maybe guns do kill people......NRA

A few days ago I read several articles that concerned me greatly on how good America's gun control really is. I read in one about how a 6 year old boy had taken a pistol from his father's gun case and brought it to school. Later that day a little girl was teasing him on the playground during recess, he remembered the gun and pulled it on his fellow class mate and killed her, then proceeded to run back to the playground to join his friends. The thing that troubled me the most about this particular incident was the boys age and how someone that young has the opportunity to create such a tragedy. The reason, I bring this story up when talking about concealed weapons is because I fear that access to weapons are too easy for young children and people that are not able to handle them properly. The Right to Carry bill that is trying to be passed in most states would allow everyday people to carry a concealed weapon in their purse or glove compartment of their cars. A common argument that most people in favor of the law argue that "Guns dont kill people, people kill people," In my opinion the incident that happened in Michigan was totally the opposite of what the people in favor argue. If the boy would have never been allowed access to the gun in the first place this would have never happened. A 6 year old boy has not yet developed the knowledge of knowing that shooting someone is not an option in this situation.

In conclusion to all of this I dont know how we can give people the responsibility of having guns on our streets when we cant even keep them away from our young children.

Anthony

I have not heard about this one. It does sound alot like the case where the boy takes a gun that was laying around the crack house he was living in and shot a 6 year old girl. Is this the same story?

that's what this is from.

"I dont know how we can give people the responsibility of having guns on our streets..."

Actually, the way it's set up, people are acknowledged to have certain rights. We do not give them, we take them away.

"Actually, the way it's set up, people are acknowledged to have certain rights"
And according to the second amendment, it's to bear arms in a well-regulated militia for the defense of a free state.

and we should not bend over for the NRA and a handful of loonies.

and after the election next year we can talk about your dismal results.

B

Why do you rhink Chimpy was pretending he was FOR gun control and DENYING that quote about the "NRA working out of the White House?"

Why do you think the NRA couldn't endorse that drunk publicly?

How did Gore fare with Tennessee?

People there fell for blatant lies and propaganda....who was spreading that? Oh yeah, the RKBA crowd.

Meanwhile the states Pennsylvania and Michigan were flooded with millions of dollars of "he's going to take your guns away" propaganda...how'd Al do there?

so you might as well give it up, have a cup of coffee, and enjoy life instead of being so bitter.

Voters want gun control and I'm not going any where...so go sulk and pout.

Try highroadrage.com....maybe "left of stalin" will commiserate with you.

Yeah, like keeping felons and other prohibited people from being legally allowed to possess firearms. Wait - that's already the law.

"Gun Control" does not equal what the VPC says it should be.

(edit for spelling)

Enforce the laws we have.

Educate our children.

Provide economic opportunity for everyone.

Encourage gun owners to store their weapons safely.

Keep violent criminals locked up.

Those are common-sense, reasonable gun controls.

if they want gun owners licensed, they say yes in overwhelming numbers....
When voters are asked if they want assault weapons on the street, they say no in overwhelming numbers....
When voters are asked if they want background checks for ALL gun sales ,they say yes in overwhelming numbers....
When voters are asked if they want guns registered, they say yes in overwhelming numbers....
When voters are asked if they want the gun industry investigated, they say yes in overwhelming numbers....

They voted against gun control in some traditional democratic states. Oh, thats the only poll with any validity.

Not this crap the RKBA crowd is peddling.

You people in urban areas are soooo much brighter than us hicks in Tennessee! That Blatant Rosie O'Donnell is what scared the crap out of us! Fell for lies and propaganda? We just didn't fall for YOUR lies and propaganda so that makes us ignorant. As you always say "what a pantload".

You sound like you bought right into that right wing pantload.

I have owned firearms from the ripe old age of 8, could it be that I don't see it your way? Who is crying Benchley? WAAAAA Americans want gun control waaaa dumb hicks in Tennessee,west virginia, and arkansas dont see it my way waaaaaa. Some people don't see things my way WAAAAA! Hey baby, cry all you want!

Crying won't help your attempt to remove the RIGHT to keep and bear arms- your lies and propaganda are transparent to people that own guns. Maybe you and Ashcroft can get togeather, you both seem eager to attempt to restrict peoples rights.

You are.

"your lies and propaganda are transparent to people that own guns."
Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.......

"Maybe you and Ashcroft can get togeather"
He's already in YOU ccamp, cross.. Nice set of playmates the RKBA crowd has.

I don't see you concerned about the fact there are hundreds of thousands of armed "people" running around, people known as law enforcement officers. It seems you are putting LEO's in a seperate class of "people." Where did this LEO super-class of citizens come from, might I ask? Mars? How about the same citizenry made up of "everyday people"?! And they have kids, too.

