When is it gonna end? This is getting too screwed up. Someone has to tell the gun owners they HAVE to lock up their guns. http://www.alternet.org/flo

[White Eagle]

Ok, Number 1. Dismissing someone's opinion, simply for being a foreigner, is ignorant. Number 2, Simply because you do not have an interest, doesn't mean everyone should follow suit, Number 3, the UK is not 'ruled', we are 'reigned' (go look up the difference, not that i expect you would) and lastly, Yes, the UK 'lost', i've tried hard to get over it, but it hurt me badly when i had to return to England back in the 18th century to become a national disgrace for which the wounds are still healing....get over yourself, i was over history in secondary school.

Good one!!!!!!!!!

 

[White Eagle]

Number 1 That is your opinion. You know what they say about opinions.

Number 2 Why should it matter to you? How does it affect you? Other than being an intrusive busybody.

Number 3 I've never heard of a monarch referred to as a reigner. BTW most dictionaries interchange rule and reign when in the context of a monarchical governance.

As to your last point. I'd say apparently you haven't been able to reconcile the trauma. Might I suggest therapy.

You know, you are beginning to show your ass real good.

 

[White Eagle]

There are a lot of people in this thread yelling that firearms are bad, firearms are only useful for killing. But with very few exceptions, no one has even commented on the points I have brought up.

First, why was a thirteen year old boy playing with a firearm. At thirteen years of age, I knew that firearms were not a toy. They were a tool used for hunting and putting food on the table. It was also acceptable to use them for target practice to improve your skills at putting food on the table. Firearms are a quick and effective method for hunting. You use shot guns for birds, and Rifles for game. Hand guns are for self defense from rattlers and other critters, and for the occasion when you need to mercifully put an animal out of it's misery.

Second, why was there not a trigger lock in place in the firearm when it was not in use. Even before the age of thirteen, I knew that firearms were stored unloaded (being that I am actually older than the invention of trigger locks). Yes, I knew how to load and use the fire arms, but I was also well aware of the fact that if I misused one of the firearms my ass would be blistered.

Third, When there is a firearm in the house, it is the responsibility of all members of the household to know firearm safety. I learned how to use a firearm from an uncle who was home from the Vietnam Conflict, when I was 5 years old. Before I was 5, I knew damn good and well that I was to keep my hands off the firearms.

The answer is not more regulation. The answer is not banning firearms. The answer is not automatic vs semi-automatic vs repeating action. The answer is responsibility. The answer is knowledge. The answer is knowing that someone is going to kick your ass if you fuck up. The answer is you use a firearm in the commission of a felony, and your ass is in the electric chair. We need to have strict laws with definite consequences. You do this, and this will happen. Period.

Yes, your points have been ignored. Very good points, I might add. If a certain poster would go elsewhere those points may be discussed.
I have a nephew who learned gun safety at 6. I'm not sure when I learned them, but I knew about them before my teens. I was able to go hunting by myself and a friend from school, who knew safety rules also. Here's hoping discussion gets back to you.

 

[Durango95]

Oh dear.

Free to live in fear of guns? Highest gun death rate of any developed nation. Free to be incarcerated? Highest jail population on Earth. Free to be married to your same sex partner? Not yet.

As regulars here know, I love the States. I've lived and work there, I visit often. I have many friends and an amicable ex-partner there. But your kind of vacuous exceptionalism is one of problems the US faces. Have you ever traveled to another country? Do you have any genuine perspective of the other nations you're writing fiction about?

And what the hell do any of your posts have to do with this topic??

This is like having a conversation with a kid on the short bus.

 

[Durango95]

I haven't traveled to other countries in some time. When I was younger and did a few years modeling. I traveled quite a bit. I never encountered a country I would have ever wanted to make my home....well maybe Italy....maybe.

Perhaps that is the problem. You wanted to leave your country. I don't. Furthermore I don't want people from other countries coming here and trying to turn my country into the same shithole as their country.

The only thing I remember about Australia was a lot of guys and a lot of sex. I was 25 though. I think that is what most 25yo gay guys think about. I'm sorry your country isn't exceptional. That isn't my fault though.

The other guy that has taken potshots at me is from England. The only thing I remember about England is really really bad teeth. O and the people are either super hot or absolute horrors.

