The right to bear arms.

Roger Dodger · Post by **Roger Dodger** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 7:44 am

with all the killings in the schools and, the latest in the 2 churches in colorado one thing was clear. if the security guard did not have a firearm more folks would have been killed.

In Texas everyone has the right to carry a weapon.

Can anyone say if this is good and why?

personally i think we should have the right to carry. i think that a permit process needs to be set up to prevent criminals and, crazy folks from getting them but, soundminded law abiding persons should be allowed to carry.

What say you?

jay_a2j · Post by **jay_a2j** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 7:49 am

lol...wow, its working! If you are against the 2nd Amendment, you need not worry. They will be taking your guns soon. The 2nd Amendment provides for the people to protect itself, "from enemies foreign and domestic".

radiojake · Post by **radiojake** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 8:07 am

Rednecks

dcowboys055 · Post by **dcowboys055** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 8:13 am

I think the gun permits should be harder to obtain, but yes, you should be able to own a weapon to protect yourself with

Wisse · Post by **Wisse** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 8:24 am

I think they should forbid keeping a weapon with you, like it is in europe.
you know how much people died in the us with guns? (well if you look at canada where everyone also has weapons, they don't have as much kills as the us,) but still I think there would be less accidents, less dumb people thinking they can use it when someone enters their "territory" etc.
of-course there would still be criminals but easier to find etc.

jiminski · Post by **jiminski** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 8:28 am

Well i always wear short-sleeves come summer !
it is a mans fundamental right!

radiojake · Post by **radiojake** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 8:46 am

jiminski wrote:Well i always wear short-sleeves come summer !
it is a mans fundamental right!

gold!

dcowboys055 · Post by **dcowboys055** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 8:54 am

bust out the wax then

muy_thaiguy · Post by **muy_thaiguy** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:37 am

Roger Dodger wrote:with all the killings in the schools and, the latest in the 2 churches in colorado one thing was clear. if the security guard did not have a firearm more folks would have been killed.

In Texas everyone has the right to carry a weapon.

Can anyone say if this is good and why?

personally i think we should have the right to carry. i think that a permit process needs to be set up to prevent criminals and, crazy folks from getting them but, soundminded law abiding persons should be allowed to carry.

What say you?

Everyone has that right up here in Wyoming as well. And quite frankly, I have to agree with you whole heartedly. Now, imagine if there had been a security officer or students allowed to have guns at the Virginia Tech shootings. There would have been a smaller body count that day.

war_bloodline · Post by **war_bloodline** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:42 am

I'm glad I own a gun after the New Life Church shootings, because that hit way to close to home.

My prayers go out to the Works family for their loss.

comic boy · Post by **comic boy** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:48 am

I really cannot understand why more people dont carry guns, statistics clearly show that the more firearms in circulation the less potential there is for violent incidents

Symmetry · Post by **Symmetry** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:50 am

I live in Japan. There are very few guns here. There are very few mass killings here.
The last big mass killing was probably the Sarin gas attack in Tokyo. I'd prefer it if Sarin gas wasn't made available to more people.
So no- the right to bear arms isn't something I agree with.
Or were you simply talking about guns?
Or certain types of gun?

jiminski · Post by **jiminski** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:56 am

comic boy wrote:I really cannot understand why more people dont carry guns, statistics clearly show that the more firearms in circulation the less potential there is for violent incidents

Aye!

even better, if there had been preemptive shootings; under close supervision of the authorities and strictly according to the Second Amendment! Then this terrible shooting would never have happened!

war_bloodline · Post by **war_bloodline** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:56 am

Symmetry wrote:I live in Japan. There are very few guns here. There are very few mass killings here.
The last big mass killing was probably the Sarin gas attack in Tokyo. I'd prefer it if Sarin gas wasn't made available to more people.
So no- the right to bear arms isn't something I agree with.
Or were you simply talking about guns?
Or certain types of gun?

Well no, not in Japan.

But in America for sure, the right to bear arms is needed.

muy_thaiguy · Post by **muy_thaiguy** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:57 am

war_bloodline wrote:
Symmetry wrote:I live in Japan. There are very few guns here. There are very few mass killings here.
The last big mass killing was probably the Sarin gas attack in Tokyo. I'd prefer it if Sarin gas wasn't made available to more people.
So no- the right to bear arms isn't something I agree with.
Or were you simply talking about guns?
Or certain types of gun?

Well no, not in Japan.

But in America for sure, the right to bear arms is needed.

And is considered an unalienable (can not be taken from you) right. Which is why it won't be repealedanytime soon, jay.

war_bloodline · Post by **war_bloodline** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:59 am

jiminski wrote:
comic boy wrote:I really cannot understand why more people dont carry guns, statistics clearly show that the more firearms in circulation the less potential there is for violent incidents

Aye!

even better if there had been preemptive shootings .. under close supervision and strictly according to the Second Amendment! Then this terrible shooting would never have happened!

The thing with the Church shootings here in Colorado Springs is that Matthew Murray had a HIGH POWERED Assault Rifle.

jiminski · Post by **jiminski** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:03 am

muy_thaiguy wrote:
war_bloodline wrote:
Symmetry wrote:I live in Japan. There are very few guns here. There are very few mass killings here.
The last big mass killing was probably the Sarin gas attack in Tokyo. I'd prefer it if Sarin gas wasn't made available to more people.
So no- the right to bear arms isn't something I agree with.
Or were you simply talking about guns?
Or certain types of gun?

