Gun Control, who's for it?

I LOVE IT!!!!!!!!!!!!! Buy that man a drink! \

Although it is a favorite story, I'm sad to report that according to Snopes, it is false. Reference http://www.snopes.com/military/reinwald.htm

It's still a GREAT story, though.

Swanny

About the star-trek style phaser to replace all that clumsy flying lead: Fine. But the phaser user has to carry heavy insurance to pay for the prosthesis and rehab of the victim, because no way is the taxpayer going to pick that up.

A corpse needs NO rehab!

Oh, true enough. The reference to phasers was made by someone who contemplated severed limbs and the benefits of the instant cauterization the ray accomplishes as one possible scenario, though, so you might have to give some of them up for saved. Once in a while.

I was trained that if you pull on someone that I was to be ready to shoot. And if I shoot it was to kill, there is NO other reason to pull a gun. There is no 2nd chance and no going back. If that philosophy bothers anyone my appologies, but that is the way it is!

A man that tries to steal my weed-eater and gets his arm zapped off deserves no prosthesis. He should just be thankful for the cauterizing effect and move on.

Actually, that sounds grim but realistic. It doesn't add much to the idea of carrying a gun primarily as a deterrant, though. You might as well not have it unless you pull it, and if you pull it you will kill with it and the deterrant function is void.

I agree. That is a good enough deterrant. Any smart criminal would not mess with someone if they knew they'll get killed.

This thread has been interesting. I Detect the usual arguments for and against gun ownership. I have stated elseware that the second amendment is the primary safeguard for all the rest of our freedoms. The founding fathers understood full well that an armed society will deter governmental as well as criminal abuse. There were two primary positions debated during the forging of our constitution; the majority created the second amendment while the minority believed in government taking responsiblity for our safety.

Some of my best friends are in law enforcment, but none of them pretend to be responsible for my personal safety. They arrive well after any personal protection is needed.

Picture in your mind a late night noise coming from the front door of your house. You immediately call 911 and report an intruder coming through your front door. The 911 call starts the clock ticking. Depending where you live relative to where an officer is when he receives the call you will waite anywhere from 7 to 30 minutes. During that time you have the legal right to use deadly force to protect yourself and your family or be a statistic on a police report after the police arrive. It's that simple. This type of call happens more often than the main stream media would like you to believe. People all over this great nation defend themselves from violent criminals every day (Or night) of the year.

Training? responsiblity? absolutely!! It is no simple matter taking another persons life. There are no second chances. You must be 100% sure of what you are doing and why you are doing. What are the alternatives if you do not act to protect yourself?

Someone suggested a regional approach to personal protection. How do you determine just who is eligible for personal self defence and who is not? My home is in a rather remote area of north georgia. Am I more eligible for personal protection than someone who lives, lets say in washington DC? The second amendment applies to everyone in this nation. No exceptions!

What I find "interesting" about the people who argue for Gun Control is they are usually the very same people who support Liberal judges and politicians who some how find, and in the case of judges enforce, the magical and mystical "Right of Privacy" for just about any sexually related function you can think of; Abortion Rights (including the rights of minors to have abortions without notifying the very people who are responsible for everything the minor does), Partial Birth Abortion Rights, Homosexual Marriage Rights, etc.... After all, what ever happens in a womend body is her business and whatever goes on in the bedroom is no ones’ business but the individual or couple involved. But when you ask where in the Preamble, the various Articles, or the 27 Amendments to the Constitution this magical and mystical right appears the answer is invariably, "it's implied...."


Yet if any one of the people protected by this mystical and magical implied "Right of Privacy" should want to have a firearm in their bedroom to defend themselves from someone breaking into their home and murdering them then the very same judges and politicians who discovered this “Right” not only can't seem to locate it anymore, they can't even find the Second Amendment staring them straight in the face: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Am I the only one who finds this at least odd?

I argee with you. The crime rate in DC is one of the highest in the nation however, to own a hand gun it practally takes a law biding citizen an act of congress in order to obtain an owners permit. But the criminals can get a gun in no time at all.

AMEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I agree with everything you wrote. Talk about hipocrocy, read this


5. Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.) Sponsor of the much-vaunted assault-weapon ban of 1994-2004. Despite the ban's having been found to have been misdirected and irrelevant to crime, Feinstein said she wished for a stronger law, one that would say, "Mr. and Mrs. America, turn [your firearms] all in." Feinstein carried a handgun for her own protection in California.


Not all liberals are bad but they sure like to point their fingers.

Three things:
1. Is it just as hypocritical for proponents of the 2nd amendment to be against the"Rights to Privacy" regarding sexual acts?

2. I think there is a big difference between an assault rifle and a hand gun for use of personal protection.

3. If it is agreed that training and responsibility are improtant, should they be required for gun ownership? I'm not saying a test to be passed, simply a class attended. Should someone have to attend a class on gun safety and use and receive proof of attendance before they are allowed to own a gun? I mean, we already require a background check, why not this?