The Gun Culture is Somewhat In Denial About Gun Safety.

Page 17 of 24 [ 383 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 ... 24  Next

AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

15 Jan 2015, 12:40 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Not to rain on anyone's parade but I did watch a show on History 2 called Shootout. When you look at a show like that, you have to wonder...it had marshals and outlaws shooting each other in the wild west...with many others getting shot in the process just from all the bullets flying everywhere during the gun battle between the gang and the marshals. Why no one else bothered to shoot members of the gang I have no idea because lots of people had guns resting on their hips or in their wagons, attached to their saddles, resting on gun racks in their houses. Instead, cumulated in a dramatic gun fight in a town with plenty of collateral damage. If we had all these armed people shooting each other in a public place, it could have a similar outcome - others getting shot besides the bad guys.

Another segment featured these two bank robbers in Los Angeles, California, armed to the teeth with semi automatic weapons they modified into automatic and they had plenty of tactical gear like bullet proof vests and protection. So, they ended up shooting several police during a gunfight on the streets of LA, every cop's worse nightmare. What can you do in these situations, when they have all kinds of protections and the Bushmasters and everything else at their disposal to keep on shooting?

These are a couple of the worst examples of irresponsible behavior with firearms.

Quite true. But, in most states, citizens have the espressed rights to protect themselves, their families and friends, and their property from criminal intrusion. This, of course, doesn't extend to the gang activities that you described, but for most law-abiding citizens, it is a protected ability.


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

15 Jan 2015, 12:46 pm

AspieUtah wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Not to rain on anyone's parade but I did watch a show on History 2 called Shootout. When you look at a show like that, you have to wonder...it had marshals and outlaws shooting each other in the wild west...with many others getting shot in the process just from all the bullets flying everywhere during the gun battle between the gang and the marshals. Why no one else bothered to shoot members of the gang I have no idea because lots of people had guns resting on their hips or in their wagons, attached to their saddles, resting on gun racks in their houses. Instead, cumulated in a dramatic gun fight in a town with plenty of collateral damage. If we had all these armed people shooting each other in a public place, it could have a similar outcome - others getting shot besides the bad guys.

Another segment featured these two bank robbers in Los Angeles, California, armed to the teeth with semi automatic weapons they modified into automatic and they had plenty of tactical gear like bullet proof vests and protection. So, they ended up shooting several police during a gunfight on the streets of LA, every cop's worse nightmare. What can you do in these situations, when they have all kinds of protections and the Bushmasters and everything else at their disposal to keep on shooting?

These are a couple of the worst examples of irresponsible behavior with firearms.

Quite true. But, in most states, citizens have the espressed rights to protect themselves, their families and friends, and their property from criminal intrusion. This, of course, doesn't extend to the gang activities that you described, but for most law-abiding citizens, it is a protected ability.



Quote:
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."


When you consider that it's kinda vague. For one thing, it talks about a well regulated militia. What does that even mean? It would have been easier if they would have penned something like, the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed so that everyone can protect themselves.
Otherwise, it suggests we should all be gangs kinda.. Militias. Sorry, but that's what it implies...and it doesn't make a distinction between criminals and non.

And what exactly does "well regulated" mean? If our right to keep and bear arms shouldn't be infringed upon, how can anyone justify regulating?

Seriously, that amendment seems to elude to everyone, "people" which would mean anyone with homo sapien dna, can roam around in packs with guns showing to secure a "free state" which suggests you are protecting yourself from anyone who wants to take your freedom away. Again, it's very vague unless you can figure out exactly what is implied by "freedom" because it is an exceptionally vague term.
That's all it says, pretty much. It doesn't say bad guys cannot have guns unless you can figure out what they meant by well regulated and if you can figure that out, the part about the rights of "people" to keep and bear arms cancels the part about regulation out...



AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

15 Jan 2015, 1:22 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Quote:
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

When you consider that it's kinda vague. For one thing, it talks about a well regulated militia. What does that even mean? It would have been easier if they would have penned something like, the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed so that everyone can protect themselves.
Otherwise, it suggests we should all be gangs kinda.. Militias. Sorry, but that's what it implies...and it doesn't make a distinction between criminals and non.

And what exactly does "well regulated" mean? If our right to keep and bear arms shouldn't be infringed upon, how can anyone justify regulating?