My post has everything to do with the subject. The inference was taking guns from law abiding citizens would somehow make children safer using the tragedy about a kid accidentally shooting his sister as fodder. The source of course was a hyper liberal site on the internet which spun this like a frigging planet in space.

You can post all the propaganda you want . It doesn't change the truth.

 

[andysayshi]

Durango95's fact-post count so far: zero.

 

[Durango95]

Durango95's fact-post count so far: zero.

Andy's fact post count so far: zero.

Andy's propaganda post so far: millions

 

[CowboyBob]

Durango95's fact-post count so far: zero.

The new guy is a troll.

 

[andysayshi]

Andy's fact post count so far: zero.

Andy's propaganda post so far: millions

You'll excuse us all if we rely on the data we've posted from the Dept Of Justice, the FBI, and the Harvard School Of Medicine, before we take your word for it.

 

[White Eagle]

O and the OP isn't pandering to any bias whatsoever..............

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlterNet

Even Uber liberal Wiki states these guys are uber liberal

I know it is a progressive/liberal rag, but it has articles of what we deem necessary in today's world. Now if you would come up with a link on what you deem necessary we would be able to read your conservative rag and decide what is bullshit. I believe it would be yours. The GOP does nothing but lie about all things.

 

[White Eagle]

The new guy is a troll.

He really reminds me of one of the trolls we have had in the past. A lot of his posts show me memories, not good ones, of that troll that we hated so much. Just cannot remember his name.

 

[Rolyo85]

Rolyo, a lead pipe is a murder weapon. A knife is a murder weapon. poison in a murder weapon. Where do we stop banning things? You could take your belt off and strangle someone with that, so should we ban clothing? Firearms are not murder weapons. Firearms are tools. Tools that help people in everyday life. In parts of the United States we have animals that will harm humans. Have you asked someone who has been mauled by a Grizzly Bear how well pepper spray works? Have you ever tried to get close enough to a rattler to stab it with a knife? Have you ever tried to get a calf away from a group of coyotes with a stick? For these reasons alone, I will never stand in agreement of banning firearms. Firearms are not bad. People who use firearms for unlawful purposes are bad. Following the rationale that many in this discussion are using, people drink and drive, so we should ban cars. Cars like firearms have purposes. We don't need to ban things because some people use them for purposes they were not intended to be used for. We need to punish the criminal, treat the mentally ill, rehabilitate the ones that can be rehabilitated, and the ones that cannot be rehabilitated need to be dealt with permanently. And yes, you can read the use of the death penalty as a permanent solution to a problem.

Neither of the things you listed are designed explicitly and exclusively to hurt and kill. And as for rattlesnakes and bears... is that seriously your argument for the free gun candy-land that the country is?

 

[Rolyo85]

Andy's fact post count so far: zero.

Andy's propaganda post so far: millions

False. I think it's time you're put on ignore.

 

[CowboyBob]

He really reminds me of one of the trolls we have had in the past. A lot of his posts show me memories, not good ones, of that troll that we hated so much. Just cannot remember his name.

He's recognized as a troll from other political forums by several people here.

 

[Rolyo85]

I don't think it's even intentional. It seems to just be everything he can do...

 

[Kulindahr]

Thank you for demonstrating my point entirely. You've concentrated on what 'people' means. It is irrelevent, it simply doesn't matter whether it means the people collectively, or individuals, because in the context of the amendment, the collective of people is referred to, so breaking the definition of people into a questionable point is mute. All are covered, singularly as well as a group.

"the right of the people" is the core of the statement, so what that term means is essential. Since "the people" elsewhere in the Constitution always means individuals as well as those individuals associated in groups as they choose, it means the same thing here, and thus Heller is quite correct: it's an individual right. Since "the people" is what's at issue, that's what's being addressed -- an individual right. "Singularly as well as a group" is not "collective" in the sense that opponents of individual liberty mean it; they want the individual aspect excised.

You've ignored the 'A well regulated militia' at the beginning of the amendment. It is THAT which is the important part, not what 'people' means. It says that a militia is necessary. It does not say that all individuals being a part of a militia is necessary.

That phrase is a secondary one, grammatically. It serves the sole purpose of giving one possible reason for protecting the stated right.

