 sj |
||
|
||
BS: 'Right to carry' anyone?
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: kendall Date: 01 Aug 11 - 12:47 PM Sad, innit? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: Donuel Date: 01 Aug 11 - 12:21 PM Concerts, churches, skating rinks, bars, museams, restaurants all have shootings, its not the locations but the weapons being present to arbitrate any conflict which influences human behavior. If the custom were to use a face slapping gloves, then the skating rink incident would have ended differently. Alas this is a dangerous move according to the NRA. Our whole culture revolvers around guns. ITs our honored History |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: Bill D Date: 31 Jul 11 - 09:30 PM Nawww, Kendall... I was well aware YOU were not suggesting sane folk SHOULD carry.... I was push your logic to the extreme....and several times, I have heard it argued that everyone legally able should carry. One Florida county..or town ...tried that a number of years ago. I was asking why it would NOT be reasonable to have most or all sane, competent people trained and packing heat... (*I* don't think it's a good idea, but if one is good, why aren't 27 better in McDonald's?) Remember...at that shooting in Arizona, there WAS one guy with a gun who 'almost' pulled it and used it on he wrong person in the furor! Only luck and a woman grabbing the shooter's spare clip prevented more tragedy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: gnu Date: 31 Jul 11 - 02:25 PM Having read the posts since I was here last I just want to say one thing regarding questions asked and comments made... I live in Canada and our gun laws are FAR more restrictive than the gun laws in the US. I shant take the time to educate re same herein. The laws are on the books here and they are available to all. A last comment. Most of our gun laws are good. Some are VERY, VERY bad. If you wanna know which ones, read my MANY posts on numerous previous threads. Have fun. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: kendall Date: 31 Jul 11 - 01:29 PM Bill D old buddy, you read into my post something that wasn't there. I did not imply that everyone who is sane and competent should carry. I was simply telling what I think. I am sane, competent and well qualified according the to US Dept. of the Treasury school of law enforcement and criminal investigation. Plus 16 years of law enforcement during which I never had to show it, let alone use it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: Bill D Date: 31 Jul 11 - 01:08 PM I shouldn't try again to say anything on this...but.. Someone asked back up there.. ↑ "Why does anyone NEED to have a gun?" I am 72 and have never "needed one"....however I can remember a few times when IF I had one on me, I might have done something stupid. I did HAVE one briefly...a longish-barrel .22..in Kansas, in about 1965-66. There were few rules, and I'll swear I don't remember where I got it. (it may have been from someone my ex-wife knew). I test fired it ONCE...way out in the desert.... the only time I ever fired a pistol, one of about 3-4 times I fired any weapon. (A .22 rifle a couple times..50 years ago) I loaned that .22 to a lady who had 'prowlers'... the prowlers broke in and stole the pistol! When it was recovered at a pawn shop, the police rules were that *I* would have to pay the pawn shop for his 'trouble' to get it back. (like...$25) I never bothered. Now..."Why does anyone NEED to have a gun?" Well, some work in areas and in jobs where 'problems' sometimes occur. MOST of us do not. The logic that says "...if I'm in McDonald's and some nut case comes in looking to kill, he won't get all of us." also says that anyone who is trained and HAS a weapon should carry it, and thus, anyone who is sane and competent should BE trained and carry...so that more McDonalds are safer. (bad logic? *grin*...think about it.) I do agree with olddude that "Owning a handgun, well one better be highly trained. ", but there sure aren't many laws making that requirement. Sadly, there's little to keep even some "highly trained" from deciding to do something stupid...and THEY will be better at it. EASY ACCESS is the problem. I know we can't "ban guns".... but we could, if we wished, make it MUCH harder for the stupid, incompetent and dangerous ones to get weapons and ammo. Trouble is, guns are similar to cars.... did you ever hear anyone admit.."I am a bad-to-medicore driver."? ANYONE can steer a car, and anyone can pull a trigger....but it is easier to get a gun than a driver's licence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: saulgoldie Date: 31 Jul 11 - 06:48 AM Oooo! 100! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: Midchuck Date: 31 Jul 11 - 06:45 AM Vermont has some of the "loosest" gun laws of the US. There's no such thing as a "concealed carry permit" because there's no restriction on concealed carry in the first place. But I know very few people not in law enforcement who routinely go armed. There's no need. News headline this morning: State police just announced a second murder. Yes. TWO murders thus far this year. In the whole State. And one of them was with a knife, not a gun. Even one is too many, of course, but... Peter |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: Songwronger Date: 27 Jul 11 - 12:26 AM A couple of people asked about my reference to Operation Fast and Furious. This is a big story. Some background -- In March of 2009 Hillary Clinton began talking about how American guns were being used by Mexican drug gangs. She said the guns were coming from gun shows in America. In March and April of 2009 Obama picked up the chant. He said gun shows were bad because they allowed Mexican gang members to get hold of guns. In April of 2009 U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder spoke in Cuernavaca, Mexico about Operation Gunrunner. He said the U.S. had lots of money to deal with the drug problem. Operation Fast and Furious grew out of Operation Gunrunner. In Fast and Furious, U.S. agents were providing guns to Mexican gangsters so the agents could then "track" how the guns were used. Then a U.S. officer got killed and the operation was exposed. Mexico was furious because U.S. officials never consulted them about the gunrunning program. And now investigations are being held in Washington. Just today a couple of government witnesses were threatened. They were told they had to limit their testimony. The official line is to be "We just fucked up again. We're such idiots." But this wasn't a fuckup. This was an intentional violation of international law with a near certain knowledge that deaths would result. The conspiracy initiated by Clinton/Obama/Holder set up an expectation in the public mind that American guns were being used by Mexican drug gangs. Those guns were then supplied by Holder, possibly on orders from Obama. This story is a thousand times bigger than Watergate. It's even bigger than Iran-Contra. 