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.
One of the news channels was recounting the shootings and assassination attempts of presidents and other profile people last night.
Presidents Lincoln, Jackson, Garfield, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, McKinley, JFK, Nixon, Ford, Reagan. There is Bobby Kennedy, MLK and many others including this and other recent attempts.
One of the news channels was recounting the shootings and assassination attempts of presidents and other profile people last night.
Presidents Lincoln, Jackson, Garfield, Teddy Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, McKinley, JFK, Nixon, Ford, Reagan. There is Bobby Kennedy, MLK and many others including this and other recent attempts.
Quite a history of violence.
Indeed, violence is definitely ingrained into some peoples DNA. The question is why ?
Unfortunately, facts do not support the belief a gun will protect you. You not only have to know how to use it, you have to be trained to react when under attack. Shooting ranges might hone your target skills but they will never replace real life situations.
A gun in not an equalizer. It is a weight you carry with you that may give you the illusion you are safe. Most women I know who want to protect themselves take self defense classes regularly and continually hone those skills. Self defense is not learned overnight.
But if you want a crash course, enlist.
Why would any of these things be mutually exclusive?
When did I say you should just go to the store, buy a gun, and tote it around with a newfound false sense of security?
I think people should be trained.
I have over a decade of martial arts experience myself. Korean MMA.
It is all my martial arts experience that teaches me that the likelihood of taking out a bigger assailant is low, even as a trained fighter. So your blathering about self-defense courses is pointless. You should do it, but it's not the answer, either.
A gun is a tool, when properly used, that can enhance the security of your home.
The problem is the 'properly used' part. Not the gun part. The problem is the morons that make up a great proportion of our population.
I don't carry a gun around. I try to be vigilant regarding my surroundings and not put myself in unnecessarily bad situations. I buy run-flat tires so I don't have to pull over in a bad part of town on my commute home in the middle of the night. Etc.
However, I do remember very clearly the night my home alarm went off...right after strange workers had been in our home for days. The last time it went off, it took police FORTY FIVE MINUTES to get to our home. Knowing I had a gun in the safe next to me was very reassuring.
So, does the 2nd Amendment requires that we arm ourselves to defend this nation not only from an invading power, but also from a rebellious neighbor. Isn't that our constitutional duty?
Yes, the government can certainly call them for those things, and the militia can deny service, or consent to joining in. That is just the only control the Government can have over Militia, if the Militia consents. That is not the only reason the Militia exists, though. That is just the Constitution(we the people) telling government what they can request the militia for, and nothing else.
I have to give them credit on this one. An lone, overweight, elderly man armed with a knife or baseball bat, running around a baseball field trying to attack Congresspeople probably young enough to be his children? Laughable, but put a gun in his hand and it is deadly.
And the civilians with no guns could do nothing about it. Until other guys with guns showed up and stopped him. Their guns "equalized" him.
Unfortunately, facts do not support the belief a gun will protect you. You not only have to know how to use it, you have to be trained to react when under attack. Shooting ranges might hone your target skills but they will never replace real life situations.
A gun in not an equalizer. It is a weight you carry with you that may give you the illusion you are safe. Most women I know who want to protect themselves take self defense classes regularly and continually hone those skills. Self defense is not learned overnight.
But if you want a crash course, enlist.
Truly, a firearm does not protect you, you protect yourself using a firearm. It is an "equalizer",in that having the weapon at your disposal gives you a better chance than what you would have without it. I do agree that training in as realistic a way as possible is needed to properly use a firearm to defend yourself and your loved ones. And a proper, non Hollywood mindset is required as well. No, self defense is not a skill gained overnight, but training and physical skills are not where successful self defense is decided. The fight is won or lost in the mind.
I have seen highly trained and skilled people choke and freeze, and I have also seen people to whom physical self defense skills could be considered woefully inadequate, rise to an occasion and defeat a vastly physically superior attacker. Because they simply had the true will to fight back. A 5'1" 110 pound lady, no real training, not a workout freak in top physical condition, in her late 40s and with physical disabilities, turned the tables on a 175+ pound attacker with seriously violent and brutal intentions. After taking a blindside blow that knocked her down she recovered enough to take a knife she carried in her waist tote and permanently maimed and crippled her over confident attacker.
She had no formal training, no special skills, but she had the shear will and resolve to not just quit. That counts for a lot. The greater percentage of things actually. In saying that carrying a gun just lends a false sense of security what you are saying is that having a gun makes someone overconfident by default. That just ain't necessarily so. It may be true in some cases, it is actually as I've seen it happen, but that is no reason to totally discount a firearm as a means of self defense. I would still take mediocre to average firearms skill but a will and resolve to fight over highly practiced and trained but a weak will and resolve.
It's not the means one chooses for self defense, it's the person using those means, and the mind that governs them. I do agree that practical training should be at the top of the to do list for people choosing to have a gun for self defense, but even minus such training, someone with the will to survive and/or defend those they love will not be ill served by having a firearm.
Who said bearing arms will keep the government in check? That's pretty dumb.
Recommend you take that up with those who're making the assertion. As you know, i was responding to this post:
Quote:
Originally Posted by TamaraSavannah
But here is the problem in that schooling and education is about regulating a right.
Do we require schooling and education if a person wants to use their right to vote or their right of free speech? Do they need schooling and education before they are free from unreasonable search or being given sodium penathol?
Do we require schooling and education for any of our other rights?
If not, then why do we want to require them so we can have guns?
As others have said, bearing arms is not about duck hunting, it is about keeping the government in check. When things come into play (and quite frankly, there are too many things in play as it is), then there is less ability to keeping the government in check.
As you know, the above post was made on page 9 & the C-D member, as you know, referred to 'others have said."
Quote:
Originally Posted by PedroMartinez
Voting is supposed to keep the government in check.
The founders put in the Second to allow the citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government. ...
Here I recommend you take these up with those who feel anything from being 'forced to vote' to any form of taxation as being akin to theft & identify sich as the mark of a tyrannical government.
It ain't me Babe.
This was:
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiGeekGuest
If "bearing arms is about keeping the government in check" why the horror when shooters go & attempt to do so?
If that's the premise (guns as a means of keeping the government in check) how is it against our other laws for 1 person or a group of people to implement a plan to "keep the government in check" by the use of guns?
No wonder MiddleAgedMom correctly identified that "the US is a violent society". Not only violent but seemingly insane to boot.
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.
