Busy Swingers Forum - everything you always wanted to know about swingers.
SwingLifeStyle Swingers Personal Ads. | SwingLifeStyle Swingers Clubs

Busy Swingers Forum

Everything you always wanted to know about swingers.

Create A Free Account

HELP
FORUMS General Discussions Politics Guns Guns and More Guns
TOPIC: Guns Guns and More Guns
GoTo Page: Less ... 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 ... More 
Start   4851 to 4860 of 6164   End
User Details are only visible to members.
TBR

OK speech is regulated how? Sure it is misused by some, but how is it restricted? There are punishments for the unlawful use of speech, but how is it restricted?

There are punishments for the unlawful use of a firearm too. I would gladly accept firearms regulated in the same manner as speech. For speech to be regulated like Illinois it would mean a SOID card before uttering a sound, or as in Chicago the surgical removal of a tongue.

And trust me after the 2A has been eroded so will your right to free speech. No where is free speech restricted, only punished for irresponsible use. The same as firearms.

Sanford NC
Username hidden
(19580 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
OK. I will agree that firearms are regulated. However, used indiscriminately or incorrectly, firearms are a dangerous product. And I will give you that there are plenty of other products equally dangerous.

Cars have been mentioned. Cars are highly regulated for safety. Drivers must be licensed, and if they are caught not using the product safely, can lose their license.

Doctors. Highly educated and regulated. Drugs they dispense, procedures they perform, all highly regulated. Doctors can lose their license for poor performance.

And I know some will say it is a constitutional right. There are plenty of constitutional rights that are regulated. Speech, freedom of assembly are two that come to mind right off the top of my head.

"I've touched on only a few, but the facts still clearly indicate that the only people that are affected by firearm restrictions, are those that are pre-disposed to follow them."

And isn't this the way it is with all laws? I often use the saying "Locks only keep honest people out..." Same principle here...

Fullerton CA
Username hidden
(18153 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
To the lovely Mx. Pirate Gal

I've got a very special something for that target.

elcporn

Grantham NH
Username hidden
(1470 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
TBR

"The main purpose of a firearm is to put holes in things. Big holes, small holes, whatever."

Oh Lord now he wants to restrict my drill :-O

Sanford NC
Username hidden
(19580 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Tb, I think the problem is, that most of us gun owners already believe that we're under a considerable amount of restrictions now. Let's forget for a moment that gun ownership is a constitutional right, which we all basically agree on, let's look instead at current restrictions. 1. Age limits: every state in the union requires a person to be at least 18 to purchase a firearm. 2. Firearm dealers are required to possess an FFL (federal firearms license) and record every transaction. FFL prior to Clinton taking office cost $50, by the end of his tenor had been increased to $200. No big deal to most dealers, but eliminated many "trunk dealers" that might only sell a few guns per year. 3. Anybody purchasing a firearm through a gun shop is required to complete a federal form and have the info submitted to the FBI NICS system. NICS is actually maintained by the FBI and is an acronym for National instant criminal background check system, and determines if a buyer is legally qualified to purchase a firearm. 4. We are restricted now in what types of firearms we can purchase, as well as how and where they may be carried. An interesting note is that in virtually every single instance of "mass shootings" over the past years, they have all occurred in legally mandated "Gun Free Zones". Simple logic would suggest that the maniacal people who choose to go this route, select these locations as targets because they know they won't encounter any opposition. Like someone pointed out, why don't these shootings happen at an NRA convention or Gun Show?

Of course there are many more restrictions, and I've touched on only a few, but the facts still clearly indicate that the only people that are affected by firearm restrictions, are those that are pre-disposed to follow them. I can only assume that those who have elected to commit a violent act with a firearm, simply are not concerned with gun laws. in the cases where it's solely a "crime of passion", there simply is no preventative measure that will work, as virtually anything in every day life can make a lethal weapon. Just as you suggested, there are extremists in every issue we face, however the vast majority of us "gun nuts" prefer to use education as our best weapon.

Reno NV
Username hidden
(1176 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
by Chuck Baldwin Once Again, A Gun Saved Lives February 17, 2007 01:00 PM EST

This past Monday night, a gunman walked into a popular Salt Lake City mall and opened fire with a shotgun. The trench coat-clad gunman was heavily armed and intended to kill as many people as he could. He killed five people before being challenged by an armed off-duty police officer. Once again, a gun saved lives.

Salt Lake City's police chief said, "There is no question that his [the off-duty policeman's] quick actions saved the lives of numerous other people."

According to press reports, "Ken Hammond, an off-duty officer from Ogden, north of Salt Lake City, jumped up from his seat at a restaurant after hearing gunfire and cornered the gunman, exchanging fire with him until other officers arrived." The miscreant was killed in the ensuing shootout.

Mr. Hammond said, "I feel like I was there and did what I had to do."

Destin FL
Username hidden
(14562 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
Could less gun control have saved the Illinios students? I was looking into the shooting the recently and came across the fact that the campus was a "Gun Free Zone". If it wasn't so and suppose a teacher or a student or even an armed guard had had a weapon, maybe this wouldn't have resulted in the deaths of those students.

I mean a murderer hell bent on killing someone isn't going to regard a sign that says please leave your firearms at home. And maybe he would have not gone through with it if the area wasn't "Gun Free" cause to me that's basically like saying "Hey we have no security!"

Destin FL
Username hidden
(14562 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
There used to be an almost complete scholarly and judicial consensus that the Second Amendment protects only a collective right of the states to maintain militias. That consensus no longer exists — thanks largely to the work over the last 20 years of several leading liberal law professors, who have come to embrace the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to own guns.

In those two decades, breakneck speed by the standards of constitutional law, they have helped to reshape the debate over gun rights in the United States. Their work culminated in the March decision, Parker v. District of Columbia, and it will doubtless play a major role should the case reach the United States Supreme Court.

Laurence H. Tribe, a law professor at Harvard, said he had come to believe that the Second Amendment protected an individual right.

“My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise,” Professor Tribe said. “I have always supported as a matter of policy very comprehensive gun control.”

The first two editions of Professor Tribe’s influential treatise on constitutional law, in 1978 and 1988, endorsed the collective rights view. The latest, published in 2000, sets out his current interpretation.

Several other leading liberal constitutional scholars, notably Akhil Reed Amar at Yale and Sanford Levinson at the University of Texas, are in broad agreement favoring an individual rights interpretation. Their work has in a remarkably short time upended the conventional understanding of the Second Amendment, and it set the stage for the Parker decision.

Destin FL
Username hidden
(14562 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
"According to the Clinton Justice Department (in 1997), Americans use guns in self-defense as many as 4,110 times every day. This means that guns are used 50 times more to save life than to illegitimately take life."

Destin FL
Username hidden
(14562 posts)
User Details are only visible to members.
http ://www*pulpless*com/gunclock/gunclock_index2.html

According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds. Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.)

In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference.

In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to.

In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love.

In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.)

In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home.

Destin FL
Username hidden
(14562 posts)
GoTo Page: Less ... 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 ... More 
Start   4851 to 4860 of 6164   End
TOPIC: Guns Guns and More Guns