GUN FACTS USA (Page 12): Yes as a matter of fact it is a "Right", the 2nd one to be precise. Is is as important as any other mandated by the founding fathers of the United States.

B-n-L Loc: Nevada

Yes as a matter of fact it is a "Right", the 2nd one to be precise. Is is as important as any other mandated by the founding fathers of the United States.

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

I had a pair of six guns on my cowboy belt when I was a kid & did not need to play"make believe"...Got a BB rifle when I was old enough (& responsible enough)...Funny, it never caused me to go out & shoot people...

BigBear wrote:

Screamin Scott wrote:

Even if their parents don't buy little boys toy guns, they use something else as a "make believe" gun...Guess that's due to the violence they see on TV...

Boys have been doing that long before tv I assure you.

NOSLEEP Loc: Calgary

Robbie7 wrote:

Hello Nosleep :-D Thankyou for the link which I ... (show quote)

There are many elements that law abiding gun owners vehemently protect. The first is the right of defense. A democracy is 2 wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb. It is such an emotional issue because many people believe the right of defense does not out way the right to feel emotionally protected by the restriction of guns in society. I have no fear of firearms. My children have been raised to understand & safely handle firearms since they have been old enough to operate them. Guns have been charged by anti gun proponents as the cause for firearm violence. Nothing could be further from the truth. The cause can be easily discerned with an inexpensive tool called a mirror. If one takes away the right to bear arms you remove the single greatest element for protection from anyone that wishes to perpetrate harm to any individual. That right once taken away would cause the government to dance gleefully as the masses are no longer citizens but subjects to the whim of government and the criminal element. There is no single element in North America that promotes violence greater than Hollywood. That may be a good place to start...

Mudshark Loc: Illinois

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential
victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

Screamin Scott Loc: Marshfield Wi, Baltimore Md, now Dallas Ga

Mudshark wrote:

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunken guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential
victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force, watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force.

It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
By Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret.)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one a... (show quote)

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

frankeieio Loc: Bend, Oregon

Again, you are using a strawman argument THEMRED7007. I didn't write anything about drugs, trains, shoes or Cain's rock.

Specifically, when one looks at the evidence made possible by multiple random mass shootings recently (I can think of three this past couple of weeks) and finds the consistent use of the same military type gun model in these shootings, it doesn't take much to think "class action". It also seems reasonable that proving the benefit of this weapon verses its risk to public safety should be burdened by somebody, and the most likely somebody would be the manufacturer.

THEMRED7007 wrote:

frankeieio wrote:

Well, to start, if the gun lobby and the those insist on maintaining the status quo with personal firearms in this country would acknowledge that we all have a problem here, instead of automatically defending their position by trotting out some pretty lame strawman arguments, we may get somewhere... intelligently.

Your offer that mental illness contributes to the use of guns for random violent acts has some merit and should be looked at, but for instance where others compare automobiles to guns, especially assault rifles, the argument becomes a bit of a stretch... if a particular automobile were built on the initial design platform to specifically defend or assault an enemy's position in a military sense then we'd have something to talk about. I've not seen any Bradley Fighting Vehicles on Craigslist, or offered for sale as street legal at any car dealerships lately.

The deal is this, with landmark decisions setting precedents recently by the U.S Supreme Court in regard to the 2nd Amendent both Washington, DC (Heller) 2008 and Chicago (McDonald) 2010 no regulations are forthcoming that could take away rights for legal and law abiding people to owning guns and rifles for self defense and sporting purposes. So, despite all the disturbing data originally cited in this post, we all have to get over that question. Guns are here to stay.

These same rulings however, do mention giving the law some latitude in consideration of where guns cannot be carried, designated schools and court houses for instance and personal ownership of unusual and dangerous weaponry... beside a weaponized street legal tank or Bradley, one cannot legally own a grenade launcher for instance.

The specific gun question is then, are modern day assault weapons with large ammo clips too dangerous for circulation within the general public? Considering the devastating impact these weapons have had when these legally owned weapons are used by wrong headed people on the public at large, I think it is a reasonable to question what can we do about this.

Suggestions I've read include banning them, unlikely in my opinion, to mandating that those who choose to own military type weapons be legally compelled to join a regulated militia. Which is interesting on many fronts, but also unlikely.

Personally, I like the idea of creating a clear path of liability back through the owner of the gun, to the distributor, and ultimately to the manufactures for damages associated with their products. Gun and ammo makers should be sh*tting themselves out of fear of financial ruin when a mass shooting happens, not celebrating increased sales.

Danilo wrote:

tschmath wrote:

Typical gun nut nonsense. Don't offer any ideas or solutions, just knock what others are suggesting.

So...what IS being suggested here?

Well, to start, if the gun lobby and the those ins... (show quote)

So what you are saying is that when there are multiple car crashes on freeways, or cars drive into restaurants, or hit people on the street causing physical damage and human death and dis-memberment, then the car manufacturer should be sued. Does that include an overdose of drugs resulting in death, that the pharmaceutical manufacturer and dispensing pharmacy should be sued ? Please clarify, as a gun is an inanimate object, just like the Cain and Abel rock weapon...what size weapon (shoe) did the woman have who kicked / shoved the man onto the subway train tracks causing his death ? Should her shoes be confiscated and condemned for killing the man, and then the shoe manufacturers be responsible, or is the train manufacturer to be sued for making the train that hit and killed the man ?
This sounds like your clear path of responsibility, to me.

quote=frankeieio Well, to start, if the gun lobby... (show quote)

BuddyLars Loc: Rockton, Illinois

Mudshark wrote:

Right On...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxRlpRcorEU

I watched this video and the thought that crossed my mind (and I have a very simple mind if you have read my past posts) and that thought is how much has Hollywood perpetuated the use of guns. In fact most of the celebrities in this video are guilty of portraying gun violence. Yet they are saying "enough is enough" Two face dumb-asses. Walk the walk, then I'll listen when you talk the talk.

mikeyatc Loc: Reno,NV/Folsom,CA

BuddyLars wrote:

Mudshark wrote:

Right On...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxRlpRcorEU

I watched this video and the thought that crossed my mind (and I have a very simple mind if you have read my past posts) and that thought is how much has Hollywood perpetuated the use of guns. In fact most of the celebrities in this video are guilty of portraying gun violence. Yet they are saying "enough is enough" Two face dumb-asses. Walk the walk, then I'll listen when you talk the talk.

this!
http://www.infowars.com/demand-a-plan-demand-celebrities-go-fck-themselves/

NOSLEEP Loc: Calgary

BuddyLars wrote:

Mudshark wrote:

Right On...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxRlpRcorEU

I watched this video and the thought that crossed my mind (and I have a very simple mind if you have read my past posts) and that thought is how much has Hollywood perpetuated the use of guns. In fact most of the celebrities in this video are guilty of portraying gun violence. Yet they are saying "enough is enough" Two face dumb-asses. Walk the walk, then I'll listen when you talk the talk.

Mr BuddyLars
You are on the side of freedom. That makes you a giant.
One man with courage is a majority...

dixiemegapixel Loc: Salemburg, NC

The current commander in chief has stated that he wants a National Security Strategy that relies more upon targeted drone strikes and Special Operations.

He also plans to downsize the military.

We have seen how his foreign and domestic "strategery" works. Now he leaves gun control in Bidet's hands.

I would not be surprised to see the conventional military downsized and its weapons falling into the hands of just about anybody.

We might well expect to see future New Years being celebrated "Middle East Style"- Nobody working and everyone celebrating by firing their automatic weapons in the air.

phila Loc: Live is Newberry, SC

Danilo wrote:

A closer study of "mass murders" (genera... (show quote)

I agree with you. We must address the mental health issue. And you're right on when you talk about medication to children. Back when my youngest daughter started kindergarten, within weeks, the teacher advised us to take her to the doctor. She could give her a pill that would "settle her down". Kindergarten! Google wasn't here yet so off to the pediatrician. Sure enough we got "the pill". Back then teachers thought it was a miracle drug. There's a lot more to this story but the main thing is we need much better screening before you just hand a kid a mind altering drug! Screening potential gun buyers would not be a bad idea.

I am against abortion. That said, I can not look at abortion from a woman's point of view. Therefore like you I don't carry a banner or riot in the streets.

I hope I didn't get too carried away.

Phil

yhtomit Loc: Port Land. Oregon

NOSLEEP wrote:

quote=phcaan quote=Hoss Wonder why one is in hid... (show quote)

Maybe he's there to keep you company.

yhtomit Loc: Port Land. Oregon

RixPix wrote:

sundancer2004 wrote:

tschmath wrote:

quote=Frank T quote=mikeyatc approx 3700 abortio... (show quote)

Get your facts straight, the NRA dos not support lawlessness. The NRA does support enforcement of all existing firearms legislation. The issues are when the NRA opposes irrational additions to firearms legislation designed to deny law abiding citizens.By a vote of 28-19, the committee also approved Rep. John Carter's (R-Texas) amendment to stop BATFE from prohibiting the importation of shotguns that have one or more various features disliked by the BATFE, most of which are common to firearms used for protection or sport. Such features include adjustable stocks and extended magazine tubes. Rep. Carter, like Rep. Rehberg, is a member of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, and believes that "federal gun regulations often create burdens for law-abiding citizens and infringe upon constitutional rights provided by the Second Amendment."

Anti-gun Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) was not so successful with her amendment to authorize the Attorney General to prohibit the possession of firearms by anyone whose name appears on the FBI's secretive terrorist watch list. Her proposal failed by a vote of 27-18, indicating that a majority on the committee understands the many problems with this idea. Chief among those is that 95 percent of people on the watch list are already prohibited from possessing firearms in the U.S. because they are not citizens or legal residents of the United States. In March, a similar amendment pushed by Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) was rejected by the House Judiciary Committee by a vote of 21-11.

quote=tschmath quote=Frank T quote=mikeyatc app... (show quote)

The NRA is in the business of selling more guns there is no other motivating factor...they want more guns and more guns and more guns...they are paid by the gun manufacturers to promote the use of firearms. They use fear tactics to get their messages across. The last gun show I attended in West Palm Beach in December was a field day for the sellers...the attendees were buying everything they could because the NRA booth their manned by Jim T. was perpetuated the rumor that all guns will be banned. The level of paranoia was stifling...there was this atmosphere of dread in the air. As I was watching one guy selling ammo I thought of a solution...no matter what caliber all ammo should be taxed by $25 per bullet or shell with the tax revenues being used for the benefit of shooting victims. Call it a sin tax you shoot you pay.

quote=sundancer2004 quote=tschmath quote=Frank ... (show quote)

You have absolutely know idea what the NRA stands for.
Actually research them first.You will be surprised.

sundancer2004 Loc: oak island, nc

yhtomit wrote:

Frank T wrote:

mikeyatc wrote:

approx 3700 abortions per day in the US. but that's ok?

Approximately 32,000 people a year die in automobile accidents.
What does that have to do with guns? Absolutely nothing.

We should outlaw cars too.Duh.

SAVE THE MOTHERS! Outlaw condoms they break and cause abortions!

RixPix Loc: Miami, Florida

Screamin Scott wrote:

So, you say they are using "fear tactics"....I guess you don't consider the actions & words of the gun control groups & people like yourself to be the same "fear mongering" you accuse the NRA of?...Of course you don't, after all, you are "Holier" aren't you?

RixPix wrote:

sundancer2004 wrote:

tschmath wrote:

quote=Frank T quote=mikeyatc approx 3700 abortio... (show quote)

Get your facts straight, the NRA dos not support lawlessness. The NRA does support enforcement of all existing firearms legislation. The issues are when the NRA opposes irrational additions to firearms legislation designed to deny law abiding citizens.By a vote of 28-19, the committee also approved Rep. John Carter's (R-Texas) amendment to stop BATFE from prohibiting the importation of shotguns that have one or more various features disliked by the BATFE, most of which are common to firearms used for protection or sport. Such features include adjustable stocks and extended magazine tubes. Rep. Carter, like Rep. Rehberg, is a member of the Congressional Sportsmen's Caucus, and believes that "federal gun regulations often create burdens for law-abiding citizens and infringe upon constitutional rights provided by the Second Amendment."

Anti-gun Rep. Nita Lowey (D-N.Y.) was not so successful with her amendment to authorize the Attorney General to prohibit the possession of firearms by anyone whose name appears on the FBI's secretive terrorist watch list. Her proposal failed by a vote of 27-18, indicating that a majority on the committee understands the many problems with this idea. Chief among those is that 95 percent of people on the watch list are already prohibited from possessing firearms in the U.S. because they are not citizens or legal residents of the United States. In March, a similar amendment pushed by Rep. Mike Quigley (D-Ill.) was rejected by the House Judiciary Committee by a vote of 21-11.

quote=tschmath quote=Frank T quote=mikeyatc app... (show quote)

The NRA is in the business of selling more guns there is no other motivating factor...they want more guns and more guns and more guns...they are paid by the gun manufacturers to promote the use of firearms. They use fear tactics to get their messages across. The last gun show I attended in West Palm Beach in December was a field day for the sellers...the attendees were buying everything they could because the NRA booth their manned by Jim T. was perpetuated the rumor that all guns will be banned. The level of paranoia was stifling...there was this atmosphere of dread in the air. As I was watching one guy selling ammo I thought of a solution...no matter what caliber all ammo should be taxed by $25 per bullet or shell with the tax revenues being used for the benefit of shooting victims. Call it a sin tax you shoot you pay.

quote=sundancer2004 quote=tschmath quote=Frank ... (show quote)

So, you say they are using "fear tactics"... (show quote)

You will never believe that THEY are not coming for your guns. This paranoia is such a part of your core belief system that you may be on the verge of a form of psychosis. When I read posts from gun nuts and listen to them speak I am often reminded of this quote:

Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn't fit in with the core belief.

You see before the latest school shooting President Obama actually reduced certain restrictions on guns but you'd never know that from rhetoric from the NRA. So, you cling to your guns and know that if it should ever come to a vote I would vote to fulfill your wish to have your guns taken from your cold DEAD hands.