Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your experience is close to mine. My father was a Marine; his dad retired from the Navy. Hubby was an officer in the Medical Services Corp. I was target practicing at 12.
I know of two people who committed suicide w/ a firearm.
I also know of one girl who killed a thug who broke into her apartment, while she was holding on the phone for the police to arrive . . . and the jerk turned out to have been a serial rapist who doubtless would have made her his next victim.
I don't know of anyone personally who killed him/herself accidentally with a gun or was killed accidentally by someone else. I do have a friend who accidentally sprayed his cousin w/ buckshot while rabbit hunting (non-life threatening injury).
My parents were here this evening for a July 4th celebration and b/f they left, my dad asked to see my shotgun. He has a nice gun collection but he wants a new shotgun. At 79, I thank God he is still an accurate shot and could protect himself if an intruder decided to stage a home invasion (wh/ has occurred far too often here where I live).
Gun ownership requires responsible actions on the part of the owner. Gun safety is part of that responsibility.
My feeling is - if people are against gun ownership - then they should not own a gun. But don't tell me I am incapable of responsibly owning - and using - a firearm.
my feeling is, if some people are so against the law abiding to own and use firearms without any federal or state control, then they should be the 1st to post signs in their yards or on their doors proclaiming to everyone that they do not believe in firearms and that their home is gun free.
after all, if they dont want private ownership of firearms, then they should also be the 1st ones having crooks invade their home.
Gun ownership requires responsible actions on the part of the owner. Gun safety is part of that responsibility.
My feeling is - if people are against gun ownership - then they should not own a gun. But don't tell me I am incapable of responsibly owning - and using - a firearm.
Thank you! The key word is "responsible."
At age six I fired my first round from the S&W .38 special my father, a career Marine Corps fighter pilot, carried in the Korean War/Conflict. In 1967, the night I was leaving home for my own war he put in my hands and I carried it as as Army officer. That's the same type gun that protects my home now.
Dad was an avid gun collector and I shared his love of good firearms. Neither of us ever shot ourselves, a friend, a family member or anyone who didn't have the ability and will to shoot back.
I have more respect for enemy troops I faced than I have for wussy peaceniks who think hugs are a good defense. I'd protect you if need be because that's what soldiers, vets and peace officers (my second job) do. But I certainly won't respect you while you're hiding behind Mommy's skirts
If it wasn't for patriotic American soldiers there would be no 4th of July.
I feel compelled to pose a question to the anti firearms rights folks here. The argument against the individual right to arms always seems to revolve around an interpretation of the second amendment as a COLLECTIVE right. So, why the does it refer to the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms? Why, again, would anyone see the second amendment as the ONLY right that does not apply to the individual? That is a ludicrous position. It's pretty simple really, the Bill of Rights lists the rights of INDIVIDUAL citizens. Now, if I were to offer up a theory that the first amendment refers to a collective right of the states to regulate speech, the howling from the same people who wish to interpret the second amendment thus would blow our eardrums. The Bill of rights addresses INDIVIDUAL rights. All of the amendments address individual rights. Yes , even the second amendment. To argue otherwise makes no sense at all, other than some folks just don't like the fact that citizens are entitled to the right to bear arms so they try and separate that right from the rest utilizing some type of twisted logic that makes sense only to them
...some folks just don't like the fact that citizens are entitled to the right to bear arms so they try and separate that right from the rest utilizing some type of twisted logic that makes sense only to them
But you just made it the case by approving of New York's limiting of gun ownership which is not something appearing in the 2nd Amendment. You seem to argue that the right to keep arms should be subject to stringent, local limitations and I don't read that in the Constitution.
Actually, I agree that fully automatic weapons should be restricted as should teflon bullets but my argument is still valid.
A single shot pistol, huh? Kinda reminiscent of Barney Fife and his bullet, isn't it? I think that goes too far and doesn't really permit people to protect themselves and their homes.
What, you didn't see a part about local limtations in the 2nd amendment, but you somehow *did* see something in the constitution about M16's and AK47's not being appropriate for the general public to own? Which way do you want it here, because you seem to be picking battles.
The fact is there are rules, caveats, and limitations to the 2nd amendment, and only the dimmest people in here won't be able to admit that. Part of the problem is that this country is so large and diverse that simple blanket laws regarding firearms at the federal level don't cut it. What passes for acceptable in rural Wyoming may not be acceptable for a place like New York City. (Yes, I believe it *is* appropriate to limit people's firearm rights in places like NYC. It's a matter of public safety in densely urbanized areas such as that.)
I feel compelled to pose a question to the anti firearms rights folks here. The argument against the individual right to arms always seems to revolve around an interpretation of the second amendment as a COLLECTIVE right. So, why the does it refer to the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms? Why, again, would anyone see the second amendment as the ONLY right that does not apply to the individual? That is a ludicrous position. It's pretty simple really, the Bill of Rights lists the rights of INDIVIDUAL citizens. Now, if I were to offer up a theory that the first amendment refers to a collective right of the states to regulate speech, the howling from the same people who wish to interpret the second amendment thus would blow our eardrums. The Bill of rights addresses INDIVIDUAL rights. All of the amendments address individual rights. Yes , even the second amendment. To argue otherwise makes no sense at all, other than some folks just don't like the fact that citizens are entitled to the right to bear arms so they try and separate that right from the rest utilizing some type of twisted logic that makes sense only to them
Nobody is going to take your guns away in Nevada. They might tell you that you can't wear your six-shooter on a hip holster when you ride your horse into town for supplies, but seriously, you gun guys are bunch of drama kings sometimes.
Nobody is going to take your guns away in Nevada. They might tell you that you can't wear your six-shooter on a hip holster when you ride your horse into town for supplies, but seriously, you gun guys are bunch of drama kings sometimes.
Now how did you come up with this as a reply to my post? Drama Kings says you? Seriously, the snobbishness of this is quite revolting. My point is that the second amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right and not a COLLECTIVE right and you come up with this? They teach you to debate like this in college, no doubt. When you have no counterargument just throw out a few names and take a pompous attitude and it will go your way? LMAO, Seriously, again, I've seen better than this on the south end of a northbound horse. You are, quite apparently , out of your realm here.
What, you didn't see a part about local limtations in the 2nd amendment, but you somehow *did* see something in the constitution about M16's and AK47's not being appropriate for the general public to own? Which way do you want it here, because you seem to be picking battles.
The fact is there are rules, caveats, and limitations to the 2nd amendment, and only the dimmest people in here won't be able to admit that. Part of the problem is that this country is so large and diverse that simple blanket laws regarding firearms at the federal level don't cut it. What passes for acceptable in rural Wyoming may not be acceptable for a place like New York City. (Yes, I believe it *is* appropriate to limit people's firearm rights in places like NYC. It's a matter of public safety in densely urbanized areas such as that.)
Under the law, states have the right to pass laws that meet their needs although federal laws prevail in the end, such as medical marijuana for example.
I realize that the above seems like double-talk but it really isn't. The Constitution is silent on what kind of or how many guns and most unfortunatekly I think our elected representatives who swear to uphold it pretrty much ignore it when it doesn't suit them.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
