Total Comments 16 | Start A New Comment

Post Info

Comment

Posted By: Wow! Posted On: Jul 21, 2008 Views: 323	November vote I guess the people can change it at the ballot box if they want.
Posted By: accitizen Posted On: Jul 20, 2008 Views: 337	DC Gun banners still at it. Well, 85% for owning guns. Looks like the high court did the right thing. Now hopefully they will stop DC's mayor from trying to sidestep the law with all these ridiculous stipulations, such as having to have a known immediate threat before you can load your gun in your own home. Maybe the home owners should put signs on the front of their houses with their phone numbers, so the burglars can give them a call before they show up. That way they may have time to get their guns out of the safe or trigger lock, and load them in time to do some good. I'm sure the burglars will have plenty of time to get the lock off and load the homeowners guns after they have killed the homeowners and taken their guns back to their crib. They (the City leaders in DC) are deliberately trying to circumvent the intent of the supreme court, and it's a damn shame. I hope they get smacked down hard for it.
Posted By: Sylvia Plath Posted On: Jul 11, 2008 Views: 681	This is my rifle! This is my gun! My rifle's for 1. "It is silly to say they were authorizing (or denying) the use of modern guns." 2. "All I know is that the world was different then than today, and there are a lot of people trying to read their own words into a decision that was made that had nothing to do with modern weapons." But you say: "Rate of fire means how quickly bullets come out of the barrel, and accuracy means hitting what you aim at. It's hard to have a debate when you totally ignore what I say, and then say it as if you thought of it first." Hmmmmm. Talk about calling the kettle black.
Posted By: accitizen Posted On: Jul 11, 2008 Views: 508	to dtgunowner What do you propose then? Do we go back to black powder guns, and outlaw anything newer than say 1900? Then everyone would be on a level playing field? What if we go back to a horse and buggy system too, because a LOT more people are killed in car accidents than gun accidents. How about going back to wagon trains instead of real trains or airplanes? It's not the type of gun that causes problems, it's the type of person holding it. When will people stop blaming inanimate objects for the acts of people? It's not your car's fault if you get in an accident, it's not your fork's fault that you are overweight, and it's not a guns fault if you go on a shooting rampage and kill 20 people.
Posted By: Different thinking gun owner Posted On: Jul 10, 2008 Views: 523	Guns Wasn't the original question relating to how we feel about the supreme court decision? As one responder stated, it makes no difference what kind of gun you're talking about. Guns kill. Military, law enforcement have a legitimate reason to carry weapons, perhaps even concealed in certain circumstances. Yes criminals will use them anyway, but why make it easy for them? And why would anyone with any common sense want to take a chance on they or some innocent bystander being injured or killed by a gun simply because it was available to threaten a criminal or be used in a fit of anger or in some senseless drugs or gang related crime committed by some youth who thinks they have no choice? And who cares what type of gun is used if someone is hurt or killed, even by accident.
Posted By: accitizen Posted On: Jul 10, 2008 Views: 206	Sylvia "There is a big difference, and if you don't think so, then go to target practice with a tech 9 and a 1780 era pistol and see who gets the best accuracy and the most shots." Maybe you missed the part where I said: "The only difference between the muskets you spoke of and modern guns is the accuracy (a good thing, since you can hit what you are aiming at, and not innocent bystanders) and rate of fire." Rate of fire means how quickly bullets come out of the barrel, and accuracy means hitting what you aim at. It's hard to have a debate when you totally ignore what I say, and then say it as if you thought of it first.
Posted By: Sylvia Plath Posted On: Jul 9, 2008 Views: 190	guns There is a big difference, and if you don't think so, then go to target practice with a tech 9 and a 1780 era pistol and see who gets the best accuracy and the most shots. I didn't say that they would have opposed them, just that modern weapons are much different today. They might have re-thought their decision or not. It seems they wanted an armed populace, in case the government got out of line, which is actually a pretty scary thought.
Posted By: accitizen Posted On: Jul 8, 2008 Views: 268	For Sylvia The only difference between the muskets you spoke of and modern guns is the accuracy (a good thing, since you can hit what you are aiming at, and not innocent bystanders) and rate of fire. Guns STILL shoot lead balls, although they can now do so at a faster rate than back then. Guns back then were just as capable as killing someone as todays guns. Just ask Mrs. Lincoln.
