....I'm known for my whining. Give me a break.
I challenge you to prove I'm "constantly bitching" about disrespect for Conservatives. I fight squared up, girl, and I don't bitch about anything.
Outside of that, sorry to see you go, but if you can't take the heat you need to stay out of the kitchen.
The most important
my perspective.
I got my Doe!
It was many years ago that I took my 30-06 scoped rifle and went deer hunting. I fired one shot and it was successful. I ate that whole deer myself - didn't give any of it away - because I killed it.
What I don't always tell people is that my knees buckled after I took my shot. The first and only time in my 46 years that that has ever happened. I was so scared that I had wounded her and that she would suffer. No chance of that - I shot her through the neck and the kill was instant.
Still, I have never hunted again. Still have the rifle though and I lend it to friends during deer season in exchange for some venison. I've seen starving deer - they are one of the few prey animals that will over-breed their food supply. Hunting is neccessary for the health of the herd, but I'll sit this one out.
I believe though that, were I threatened enough to actually draw and fire a gun against a man who is threatening me, my knees won't buckle at all. These are not innocent deer we're talking about, but preditors looking for an easy mark. That will never be me.
Training
Make the requirement for owning a gun a 100 hr course or something - and that you have to take a refresher course every year or two to keep your permit.
And then if anyone without a permit is found with a gun throw them in jail for a year. If they were using it, throw them in jail for life.
Get rid of some of the inane drug laws and we'll have plenty of space in our prisons.
Personally I read the 2nd amendment to read you need a gun to be in a miltia and since we don't have militias anymore, I don't see the point. However, I have no problem in theory with people owning guns, I just think they need to be strictly controlled. There's nothing in the 2nd that says you have to be able to own a gun without doing anything to prove you can use it.
Exactly..the ammendment
Exactly..the amendment reads
That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
This was written when we did not have an army big enough to take care of the new nation. At the time this idea was formed in England it was customary for a soldier to BYOG to the war. And regular inspections were made to make sure men and boys were trained had another weapon besides a knife. The reason for this "law" was there was not a regular police force or army. So they relied on the people to fill those spots.
The "self defense" aspect of the interpretation of this amendment, which is what people nowadays are all in a tizzy over, doesn't come from this origin. It was interpreted from British common law and modern criminal law..not constitutional law.
In modern times we do not need a ready militia of the "common" people. We have police forces and armies. I think the amendment as it reads is outdated. The modern twist, or"interpretation", is why that ruling passed yesterday..that and a powerful gun lobby. So..like the "Boot in yer ass", "Let's go to Iraq and git 'em" mentality came back to bite everyone in the ass..I am sure this one will too. Lets just hope it is not 4000+ lives later.
Also..did anyone ever stop and think about how trigger sensative police officers might be now? I hate to think it but I would not be surprised if there were more officer related shootings.
in closing..News at Noon teaser I just heard while typing this..."Mother shoots her own son"
Yeah, that's the point.
There's nothing in the First Amendment qualifying those rights either.
Just like we can't inact proof of "english" language skills to those who vote in our elections, so can we not enact laws so punitive to the right of the people to own and bear arms.
The founders knew that it was important the citizens were capable of using arms effectively or there could be no militia to defend the State. We learn about guns in our homes and I don't need the Government trying to add prohibitive regulations on my rights. Fuck 'em. Want to see if I can use my gun? Try taking it from me.
I'll let
my avatar speak for me on this one. Thank you Tammy Bruce!
www.tammybruce.com
Nice attitude...geez.
There's nothing in the First Amendment qualifying those rights either.
The FA only pertains to the named rights in said amendment. The courts have added implied rights. Just like the "self defense" implications of the second amendment. If you read it for what it is, it only talks of arms in use for a "military" action. You are fighting for implied rights.
You do remember the founding fathers put this down over 200 years ago. Some things have changed....like..a TRAINED military and police force (a ready militia).
