Seventy Two killed in resisting gun confiscation in Boston.....

[CaptainKyle]

People have been killing others since they found sticks and stones. Guns are not the problem. People are the problem. As others have mentioned. Issues cause some to kill others, be it upbringing, mental disorders or genetically altered food. Some just want to be famous for something, anything. Actually, Dr's kill more people in America, Maybe we should Outlaw Doctors.:confused2: Texting and Driving is moving up the charts too.
I hear they are coming out with phones that won't text at speeds over 5mph.:ummm:

The texting thing would not bother me any. Im tired of almost getting ran over by people texting.

 

[gamorg02]

i really took the way sharky asked the question as someone seeking knowledge, not at all making assumptions about not living here. please lets not all jump on him for it.


as far as texting i'd love to see how they distinguish between a driver and passenger.

 

[Traumahawk]

The texting thing would not bother me any. Im tired of almost getting ran over by people texting.

Me too.

 

[Traumahawk]

i really took the way sharky asked the question as someone seeking knowledge, not at all making assumptions about not living here. please lets not all jump on him for it.

Like I said before...I have been involved in Gun violence.....I didnt take offense to what was said....I will sit down and have a chat with anyone about this. I would even sit with someone from across the border, buy them a beer, and discuss this.

 

[gamorg02]

Like I said before...I have been involved in Gun violence.....I didnt take offense to what was said....I will sit down and have a chat with anyone about this. I would even sit with someone from across the border, buy them a beer, and discuss this.

you didn't jump on him, your answers were respectful and had clarity.

 

[Tex85]

The texting thing would not bother me any. Im tired of almost getting ran over by people texting.

I wish texting simply did not exist. I'd much rather go back to using my phone for making phone calls... Crazy how people think if you are calling them it must be an emergency since no one does it anymore.

 

[Rollie]

If you wanna fight so hard to have assault rifles (and god knows why the average Joe needs one) stop all the crying and outrage when someone goes goes apeshit crazy and slaughters your kids....
You can't have it both ways...whats wrong with psych checks...locked gun cabinets...checks on mental stability of others in house where the guns are...if it stops someones kid dieing.
Wonder how loud the NRA members would shout if their kids were mowned down ??

Gun control , in a free society , has a lot of problems. Most NRA members would not allow their kids to be " mowned " down , mown down , or mowed down by anybody or anything , as they have a defense against such actions. Prepardness and protection. The press doesn't help either as they are touting the 2 dead from a plane accident over the weekend while 70 were shot & killed in Chicago over the weekend , despite having some of the most stringent gun laws in the country. Not a peep from the " free & independent press .

 

[woodsman30]

So I must live under a rock but I do not remember this being reported in the news:ummm: Is the any news stories to this.... links ect...? Where is the public outrage? Is there any follow up to this? :ummm:

 

[ZackDaniels]

Where have you been man? This is ancient history by now.

Can't fault you too much though as it seems to confuse/merge the Battles of Lexington and Concord with the Gunpowder Incident, and the Siege of Boston.

Good thing we were able to successfully crowdsource these details and didn't leave this up to the lamestream media.

 

[Tex85]

So I must live under a rock but I do not remember this being reported in the news:ummm: Is the any news stories to this.... links ect...? Where is the public outrage? Is there any follow up to this? :ummm:

Looks like a TLDR was required, if you read the last line of the OP it explains it all.

 

[Sharky]

I was not saying ban guns...I understand why people want/need them.
It was explained to me as to why some people want semi auto's....(hunting large game).
I asked why is there not more research into the psych....surely if someone had a history of violence or manic depression they would not be a good candidate for a high powered weapon ?

It does **** me when all sorts of statistics are dragged out...the old joke about politicians comes to mind....'lies,lies and statistics'

If you are going to talk about the constitution and the second amendment, research it.
It was drawn up in 1791 and was about defending your land. A US High Court stated it did not give you the right to have any sort of gun anywhere.

I wish I could have a small firearm , safely stored, in the house as defense against intruders but unfortunately that does not count as a legitimate reason here in Australia.....

Anyway...enough of this.....time to get back to bikes ....

 

[Traumahawk]

I wish I could have a small firearm , safely stored, in the house as defense against intruders but unfortunately that does not count as a legitimate reason here in Australia.....

Wow...are yall even allowed to have shotguns and the like....or how hard is it to obtain permission to have shotguns?

 

[woodsman30]

Looks like a TLDR was required, if you read the last line of the OP it explains it all.

thats what I get for reading on my phone cant see everything :rofl_200:

 

[Sharky]

We can have guns, but the authorities want z genuinr reason..farmers protecting livestock, licenced hunter etc.

