Just saw this and thought most everyone on here would be interested.

[Chas0218]

The only thing gun laws accomplish are to make it harder for law abiding individuals to own guns. They do nothing for criminals, why can't the anti-gun people understand this.  Criminals are using guns to kill unarmed individuals, I haven't seen many instances where knowingly armed individuals are being killed by criminals with guns. I would love to know their reasoning behind all of these "efforts" to basically disarm america.

 

And for those that argue weapons of war have changed so should gun rights is utter bull.  When the constitution was ratified muskets were carried by citizens and soldiers.  Today Assault rifles are carried by soldiers and citizens.  As technology changes so will the guns.  Today citizens still don't carry the same weapons as the military (unless you have a FFL).

 

These politicians need to get their facts straight and grow a pair to address the real problem. 

Edited September 18, 2013 by Chas0218

[LongLine]

Hey Chas - Quite a post for someone who initially stated he didn't want to start a gun debate. 

 

I guess you don't count the cops that get killed every year.  I wonder if the criminals knew the 72 officers killed in 2011 were armed. 

 

Also please get your facts straight. During the revolutionary war, the citizens were the soldiers and had to supply their own weapons.  BTW the constitution was ratified after the war and our founding fathers wrote most of it from their experiences.  i.e soldiers supplying their own weapons, Militias fighting the British empire, British quartering troops in citizen's homes, etc. 

 

Nobody is trying to dis-arm you.  You can have your pistol, you can have your shot gun, you can have your hunting rifle.   You can have your knife, your can even have your 2 1/2 gal gas can. It just shouldn't be so easy to get a weapon that so many maniacs have knowingly used to easily kill so many people with. 

 

BTW no need to add special effects  like underscore & color fonts etc to emphasize your "utter...". 

 

Tom B.

(LongLine) 

[King Slammin]

Want to stop these mass shootings? Eliminate gun free zones. None of this "SAFE" Act crap will save a single life either. In fact, it makes us citizens less safe by taking away sensible means of protection. Just another liberal fool rushing to make headlines without analyzing facts to actually reach an intelligent solution. Don't be scared of the black guns LongLine. They shoot one bullet at a time just like the pretty wood ones

[Sk8man]

There is a total avoidance of the real underlying issues on the part of government and a vast majority of the citizens of our country.  We have virtually eliminated access to mental health services in this country because of the money involved. Mental health professionals and the medical profession are running scared because we live in a society with way to many lawyers and lawsuits are the name of the game these days. At the very heart of the thing is the disintegration of the family unit, absence of involved fathers as effective male role models and disciplinarians , one parent (or grand parents) trying to raise youths, the blame game between parents and teachers and school administrators, a growing total lack of respect for parents, or teachers,and authority figures by much of today's youth, and the rampant portrayal of violence on TV, the movies, reality shows, and especially video games accessed by youth (unmonitored)- you name it....we are viewing ourselves as a "violent culture" and this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Adding to this is the underlying message being given in many different ways that  bring the sports mentality into everyday life....there are only "winners" and "losers" so perpetrators of crimes become "winners" and the victims are viewed as "losers". People defending themselves or their property  are put on the defensive to explain their actions rather than the focus being on the offending person, and the legal system that allows serious repeat offenders to go free or with a slap on the wrist and they continue to offend and up the anty while the system appears sound asleep. Guns in and of themselves aren't the problem...illegal trafficing and illegal possession and use are problems...and they aren't being effectively dealt with by anyone.

Edited September 20, 2013 by Sk8man

[Tim Bromund]

Tom,

Yes they are, if you truly believe otherwise, you are naive beyond my ability to comprehend.

[Has Been]

Are our soldiers not our citizens? Dude, think about what you are saying.

 

Forefathers were smart guys. The reason they came here in the first place was to get away from an oppresive gov they could not defend themselves from.  Ever see the movie Braveheart ? Don"t think it could happen here someday? Look at Germany in the 20's & 30's. Look at Seria today, I'll bet those folks over there wish they had more than a 7 round clip & a double barrel 12 ga.

