Women defending themselves with *Gasp* guns!

[TX-Beau]

Once again, the fed ALREADY REGULATES FIREARMS, this is NOT ABOUT SELF DEFENSE, or the 2cnd amendment, this national discussion is SOLELY about reinstating a regulation something like the one that was allowed to lapse in 2006

All you drama queens with the horror stories need to sit down and check it.

If you actually get a wild hare up your ass and want to say something useful - why don't YOU tell US what kinds of firearms should be illegal and which not - and since the FED ALREADY CONSTITUTIONALLY REGULATES, saying any restriction is "unconstitutional" because of the 2cnd or homwrecking burglars, or what-the-fuck-ever you can invent is just fucking stupid.

 

[andysayshi]

The right to bear arms is the reason the United States of America hasn't been invaded yet.

How do you account for the fact that nations with strict gun control and low gun ownership rates, like the United Kingdom and Australia, have also not been invaded?

 

[andysayshi]

As usual, the gun debate is obfuscated with semantics. I don't care what guns are called or how they're categorised, particularly. None of the women in the links above owned weapons with a magazine greater than 10 bullets. A Bushmaster .223 semi-automatic, or it's equivalents, which the NRA has actively campaigned to keep legal for years, is not required to make a home safer. The lack of reasonable limits and regulation, and the lack of meaningful testing for competency of gun owners, is the problem. These examples help to prove the point that advanced, high powered weaponry is complete overkill for personal protection.

 

[Stardreamer]

Once again, the fed ALREADY REGULATES FIREARMS, this is NOT ABOUT SELF DEFENSE, or the 2cnd amendment, this national discussion is SOLELY about reinstating a regulation something like the one that was allowed to lapse in 2006

All you drama queens with the horror stories need to sit down and check it.

If you actually get a wild hare up your ass and want to say something useful - why don't YOU tell US what kinds of firearms should be illegal and which not - and since the FED ALREADY CONSTITUTIONALLY REGULATES, saying any restriction is "unconstitutional" because of the 2cnd or homwrecking burglars, or what-the-fuck-ever you can invent is just fucking stupid.

Now who is being the drama queen? I have not said that state cannot regulate firearms or that all such regulation is unconstitutional. All the rights in the bill of rights is subject to 'reasonable' regulation. The threads and posts I tend to make on this subject are intended to be clarifying on what the actual 'right' the second amendment is about and how that can be limited and not limited. Unless you have that point clarified you cannot reasonably discuss what kinds of firearms should be illegal. Also once that is clarified it becomes clearer what can be achieved towards regulating firearms. And I have already made some suggestions as to what kind of regulation would be possible in this context.

I also started this thread in response to the folks who do exactly what you say noone is doing, suggesting that all guns be heavily restricted, and deny the legitimacy of self defense arguments with what if scenarios. They starting to pop up again here too. I started this discussion with examples of 5 different cases of mothers defending themselves and their children from intruders into their homes with firearms. These are real life, not what if, examples out of hundreds that I found. While I am certain there are cases of a person having their weapon taken and turned against them, I wonder if you would find them turning up in such numbers.

 

[Stardreamer]

As usual, the gun debate is obfuscated with semantics. I don't care what guns are called or how they're categorised, particularly. None of the women in the links above owned weapons with a magazine greater than 10 bullets. A Bushmaster .223 semi-automatic, or it's equivalents, which the NRA has actively campaigned to keep legal for years, is not required to make a home safer. The lack of reasonable limits and regulation, and the lack of meaningful testing for competency of gun owners, is the problem. These examples help to prove the point that advanced, high powered weaponry is complete overkill for personal protection.

Operationally, those guns are not all that different from the hunting rifles which even the most of the gun restricted countries allow. Quite frankly the ability to kill a deer is the ability to kill most anything smaller than a bear. The main thing that makes them more dangerous in the rare spree killer situation is the magazine capacity and the ability to rapidly change magazines. Both of which I think can be reasonably regulated even under the second amendment.