35,000 people have died violently along the U.S. / Mexican border since 2006. Drug related murders. The U.S. Department of Justice has been supplying guns to conduct those murders. Eric Holder is now outright lying about the situation. He claims, for example, that he never said the things he did in the 2009 Cuernavaca speech. That's how desperate he is. I voted for Obama but he lost my support long ago. He's begun FIVE new wars in the middle east, and he's fed guns to the Mexican drug cartels in the war that's raging on America's southern border. American citizens have the right to carry weapons. We're born with that right. The U.S. Constitution just reminds us that no government can take away that right. That's especially important to know now, when the people in charge of our government are arming violent criminals who could turn those arms on us. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: olddude Date: 26 Jul 11 - 04:32 PM Most of us all grew up with a bunch of firearms. When my kids were small I always pulled the bolts from the rifles and slides off the pistols (IE disassemble) I then locked the parts up in the safe. I also trained my girls. They all could shoot at a very early age. It is part of my culture. Even today they are all excellent with both a rifle and handgun ... but at no time was any weapon in a functional state when they were small. That is just me, others have their own ways of doing it. But those of us on mudcat that own weapons pretty much have a hunting background, law enforcement background , military background or all of the above. Firearms are not for everyone, but broad generalizations of people from other cultures doesn't work. America is one hell of a big place and country people hunt, fish, and grow up with firearms. Love them or hate them, they are here to stay. The real task is to get them out of the hands of criminals. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: GUEST,mg Date: 26 Jul 11 - 03:53 PM I know and each was a tragedy. And regulations should include some sort of child safety. I think they do, but they are not followed. I do not know what the answer is to this. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: Big Mick Date: 26 Jul 11 - 01:42 PM I repeat, Bobert, are you suggesting that Kendall and I are unenlightened? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: GUEST,livelylass Date: 26 Jul 11 - 01:24 PM Mg, I just took a look for figures of gun related child deaths in the US, there were fifteen hundred gun-related child deaths in the US in 2007 alone. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: GUEST,mg Date: 26 Jul 11 - 01:02 PM Of course there should be strong regulations. And there will be accidents..especially with children getting hold of guns, no matter how well hidden...and sometimes a deranged gunman/woman will snatch a gun from someone..oh dear..now they have two guns... And we have to weigh those risks, and take responsibility for our decisions either way..and without armed citizens we are sitting ducks for other armed citizens who will shoot some of us. Take responsibility if you have this opionion for approximately 50 Nowegian youth who could have probably been saved. I take responsibility for the fact that children will get hold of handguns and die. But I think it is a risk I have to take. What we, as adults, do not get to do is to deny reality and refuse to take responsibility for whatever our decisions lead to. There are risks either way. Both are considerable. I will respect those who say I just can not take the risk of children getting into mom's weaponry drawer. But they have to realize what the other risks are. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: kendall Date: 26 Jul 11 - 12:57 PM I do not belong to the NRA. The Supreme court ruled that blacks are not equal, sure but irrelevant in this discussion. I answered a question with that info. Do I NEED a gun? No, I want one. Do you stick strictly to your needs? Do you need a gas guzzling Urban Assault vehicle? Do you need a hobby? I'm outta here, "On a dead man's door you can knock forever." Circular arguments are stupid. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: olddude Date: 26 Jul 11 - 12:47 PM There is a lot of truth to what Strings said. I even know a lot of cops that can't shoot which doesn't give me a warm fuzzy. There is no greater responsibility in life than owning a handgun. Train and train and train and train if one is serious about owning, otherwise .. let it be. That is why a federal carry standard is so overdo. Some states require training certification (mine does) others .. no .. and it is just insane. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: Stringsinger Date: 26 Jul 11 - 12:00 PM There is more denial. The right to carry is being abused by those who think they can solve the problems of violence by shooting it away. Most of the people who talk about self-defense haven't learned to use their weapons better than those career criminals and are not able to effectively protect themselves as much as they claim. Career criminals are adept at stealing the guns from the gun-toting neophytes who are just posturing. In the meantime, the NRA is stealing your tax money and your votes, promoting automatic weapons, exotic firearms that make money for them, and controlling congress and the Senate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: Nigel Parsons Date: 26 Jul 11 - 11:46 AM The problem with banning guns is that it is only the law-abiding who will then get rid of their guns. The crooks & thugs will just ignore the ban, leaving the law-abiding with no means of self-defence. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: olddude Date: 26 Jul 11 - 10:31 AM I had good reason for concealed carry. I knock holes in targets because I like to do so. It is my sport. I gave reasons to a judge and authorities who agreed. Not visiting the states is fine with me, and I bet a lot of others also |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: Greg F. Date: 26 Jul 11 - 10:27 AM b) have a tough federal standard for conceal carry AMEN! This is a NATIONAL problem and there should be Federal Legislation passed so that standards are uniform across the country, and the NRA lunatics be damned.. The "States Rights" BS was handled by Andy Jackson & the Civil War. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 26 Jul 11 - 09:43 AM "I use mine well, to pop holes in targets cause I have fun." So, 'olddude', you persuaded judges, the FBI and state and local authorities to let you carry a concealed hand gun so that you could "pop holes in targets" did you? You must have a lot of influence, or the authorities you cite must be extremely tolerant! Please remind me not to visit your part of the USA any time soon! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: olddude Date: 26 Jul 11 - 09:23 AM so keep that in mind the next time ya wanna send me Jell-o LOL I will be packing ... (my water pistol that is)LOL from the other threads you may want to look at... here is the solution a) get rid of the gun shows b) have a tough federal standard for conceal carry c) the most important, enforce the laws we have (somewhere around 20,000 I been told on the books) this will seriously stop the criminals from getting handguns .. I think The law abiding people are not the ones I worry about if they are carrying or not. It is the others especially drug gangs. Most of what we read is drug related, others we read are crazies that live in states like Texas that seem to allow anyone anything. by the way you can get a permit for an automatic weapon but it is really really hard to get. I always wanted a "Ma Deuce" so me gnu and rap and lay seige to a junk car ... LOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: olddude Date: 26 Jul 11 - 09:07 AM LOL, yup Jack and I am licensed to carry in 26 states so they can't out run me ... LOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 26 Jul 11 - 09:05 AM You have a concealed gun and you were wondering what to do with those kids? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: olddude Date: 26 Jul 11 - 08:59 AM John the biggest problem is that there are no consistent gun laws across states. My state pretty much what you said is already true. Other states you well, just buy one. Owning a handgun, well one better be highly trained. My state requires it and a conceal carry can only be granted by a judge after you get the fbi, state and local authorities to ok it. You need just cause for a conceal carry in this state. I have one, I am one of the few. However, some states have no restrictions at all. What is needed really is a federal standard but that won't happen because of the gun lobby. anyway we did talk about this. I use mine well, to pop holes in targets cause I have fun. I avoid problem areas and tend to not visit the city unless I have to .. very few time to I ever carry the thing. carrying a firearm is no fun at all and you always need to worry about it. my advice, don't but if you do, make sure you are an expert with the thing. That makes you safe and those around you so you don't go blowing your foot off or someone elses |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: Greg F. Date: 26 Jul 11 - 08:56 AM P.S.: I hunt, target shoot and am licensed to carry concealed. Not an "anti-gun nut". But this NRA backed, pro-gun hysteria that has taken over the country is a real disservice to its citizens. This isn't 1880 in Arizona. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: Greg F. Date: 26 Jul 11 - 08:44 AM The Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment allows citizens to own a gun. The Supreme Court also ruled that a corporation is a person, that money = speech, and that Blacks were not citizens and were "so far inferior that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect" (decision never overturned.) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 26 Jul 11 - 07:22 AM Honest, law abiding people have no need for automatic weapons, concealable hand guns or shotguns that hold more than three shots at a time. And don't talk about about defending ones self from the government. Camp Lejune is 50 miles up the highway form here. The only sure defense from that would be if I had an equally large base with an equal number of Marines. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: kendall Date: 26 Jul 11 - 06:52 AM The Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd amendment allows citizens to own a gun. Blaming guns for all the murders is like blaming McDonalds for you being fat, or Ford cars for 50,000 crashes per year. These nut cases who spray unarmed victims didn't just flip. They all showed signs of being unstable long before and nothing was done. Who wants the responsibility of putting them away BEFORE they kill? All I can tell you is if I'm in McDonald's (fat chance) and some nut case comes in looking to kill, he won't get all of us. Why do I carry a gun? because a Cop is too heavy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: GUEST,999 Date: 26 Jul 11 - 04:51 AM Most well-meaning people who gab about the 'right to carry' weapons actually have NO idea how to use them, never killed anything substantial, and would be more a danger to themselves than any help to others if the crap hit the fan. Real life ain't TV or the movies. For example, you could increase your chances of living by moving left or right as a pistol is fired depending on distance and whether the projectile is left- or right-hand spin. That would require good reflexes and a knowledge of guns that most people don't have. Yeah. What we need is lots of people who don't know what they're doing with a weapon getting gun permits. That would make us all safer, I'm sure. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: GUEST,livelylass Date: 26 Jul 11 - 04:43 AM Olddude, I don't object to strictly regulated gun ownership per se, as an English country girl I grew up with farmland and woodland all around and you would regularly hear the crack of a distant rifle going off somewhere out there. Either a farmer culling rabbits in the evening or someone bagging pheasant. As for your paper targets, well why not, we have clay pigeon shooting over here which probably isn't much different in principle. But hand guns are a different matter IMO, those are not 'sports' guns but are purposely designed to kill fellow human beings. And that far I wouldn't ever wish to go. Particularly not the "right to carry" them anywhere you please. But of course the US is another country. And it's not my call! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: Bobert Date: 26 Jul 11 - 01:08 AM Well written John P, and my exact sentiments... At least when it comes to hand guns... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: GUEST,mg Date: 26 Jul 11 - 12:41 AM How about a law that really really bad people can not have guns. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: John P Date: 25 Jul 11 - 11:50 PM you all talk of irresponsible gun ownership that contravenes the LAW What law keeps a previously law-abiding citizen from buying a gun? How can you guarantee that this person isn't going to come over all funny and kill someone? What law is effective against that gun being stolen by a criminal? How hard is it for ANYONE to get a gun at a legal gun show? Advocate for real gun laws if you want to talk about laws. How about a complete psychological assessment before someone can buy one? How about no gun shows at all? How about a requirement that anyone who wants to own a gun take many hours of gun safety classes? How about a law that if anyone gains access to your gun you are responsible for what they do with it? How about putting parents in jail when their children find their gun and kill a playmate? How about a law that you can't carry a gun around in public places? If the guns are for sport, why do so many people have one in their pocket when they go to the coffee shop? Talking about the existing laws not being enforced is just about as weak an argument as saying that baseball bats are weapons. The existing gun laws obviously don't do the job, and the NRA buys a few congresspeople whenever someone wants to pass some real laws. What is your solution to the fact that thousands of normal citizens are being gunned down every year? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: Donuel Date: 25 Jul 11 - 11:46 PM If we were a rational society we could all have nuclear weapons for our own MAD purposes. (mutual assured destruction) We would all behave respondsibly like gnu andthings would be fine. We are not talking about you, or them, or the insane alone, we are talking about guns in society at large. You can;t split it up, and even when we try the NRA obstructs those efforts. The NRA is respondisible for not being allowed to have a national data base of firearms. You can try to be a splitter, you can try being a lumper, but we are a nation of humans, and humans are not rational 100% of the time. Removing absurd obstructions would go a long way to seeking the compromise you seek. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: olddude Date: 25 Jul 11 - 11:31 PM livelylass that is a very good way also. There is no wrong in not owning a firearm. I have many, I like to shoot holes in paper targets. It is a fun sport. I think many people who do not wish to own a firearm is a fine decision also. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: gnu Date: 25 Jul 11 - 11:27 PM But, you all talk of irresponsible gun ownership that contravenes the LAW. You talk about nuts and criminals killing people with guns. And you say that honest, law abiding citizens must give up their guns simply because YOU won't hold your politicians and judges ACCOUNTABLE for keeping the nuts and criminals away from you. THAT is just out and out IRRESPONSIBLE on YOUR part. Go ahead and give up your ability to defend yourselves, with guns and with dollars. The dollars are far more important to you than the guns but that is another discussion. Once both have been taken away from you, yer fucked. Sigh... I am gone. No sense talking to a wall... again and again. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: Donuel Date: 25 Jul 11 - 10:58 PM It seems I have responded to a post that has been removed. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: John P Date: 25 Jul 11 - 10:53 PM I fired a guy from work several years ago. He was angry about it, he's a bit violent, and he carries a gun. Now every time I see someone that looks like him coming into the building I start thinking about a place to hide. I'm tired of it. I don't worry too much about crazy mass murderers. They are quite rare. I'm far more worried about somebody getting pissed off in the grocery store line or thinking I cut him off in traffic. They are frighteningly common. These are people who bought a gun legally and have never committed a crime before and at some point they've just had enough and start shooting. Why should I have to put up with that? There is no rational reading of the 2nd Amendment that gives any individual the right to carry a gun. If you are a member of the NRA, you are personally responsible every time someone gets shot out of the blue. All I hear when people defend their "right" to carry a gun is someone who thinks killing is OK. Even if you are completely responsible in how you keep and use a gun, your defense of this non-existent right also allows the crazies to get guns. How do we know in advance of someone getting killed who is crazy and who is responsible? And get off it about other things that can be used as weapons. It's a really weak argument. Two things about that: The only purpose for a gun is to kill something. Baseball bats are used for hitting baseballs. Second, I'll take my chances against someone with a knife or a baseball bat. I might still get killed, but at least I'll have a fighting chance. There's not much I can do if someone is standing fifty feet away and spraying bullets in my direction. The criminals wouldn't have guns if they were illegal enough and if they were vanishingly difficult to get. I'd like possession of a firearm to carry an automatic life sentence, no appeals, no parole. I'd like guns to be so illegal that people would cross the street to avoid walking past one on the sidewalk. Why does anyone NEED to have a gun? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: GUEST,hg Date: 25 Jul 11 - 10:52 PM blah blah blah blah, SSDD |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: Donuel Date: 25 Jul 11 - 10:50 PM Ludicrous, insidious, vile, demagoguery, part of the fabric of this society since it's beginning... are the outrageous number of gun deaths in this country. If I have had best friends murdered by indiscriminate gun "usage" then you should be honest and think how close gun violence has been in your life. Then how about the people in your neighborhood that you do not know personally but have had their children killed by guns. I have known 2. Then call us ludricous again for challenging our side of what you consider the time immemorial status quo. If you do, I am afraid this honest appeal has fallen on a deaf heart. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: gnu Date: 25 Jul 11 - 08:59 PM Kendall. Yer gonna be packin in yer coffin. There ain't no end to the bad and sick and the anti-gun nuts will keep them in good supply with their laws that disallow self-defense against the weapons they possess... whether it's in your neighbourhood or in the mountains of Afghanistan or on the shores of Tripoli. Yeah... since this thread has not been joined with MANY others, I'll say it yet again... No shit. You take away the peoples' right to defend themselves and the rich subjugate the poor... some big oil company starts a war for NO other reason than to take peoples' minds off the fact that they polluted the ocean... there is only ONE ocean ya know... do the math.... I must stop now about BP and the tragedy in Japan as these are spreading worldwide as we post. I am starting to get upset. Take the guns away from the people? Then, who runs the world? Who gives a shit about you? The rich? Freedom of the poor and the weak only ever came from fight, and their only equalizer was a weapon... a gun in modern times. I can PROVE THAT... have you ever heard of WAR? What do you not understand about WAR? Seriously? What the fuck do you not understand about the fact that wars have been fought because the rich subjugate the poor? The only reason it happens is because the rich have better weapons and they want to stay rich and they can MAKE the poor fight THEIR wars. The only reason they don't tell (some of) you to grovel for your breakfast is that you have a gun. Well, I have one. Yer welcome for me ensuring you get a decent brakfast. Think that's shite? Turn on the TV or the radio or the internut or read a newspaper. The newspaper might be your best bet as you can use it for a blanket when they turn off your heat on accounta they are gonna shear the sheep come fall. Ya wanna take all the guns away from law abiding citizens? Idiots! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: kendall Date: 25 Jul 11 - 08:10 PM When the sickos and other bad guys give theirs up, I will do likewise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: Big Mick Date: 25 Jul 11 - 05:31 PM Bobert, are you suggesting that Kendall and I are unenlightened? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: saulgoldie Date: 25 Jul 11 - 04:41 PM I remember reading an editorial or letter letter to the editor--many years ago; can you believe that this issue is still so hot?!!--which suggested that "there is no such thing as a toy gun." The author was a gun enthusiast. But he insisted that there should be factual and unequivocal gun safety training as part of public education, and that it should be emphatically impressed on the students that you don't point *anything* that even resembles a gun, including a finger, at anyone who you don't intend to kill to prevent harm to another. I don't relish taking time out from other important educational initiatives, including sexual literacy, to focus on guns. But they are such a part of American life, that I think it is not unreasonable. Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: Donuel Date: 25 Jul 11 - 04:24 PM Hello Remember the Congresswoman shot through the brain earlier this year? A week before she was shot and her staff killed she pleaded with John Boehner to do or say something about the gun threats that she and many of her Democratic colleagues were getting. He refused. He then ordered her to read the second ammendment out loud to the entire COngress. Since she was shot, over 60,000 more American citizens have been shot. The first 90 days revealed 35,000 shootings. Clearly if we arm every possible man woman and vitual child we can double or triple the current rate of shootings. In our 'more is better' culture, this would be a success. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: GUEST,mg Date: 25 Jul 11 - 04:13 PM I think it should perhaps be upgraded from right to carry to responsibility to carry..if you are swift and sure and well trained and disciplined. I am none of the above..clumsy and uncoordinated, but I would gladly spend the rest of my life in jail if I were to be found guilty of killing a madman/woman to save a camp full of teenagers. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: GUEST,mg Date: 25 Jul 11 - 03:56 PM Scrutinize them carefully and then give some free air passes if they are armed and ready to go. Same with trains and busses.mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: Bobert Date: 25 Jul 11 - 03:39 PM Our culture is way outta whack... Most of it can be traced to someone making $$$... Especially politicians... Getting the $$$ out of politics would represent a major step forward in restoring manners and civility... I mean, we can't even have a conversation about "right to carry" without the NRA ($$$) and their poliitcal shills ($$$) jumping in and putting an end to that discussion... And with the brown shirt mentality of the less enlightened, of which we have more now than ever, it doesn't take too much to rile the bottom feeders up... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: GUEST,livelylass Date: 25 Jul 11 - 03:25 PM "I long for a world where no one would ever need one again for any reason. But that world doesn't exist" Yet parts of the world DO exist where that is so. I don't own a gun and I will never own a gun. I KNOW I won't ever own a gun, a) because I have no desire or need for one, and b) because it'd be a big hassle to try and get one here, c) a + b |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: olddude Date: 25 Jul 11 - 03:18 PM Seriously there is no solution to the problem of violence with or without firearms. We have really talked it to pieces ... I long for a world where no one would ever need one again for any reason. But that world doesn't exist |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: kendall Date: 25 Jul 11 - 02:42 PM Logic and facts will never trump fear. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: gnu Date: 25 Jul 11 - 01:22 PM Kendall... "There would be tens of thousands of unpaid cops on the streets now, but it never went anywhere." You wanted opinions... what a great idea. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 25 Jul 11 - 01:06 PM "Singeing the arse hairs of teenagers while their having sex Jack?" it only to discourage the PDPs Public Displays of Pornography. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: olddude Date: 25 Jul 11 - 12:51 PM Jack wanted to cover two threads in one post. That way it saves typing LOL |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: GUEST,livelylass Date: 25 Jul 11 - 12:46 PM Singeing the arse hairs of teenagers while their having sex Jack? I'm sure we're as open-minded as the next folk forum, but surely some things are best kept locked-up in one's private fantasy box? :) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 25 Jul 11 - 12:36 PM Oops, I thought this was the teenage sex thread. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 25 Jul 11 - 12:31 PM " Now a flame thrower, that would get everyone on the same page also." Only if you use it to singe their arse hairs. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: olddude Date: 25 Jul 11 - 12:24 PM Now a flame thrower, that would get everyone on the same page also. One of the Navy Seals once said "all problems in life can be solved by the use of a well placed explosive" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 25 Jul 11 - 12:18 PM Well obviously if they hold that meaning they are making up a meaning to suit themselves. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: frogprince Date: 25 Jul 11 - 12:16 PM To clarify, Jack, I'm speaking of those who hold that the meaning of the amendment would be the same without that clause. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 25 Jul 11 - 12:11 PM Well organize militia. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: frogprince Date: 25 Jul 11 - 12:09 PM Something that I've never heard stated in just this way: It's actually meaningless to allow the right to carry in any given setting unless the carrier has the recognized right to point and fire at his discretion in that setting. (Apart from those carrying under the immediate command of military or paramilitary superiors). Abridged, as used in the 2nd amendment, means simply reduced or diminished. Any "reasonable regulation" of ownership or carrying of firearms is in fact a reduction of the absolute freedom to carry. So why aren't a few more of our fervent 2nd amendment advocates forthrightly standing up for the right of any American citizen to carry, and fire at his or her discretion, in any gradeschool or Sundayschool classroom, public office, or on any public transportation? Are the majority of them allowing mere sanity to undermine their most valued principles? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: Greg F. Date: 25 Jul 11 - 09:45 AM Yup- MLK, Bobby Kennedy, JFK, Lincoln, the 3 girls in Birmingham, Emmett Till, Medgar Evers, Theodore Roosevelt (attempt)etc.etc. Al done by "lefties"? Jesus, man, if you HAVE a brain, USE it! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: GUEST,livelylass Date: 25 Jul 11 - 09:37 AM "If I could wave a magic wand and make all guns disappear I would do it in a heartbeat. Then what? knives? what would you chop celery with? Baseball bats? Try kicking a home run. Pointed sticks? Strong men with big hands?" Then what after banning guns? Then nothing I guess, same as most places. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: olddude Date: 25 Jul 11 - 09:36 AM People tend to agree with you completely when you are pointing a .44 Mag at them ... It is the great peacemaker. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: Jack the Sailor Date: 25 Jul 11 - 08:13 AM Besides, all the famous assassinations I can think of were done by anarchist or Lefties.. MLK? My God Songwronger a little perspective and reason please. "The Department of Justice provided guns to drug gangs that then used them to kill U.S. law enforcement officers." It was NOT deliberately arming the drug lords. It was an attempted sting operation to try to catch the higher ups. So they screwed up. It is not as if they sold the guns to people who could not have got them otherwise. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: GUEST,kendall Date: 25 Jul 11 - 07:59 AM I've said it before but it bears repeating: If I could wave a magic wand and make all guns disappear I would do it in a heartbeat. Then what? knives? what would you chop celery with? Baseball bats? Try kicking a home run. Pointed sticks? Strong men with big hands? One of the few things that Bush did that I agreed with was to sign a bill that would authorize all formed law enforcement officers who retired with honor to carry concealed. There would be tens of thousands of unpaid cops on the streets now, but it never went anywhere. Opinions please. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: GUEST,kendall Date: 25 Jul 11 - 07:53 AM Songwronger, what is the source of that info? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: Bobert Date: 24 Jul 11 - 09:55 PM No, it isn't funny, pdq, but you wouldn't understand this because it wasn't your side who had all it's leaders assassinated... It was your side that was poppin' the corks... No, I didn't step over any lines here... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: pdq Date: 24 Jul 11 - 09:51 PM Bobert just stepped over the line so far it isn't funny. Besides, all the famous assassinations I can think of were done by anarchist or Lefties. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: Bobert Date: 24 Jul 11 - 09:45 PM Minds will change when it is the folks on the right who are getting assassinated but not until then... Assassination of progressives is one of REDNECK NATION's favorite sports... B~ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: pdq Date: 24 Jul 11 - 09:44 PM "Unfortunately we in America are under assault from more than just random violence." Last time I saw the statistics, only 14% of murder victims were completely unknown to the killer. The spouse is always the first suspect. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: Songwronger Date: 24 Jul 11 - 09:33 PM Murder / suicide is always sad and ugly. But you don't need a gun to carry out a crime like that. Unfortunately we in America are under assault from more than just random violence. There's the orchestrated kind too. Has anyone posted anything about Operation Fast and Furious? Look it up. The Department of Justice was just caught providing thousands of guns to gang members on the Mexican border. The Department of Justice provided guns to drug gangs that then used them to kill U.S. law enforcement officers. The Department of Justice is arming the Mexican drug gangs. So thank God for the Second Amendment. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: Rapparee Date: 24 Jul 11 - 07:50 PM And add mine to Spaw, Bill D., etc. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: kendall Date: 24 Jul 11 - 07:50 PM I do not hunt. I am not macho and I don't NEED a gun. I live in a reasonably civilized state. I am also a retired federal law enforcement officer who posses no threat to anyone except a mugger or a burglar. I've never encountered either. If my owning a gun is a problem to you, own it, it is YOUR problem. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: artbrooks Date: 24 Jul 11 - 07:29 PM Please place my previous comments vest to Bill's and Spaw's. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: GUEST,mg Date: 24 Jul 11 - 07:02 PM Why should it be combined? Every situation is different. That is my general viewpoint anyway that I prefer fresh conversations rather than giving people a transcript of what went before, even if it is about Carricfergus or American Pie. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: GUEST,livelylass Date: 24 Jul 11 - 06:29 PM Hi Mg, that;s a fair point. I can't answer it, but perhaps someone who knows the details of shootings in the USA could? By which I mean situations where mass shooters have been eliminated by gun owning citizens? Or citizens owning guns have proceeded to prevent escalation of a gun crime in a specific instance? Perhaps some of the pro-gun lobby (nra?) might have examples and statistics on that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: GUEST,mg Date: 24 Jul 11 - 06:23 PM Of course you might not have time to defend yourself if she has you in her sights..sites? But someone else can defend you or you can defend someone else, or a roomful of kids at McDonald's, or a domestic violence situation..mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: Sawzaw Date: 24 Jul 11 - 05:48 PM In case anyone is interested in the facts of what actually happened before they start flapping their jaws: A man opened fire at a Texas roller skating rink during a birthday party for one of his children, killing his estranged wife and four of her family members before turning the gun on himself, police said Sunday. Tan Do, 35, and Trini Do, 29, were hosting the party at the Roller World Skating Rink in the Dallas suburb of Grand Prairie, Texas, on Saturday for one of their two children, Grand Prairie police said in a statement. "The couple had been involved in ongoing marital problems and it is believed that this led to the shooting," police said. "Trini Do was among the deceased." Police responded to a call of a shooting at 7:10 p.m. Saturday (8:10 p.m. ET). Officers found the bodies of five people; a sixth person -- the suspect -- with a gunshot wound to the head; and four other people who had sustained non-life-threatening injuries. Others who were killed included Trini Do's sisters, Lynn Ta, 16, and Michelle Ta, 28; her brother, Hien Ta, 21; and her sister-in-law, Thuy Nguyen, 25. "It appears the suspect targeted his estranged wife and her family members," police said. The couple's two children were not harmed, and were in the care of other family members Sunday, authorities said. Tan Do was transported to a hospital where he was pronounced dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound, according to police. About 30 people were attending the party at the time of the shooting, but the roller rink was not open to the public, police said. Employees of the rink were not injured. Witnesses were interviewed by police, and the police department's crisis counselors and chaplain were working with the survivors, authorities said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: GUEST,Eliza Date: 24 Jul 11 - 05:30 PM In UK in the the late forties, all the little boys had toy guns with which to play 'cowboys and Indians'. There were rolls of paper 'caps' you could feed into the guns to make a realistic shooting sound. I clearly remember trying out a toy gun, and the tremendous feeling of power it seemed to give me. I actually enjoyed 'shooting' a nearby boy and saying "You're dead!" I wonder if this feeling of power is part of the attraction of owning/using a real gun? I was quite a timid child, but that 'gun' suddenly made me feel wonderfully dominant and strong. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: GUEST,livelylass Date: 24 Jul 11 - 05:28 PM Gladly the vast majority of us don't need a gun in the UK Shimrod, however looser legislation on ownership, would inevitably result in more people feeling the need to own one.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: GUEST,Shimrod Date: 24 Jul 11 - 05:21 PM I grew up in the East Midlands of the UK. My Dad had a gun - a .22 rifle which he used for shooting at paper targets at an indoor range. He took me to the range, a couple of times, and I got to shoot at the paper targets. What sticks in my mind about those visits is the range officials. They were men of my father's generation and many of them had probably seen combat in the 2nd World War; they knew what guns can do to the human body and safety precautions at the range were very strict (checking breeches were empty before a gun was removed from the range; keeping strict counts of rounds fired etc.). Although my Dad was a crack shot, and I quite enjoyed my visits to the range, I never took it any further. Years later, after some horror story in the news about a gun crime, I thought long and hard about what guns are for. A few people, like my Dad, use them for shooting at paper targets with, but their PRIMARY purpose is to kill people and other living things. I have absolutely no desire to kill anyone or anything (and hope and pray that I will never find myself in a situation where I might need to do so) and, therefore, I don't NEED a gun - and I supect that the vast majority of people don't need one either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: gnu Date: 24 Jul 11 - 04:28 PM Oh... one other thing. Why ANOTHER thread? Can't (SHOULDN'T) this thread be combined with one of the MANY previous threads? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: gnu Date: 24 Jul 11 - 04:26 PM I am with Spaw... and I'll shoot any man that says different. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: michaelr Date: 24 Jul 11 - 04:14 PM ...guns have been a part of the fabric of this society since it's beginning. For the vast majority of us they have been a part of our lives and a right we have always had. Yes, that's the old argument (if you can call it that) "we always done it like that, we never done it like that, who the hell are you anyway". It doesn't constitute a good reason to do things. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: GUEST,Jon Date: 24 Jul 11 - 03:11 PM Scotland has no such rights but it didn't stop that whacko from killing a room full of kids. I think you need to consider the frequency of events, Kendall. Dumblane was in 1996 and the law was tightened after this one. I don't think Scotland has had anything similar since. What is the US record from 1996 to 2011? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: catspaw49 Date: 24 Jul 11 - 03:11 PM Attach my previous posts to Bill's above. This subject is as dead as Tidwell's goat and if you want to stand up for your gun rights, driving rights, or rights to the best in dildos, have at it..............I think I officially no longer give a rat's ass if you shoot someone or can't get fucked............. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: Q (Frank Staplin) Date: 24 Jul 11 - 02:54 PM Mudcatters, check your guns at the door. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: Big Mick Date: 24 Jul 11 - 02:28 PM Thank you, Captain. I am afraid it will fall on deaf ears. But I will address a couple of comments. The insinuation that those of us that hunt have some kind of macho thing going on is both gratuitous and the mark of a mind that lives within their own biases. It is certainly not the case with me or most of those I hunt with. There very definitely are those that have this type of attitude, but they are known by us as slob hunters and I won't allow them in my circle. The idea that my use for a weapon must conform to your idea of appropriate use is ludicrous. My reason for having a small gun is none of your business, as long as I use it lawfully. It might be for hunting, target shooting, personal protection, or some combination of all those things. The logic that says that because some unbalanced person in Texas shot folks, we should take away guns from everybody means we should also take away every other item used to commit murder. It is demagoguery at it's finest. True examination of the points Kendall made leads you to conclusions you all don't want to acknowledge. But that does not make them less valid or true. Finally, with all due respect to Saul Goldie whom I consider a fine Mudcatter, his point that somehow one could make all the guns disappear and the problem would disappear is ludicrous on it's face. Whether my friends across the pond, or my friends here in NA, get it or not, guns have been a part of the fabric of this society since it's beginning. For the vast majority of us they have been a part of our lives and a right we have always had. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: kendall Date: 24 Jul 11 - 01:10 PM Norway has no 2nd amendment or right to carry. Scotland has no such rights but it didn't stop that whacko from killing a room full of kids. Vermont has no need for a license to carry, yet it's the safest state in the union. NYC has its Sullivan law, what's the murder rate there? How about Mass.? heavy penalty for carrying a gun. Does it stop the crooks? The old west is famous for shootouts but most of them happen in cheap novels. 15 years ago Florida had a crime wave, tourists murdered and robbed. Then they passed a "Right to carry" law and the crime rate plummeted. I'm talking facts here, not fear or emotions. "A sword, in its scabbard, keeps another so. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: GUEST,livelylass Date: 24 Jul 11 - 01:03 PM Just goes to show you Mg, if someone wants to kill you, they will. It only takes a second. And that's a second too long to defend yourself, be it with a gun or without one. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: GUEST,livelylass Date: 24 Jul 11 - 01:00 PM PS: I don't see fishing or shooting as particularly "macho" either - one of the most pleasant and gentle fellows I ever knew would fish and shoot for his supper - he was just a country boy "macho" posturing didn't come into it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: mg Date: 24 Jul 11 - 12:57 PM Well there is one human being at least who should have been shot by someone carrying a gun and perhaps 50 people could have been saved. mg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: GUEST,livelylass Date: 24 Jul 11 - 12:39 PM I don't object to hunting and shooting as rural pursuits (though personally I don't see hunting per se, as a 'sport') I think it's appropriate for sensible grown-up people to shoot rabbits or pheasant if they wish to, particularly if they are inclined to eat what they kill. However such weapons do not belong in urban environments, particularly not small lethal weapons designed to kill human beings. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: Bill D Date: 24 Jul 11 - 12:24 PM Please assume I have inserted all my previous posts about the 'right to carry' in the 14...or 27...or 39 previous threads on related topics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: Rapparee Date: 24 Jul 11 - 12:17 PM Hasn't this been talked to death here already? Nobody's going to change anyone's mind. Why waste your time typing? If you want to DO something about it, go DO it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: Big Ballad Singer Date: 24 Jul 11 - 12:02 PM So many people go on and on about the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. That right, of course, was instituted so that a well-armed MILITIA might be maintained in those newborn United States, but I digress... Most of the people who go raving about their "right" to carry arms tend to fall into the stereotypically "macho" category. These "tough guys" also tend to like hunting and fishing for "sport". In other words, a lot of these people basically want to carry guns so that they can shoot less-well-armed or even defenseless targets at will. Six people will now never go on to enjoy any more pleasures in life, nor learn from any new experiences... all because some idiot Rambo decided that his "right" to carry a gun made it OK for him to use it at his discretion. As far as I'm concerned, any right to carry or even own firearms privately, when one is NOT a member of the Armed Forces or a law-enforcement agency, should be accompanied by the strictest regulations and penalties for the use or misuse of said firearms. FYI, I was raised by a man who is a Benefactor/Life Member of the NRA and is ferociously supportive of so-called "gun rights". That not only did not affect me positively towards guns, it made me even more convinced that blanket "freedoms" spell disaster for our society when it comes to guns. My father is a VERY peaceable, uber-conservative evangelical Christian in active ministry at his church, and unless the vast majority of "gun rights" private-carry advocates are equally as intelligent and morally tempered, the "right to carry" is going to turn our country into Dodge City. We've heard enough stories about the idiots, drug dealers, mobsters and others who have used guns to their selfish advantage and devastated the lives of others... Oslo, anyone? I think it's time Americans left the shooting to those whose job it is to bear arms for our protection and safety here and abroad. You know that BS about "guns don't kill people; PEOPLE kill people"? Maybe so, but those "people" often use those innocent little guns to do it, don't they? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: beeliner Date: 24 Jul 11 - 10:34 AM Additional information has become available and it seems that the ahooter was not celebrating his child's birthday but rather his own, that he was the only shooter, and that the dispute was between him and his wife. Latest stats: Six dead, four injured. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: saulgoldie Date: 24 Jul 11 - 10:17 AM This is the Youtube of the above song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OITGAbQG1WU Saul |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: Greg F. Date: 24 Jul 11 - 10:15 AM Whoopie Ty Yi Yo! Let's hear it for The Great State Of Texas! http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/07/24/texas.shooting/ http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2011/07/23/5-killed-in-grand-prairie-roller-rink-shooting/ |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: saulgoldie Date: 24 Jul 11 - 10:13 AM * If It Were Up to Me * Words and Lyrics by: * Cheryl Wheeler * * Maybe it's the movies, maybe it's the books * Maybe it's the bullets, maybe it's the real crooks * Maybe it's the drugs, maybe it's the parents * Maybe it's the colors everybody's wearin * Maybe it's the President, maybe it's the last one * Maybe it's the one before that, what he done * Maybe it's the high schools, maybe it's the teachers * Maybe it's the tattooed children in the bleachers * Maybe it's the Bible, maybe it's the lack * Maybe it's the music, maybe it's the crack * Maybe it's the hairdos, maybe it's the TV * Maybe it's the cigarettes, maybe it's the family * Maybe it's the fast food, maybe it's the news * Maybe it's divorce, maybe it's abuse * Maybe it's the lawyers, maybe it's the prisons * Maybe it's the Senators, maybe it's the system * Maybe it's the fathers, maybe it's the sons * Maybe it's the sisters, maybe it's the moms * Maybe it's the radio, maybe it's road rage * Maybe El Nino, or UV rays * Maybe it's the army, maybe it's the liquor * Maybe it's the papers, maybe the militia * Maybe it's the athletes, maybe it's the ads * Maybe it's the sports fans, maybe it's a fad * Maybe it's the magazines, maybe it's the internet * Maybe it's the lottery, maybe it's the immigrants * Maybe it's taxes, big business * Maybe it's the KKK and the skinheads * Maybe it's the communists, maybe it's the Catholics * Maybe it's the hippies, maybe it's the addicts * Maybe it's the art, maybe it's the sex * Maybe it's the homeless, maybe it's the banks * Maybe it's the clearcut, maybe it's the ozone * Maybe it's the chemicals, maybe it's the car phones * Maybe it's the fertilizer, maybe it's the nose rings * Maybe it's the end, but I know one thing. * If it were up to me, I'd take away the guns. * * (P) October 1, 1997 * * Penrod And Higgins Music / Amachrist Music * ACF Music Group * International Copyright Reserved |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: Bettynh Date: 24 Jul 11 - 10:10 AM More Than 1,000,000 Americans from I DONT MAKE THIS STUFF UP . . . I JUST MAKE IT RHYME (Inspired by Bob Herbert's column "Hooked On Violence," April 26, 2007 in The New York Times) In 1968 Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King were killed by bullets, a tragic shameful thing And in the years that followed in this land of the free how many more Americans would die in a shooting spree? The US Center for Disease Control and Prevention tracks this data down and brings it to our attention From 1968 to now the number killed by guns stuns More than one million Americans -- babies, toddlers, mothers more than one million Americans -- fathers, sisters, brothers More than one million Americans -- students, teachers, brides More than one million American murders and suicides more than one million Americans -- neighbors, daughters, sons more than one million Americans -- killed by guns more than a million American families miss someone every day more than one million American lives simply blown away More than a million birthdays a million graduations more than a million weddings with a million expectations how can anyone justify this annihilation? why is it we never get a convincing explanation? more than one million Americans -- grandparents, husbands, wives more than one million American permanently interrupted lives more than one million Americans -- co-workers and friends more than one million Americans met heartbreaking ends More than one million Americans who needed our protection more than one million Americans who can't vote the next election more than one million Americans who no longer have a choice for more than a million Americans we must raise up our voice In 1968 Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King were killed by bullets, a tragic shameful thing in the years that followed in this land of the free more than a million Americans died in shooting sprees © Christine Lavin Music (ASCAP) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: saulgoldie Date: 24 Jul 11 - 10:04 AM Nevermind the morality or law of one side or the other. It is tautologically true that if there are no guns present, then there will be no gunshots. Furthermore, I remember research--can't find it right now--from some time back that showed that just the presence of a knife or a gun in a room where study participants are given a manufactured conflict situation will cause the argument to escalate higher and faster with the knife, and higher and faster still more with the gun. Whatever one's interpretation of the law or the Founders' intent might have been, logic and facts are what they are. Saul |
|
Subject: BS: 'Right to carry' anyone? From: beeliner Date: 24 Jul 11 - 09:20 AM Just heard on the TeeVee, and don't have all the details. Last night at a Dallas skating rink, a birthday party, the father of the birthday boy and another man began arguing and then just started shooting it out, several killed. Unfortunate, but after all, that's their second amendment right! Right? |