If you are concerned about other citizens besides LEO's being given the privelege of also being armed in public, on what is this concern based? The only "difference" between a police officer and an "everyday citizen" is a screening process. Perhaps you are uncomfortable with the CCW screening process being based on more than some LEO's whim to issue one or not.

are supposed to pretend police aren't necessary?

"The only "difference" between a police officer and an "everyday citizen" is a screening process."
On WHAT planet? Here on earth, the difference is that police officers are sworn to uphole the law and serve the public good. They receive rigorous training and follow legal and codified procedures.

This post is especially offensive the day after the 9/11 anniversary...marking a day when thousands of NYC cops risked and gave their lives at no thought to their own safety.

Is that when Police abuse their powers and shove law up your hole?

The only "difference" between a police officer and an "everyday citizen" is a screening process."
On WHAT planet? Here on earth, the difference is that police officers are sworn to uphole the law and serve the public good. They receive rigorous training and follow legal and codified procedures.

Thank you for clarifying what I just said. The police application procedure/background check and academy training is a screening process. Not everyone makes it through both. Swearing to uphold the law and ensure the public good? That's just a promise to do the right thing. Penalty for not doing so while not breaking any laws? They lose their job - big deal. And all people in a society have an obligation to follow the law. Remember the flame war on what constitutes legally sound self-defense?

edited to respond to MrB's edit:
Read my post. I never said police were "unnecessary."
And my brother is an LEO, so you can can the "disrespect to dead police" card you're trying to play.

your post was hooey.

The incident you describe is the result of negligence by the boy's father, not the right of people in general to own guns. A little education reminding the man of the realities of childrens' curiosity and their profound inability to understand concepts like death and the consequences of their actions at that age could have prompted him to be more careful in how he stored his weapon.

The Right to Carry bill that is trying to be passed in most states would allow everyday people to carry a concealed weapon in their purse or glove compartment of their cars.

Please look at the specifics of each bill before you knock it. Most states that issue concealed weapons permits require several hours of classroom instruction on gun safety, the laws concerning use of deadly force, and skills for avoiding situations in which a gun might be used.

In conclusion to all of this I dont know how we can give people the responsibility of having guns on our streets when we cant even keep them away from our young children.

Speak for yourself. Most of us (gun owners) do a very good job of keeping guns away from small children. I was fortunate to have been taught gun safety by a bona fide expert, an experienced military firearms instructor, at an early age. All the required behaviors - Muzzle control, keeping finger off the trigger, knowing the target, storing weapons properly, are all instinctive.

I support basic gun safety instruction, taught by experts, in public schools.

Most states that issue concealed weapons permits require several hours of classroom instruction on gun safety, the laws concerning use of deadly force, and skills for avoiding situations in which a gun might be used.

And all states require people to take a test on basic traffic rules and a road test before they get a driver's license. Yet people still die on the roads......

And all states require people to take a test on basic traffic rules and a road test before they get a driver's license. Yet people still die on the roads......

That's the only way to reduce transportation-related deaths. Licensing hasn't worked. Driving a personally-owned vehicle on public roads only facilitates higher transportation-related mortality rates. It's the only reasonable thing to do.

and most of that "rigorous training" appears to be standing around in a shooting range blasting a paper target....

I'd be willing to bet everyone not fall-down drunk on premises passes the "training."

that you are still having issue with the screening process.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Now go rave about LEOs somewhere else..

One violent misdemeanor conviction and you are disqualified from ever getting a concealed weapons permit in any state that issues them.

Not everyone who can qualify for a driver license can qualify for a gun permit.

"The incident you describe is the result of negligence by the boy's father, not the right of people in general to own guns. A little education reminding the man of the realities of childrens' curiosity and their profound inability to understand concepts like death and the consequences of their actions at that age could have prompted him to be more careful in how he stored his weapon."

And ... unless you are going to send all parents to parent-education camp before they are allowed to have children, and regularly inspect their homes to ensure compliance with the principles of good parenting ... this is a "solution" to the problem of dead kids - how?

We don't "solve" the problem of people releasing toxic waste into the biosphere where it poisons other people by urging them to be nice. We make laws that require that everyone with toxic waste in their possession not release it into the biosphere. And that require them to lock it up tight and thus not make it available to other people, including thieves, who might do that, and to other people, including children, who might harm themselves with it because of their own inability to assess the risks involved. And we make them get licences, and keep inventories, and file reports ...

How is "education" going to solve the problem of people who make firearms available to other people -- like six-year-olds, or thieves -- who use them to kill other people, or harm themselves because they are unable to assess the risks involved?