 

[TX-Beau]

Now who is being the drama queen? I have not said that state cannot regulate firearms or that all such regulation is unconstitutional. All the rights in the bill of rights is subject to 'reasonable' regulation. The threads and posts I tend to make on this subject are intended to be clarifying on what the actual 'right' the second amendment is about and how that can be limited and not limited. Unless you have that point clarified you cannot reasonably discuss what kinds of firearms should be illegal. Also once that is clarified it becomes clearer what can be achieved towards regulating firearms. And I have already made some suggestions as to what kind of regulation would be possible in this context.

I also started this thread in response to the folks who do exactly what you say noone is doing, suggesting that all guns be heavily restricted, and deny the legitimacy of self defense arguments with what if scenarios. They starting to pop up again here too. I started this discussion with examples of 5 different cases of mothers defending themselves and their children from intruders into their homes with firearms. These are real life, not what if, examples out of hundreds that I found. While I am certain there are cases of a person having their weapon taken and turned against them, I wonder if you would find them turning up in such numbers.

You are being the drama queen. WE MUST HAVE GUNS TO PROTECT THE WOMEN!!!

ARRRGGHHHHH!!!!

So what?. Everything in your original post is just so much alarmist dodging. It’s BESDIE THE POINT. Proves nothing whatsoever and isn’t even part of the conversation. It’s just you trying to insinuate guns are the only way for women to defend themselves. You didn’t find contrary accounts – because I’m betting you didn’t go looking for them.

There was a lady in the county here who was murdered by 3 high school boys because they wanted her new Mustang. She was heavily armed. They kicked in her door and shot her twice with a shotgun (belonging to the father of one of them). She didn’t even get a shot off. Now according to your logic, since her guns didn’t help her, OBVIOUSLY guns can’t be used for protection.

Please.

All of the above, your stories, mine, are BESIDE THE POINT.

Now why don’t YOU tell US what you think reasonable regulation should look like.

 

[Stardreamer]

You are being the drama queen. WE MUST HAVE GUNS TO PROTECT THE WOMEN!!!

ARRRGGHHHHH!!!!

So what?. Everything in your original post is just so much alarmist dodging. It’s BESDIE THE POINT. Proves nothing whatsoever and isn’t even part of the conversation. It’s just you trying to insinuate guns are the only way for women to defend themselves. You didn’t find contrary accounts – because I’m betting you didn’t go looking for them.

There was a lady in the county here who was murdered by 3 high school boys because they wanted her new Mustang. She was heavily armed. They kicked in her door and shot her twice with a shotgun (belonging to the father of one of them). She didn’t even get a shot off. Now according to your logic, since her guns didn’t help her, OBVIOUSLY guns can’t be used for protection.

Please.

All of the above, your stories, mine, are BESIDE THE POINT.

Now why don’t YOU tell US what you think reasonable regulation should look like.

An exaggeration but I will admit I intentionally selected women defending their children cases to emphasis a point.

I also did go looking for cases of a person being killed by an intruder taking their gun away from them when I made my last post. I found only one and even that was murky since the circumstances of how she was killed are unknown. Most people killed by their own weapons seem to be cases of murder by family members who had access to the weapon or suicide. Even your example is murky since the victim would have died anyway so having or not having a gun was ultimately irrelevant to how safe she was. I would also point out that the point you want to narrow the discussion to, which I assume is the assault weapons ban, wouldn't have mattered in that case also as shotguns are not being discussed either.

I've already mentioned what I think reasonable regulation should be. I wouldn't focus on specific models of firearms at all since manufacturers will simply make the same guns with minor changes, it is ultimately self defeating and inefficient. Instead I would focus on specific capabilities, no magazine capacity greater than 10 rounds and no ability to rapidly eject and replace the magazine. Must issue concealed carry permitting process that includes a firearm user safety training. Firearm non-user safety training as part of school health programs.

I think Kuli's ideas of managing access to high capacity and other such weapons using the existing militia regulations by requiring those weapons to be stored and kept in licensed firing ranges (designated militia arsenals) would allow the continued ownership and use of bushmasters and such while avoiding 2nd Amendment issues.

 

[T-Rexx]

Actually the single MOST likely outcome, if any, is absolutely nothing will happen

"Absolutely nothing" is not an "outcome." It's absolutely nothing.

The single most likely outcome of carrying a gun is that you or someone in your family will get killed by it. Period. Only an idiot would carry a gun for "protection" when the most likely outcome is that it will kill them.

