My compromise for gun control

Hence the bumper sticker, "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns".

Of course that will happen to individuals, small groups, and even moderate size groups. But get 30-40% of the populace together and then it becomes a bargaining chip. That's why it's critically important to stand up for our rights!

"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing."

I want to thank you for braving the cold and making a stand for the rights guaranteed to the people.

I would have loved to be there but had to settle for watching it live via Douglas Ducote.

I suggest pump, as in 870, which is much less prone to jamming than the 1100.
Full choke is for long range. Slug barrel is much easier to maneuver and sprays wider, both of which are advantages in close combat.

 

Deadly force is authorized during its commission only when deadly force is about to happen as the robbery is happening..
After robbery is over and suspect is fleeing, you can not shoot fleeing suspect.
The threat to your life has ended and is far unlikely as distance is created.
He called 911 thinking he was justified..
Don’t be thhis guy..
Teen shot dead trying to steal cellphone at Lynwood roller rink: police

 

Oh. The Constitution proves that more people are killed by fists than guns? Interesting. Did not know that.

Can you for us all cite the specific line that says this?

 

In answer to your query, yes, I can cite. And no, I most certainly will not. Get off your lazy @$$ and read it yourself and stop acting like a troll. Sounds to me like you've either never read it, or forgotten what you read, or just didn't pay any attention to what you read. No amount of citation will fix those who won't read and think.

 

So you cant. Got it.

I think instead of insulting me you should reread what you're quoting. I asked for a citation to verify the claim more fists kill people than guns. You claimed the Consititution somehow was a citation that verified this. Twice now. I always thought the Constitution protected our rights. But it actually proves ridiculous claims accurate.

Apparently...

 

Are you actually that stupid? There is nothing in any of my posts that says what you implied. I leave you to your own imaginations and presumption.

 

No, you're the dummy. You said in plain English "Seriously? Are you even an American citizen? Take a look at the Constitution. There, you should pay attention to the 2nd, 9th, and 10th Amendments. No further citation needed, and none further will be given.." The citation you seem to be talking about is one to support the claim that more people are killed by fists than guns in the United States, and to cite the Constitution in support of that is ludicrous. When you've dug yourself into a hole, stop digging!

 

I never said you did. Bit self centered aintcha.

Diesel said. I asked them for a citation. You've attacked me with a litany of insults since then. Not sure what your issue is, but it's not my problem. Good luck with all that

 

Thank you

 

Considering the danger of people going off half cocked about their gun rights, I might address the broad constitutional claims raised in Varmint's post, namely the 2nd, 9th, and 10th Amendments. The Ninth is easiest to dispose of. It provides for "unenumerated rights"--a vague, open-ended concept that, so far, has been given limited meaning by the courts. So far, the Supremes have acknowleged an unenumerated right to privacy over reproductive rights, and environmentalists have tried to persuade the courts that there's an unenumerated right to a decent environment. The Supreme Court does recognize an "inherent right of self defense" as a basis for the right to own firearms. The Second Amendment provides an enumerated right to bear arms, and that right is also dependent on judicial interpretation. The leading case is District of Columbia v, Heller (2008), in which the United States Supreme Court upheld an individual right to own firearms, but added that "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." As for the Tenth Amendment, which provides that the federal government is one of enumerated powers, while the states and the people have reserved rights, the federal government's powers over interstate commerce give it broad power to regulate firearms, within the limits identified in Heller.

 

1 Most people are talking about prudent gun control not a complete ban.

2 If you allow ease of access to guns then it is easy for the criminal and irresponsible to get hold of a gun are you saying you want criminals and the irresponsible to have easy access to guns?

 

OK so you are admitting you would be willing to kill your political opponents and police officers – the question then would be why?

What would your political opponents have to do for you to begin killing them?

 

I brought up earlier the lynching’s of black people in parts of the US and asked why didn’t the good gun owners do anything about it.

I mean to me segregation is a clear sign of an evil tyrannical government so why didn’t the decent and good gun owners protect the black people being abused and bring down that evil form of government. I mean white people had easy access to guns, they had votes, they filled juries, they could have done a lot to stop what was happening, why didn’t they?

The point is that just owning a gun does not mean you will fight evil or tyranny because you might actually support that evil, that tyranny

It might even be the case that gun owners might even use those guns to intimidate or kill those that do talk out against the evil, like the case of Chaney, Goodman, and Schwerner in Mississippi and the assassination of Martin Luther King.

So it is very important when gun owners say they have guns to stop what they see as their political opponents from acting in certain ways to ask who do they see as their political opponents and what things would cause them to take up arms against them.

 

Geez....I can't even tell who's responding to who or for what reason in this thread anymore. I feel like I'm talking to one person and others chime in creating confusion and chaos. What a waste of time.

Pardon me if I bow out and let you converse with one another by yourselves.

 

Varmint

Sorry seems pretty simple to me or is this an excuse to allow you to run away because you are unwilling or unable to address what has been raised?

Which is that the gun lobby arguments don’t seem to stand up to rational scrutiny.

Well anyway bye

 

I think you should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

As an extension of the concept, presumed trustworthy until proven otherwise.

That would be less of a stretch if we raised and educated more of our youth to be responsible.

 

You're still baiting with this... rolleyes

I think you know. You want some incoherente rant to pick apart. But for the benefit of others...

First off, police are people, who are part of the community. Many of us have police in the family. Many police have family in the crowds of protestors. Some police would rather be on the protest side. They're entrusted to keep the peace and confront law breakers, generally harming the general well being.

Some police have vowed to take their oath to the Constitution seriously to the point of refusing to enforce unconstitutional laws. At least one sheriff has said publicly that he'll deputize all his constituents if it comes to it.

So, let's say there's a huge crowd of armed gun rights advocates marching on a state capitol to protest second amendment violations. The police are charged with keeping them outside and the legislators from harm. But the protestors are advancing. They want inside to express their concerns in the chamber.

Will the police initiate deadly force on their own community? Say they're outnumbered 100:1. Are they going to give up their lives while killing their own people? Yeah.

Are the protestors going to gun down the police barricade? Their own people. Or will they simply push their way through? Yeah.

This could be a bit more nebulous if the police were the only ones armed. But they're not. Yet. So yet again, an armed society provides for less overall violence than otherwise.

As for legislators, it'll be a lot easier for them to comprehend the will of the people when faced with a sea of barrels.

 

I've bowed out before. Then sucked back in. It's crazy. You can state your position without feeling victim to the baiting. Pretty much. I think...
Cheers.

 

Uhm, in this instance Varmint cornered himself though. By making a factually wrong argument and trying to back it up in an illogical manner. Everyone can reread.
If one wants to quit the convo that should always be ok of course, but at least be honest about the reason (or don't give a reason)

 

In OP, I gave the option of it being a tax write off. Actually, I've come to support universal healthcare and I believe mental healthcare should be included.