Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register
The Attic
This Is Our Own Fault!
Page <<first <prev 4 of 8 next> last>>
Aug 16, 2019 10:29:56   #
anotherview Loc: California
 
My dear father taught me gun safety and how to shoot straight during my early boyhood. My father believed a citizen should know how to shoot a gun in order to defend his country. So I learned a sober view of guns and their use. My father never really spent time on using a gun for self-defense.

Instead, I brought this side of gunownership to my understanding later in life. I have in mind a leaning more to disable a threatening person than to riddle the person with gunshot. So I'd shoot him in the legs or the abdomen. Later, the hospital would repair the damage.

I do not want to k**l anybody with a gun unless necessary for my own survival.

Reply
Aug 16, 2019 10:38:13   #
anotherview Loc: California
 
You have a point about a distinction among felons. The blanket approach to felons still exists here in the State of California. It makes no distinction between, say, a violent felon and a white collar criminal like yourself.

I can sense that a felon who presents no threat of violence to the public could in time become eligible to own and use a gun. Legal experts really should sort out this matter. After all, a constitutional right comes into question here.
prodemco wrote:
I concur with anotherview except for his restriction on "felons" without his truly understanding the term. I am classified as a felon due to bad business management 25 years ago - no priors and none since. But, because of the amount of money involved ($10,000) [which was repaid as restitution] it was classified as the lowest class of felony - which doesn't change my status - convicted "felon" due to poorly written law. I can't legally buy or handle a firearm even to protect myself from a "real" felon.
I concur with anotherview except for his restricti... (show quote)

Reply
Aug 16, 2019 11:12:48   #
dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho
 
Scruples wrote:
This is my humble opinion.
It is TRUELY sad that one person can ruin an otherwise idyllic day here. While I too don't want a political Word War, this is our own fault.

Every one thinks the Second Amendment is about the freedom to bear arms. Ya' gotta' read it thru. The original framers of The Constitution intended to allow ordinary citizens the Right to form a m*****a and protect the new nation from enemies both foreign and domestic. People will pervert the Second Amendent to suit their own purpose. Many stop and say it is my Constitutional Right to bear arms. That is not a complete interpretation of The Second Amendment. Can we convince the American Populace of the correct way to read the Constitution? I doubt change can happen here.

This is not the first time I had read such tragedy in the media. Let me ask all (the Hoggers) what have you done to prevent this from happening again?

When you are walking down the street and you see someone laying on top of a ventilator gate, What do you do? Do you walk away, perhaps looking back, only to go on with your day?

Do you care enough to want to help a "sick or injured" stranger?

Do you take the time to call 911 and let the police know there is someone not well and in need of help?

When you see someone "out of sorts" do you inquire for them to obtain medical help? So there is someone yelling on a street corner by themselves. Do you shake your head in dispair?
Do you look the other way?

Do you help perhaps volunteer in a nearby hospital to help those in need of psychiatric care?

Most people do not do any of these things. Most people are afraid of someone with a psychiatric illness. This is because they do not understand nor wish to learn how to help someone.

People with depression or other mental illnesses are often told by naive, inexperienced or untrained persons to "snap out of it. You'll feel better!"
This is not the case. If they could "snap out of it" they would have done so! Those people who don't understand this plight never have "Gotten the Message."

The people who commit violent acts such as those recently highlighted in the media, need proper medical (psychiatric) attention. And these extreme acts of violence took time to escalate and alert others nearby. It didn't happen overnight.
Did anyone bother to pay attention to the warning signs?

Why isn't such atrocities common and in the media in other countries. Simply this. Other countries provide and care for their ill population. They have better infrastructure, better hospitals and dare I say, better trained medical providers. In other countries, the populace cares about others. I have visited other countries (on vacation and photo opportunities) and noticed the concern people have for the individual. People in other countries are not fearful but assist and seek out to care of someone who is not well. Hospitals are better equipped to care for patients in general. This is because medical care is predominately socialized. That is not a dirty curse word! (What that means is the insurance companies are not subrogating for their stock holders). As for medical practitioners, they receive extensive medical rotations to provide proper care.

What can you do? Where do you fit in this picture? Instead of hand wringing and idle chatter at work, endeavor to make a difference in the lives of others.

If you see someone who is ill, make a telephone call. There are plenty of community outreach centers that are underutilized.

How about volunteering your time in a major outreach center or even a hospital? Do you have enough courage to do so?

