Discussion: The Second Amendment III

[Grievous]

Anybody remember the Family Matters episode where Laura thought about buying a gun to protect herself from thug girls at her school, Laura's friend who already owned a gun used it on the thug girls and ended up getting shot. The episode ending with the school asking people to turn in their guns. The message to the story was basically don't own a gun to defend yourself. Leave it to the police. I did not like the message in that story and felt it had a strong anti gun feel to it.

 

[Spider-Who?]

We agree on most things, but the last part is factually incorrect. Violent crime occurs more often outside of the home than inside. This is why concealed carry laws are so important.

I'm sorry, but that is another thing entirely. There's a difference between someone shooting in self defense and violent crime involving guns, which is why I purposefully did not use the latter term. I'm not talking about violent crime as a whole, but only the percentage of lawful citizens being forced to use their gun in self defense inside a home verses out in public.

 

[Phallic]

I'm sorry, but that is another thing entirely. There's a difference between someone shooting in self defense and violent crime involving guns, which is why I purposefully did not use the latter term. I'm not talking about violent crime as a whole, but only the percentage of lawful citizens being forced to use their gun in self defense inside a home verses out in public.

Ah. Well that may be true. I suppose the cause of that is the relatively low percentage of CCW holders in the population vs gun owners without a CCW.

Fair enough.

 

[enterthemadness]

Anyone paying attention to what Rand Paul is saying? I honestly dunno what to think, I have mixed feelings on Rand Paul, like his father more, but I like that the younger Paul is standing up.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/...ol-pledges-to-nullify-obama-orders-86332.html

I also like this. Cause...you know...Paul has libertarian values you know. He is not a 100% GOP Republican.

Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) hit back at Paul Thursday morning.


“But the notion that we’re going to nullify presidential action when the president is acting pursuant to law, that’s just kind of this anti-government rhetoric that I’m surprised to hear somebody in government use it,” he said on CNN’s “Starting Point.”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/...nullify-obama-orders-86332.html#ixzz2IHIDNuY7
​

 

[Thundercrack85]

Anybody remember the Family Matters episode where Laura thought about buying a gun to protect herself from thug girls at her school, Laura's friend who already owned a gun used it on the thug girls and ended up getting shot. The episode ending with the school asking people to turn in their guns. The message to the story was basically don't own a gun to defend yourself. Leave it to the police. I did not like the message in that story and felt it had a strong anti gun feel to it.

Yeah, and the only white character was the gun dealer.

Yes, let's all do what Chicago does. The world's gun murder capital.

 

[Marvolo]

Ultimatum time woo hoo! Any politician that works to nullify any one of these sensible executive orders will never get my vote. This is the first sensible gun measures I have seen come out of Washington in a long time and these asshats want to stop it, because it sounds like legislation. Well, I'm sorry, I didn't realize the sound of something was more important than its intent. And last I checked, this pathetic excuse for a Congress with its 14% approval rating wouldn't know what legislation was if it took a **** on their face.

 

[darkscarecrow]

I'd say most Americans identify themselves as Centrists, except on the occasional issue. Or they really are, but don't think of themselves that way. They're more conservatives than liberals, and more liberal than conservatives.

But the Far Left and Far Right have the loudest voices and most money, so that's all we see and hear. And then we assume everyone else has to be as far left and right as they are because we never hear otherwise.

And fair and balanced is a ******** concept anyway. The news media's job is to report the facts, no matter who it hurts or helps. Sadly, no big media outlet does this because they're too scared to anger the advertisers and politicians that keep them propped up.

Most centrist have not even made their mind up on who they are going to vote for in the last week of the election and some not until they walk into the voting booth. So to that I disagree. Look at the map of the country after the last election. Look at the red area's as opposed to the blue area's. Not states per se but the overall map of the country. It's vastly red even in states like Mass. and California. Two "according to the media" of the most Liberal states in the country. No, when you come down to it, the larger cities are Liberal because of a large group of minorities and the like. Not that I have anything against minorities and the like. But they vote 90% plus Democratic and in the south the black vote is basically the same way. They vote Democratic every time and frankly we as Conservatives don't understand why because they "the democrat party" is largely in favor of gay marriage and abortion. To me that contradicts what they are taught in the church. To which, esp. the southern black are members overwhelmingly.