 

[Kulindahr]

How so? The court ruling alone changes the dynamic of the conversation. The self defense argument is the most relevant discussion of the 2nd Amendment in the modern world, to me the tendency of these discussions to be directed off into the role of the militia in the modern world is more of a red herring.

Yes. The Left has repeatedly used the argument "if it saves just one life..." -- and the articles you found show abundantly that allowing citizens to have firearms saves lives.

 

[Kulindahr]

I have never said the government does not have the right to regulate. The ruling though does negate some of the justifications used for regulating.

I do expect regulations limiting high capacity magazines and if they asked me, rapid change magazines.

Government has no rights -- only authority assigned it by those who do: the citizens.

 

[Kulindahr]

http://www.assaultriflesforsale.com/

Wow you can use the internet to be deceived.... None of those weapons meet the guidelines for assault weapons... so guess what WONT be banned????

Actually I found one that did -- the HK, which does have selective fire. Of course they have just one, and as the information says, not only is the price $15,999.99, a buyer first has to get the required federal license.

So while there is at least one actual assault rifle there, it does not qualify as being available "on the open market", because to buy it you're going to have to welcome some BATFE agents into your home to interview you and do a very, very thorough background check.

 

[Kulindahr]

If you want to get murdered (or you want someone in your family to die unnaturally), the single best way to accomplish that is to carry a gun.

Period.

LOL

From the firearms killings in the United States each year, it's evident that the best way to get murdered is to be a drug dealer in a fight for territory with another drug dealer.

 

[Kulindahr]

http://www.assaultriflesforsale.com/

Prove it..

- - - Updated - - -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#Definitions_and_usage

You're the one who made the initial claim. A fair examination of the evidence you offered shows that it fails.

And now you offer 'evidence' that is really an attempt to change the subject.

 

[Kulindahr]

When you try to put words in my mouth try listening first.

Then address the point YOU SAY nothing that meets the definition of "assault rile" is for sale, I provided you the definition, prove it.

No, you changed the subject.

 

[Kulindahr]

The topic is as red herring as one could possibly get.

If this is, then so is any thread about Sandy Hook or Virginia Tech or Columbine or any other such event.

 

[Kulindahr]

THIS IS MY POINT!

The discussion of gun regulation IS NOT A SECOND AMENDMENT ISSUE trying to say it is, is trying to dodge.

Is that clear enough for you? or shall I make it bigger?

Um, that's pretty obtuse. According to the FFs and the Framers and the Supreme Court, gun regulation most certainly is a Second Amendment issue. We know this because that's where the Constitution addresses the issue of firearms.

 

[TX-Beau]

What's pretty obtuse is all the drama-mongering from gun addicts over defense and Constitutionality when ALL THAT IS BEING DISCUSSED is regulations which are already constitutional and already have been law in one form or another.

All the rest of the hot air you and the others in here are providing is utterly pointless.

 

[Kulindahr]

http://www.assaultriflesforsale.com/

From your source:


The web site you are using is using the term assault rifles incorrectly, amazing that someone would distort something in advertising? Who would have thought it possible? There were some guns there that might be assault rifles, I saw a AK-47 which I think is a full auto weapon but you couldn't buy it in the US unless you had one of the limited supply of federal licenses which are VERY hard to obtain and consequently make them very unlikely to be used in a crime.

It's actually simple to tell if there are assault rifles for sale: just scan the listings for anything with a price in five or more digits. If their "list high to low" price feature was working, it would be very simple.

As it is, they're not using the term incorrectly, they're just using a rare possibility on their site to label the whole thing. Misleading? Certainly. False? No.

 

[Kulindahr]

And the most likely outcome of carrying a handgun is NOT that it will ever protect you from harm. The most likely outcome is that you or one of your family members will get killed by it.

This lie is getting old. If this were true, we'd have a murder rate far, far higher than it is.

Firearms protect people from harm hundreds of thousands of times a year. People are killed by firearms less than a tenth as often -- even counting suicides.

 

[Kulindahr]

Nobody wants to take away guns. Of course people CAN defend themselves with guns. But they can also defend themselves with non-lethal measures which - if taken forcefully from them by the attacker - would not result in their own death.

Now there's a fantasy. Any form of self-defense which brings the possibility of being effective is such that if taken away by the attacker it could result in the defender's death.