But, I'll bet that most will blow off this diatribe and call me a fool. They will blame the system, that there is nothing they can do or its the fault of our government and still support the foolish misinterpretation of the Second Amendment. That is until someone in their family needs care. Then their world stops spinning and they are lost in a sea of bureaucracy
with no where to turn.

If you don't think you can help, you're mistaken. A phone call is all it takes to initiate the process of caring for someone ill. Research it now on Google or any other internet search engine. The next person you make a call on their behalf may just be someone you know or even a family member. At least make a donation of blood or money through work to aid and assist the victims of these tragedies may be beneficial.
I'm sure there are naysayers willing to criticize my diatribe. That's okay. I can handle some criticism. But, I spend a portion of my time working at a major psychiatric hospital.

You can either make a difference or just not care!!
This is my humble opinion. br It is TRUELY sad t... (show quote)


With all due respect, what are you talking about. You jump from the 2nd Amendment to, are you willing to help if you see someone lying on the ground. Then you tell us that most people won't offer any assistance to the person on the ground, not even call the police.

In my experience many people do call the police to aid someone else and some do actually check on the person in distress.

Saying the 2nd Amendment is a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is absolutely true. The 2nd Amendment was never meant to give us the right to hunt or even so much personal self defense although I believe the Founding Fathers would certainly defend its use for the reason of self defense. The 2nd Amendment was enacted in order for citizens to protect their freedom from an overzealous government who might want to take those freedoms away from citizens. The U.S. Constitution tells the government exactly what its rights are. While the government wants to give itself more rights than it should the 2nd Amendment is there so citizens may keep the government in check when necessary.

Already some on the Left are talking about doing away with the 1st Amendment (as well as the 2nd Amendment). Liberals tell us that Conservatives use H**e Speech which is termed anything the Liberals don't want to hear. In that regard they would take away free speech of those they don't want to hear. It will be the 2nd Amendment that will prevent the loss of the 1st Amendment if it ever comes to that. I pray it does not.

Dennis

Reply
 
 
Aug 16, 2019 11:14:37   #
dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho
 
anotherview wrote:
Some people do close their minds to counter-facts, sound information, and rational thought processes. This way, they can preserve their extreme views.


Let's not forget that extreme views and rational thought processes are in the minds of the beholder.

Dennis

Reply
Aug 16, 2019 11:37:06   #
Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal
 
Bison Bud wrote:
While you are correct that the 2nd amendment provides citizens with the right to form a m*****a and to bear arms against a threat and/or a corrupt and oppressive government, the basic principal is the right to own and bear firearms. During the latest test of this in the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia wrote that this also means that the citizens should be allowed to have weapons comparable to those of the military, basically so it doesn't become sticks and stones against machine guns and tanks. While this bothers many these days, we have already infringed on this concept and many apparently wish to take this even farther. In response to this I state that the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun and there are no exceptions. Gun regulations have proven time and time again that the bad guys don't obey the rules and they only hurts those of us that do obey the rules. For that matter, anyone that truly thinks that we could ever eliminate guns from our society is indeed naive at best. Guns are tools and very old technology that will be around as long as humans exist. Making criminals out of those that refuse to surrender their guns would be useless and most probably the end of this country as we know it! Therefore, we need to move past blaming the guns for the violence we are experiencing. The guns are simply tools, effective ones of course, but still just tools. We need to find out why people find the need to k**l innocent people and address those issues rather than take foolish steps to control firearms that will never stand anyway.

I personally blame the media as much as anything for their sensationalistic reporting of violent events. They give these depraved losers their "5 minutes of fame" for the sake of ratings and use these events to push their personal agendas whenever possible. Then there's Hollywood's absurd representation of guns in general and all the violence in movies, on TV, and in video games. Geese, what do we expect when we feed our children a constant diet of this rubbish! For that matter, why are past criminals such as Billy the Kid, Bonnie and Clyde, and about a thousand others considered folk heros. It's simply wrong and we have to change our ways or things are only going to get worse.

You ask what I have done to help. My wife and I regularly volunteer to help the homeless and with other charities and at nursing homes, etc. However, I carry concealed constantly and feel that it is important to do so not only for my safety, but possibly the safety of others. I will always believe that a good guy with a gun is a good thing and there are literally millions of gun owners that have never shot anyone and never will. As the old saying goes, it only takes one apple to spoil the barrel and we need to develop an whole different attitude about guns. Believe me, guns are here to stay whether legal or illegal, they will be part of our lives and we need to focus on the violence rather than the tools if we are ever to manage this issue. Good luck and good shooting to all.
While you are correct that the 2nd amendment provi... (show quote)


Can you specifically cite where in Heller where Scalia wrote that the citizens have the right to own weapons comparable to the military? Its been a long time since I have read the entire opinion, but I don't recall that. In fact, what I recall is just the opposite--the opinion being abut hand guns and not tanks and machine guns. And Scalia affirmed the rights of states and localities to enact firearm regulation.

