You know that crime rates in European countries where guns are not allowed are lower than the one in US, right? You know that gun related crime ratio to all crimes in Us is higher than other countries with similar crime rate, but guns are not allowed, right? You know guns related crimes cause more demage and are more severe comparing to other crimes, right? What's your conclusion then? BTW, low crime rate in Swissland is because their education level, social wealth and other factors or because everyone has a gun? What's your conclusion? If the answer is education and social wealth, isn't it fair to say that before the society reaches that level, guns should be banned? If the answer is the latter one, then it's time to require everyone to have a gun. We can see the result later on.
thegary: here is some advice that you should consider before posting things like this. Each time before you post, I want you to remember this. "Anything too stupid to be said is sung." -Voltaire
Oh say can you see, by the dawn's early light, what so proudly we hailed, at the twilight's last gleaming? Whose broad stripes and bright stars, through the perilous fight, o'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming. And the rocket's red glare, the bombs bursting in air, gave proof through the night, that our flag was still there. Oh say does that star spangled banner yet wave, O'er the land of the free, and the home of the brave.
A) how many hunters do you actually know, and of those, how many have you asked what type of guns or other weapons they carry while hunting? hanguns are a viable weapon when deer and bear hunting. B)maybe you dont like guns, but thats not a good reason not to allow them. don't obfuscate the argument, its clear most gun crimes are with stolen or illegal guns. not many duck hunters rob banks.
Has it ever occcured to you that, if there is no legal weapons, it's very difficult to get illegal weapons as well? If there is not even legal gun in the society, one would NOT have the perception to get an illegal gun to start with. People will come up with other ideas with crimes, instead of automatically thinking of a gun, legal or illegal.
I'm born and raised in Alabama dude. Don't talk to me about bein' surrounded by hunters. Handguns don't give you the range or accuracy that you would want if you're hunting. A rifle is sufficient for hunting purposes. I cannot dream of a scenario I or my friends have been in where a pistol would be preferrable to a rifle. I'm not obuscating the argument. I 'm pointing out that a support of use of guns for SPORTING PURPOSES does not conflict with a call for a ban on HAND GUNS. Most people object to gun control because of the uses they want out of their guns. But non-criminals do not need hand guns for any discernible purpose.
Well, I went home with the waitress The way I always do How was I to know She was with the Russians, too I was gambling in Havana I took a little risk Send lawyers, guns and money Dad, get me out of this I'm the innocent bystander Somehow I got stuck Between the rock and the hard place And I'm down on my luck And I'm down on my luck And I'm down on my luck Now I'm hiding in Honduras I'm a desperate man Send lawyers, guns and money The **** has hit the fan Send lawyers, guns and money...
There are many who would say that the interpretation that is being used by the DOJ, which by the way doesn't even quote the entire amendment, is incorrect. The text of the second amendment states: "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." Those that defend gun control laws state that: As the United States Supreme Court wrote in its fullest discussion of the Amendment's meaning, the "obvious purpose" of the Amendment was "to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness" of state militia forces. United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 178 (1939). The Court added: "It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view." Therefore, the necessity of maintaining effective state militias is, by the language itself, the only concern of the Amendment, and the right to keep and bear arms exists only to the extent necessary to meet that concern. There is nothing in the Amendment's language even remotely suggesting a constitutional right to keep and bear arms for hunting, self-protection, target shooting or other individual pursuits unrelated to the operation of state militias. http://www.gunlawsuits.org/defend/second/articles/illusion.php What follows are mentions of the right to bear arms in the documents leading up to the codification of the 2nd Amendment. Most are referenced on this site or others. Those that are not are transcribed from the publication The Bill of Rights (National Archives and Records Administration, 1980). From the Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776): That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state... From the Vermont Constitution (1777): That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State... From the Articles of Confederation (1781): ...every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage. From the New Hampshire Ratification Document (1788): Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion. From the Virginia Ratification Document (1788): That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state... That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead. From the New York Ratification Document (1788): That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state. From Madison's Introduction of the Bill of Rights (1789): The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. From the Report of the House Committee of Eleven (1789): A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms. From the amendments as passed by the House (1789): A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person. From the amendments as passed by the Senate (1789): 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. From the Rhode Island Ratification Document (1790): That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state... http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_2nd.html
i'm not going to argue if a handgun is a better weapon while hunting cause it's not. a bow isn't usually a better weapon either when compared to a rifle and they're still used. but what i will argue is that handguns are used in certain situations, just because you or your friendshave never been in a situation that would call for it, doesn't mean it doesn't exsist. see above, we'll agree to disagree on this one. yes that had occured to me, but removing any and all guns from society works as well on paper as our rockets have this season. play this scenario for a second, and pretend that we the US were going to remove all firearms, handguns, rifles, ect., it would be impossible. even if the law abiding citizens went along with the plan you still have your criminals that aren't giving up their heat for nothing.
A. Wow, it is extremely rare, and utltimately ridiculous to hunt dear or bear with a pistol. B. I dont like guns. Its a chorus of excuse making at its finest to find the NRA wussies crusading along to protect the "rights" of Americans to bear arms. My best friend was killed by a hand gun shot to the face while working a desk in Waldorf, MD. I dont believe for ONE second, he would be alive today if he was carrying a pistol too. PS, tell the duck hunter to just use a shotgun like everyone else or a rifle like a few.
drop the first part about the militia and you have, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." 1)the right of the people - meaning citizens are allowed 2)to keep and bear arms - to own and possess guns 3)shall not be infringed - will not be encroached on citizens are allowed to own and possess guns it will not encroached on
bears are extreme, but small game such as rabbit, and boar are excellent for hunting a handgun. especially if a boar is charging at you, its easier and quicker to aim a handgun than a rifle, and you aren't out running it, i'll tell you that. you have a good reason not to like guns, but calling it a "right" is incorrect. it is a right like consuming alcohol is a right. its gauranteed in the constitution and until there is an amendment it will continue to be a right. your friend, that was killed, what was the situation in which he was shot? was he being robbed, did he piss someone off, or why did it happen?
legal owners if they're stolen from a house or car. legal dealers if they're stolen from a store or flea market maybe.
Ive seen more hunters in my life then I care to discuss at this point. Ive lived in Texas and in PA. I have yet to hear or see ONE single person use a pistol to hunt anything. My friend was the victim of just a random act of crime. No reason, no robbery. I would imagine most killed with hand guns, would have no ability to ever defend themselves with their own handgun.
