Gun nuts gone wild

|
(29)

It's no surprise to see the Republican Senate candidates pandering desperately to the right wing, but at a certain point, it becomes a total farce. For example: Both Carly Fiorina and Chuck DeVore actually said during a taped debate that they think people on the federal no-fly list should be allowed to buy guns.

I know, I know -- there are people on that list who shouldn't be, and it's a pain to get off it, but still: Buying guns?

Even Tom Campbell, who is running far to the right of where he's always been, was a bit flabbergasted:

"That is not an infringement on anybody's Second Amendment rights," said Campbell, a former law professor at Stanford. "It seems somewhat unusual to take that position – except perhaps in a Republican primary."

 

Comments

So, over in California, it's okay to take someone's civil rights away without a trial?

Posted by Guest guest on May. 07, 2010 @ 5:08 pm

Right, obviously there are many people on the no-fly list for good reason who are potential dangers to our country. But the fact remains - you're taking away someone's civil, Constitutional, and human rights to self protection.

There are many people on the list who have no idea why they're on it when they suddenly have difficulties and a lot of confused explaining to do at an airport. You should have to think long and hard before you can start taking the same rights that law-abiding citizens have away from other law-abiding citizens because of some mysterious process that everyday folks aren't allowed to know the details of. You can into some pretty significant potentially dangerous territory there.

Posted by navydan on May. 07, 2010 @ 7:08 pm

Last I checked, the legal system in the US is supposed to be based on innocent until proven guilty.

The no-fly list, a list:

Created in Secret
Randomly changing requirements to be added to list
The actual number is kept secret
TSA does not keep track of who is NOT a terrorist
TSA claims tens of thousands on list, but since accurate records kept, no number stated is valid
Names are not connected to a physical description, birth date or unique identifier
Includes selectee’s (those with similar names)
Authority on who add’s to list is a politician, not a real security expert
Once on list, supposed legal recourse exists, yet no evidence it has been applied for due process to be removed from the list
Ted Kennedy on list, well that does fit
8 yr old boy on list and forever will be listed as a terrorist (one of too many examples)

Yeah we see ALL the evidence and facts that no mistakes are ever, ever made by da guberment.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 regulated gun commerce, restricting mail order sales, and allowing shipments only to licensed firearm dealers. The Act also prohibited felons, those under indictment, fugitives, illegal aliens, drug users, those dishonorably discharged from the military, and those in mental institutions from owning guns. These are categories that pro gun advocates have no problem agreeing with, as long as there is consistency across the board.

Unless any of you have proof that those on the no fly list are legally listed in any of the nine categories listed in the Gun Control Act, then any who do not fit that list should in fact by law be allowed to purchase a firearm. Failure on the part of the government or their employees to do their job accurately and properly is no reason to ban anyone else’s rights

That is the problem of the no fly list, irrevocable inclusion of those are guilty or under indictment for what, nothing other than being the wrong race, outspoken against the government policies, a mistake by a government employee, can we say RACISM, naw that is too cliche.

Maybe you people have the evidence to support that those 1,196 people on the no fly list who bought a firearm then committed a crime with that firearm eh? Nope, no evidence, and if they did, does the rate of crime any different than current levels in the US, doubt it, unless you have the hard facts to prove otherwise. Problem is for gun control advocates, they have a really hard time producing anything other than lie based rhetoric.

It really is simple, have the politicians apply the guaranteed constitutional protections to the no fly list and you will get gun owners to agree, don’t include our guaranteed constitutional protections on the no-fly or any list for that matter, and any who support such an unconstitutional law can frankly stick it where the sun don’t shine. It isn’t the pro gun advocates being stubborn in this instance, it is the POLITICIANS wishing to establish an unconstitutional abuse of their power that are being stubborn, prove otherwise

Posted by Guest on May. 08, 2010 @ 8:32 am

This is one issue where I part ways with the left, though I also do not agree with the gun nuts. Here's the real issue: if cops, the military, and organized crime can have guns -- I know, organized crime can't have them legally, but they still have them -- why shouldn't ordinary people have them, too. I hate guns and would prefer that NO ONE has them, but that's not reality. For those of us who despise guns, this is a really tough question, and I've never been able to come up with anything that doesn't just make me totally ambivalent about the issue.

Posted by Jeff Hoffman on May. 08, 2010 @ 9:59 am

Wait, Tim, back up a sec:

"I know, I know -- there are people on that list who shouldn't be, and it's a pain to get off it."