Also, a little historical perspective. For the entire nations history, up to Heller, the judicial consensus about Number Two is that it was restricted to the m*****a part and not an individual right.

Going back further to Federalist 29, an individual right is not mentioned, although it is fair to assume that it was understood in that nearly every man in the Colonies had a musket.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp

Reply
Aug 16, 2019 12:23:48   #
BigBear Loc: Northern CT
 
jbk224 wrote:
You are right on the money! Combined, in context, offers more insight. Muscats were the 'arms'. The right to bear arms does not mean that we have the right to bear any type of arms. Of course, muscats are long gone. But limiting the type of arms does not infringe upon our rights. So not only should we have common sense restrictions of the types of arms one can legally own; all of us, as law biding citizens, should not have a problem registering all purchases of guns--regardless of where and how. No matter your passion for the 2nd Amendment; what could one possibly be against in background checks and registration? Assuming you follow the law..have nothing to hide...and intent upon being a good citizen. You need a driver's license. You need a SS card. You need to r******r to v**e. Don't anyone tell me that these are intrusive and violate your privacy. Regarding those 'fit' to own a weapon is a whole other area to be addressed. Certain restrictions can be imposed without changing current laws; however, investigating one's mental health needs to be legislated by Congress as there are current laws that prohibit the release of this information. We should all come together and move on to what really needs to be done to help every American--not just some.
You are right on the money! Combined, in context, ... (show quote)


The term Arms is a collective of all weapons used by people for various uses.

The amendment does not mention any of them being regulated for any reason. On the contrary, it states that the right for us to bear (or carry) Arms shall not be infringed (or regulated).

To inject any exception is without merit.

Reply
Aug 16, 2019 12:27:14   #
One Rude Dawg Loc: Athol, ID
 
jaymatt wrote:
The second amendment is very plain: I have a right to keep my guns.
I’m not sure just how beginning a post by bringing up the second amendment can t***sition so quickly to the homeless, etc.


T***sitions from one soap box to another , slick huh.

Reply
 
 
Aug 16, 2019 12:28:14   #
LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America
 
Bazbo wrote:
Can you specifically cite where in Heller where Scalia wrote that the citizens have the right to own weapons comparable to the military? Its been a long time since I have read the entire opinion, but I don't recall that. In fact, what I recall is just the opposite--the opinion being abut hand guns and not tanks and machine guns. And Scalia affirmed the rights of states and localities to enact firearm regulation.

Also, a little historical perspective. For the entire nations history, up to Heller, the judicial consensus about Number Two is that it was restricted to the m*****a part and not an individual right.

Going back further to Federalist 29, an individual right is not mentioned, although it is fair to assume that it was understood in that nearly every man in the Colonies had a musket.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp
Can you specifically cite where in Heller where Sc... (show quote)


There are people who own tanks and machine guns. Even fighter jets.

Reply
Aug 16, 2019 12:36:12   #
dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho
 
LWW wrote:
There are people who own tanks and machine guns. Even fighter jets.


And as I recall there has been absolutely no problems from any of these people.

I do see that murder by knives is on the upswing all around the world even though there are numerous firearms available. I saw too that there was a firearm murder in England where supposedly such a thing should be next to impossible what with their anti gun policies. Whoda thunk it happening there, huh?

People need to realize it ain't the guns but the culture of people around the world these days that violence is acceptable. Look at the number of police k**led in the past few years since Obama was the POTUS. Look at the amount of people who walk down the street only to have a black thug sucker punch them just for being alive and walking on the same sidewalk. Look at the violent students who attack teachers these days. Take a look at the number of people who abandon babies, who molest children, who torture animals. This is not a gun issue but a piss poor cultural issue all around the world.

Dennis

Reply
Aug 16, 2019 13:17:40   #
Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal
 
LWW wrote:
There are people who own tanks and machine guns. Even fighter jets.


I was speaking about Heller and Federalist 29 for historical context. Do try to pay attention.