 

[Fading]

Anyone paying attention to what Rand Paul is saying? I honestly dunno what to think, I have mixed feelings on Rand Paul, like his father more, but I like that the younger Paul is standing up.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/...ol-pledges-to-nullify-obama-orders-86332.html

I also like this. Cause...you know...Paul has libertarian values you know. He is not a 100% GOP Republican.

I'm sorry, but I'm finding Rand to be increasingly nutty. The gun proposal ideas Obama is backing were put together from Biden, and a bunch of industry leaders via talks. Even many gun owners say several of the ideas are common sense proposals. Obama has also used his executive powers less than any other president in the last 100 years. Yet Rand basically said in one interview that Obama was making himself king, and planned to usurp the constitution via executive power. He's getting in the realm of the NRA, IMO.

 

[hippie_hunter]

I'm sorry, but I'm finding Rand to be increasingly nutty. The gun proposal ideas Obama is backing were put together from Biden, and a bunch of industry leaders via talks. Even many gun owners say several of the ideas are common sense proposals. Obama has also used his executive powers less than any other president in the last 100 years. Yet Rand basically said in one interview that Obama was making himself king, and planned to usurp the constitution via executive power. He's getting in the realm of the NRA, IMO.

Rand would say that about anyone who uses executive orders. The Pauls have been consistently critical of just about any President regardless of party.

 

[wiegeabo]

Most centrist have not even made their mind up on who they are going to vote for in the last week of the election and some not until they walk into the voting booth. So to that I disagree. Look at the map of the country after the last election. Look at the red area's as opposed to the blue area's. Not states per se but the overall map of the country. It's vastly red even in states like Mass. and California. Two "according to the media" of the most Liberal states in the country. No, when you come down to it, the larger cities are Liberal because of a large group of minorities and the like. Not that I have anything against minorities and the like. But they vote 90% plus Democratic and in the south the black vote is basically the same way. They vote Democratic every time and frankly we as Conservatives don't understand why because they "the democrat party" is largely in favor of gay marriage and abortion. To me that contradicts what they are taught in the church. To which, esp. the southern black are members overwhelmingly.

Perhaps they're red and blue because they can only choose between red and blue. It's kind of hard to have a yellow state when they either can't vote for yellow, or there's no real way for yellow to get it's message out to the masses.

So those leaning left of center tend to vote blue, and get lumped with all the extremists. Just like those leaning right of center tend vote red, and get lumped in on that side. Even though, if they had a viable centrist option, they'd more than not vote for that.

Those solid colors also don't show us the cross-pollination from the centrists. It doesn't show the left-leaners that vote right this time, and the right-leaners who vote left.


All the red and blue really tells us is who got the electoral votes.

 

[Hotwire]

Absolutely false. A shot to the central nervous system is the only sure-fire way to end a threat with one shot. There are plenty of examples of doped up criminals soaking 10+ bullets and living.

Handgun rounds are notoriously under-powered. I'm surprised a military veteran wouldn't be aware of this.

They trained us to aim center mass using high velocity rounds. Keep in mind, for the average soldier, we were not trained to kill, we were trained to wound. They taught us that killing an enemy soldier takes out one enemy soldier. Wounding one, however, takes out at least 2-3 as his buddies now have to deal with his wounds.

 

[Phallic]

They trained us to aim center mass using high velocity rounds. Keep in mind, for the average soldier, we were not trained to kill, we were trained to wound. They taught us that killing an enemy soldier takes out one enemy soldier. Wounding one, however, takes out at least 2-3 as his buddies now have to deal with his wounds.

Exactly, center mass is where most people are trained to shoot. In war, just wounding a soldier is a good strategy.

In a situation where the future of your life is entirely dependent on stopping a threat - not just wounding but stopping - it is a different situation altogether. It may only take 2-3 shots to stop a target with a handgun. It may not. I'm not willing to gamble how many shots it will take, hence why I prefer to use a firearm that provides sufficient firepower to deal with a wide range of possibilities.