Granted, rules and punishment for breaking rules don't "solve problems" (and I don't think that anybody claims that they do, btw). They are efforts to reduce the incidence of the problem.

Rules about the possession and handling of toxic waste, and punishment for breaking the rules, are designed to reduce the incidence of the problem of people being killed and sickened by toxic waste that either its owner or someone else released into the biosphere, or that they exposed themselves to out of a lack of understanding of the risks.

Rules about the possession and handling of firearms, and punishment for breaking the rules, are designed to reduce the incidence of the problem of people being killed and injured by firearms that either their owners or someone else fired bullets from, or that they fired bullets into themselves from out of a lack of understanding of the risks.

Sure, let's keep educating anyone in possession of toxic waste, to persuade them to comply with the rules. But I still want the rules in place, thank you very much, because I just don't feel comfortable relying on people I don't know, who operate out of motivations and at a skill level that I know nothing about, to voluntarily refrain from doing things that endanger my life and health.

And I'm not going to agree to let anyone possess toxic waste at will, without a screening and monitoring mechanism (to ensure that they are likely to actually comply with the rules in place) that is a little better than "several hours of classroom instruction", thanks again.

Ditto those firearms, eh?


"Most of us (gun owners) do a very good job of keeping guns away from small children."

And most people who are in possession of toxic waste do a very good job of keeping it out of the biosphere.

Do you suppose that *they* object to rules designed to make it more likely that *other people*, who are not quite as motivated and/or skilled, will do the same?

.

A toast to the post:

:toast:

Just another big pointless ol' assertion of an opinion based on dog knows what. Quelles debating skills!

I'd toast them, but I detest smileyface thingies.

.

Your comparison seems absurd to me because owning a gun is a civil right in this country and owning toxic waste is not.

You believe that one person owning a gun poses a danger (however slight that may be) to everyone else. Granted. Every right enumerated in the Bill of Rights carries a cost:

- Freedom of speech includes the right to speech that offends some people.

- Freedom from unreasonable search means that sometimes police will be unable to do anything about people they know are engaging in criminal activity.

- The right to a speedy trial by jury means that a few criminals will be set free in error.

- The Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination means that sometimes the only available witness to a crime cannot be compelled to testify, again resulting in criminals going free.

- The right to keep and bear arms means that some idiots will keep and bear arms.

My country is in a constant struggle to counteract the bad effects of allowing its citizens great freedoms. We don't throw out the jury trial system because of an occasional O.J. Simpson debacle. O.J. is probably a bigger threat to your safety than any of my guns are. (And O.J. Simpson is not disqualified from owning a gun.)

"owning a gun is a civil right in this country"
No, serving in a well regulated militia to defend our freedom is a civil right.

Oh yeah, that's because you're afraid of guns! Oooooooohhhh....*shiver*......guns!

You never had anything else....

who accuses others of disrespecting dead police officers

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=9217#9253

Now go cry to someone who gives a crap.

Go peddle it to someone else.

time to break out the extra-high-power bifocals...

serving in a well regulated militia to defend our freedom is a civil right.

Nope.

Incorrect.

That is a civic duty, not a right.

We keep and bear arms as a "people" collectively as part of a well regulated militia to defend a free state.

How can a "people" collectively bear my or any firearms. Nice one. You must have been asleep during Constitution 101, too,

"we the people" can form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity....

then why did the framers use that term during the ratification debates to describe an individual's action.

Madison: “…no person scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service IN PERSON ”. (my emphasis)

George Wyethe of the Virginia convention: “…that any person scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead".

Also from the Rhode Island convention: (nearly identical to Wyethe)
“…that any person scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.”



Let's examine the facts...

1) the phrase "the right of the people..." means individual rights elswhere in the Bill of Rights.

2) the term "bearing arms" was used during the ratifiacation debates to indicate an action done by an individual (not collectively or by the State).

3) "keep" refered to each and every man of a certain age keeping a supply of arms. See discussion of various militia acts of the States cited in US V. MILLER, see also (federal) Militia act of 1792.

4) the phrase "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" is NOT written in the form of a qualifier,
so it can not be claimed based on the text, that the right acknowledged in the second amendment is qualified by that phrase.



On the Collective Rights side of the argument we have...

A) Go peddle it to...
B) What a pantload...
c) Hahahahahah.......


A reasonable person might conclude that the Collective rights advocates are...

Peddling a Pantload of Happy Horse sh*t !

All of your Founding Father quotes make it crystal clear they are talking about "bearing arms" as part of a collective enterprise...like a well regulated militia for defense of a free state.

Now go snivel to someone who gives a crap.

the difference between the words "collective" and "individual".


If "bearing arms" refers only to a collective activity, it could not be said to be done "in person". Nor could a person pay a fee to have another person "bear arms" in his place if that term meant ONLY a collective activity.

Note that the individual is not merely TAKING PART in "bearing arms", the individual IS "bearing arms" in those citations made in my previous post.



An example of the difference between collective and individual actions:

The act of ELECTING A REPRESENTATIVE is done by the people collectively; on the other hand, an individual person CASTS A VOTE.

An individual person does not ELECT A REPRESENTATIVE, nor would the people collectively CAST A VOTE in the literal sense.

"the individual IS "bearing arms""
And how has he got the right to do so? As PART of a well regulated militia in defense of a free state.

Any other ownership of the RKBA crowd's fetish objects is subject to what regulations our society wishes to place on them...which is way to few for my taste and the wishes of a majority of voters. Hence the deliberate sustained attampt by the gun industry to LIE about this point.

admitting that the right to bear arms is an individual right.

However you continue to insist that the RKBA is only as part of a militia in defense of the state. But even if that were so, it would not convert an individual right to bear arms into a purely collective right.


I will point out once again that the Second Amendment contains no conditional (such as: when , if, only if, etc.), nor is it written in the form of the qualifier that you present.

"And how has he got the right to do so? As PART of a well regulated militia in defense of a free state".



Since there is no qualifier, the text supports the argument that it is meant to be an unqualified right, to the same extent as the other rights listed in the BIll of Rights.

Of course the RKBA is subject to some restraints, but those restraints should be consistent with the same restraints placed on the other rights listed in the Bill of Rights. Just as the Freedom of Speech does not allow individuals to incite physical violence against others, the the right to bear arms does not allow individuals to terrorize others with deadly weapons.

deception when peddling its preposterous and dishonest rubbish.

Now go peddle this crap to someone dumb enough to buy it. Try Mary Rosh.

inserts qualifiers into the Second Amendment that do not exist in the actual text.

You are the Militia BECAUSE you have the right to guns.

You dont have guns because you are the Militia.

But then you didnt bather to address the erroneous point you made.

You claimed that you have a 'right' to be the Militia. When it is quite clear that it is not a 'right' but rather that it is a duty.

For example you can freely choose to not exercise a right, but if you refuse to exercise a 'duty' when you are called up you will suffer consequences from the Government. If you are called upon by the government to exercise your duty as a member of the Militia of the United States and you refuse to, you will by tried and convicted and sent to Levinworth. Theoritically you could even be charged with desertion and executed.

If you are called upon by the government to exercise your duty as a member of the Militia of the United States and you refuse to, you will by tried and convicted and sent to Levinworth. Theoritically you could even be charged with desertion and executed.

The state of California has similar provisions in the Military and Veterans Code. Paralleling federal law, we have both organized and unorganized militia, chains of command, rights, duties and obligations, and penalties for failure to comply.

California hasn't called out its militia since the dust bowl days of the 1930s, but it still exists and the governor could call it up in any declared state of emergency.

Only today, it's called The National Guard.

MILITARY AND VETERANS CODE
SECTION 120-130

120. The militia of the State shall consist of the National Guard,
State Military Reserve and the Naval Militia--which constitute the
active militia --and the unorganized militia.

121. The unorganized militia consists of all persons liable to
service in the militia, but not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

122. The militia of the State consists of all able-bodied male
citizens and all other able-bodied males who have declared their
intention to become citizens of the United States, who are between
the ages of eighteen and forty-five, and who are residents of the
State, and of such other persons as may upon their own application be
enlisted or commissioned therein pursuant to the provisions of this
division, subject, however, to such exemptions as now exist or may be
hereafter created by the laws of the United States or of this State.

123. Whenever the Governor deems it necessary, he or she may order
an enrollment to be made by officers designated by the Governor, of
all persons liable to service in the militia. The enrollment shall
include any information that the Governor may require. Three copies
thereof shall be made: one copy shall be filed in the office of the
clerk of the county in which the enrollment is made, and two copies
in the office of the Adjutant General.

Ignore the yapping dogs who deny that this is so and read the actual law of the state of California at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=mvc&codebody=&hits=20

Hard to believe the RKBA crowd trots out this specious crap, isn't it?

of Colorado's military force.