Reply
Aug 16, 2019 14:13:06   #
LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America
 
LWW wrote:
There are people who own tanks and machine guns. Even fighter jets.


You were implying citizens had not the right to military level arms.

You were wrong.

Again.

Read a book.

Reply
 
 
Aug 16, 2019 14:17:46   #
Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal
 
LWW wrote:
You were implying citizens had not the right to military level arms.

You were wrong.

Again.

Read a book.


I implied nothing of the sort. As always, you are trying to start some s**t by mischaracterizing what I wrote. This is a pattern with you and the other members of the right wing drooling class who post here. You cannot engage me on the merits so you try to change the subject by pretending I wrote something that did not.

I said that Heller was about hand guns. What you inferred is on you.

Learn grammar and syntax.

Reply
Aug 16, 2019 14:19:22   #
LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America
 
Bazbo wrote:
I implied nothing of the sort. As always, you are trying to start some s**t by mischaracterizing what I wrote. This is a pattern with you and the other members of the right wing drooling class who post here. You cannot engage me on the merits so you try to change the subject by pretending I wrote something that did not.

I said that Heller was about hand guns. What you inferred is on you.

Learn grammar and syntax.


Why do you lie?

Reply
Aug 16, 2019 15:45:03   #
dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho
 
Bazbo wrote:
I implied nothing of the sort. As always, you are trying to start some s**t by mischaracterizing what I wrote. This is a pattern with you and the other members of the right wing drooling class who post here. You cannot engage me on the merits so you try to change the subject by pretending I wrote something that did not.

I said that Heller was about hand guns. What you inferred is on you.

Learn grammar and syntax.


Yes you did specifically say handguns. But Heller only dealt with handguns because Dick Heller as well as everybody else in the District of Columbia was originally unable to keep a handgun in his home and bear a handgun within the limits of DC. The law stated handguns must be registered but there was no allowance to register a handgun. The fact that other weapons were not mentioned is because they were not forbidden to possess in the District of Columbia.

The main point of the Heller decision is that keeping and bearing firearms is an individual right and a person does not need to be a m*****a member to do so. In the days of the Founding Fathers every able male was deemed to be in the m*****a.

As far as the public owning military style weapons every war since the Revolutionary War has brought about civilians owning weapons exactly like the military used in wh**ever was the last war. After the Civil War many soldiers took weapons home with them because those are the weapons brought to the battlefield. After that the government sold leftover or used military weapons to the general public. That happened right up to after Korea with the exception of fully automatic firearms. Semi Automatic firearms such as the M1 Garand and M1 Carbine with a 30 round magazine were sold to the public through the government run Director of Civilian Marksmanship. Millions of guns were sold to the public and I presently own an M1 Garand from such as sale.

Dennis

Reply
Aug 16, 2019 17:01:08   #
Bazbo Loc: Lisboa, Portugal
 
dennis2146 wrote:
Yes you did specifically say handguns. But Heller only dealt with handguns because Dick Heller as well as everybody else in the District of Columbia was originally unable to keep a handgun in his home and bear a handgun within the limits of DC. The law stated handguns must be registered but there was no allowance to register a handgun. The fact that other weapons were not mentioned is because they were not forbidden to possess in the District of Columbia.

The main point of the Heller decision is that keeping and bearing firearms is an individual right and a person does not need to be a m*****a member to do so. In the days of the Founding Fathers every able male was deemed to be in the m*****a.

As far as the public owning military style weapons every war since the Revolutionary War has brought about civilians owning weapons exactly like the military used in wh**ever was the last war. After the Civil War many soldiers took weapons home with them because those are the weapons brought to the battlefield. After that the government sold leftover or used military weapons to the general public. That happened right up to after Korea with the exception of fully automatic firearms. Semi Automatic firearms such as the M1 Garand and M1 Carbine with a 30 round magazine were sold to the public through the government run Director of Civilian Marksmanship. Millions of guns were sold to the public and I presently own an M1 Garand from such as sale.

Dennis
Yes you did specifically say handguns. But Heller... (show quote)


But Heller had nothing to do with that. I was responding to a prior post which asserted that the Supreme Court affirmed that the right of citizens to bear firearms comparable to the military. I do not think that to be the case so I asked for a citation from Heller but no subsequent citation was offered.

Don't read more into my post that what I actually wrote, in context or what I was responding to. I have no trouble speaking for myself--you and the other right wingers who are always misquoting me need not attempt to speak for me.

Reply
Page <<first <prev 4 of 8 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
The Attic
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.