Is the right to bear arms outdated.

[Danimal W]

And yet, guns in the hands of law abiding citizens can and do prevent/stop crimes.

I know someone who was driving a convertible with the top down who is grateful for his ccw permit and concealed firearm. 6 thugs saw him with the top down and thought easy target with no one around. When their body language indicated their intentions, this person only untucked his shirt on the right side (since shirt was tucked in over pistol) and put his right hand next to his ribs. The 6 thugs changed direction and lost interest in convertible driver.

a GUN prevented a crime and at the same time was never removed from holster and never used as a weapon.

 

[Tom P]

For once you have said something that makes sense. Evil people in China and Japan use knives and kill only small mumbers.

8 out of 51, with knives
26 out of 28, with guns

Its a simple as that!

Jim, Once again, it's not the number, but the way people die, right? At the present rate it would take 33 years to accumulate the deaths by gun murder that happen in one year by tobbaco. But you don't have a problem with that?

 

[Jim Craik]

Steve,

So you equate guns with bombs, very interesting, you do know that bombs are banned, with extremely harsh consequences for even just posesing one. Just as it should be for guns.

 

[Tom P]

Steve,

So you equate guns with bombs, very interesting, you do know that bombs are banned, with extremely harsh consequences for even just posesing one. Just as it should be for guns.

And tobbaco.

 

[Danimal W]

Steve,

So you equate guns with bombs, very interesting, you do know that bombs are banned, with extremely harsh consequences for even just posesing one. Just as it should be for guns.

Yep Jim, a ban on bombs sure saved the 168 killed and 800+ injured in Oklahoma City.

And since bombs are banned, there wasn't really a truck bomb detonated in the parking garage of the world trade center in the early 90's.

And since cocaine and heroin are illegal, we don't have a drug problem.

Repeat after us, "evil does evil."

 

[Danimal W]

And tobbaco.

And low profile, lightweight, high powered cars..... someone could misuse those and they are terrible for the environment.

All this talk against guns and guns like AR's.... I was going to go duck/goose hunting this weekend, but maybe I'll take an AR out and go coyote hunting... Oh wait a minute, that would be a legal and legitimate use of an AR. And why THAT rifle you ask? Because it is the most accurate rifle I own.

 

[Tom P]

And low profile, lightweight, high powered cars..... someone could misuse those and they are terrible for the environment.

All this talk against guns and guns like AR's.... I was going to go duck/goose hunting this weekend, but maybe I'll take an AR out and go coyote hunting... Oh wait a minute, that would be a legal and legitimate use of an AR. And why THAT rifle you ask? Because it is the most accurate rifle I own.

Because it's 3250 fps and flat shooting as you get other than a 220 swift. Nice gun.

 

[Danimal W]

Tom,
The real question is do I take the 24" Lilja barreled .223 or the 24" Les Baer barreled 6.5 Grendel? Lilja is more accurate (sub 1/4 moa), and the Grendel is only 1/3-1/2 moa but much longer range....hmmm

 

[John]

I'm going to put myself well and truly in the firing line here [no pun intended]

I'm 63 years old, have lived all my life in countries where gun ownership isn't totally banned but they are stricly controlled, in the passed I have owned a nice little Rugger 22cal for rabbits, foxes and the like, and the odd skippy, a Rugger 44 magnum carbine that I bought of a bloke in the NT for pigs etc and the odd shot gun when I owned a lab and lived on a farm, I'm also an ex Vietnam vet.
so i'm not totaly anti gun, I just don't see the point in owning one for so called protection, to me that means you own it to intentionaly shoot somebody, if they threaten you or piss you off. and because in your country they are so easy to get hold of, you can almost be dead certain that the other guy has one as well.
to me that's just a recipe for disaster, as anyone with a grudge about nothing can get his hands on a gun and create all sorts of carnidge. now i'm not saying it dosnt happen over here in either AUS or NZ as it has in the past unfortunately, you are right in saying that you cant stop it completely, that's just a foolish statement as we all no where theres a will there will be a way, but theres no need to make it easy for them.
the other disturbing thing I see is the availability of auto rifles and hi powered hunting rifles to anybody, even if you live in downtown Manhatten you can buy a hunting rife, why, what are you going to shoot, pidgeons at 1000 yards? in my opinion if you need an automatic rifle your either wastefull or a piss poor shot, either way they should be banned to the general public, as theres absolutely no reason in hell why they should own one. Hi powered hunting rifles should be more tightly controlled, and hand guns should also be more tightly controlled, instead of getting a free one when you open a bank acc at some banks.

