It’s not guns, it’s people
There is no point in gun control to deal with such shootings like the one in the Capitol because violence with a handgun depends on the character of the individual (“Tux, gun raised suspicion,” July 17).
For example, drive-by shootings are perpetrated by people lacking character who choose to settle differences with a gun.
On the other hand, thousands of people that have handguns to use for sporting purposes will never use them illegally.
Richard Becker, Broomfield
Oh but Richard, lest you forget that in order to be safe we must outlaw all guns, even those used for sport.
If it saves only one life from a drive by isn't it worth the 30 others that will die due to lack of personal protection in their home?
Guns don't kill people, bullets do.
Posted by just sayin' on August 3, 2007 08:43 AMA recent study by the Harvard Law School clearly showed the more guns equal less crime. An example would be Finland where 36% of the homes had guns in them. Where are all the drive bys etc in that country?
Posted by j on August 3, 2007 09:16 AMIf someone wants to take your gun,they intend to do something bad enough that you'll need that gun to stop them.
Posted by Jimminy on August 3, 2007 09:19 AMWatn to stop gun related crimes?
Make the death penalty MANDATORY for all crimes involving guns (fake and real guns, since you can't really tell the difference in the heat of the moment).
After a few gang bangers get the "hot shot in the arm" for just waving a gun around during a hold-up, maybe the point will get across!
Yes, we did see the negative aspects of handguns when an individual recently entered the capitol with one intent on hurting or killing the governor, but we also saw the positive side of handguns when a state trooper used a handgun to shoot and kill the individual before he could hurt anybody. Good and bad. Ying and yang.
Posted by shaupeen on August 3, 2007 12:02 PMPresident Hillary is going to take all your stupid guns away & I'm going to help her.
Posted by drew on August 3, 2007 12:25 PMOH OH Drew's here. Everyone hide your guns. Good one Drew.
Since you threw it out............ How do you propose this task. Will it be before or after the changing of the Constitution?
Yo 11:26....I can get behind THAT,as long as you can get behind some cops riding that gurney.
Posted by Jimminy on August 3, 2007 12:47 PMDrew doesn't worry about such minor details such as the Constitution -- he's a righteous nanny state Democrat who knows what's best for all of us poor peons.
Now sit back and wait for his self righteous, pseudo intelligent reply. Oh, you may have to wait a few minutes while he consults the official liberal's handbook of appropriate responses.
Posted by on August 3, 2007 12:54 PMYou're gonna have to wait for my "pseudo intelligent reply" - I haven't found my "official liberal's handbook of appropriate responses" yet. And I'm at a loss for words in the face of such brilliant & witty wingnut repartee.
Cmon Drew answer for us please. And what is it with the wingnut stuff. Thought you and I were beyond that. Sheesh feel really hurt now
Posted by bwr on August 3, 2007 01:04 PMBut since you ask - we're going to change the constitution -the Second Amendment was only really relevant at the time of the Revolutionary War.
And Real men don't need guns - men who have them usually are compensating for an anatomical deficiency - if you know what i mean.
Whoa - NOW watch these wingnuts foam at the mouth.
Posted by drew on August 3, 2007 01:07 PMOh - part of that response wasn't in my "official liberal's handbook of appropriate responses" - I took the liberty of ad-libbing a little - hope that's OK with anonymous.
Posted by drew on August 3, 2007 01:10 PMSorry, bwr, usually, as a liberal I'm kind & gentle - forget I said that 'wingnut" stuff!"
Posted by drew on August 3, 2007 01:12 PMWho is we? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
Pretty funny as most States would disagree with your contention of changing the 2nd Amendment, regardless of how you interpret it. Not a contention of argument, just a fact.
Drew, I would probably take you more serious if you had a more consistent term and representation of Freedoms. In one thread you decry the injustice of freedoms taken away, but on something here you advocate the elimination of a freedom we currently have. Why is there great consistencies? I will admit that others on the other side of the aisle are not consistent in the attributes of freedom, but we are not discussing them. We are discussing your inconsistencies in the delegation of freedoms.
And Drew, if that is the best smack you can put forth, please work on it. You usually do better, but this is lacking for a Friday :-)
I know, bwr - it's been a long week
Posted by drew on August 3, 2007 01:30 PMRecent studies have concluded: those who condescendingly accuse others of being anatomically deficient are most likely overcompensating for their own lack of a John Thomas.
drew - Just because you're scared of guns and don't know how to drive a 4x4 is no reason to go around insulting us.
Try counseling or something.
Posted by KW on August 3, 2007 01:56 PMDrew: If you want to talk about people making up for anatomical deficiencies, remember that it was your hero's husband, Bill, who like to have a big cigar in his hand, mouth and other "special locations".
