So an 8 year old is killed by a machine-gun and it's no ones fault? (page 3)

:I think US gun laws are S-T-U-P-I-D ... and the legal system more so. Saw a very good suggestion yesterday though - force people who want to own a gun to require insurance (hey, you have to have it for a vehicle for gods sake). Single-shot hunting rifle? Low insurance ... Glock or UZI ... hando over your checkbook.

People in the USA are killed in far greater numbers by vehicles than by guns. Ergo, we should ban vehicles, eh? It has been estimated that over a million crimes a year are prevented by citizens who are armed and who take action (violent or not) before the police can arrive. There are NOT 1 million gun crimes a year in the USA. Not even close.

:Really, why the hell does any civilian need a machine gun?!?!?!

Um, for protection against their own government which is supposed to work for THEM (and not vice-versa) who have armed themselves with the same weapons?

Simon: I respect you for all that you have done for this board, and I know we have had our differences, but before we dialogue much more on this subject, I suggest you read "The Federalist" which was written by three of our Founding Fathers. If you take the time to do that, you will understand why it is critical that they concluded that all citizens should have the right be keep and bear arms. If you would also study the history of your own Country of birth, you will see that all the facts support that gun crimes went up exponentially after your government decided to disarm its own citizens. There is not ONE example anywhere that can show that when citizens are disarmed, gun crimes went down. In ALL cases, they went up. The criminals can always get them, while the law-abiding citizens have to break the law the get them, and most don't do that.

"A person who is armed is a citizen. A person who is not armed is a subject." - Unknown Author

I don't even own a gun and I've never owned a gun as an adult, but I grew up with guns and know how to use them. I just don't want my government which works for ME, to tell me I can't own one unless they approve it and they make the rules to approve it, or not. If they work for me and my fellow citizens and they say THEY can have guns, but people like me can't, then who works for who?

Farkel

cameo-d

Shamus: "Cameo,

:*(

Is that supposed to be a zit on your face?

shamus100

That's a tear running down my cheek. Give me a kiss, you've hurt my little feelings... :D

Finally-Free

The "right to bear arms" was written when people had muskets. Not automatic assault rifles.

It was also written at a time when a gun was a tool, and practically a necessity. That should no longer be the case. It's a sign of a pretty sick society when a large segment of the population feels the need to engage in their own personal arms race. Hunting is one thing, but no one should need an Uzi to knock over a deer, pheasant, or bunny.

W

cameo-d

Farkel: "you will understand why it is critical that they concluded that all citizens should have the right be keep and bear arms.'

Farkel, if you go back and read the Constitution, you will find that it actually says NOT ONE WORD about FIREarms.

The Law of Arms and the "Right to Bear Arms" has to do with heraldry, not guns.

quote:

Law of Arms

The Law of Arms (or laws of heraldry) governs the "bearing of arms", that is, the possession, use or display of arms, also called coats of arms, coat armour or armorial bearings. Although it is believed that the original function of coats of arms was to enable knights to identify each other on the battlefield, they soon acquired wider, more decorative uses. They are still widely used today by countries, public and private institutions and by individuals. The earliest writer on the law of arms was Bartolus de Saxoferrato. The officials who administer these matters are called pursuivants, heralds, or kings of arms (in increasing order of seniority). The Law of Arms is part of the law in countries which regulate heraldry, although not part of common law in England and in countries whose laws derive from English law.

The Right to Bear Arms

According to the usual description of the Law of Arms, coats of arms, armorial badges, flags and standards and other similar emblems of honour may only be borne by virtue of ancestral right, or of a grant made to the user under due authority. Ancestral right means descent in the male line from an ancestor who lawfully bore arms. Due authority has, since late medieval times, been the Crown or the State.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Arms#The_right_to_bear_arms

bohm

(begin humor)

I read farkels post and realized i should be allowed to own a nuke. Lets review the arguments and counter-arguments, copy-pasted from farkels post:

Q: Nukes are pretty dangerous things

A: "People in the USA are killed in far greater numbers by vehicles than by nukes. Ergo, we should ban vehicles, eh? "

Q: isnt nukes a bit extreme? why should people be allowed to have them?

A: "Um, for protection against their own government which is supposed to work for THEM (and not vice-versa) who have armed themselves with the same weapons?" (didnt even have to alter that one, works right out of the box!)

Q: Your bat-shit crazy! is there any reasonable argument that support this lunacy?

A: "I suggest you read "The Federalist" which was written by three of our Founding Fathers. If you take the time to do that, you will understand why it is critical that they concluded that all citizens should have the right be keep and bear arms. If you would also study the history of your own Country of birth, you will see that all the facts support that nuclear explosions went up exponentially after your government decided to disarm its own citizens. " (pretty much work out of the box to, nice!)

I would also respectfully like you to consider the following slogan which i heard at the last nuke-rally sponsered by the nuclear industry:

"A person who is armed with nukes is a citizen. A person who is not armed is a subject." - Random Tiny-Dicked Dipshit

ergo, your a sheep if you dont think i should be allowed to have a nuke. baaaaaaaaaah.

Q: okay, that settles it then! I think i would prefer a cobalt-salted device, less bang and more highly radioactive fallout, thatll make those kids think twice before they enter my lawn!

A: I could not agree more. "I just don't want my government which works for ME, to tell me I can't own one unless they approve it and they make the rules to approve it, or not. If they work for me and my fellow citizens and they say THEY can have nukes, but people like me can't, then who works for who?"

In closing: nuclear weapons is a bit of an extreme example, but in brief i think there are good reasons to differentiate between a hunting rifle, a hand gun and an automatic weapon.

Simon

Wow, very interesting cameo-d - thanks !

FlyingHighNow

Our country is set up where most of us need cars to survive. This cannot be compared to gun ownership which is not needed for most people to survive.

You can get killed falling off a ladder in your backyard, clearing out your gutters, a necessary job. But if you are cleaning a gun, you swear is unloaded and it goes off and kills you, how necessary was that gun?

Like my former sister in law who died, cleaning her gun in 2010. Her husband hated guns. Her sons loved them. They got old enough, bought guns and took them, along with mom, to the firing range. Her oldest son bought her a gun to take along with her, for saftey, during her long commute to work on second shift.

She worked for an answering service. At work one night, she took the gun out at her desk. She was cleaning it and shot herself accidentally while on one of her phone calls. The caller heard the whole thing. Yeah, the gun protected her alright, right into her grave. We are all still grieving deeply. Her husband especially. And I wonder how her son feels now, having given her that gun for protection.

I'm not for taking away everyone's guns. But Simon has good points. I know too many people who've died from "unloaded guns." Louis Arcemeaux who died taking his father's gun down from a shelf to show it to his cousin on father's day. RIP Louis. Mr. O' Connel, my Irish landlord: his son died when he pulled the barrel of an unloaded, but jammed gun towards himself. His last words, "Here, let me unjam it." He unjammed it alright. In his case, there were adults present. He was 13. Head blown off in front of a table full of people. My second husband. His father and cousins got hold of a gun when they were kids. The gun went off and killed a cousin. Andy: his uncle George accidentally shot a friend in front of Andy's dad and some other boys. They were all kids. They all saw death up close and personal. To this day George will not speak of it. He is 70. I know more people. This is enough to make my point. You want to be safe. Guns don't make you safe and secure. Nothing guarantees our safety in this world. Nothing.

Insurance? I think it's an idea worth considering.

So an 8 year old is killed by a machine-gun and it's no ones fault?

Share this