Harleyman Posted December 31, 2012 Share Posted December 31, 2012 We reallly shouldn't encourage him ( or her) because his opinions are pretty well worthless. I have come to terms with Swami and others, and am pleased to be able to disagree without dislike. But this one deserves only ignore. I keep him (or her ) on only for the laughs. It's strange that someone whose never served in the military, never had any training in the firing and safe handling of firearms and never visited nor lived in the USA would have so much advice to give. I'll say no more or respond to this individual as I dont want to see the thread closed ---------- Post added 31-12-2012 at 18:16 ---------- What are you blithering on about? Will you READ all the posts. Sanmans #164 post was an addition to his previous post which dosxuk made a constructive criticism of. My post pointed that out to you in a constructively critical way that the UK was mentioned as a comparison, not provoking (unless it's you) just clarifying. The debate went further without a hicup..what's your problem? You didn't read his previous post because you "didn't know him?" Are you serious? You don't know me or anyone on here but it aint stopping you from bellyaching. Well no wonder confusion abounds when you reply on condition you have to know someone as opposed to what they type. It's not as if the posts were separated by 150 other posts which might back up your little tiffle but they were almost back to back. I didn't "provoke" sanman I made an observation on his comment, he made no accusation that you are proclaiming. For gods sake mods pull yer finger out on this paranoid. ---------- Post added 31-12-2012 at 17:03 ---------- I qualified that with "euphamisim" In the interest of the thread though you will be ignored further. Best response from you yet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ronthenekred Posted January 1, 2013 Share Posted January 1, 2013 Why would the amendment need rewording? It doesn't currently say that people have the right to bear any type of arms they want, otherwise there'd be an issue with the prohibition of new machine guns, and 0.50 BMG rifles (California). Seems your point/question was ignored. It doesn't need rewording. It can by many, like pro gunners, possibly be manipulated in the same way sacred texts are manipulated to serve a fanatical cause, and we all know from the past and present the result of that manipulation. The text would have to be crystal clear and not open to misinterpretation or abuse. But, if you print the word BLACK and someone is determined to read it as WHITE, then you may as well be pointing it in the wind. http://www.asahi-net.or.jp/~zj5j-gttl/guns.htm Also ram a wedge between the NRA and the political whores up on the hill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted January 2, 2013 Share Posted January 2, 2013 Why would the amendment need rewording? It doesn't currently say that people have the right to bear any type of arms they want, otherwise there'd be an issue with the prohibition of new machine guns, and 0.50 BMG rifles (California). Well think on it lad. When the Second Amendment was written the only weapons in use were blunderbusses, hand pikes and horse pistols The writers obviously had no clue as to what would come along over 200 years later. I do know that the Supreme Court have debated the right of the citizenry to bear arms more times than I've had hot dinners. The key word here is ARMS. What arms should Americans be allowed to bear in the 21st century? Those who advocate no gun control such as the NRA/gun lobby argue that "arms" mean ANY kind of weapon to be used for recreational purposes and self defence. Those on the other hand who advocate some gun control probably have a good argument that weapons like the .223 Bushmaster equipped with a 60 round magazine have no place in the hands of civilians Then there are those who always raise their hands and shriek about ALL weapons being banned. But most people dont listen to opinions from the latter as it's just not realistic...... unworkable..... unenforceable People against gun control argue that there are no longer needs for Militias. Well there is a need for Militias. Militias are citizen soldiers who along with State National Guardsmen and Reservists ( both also citizen soldiers) exist to serve with the regular military forces when needed. They're also on call to perform a variety of duties in times of disasters either man made or the work of mother nature Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 another shooting http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/headlines/20130203-chris-kyle-record-holding-sniper-as-navy-seal-killed-in-double-slaying-at-erath-county-gun-range.ece a record holding sniper / navy seal shot dead at a shooting range. somebody in the comments posted At noon, Wayne Lapeirre is holding a news conference where he is going to demand that the government pay to post armed security guareds at firing ranges to keep our shooters safe. not sure how true it is but i really hope its not, when will the idiots realise that guns do not stop guns. this shows that despite the amount of skill, practise, and expeience even ex military have, even they can become targets and die, what hope has everybody else got? this happened on a shooting range, everybody has guns and he still got away.....for a time. having an armed guard may mean the shooter dies att he scene but that does not mean the victims are saved, they will almost likely be shot first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 another shooting http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/headlines/20130203-chris-kyle-record-holding-sniper-as-navy-seal-killed-in-double-slaying-at-erath-county-gun-range.ece a record holding sniper / navy seal shot dead at a shooting range. somebody in the comments posted not sure how true it is but i really hope its not, when will the idiots realise that guns do not stop guns. this shows that despite the amount of skill, practise, and expeience even ex military have, even they can become targets and die, what hope has everybody else got? this happened on a shooting range, everybody has guns and he still got away.....for a time. having an armed guard may mean the shooter dies att he scene but that does not mean the victims are saved, they will almost likely be shot first. The former SEAL and another person were shot in the back by a former soldier suffering from PTSD who they had taken to the shooting range. The shooter was caught and will be charged with capital murder. I dont know why there needs to be an uproar about armed guards. Every police agent in the US carries a firearm. Many security guards in banks, Federal and State buldings and many universities are armed also. Having a gun has probably saved many a policeman's life when facing an armed criminal. Armed criminals when cornered are completely unpredictable. They may decide to give up or just chance a shot instead. It can be a very dangerous siuation There are also enough policemen killed in the line of duty to prove that point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 The former SEAL and another person were shot in the back by a former soldier suffering from PTSD who they had taken to the shooting range. The shooter was caught and will be charged with capital murder. I dont know why there needs to be an uproar about armed guards. Every police agent in the US carries a firearm. Many security guards in banks, Federal and State buldings and many universities are armed also. Having a gun has probably saved many a policeman's life when facing an armed criminal. Armed criminals when cornered are completely unpredictable. They may decide to give up or just chance a shot instead. It can be a very dangerous siuation There are also enough policemen killed in the line of duty to prove that point the point is, in this case, or in the case of the recent school shootings would having an armed guard have saved the killing? probably not, when somebody cracks they crack, in 99.9% of the time they dont care about dieing, they need to do what they do. the first an armed guard would see would be a body falling to the ground after being popped in the head, like i said, so wouldnt actually stop the murder, just killing the perp after the fact. just seems an easy way out to me screaming the need for armed guards everywhere, instead of identifying the issues and dealing with em. as for guards in places like banks, thats different, generally bank robbers dont go on a mission to die, they want to escape and spend their loot, nutters who crack dont care Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harleyman Posted February 3, 2013 Share Posted February 3, 2013 the point is, in this case, or in the case of the recent school shootings would having an armed guard have saved the killing? probably not, when somebody cracks they crack, in 99.9% of the time they dont care about dieing, they need to do what they do. the first an armed guard would see would be a body falling to the ground after being popped in the head, like i said, so wouldnt actually stop the murder, just killing the perp after the fact. just seems an easy way out to me screaming the need for armed guards everywhere, instead of identifying the issues and dealing with em. as for guards in places like banks, thats different, generally bank robbers dont go on a mission to die, they want to escape and spend their loot, nutters who crack dont care Whether an armed guard could or could not have prevented the school shooting or any school shooting is debateable but given the choice an armed guard is better than no armed guard. Closed Circuit TV and closing/securing school property to all but the students and school staff is another way. Not all school campuses were designed to be secured. Too many open stretches with only wire fences that any able bodied person could easily scale. Some schools like that of my grand kids can only be entered through the front of the property and there are big steel gates that can close off the entire classroom area. In fact that has been done and CCTV was already installed some time ago. Parents now have to wait in the parking lot in front of the school to pick up their kids. Unfortunately there are a lot of sick minded nasty ******** around who occasionally come out of the woodwork to do horrible things and this of course is completely unpredictable. There is no real cast iron solution to the problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lizmachin Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 Just as an aside. If you were currently living in Boston with an islamist terrorist on the loose and you were now inside your house trying to protect your family from the guy trying to smash down your door... Would you prefer to have a gun or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 Just as an aside. If you were currently living in Boston with an islamist terrorist on the loose and you were now inside your house trying to protect your family from the guy trying to smash down your door... Would you prefer to have a gun or not? Is he gonna hurt me more than a crazed gun wielding non beard wearing Blue eyed "I love Lucy" and Pumpkin pie loving maniac? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted April 19, 2013 Share Posted April 19, 2013 Just as an aside. If you were currently living in Boston with an islamist terrorist on the loose and you were now inside your house trying to protect your family from the guy trying to smash down your door... Would you prefer to have a gun or not? I'd rather not have a gun. From ronthenekreds link - '' research has shown that a gun kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household, or friend, than an intruder.(Arthur Kellermann and Donald Reay. "Protection or Peril? An Analysis of Firearm Related Deaths in the Home." The New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 314, no. 24, June 1986, pp. 1557-60.) The use of a firearm to resist a violent assault actually increases the victim's risk of injury and death(FE Zimring, Firearms, violence, and public policy, Scientific American, vol. 265, 1991, p. 48).'' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.