TN
Posted by on August 3, 2007 02:01 PMYeah, TN, and Bush just sucks period
Posted by on August 3, 2007 02:07 PMDrew, when you say that, "President Hillary is going to take all your stupid guns away & I'm going to help her," you assume that all gun owners will just lie down and let the bell of tyranny begin to ring. Unfortunately for you, many gun owners have seen the crimes against humanity committed against a disarmed populace by maniacs (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Darfur) and we will NOT stand for it in our back yard! Feel free to show up at our doors, Drew...I don't think the results will be in your favor.
Posted by Fight For Freedom on August 3, 2007 02:07 PMDrew, when you say that, "President Hillary is going to take all your stupid guns away & I'm going to help her," you assume that all gun owners will just lie down and let the bell of tyranny begin to ring. Unfortunately for you, many gun owners have seen the crimes against humanity committed against a disarmed populace by maniacs (Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Darfur) and we will NOT stand for it in our back yard! Feel free to show up at our doors, Drew...I don't think the results will be in your favor.
Posted by Fight For Freedom on August 3, 2007 02:07 PMDrew: since liberals won't do anything to protect the country against Islamic terrorists and an illegal alien invasion, a lot of conservatives, me included, are enrolled in courses that will allow us to carry a concealed weapon. And, if you and Hillary want to take my gun, bring it on.
Posted by Buff Driver on August 3, 2007 02:46 PMdrew,
If you'd care to to have a calm, rational, repartee free discussion about gun control, I'd be happy to debate you. Why do you think gun control is a good idea?
Posted by will on August 3, 2007 07:11 PMWill:
I think you will find that drew won't debate you. Without a trace of humor intended, the anti-gun advocates are pretty much limited to emotional, feel good arguments. No one, from the local level to the national level has been able to successfully debate in favor of gun control.
The debate always moves toward pure "wishful thinking" and speculation on the part of the control advocates and it ends any serious discussion.
Posted by Trinity on August 3, 2007 08:07 PMTrinity,
I've made that same offer before to various people around here. Don't recall if I ever made it to drew or not, but so far no one has taken me up on it.
Posted by will on August 3, 2007 09:55 PMHey Drew why the big interest in that part of my anatomy???
Posted by tj on August 4, 2007 09:13 AMDrew as we know from past classes is in the coward wing of the Democrat party.Drew is so fearful of being shot or harmed that he will take away everyones right to own a firearm.That is why he likes Hillary Clinton so much because she is more of a man than he is.
Posted by An American on August 4, 2007 09:56 AMJoin the NRA and fight Drew's push to take your guns away.1-877-NRA-2000.
Posted by Bill on August 4, 2007 09:59 AMI am for what I would consider sensible gun control: no guns for convicted felons or folks diagnosed with mental disorders which might lead to their misuse (think about the wacko at Va Tech - who was diagnosed, but not in the database, so was able to buy 2 guns legally - was his therapist a gun rights at all costs activist? And what about someone over the legal age to buy a gun, but with the mind of a child - do you really want that person to have access to a gun?), and any guns used by children must be supervised by an adult. I'm also not sure someone with a restraining order against him/her should be able to buy a gun either.
Gun owners must be responsible for securing their weapons when there are children around - I am tired of hearing about children (from toddlers on up) who get their hands on mom's or dad's gun & injure or kill themselves or someone else. (On the other hand, if the gun is locked up & the child gets to it, the parent is off the hook.)
Use of a weapon in the commission of a crime - whether it results in death or not - cannot be plea bargained down to a lower charge, and if the person is found guilty must face the highest penalty for the crime. (I have never understood why an armed robber who kills in the commission of the robbery only faces life in prison or the death penalty if they kill a policeman during their attempted escape.)
Given the above guidelines: restrictions on the sale of firearms to those who are most likely to misuse them, serious penalties for those who do misuse them and demanding that gun owners be personally responsible for their weapons when children are involved should be acceptable to both sides, although I suspect that the fringes on both sides will not be happy until either all guns are confiscated except those in the hands of the police or military on the one side or everyone, even those convicted of violent crimes is allowed to be armed. Too bad sanity has gone out of favor in this country.
Posted by Mary on August 4, 2007 11:38 AMI do not know if Mary is a Democrat but I do know she cannot read.The Second Amendment reads"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".She is for the infringement of the Second Amendment.
Posted by An American on August 4, 2007 02:53 PM"Mary" -
what you outlined as sensible gun control is pretty much what is in place now. The problems which keep showing up in glaring media headlines are when an individual either falls through the crack (i.e., the V Tech guy not being listed in the database), or when someone who shouldn't possess a gun (mentally ill/retarded, convicted violent felon, etc.,) is able to criminally obtain a gun through a dishonest gun dealer.
If you review the known information about the capitol shooter, two different gun dealers and/or range instructors turned this man down when he attempted to either buy or rent a gun.
I'm not a member of the NRA, but I do know that they advocate for stiffer penalties being applied to people who use a gun in the commission of a crime. As far as guns being left out where children can get them, it's hard to legislate intelligence. This is one area where I think we should beef up the penalties for violations.
While gun ownership is a right by the second amendment, as with all rights comes responsibility. If you are irresponsible enough to drink and drive you face criminal sanctions such as lose of the privilege to drive or incarceration. The same responsibility for safety should apply to gun ownership.
Conservative (or should I say low end) estimates reflect that there are currently over 200 million guns in this country. You'll never be able to collect a significant portion, let alone all of them. It makes much more sense to train people in the responsible ownership and use of guns; and, enforce severe punishment for the irresponsible and criminal use.
Posted by Trinity on August 4, 2007 03:42 PMIf ever there was an argument that gun-hating liberals have their collective heads in the sand, one need look no further than Washington, D.C. and Chicago. D.C. has banned handguns since the mid-70's and requires that long guns be registered, disassembled and locked up. Yet its violent crime and HANDGUN crime rate towers over most every other major city in the nation!!! And I certainly wouldn't accuse Chicago of being at the top of the safest-cities list, either.
Why is it that the same people who would scream bloody murder if some punk thug's rights were supposedly "infringed," would gladly stoop to Gestpo-like tactics to disarm the citizenry. As Chairman Mao once reflected, "Power grows out the barrel of a gun." Wake up, America...those who beat their swords (read guns) into plowshares will plow for those who do not!!!!
Posted by Fight for Freedom on August 4, 2007 04:21 PMIf ever there was an argument that gun-hating liberals have their collective heads in the sand, one need look no further than Washington, D.C. and Chicago. D.C. has banned handguns since the mid-70's and requires that long guns be registered, disassembled and locked up. Yet its violent crime and HANDGUN crime rate towers over most every other major city in the nation!!! And I certainly wouldn't accuse Chicago of being at the top of the safest-cities list, either.
Why is it that the same people who would scream bloody murder if some punk thug's rights were supposedly "infringed," would gladly stoop to Gestpo-like tactics to disarm the citizenry. As Chairman Mao once reflected, "Power grows out the barrel of a gun." Wake up, America...those who beat their swords (read guns) into plowshares will plow for those who do not!!!!
Posted by Fight for Freedom on August 4, 2007 04:21 PMThe FBI has an interesting statistic. Over 2.5 million cases of honest citizens using guns to stop or prevent a crime every year. In fact, I have done so myself. It didn't make the headlines, and no one was killed, but I stopped a crime upon my person and the perp is now in jail. That is how the system should work.
I know of several women who used their CCW to thwart a raping or even worse upon themselves. I wonder why liberals think that a woman is deserving of no protection from a rapist. That always amazes me that the libs of this country say that it is ok for a woman to be a victim.
I am a legal CCW holder for both Utah and Colorado and I carry all the time. I have taken days of training and actually have more handgun training and time than most police officers. I will not give up my guns and be a sheep, hoping that I won't be picked as a criminal target. I will continue to rotect myself.
Try this experiment. Order a pizza and call the police about a disturbance at the same time. See which one gets their first.
So, if you are happy with being a sheep and having the p[police to protect you, fine. Good luck with that. When they put the chalk outline around your corpse and do the paperwork, you can slip into the ether knowing you did all you could...nothing.
Posted by Dravur on August 5, 2007 07:36 AMDravur's comment is so perfectly on point it should be on the front page of the RMN,and required reading for every Liberal Arts major.
Posted by Jimminy on August 5, 2007 08:02 AMRegarding "Dravur's" letter: he is right on point. In addition to the FBI statistics he refers to above there are numerous studies done by neutral, pro-gun and anti-gun groups showing that crime has dropped significantly in cities where CCW permits have become available to the general public. A quick and serious Google search will provide all the documentation one would need.
If you look at cities which have the most restrictive gun laws on the books (i.e., Washington DC) they have crime rates among the highest in the nation. You still have crimes against people in CCW areas, but they are mainly related to gang related shootings -- and, you are never going to be able to confiscate those weapons already a part of the criminal culture. Outlaw guns and we are just going to create a black market similar to drugs; and, we all know how successful the so-called war on drugs is at eliminating the drug culture.
Bottom line, the "bad guys" are much more hesitant to commit a crime of violence against an ordinary citizen if the possibility of the victim having a gun exists.
Like "Dravur" I have a CCW and I stopped a crime against another person, without firing my weapon, and the perpetrator is now a guest at Canon City. The typical "thug" who commits crimes against ordinary citizens while using a gun is generally a coward counting on the advantage their illegal gun will give them.
Posted by Trinity on August 5, 2007 09:24 AMMary:
"I'm also not sure someone with a restraining order against him/her should be able to buy a gun either."
The problem here is a restraining order (or order of protection) can be issued against someone regardless of whether or not any crime has ever been commited.
In a domestic situation, all a woman needs is to appear and tell the judge she is "scared of you" and the gavel is banged. No crime commited, no investigation, no arrests, but suddenly you have a court order against without even being in town.
Todays judges are afraid of the backlash from not issuing RO's in a situation that warrants it, so instead they hand them out like candy just to be on the safe side.
Unless you can differentiate between the criminally dangerous domestic situation and a woman simply seeking revenge, restraining orders cannot be used as a reason to restricit someones second amendment rights.
You guys have done a great job explaining the gun issue and the Second Amendment but everybody needs to join the NRA.The main reason that the liberals and the media are not going after your guns now is because of the NRA.As long as the NRA is strong your rights are protected but if the NRA were gone we would be like England.Join today 1-877-NRA-2000.Remember what Drew wrote in his posting that he would help president Clinton take your guns.There are millions of liberal Drews wanting to take your guns away.
Posted by Ron on August 5, 2007 11:28 AMHands, feet, stones, sticks, cars, cell phones, pagers, bicycles, money, bricks, intelligence, train tracks, glass bottles, knifes, gas, bathtubs, chains, telephone and lamp cords, tire irons, rope, water and poisons, just to name a few, where all used to commit crimes / kill with. To single out guns is just an empty political rhetoric.
Posted by Uno on August 5, 2007 02:03 PMTrinity,
You called that one. Looks like drew is a no show. Maybe he's taking the weekend off.
Posted by will on August 5, 2007 06:02 PMHe's probably still laughing his ass off at how easy it is to get you nuts all worked up.
I can see it now--faces all red, neck veins bulging, spittle flying out of your mouths.
LOL...
Posted by on August 5, 2007 06:40 PMPosted by on August 5, 2007 06:40 PM... "He's probably still laughing his ass off at how easy it is to get you nuts all worked up.
I can see it now--faces all red, neck veins bulging, spittle flying out of your mouths.
LOL..."
Mr/Ms Anonymous,
I extend the offer to you too. If you think you can actually discuss the issue intelligently without insults and name calling, I'll be happy to debate you.
Will..
You are once again attempting to nail jello against a wall. I admire your tenacity. Since there's no logical, only emotional arguments for the anti-gun crowd, those that hit and run like our anonymous friend above never stick around to establish a position.
A gun is like any other tool -- it's only as good or bad as the individual who holds it.
Posted by Trinity on August 5, 2007 08:27 PMTrinity said - "Since there's no logical, only emotional arguments for the anti-gun crowd, those that hit and run like our anonymous friend above never stick around to establish a position."
I agree completely. Like I mentioned before, this isn't the first time I've offered to debate a gun control advocate. But they all seem to suddenly disappear as soon as I make that offer.
I would welcome an honest, intelligent, rational debate, but I don’t expect one is likely to happen. When it comes down to it, they really can’t offer up anything of substance. As we've seen, name-calling and insults are about all they have.
Posted by will on August 5, 2007 09:05 PM"I would welcome an honest, intelligent, rational debate, but I don’t expect one is likely to happen. When it comes down to it, they really can’t offer up anything of substance. As we've seen, name-calling and insults are about all they have."
It is very clear that you people are incapable of having a "honest, intellegent, rational debate" about this issue, given the responses to Mary's reasonable, sensible posting. As to the name calling and insults--perhaps you should read the comments made by your supporters on this issue.
Please DIAF.
Posted by on August 6, 2007 08:18 AMPosted by on August 6, 2007 08:18 AM - "It is very clear that you people are incapable of having a "honest, intellegent, rational debate" about this issue, given the responses to Mary's reasonable, sensible posting. As to the name calling and insults--perhaps you should read the comments made by your supporters on this issue."
Mr/Ms Anonymous,
I can't speak or answer for what anyone else has posted. But I'm offering a rational, logical debate/discussion. If you think you have any good arguments to bring forward, then feel free to take me up on it.
Posted by will on August 6, 2007 10:03 AM08:18 AM
Mary received a very rational and straight forward responses from Trinity, Uno, KW and Ron. None of them hurled insults or names. There are those who are more than willing to debate in a non repartee fashion this issue. I suggest you read all of the Posts carefully before condemning any and all that disagree with your position.
Will has offered many times in this thread to openly and honestly debate the subject.
Posted by on August 6, 2007 10:08 AMReallllllly?
"I do not know if Mary is a Democrat but I do know she cannot read."
If ever there was an argument that gun-hating liberals have their collective heads in the sand,"
"In a domestic situation, all a woman needs is to appear and tell the judge she is "scared of you" and the gavel is banged. No crime commited, no investigation, no arrests, but suddenly you have a court order against without even being in town."
You shall be judged by the company that you keep.
I noticed Will decided not to engage Mary--is that because she's just a woman? As to you 10:08, your judgement of what is rational and straight forward is suspect, at best.
Posted by on August 6, 2007 11:15 AMAnd your judgment, 10:08, is definitely biased and skewed. You quote "An American" who is well known in these blogs to be a moron regardless of the topic, as he calls everyone names. Regarding women getting restraining orders, that is just an example of how easy ANYONE, male of female, can get a restraining against someone else. Caution should therefore be exercised before using a PRO against an individual.
Will didn't take on Mary, nor did Trinity, Uno, or Ron. There was nothing to "take on". Just some agreement mixed in with different opinions which were shared. No one (outside of the moron) put Mary down.
Disagreement with one's opinion is not putting them down -- except in your case where you're putting everyone down who disagrees with your assumed, but as of yet, unarticulated position.
Posted by on August 6, 2007 11:38 AM1 person put forth a derogatory comment to Mary. 1 But you choose to lump everyone into the same bucket.
Most responded with comments and discussion points that were not in alignment with Mary. DISCUSSION points.
Since you are definately the kind and sensitive person in the discussion, please let us know your views without being derogatory.
I have a feeling that put into a debate on Freedoms, you would be very inconsistant in your assignment of freedoms. Hey this point is abused by both sides of the aisle. You choose to assault rather than discuss.
Posted by bwr on August 6, 2007 11:41 AMI apologize - the above comments were intended for anonymous 11:15 AM; not 10:08. My mistake.
Posted by on August 6, 2007 11:41 AMHow is my comment offensive or derogatory?
"In a domestic situation, all a woman needs is to appear and tell the judge she is "scared of you" and the gavel is banged. No crime commited, no investigation, no arrests, but suddenly you have a court order against without even being in town."
This is just the facts with regards to getting an RO issued against someone, especially a male. The courts have been allowing this for over 2 decades.
Since Anon listed it as an "irrational" comment I have to ask why.
Posted by KW on August 6, 2007 12:14 PM"Will didn't take on Mary, nor did Trinity, Uno, or Ron. There was nothing to "take on"."
If you would actually read my post, you would see that I said "engage", not "take on". There is a little bit of difference. Will keeps saying he wants to debate someone, but for some reason he chose not to address Mary's comments. Hmmm, I wonder why?
"How is my comment offensive or derogatory?" Well, it is insulting to females or a start with. You said irrational, KW, not me. But since we're on the subject, just how many RO's do you have against you? Do you believe in abusing women (physically or mentally) is OK? Or is this just another one of those things you got from listening to your siblings?
bwr--First you say "please let us know your views without being derogatory." And then you go on to say "You choose to assault rather than discuss." Care to elaborate where I was either a) derogatory; or b) assaulting?
Posted by on August 6, 2007 12:35 PMOur anonymous friend apparently won’t be happy until I’ve addressed Mary’s post. So I’ll address it.
Her first paragraph… Everything she considers “sensible gun control” is already law. Convicted felons and people adjudicated mentally defective are not allowed to buy or possess firearms (the VT killer did not buy his guns legally, he lied on his ATF Form 4473 - which is a felony. He bought two guns, so he committed two felonies before he ever pulled the trigger). Anyone under 18 is not allowed to purchase a firearm.
Her second paragraph… Yes it’s a good idea for parents to prevent unsupervised children from getting a hold of firearms. Just like it’s a good idea to prevent them from getting a hold of medication or drain cleaner.
Her third paragraph… I’m in complete agreement; anyone who uses a firearm in the commission of a crime should be severely punished.
Her fourth paragraph... Mostly a recap of what she said earlier.
Now Mr/Ms Anonymous 12;35 PM, did you have any specific issues of your own you wanted to bring up to debate/discuss? Because all you’ve done so far is come up with excuses for not debating.
See, now was that so hard? It is hard to debate someone when you don't put your position out there first, eh Will?
Now, perhaps you would be so kind to explain to me:
1) Why anyone (aside from law enforcement/military) would need an assault/automatic weapon; or "cop killer" ammo?
2) How do we keep these sort of things out of the hands of those are a threat to society (i.e, gangs, radical militia's)?
3) What "sporting purposes", aside from target shooting, are handguns used for?
4) How it is unreasonable to expect that we as a society we try to regulate the above?
Balls in your court Ms/Mr Will. I'll be interested to see if you can respond in a mature, rational manner.
Posted by on August 6, 2007 01:25 PMAnon
A) Derogatory
"It is very clear that you people are incapable of having a "honest, intellegent, rational debate" about this issue, given the responses to Mary's reasonable, sensible posting"
"I noticed Will decided not to engage Mary--is that because she's just a woman? As to you 10:08, your judgement of what is rational and straight forward is suspect, at best. "
B) Assault. Both of the above comments are an assault against the people of this post. It is passive aggessive for sure, but an assault all the same without discussing the issue at hand. You would much rather make comments about others than any discussion. Even in your remarks, you never broached the subject.
Now lets get back to the subject.
By your post you seem to be anti-gun anti 2nd Amendment. Is this a correct assumption?
Posted by bwr on August 6, 2007 01:28 PM1. I have no reason to own an assault weapon or copkiller bullets. That is my personal choice. That does not mean that I should dictate to someone what they can not have.
2. There are laws in affect that were made to do this exact thing. Enforcing those laws needs to be a priority. A Side note - We have a hell of a lot of laws that are not being enforced. This is a big problem
3 Sporting purposes for handguns. Have friends that use handguns for hunting. Also use handguns for target / sporting purposes. Big competitions using handguns. Personally I own a handgun for protection. Protection while camping and at home. If I were to wait for law enforcement response, I would already be decomposing by the time they got there. Nothing against the law enforcement people that protect me, but rather the logistics of distance.
4. Again laws already in the books. Enforcement is the key.
Question back for you. Again assuming you are for banning handguns and other weapons entirely. I apologize if this assumption is incorrect. Are you willing to take away freedoms from the many because there are a few bad ones out there (using relative terms here)?
bwr--
1) Did I address those questions to you? No, I did not.
2) Can assume whatever until the cows come home--and you will be still be incorrect.
3) You clearly have no idea what the terms derogatory or assault mean.
Posted by on August 6, 2007 02:05 PMAnon:
"Well, it is insulting to females or a start with. You said irrational, KW, not me. But since we're on the subject, just how many RO's do you have against you? Do you believe in abusing women (physically or mentally) is OK? Or is this just another one of those things you got from listening to your siblings?"
Sorry if my pointing out a FACT about our court system is insulting Anon. But it's the truth. I do have first hand knowledge but not from having RO's issued against me as you rudely asked.
My knowledge comes from two attorneys in the family so yes, I did get this partially from listening to one of my siblings.
If you care to spend a day in court you too would see the gavel bang 99.9% of all requests from women for either an RO or PO without havinbg to offer even a one shred of evidence to back up their claims. Like I said, all the woman has to say is three easy words "he scares me" and the order is issued, no questions asked.
You completely missed the point I was making to mary which was use of an accusation rather than conviction of a crime cannot be used to restrict someones rights.
Now, would you care to have a rational discussion or would you rather be upset, whine about the courts and accuse me of abusing woman?
Posted by KW on August 6, 2007 02:12 PMIsn't it great stirring up these gun nut-jobs until they're frothing at the mouth!
And all your hysterical responses jut prove that you're anatomically deficient - that's why you all have to try & get the biggest guns possible! Give it up pee-wee & get an operation!
Come on people - get a life, get a hobby - get rid of the camouflage fatigues & grow up already!
Posted by drew on August 6, 2007 02:15 PMdrew you are pathetic. You have no understanding of the issue, nor the intellectual integrity to set aside emotions and look at the issue.
Posted by on August 6, 2007 02:18 PM"But it's the truth. I do have first hand knowledge but not from having RO's issued against me as you rudely asked.
My knowledge comes from two attorneys in the family so yes, I did get this partially from listening to one of my siblings."
So, that's what you call "first hand" knowledge? Man, sure glad you're not a lawyer or a judge.
Also, please cite an example of my "whining about the courts". I do believe that is what you're doing, not me....
Anon stick to the issue dude! You have no clue. You try to bully your way through life. Too bad it is a virtual life becuase your attitude would not be tolerated in the real world. That is not an assumption it is a fact.
If you want a true debate let me know. If it is your half assed smack then let it be.
Posted by bwr on August 6, 2007 02:34 PMMr/Ms Anonymous 01:25 PM,
1. Do you know what an automatic weapon is? Not trying to be a jerk, but many people don’t understand them. Automatic weapons have been strictly regulated since 1934. Has someone suggested un-regulating them? And I’m not sure exactly what “cop killer” ammo is. “Cop killer” ammo is a buzzword invented by the media. If you’re referring to ammo that will penetrate a ballistic vest, almost any hunting ammo will do that. Ballistic vests were never designed to stop high powered rounds.
2. If someone hasn’t committed any crime or been adjudicated mentally defective, they shouldn’t be prohibited from buying or possessing a firearm. Could someone legally buy a firearm today, then go nuts and commit a crime tomorrow? Sure they could. But that’s a price we pay for living in a free society. We can’t predict the future behavior of people.
But if someone is a convicted felon, it’s already illegal for them to own or possess a firearm. And I agree with that. If you can’t abide by society’s laws, you forfeit your rights. Like I said before, penalties should be much harsher for anyone committing a crime with a firearm.
3. The Second Amendment doesn’t say anything about a sporting purpose. The DC Circuit Court recently researched the Second Amendment issue and came to this conclusion…
"To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Anti-federalist opponents. The individual right facilitated militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia."
The “sporting purpose” of handguns is irrelevant.
4. Firearms are one of the most regulated items in our society. We have more gun laws on the books now than at any time in history. What more would you suggest?
Posted by will on August 6, 2007 02:41 PMAnon - I know you didn't ask me these questions either but since it's an open forum I will respond as well.
1) Why anyone (aside from law enforcement/military) would need an assault/automatic weapon; or "cop killer" ammo?
Fully automatic weapons are basically illegal already. You must possess a special issue permit to own these. Any assault rifles sold legally in the US are "semi"-auto, not full auto. And they are actually less deadly than semiauto deer rifle since the deer rifle has a greater range."Copkiller" is a nick name. The bullets are metal piercing ammo and I believe they are already illegal without special permit.
2) How do we keep these sort of things out of the hands of those are a threat to society (i.e, gangs, radical militia's)?
Gangs and radical militia don't buy their weapons legally so laws will not deter these people.
3) What "sporting purposes", aside from target shooting, are handguns used for?
Handguns are designed for shooting. Whether you use them for target practice, hunting or self defense is immaterial. The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting or shooting sports.
4) How it is unreasonable to expect that we as a society we try to regulate the above?
You can never have control over all the guns in the world, let alone the US. The only people affected by gun laws are law abiding citizens. That is why they're called "feel good" laws because they have no real affect on criminals.Posted by KW on August 6, 2007 02:50 PM
Anon:
"So, that's what you call "first hand" knowledge? Man, sure glad you're not a lawyer or a judge."
Anon your argument is getting very trying. I have heard first hand accounts of this practive in the courts from a sibling attorney, I have heard them explain how they use RO's against the other party and how they've been used against their clients.
I've also spent afternoons with my sibling watching court proceedings where this has been common practice.
Considering you are completely oblivious to this practice I can safely say I have far more knowledge of this subject than you.
And I can repond without being condesending like you.
As far as your whining, I was refering to you being insulted when faced with fact you'd rather not hear about. If you can't handle reality this is the wrong place to be.
Posted by KW on August 6, 2007 02:57 PMKW--Ah, yes, the old attorney-by-proxy trick. Well played! That's like saying you heard your brother describe brain surgery once, so you know how to perform surgery on the brain. Thanks for the laugh as always!
bwr--In the words of Dick Chaney, "go fu@k yourself" you miserable little troll.
ms/mr will--4 simple questions that you could or would not answer directly. If I wanted an interpretation of the 2nd amendment, I would talk to a constitutional law expert. Thanks for playing.
Posted by on August 6, 2007 03:21 PMWill:
Boy, he/she sure told you! She/he set straw arguments and rejected any attempt by you to answer. While you may not find that an unusual response, she/he did it with class! She/he had a classy recommendation for "brw", also.
Unfortunately, you still haven't found anyone to honestly debate with. Not surprising.
Posted by Trinity on August 6, 2007 03:48 PMYes Anon. Quite concise and well versed.
Want to debate or do you want to continue with the name calling and 4 yr old tantrums?
Easy for you to pull that crap from your computer. How about a real debate? Hell I will spring for the coffee as with your style, you would be too cheap to buy. For real. Discussion of the issues in a face to face forum. Will has asked. I have asked on many occassions.
Step up dude. You have shown what you really are. Redemption time. Second chance.
Posted by on August 6, 2007 03:21 PM - "ms/mr will--4 simple questions that you could or would not answer directly. If I wanted an interpretation of the 2nd amendment, I would talk to a constitutional law expert. Thanks for playing."
Mr/Ms Anonymous,
Sorry you didn't like my answers.
Based on your questions, I get the impression you're not particularly familiar with firearms. Is that a fair assessment? Unfortunately, to have an intelligent discussion/debate, both parties need to be somewhat knowledgeable about the subject matter.
Why don't you tell us your views on gun control?
Drew who have you stirred up? What wild fanatical crap has anyone come up with on here besides you coming to my house with mother hillary to take my guns away. Please make a video of that and show them across the country, especially the fly-over states!!!
And I sure as hell wont go camping with you. A bear comes up and there is Drew dropping his drawers to swing the "big" one in front of bear. "Get back bear. There is more where this came from" Ever heard the term "hit a grizzly bear with a 2x4"? Well it wont work with a 2x4 nor by you dropping your drawers to protect us from the bear big Fella. But hey, I guess you can come camping with us and would not need firearm for protection. It doesnt matter how fast a runner you are, I bet I can outrun you with your drawers down around your ankles. I dont have to out run the bear, just you. and we can take wagers on how impressed the bear is with your manhood as he starts making a snack out of you.
Posted by bwr on August 6, 2007 04:12 PMDrew. Cmon dude, its Monday and your smack is still subpar and hell mine is tame today. Later gotta get some work done
Posted by bwr on August 6, 2007 04:15 PMbwr - c'mon, that was good stuff!
