I agree. Just the other day, in Tampa, two officers were shot and killed by a guy that, according to gun control laws, should not have been anywhere near a gun. Last I heard, they are still looking for him. The girl that was driving the car was taken in a questioned, but the shooter is still at large.
Gun control laws certainly did stop the officers from being killed, didn't they. IF they don't care about other laws, what makes you think they're going to abide by gun control laws? It's one of the reasons that, now in the State of Florida, you do not have to have them dead inside your house. If they are threatening you, you can shoot them in the middle of the street. Of course, not very many homeowners have a gun within reach when they're outside of the house. But, one guy did shoot two in the street, and was back home about 20 minutes later. No charges filed against him.

I say that we have enough controls. We need better enforcement of the laws we have. There's a black market out there and it's thriving. Enforcement can not keep up with it.

Driving is a right . . as in freedom of assembly. And, yes, a driver's license is a privilege. It all comes down to how you choose to assert your rights: as an individual or to allow your rights to be managed by the state. Most choose the state because they don't know any better, many because of the convenience but a few tell the cops to go s-h-i-t in their hats and then go beat them up in court.

For those of us that engage in interstate commerce, we have no choice, by choice. Congress is specifically tasked to regulate interstate commerce and, as mentioned above, they've now come to interpret that to mean they can tell us what to eat. They all need to go and we need to start fresh. RIP Burn'em Bob "KKK" Byrd.*


*That could be misconstrued as a tribute. I assure any and all, it is not.

GMAN, I salute you. Post 13,335 is, in my humble opinion, your finest ever on this site. I raise my glass (plastic Pilot 2 for $3 Aquafina) and Salute you again. Cheers!

I own the domain 2AGUN.COM. Your post has motivated me to finally do something with it and anything I do with it, I would like to use your quote.

I don't believe the government should decide who has the right to own or not own a gun for several reasons. As stated before, if a criminal wants a gun, passing a law isn't going to stop them, they're already illegal. Gun control is only going to control the legal and law abiding citizen and prevent them from defending themselves. I know some people believe guns kill people, but that's not true, people kill people. People have been killing each other since neanderthal man could pick up a rock. If someone wants to kill someone, they don't need a gun to do it. In 1981 Morton Grove, Illinois banned guns and their crime rate went through the roof because no criminal was afraid for their lives when they mugged someone or robbed their homes, they knew no guns were going to be present. In response to this, Kennesaw, Georgia passed a law requiring a gun with ammunition to be in every home. The crime dropped immediately, imagine that.

Mandatory Gun Law A Proven Success
Southern U.S. town proud of its mandatory gun law | Reuters

Few people in this world are going to risk their lives over a material possession if they no the likely hood of them being shot is astronomical. In contrast, they are not going to worry about losing their lives if the likely hood of them getting away with it is astronomical as well. I could not find the statistical information on Morton Grove too fast, like I had planned, but the numbers for Kennesaw are in those articles. Anyway, thats just my $0.02

But, you have no problem with government FORCING you to own a lethal weapon? Keep it in your house with children present?

I know.... I know.... people had the CHOICE to give up their homes and move away. :roll:

Seriously, I'm taking it to the extreme to prove a point. How are a people FREE, if the government (local or otherwise) can FORCE them to own a gun? How would they enforce such a law? ILLEGAL search? Waterboarding to overcome a person's 5th Ammendment right not to incriminate himself?

Now.... from the article in Reuters....

So, with population growth, the PERCENTAGE of households that were armed went DOWN.... and so did crime. Hmmm.... :hellno:

So, in other words..... the law is basically neutered and ineffective. They DIDN'T really force every household to be armed. In fact, at 50% participation rate, I'd say they are no different than MANY southern towns.

So, I wonder what the POLICE Lieutenant really thinks caused the crime rate to stay low?

Well.... who would have THUNK it? :whistle:

Ah yes..... there are indeed still a few FREE Americans in that town! ;)

The best friend of my co-driver's brother was having an arguement with his wife last weekend. He screamed at her, "See? this is what you do to me.... you drive me CRAZY!"

While saying that, he picked up his loaded gun, dropped the magazine into his hand, put the gun to his head... and pulled the trigger.

Any questions?

I have a hard time believing he could have accidentally bashed his own brains out with a baseball bat. :cool:

I believe they had two young sons.

Quite obviously, in an agitated state, he didn't think about the round in the chamber. The fact that he ejected the magazine indicates that he actually had no intention of taking his life. The higher the emotions, the greater the likelyhood of making a mistake. Storing a weapon with a round in the chamber is not very smart to begin with. Things happen much too easily even without the emotions running wild.

Some years back, there was a program on TV titled "WISE GUY". It ended when the star of the show, jokingly, put one of the state-prop handguns to his head and pulled the trigger. He knew full well that they were loaded with blanks. He did not know that the expanding gasses from a blank, with the end of the barrel in contact with the skin, is just as lethal as any other round. Those gasses go through the skin and pulverize the tissues inside. He was killed instantly... For a joke. Doesn't mean he wanted to die.