Seriously, that amendment seems to elude to everyone, "people" which would mean anyone with homo sapien dna, can roam around in packs with guns showing to secure a "free state" which suggests you are protecting yourself from anyone who wants to take your freedom away. Again, it's very vague unless you can figure out exactly what is implied by "freedom" because it is an exceptionally vague term.
That's all it says, pretty much. It doesn't say bad guys cannot have guns unless you can figure out what they meant by well regulated and if you can figure that out, the part about the rights of "people" to keep and bear arms cancels the part about regulation out...

Good question. The Second Amendment was finally incorporated to the states and their local governments by the U.S. Supreme Court opinions about District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_ ... _v._Heller , which determined that the amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home; and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago , which determined that the amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states.

Within its Heller opinion, the Court determined that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia. The Court researched several contemporaneous definitions of the terminology used in the amendment to arrive at its opinion. For example, strict constructionalists have published collections of such definitions of the terms used in the Constitution including one http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm which is a collection of such definitions of the phrase “well-regulated.” The opinion itself describes other such definitions and interpretations.

As for criminalization measures, those are provided by federal and state laws, not the Constitution itself as it is a negative-rights document https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_ ... ive_rights .


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

15 Jan 2015, 1:33 pm

Instead of philosophizing on the side, why not just put it in the document so everyone knows exactly what you mean? And if you cannot apply the terms the original document held to the modern world, what's so bad about updating?

See, there's a reason they don't update...if they even tried...we all know all these various special interest groups would all be trying to get their teeth into it so they just don't even dare bother to do it even though it is really what it needs. It's outdated, pretty much, if we don't even use the same terms with the same meanings now.



AspieUtah
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 20 Jun 2014
Age: 58
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Brigham City, Utah

15 Jan 2015, 2:00 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Instead of philosophizing on the side, why not just put it in the document so everyone knows exactly what you mean? And if you cannot apply the terms the original document held to the modern world, what's so bad about updating...?

That would make it simpler. And, the Constitution itself has rules by which it can be amended. So, those people who wish to change the Constitution to should follow those rules.


_________________
Diagnosed in 2015 with ASD Level 1 by the University of Utah Health Care Autism Spectrum Disorder Clinic using the ADOS-2 Module 4 assessment instrument [11/30] -- Screened in 2014 with ASD by using the University of Cambridge Autism Research Centre AQ (Adult) [43/50]; EQ-60 for adults [11/80]; FQ [43/135]; SQ (Adult) [130/150] self-reported screening inventories -- Assessed since 1978 with an estimated IQ [≈145] by several clinicians -- Contact on WrongPlanet.net by private message (PM)


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

15 Jan 2015, 2:53 pm

Well...that's why you have philosophizing and courts struggling to apply old terms to new...they made it nearly impossible to amend. They basically said when they wrote it, if you really really really need to amend this, it will be allowed but we think it's pretty much perfect the way we wrote it so we are going to make sure you have to go to hell and back to change any of this vague stuff that doesn't really fit into your world.

They made the assumption everything would stay the same forever and ever. They wanted to exist in their own little world completely cut off from others except to export their goods and they wrote for anyone in that mindset never thinking it would change and everyone else isn't accounted for.



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

15 Jan 2015, 10:35 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Not to rain on anyone's parade but I did watch a show on History 2 called Shootout. When you look at a show like that, you have to wonder...it had marshals and outlaws shooting each other in the wild west...with many others getting shot in the process just from all the bullets flying everywhere during the gun battle between the gang and the marshals. Why no one else bothered to shoot members of the gang I have no idea because lots of people had guns resting on their hips or in their wagons, attached to their saddles, resting on gun racks in their houses. Instead, cumulated in a dramatic gun fight in a town with plenty of collateral damage. If we had all these armed people shooting each other in a public place, it could have a similar outcome - others getting shot besides the bad guys.

Another segment featured these two bank robbers in Los Angeles, California, armed to the teeth with semi automatic weapons they modified into automatic and they had plenty of tactical gear like bullet proof vests and protection. So, they ended up shooting several police during a gunfight on the streets of LA, every cop's worse nightmare. What can you do in these situations, when they have all kinds of protections and the Bushmasters and everything else at their disposal to keep on shooting?

These are a couple of the worst examples of irresponsible behavior with firearms.


bushmaster is a manufactur.
the criminals in the shoot out used ak47s, guns that bushmaster doesn't even make. not all scary looking guns are a bushmaster.

I'd rather have a shoot out then get on my knees and just let the bad guys walk a line poping us in the head one by one.

you might shoot an inocent person but by doing so also save 50 people. so do the outcome outweigh the risk. I don't get that whole idea "well if a mass shooter comes, just hide and hope they run out of bullets before getting to you, far better 50 people die then a person or two get accidentally shot" also Id rather be shot accidentally then killed by a murder.



cathylynn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,245
Location: northeast US

15 Jan 2015, 11:13 pm

some more info for the discussion:


http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... LiO_EfF-PM



sly279
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 11 Dec 2013
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 16,181
Location: US

15 Jan 2015, 11:37 pm

"so. heres 3 cases of people doing stupid thing, so people shouldn't have guns."

I'm sure one could find stupid cases of any activity, the fact that theres stupid people out there doing stupid thing doesn't mean all the peopl not doing stupid things should be treated the same as those who do.

I for one am smart enough to know you don't shoot through a door or more importantly at a indedentified person.
one except would be a person forcefully entering your house. but would I shoot someone out side my window. no. someone breaking through my window however would pose a higher threat.

all those cases could have been prevented if the people just checked their target. we live in a age of amazing flashlights.



cathylynn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 24 Aug 2011
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,245
Location: northeast US

16 Jan 2015, 12:38 am

those three stories were just a come-on for the meat in the rest of the article.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

16 Jan 2015, 12:59 am

I am not saying people shouldn't *have* guns. I just pointed out potential problems and indeterminate wording and offered potent suggestions.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

16 Jan 2015, 2:22 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Quote:
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."


When you consider that it's kinda vague. For one thing, it talks about a well regulated militia. What does that even mean? It would have been easier if they would have penned something like, the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed so that everyone can protect themselves.
Otherwise, it suggests we should all be gangs kinda.. Militias. Sorry, but that's what it implies...and it doesn't make a distinction between criminals and non.

And what exactly does "well regulated" mean? If our right to keep and bear arms shouldn't be infringed upon, how can anyone justify regulating?


The term militia is actually quite well defined:
Quote:
10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.


"Well regulated" refers to something like the militia having a well defined superior authority.

At the time of the Second Amendment was passed, it was inconceivable to the people of that day that anyone would want to disarm ordinary people to keep them from hunting and protecting themselves and their families. If not, you can bet that it would have been stated much stronger. As it is, it guarantees that the government will not abridge our already existing right to keep and bear arms.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

17 Jan 2015, 1:54 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
I am not saying people shouldn't *have* guns. I just pointed out potential problems and indeterminate wording and offered potent suggestions.

:roll:
Why not just go ahead and come out as an anti and be done with it?
You're not fooling anyone buy tapdancing around it.


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


aghogday
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Nov 2010
Age: 61
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,683

17 Jan 2015, 9:03 am

Raptor wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
I am not saying people shouldn't *have* guns. I just pointed out potential problems and indeterminate wording and offered potent suggestions.

:roll:
Why not just go ahead and come out as an anti and be done with it?
You're not fooling anyone buy tapdancing around it.


NO NO, the world's not black and white and neither is the mind, when working healthy.

Nothing IS WRONG with having a spectrum of opinion instead of RIGID THINKING MIND. ;)

BUT BACK ON TOPIC, of course folks CAN HAVE GUNS, AS A LEGAL RIGHT.

But as always where human beings are living in large Tribes now referred to as societies, CONTROLS are necessary to prevent anarchy from being the reality.

And GUN SAFETY PER strict regulations and requirements is A TOTAL NECESSITY, TO MAKE society work, WITHOUT, potential anarchy.

So yeah, IT'S ALL GRAY.

And yes, guns are A LOT LIKE SEX IN THIS WAY. ;)

But 'my girls' could tell ya more..;)

By the way JOKE ALERT!

Specifically on the 2nd line ABOVE and the video below. :P


_________________
KATiE MiA FredericK!iI

Gravatar is one of the coolest things ever!! !

http://en.gravatar.com/katiemiafrederick


ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

17 Jan 2015, 11:32 am

Raptor wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
I am not saying people shouldn't *have* guns. I just pointed out potential problems and indeterminate wording and offered potent suggestions.

:roll:
Why not just go ahead and come out as an anti and be done with it?
You're not fooling anyone buy tapdancing around it.

Can't say that. I believe in protecting oneself first and foremost and you should be allowed to do that without any penalties and sometimes, a gun becomes necessary. So, to deprive people of their guns can set up this scenario where they are getting guns pulled on them and they cannot fight back like the peasants of days gone and who wants that? No one wants some king's men to come along and bully and that's what happens.