Well no, not in Japan.

But in America for sure, the right to bear arms is needed.
And is considered an unalienable (can not be taken from you) right. Which is why it won't be repealedanytime soon, jay.

there is quite a lot of dispute as to the universal coverage of the Amendment MT...
Many hold that the right is limited to Militias and was never intended to apply to all 'normal' citizens.

apey · Post by **apey** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:13 am

It doesn't matter if they do take away our right to bare arms, if a crazy person wants a gun they will get one. If u think about it the blackmarket for guns will only get bigger therefore creating more crime. In Utah i can have a gun but to carry one i have to pass a back ground check, n take a class to get a permit. what is so wrong with that

muy_thaiguy · Post by **muy_thaiguy** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:27 am

jiminski wrote:
muy_thaiguy wrote:
war_bloodline wrote:
Symmetry wrote:I live in Japan. There are very few guns here. There are very few mass killings here.
The last big mass killing was probably the Sarin gas attack in Tokyo. I'd prefer it if Sarin gas wasn't made available to more people.
So no- the right to bear arms isn't something I agree with.
Or were you simply talking about guns?
Or certain types of gun?

Well no, not in Japan.

But in America for sure, the right to bear arms is needed.
And is considered an unalienable (can not be taken from you) right. Which is why it won't be repealedanytime soon, jay.

there is quite a lot of dispute as to the universal coverage of the Amendment MT...
Many hold that the right is limited to Militias and was never intended to apply to all 'normal' citizens.

That's only those that look at one part of it.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

It is in a listed style, as you can see. It says, "The right of the people being the main part of this. It does NOT say it is only for militias, it is meant for every citizen of the US.

Frigidus · Post by **Frigidus** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:37 am

Everyone having guns on them is a shitty idea. The reason that so many people are being shot is because there are so freaking many guns! Limit the availability and type of guns, the founding fathers didn't anticipate our current level of weaponry. I ask again, what do semi-automatic weapons do that rifles don't (aside from kill people more efficiently)?

Roger Dodger · Post by **Roger Dodger** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:38 am

does it really matter what type of weapon the criminal had? look at any weapon. a 38 or anything else it doesn't really matter. if someone is gonna go out and kill people then it's going to happen no matter what.

i have an AR-15 which is a semi-automatic. i bought it when i was in the military. i had to qualify every 6 months used it for target practice.
so not everyone that has a semi-auto go out and kill folks.

the question was? was it a good thing the guard had a gun.

and, btw. imy neck is not red. late 40s small hispanic female here born in the northeast coast

and the redneck question does not apply to this. it is a question about personal safety for yourself or to protect others from harms way.

Frigidus · Post by **Frigidus** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:52 am

Roger Dodger wrote:does it really matter what type of weapon the criminal had? look at any weapon. a 38 or anything else it doesn't really matter. if someone is gonna go out and kill people then it's going to happen no matter what.

i have an AR-15 which is a semi-automatic. i bought it when i was in the military. i had to qualify every 6 months used it for target practice.
so not everyone that has a semi-auto go out and kill folks.

the question was? was it a good thing the guard had a gun.

But that does matter. Making sure you can aim properly is hardly what I'd call a proper qualification. Seriously, do people use semi-automatics for anything other than killing people (target practice is just preperation)? Rifles can be used for hunting and home defense, but can't fire a full clip into a crowd.

As for the guard, it's natural that he'd been armed. Random people carrying encourages vigilantes to crop up and allows random people to make crucial decisions about often confusing and frightening situations. It hardly would make me feel safer to know random people were packing heat.

comic boy · Post by **comic boy** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:53 am

war_bloodline wrote:
jiminski wrote:
comic boy wrote:I really cannot understand why more people dont carry guns, statistics clearly show that the more firearms in circulation the less potential there is for violent incidents

Aye!

even better if there had been preemptive shootings .. under close supervision and strictly according to the Second Amendment! Then this terrible shooting would never have happened!

The thing with the Church shootings here in Colorado Springs is that Matthew Murray had a HIGH POWERED Assault Rifle.

Thats why all responsible citizens should carry anti tank guns....just in case !

Frigidus · Post by **Frigidus** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 10:55 am

comic boy wrote:
war_bloodline wrote:
jiminski wrote:
comic boy wrote:I really cannot understand why more people dont carry guns, statistics clearly show that the more firearms in circulation the less potential there is for violent incidents

Aye!

even better if there had been preemptive shootings .. under close supervision and strictly according to the Second Amendment! Then this terrible shooting would never have happened!

The thing with the Church shootings here in Colorado Springs is that Matthew Murray had a HIGH POWERED Assault Rifle.

Thats why all responsible citizens should carry anti tank guns....just in case !

We could always just post snipers on the rooftops. Saves us the trouble.

Roger Dodger · Post by **Roger Dodger** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 11:04 am

btw ranges do have competitions for weapons of that type.
mine is just collecting dust in my closet. once in a while i will take it out and clean it but, it really doesn't serve a purpose.
i'm talking about a handgun not what i have. i don't really think anyone would want to carry a rifle of any type around all day.
unless, they mean to do harm that is.

schools especially a guard should be able to carry a weapon.

The right to bear arms.

The right to bear arms.

Re: The right to bear arms.

yes