 

[Redbone]

If you are going to talk about the constitution and the second amendment, research it.
It was drawn up in 1791 and was about defending your land. A US High Court stated it did not give you the right to have any sort of gun anywhere.

Easy enough to do, The U.S. Supreme Court did rule on this:
"On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller (PDF), the United States Supreme Court issued its first decision since 1939 interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense. It also ruled that two District of Columbia provisions, one that banned handguns and one that required lawful firearms in the home to be disassembled or trigger-locked, violate this right. "
Taken from this document from the Library of Congress website: http://loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php
If this ruling would have upheld the two District of Columbia provisions, there would have been an appeal or revolt.
The ones that are crying about guns are the ones (mostly Democrats and kiss ass media types) that want to take them away from law abiding citizens.

 

[srk468]

If you are going to talk about the constitution and the second amendment, research it.
It was drawn up in 1791 and was about defending your land. A US High Court stated it did not give you the right to have any sort of gun anywhere.

The court ruling was wrong, the constitution is written in plain English and if further reference to what the founders meant when regarding the second amendment is needed then you only need to look at the federalist papers and it removes any doubt. Just because a court says something doesn't make it right...



Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

 

[cgswss]

If you are going to talk about the constitution and the second amendment, research it.
It was drawn up in 1791 and was about defending your land. A US High Court stated it did not give you the right to have any sort of gun anywhere.

.

I think you do not understand the bill of rights. The bill of rights does NOT grant ANY right. It assumes we were BORN with certain rights. The bill of rights prevents the government from taking those rights away. The second says NOTHING about hunting. Its about protecting one's life and liberty.

Your also wrong about the high court.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves.

The 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the state in December to enact a law allowing concealed weapons, ruling that the ban in Illinois — the last state in the nation without such a law — was violating residents' constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), is a landmark[1] decision of the Supreme Court of the United States that determined whether the Second Amendment applies to the individual states. The Court held that the right of an individual to "keep and bear arms" protected by the Second Amendment is incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and applies to the states. The decision cleared up the uncertainty left in the wake of District of Columbia v. Heller as to the scope of gun rights in regard to the states.

There are more people shot and killed EVERY WEEKEND in Chicago then in most of the mass shooting. Shootings in Chicago total more then all the mass shooting combined for the last 50 years. Chicago Is the last place in the US that a law abiding person CAN NOT carry a firearm, and one of the fee places in the country that you can't buy a firearm from a dealer.

About 20 years ago we had an "assault weapon" ban. It had a end date that was never renewed. The anti gun groups warned crime involving guns would sore. The opposite happend. The crime rate has declined year after year ever since, while the gun owners have increased. You might also note that Mass shooting occur in "NO GUN" zones. The theater shooting you mentioned- that nut job when 20 miles out of his way to go to a theater that had a "no guns" policy. Had he gone to one nearer his home, he made have been shot by someone with a concealed carry permit. And you don't mention the theater shooting in Texas. I guess because the not job there "only" shot two people before a woman with a canceled carry permit shot him.

Also I asume you have not seen all the studies that show an AR style weapon is one of the very best home defense weapons. Its much easier for people under great stress to hit targets with, the .223 round is less likely to over penetrate and go thru a wall to kill someone outside, and the recoil is much easier to handle- even for women and children.

All that said, I DO NOT own an AR. I chose to rely on the old 1911 pistol. And if I move closer to the city, I will get a short barrel pump shot gun. I don't want to shoot anyone, and there is no bad guy that doesn't recognize the sound of a pump being racked.

Finally, do you realize that you are 5X more likly to be a victim of home invasion then I am? Look up the stats- it true. Bad guys don't have to worry about being shot if they break into your house

 

[Sharky]

True....I dont have a gun as such......but I do have a 30 round, 3" nail Paslode gas framing gun.......lol

 

[customizedcreationz]

The bottom line is media lies......chose the side you think is correct and be prepared to pay the consequences of your actions ( not directed to anyone, but saying it as a general rule ).

 

[tothemax93]

"It's a very vocal minority in this country who you might call gun fanatics, that feel they never have enough protection."

I strongly disagree with this statement. I would say there's far more of a silent majority. NYC and surrounding areas are their own microcosm that don't live in the same idealogical realm as the rest of NY.
http://www.nysaferesolutions.com/

I would personally define a "gun fanatic" as a second amendment supporter. The "silent majority" are people such as myself, that work hard, Do their best in what they do, and want to be left alone. It's not about enough protection. Its about "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"