 

[Hotwire]

I didn't say one shouldn't. My point is that all the training in the world can only go so far. There are far to many variables and unforeseeable situations to just lay a blanket statement that "training = no misses".



A couple things: First, I don't think anyone is saying its okay to for civilians to have guns without training. Show me some one who thinks this and I'll show you a liar or a fool. Secondly, this only illustrates my point about the mistaken perception that training is 100% fool proof and that it is an excuse to justify smaller magazines for home defense. Third, the extreme majority of incidents where a civilian had to discharge their firearm in self defense did so in their own home, not in a crowded street.

No, training does not equal no misses. However, training does reduce the likely-hood of a miss. Also, no one, other than me it seems, is saying that all gun owners should receive training as a requirement to gun ownership. I don't want to trust just anyone to be walking around with a gun. Especially considering that my own state of Pennsylvania require NO TRAINING AT ALL for a CCW permit! Others require very little training and most courses are completed in a single day. Would any of you really want some nervous, panicy person going out and buying a gun, then keeping it loaded and on them at all times without ever being remotely trained on how to even handle it?

 

[Phallic]

No, training does not equal no misses. However, training does reduce the likely-hood of a miss. Also, no one, other than me it seems, is saying that all gun owners should receive training as a requirement to gun ownership. I don't want to trust just anyone to be walking around with a gun. Especially considering that my own state of Pennsylvania require NO TRAINING AT ALL for a CCW permit! Others require very little training and most courses are completed in a single day. Would any of you really want some nervous, panicy person going out and buying a gun, then keeping it loaded and on them at all times without ever being remotely trained on how to even handle it?

I agree with mandatory training for CCW. I've never disagreed with that. The ironic thing to all of this is that CCW holders have proven to have an overall higher accuracy % than law enforcement in shootings. Not trying to compare apples and oranges, but I do believe that most CCW holders choose to receive the appropriate and necessary training beyond the basic requirements.

 

[Hotwire]

Exactly, center mass is where most people are trained to shoot. In war, just wounding a soldier is a good strategy.

In a situation where the future of your life is entirely dependent on stopping a threat - not just wounding but stopping - it is a different situation altogether. It may only take 2-3 shots to stop a target with a handgun. It may not. I'm not willing to gamble how many shots it will take, hence why I prefer to use a firearm that provides sufficient firepower to deal with a wide range of possibilities.

That's why I said shotgun. 12 or 10 gauge with 00 buckshot should get the job done. Especially at close range.

 

[enterthemadness]

I'm sorry, but I'm finding Rand to be increasingly nutty. The gun proposal ideas Obama is backing were put together from Biden, and a bunch of industry leaders via talks. Even many gun owners say several of the ideas are common sense proposals. Obama has also used his executive powers less than any other president in the last 100 years. Yet Rand basically said in one interview that Obama was making himself king, and planned to usurp the constitution via executive power. He's getting in the realm of the NRA, IMO.

144 Exec Orders is a lot imho.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/obama.html

Then again, huh, so is this. Oh W..291...oh.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/wbush.html

Rand would say that about anyone who uses executive orders. The Pauls have been consistently critical of just about any President regardless of party.

Yeah, the Paul's don't believe in exec orders. Funny enough, Johnson does, cause he knows going 3rd party, if he had the money, got to debate, and won, he WOULD need exec orders right? To get anything done? Right? Right?!

 

[Hotwire]

I agree with mandatory training for CCW. I've never disagreed with that. The ironic thing to all of this is that CCW holders have proven to have an overall higher accuracy % than law enforcement in shootings. Not trying to compare apples and oranges, but I do believe that most CCW holders choose to receive the appropriate and necessary training beyond the basic requirements.

Cool. We agree on something! I'd personally like to see at least a week long course. Where the gun owner is taught everything from safety to maintenance to proper shooting techniques. Maybe even throw in some live fire exercises. Really prep them for the scenarios they think they may face.

 

[Phallic]

That's why I said shotgun. 12 or 10 gauge with 00 buckshot should get the job done. Especially at close range.

Shotguns are a wonderful choice for home defense.

There are legitimate reasons, however, that people may wish to go with a handgun or carbine for home defense:

1) Shotguns tend to have a fair amount of recoil. I can handle it just fine, but I know plenty of people, mostly females, who find the kick of a 12 gauge shotgun a bit overwhelming.

2) Handguns are a bit easier to maneuver with than a long gun. In the case of a house with a lot of tight hallways, such as the house I grew up in, a long gun would be a bit more difficult to use. This is even true with a shorter defensive barrel on a shotgun.

3) You can't carry a shotgun in public without attracting all kinds of bad attention. There are plenty of people who choose to CCW, and the only thing you can reasonably carry concealed is a handgun.

 

[Kelly]

Pump action is the best....

My sister was at home with her 3 daughters when she saw a guy peeking through their front window. She backed into her bedroom, came out with the pump action, pumped it the sound alone sent the guying flying off the porch....lol

 

[mrvlknight21]

I would just like to say that being a cop does not mean you are an expert with a gun. Their training is basic and it is up to the officer to maintain his skills and it is up to the station to make sure their officers maintain their skills. In many cases there are more civillians who can shoot better than cops, because for the civillians shooting is a passion and one they take pride in whereas with a cop it is a part of the job they hope to never be faced with.

In my experience, this is true. There is a percentage of cops who are huge gun nuts, but many of the rest dont practice/train outside of work because they feel their work training is enough to keep them proficient.

 

[Super Kal]

from what I've seen, simply restricting guns are not going to do anything... even banning guns wont do anything. a criminal doesn't care about laws, or restrictions, or bans; they're going to get a gun, even if it has to be through a black market.

i was watching a short documentary on gun training, and they were interviewing locked up criminals, and they themselves said they were not afraid of the police, but were afraid of regular citizens who were armed... and this is why i now own a semi-automatic.

where i live, i've already seen an attempted homicide in my apt complex... i've also been in the vicinity of a recent suicide in my apt complex, so i've seen both sides, and know the dangers of each- the problem is not the gun; the problem is the desire of the individual's heart. banning all firearms, like Ed Koch wants to do, is only going to render law-abiding citizens helpless against criminals who acquire their firearms illegally.

taking away the guns is not going to stop a man from killing another man.

i dont think the answer lies in gun restrictions, or even gun control, or the banning of guns... i personally think the answer lies in gun training, and teaching on gun responsibility and ownership, and whether or not the individual is mentally stable to handle a firearm.

 

[darkscarecrow]

Perhaps they're red and blue because they can only choose between red and blue. It's kind of hard to have a yellow state when they either can't vote for yellow, or there's no real way for yellow to get it's message out to the masses.

So those leaning left of center tend to vote blue, and get lumped with all the extremists. Just like those leaning right of center tend vote red, and get lumped in on that side. Even though, if they had a viable centrist option, they'd more than not vote for that.

Those solid colors also don't show us the cross-pollination from the centrists. It doesn't show the left-leaners that vote right this time, and the right-leaners who vote left.


All the red and blue really tells us is who got the electoral votes.

Well to that I pretty much agree, I think! It sounds like you are Advocating a third party candidate and I could not agree more. Myself I am a right leaning Libertarian and think we need another party. The problem is neither party will stand by and let that happen. It's not what's best for the country in Washington. It's what's best for the political party in power. Both parties know that it's either going to be a Dem. or Republican. Therefore a third party doesn't stand a chance.

As for myself, being a Libertarian means that I see both points of view and I while being a Libertarian stand with the Republican party on most of the issues. Notice I said most. I don't agree with abortion, gay marriage and taking away peoples guns and freedoms. Also I don't agree that the rich should control every aspect of our lives. I firmly believe we need to be spending our money at home and cut back on foreign aid to countries that hate us and want to behead any American no matter what the reason. We need to take control of our country and not let China or the Middle East control us financialy. Either by trade or our dependence on oil that we have in our own back yard!

 

[enterthemadness]

Well to that I pretty much agree, I think! It sounds like you are Advocating a third party candidate and I could not agree more. Myself I am a right leaning Libertarian and think we need another party. The problem is neither party will stand by and let that happen. It's not what's best for the country in Washington. It's what's best for the political party in power. Both parties know that it's either going to be a Dem. or Republican. Therefore a third party doesn't stand a chance.

As for myself, being a Libertarian means that I see both points of view and I while being a Libertarian stand with the Republican party on most of the issues. Notice I said most. I don't agree with abortion, gay marriage and taking away peoples guns and freedoms. Also I don't agree that the rich should control every aspect of our lives. I firmly believe we need to be spending our money at home and cut back on foreign aid to countries that hate us and want to behead any American no matter what the reason. We need to take control of our country and not let China or the Middle East control us financialy. Either by trade or our dependence on oil that we have in our own back yard!

I always thought a Libertarian is someone who is a paying dues member of the Libertarian Party or just registered Libertarian in their state? And that libertarian was the correct usage for a voter or member of the two party system?

We have a third party candidate. His name is Gary Johnson. Or do you mean someone who has at least $30 million to spend on a 3rd party run via the Libertarian Party, Green Party, or Constitution Party? Those are the only three 3rd parties or minor parties that could make a impact soon. Building a 3rd Party from the ground up means 2020 or 2024 election. Unless you go Independent like Perot, then start a new Party with your media attention. The Libertarian Party is good at getting on most state ballots.

The Commission on Presidential Debates rigs the system as well. Run by former members of the RNC and DNC. C'mon now...that's not fair. Neither is having to get 15% in three or five polls. Even the League of Women Voters back in the late 80's said the CPD was commenting a farce on the American People, and guess what, they are!

 

[samsnee]

Even though I'm willing to bet that we're on the totally opposite side of this issue, I gotta tell ya dude, you're absolutely right with the attitude. I have so many friends acting like Obama is going to go out and take away all their guns or making comparisons to Nazi Germany and Communist China or just making the dumbest statements possible. The government is not going to come into our houses and take our guns away. And saying things like how there's going to be a civil war or it's going to be 1776 again just makes my side look like a bunch of loonies. This stupid paranoid survivalist mentality is going to cost my side this fight if they keep this stupidity up. The only way we're going to win is by using facts and rational arguments and tactical political strategy, not the stupidity that has dominated the gun-rights faction.

Bravo. Obama should have signed an executive order that said "Government is not allowed to come and take your guns unless you are certified crazy." Of course, there would still be doubters.

If you are a sane, law-abiding citizen, you can still get a gun. You may not be able to get one that can kill 200 people in 2 minutes, but if that's the biggest disappointment in your life, then you have it pretty good.

 

[darkscarecrow]

I always thought a Libertarian is someone who is a paying dues member of the Libertarian Party or just registered Libertarian in their state? And that libertarian was the correct usage for a voter or member of the two party system?

We have a third party candidate. His name is Gary Johnson. Or do you mean someone who has at least $30 million to spend on a 3rd party run via the Libertarian Party, Green Party, or Constitution Party? Those are the only three 3rd parties or minor parties that could make a impact soon. Building a 3rd Party from the ground up means 2020 or 2024 election. Unless you go Independent like Perot, then start a new Party with your media attention. The Libertarian Party is good at getting on most state ballots.

The Commission on Presidential Debates rigs the system as well. Run by former members of the RNC and DNC. C'mon now...that's not fair. Neither is having to get 15% in three or five polls. Even the League of Women Voters back in the late 80's said the CPD was commenting a farce on the American People, and guess what, they are!

Well I have never had to pay dues and I am a Libertarian . I read your reply to my comment and to be honest I really don't get what you are trying to say. Other than being a Libertarian makes you pay dues. Which they do not. Either you are agreeing with pretty much everything I said or your disagreeing. Frankly I can't tell. I just know what my beliefs are and what the belief system of both parties pretty much are. Unless they of course are a centrist Republican or a Blue Dog Democrat and then they are either a registered voter of one or the other party but their core belief's are in contrast to their party in general.