Where do you guys get that people what to take them away from you. The gun laws are there to help protect not only gun owners but the unarmed people in the world around them. Much like traffic laws and getting a drivers license. You have to take a course, get licensed, trained to drive a vehicle, get insured for yourself and in some cases against others, and abide by the laws and guild lines.
Look..the gang driving around town looking for a target, could give a shit about being a ready militia. The gun runners and drug lords, could give a shit about being a ready militia. The guy who has had a bad day at the stock market and has lost everything, could give a shit about being a ready militia. The guy who just lost his job and decided to take out everyone with him, could give a shit about being a ready militia. The kid who got his first failing grade of his life and can't live with the failure, could give a shit about being a ready militia.
What is so bad about keeping weapons out of the hands of people in those situations?
Because you never do...
...you never disarm those people you mention, you disarm law abiding citizens. Those who would use a gun to rob a store could give a fuck about guns laws or safety regulations.
Those retrictive laws, like DC's, say NO ONE can own a gun capable of being fired with one hand, even in their homes - that's actually what it said. Thiswas targeted to get the guns from law abiding American citizens with no thought but to protect themselves and their families. And it worked well. Without concern, the criminals ramped up the violence to unprecidented levels. DC was the Nation's Murder Capitol, twenty years after this ban.
I have a right - a Constitutional Right - to keep and bear arms. I choose to excercise that right, you may decide otherwise.
God, I hope you never have reason to regret it.
" God, I hope you never
" God, I hope you never have reason to regret it."
right back at'cha.
i agree
with what gato has been saying about the 2nd ammendment and how it is out of context nowadays but my point is a little different.
Lawrence King (the 15 year old boy killed because he was gay) was shot with a gun that was bought legally (therefor under the 2nd ammendment). I don't think that sentence needs much more explanation. I guess all that needs saying is next time you thank the Lord for the second ammendment also think about the thousands of people that are the victimes of gun crime everyear where the guns are bought legally thanks to our lovely ammendment numero two! Think about Lawrence king and next time you protest against hate crimes and discrimination think about the guns that you love so dearly!
~~~~
"laugh, laugh on at all the dreams that i the dreamer dare to weave,
laugh on, that i sitll belive in the people, for I still belive in life"
Omigod....
...someone shot a gay guy! People, good people, are shot every day by criminals! They are also raped everyday, robbed every day, beaten every day. You can't stop crime by disarming law abiding citizens.
The gun didn't kill Lawrence King - the one who fired it did. He could have just as easily beat him to death with a hammer.
i was just
using Lawrence King as an example of a person that was the victime of legal gun violence and thought that the fact that it was a homophobic crime might hit home with people here. nevertheless, i know it was hte person behind the crime but a young boy would find it much harder to kill someone withou a gun (especially if they are smaller in size).
And do you know how many of the rapes and robberies that you mentioned are done at gun point???? i think you'd find there are thousands of gun related crimes being commited each day all over the states and the gun doesn't even have to be fired a lot of the time!
And i don't say disarming people gets rid of crimes but in the UK we don't have guns (it is illegal to carry a firearm) even most policeman don't have guns. and i'm pretty sure as a percentage our crim is quite a bit lower, especially in southern states and our police force does just fine even though they don't carry guns.
~~~~
"laugh, laugh on at all the dreams that i the dreamer dare to weave,
laugh on, that i sitll belive in the people, for I still belive in life"
I see your point....
...but there is no such thing as "legal gun violence", except perhaps in war. Those people raped at gun point were probably praying to God wishing they had a means to protect themselves. That's my point. If I have a gun, I have a chance. Without one, I am at the mercy of anyone bigger and stronger than me.
I am aware of Britain's gun prohibitions and can only say what works for you will not necessarily work for us. The guns are already here - 90 per every 100 civilians. Disarming law abiding citizens only increases the size of the "victim pool".
Every where the politicains have banned guns is still plagued with more and more violence. Concealed carry laws, on the other hand, reduce violence.
problem