*Are Guns Bad?*

[Wry Catcher]

I was attending a Hawks basketball game years ago at the old Omni in downtown Atlanta. We always parked on International Blvd. going down that back hill before the World Congress Center and Georgia Dome were built. Traffic was waiting for the light after the game and an urban outdoorsman and his side kick were doubling as windshield washers asking everyone waiting at that light if they wanted their windshield washed. I told him no. He proceeded to lift my wipers up, spray the windshield with his spray and wipe it off with his rag. "$3 sir" he demanded. I told him to get away from my car Ms. Ethel.
"If you want your wiper assembly intact you will now give me $5" was his reply.
My grandmother had a beautiful white porcelain tea set dating from the 1800s with large shiny white tea sets. The eyes of those urban outdoorsman after I pulled my Ruger .357 Black Hawk out from under the front seat of Ms. Ethel and stuck it on one's nose as he let go of my wiper assembly were twice the size of those shiny white tea plates.

Clearly, you are a racist and hate the poor.

He maybe a racist and hate the poor; however, he is stupid. Had he fired the weapon and killed or injured the jerk who held his wiper hostage, he would have gone to prison; had a LEO observed the behavior, he would have gone to jail (unless it is legal in Georgia to carry a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle); of course he might be really really stupid and pulled an unloaded firearm on a hostile.
A civilized law abiding person would have given the jerk $3 and gone to the police and reported the crime, for he was coerced by force and fear to give up $3 or $5 - for the act is prima facie evidence of a robbery.

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,


1. You miss the whole point of this context.
2. Its obvious its real bad dudes breaking into your house, front and back doors at same time, and they could see you with night vision both doors.
3. You keep trying to defend the possibility, it could be cops or some emergency services.
4. You insinctively want to think the best of the situation, and humanity, giving the bad guys the upper hand in this context.
5. And I think most people are just like you.
6. I think that sort of thinking is foolishness.
7. Oh and thanks! and Happy New Year to you as well!!!


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[chesswarsnow]

Sorry bout that,

I was attending a Hawks basketball game years ago at the old Omni in downtown Atlanta. We always parked on International Blvd. going down that back hill before the World Congress Center and Georgia Dome were built. Traffic was waiting for the light after the game and an urban outdoorsman and his side kick were doubling as windshield washers asking everyone waiting at that light if they wanted their windshield washed. I told him no. He proceeded to lift my wipers up, spray the windshield with his spray and wipe it off with his rag. "$3 sir" he demanded. I told him to get away from my car Ms. Ethel.
"If you want your wiper assembly intact you will now give me $5" was his reply.
My grandmother had a beautiful white porcelain tea set dating from the 1800s with large shiny white tea sets. The eyes of those urban outdoorsman after I pulled my Ruger .357 Black Hawk out from under the front seat of Ms. Ethel and stuck it on one's nose as he let go of my wiper assembly were twice the size of those shiny white tea plates.

Clearly, you are a racist and hate the poor.

He maybe a racist and hate the poor; however, he is stupid. Had he fired the weapon and killed or injured the jerk who held his wiper hostage, he would have gone to prison; had a LEO observed the behavior, he would have gone to jail (unless it is legal in Georgia to carry a loaded firearm in a motor vehicle); of course he might be really really stupid and pulled an unloaded firearm on a hostile.
A civilized law abiding person would have given the jerk $3 and gone to the police and reported the crime, for he was coerced by force and fear to give up $3 or $5 - for the act is prima facie evidence of a robbery.

1. In this case I might agree, he reacted poorly.
2. Poor was the man making demands over washing windows.
3. And poor was the man who pulled a gun perhaps, but,.....
4. It did work though, but it was kinda like hammering in a tack with a sledge hammer.
5. He reacted to his window washers nature, and it may have saved his life, the dude may have had a knife and was about to use it.
6. Could be M-14 could see the agressiveness in this guys eyes, and wasn't taking no for an answer.


Regards,
SirJamesofTexas

 

[Wry Catcher]

The right to arms is all about killing people, as it is sometimes necessary to do so.
Given that, the "many guns are only designed for shooting people" are -exactly- those protected by the Constitution.

"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."

I'm still thinkin'.....the fact, we now have a standing-Army, makes this Amendment a mere antiquity.​

The second amendment refers to a private citizen to bear weapons, not the U.S. Military. And it is NOT outdated.

So you say. Others disagree. Please explain Article I, Section 8, clause 15 and 16 of our Constitution. It suggests, if not fully frames the Second Amendment, as granting the right to bear arms to militias to execute the laws of the union and provides the authority of the state to appoint officers and to train militias.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Militias are defined by clauses covered in Article I, Section 8, paragraphs 15 & 16; militias are trained by officials of the several states, not by private citizens who dress in camouflage and pretend to be partiots and defenders of the Constitution.
Now, don't build a straw man and argue I'm against the ownership of firearms to protect ones life and property. I don't believe guns should be outlawed, but I firmly believe gun ownership must be controlled.
Anyone convicted of a crime of violence, or any crime wherein drug abuse or alcohol abuse resulted in an arrest and conviction, any incident of domestic violence, child abuse - any conviction of a crime against a person - and any hospitalization or civil detention for psychiatric conditions wherein a person has been detained for observation, anyone arrested and convicted of assault where great bodily injury was threatend, any threat to any offical, teacher, bus driver, mayor, senator, etc, etc shall not own, possess, or have in their custody or control any firearm. Possession by someone prevented by law from owning, possessing or haveing in their custody or control a firearm is guilty of a felony and if convicted serve no less than five years in prison for a first offense.
Anyone who may legally own, possess, etc a firearm must be licensed. To be licensed the owner must be at least 16 years of age, meet the legal requirement to own, possess, etc and provide proof of training in the safe use of, transportaton of and laws of firearms. Ownership, possession, etc by an unlicensed person elibible for a license should be a misdemeanor, for a first offense. Second and subsequent arrests and convictions should be a wobbler, files as a misdemeanor or a felony, depending on the prosecutors decision.

 

[rightwinger]

Guns aren't bad...

Bullets are bad

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's been my observation over the years that the most vigorous anti-gun proponents know nothing about guns, are afraid of guns, are not inclined to defend themselves under any circumstances or, typically, all three.

As evidenced by the terms they use and the argumenst they make.
Why do you gun nuts need cop-killer bullets for your assault rifles? Why don'y you just fire warning shots?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So you say. Others disagree.

They can disagree if they want - it just makes them wrong.
The militia and the standing army are, conceptually, practically, legally and constitutuionally, seperate entities.

Please explain Article I, Section 8, clause 15 and 16 of our Constitution.

-To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
-To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

What's to explain?
-Congress has the power to call the militia into federal service.
-Congress has the power to equip, train, and organize the militia when called into federal service.

It suggests, if not fully frames the Second Amendment, as granting the right to bear arms to militias...

Not in the slightest.
-First and foremost, the Constitution does not grant rights.
-Secondly, the terminology in the amendment - the right of the people - defeats this argument, in that the right of the people, not the state, not the militia, not the state militia, is protected.
-Further, the power of the Federal government over the milita exists when the militia is called up, and nothing more - the power to actually RAISE militia rests with the states; this power is not in any way conferred to the states by the Constitution, but is a right interent to the states themselves.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Militias are defined by clauses covered in Article I, Section 8, paragraphs 15 & 16; militias are trained by officials of the several states, not by private citizens who dress in camouflage and pretend to be partiots and defenders of the Constitution.

Nothing in the US Constitution precludes the creation of militia by organizations other than the state.

Now, don't build a straw man and argue I'm against the ownership of firearms to protect ones life and property. I don't believe guns should be outlawed, but I firmly believe gun ownership must be controlled.

As long that that "control" -actually- does what it is supposed to do and doesn't infringe on the right to arms, I'm with you.

Anyone convicted of a crime of violence, or any crime wherein drug abuse or alcohol abuse resulted in an arrest and conviction, any incident of domestic violence, child abuse - any conviction of a crime against a person - and any hospitalization or civil detention for psychiatric conditions wherein a person has been detained for observation, anyone arrested and convicted of assault where great bodily injury was threatend, any threat to any offical, teacher, bus driver, mayor, senator, etc, etc shall not own, possess, or have in their custody or control any firearm.

Many of these are terribly vague, and redundant.
many of these are also already covered by federal, and many state, laws.

Possession by someone prevented by law from owning, possessing or haveing in their custody or control a firearm is guilty of a felony and if convicted serve no less than five years in prison for a first offense.

Posession by prohibited persosns is aready a felony under federal, and most state, laws.

Anyone who may legally own, possess, etc a firearm must be licensed.

This is an infringement on the right to arms, and thus violates the constitution.

...and provide proof of training in the safe use of, transportaton of and laws of firearms.

This is an infringement on the right to arms, and thus violates the constitution.