4/11/2009 5:40pm, #11
Let me be clear... OWNING is a right.
Carrying is an EARNED responsibility.
However, the "both sides are too far out there" is flummery. One side will not be happy until there are no firearms in private hands. That is the goal.
The other says the second amendment means exactly what it says.
I'll go with that second one.....
4/11/2009 8:53pm, #12
I think that's projective. You're opposition might well say you're not happy until there's no gun laws.
4/11/2009 9:18pm, #13
4/11/2009 9:32pm, #14
4/11/2009 11:16pm, #15
The NRA is about law-abiding people owning firearms. Not a single member wants to see guns in the hands of criminals, the insane, or children.
We DO want to see gun crimes dealt with. Do a crime with a gun, you are going away, period.
But the silly crap about "cop killer bullets," "assault weapons," "sniper rifles," et al is the stuff they have used to muddy the waters. Not projections, facts.
As such, I agree with the second ammendment and those who defend it.
4/11/2009 11:20pm, #16
Everyone has the right to keep and bear arms in their homes (castle) for the common defense of their lands and property, and in time of need of the milita.
However, to conceal and carry deadly weapons anywhere you wish is not the same thing. You are no longer in your castle nor standing with the milita.
As such, that right, "ccw" is and should be controlled and regulated. I believe in "shall issue" but I do not believe a person should get a CCW without training as they should.
4/12/2009 12:18am, #17The scam this time was the "shooters" ALL KNEW EXACTLY where the armed citizen was! They directed their fire to the person right after they shot the teacher.
That was a pretty shitty test.
Talking about peripheral vision with the ol simunition darth vader helmets on? You can't see **** all in those even WHEN you're a trained shooter.
I'm actually fairly pro gun control. I think owning a gun should be earned. Background check, safety classes, competence test kinda thing. But wow, ABC was brutal, that show was quite biased.You are not free whose liberty is won by the rigour of other, more righteous souls. Your are merely protected. Your freedom is parasitic, you suck the honourable man dry and offer nothing in return. You who have enjoyed freedom, who have done nothing to earn it
4/12/2009 6:32am, #18
Owning a gun is the right of every person. Carrying it around it the earned part.
Did you see what they said was the best advise if you are in that situation?
Oh, the test they left out. Lets use a school shooting, they brought it up. Lets give them the people in the first classroom are toast. I do NOT agree with that, but lets give it to them for now.
What about the armed person in classroom #2? That person has time to get ready; take up a solid position of cover and concealment, then shoot the killer dead as he expects unarmed sheep for the slaughter.
Odd they didn't try that drill out....
But, "gun control" is the ability to hit what you aim at.
4/12/2009 8:09am, #19
- Join Date
- Oct 2005
- Internet Warrior, BJJ
i like how they repeatedly mentioned the girl in the test was a black belt, as if it that would have any real cross over benefit in this kind of situation.
4/12/2009 8:26am, #20
Well... NEVER forget that the People's Republic of MA tried to ban all "non-sporting" martial arts, years ago.
The push is "you can't take care of yourself, you need the Government to do it for you."
If you think guns scare them, which is why they want to take them away from you; what to you think legitimate martial skill does do them? You can't take that away from people.
I have spoken to people from the old USSR who told me they did combat sambo in the dark with the lights off.... so they would not be seen or caught.