 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 |