QUOTE
28-4-103.5. Persons subject to military duty - state defense force.
Statute text

(1) Every able-bodied male citizen of Colorado and those who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States residing therein between the ages of eighteen and sixty-four years, except persons exempt by law, are subject to military duty in the state defense force. However, the following persons or classes of persons are exempted from military service:

(a) Persons exempt by any statute of this state;

(b) The members of any regularly organized fire or police department of any city, county, city and county, or town if such members are on full-time duty with the fire or police departments or if such members are found by the governor to be necessary for the health, welfare, or protection of the community;

(c) Those permanently disqualified for military service because of physical disability and having in their possession a certificate of some licensed physician or surgeon which describes the nature thereof;

(d) Justices, judges, and clerks of courts of record, clerks of municipal courts, county clerks and recorders, sheriffs, and ministers of the gospel;

(e) Practicing physicians, officers and assistants of hospitals, prisons, and jails whose services are declared by the governor to be necessary for the general health, welfare, or protection of the community;

(f) Persons determined to be mentally incompetent by a court of competent jurisdiction and persons convicted of a felony and not pardoned;

(g) All persons who because of religious beliefs claim exemption from military service, if the conscientious holding of such belief by such persons is established under such regulations as the governor prescribes. Such persons shall be exempted from military service in a combat capacity, but no person so exempted shall be exempt from military service in any capacity which the governor declares to be noncombatant.
UNQUOTE

QUOTE
28-3.1-510. Absence without leave.
Statute text

(1) Any person subject to this code shall be punished as a court-martial directs when he or she, without authority:

(a) Fails to go to his or her appointed place of duty at the time prescribed;

(b) Goes from that place; or

(c) Absents himself or herself or remains absent from his or her unit, organization, or place of duty at which he or she is required to be at the time prescribed.
UNQUOTE

I was classified 4F in 1972. And now I'm disabled due to a car accident in 2000.

So Bill Owens can kiss my ass - I ain't goin' NOWHERE!!!!!

addition to the National Guard.

"Congress passed authorization for State Defense Forces in 1954, and since then several states have established State Guards or State Defense Forces or State Military Reserves. These are usually also provided for in each state's statutes."

As nearly as I can tell, the Colroado State Defnse Force consists of this guy and a PO Box...it's website (which is not part fo the state website) seems to be down or defunct.

http://www.sgaus.org/co_news.htm

The New Jersey State Naval Militia...whose website IS up and running, is about two hundred guys and some boats...and they boast about their connection to the National Guard.

http://www.njnavy.com/aboutnjnm.htm

All this is says is that males 18-64 can be called up (subject to). Doesn't say they ARE a military force.

No wonder the RKBA crowd thinks Mary Rosh is a scientist.

"unless you are going to send all parents to parent-education camp before they are allowed to have children, and regularly inspect their homes to ensure compliance with the principles of good parenting ... this is a "solution" to the problem of dead kids - how?"
You don't understand....what these "enthusaists" want is taxpayer money to put a dipweed in an eagle costume in every classroom to spout an NRA-devised "safety" program that every real educational experts says is utterly worthless.

As Man_in_the_Moon notes:

"You are the Militia BECAUSE you have the right to guns.

You dont have guns because you are the Militia."


This seems so obvious to RKBA advocates. It must have been exceedingly obvious to the Framers also, since they left us such a poorly written amendment. But if you think about it, there would have been no possibility of forming a militia if private citizens were forbidden to possess firearms. It was a given that they had that right. What's the alternative? the local warehouse? You can't raise a militia that way---just an impotent crowd, after one strike at the warehouse by the enemy.

The Bill of Rights addresses the rights retained by individuals, and restricts the power of the government.

If they'd wanted it the other way---upholding the state militias only---they wouldn't have inserted it in the Bill of Rights. And each state would have immediately designated a state militia with the exclusive power to defend the state. And what would happen if that militia were decisively defeated? It would be left to the private citizen unable to defend himself much less the state.

begun to acknowledge that right.

"XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;" (Pa Constitution, 28 Sept. 1776)

Today 28 states recognize an individual's "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" (RKBA) for defense of self and state]: AL, AR, CO, CT, DE, FL, IN, KY, MI, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NM, ND, OK, OR, PA, SD, TX, UT, VT, WA, WV, WI, WY

"This seems so obvious to RKBA advocates."
Of course they also think Mary Rosh is a real scientist.

"there would have been no possibility of forming a militia if private citizens were forbidden to possess firearms."
Gee, is THAT why the various state governments were buying all those guns and building armorys all these years?

under the militia acts of the 3 states cited in US V. MILLER that each and every free male of a certain age was required to "constantly keep the aforsaid arms" (VA), "equip himself" (MA), and "provide himself" (NY).

Furthermore the first federal militia act (1792) followed the same pattern.


The legislative record shows clearly that arms were not to be KEPT ONLY by the government, there were also to be KEPT by the individual citizens.