Posted By: gun enthusiast Posted On: Jul 8, 2008 Views: 269	guns & self defense Thanks. The last thing anyone wants to to is harm another human being. But...what if that other being is harming you, your family, or shows a true desire & intent to do so? Should you be able to stop them? or should you just be forced to "stand & watch" or just "pray"? Sure you could call the police, but then the damage is done, and all they can do is make a "report". I believe any Officer would tell you you have a right to defend yourself. So, after all that rambling (thanks for listening) I conclude that self-defense is indeed the ONLY option for a sane person.
Posted By: accitizen Posted On: Jul 7, 2008 Views: 326	Let's talk about rights... Should I have the right NOT to cower under my bed while burglars rummage through my house, HOPING they only steal all my stuff, and don't harm my family or myself? Should I have the right NOT to be victimized, or watch my family be victimized, because I could not stop someone with evil intentions from gaining entry to my home. Should I have the right to defend my family and my property from such people. You damn right!
Posted By: Sylvia Plath Posted On: Jul 4, 2008 Views: 366	handguns Handguns and rifles did not exist when the founding fathers decided the "bear arms" decision. Muskets and pistols used lead balls, were effective to a range of a couple of hundred feet and took about a minute to reload a second shot. It is silly to say they were authorizing (or denying) the use of modern guns. It seems to me that their decision was one which would permit people to repel an occupation like what they claim the British had done in the colonies. In reality, pre-revolution America was a British colony and the troops were policing the colonists, but history is written by the victors. From the surface, it appears that they meant to provide people with the means to overthrow their government if needed. So maybe they were talking about rocket-launchers, machine guns and artillery after all. All I know is that the world was different then than today, and there are a lot of people trying to read their own words into a decision that was made that had nothing to do with modern weapons.
Posted By: Gun owner who thinks differently Posted On: Jul 3, 2008 Views: 383	2nd ammendment rights The Constitution of the United States of America is important. Even worth dying for. But the ammendments do not give one person or group of persons the freedom to steal the rights or freedoms of other persons or groups of persons. Freedom is not license to do evil, freedom is the right to choose not to do evil, the right to choose not to harm others. That was the intent of our founding fathers. The freedom to choose what is good for the best of all Americans, not the freedom to take from others what the one wants for themself. I believe most of the controversy over the rights and freedoms intended by our founders when they wrote the Constitution, Bill of Rights, and Ammendments results from personal desires, not from seeking the good of all Americans. If we were all to seek each other's best good, there would be no controversy. If the recent action of the Supreme Court in ruling on the right to own and bear arms had in good faith used the freedom and responsibility to see the best good of all, the decision would have been unanimous and would have spelled out the kind of restrictions our founding fathers could not forsee, including such questions as: Why would any sane person want to own an assault weapon, carry a concealed handgun, use ammunition designed to intentionally do more damage than necessary to the victim. Some people seem to think the issue is not having a gun for protection or for hunting wild game. That simply isn't true when you consider the types of weapons and ammunition that come into question. It's not about the "good guys" would never misuse the rights and the only ones who would are the "bad guys" who would regardless of the law. It's about no one who wants the right to use some of the weapons and ammunition in question privately (as opposed to military or law enforcement use) is a "good guy." And that's who wants the right to use them.
Posted By: Marcus Garvey Posted On: Jun 29, 2008 Views: 684	Guns Gun ownership is a right. Responsibilities for actions and limits on types of guns can be and is currently regulated.
Posted By: SG Posted On: Jun 28, 2008 Views: 594	Guns for self defense... Because crime happens in seconds, and the police will be there in minutes.
Posted By: Another Arkcitian Posted On: Jun 28, 2008 Views: 603	Our rights People are going to have to stand up for our rights if they want to keep them. The government is trying to take more and more each day. When are we going to say enough is enough?! The government is to protect our rights, not take them away. This is exactly why the constitution was written. Each and every AMERICAN CITIZEN has the right to bare arms.

Pages [ 1 2 ] Next Page ->