I no ill get shot down in flames but what the hell its just my opinion for what its worth, no more no less.
merry X mass
cheers John

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

So I was going to let this go but after Jim's comments I just can't. So Jim what you are saying is that since you don't see any value/reason/fun in shooting an "assualt" rifle then nobody should own one? Talk about B.S. So I think that anyone that drives anything that is not electric or get's 42+ MPG should have to turn them in because they are only going to be used by recless people and put people in danger!!! These cars should only be used on a race track by professional drivers that can handle it and it's stupid and irresponsible to even want to drive something so dangerous on the street. Can you see that it never stops once you start down that road? Because you have no desire or fondness to do something dose not mean everyone feels the same, please don't determine what I can and can't do because you have no interest in it! For the moment we still live in a free society, can we please keep it that way... We in America can fly, drive, shoot and play with almost anything we want and it's determined by whae the person doing the activity decides they want to do.

Steve

Steve, I don't disagree that some individuals find enjoyment in owning and using an assualt rifle. Obviously they do, or they wouldn't spent the money to have them. My point is this:
the risk to the rest of the country isn't worth the fun they have. It's that simple. I've shot guns in the past and enjoyed it, might even do it again. And I might enjoy trying out an assault rifle. But I think the safety of the rest of the country is a hell of a lot more important than your having fun, okay? I think your fun, as you describe it, isn't nearly as important as trying to loosen the grip that people like yourself have on the country and our gun laws.

You folks that think a ban on assault weapons is the first step towards banning all firearms are delusional fools who have no respect for the Constitution. Take it from me, firearms will NEVER be banned in this country- won't happen. The best that gun control advocates like me can hope for is a ban on assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and high-energy ammunition. That's enough for me.

I don't happen to think that all guns ought to be banned, at all. I was very specific about what I thought and what I hope to see happen. And you, Steve, are going to end up on the losing side of this argument. Watch.

If you think that your having fun with an assault weapon is important, why don't you drive through Newtown, CT, with a sign in your car about how much you love your assault rifle?

Oh, and about driving only cars that get 42 mpg-= I've got a whole garage full of big-engine cars including a GT40 and a Cobra, among others, all of which use tons of fuel, etc. AND a boat with two big diesels. So if you think I'm some kind of liberal tree-hugger who wants to ruin everyone's fun you are dead wrong- DEAD wrong, totally. I like ridiculous toys as much as anyone does. But I don't think my "fun" should be paid for in the sacrifice of public safety. And you do.

 

[Steve26]

Jim, you realize that I was trying unsuccessfully to make a point right? I have a GT40 I built from scratch and a dozzen motorcycles and have had very fast cars most of my life. I'm not sure why you make a personal attack? I have not attacked anyone, just talking about personal feelings after a very tragic event. I have no need to tell you what toys you own nor do I care, we do share a deep common intrest in cars and the GT40 in particular but that dose not mean that we are the same or that we see eye to eye on everything or anything for that matter. I respect you as well as everyone on this forum enough to allow/encourage your opnion without getting personal or pissed and wish we could all do the same. You play with your toys and I'll play with mine. We live in America where we can still do that for the most part. If people like other countries better because of these types of things they are free to move there! They also have the right to try to change our laws to make this country better in their eyes, some people will agree some won't and in the end the voice of the people will/or should dictate what our society looks like. I love that and am willing to sound my voice and vote the way I see fit and openly allow everyone the same right reguardless of weather they have the same views as I do. No we don't agree on this matter, I think that's OK. I am sorry you and others feel like they need to attack one another on this or any other matter, that sucks! As I said earlier, I will agree to disagree with the ban on certain types of wepons and would rather see a better meaningful soultion that will keep our kids,grand kids, family and friends safe. I dont know what that is, I trually wish I did so we never had to see this terrible type of event happen ever again.