How does one run quickly over that caveat? We're not a talking about a few people who shouldn't be on the no fly list, but thousands or tens of thousands of people.

So, either one supports or opposes gun control, but supporting it against a group of people the feds have thrown willy nilly onto a huge watch list which everyone knows is grossly suspect in its methods of collection and review, is just expedient, but not remotely fair or consistent with basic civil liberties policy like due process or equal protection.

Posted by beskeptical on May. 08, 2010 @ 10:31 am

As others have already noted: so there are people who support the idea of a Supreme Court confirmed, Bill of Rights established, fundamental civil liberty, being taken away with no trial, no jury, no judge, no judicial review whatsoever?

Is that where we are in Amerika?

Posted by Anti Federalist on May. 08, 2010 @ 1:04 pm

Put me on the no fly list, I hate flies. If they know these people are terrorists why don't they take a break from bombing civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan and come arrest them? Is it because they have constitutional rights to a trial, as well as a gun? Law professor my ass.

Posted by Guest on May. 08, 2010 @ 1:19 pm

May I ask, when you use the term "gun nuts", am I correct that you are using the term "nuts" as in "clinically insane" and not some sexual slang such as "tea bagger"? We never know if you are being serious or just showing off your ability to use big boy words.

But I must say that you are probably right -- some people should not be allowed to have guns. It's usually better to get proficient with the language before trying to learn to shoot accurately.

And once you learn English, you will probably understand the U.S. Constitution better, too.

Posted by Burt Fisher on May. 08, 2010 @ 3:28 pm

The Second Amendment provides for keeping a militia, not for private individuals to have guns. It is you who need some education, along with the rest of your gun nut buddies.

And yes, I do mean that anyone who insists on carrying weapons in public suffers from some sort of mental defect, though not necessarily rising to the level of being clinically insane. If you want to fight for a safer society, you should fight to: 1) eliminate poverty, as it is the root cause of street crime and 2) fight for a gun free society. Demanding a gun to protect yourself from real or imagined dangers is reactionary crap. People who live in fear do evil things. Stop watching so much TV and you won't be so convinced that a criminal is lurking around every corner. (If you don't know what I mean, read the study showing that people who watch more TV are more convinced that street crime is a major problem.)

Posted by Jeff Hoffman on May. 09, 2010 @ 9:49 am

The founders didn't think a gun in public was so odd.

"No free man [or woman] shall ever be debarred the use of arms."-Thomas Jefferson

The supposed quietude of a good mans allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside...Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them... — Thomas Paine, I Writings of Thomas Paine at 56 (1794).

A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government. — George Washington

The said Constitution be never construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms. — Samuel Adams, during Massachusetts's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788).

Americans need not fear the federal government because they enjoy the advantage of being armed, which you possess over the people of almost every other nation. — James Madison.

A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks. — Thomas Jefferson, Encyclopedia of T. Jefferson, 318, Foley, Ed., reissued 1967.

Ah, Congress: Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. — Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

...but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights... — Alexander Hamilton speaking of standing armies in Federalist No. 29.

I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them. — George Mason, during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution (1788)

I have more Mr. Hoffman, if you wish to read... But lets move to a few alittle closer to our own time...

Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom. — John F. Kennedy

What is ominous is the ease with which some people go from saying that they don't like something to saying that the government should forbid it. When you go down that road, don't expect freedom to survive very long. — Thomas Sowell

The right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, one more safeguard against tyranny, which though now appears remote in America, history has proven to be always possible. — Senator Hubert H. Humphrey

What it means to take rights seriously is that one will honor them even when there is significant social cost in doing so. —SANFORD LEVINSON

There is no doubt in my mind that millions of lives could have been saved if the people had not been "brainwashed" about gun ownership and they had been well armed. Hitler's thugs and goons were not very brave when confronted by a gun. Gun haters always want to forget the Warsaw Ghetto uprising, which is a perfect example of how a ragtag, half starved group of Jews took up 10 handguns and made asses out of the Nazi's. — Theodore Haas, former prisoner of the infamous Dachau prisoner concentration camp
The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and `is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power." [Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)]

You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am. — Clarence Darrow (1857-1938)
I have carried a revolver; lots of us do, but they are the most innocent things in the world. — MARK TWAIN

That rifle on the wall of the labourer's cottage or working class flat is the symbol of democracy. It is our job to see that it stays there. — GEORGE ORWELL

The Constitution is a written instrument. As such, its meaning does not alter. That which it meant when it was adopted, it means now. — SOUTH CAROLINA v. US, 199 U.S. 437, 448 (1905)

We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, including some measures regulating handguns, see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home. Undoubtedly some think that the Second Amendment is outmoded in a society where our standing army is the pride of our Nation, where well-trained police forces provide personal security, and where gun violence is a serious problem. That is perhaps debatable, but what is not debatable is that it is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct.

Evidently the 2nd means exactly what we think.. There are more than 280 million guns in the US. If all those fearful owners are liable to do something evil, why did only 93, 493 people die by firearm in homocides between 1999 and 2006, according to the CDC? That's an average of .000312 deaths per gun. Clearly, law-abiding gun owners, who carry concealed in more states than not, are not the problem. In fact, possesion of a concealed weapons license makes an individual less likely to commit crime than the average member of the population.

Finally, this quote you should mark well, for ignorance of its meaning will be your undoing.

Arms are the only true badges of liberty. The possession of arms is the distinction of a free man from a slave. — Andrew Fletcher 1698

Posted by Guest on May. 09, 2010 @ 10:31 am

OH MY GOD

Posted by Guest on May. 18, 2010 @ 5:02 pm

When it comes to being labled as a Terrorist and put on the No Fly List: where is the Due Process of Law ? Have such people ever had their right to be tried before a jury of their peers before being placed on such a list?

Did such people ever have a right to defend themselves against their accusers?
Who are their accusers? How is one supposed to appeal once being placed on such a list?

Right now..the list is only a No Fly list..but now Facists and their sympathizers want to extend this to Constitutional Rights of US Citizens.

Rights which can be taken away by Bureuacratic Fiat, no chance of appeal, no due process of law, no right to face their accusers, no right to see the evidence (or lack of thereof), no right to be judged by a jury of their peers.

Brilliant

Posted by Guest on May. 09, 2010 @ 6:35 am

@ Jeff Hoffman

The Supreme Court affirmed that the Second Amendment most certainly does apply to individuals and not just to those who are in active militia service.

DC v. Heller

Posted by Anti Federalist on May. 09, 2010 @ 6:15 pm

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff. The only way to 'fight poverty' is to remove Government from the equation. Since LBJ's 'War on Poverty', 10 TRILLION dollars has been spent by taxpayers to fund the Government's 'War'. All that money is oxygen sucked out of the room, which could have instead impelled market forces to provide jobs and upward mobility to the impoverished. Heck, if a lump-sum payment to each 'beneficiary' of the so-called War on Poverty had been payed, the recipients could scarcely be worse off than they are now. Misplaced pity and compassion are the enemy of equality and progress and social justice. As to the gun nut notion you have - ask people in Iran, Cuba, North Korea, China and even more recently, Great Britain and Australia if confiscation of guns has made them more safe or free.

Posted by Guest on May. 09, 2010 @ 7:27 pm

That's an interesting analogy given that a Nobel Prize winning economist has estimated the war in Iraqi will eventually cost a total of 3 TRILLION dollars by the time the last American soldier packs his/her bags

Using that same logic then, if we had paid every man, woman & child in Iraq a proportional amount of that ,say around $100 grand apiece, they'd have been just as well off, not to mention how much good will toward the good ole US of A $100,000 would buy.

But I guess Halliburton, Blackwater, Bechtel et al probably would have just seen that as "Misplaced pity and compassion " Show me the money indeed....

Posted by Guest mainsqueezer on May. 11, 2010 @ 3:47 pm

You mean like in somalia where we just gave everybody food? Wait... everybody didn't get food? What do you mean? Oh.. yeah... those fanatical islamic thugs would probably do just like the somalia warlords did and simply TAKE the money away from the people, likely at gun point... assuming you had some way of getting it to them in the first place without interception or putting those boots on the ground.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2010 @ 11:38 pm

Jeff, Jeff, Jeff. The only way to 'fight poverty' is to remove Government from the equation. Since LBJ's 'War on Poverty', 10 TRILLION dollars has been spent by taxpayers to fund the Government's 'War'. All that money is oxygen sucked out of the room, which could have instead impelled market forces to provide jobs and upward mobility to the impoverished. Heck, if a lump-sum payment to each 'beneficiary' of the so-called War on Poverty had been payed, the recipients could scarcely be worse off than they are now. Misplaced pity and compassion are the enemy of equality and progress and social justice. As to the gun nut notion you have - ask people in Iran, Cuba, North Korea, China and even more recently, Great Britain and Australia if confiscation of guns has made them more safe or free.

Posted by Guest on May. 09, 2010 @ 7:28 pm

If they're on the no fly list they oughtn't have any of their other privelages either. No warrant? No problem. Like Bush said: The Constitution is just a piece of paper. It's good that Democrats are finally coming around to this way of thinking. Renewing the Patriot Act, signing in the Military Commissions Act... And now, pending bipartisan legislation will enable the government to arbitrarily strip U.S. citizenship from those it considers as having terrorist ties. In the end, it really doesn't matter which party lays down the law, as long as it gets layed. The only way America's going to be restored to its former glory is by reigning in some of these so-called freedoms. As the Romans used to say - dura lex sed lex!

Great title by the way. The "other," these inferiors need to be put in their place... As with cancer, sewing division in the American fibre saves us from greater hardship later on... Enlightenment of governance and culture must be so much easier to come by in San Fransisco.

Posted by Geist on May. 09, 2010 @ 8:52 pm

Please note: 1] Unalienable Rights predate government. 2] Unalienable Rights, akin to breathing, require neither permission nor affirmation to exist. 3] Unalienable Rights are not subject to revision, amendment, revocation, nor the democratic process. 4] SCOTUS has consistently ruled the police are not responsible for the safety of the individual citizen.
"The merit of our Constitution is not that it promotes democracy, but checks it." - Horation Seymour
Since the definitions of "unalienable" and "infringed" remain the same today as they were in the 18th century when the Bill of Rights was ratified, one wonders exactly what part of "shall not be infringed" does the author of this piece fail to grasp?
"In a free nation, government has no authority to forbid me from speaking because I might shout 'Fire!' in a crowded theater. Government has no authority to forbid me from using my fist to defend myself because I might also use it to strike your nose. And government has no authority to forbid me from owning a firearm because I might shoot an innocent victim." - Tom McClintock

Posted by Guest on May. 10, 2010 @ 4:04 am

More logic from our conservative bretheren.
And pray tell brother McClintock, would this same rationale be applied to
an Uzi, Mac -10, or even a suitcase version of a nuke ? At what point does the government-if ever- have right to say "no"-the safety of many/most over the "right"of a few ?

Posted by Guest mainsqueezer on May. 11, 2010 @ 3:54 pm

Perhaps if you read, you would know the quote "keep and bear arms"

Nuclear weapons (in addition to being so expensive as to be outside the purchasing capability of a vast majority of humanity and many 3rd world nations) are hardly arms. The very definition, when taken in context with "keep and bear" implies the weapons commonly carried/used by the average soldier, when taken in parity with the intention of the founders to have a populace equiped to deal with invasion and tyranny. Such planned opposition hardly need strategic weapons, the equivilent of a ship of the line for the founder's day. Even in the founder's time, such weapons as cannon were owned in community trust, per se, as part of the town's defenses. Only a very wealthy individual could afford the price tag of Ernyx or Dragon guided anti-tank missile and the munitions sufficient to be proficient with its use. Perhaps only the AT4 makes much sense, since a training launcher using 9mm ammo could be practiced with for cheap. RPG-7s, at still a few hundred a pop for ammo and launcher, would be very expensive still to own for anything other than show an tell...

Why do you think so few people own rifles chambered in .50 BMG? They are expensive to own and operate and not terribly much fun when you you don't have the room or a place too shoot. This is more a case of the same sort fo thing we see with drugs and kids... because you ban it, they want it. Unlike drugs, once they have it, most won't even understand how to operate it... so it becomes something to show off...

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2010 @ 10:28 pm

I guess where I part company with many of the folks who've commented here is that I don't think anyone has a fundamental right to a gun. I don't want to take all the guns away; I just think that gun ownership ought to be something more akin to the right to drive a car -- something almost anyone can have, and that isn't all that hard to get, but that, in the end, is a privilege that can be revoked for abuse (or because public safety requires it). People who drvie drunk can lose the "right" to drive. In fact, if you refuse to take a blood-alcohol content test, you can lose your "right" to drive.

I know a lot of people who shouldn't have guns, particularly handguns, which exist only to kill other human beings, are lousy for self-defense and win up killing thousands of innocent people every year. It's too easy to get one.

Posted by tim on May. 10, 2010 @ 11:15 am

First of all, there is no right to drive. Just as the founders did not put in a right to ride a horse or drive a wagon team.

"I know a lot of people who shouldn't have guns, particularly handguns, which exist only to kill other human beings, are lousy for self-defense and win up killing thousands of innocent people every year. It's too easy to get one."

That's nice, I know alot of people who shouldn't be driving... and we see how that's working out. Score one for ole gov't. The second half of your statement is contradictory.. either handguns are ineffective.. or they are either effective and kill thousands each year... not both. SO, guess what... let's prosecute people for negligent homocide under that laws we have now rather than ban guns because your too spineless to enforce the law or too scared to leave you home because of something stupid someone "might do".

Educated gun owners know handguns are defensive weapons.. meant to preserve life until something bigger can be used or the criminal departs... with the later happening most often. In fact, of the huge majority of the gun uses involve simply threatening to use the weapon or brandishment of the weapon to end confrontation... entirely at odds with your insinuation. In fact, if we elimenate all the crimes with guns by gangs (whose members are already FORBIDDEN from owning firearms!) or firearms acquired illegally through smuggling or black market sources, gun crime with legally sold firearms constitutes a small fraction of the deaths... meaning lawful firearms owners are by in large... law abiding citizens... image that.

Alittle less than 94,000 people died from homocide with a firearm between 1999-2006, according to the CDC... Meanwhile firearms were employed in an est 2.0-2.5 million DEFENSIVE uses EACH year.. With somewhere around 280 MILLION firearms, that means it took somewhere around 3000 firearms 6 years to kill one person or 18000 firearms one year to kill one person... This compared to the 125 firearms it takes to save a life every year or 21 guns six years to save a life. The math just doesn't add up. Statistically speaking, it make more sense in the US to ban firearms because of over population than potential crime. And gun bans have yet to work in Britian and Austrialia, two countries which occupy ISLANDS and constitute the sole government of the land mass and they still have RISING crime rates... where as ours have fallen over the past two decades, largely attributed to increased freedom in the carrying of weapons and the lowest drops have been in states where concealed carry is legal and "shall issue"

Meanwhile, cities like Chicago and New York have not seen nearly the fall and, given investigations into the lack of reporting of crimes (search villagevoice.com "NYPD Tapes") on the part of police forces, its entirely possible they have not seen much of a drop at ALL.

The founders stated CLEARLY that the right to bear arms PRE-EXISTED government and could not be taken away. What part about that are you not understanding? What part about a human's right to preserve their own LIFE in the most effective means possible are you not getting?

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2010 @ 10:58 pm

If 1) Terrorists or their wanna be cohorts are cold blooded killers that leveled the World Trade Center and must be segregated by their suspicious activity by being placed on "no fly lists", but
2) Must be afforded the Constitutional right to bear arms, then we must infer a few things:

1) Terrorists have constitutional rights, which means all rights in the USBoR--that means due process, right to face one's accuser and the right to a speedy trial. Thus ending the Lieberman hysteria over the expulsion of naturalized Americans, among others.

2) These horrible Islamofascists really ain't so scary or so bad after all, because guns are lethal weapons and if the idea is that they're crazed psycho killers doesn't extend to the possession of actual killing machines, maybe this whole "war on terror" thing is a lot of bullshit, nu?

Just out of curiousity, why are guns somehow exempt from whatever other limits the government would choose to impose--I don't recall there being this kind of fervor from Fiorina or McKlintock or whomever over warrantless wiretaps, in fact, they were for them. Guess the Constitution is a lot like the Bible for the American Right--one can pick and choose which parts they'd adhere to, as suits their needs.

3) I am for the right to bear arms and for the right of anyone to have any kind of arms they choose. However, the NRA's lunacy, as well of that of their adepts is pretty easy to take apart, especially the idea that product liability suits should be illegal, one of their pet ideas. That is ridiculous, but then, the fanaticism over guns is based in primal instinct and not really in rationality.

4)Tim is right about them being shitty for defense. Anyone that's going to shoot you has you beat already, what good is a gun in your house if you aren't home when you're being robbed (as is the case 93% of the time), what item is much in demand with drug dealers (guns) which means a house with a gun in it is more likely to be robbed, not less.

5) Tim should know never to post anything about either guns or abortion. It's like a dog-whistle for the irrational.

Love, Johnny.

Posted by Johnny Angel Wendell on May. 10, 2010 @ 4:49 pm

"3) I am for the right to bear arms and for the right of anyone to have any kind of arms they choose. However, the NRA's lunacy, as well of that of their adepts is pretty easy to take apart, especially the idea that product liability suits should be illegal, one of their pet ideas. That is ridiculous, but then, the fanaticism over guns is based in primal instinct and not really in rationality."

The law bans the use of product liability laws as a venue to sue gun manufacturers for the USE of their weapons illegally. This is a good thing, otherwise, some entities with deep pockets might sue all the computer manufacturers because they sell a device which allows hacking, knowing that it could very well end up being used for that purpose. There is nothing in the ban that forbids the prosecution of a manufacturer for a defective product or one which is unusually unsafe... For instance, a tubular magazine rifle used at the turn of the century or so used ammunition with such sensitive primers than the simple act of LOADING could cause an explosion when chain of cartridges all chain detonated inside the magazine. Such a weapon would still expose its manufacturer to all the legal force of the product laws.

"4)Tim is right about them being shitty for defense. Anyone that's going to shoot you has you beat already, what good is a gun in your house if you aren't home when you're being robbed (as is the case 93% of the time), what item is much in demand with drug dealers (guns) which means a house with a gun in it is more likely to be robbed, not less."

The handgun is the best weapon for defense, giving the user a very small, managable device that is easy to manuever with and only requires on hand to use and discharges a low-velocity round. Its very presence deters attack approximately 90-93% of the time (the remaining 7% of criminal-citizen interactions mostly involve the discharge of a single shot, whether it is a warning/miss or hit, and a very very small fraction being an actual "shoot out" And when these shoot outs occur, you ever notice how rarely it happens in states where guns are more... let's say, common?

This is why more than 40 states have concealed carry laws... Besides, its why we teach AWARENESS.. someone who looks like they aren't hanging out for the scenery or wondering round eyeballing people, they are looking for trouble... You should never be caught off-guard and "suddenly" shot. Its why I don't go out and drink anymore, I don't go into the "bad" places where everyone knows crime happens. I keep my head on a swivel.

The handgun is in demand by the drug dealer for the same reason it is by law-abiding citizens. If drug dealers started demanding sharpened tooth picks, are we going to ban those too? If the handgun is so ineffective as a man stopper, why are the dealers using them? As I stated in response to Tim, a handgun is an effective defensive weapon. Its why the drug dealers use them... not to go killing people but mostly to protect themselves... and since it is responsible for most of the "thousands" each year, it must be working pretty well, all things considered. However, handguns actually only kill their target about 20% of the time... mostly due to poor shooting on the part of the thug or the flight after being hit once. But it stops the threat and that's all law-abiding citizens want... to stop the threat.. I don't want to kill people, even if they threaten me. I don't live in fear of them and only desire to stop their attack. Let the law enforcement prosecute them for attempted robbery when they catch them.

Guns in a house make them more likely to be robbed only if they know the guns are there... Don't tell anyone the guns are there, and your home would be less likely to be robbed, eh? Where I live, people don't rob houses with guns... too much chance someone will be home to put a hole in them. No study I have seen bears out your claim of owning a gun in the home makes robbery more likely... I can see its truth in states where there is no legal means to take it with you, ergo, you departing your domicile where you live alone opens the invitation... but then again, were I a thief, I'd be more interested in your flatscreen you just purchased and I watched you carry in the door than some cheap pistol you may or may not have (depending on whether or not you have been shooting your mouth off about the new gun you got... like an idiot); TVs are much easier to fence and leave fewer trails than a gun.

Posted by Guest on May. 11, 2010 @ 11:34 pm

There are too many guns out in the streets. Guns in the hands of potential terrorists is easier to obtain than weapons of mass destruction. I say let's pass a new Federal Law that says, "if you're on the no fly list you can't have a gun". If they can do that with domestic violence suspects, they certainly can do it for the "no fly list" people.

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2010 @ 8:47 am

OK... and let the law also say you can't vote, you have no right to freedom of religion, free speech, congregation, freedom from search/seizure and the whole rest of the bill of rights...

And when I report every lib I know like you to the FBI for potential terrorism ties and you find yourself stripped of all your rights without cause or due process... you have only yourself to blaim.

Posted by Guest on May. 15, 2010 @ 1:55 pm

If people on the no-fly list are so dangerous that they can not be trusted with firearms, why not intern them in an internment camp near Lone Pine, California?

Posted by Michael Ejercito on May. 16, 2010 @ 11:03 pm

If people on the no-fly list are so dangerous that they can not be trusted with firearms, why not intern them in an internment camp near Lone Pine, California?

Posted by Michael Ejercito on May. 16, 2010 @ 11:05 pm