"All individuals being part of a militia" is just part of the definition of "a militia" as used in the Amendment: "a militia" there means, as one Founding Father put it, "the whole people".

Its the 21st century now though. Your country has a military. The state police are the militia, its simply a modern form of one.

No, the police are quite the opposite of any militia, since they are employees of the state, bearing force for the state. Those who bear force for the state, professionally, are not militia. Today's police would fall into the category of "standing army" more than anything, as they are a direct parallel of a noble's private troops.

 

[Kulindahr]

There are a lot of people in this thread yelling that firearms are bad, firearms are only useful for killing. But with very few exceptions, no one has even commented on the points I have brought up.

First, why was a thirteen year old boy playing with a firearm. At thirteen years of age, I knew that firearms were not a toy. They were a tool used for hunting and putting food on the table. It was also acceptable to use them for target practice to improve your skills at putting food on the table. Firearms are a quick and effective method for hunting. You use shot guns for birds, and Rifles for game. Hand guns are for self defense from rattlers and other critters, and for the occasion when you need to mercifully put an animal out of it's misery.

Second, why was there not a trigger lock in place in the firearm when it was not in use. Even before the age of thirteen, I knew that firearms were stored unloaded (being that I am actually older than the invention of trigger locks). Yes, I knew how to load and use the fire arms, but I was also well aware of the fact that if I misused one of the firearms my ass would be blistered.

Third, When there is a firearm in the house, it is the responsibility of all members of the household to know firearm safety. I learned how to use a firearm from an uncle who was home from the Vietnam Conflict, when I was 5 years old. Before I was 5, I knew damn good and well that I was to keep my hands off the firearms.

The answer is not more regulation. The answer is not banning firearms. The answer is not automatic vs semi-automatic vs repeating action. The answer is responsibility. The answer is knowledge. The answer is knowing that someone is going to kick your ass if you fuck up. The answer is you use a firearm in the commission of a felony, and your ass is in the electric chair. We need to have strict laws with definite consequences. You do this, and this will happen. Period.

Exactly.

BTW, your punishment for misuse of a household firearm is one I call "getting off lightly" -- if I'd been caught so much as examining any of my parents' arms without explicit permission and under supervision, three months at hard labor would have been just the beginning of my woes.

 

[Kulindahr]

. . . comparing a lethal weapon with an everyday functional tool is not logical.

I have a neighbor who's a contractor. His shed is filled with everyday functional tools that are lethal weapons.

If guns were treated with the extreme reverence and concern that they should be, with suitably strict regulations for their use and storage, this tragedy may never have occurred. Instead, in the US we see guns marketed as toys to children, and treated as such. Laws are weak or non existent, and seldom enforced. The result is irresponsible owners not choosing or bothering to safely manage lethal weapons in their own homes. In the case of the 2 year old girl's death in Kentucky, not a single law was broken.

JFYI, there was less of this irrational violence when guns actually were marketed to children, not just as toys but as actual firearms. The problem is that there's no way to legislate back the culture that regarded responsibility as common sense as well as a virtue. Government regulation merely takes away responsibility, perhaps most significantly by teaching people that someone else will always take care of them.

A big problem is laws that burden the law-abiding rather than targeting the criminals: such laws serve to breed disrespect for law.

 

[Rolyo85]

That phrase is a secondary one, grammatically. It serves the sole purpose of giving one possible reason for protecting the stated right.

That is grammatically incorrect. It most certainly does not give "one possible reason". It gives THE reason: "We need a well regulated militia, so they should have guns". It is the ONLY reason given, not an example.

No, the police are quite the opposite of any militia, since they are employees of the state, bearing force for the state. Those who bear force for the state, professionally, are not militia. Today's police would fall into the category of "standing army" more than anything, as they are a direct parallel of a noble's private troops.

Except, the government IS the people. Nowhere in the amendment is there a separation between the people and their government. And the police and army are most certainly NOT a parallel to a noble's private troops, as much as you want to keep painting the government as some "other", as a proto-tyranical force that is just a step away from attacking its own citizens.

Seriously, all this paranoia must be so exhausting...

 

[Kulindahr]

The new guy is a troll.

Agreed.