A man drops the magazine out of the weapon, suggests he did not plan to die either. Weapons education and anger management would have been key there.

I must apologize....I believe my point wasn't clear. I wasn't advocating the actual law of forcing everyone to own a gun. I do not believe that is right either. I believe forcing someone to own a gun should be unconstitutional just as much as forcing someone not to. I was merely stating that by knowing your chances of entering a house that possesses a gun has risen, the likely hood of making an illegal entrance to that house would diminish. I agree with your statement that the percentage of homes who posses a gun is probably similar to that of any southern town, the difference is, that is not just any southern town. Kennesaw is a suburb of Atlanta, which is obviously a fairly large city. It is not quite as large as say New York, Chicago, or LA obviously, but its not small either. Kennesaw, isn't a little backwoods southern town where you would expect every home to have a hunter living there, it is a prominent community. The crime rate, theoretically due to location, should be higher than that of say, Bainbridge, GA. Like I said, my point was merely that if you know you are in a town where not possessing a gun is illegal, whether enforced or not, then you know that by breaking into a law abiding citizens house, you have doubled your chances of NOT walking out, you probably won't go in.

GMAN said:

Can you? The second ammendment does not JUST say that the right of the people to bear arms cannot be abridged. There is a "qualifying" phrase preceding those words. It has to do with a MILITIA, which was an 18th century necessity.

Now, I'm not going to debate what a Militia means, or what our founding fathers meant by it. I'm just going to point out that there were TWO clauses to that ammendment. IF the ONLY purpose was to secure the right of the people to own and bear arms, they wouldn't have needed to even MENTION the "militia."

In fact.... given the "anti tyrannical" rhetoric in the Declaration of Independence, and the general "concern" against tyranny of the day, and especially by our forefathers, wouldn't it be "logical" that gun ownership would have been included in the ORIGINAL Constitution? And, if not... wouldn't it have been SPECIFICALLY outlined in the 2nd ammendment WITHOUT any "explanatory phrase?"

Ammendment ONE: Freedom of religion and freedom of speech INCLUDING a free PRESS.

Ammendment Two: The right to own and bear arms by the citizens is a fundamental right. (they didn't SAY that, did they? They included the clause that the RATIONALE for such a right was the need for a MILITIA to protect the states (particularly the frontier states) from foreign incursion.

WHERE in the 2nd Ammendment does it mention TYRANNY? WHERE does it show their "so-called" concern about defending the people from their OWN government?

Now, I'm NOT against the right to own firearms by the citizenry. But, I'm against the USE of the 2nd Ammendment to rationalize the use of ANY kind of arms, and I'm CERTAINLY against the propaganda of the day that says that our government wants to take your guns, and that you NEED them (NOT to hunt deer) but to protect yourselves from your government.

What is "special" about our country is that we change our government by the VOTE... and NOT by revolution or military resistance. Take up ARMS against our government... and you make us no better than the third world countries that you despise.

Are you afraid of the boogeyman under the bed? Geezus! She is replacing another LIBERAL on the court. NOTHING will change (for now.) It is STILL a 5 to 4 "party line" court! If you need a reason to "quake" at night.... just pray one of the Conservative judges doesn't DIE during the Obama administration!

Yes... but still, you prove my point. The man didn't MEAN to kill himself. So... the PEOPLE didn't kill the PEOPLE.... the GUN did! :roll:

There is NO doubt that the man didn't MEAN to kill himself. His wife certainly didn't want to kill him. So.... what was the "variable?" A loaded GUN!

Again I say.... I am NOT against people owning a gun! I am against these RIDICULOUS arguments that the NRA and "others" use to justify gun ownership. If you WANT to have the right to own a gun... FINE! But, PLEASE quit telling me that they are no more dangerous than a baseball bat! :hellno:

Yes, people kill people! With ALL kinds of instruments. But... GUNS DO kill people! CHILDREN die from playing with guns! Wives die from domestic violence when a gun is in the house.

I guess the question is... is YOUR "Right" more important than a child's life?

YOU have to deal with that question. I don't.

And while we're at it... I'm sick of this argument about protecting yourselves from government tyranny! Unless the military joins with YOU... you will LOSE! [And they WON'T!]

What part of WACO don't you understand? :confused:

NO President has EVER challenged the 2nd Ammendment right to own a gun for HOME defense or hunting! And NONE have made any indication that they wanted to take them away from you!

So WHY, for the sake of child safety, or some OTHER crime related reason, won't you COMPROMISE with some kind of gun control?

There is ONLY one reason! You're a bunch of PARANOID rightwing conservatives who think "WE" are out to GET you! :hellno:

Take a CHILL PILL and go back to mowing your yard! :pissedoff: