Gun Rights Upheld in the US

[huggybear]

Gun ownership is a religion because the right of self defense is the most fundamental right of all. Without that, all other rights become meaningless. The police cannot protect you; in fact the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no requirement to protect you.

What is your view on hand guns for convicted felons and mentally Ill having concealed weapons? should they be deprived of their fundamental right to defend themself?

[huggybear]

and ...

now can i get one of those military Humvees with the 50 mm machine gun mounted on my truck? I'm from the Detroit area and when i go into the city of detroit i want to make sure i'm packing heat. am i allowed to buy an M16 assualt rifle?

[Plavt]

However, carrying a gun will not guarantee your safety or ensure you will be left alone. You could be shot in the back or a group of people could jump on you, disarm you and shoot you with your own gun!

This makes no sense. My chances with a gun are much better than without, and having had a very nasty experience, I can tell you that if I had not had a gun on my person, two very large apes in a pickup truck would have whupped the $hit out of me.

......and if they had been armed with weapons of a greater calibre than your own?

Sorry, Plavt, I have yet to hear one gun control advocate explain how taking guns from law abiding citizens makes the world a safer place. When you figure out how to get the guns out of the hands of the criminal element, then come back and talk to me.

I think like many other Americans you will find just any excuse to justify having firearms. You have quoted an incident specific to yourself and are either oblivious or unwilling to consider some wider implications. For example had you been attacked in a crowded shopping mall, oh yes you could have fire your gun but in all probability would have kill or maim half-a-dozen innocent shoppers into the bargain! So there is one example of making things safer for innocent bystanders. This potential scenario is well known by the New York police who patrol the subway since in the past when officers did shoot they shot their own colleagues.

[ProvenPracticalFlexible]

Gun ownership is a religion because the right of self defense is the most fundamental right of all. Without that, all other rights become meaningless. The police cannot protect you; in fact the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no requirement to protect you.

Guns do make your life safer. You just haven't been exposed to the differences between Singapore and other cities. In Singapore, I see six male youths standing around a lamp pole at 2 in the morning, I don't worry. I see six guys hanging around at 2 in the morning in Houston, I cross the street to avoid them. I've seen the East Texas and Louisiana rednecks, drunk, and just itching for a fight (see earlier post about the pickup truck). I've seen the carpenter working on my house robbed at gunpoint as he pulled up to my house (and no I did not live in a slum, they saw his tool chest and decided to take it)... one learns to see if one is being followed before pulling into a driveway at home... it is a common crime. It's ALL too common... enough such that you becoming a victim of crime is rather large.

As said this seems to be a cultural difference. In US people feel the need to protect themselves more often with a gun. For some reason in Western European cities people don’t have such a strong feeling. This doesn’t mean they would be crime free areas. I lived in a few other cities in Western Europe before moving here and yes Singapore for sure is safer then say, Paris or Brussels, but even there I didn’t feel like I would need gun to protect myself.

I’ve visited Texas; I was driving from Houston to Dallas and around, maybe I didn’t realize how risky it’s there. Obviously there is something seriously wrong with the society with that kind of crime happening all the time. Maybe you have to live in US to fully understand it and accept that you need a gun to protect yourself. I expect life being dangerous and needing a gun in my pocket if I would live in Colombia, or Jamaica etc, but not in US, where I’d think most people still can live a normal life without a gun.

[sundaymorningstaple]

I can a second incident to SE's as well. However, in my case it ended rather badly with me killing a guy. This was in November 1969 at our local Holiday Inn where I was the night manager at the time. Had I not been packing, it's doubtful I would be here writing about it now. I was staring down to wrong end of a 12 gauge shotgun held by a doped up crazed hood (one of two) hellbent on robbing the hotel. As they were not wearing masks of any sort my odds of seeing my way out of that alive had I been unarmed are virtually nil. I wasn't carrying per se, I had a sawed-off double-barreled 12 gauge that wasn't much longer then the long-barreled 45 calibre Colt Buntline Special. Interesting tangent, I was the best man at my little sister's marriage to my best friend 12 hours later that same day at 3 in the afternoon.

So yes, it is an equalizer. Oh, the courts did not give people the right to pack sidearms. You cannot pack a concealed weapon unless you have a special permit which I later DID have a carry permit when I was working in Washington DC as most of my offices were in NW & NE DC (both sides of Rock Creek Park - NW very exclusive, NE is the area they tried to burn down during the long hot summer. Never had to pull it though.

What I really find amusing is those who really don't have a real clue as to what we are actually talking about. Nobody is really espousing the carrying of sidearms per se. What we would call a reactionary (like PPF silly statement of needing to carry a weapon around in his pocket). What we are really talking about here is the ability to protect oneself. The ability to have a loaded pistol in the house for self defense is what we are talking about. Not being hamstrung by trigger locks or being unloaded. Which in either case is a recipe for death.

Very few persons outside of the military, police, security and PI's have pistol carry permits. The rest, like myself, are people who find themselves having to carry large sums of moneys at late hours and bad areas. Most, nay, 99.9% of the population do not, nor would not physically carry a pistol unless, like me back then, they absolutely needed to, or when on the farm where I always carry one for vermin. Most crimes do not happen in broad daylight outside. Most are indoors either at home or at work and a large majority of them are committed at night.

[sundaymorningstaple]

As an afterthought, if we didn't have the drug problem in the US that we do (and I also blame that on the liberal reactionaries who don't want the death penalty for drug dealers) then our crime rates would drop drastically and people wouldn't be quite so afraid living in the inner cities near the gettos. Again, another topic but with much, much relevance to guns.

[taxico]

this is one of those hot potato topics that even americans are divided on.

i don't think that non-americans can fully comprehend why the founding fathers decided it was important for the people to have the right to bear arms, and they won't understand why the constitution isn't something to be taken lightly or (more importantly) interpreted wrongly.

like eagle, i believe the judges interpreted it correctly (a basic course or reading up on statutory interpretation will help explain statutory context). there're reasons cited by others in this post that i agree why this should be a basic right, but i won't drone on.

this right has to be tempered with the fact that to legally own a firearm, you need to pass through some hoops. and not everyone can, will or should be able to pass through those hoops.

suffice to say, it doesn't imply that everyone must go out and buy a big ole assault rifle and smuggle in large capacity magazines in from mexico and tie a red handkerchief around their heads.

illegal weapons, statistics, controversy, over-rulings aside, the issue has been decided!

[Strong Eagle]

Gun ownership is a religion because the right of self defense is the most fundamental right of all. Without that, all other rights become meaningless. The police cannot protect you; in fact the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have no requirement to protect you.

What is your view on hand guns for convicted felons and mentally Ill having concealed weapons? should they be deprived of their fundamental right to defend themself?

HB,

The Supreme Court ruling, which I read in its entirety, made clear note that gun ownership is not an absolute right any more than the right of free speech allows you to yell 'fire' in a crowded theatre.

What they did say was that the DC law which prevented a person from having a handgun in the home at all, and required all other forms of guns to be unloaded and under a trigger lock, violated the second amendment. With this, I agree.

I am in favor of background checks (I was checked in order to get a concealed carry permit). I am in favor of clamping down on loosely run gun shows. I am in favor of registration. I also am in favor of concealed carry and the right to self defense of life and property.

[huggybear]

SMS...

why execute drug dealers and not drug users? why not execute both? how do you define "drugs?" Shouldn't "alcohol" be considered a drug since many americans seem to love drinking and driving and randomly killing people?

[Levikane]

Doing a bit of research to get some insight into this topic and found something fascinating.

"Suicides typically make up 56.5% of all gun deaths according to the Bureau Of Justice Statistics."

From: http://www.tincher.to/deaths.htm

[banana]

i don't think that non-americans can fully comprehend why the founding fathers decided it was important for the people to have the right to bear arms

But what about the bears? Don't they need their arms? Who will think of the bears?

[Strong Eagle]

For example had you been attacked in a crowded shopping mall, oh yes you could have fire your gun but in all probability would have kill or maim half-a-dozen innocent shoppers into the bargain! So there is one example of making things safer for innocent bystanders.

Owning a gun and having a concealed carry permit does not absolve anyone from responsibility.

I'll give you another example: You're standing in line at the buffet when the long haired guy in jeans in front of you pulls out a gun, throws another man to the floor and places the gun next to his temple. You have a gun on your person. What should you do?

It would be irresponsible to do anything until you know the fact situation. You might be witnessing a gangland killing. Would you want to interfere with that? You might be witnessing a drug crazed whacko about to take someone out. You might do something about that. Or, you might be witnessing an undercover police officer taking down a dangerous drug dealer. Definitely wouldn't want to shoot.

Or how about one more example: In the last two mass shootings at American universities, not one of the students or teachers had a gun because they were banned from campus. The killer didn't care. If someone had been carrying he could have been shot. But somehow, this point is missed by gun control advocates.

It is important to note that law abiding gun carrying citizens do not commit crime with their weapons. I'll say it again. Until you can show me how disarming the law abiding citizenry controls gun crime, I'll be keeping my gun, thank you.

[sundaymorningstaple]

SMS...

why execute drug dealers and not drug users? why not execute both? how do you define "drugs?" Shouldn't "alcohol" be considered a drug since many americans seem to love drinking and driving and randomly killing people?

As I said, that's another topic so I didn't dwell on it at length, but I've got no problem with that either. But at least if you start hanging the pushers the flow to the users will soon dry up. I'm not going to get into a semantics discussion here. That for the reactionaries. Let's just say "Illegal" Drugs. Doesn't take too much though to understand that does it?

[cutiebutie]

PS: Guns equalize a LOT! You have obviously never been in a situation where you were outnumbered and about to be beaten. You'd be seriously wishing for a gun to 'equalize' things.

So, shooting someone is equal to being beaten? With this logic, then, if you want to punch someone who insulted your wife, stepped on your lawn, took your parking spot etc... then he has the right to shoot you.

After all, you wanted to beat him.

[Strong Eagle]

PS: Guns equalize a LOT! You have obviously never been in a situation where you were outnumbered and about to be beaten. You'd be seriously wishing for a gun to 'equalize' things.

So, shooting someone is equal to being beaten? With this logic, then, if you want to punch someone who insulted your wife, stepped on your lawn, took your parking spot etc... then he has the right to shoot you.

After all, you wanted to beat him.

I am surprised you ask this question CB. I didn't say that shooting someone is equal to being beaten. I said that it equalizes my chance of not being a victim.

You make it sound as though I would be in the wrong for shooting someone in self defense, as though I should allow myself to be beaten rather than shoot someone.

I ask you this: You are about to be sexually assaulted and raped by an intoxicated man, weighing 200 pounds and far stronger than you. You have a gun in your purse. Do you mean to tell me you would not pull the gun out of your purse and shoot him if necessary? Is shooting someone equal to being raped?