Steve

 

[Jim Rosenthal]

There is no meaningful solution, as you put it, that will keep our children and grandchildren and family members safe. All we can do is make the world less risky for them. And when we choose to bring children into the world, we become hostages to fortune- at any moment, some terrible mischance can take your child away from you forever and leave you wondering- for the rest of your life- what you should have done differently.

So, for example, let's say you let your child go to the pool with friends and he or she drowns- or you buy your child an ATV and he or she gets killed riding it- or you let your child go skiing with a church group and someone runs into him or her on the ski slope and they get a head injury and die from it- you spend the rest of your life trying to forgive yourself for allowing your child to do something that you thought was safe and enjoyable.

But the recent circumstance was different. What did these parents do? They woke their small children up. They bathed them, dressed them, fed them breakfast and while they ate, packed their lunches. They brought them to school or put them on the school bus. And before they left them, they kissed them goodbye, just like all of us have done with the children that we brought into the world and love so much.

And they never saw them alive again.

There is nothing natural or explainable about having to bury your own child. I have spent thirty years in emergency medicine and I still remember too many of these deaths and the grief shown by parents who have to preside over the burial of their child- the little person that they made themselves with their love, in the image of themselves. I've seen it too many times and I still remember too many of them. They haunt me, to this day.

And against that, you oppose a ban on ONE TYPE of firearm- the most lethal kind of firearm sold in this country, because shooting with that firearm is FUN? Your point of view is morally bankrupt.

I am in no way naive enough to think that banning one type of weapon, together with its associated hardware- big magazines, high-energy ammo- will eliminate mass murders of the kind we've just witnessed. It may reduce them. I hope so. I also think that any useful effort to reduce this kind of mayhem will include a really serious gun registration and licensing system, a really serious gun safety law in all states, and serious mental health efforts to try to somehow identify the kind of person who would do this kind of thing before it occurs. On that last point, having spent three decades in medicine, I am not so sure it is possible. Nonetheless, there is NO alternative to trying.

What I am not willing to bargain with, or make compromise with, is the idea that the public safety should be shortchanged because it is FUN to shoot assault weapons. I have no quarrel with the idea that citizens should be able to protect themselves. I have no quarrel with target shooting, or cowboy competitions, or hunting, for food or otherwise (although I think hunters ought to eat what they kill) But in the idea of FUN balanced against the public well-being, the weight of FUN is about a gram, Steve. And the weight of public safety and well-being is exactly equivalent to the limitless burden of heartbreak now borne by twenty-six families in Newtown, CT- and countless families all over the country who have been similarly afflicted.

 

[Tim]

The right to bear arms is about as outdated as last century.

9000 were killed in the USA by guns last year. Many more than died in the 911 terrorist attacks. Look at all the extra securety that has been put in place because of these attacks. If a terrorist took out a bus load of 1st graders then think of all the actions that would come in. But because it is an idiot with a gun Nothing is going to happen.

The NRA top brass are a group of self centered egotistical money hungry people. They have a nieche and are making millions from the gun makers. Lining their own pockets and the pockets of the polliticians.
How else could a comercially available method of Terror which is what a gun is be still be allowed to be sold with minimal checks and balances.
If we called these nutters Terrorists then think how quickly the changes would be wrung in.

some terrorists tried, Unsucsessfull I might add to bring down a plane. Now look at all the millions spent on Cancer causung Xray machines and added securety` at the airports.

Yes you can still Kill people with a pen knife. But the numbers before the perpetrator is subdued is going to be many less. you cant stand off at a hundred meters and kill with a knife, as you can with a gun.

I am glad I live in a country where gun control is practiced.

 

[Danimal W]

I don't know about other Americans, but I have a problem with other countries trying to change our Constitution to fit their beliefs.

 

[Jack]

I too, have a BIG problem with that. Oops, I said that I wasn't going to comment on this anymore, sorry.

 

[John]

I don't know about other Americans, but I have a problem with other countries trying to change our Constitution to fit their beliefs.

I think its more about common sense than tying to change your constitution.

I constantly hear the argument guns don't kill people, people kill people, yep very true, and their chosen method for doing that is 99.9% likely to be a gun. and yes I totally agree that cars, trucks,trains and planes kill a lot of people as well, but they are on the whole accidents, not premeditated murder.
I'm not advocating banning guns completely, as you say that will never work, but a change of mind set will.

it should not be a right to own a gun of any description, it should be a highly regulated privilidge.

the reason for my thinking this way, cars, trucks, trains, planes, knifes and all that may kill people but that's not their designated purpose, you buy a car to get you from A to B not to kill some one, but guns are designed purely and purposely to kill, that's the very reason for their being, and anyone who says differently is full of it.
John

 

[craig]

Wrong John.....the right to bear arms is a legitimate right......health care on the other hand is not a right.

 

[Tim]

I don't know about other Americans, but I have a problem with other countries trying to change our Constitution to fit their beliefs.

And America doesnt try to change the way other countries think. Grow up, Travel the world and just listen to the way America tries to change other countries. America is one of the Bully countries that has to have other countries jumping to their way.

I am not trying to change your constitution, sooner or later when enough sh#*t has hit the fan the constitution will get changed from inside the USA. I believe that it only takes a 75% in favour vote to change any of the constitution. It is not perminant and all set in stone.

• Two-thirds of the state legislatures ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. (This method has never been used.)

To Ratify Amendments

• Three-fourths of the state legislatures approve it, or

• Ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states approve it. This method has been used only once -- to ratify the 21st Amendment -- repealing Prohibition.

The Supreme Court has stated that ratification must be within "some reasonable time after the proposal." Beginning with the 18th amendment, it has been customary for Congress to set a definite period for ratification. In the case of the 18th, 20th, 21st, and 22nd amendments, the period set was 7 years, but there has been no determination as to just how long a "reasonable time" might extend.
Of the thousands of proposals that have been made to amend the Constitution, only 33 obtained the necessary two-thirds vote in Congress. Of those 33, only 27 amendments (including the Bill of Rights) have been ratified.

 

[Chris Coote]

Hi Jim Rosenthal,
Personally I think your response has been one of the few positive ones so far on the forum.
You take a more mature and reasonable approach.
Also I do not personally care about your Constitution to bear arms as highlited by others as a given right to protect themselves and other countries purported interference as it has nothing to do where I live "down under".

Care factor "ZERO" if you guys want to carry guns and shoot each other up and it does not affect me or my country then your problem.We do however support the USA in most overseas military conflicts.
It is a total tragedy however 20 children lost their young and innocent lives due to the freedom in having firearm ownership in the USA particulary assault rifles.Can you imagine the damage to their young bodies from that firepower ????
If photos were posted some may who love their assault rifles may change their minds about all this.
To me anyone who is a bad shot buys an automatic weapon.Try single action bolt if you are any man/woman.
Your countries "obsession" with guns probably needs to be reeled in and better controlled/licenced and no better time than now.We did it

 

[Jon Briggs]

I find it quite astounding that one of the richest countries on earth, and one of the beacons of democracy for the rest of the world, values it right to own weapons of mass murder over any right to free health care for all its citizens.

Surely, even the most hardened gun fanatic can see that something is wrong with that picture.