However, there should be more seriousness afforded to gun ownership. I do think some people treat them more like cap guns than the real deal and that's just stupid in my honest opinion. It should definitely get more respect than the kitchen knife. Sometimes, it doesn't.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

17 Jan 2015, 1:43 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Raptor wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
I am not saying people shouldn't *have* guns. I just pointed out potential problems and indeterminate wording and offered potent suggestions.

:roll:
Why not just go ahead and come out as an anti and be done with it?
You're not fooling anyone buy tapdancing around it.

Can't say that. I believe in protecting oneself first and foremost and you should be allowed to do that without any penalties and sometimes, a gun becomes necessary. So, to deprive people of their guns can set up this scenario where they are getting guns pulled on them and they cannot fight back like the peasants of days gone and who wants that? No one wants some king's men to come along and bully and that's what happens.

However, there should be more seriousness afforded to gun ownership. I do think some people treat them more like cap guns than the real deal and that's just stupid in my honest opinion. It should definitely get more respect than the kitchen knife. Sometimes, it doesn't.


Let's look at a few exhibits from this thread.
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
The Gun Culture Is Somewhat In Denial About Gun Safety

That’s says a lot right there which is indicative of an anti-gun stance. Especially when you don’t know diddly about the “gun culture” or even how to define it.

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
It's wrong on so many levels. For one thing, the gun is in her handbag without some kind of safety? It could easily go off and shoot her or someone else. What kind of carelessness is this?

They just “go off”, eh? :roll:
Is this another nugget of wisdom from your kuntry kuzzins who spend every waking hour lecturing on gun safety........but then go blow their hands off while improperly negotiating fences with firearms?

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
You would think it would alarm any parent who has a handgun with a light trigger.

What’s a light trigger?

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
I think a lot of problems could be solved with voice recognition triggers or ones that only recognize the finger of the person who owns the gun. Just think, such weapons could not be accidentally discharged by kids nor could someone you are trying to shoot grab your gun and shoot you instead.

Yeah, right. :roll:

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
To me it's obvious what happened. These people spend too much time thinking about guns than perhaps they need to.

Advocating some kind of thought control? Besides, how can you think about gun safety without thinking about guns?

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
There needs to be a law that says concealed carriers must have the gun on their person when they are out and about, not just in a purse or car glove compartment. This is not infringing upon anyone's gun rights it just says if you are going to have a gun on you at all times, you must do so responsibly and the best place for handgun is on one's person, in a holster with a strap.

Demonstrates that you know very little about the subject of modern holsters.
Ignorance is a standard attribute of anti-gunners.

Quote:
If carriers cannot be responsible and accidents happen, then laws should be made addressing the issue.

Yep, punish the masses for the mistakes of the few.

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Another segment featured these two bank robbers in Los Angeles, California, armed to the teeth with semi automatic weapons they modified into automatic and they had plenty of tactical gear like bullet proof vests and protection. So, they ended up shooting several police during a gunfight on the streets of LA, every cop's worse nightmare. What can you do in these situations, when they have all kinds of protections and the Bushmasters and everything else at their disposal to keep on shooting?

As someone else has already pointed out, Bushmaster is a manufacturer and mostly of AR-15’s. The bank robbers in this case did have one Bushmaster AR-15 carbine and the others were an AK-47 and an HK-91. The AK was made by Norinco and the HK-91 by Heckler & Koch.

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
These are a couple of the worst examples of irresponsible behavior with firearms.

It was also an illegal act which should be obvious. Their "Bushmasters" :roll: :roll: did not take control of their minds and make them do it nor was it attributable to the lack gun safety conscientiousness.
If you're following the ant-gunner's script the next things will be assault weapons, hi-capacity magazines, and registration.

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Instead of philosophizing on the side, why not just put it in the document so everyone knows exactly what you mean? And if you cannot apply the terms the original document held to the modern world, what's so bad about updating?

In other words, change the constitution to suit whatever's in vogue at the moment.

And I could go back and dig out all the times you mention 2 year olds and guns thorough this thread. Do you have a phobia of 2 year olds? Did you have a bad dream where one ran between your legs and bit your [email protected] off or something? You have peppered this thread with reference to 2 year olds.
One each 2 year old being involved in one accident in Jerkwater Idaho or wherever it was hardly warrants the obsession with them.

To sum it up; yes, you ARE an anti and there is only black and white where this topic is concerned.

I'd write more but I've run out of eye-rollers since it's been necessary to use all of them up on you. I'll have to buy some more at the store today.


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley