RE: The Constitution, The Second Amendment and BHO

With respect to Maj Caudill "I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid." clearly states in real terms that he feels at a disadvantage without his weapon. A fear of being unequal?

This post was edited
RE: The Constitution, The Second Amendment and BHO

With respect to Maj Caudill "I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid." clearly states in real terms that he feels at a disadvantage without his weapon. A fear of being unequal?Rene, because gun ownership is a right (not granted by a governments but is often suppressed by governments) a citizen can choose to exercise it or not! I think he made his point very clearly. Hasn't the Mass Shootings in "Gun Free Zones" proven in this case that all of the victims were unequal like or not? In each of these cases, governments have suppressed and restricted a right of citizens to protect themselves. It, however, does not mean there would have been people with firearms to defend themselves, but it does mean that the criminals/mass murders/evil people would have known that the possibility of them being stopped was higher and it would act as a deterrent. In most of the Mass shootings they have already committed the act, and most have ended when the people with the guns (Police) finally do show up. They either commit suicide or police take them out. In many cases where the playing field is Equal through the right to carry, crime naturally goes down because the criminals don't know who is armed or not. Case in point, there were multiple theaters in the Aurora, CO area that the shooter could have chosen, but he chose the one which does not allow guns inside.

This post was edited
RE: The Constitution, The Second Amendment and BHO

Reading comprehension Gassy. I was clearly talking about "in Canada".

This post was edited
RE: The Constitution, The Second Amendment and BHO

Try and wrap your head around something Gassy. We have universal healthcare here. So insurance rates do not come into the equation. But in the states, without health insurance, the companies can hold you hostage. But this is simply a tangent. Annie get your gun.

This post was edited
RE: The Constitution, The Second Amendment and BHO

I believe it was you and FF who brought up the subject of insurance. I'm not sure why you did.

This post was edited
RE: The Constitution, The Second Amendment and BHO

I believe it was you and FF who brought up the subject of insurance. I'm not sure why you did.Yes it was me who brought it up because of multiple states proposing laws requiring gun owners to purchase liability insurance as a condition to own a gun! As mentioned, putting a condition on a right is not legal, nor constitutional!
It's relevant to the entire debate on gun control, but you are the one that went off into the health insurance, car insurance tangent which to some extent is debatable in this thread.

This post was edited
RE: The Constitution, The Second Amendment and BHO

FF.
It is very sad that Mass shooting's happen at all and as these seem to be revenge or 5mins of fame based I doubt arming teachers and the youth would have much effect, the perp would just chose another as you say 'soft' target.
Probably why many of us look at the gun problem is that any changes to your 'rights' will reduce the no of guns held in irresponsible hands - while more guns will undoubtably increase the amount of gun use in your country.

This post was edited
RE: The Constitution, The Second Amendment and BHO

FF.It is very sad that Mass shooting's happen at all and as these seem to be revenge or 5mins of fame based I doubt arming teachers and the youth would have much effect, the perp would just chose another as you say 'soft' target.Probably why many of us look at the gun problem is that any changes to your 'rights' will reduce the no of guns held in irresponsible hands - while more guns will undoubtably increase the amount of gun use in your country.Rene, it is absolutely sad that mass shootings happen at all, but there is really no country that is exempt from them. A mass murderer or would be mass murderer is only interested in killing as many people as he or she can until he or she is stopped. I totally understand why people would think that if we take away the guns or the weapons that mass murderers tend to use most , they will be reduced or stopped, but that is just not the case. First, the largest mass murder ever committed in the US was committed with planes as weapons, the second largest was committed with Diesel Fuel and Fertilizer (both legal substances). With over 350 million estimated firearms in the hands of citizens (legal) in the US, it would be virtually impossible to take them all away and even if they could, the illegal guns would never be taken away from them until potentially after they commit the crimes with them. All that will result is even more "Soft Targets" as you put it. No matter what legislation is passed, it will never take the mind of a mass murderer and turn them suddenly into a good person. IF they don't have the weapon of choice available, they will choose an alternative. It's the way it is. As mentioned there are already over 350 million firearms in the hands of over 80 million gun owners and even though gun ownership has increased significantly over the years, gun accidents have decreased and in some areas violent crime has decreased. Btw, this is mostly because of education and programs by the NRA which is the main purpose of that organization despite what others think of them.

This post was edited
RE: The Constitution, The Second Amendment and BHO

FF you will never be able to convince these progressives that the NRA is about education, unlike the progressives who are about RE-education and to quote mootchell changing our history.Gas, I'm not responding to please the ignorant people, I do believe that there are people that have a view point and they are really curious as to what the opposition things. And believe it or not, people have come to see the light. While I might not agree with some on here, people like Rene, have never moved to start attacking people for having a different viewpoint and even though the trolls tend to get the most exposure here, the majority in the forum are not like that.

This post was edited
RE: The Constitution, The Second Amendment and BHO

Your "see the light" suggests an evangelical furor that does not bode well for a "debate". You will concede nothing. Not even the pure logic that a home with a gun in it is more likely to have a gun death in it. And if your definition of troll means name calling and insults, then that would surely include Gassy, but I can only assume that, because he agrees with you, that is not the case. I haven't defined "ignorant", but clearly it means "someone who does not share your viewpoint".

This post was edited