[Fish Hunter]

These rights were promised to me.......... oh, but wait..........now, we are going to change those, to protect you underlings from each other, so sayeth the decree from Albany.

I have a real problem getting my mind right with that whole thing...........

I don't need much, but when they are telling me what I do, and don't need, I guess they must know what's best for me......?

WRONG ANSWER!

Edited September 20, 2013 by Fish Hunter

[lakebound88]

Good read guys. Except everyone has a legit argument.. Everyone always will. I for one am pro-gun. I do not own any nor do I hunt, but I believe they (government) should not be able to decide what legal law abiding citizens can and can not own. I am a believer that it is not the gun that causes harm.. for example, new York has shut down psych centers across the state... Now we have "loose maniacs" on the street. What's next? I think we all know.

However, how about conspiracy theories.... I know there are a ton of them out there. But what's to say the law abiding citizens are getting so brainwashed so to speak. Also, this is not directed to anyone in particular. Just stating the things I sit back and watch and read.

Its Friday guys, have a good weekend!

Nick

Sent from my XT907 using Lake Ontario United mobile app

[Chas0218]

Hey Chas - Quite a post for someone who initially stated he didn't want to start a gun debate. 

 

I guess you don't count the cops that get killed every year.  I wonder if the criminals knew the 72 officers killed in 2011 were armed. 

 

Also please get your facts straight. During the revolutionary war, the citizens were the soldiers and had to supply their own weapons.  BTW the constitution was ratified after the war and our founding fathers wrote most of it from their experiences.  i.e soldiers supplying their own weapons, Militias fighting the British empire, British quartering troops in citizen's homes, etc. 

 

Nobody is trying to dis-arm you.  You can have your pistol, you can have your shot gun, you can have your hunting rifle.   You can have your knife, your can even have your 2 1/2 gal gas can. It just shouldn't be so easy to get a weapon that so many maniacs have knowingly used to easily kill so many people with. 

 

BTW no need to add special effects  like underscore & color fonts etc to emphasize your "utter...". 

 

Tom B.

(LongLine) 

I didn't want to start a debate but it started so I will contribute like what you have been doing.

 

So you just stated some of the facts I did. Congrats!

 

There were 72 officers killed in 1 year how many unarmed people have been killed? Compare the 2 and you will get my point. Chicago just had 12 people injured in a drive-by shooting just yesterday and I am going to guess it was with a non registered gun(s) and in a no-carry zone. Now this question is only for you

 

Would those same people have done that in an area that allowed concealed carry? Ever heard the expression "It's like shooting fish in a barrel"?

 

You and I will never see eye to eye about this topic as opinions are like butt holes everyone has one. 

[Guppy35]

There is a total avoidance of the real underlying issues on the part of government and a vast majority of the citizens of our country.  We have virtually eliminated access to mental health services in this country because of the money involved. Mental health professionals and the medical profession are running scared because we live in a society with way to many lawyers and lawsuits are the name of the game these days. At the very heart of the thing is the disintegration of the family unit, absence of involved fathers as effective male role models and disciplinarians , one parent (or grand parents) trying to raise youths, the blame game between parents and teachers and school administrators, a growing total lack of respect for parents, or teachers,and authority figures by much of today's youth, and the rampant portrayal of violence on TV, the movies, reality shows, and especially video games accessed by youth (unmonitored)- you name it....we are viewing ourselves as a "violent culture" and this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Adding to this is the underlying message being given in many different ways that  bring the sports mentality into everyday life....there are only "winners" and "losers" so perpetrators of crimes become "winners" and the victims are viewed as "losers". People defending themselves or their property  are put on the defensive to explain their actions rather than the focus being on the offending person, and the legal system that allows serious repeat offenders to go free or with a slap on the wrist and they continue to offend and up the anty while the system appears sound asleep. Guns in and of themselves aren't the problem...illegal trafficing and illegal possession and use are problems...and they aren't being effectively dealt with by anyone.

 

100% agree with this response!!!  You definitely hit the nail on the head, Les.

[Thun]

If they're not trying to take our guns away then what was the motive of the New York Journal News last December when they published the names and addresses on their website of an interactive map of gun owners in two counties in the suburbs of NYC? Thousands of law abiding citizens had their privacy abused when this news outlet published their names and addy's. Stalking victims, corrections officers, policemen and homes were all targeted by this release. Yes there is an agenda and it's called incrementalism, take a little bit here, a little bit there and before we know it our right to own and carry a firearm is gone.

[rolmops]

I like how the well thought out responses to this post are pro-gun, and the intelligible posts are anti-gun. Sammy got it right. Civil rights are not bestowed by a government. Even if they were, no matter how hard you try- you cannot be successful in legislating morality.

 

Stop being ignorant. We don't need more than 7 rounds for hunting, target shooting, etc. We need more than 7 rounds because the second amendment is the one that guarantees that this country will always be of, by, and for the people. The ultimate redress of grievances.  aka... AMERICA. 

 

It's not like this is a new argument.

 

“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms . . . disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes . . . Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.†

― Thomas Jefferson

The above quote is not by Thomas Jefferson. It is Cesare Beccaria's from an essay about crime and punishment.

Jefferson commented on this quote and called it a "false idea of utility". You can check this in the Monticelli library.

Claiming that statements such as these were made by the founding fathers  shows that the pro gun lobby is very creative in stretching the truth in order to validate their argument.

Heck, just throw in a founding father and claim he said something, it does not matter whether he did or not,

Edited September 25, 2013 by rolmops

[King Slammin]

The pro gun lobby has ALL the facts and studies to prove that a well armed society is more safe than a disarmed one. Look at where these shootings take place, GUN FREE ZONES. If u don't want your guns, give them up. I'll keep mine and fight anyone that wants to take them.

[carpedium]

The above quote is not by Thomas Jefferson. It is Cesare Beccaria's from an essay about crime and punishment.

Jefferson commented on this quote and called it a "false idea of utility". You can check this in the Monticelli library.

Claiming that statements such as these were made by the founding fathers  shows that the pro gun lobby is very creative in stretching the truth in order to validate their argument.

Heck, just throw in a founding father and claim he said something, it does not matter whether he did or not,

 

Cornelius, I'm not going to get on your case too hard about this, but really? 

 

The quote comes from a passage in Jefferson's "Legal Commonplace" book. Sorry for the honest mistake.

 

It alarms me that you are very misleading when you suggest that Jefferson called it a "false idea of utility". If one were to read the whole note, they would not conclude this sentiment overall, but only with regard to a principal source of errors and injustice. Jefferson goes on to agree with the sentiment: "It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons."

 

Please, there is no need to be inflammatory, and certainly no need to use ignorance as a foundation for an argument for discrediting the "gun lobby". You are not debating the gun lobby here anyway, you are debating your neighbors. Please let us know besides rhetoric, what facts you have to back up your position?

 

The whole context of Jefferson's note:

 

"A principal source of errors and injustice are false ideas of utility. For example: that legislator has false ideas of utility who considers particular more than general conveniencies, who had rather command the sentiments of mankind than excite them, who dares say to reason, 'Be thou a slave;' who would sacrifice a thousand real advantages to the fear of an imaginary or trifling inconvenience; who would deprive men of the use of fire for fear of their being burnt, and of water for fear of their being drowned; and who knows of no means of preventing evil but by destroying it.

 

The laws of this nature are those which forbid to wear arms, disarming those only who are not disposed to commit the crime which the laws mean to prevent. Can it be supposed, that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, and the most important of the code, will respect the less considerable and arbitrary injunctions, the violation of which is so easy, and of so little comparative importance? Does not the execution of this law deprive the subject of that personal liberty, so dear to mankind and to the wise legislator? and does it not subject the innocent to all the disagreeable circumstances that should only fall on the guilty? It certainly makes the situation of the assaulted worse, and of the assailants better, and rather encourages than prevents murder, as it requires less courage to attack unarmed than armed persons."

[Mortigan]

Matt - you are definitely smarter than I look.

Sent from my C5155 using Lake Ontario United mobile app

[Chas0218]

Just saw this one on my Facebook.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/09/25/kerry-signs-un-arms-treaty-senators-threaten-to-block-it/

The government is really starting to over step their boundaries.

Sent from my thinking chair...

[rolmops]

The legal commonplace  book is indeed a book by Jefferson. It is a compilation of quotes made by amongst others Cesare Beccaria. Although it is written by Jefferson  the quotes are not his. I stand by my statement.

[PeltHunter]

One of the most naive things to say is that when the 2nd Amendment and Bill of Rights as a whole were ratified the founders didn't know what guns would become. The whole point of the 2nd Amendment is to keep people in control of the country should it turn to a tyranny.

 

Would the same people who argue the 2nd amendment is outdated because of high capacity magazines and semi-automatic weapons because they can hurt more people faster argue that freedom of speech is outdated because of television sending peoples opinion or views out to a lot  more people much faster than a public speech or quotes in a newspaper? Or argue that freedom of press is outdated because the internet gets it out to a much broader spectrum faster than a printing press? Lets take away TV and the internet. It's a far fetched analogy but along the same lines

[PennYan20]

The way I see it, is Government paranoia, greed and control. As Gambler stated, this is a large stepping stone to eventually disarm Americans (NRA-Law abiding Americans.) The best way to control a population that you have screwed, Misrepresented, lied to, etc. is to take away their right to protect themselves. And, against who? Who is or are our real intruders-enemies? Gambler and others are right! We will eventually become "bait and shoot." By drug infested free phone carrying low-lifes and PARANOID individuals----enter GOVERNMENT! Stick around....The rest of our Constitutional Rights will be on the line, as well. Freedom? Maybe for the crack heads and other misfits of society that we have to carry, and the Government can't control! Yeah, let more of these misfits (ANIMALS) back out of prison, to kill again! Ignore the crack babies running the streets, shut down more mental health and drug re-hab centers that employ GOOD AMERICANS to deal with these sick individuals! All to further line the pockets of top heavy over paid elected officials! My BP is rising.....thanks for reading. Steve..........

[chinook35]

^{The anti gun lobby is very good at misquoting and quoting out of context , to prove that guns are evil and no longer needed in a  "civilized ' society . LMAO  . Read the headlines and then tell me all about the  "civilized " society .The government can't control crime . The drug dealers and street gangs are winning the battle . I will always maintain my ability to defend myself and my family . If this makes me a criminal down the road , then so be it .}

[rolmops]

I have absolutely no problem with persons having weapons to hunt and defend themselves. In fact ,I think that it is the smart thing to do.

My fears with unlimited anything goes guns are different.

We already have a law on the books  stating that a corporation is a person and as such has many rights. Now what would stop such a person (corporation) from arming itself and become a privately owned army. It is a nightmare to have corporations with their private armies.

Edited September 28, 2013 by rolmops

[skipper19]

Never saw a corporation walk into a firearms shop in the USA, but I have seen a person do that, and have to go through the background check in order to walk out with it in hand....not the same thing even if a person with the title of supreme court justice says so. Never saw a corporate business walk, have hands, or vote, or shoot a firearm....just a human, person.

cent frum my knotso smart fone...

[LongLine]

or shoot a firearm....just a human, person.

 

 

Isn't that what the gun debate peoples are saying? 

 

The question is "which" people can shoot.  Just like the boat safety course thread..."Laws shouldn't apply to me" responses. "I'm a safe boater!  I've been doing it since I was a little tyke!  It's the other guy that needs it!  What the world needs is people that aren't distracted!   Actually the alcohol/drugs made him do it!  He just had too much pressure on him and had to relieve it with the need to speed!  Book learning won't help - where's the road...err...water test?  He shouldn't have been allowed to have a boat anyways!  It's my right to own a boat & you'll have to pry my dead fingers off the helm before I allow any one to restrict my rights!  Only a few people get killed every year anyways.  Just another way for a dysfunctional gov't to get money from us!"

 

IMO (and the founding father's) Domestic tranquility is something this county's populace needs...badly!

 

Tom B.

(LongLine)

 

 

 

 

[rolmops]

 

 

IMO (and the founding father's) Domestic tranquility is something this county's populace needs...badly!

 

Tom B.

(LongLine)

 

How about  you and I have a beer one of these days?