Posted by drew on August 6, 2007 04:19 PMHere is a logistical question I pose to all the folks who want to eliminate private firearms ownership...HOW do you plan to do this? Sure, you can enact laws and a number of people will surely turn in their guns, believing it's for the greater good. But then what about the holdouts? Who will you enlist to assist you in your plight? The military? Somehow I see a staggering number of soldiers resigning their commissions--they're fighting to preserve the Constitution, not strip it bare. The police? Sure, many of the big city cops who've drank the Kool-Aid will search high and low for the holdouts. But what about the "country" cops who have spent their whole lives around guns and know that firearms ownership is the keystone to a free, civil society? Count them out. OK, so that leaves us with some die-hard, no-questions-asked military folks and some big city cops plus federal bureacrats...who hate guns...going up against folks with lots of guns. What's the first rule of a gun fight? Bring a gun! This is when it gets hairy for you folks. At this point you must resort to tactics that we've only read about in the history books, swearing we'd never see it repeated on our soil. Suddenly tanks and soldiers are rolling down our streets, going door-to-door seeking out the tools which suppress their tyranny. People are shot dead for resistance, many more are imprisoned for daring to speak out. Soon, our "free" way of life is a thing of the past and we bow down to a socialist dictator who promises us that the government knows what's best for you and will take care of you. To all the "progressives" who cry foul when another blatantly unConstitutional edict is handed down, you will have nothing to cry about in this scenario, as you will have brought it squarely upon yourselves in exchange for a patently false sense of security and your 10 pieces of silver!
Posted by Fight for Freedom on August 6, 2007 05:14 PMLooking back on this thread, it appears Trinity and Will were right on the money.
The antigun folks are either unwilling or incapable of engaging in rational debate. If it wasn't for throwing insults around, they wouldn't have anything to say at all. They certainly don't seem to want to address any real issues. Is their position really so weak they can't do any better than that?
Posted by Andy on August 7, 2007 08:22 AMDrew is a great example of the coward wing of the Democrat party.He wants guns taken away because he fears getting shot.It is just that simple.
Posted by An American on August 7, 2007 10:31 AMI am scared when I imagine retards like Un-American with dangerous weapons.
Posted by drew on August 7, 2007 11:25 AMbwr,
I've been camping a lot - and I've never had to defend myself against a raving bear.
Do you guys have too much time on your hands that you have to dream up all this heoic crap about when you're gonna "save" people with your big, bad guns?
And this may come as a surprise to you, but there aren't any grizzlies in Colorado. Sounds like you're not much of an outdoorsman. And I bet you run like a girl too - bet Hillary could outrun you.
Posted by drew on August 7, 2007 11:31 AMDrew admits he is a Democrat coward.He states "I am scared when I imagine retards like Un American with dangerous weapons" I on the other hand back all Americans owning guns because I have great courage compared to Democrat coward Drew.I fear no man something Drew would not understand.
Posted by An American on August 7, 2007 12:07 PMdrew, I normally don't have much respect for your positions and supporting emotional arguments. However, you earned my utmost respect in dealing with the Unhinged One, Mr. "Un-An 'Chicken Little' American". While it's easy to draw fire from that fool, you did it with class, my man.
By the way, An American, we are still awaiting the answers to questions posed to you in numerous threads. Every time they are asked you seem to disappear from that thread and later reappear spewing your lies and vitriolic accusations in another. All without answering the questions.
It appears they are right in saying that you have no credibility and are, in fact, the true coward. I think they said something along the lines of someone suffering from small man syndrome with a chip on his shoulder and cow chips between the ears. Sounds like they're right on point.
Posted by on August 7, 2007 12:28 PM"And this may come as a surprise to you, but there aren't any grizzlies in Colorado."
-drew
The last grizzly in CO is believed to have been shot back in 1979. Sightings have been reported many times since then but with the amount of backcountry in this state they can't say for sure if they are all gone.
Reintroduction is being considered for the San Juan area last I heard.
Black bear on the other hand has estimated populations of 10,000 - 12,000 in this state.
Mountain lion populations are estimated at several thousand.
Criminals who commit crimes against people camping, fishing, etc... number in thousands.
Police officers to protect you when in the woods number in the low zeroes.
Armed hunters accosted in the woods by criminals virtually never happens.
Posted by KW on August 7, 2007 03:22 PMKW,
It's a shame you sound so frightened when you go out into the woods. Do you lie in your tent quaking with fear? Better make sure you have enough ammo to fight off the hordes of bears, criminals & mountain lions waiting to accost you in the back country, KW. Who knows - maybe you just need therapy?
Posted by drew on August 7, 2007 04:28 PMDrew knows all. He has it all figured out.
There's no real danger in the forest, right?
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5605355,00.html
Posted by on August 7, 2007 07:33 PMDrew,
Remember that poor girl a couple months ago in Park County who worked for, I believe, the Forest Service? Remember the sick, twisted SOB who was once in prison for murdering someone else? Well, he strangled her to death! Who was there to protect her? Sure as hell not "the government." They let her down by releasing that puke in the first place. It's wimps like YOU who foster the victim mentality in our society and allow dirtbags like that to thrive. So, Drew, don't go into the woods and expect that everything is as pretty as you see it with your rose-colored glasses!
Posted by Fight for Freedom on August 7, 2007 07:38 PM