|| Replies ||

User	Blue Monk | 2008-12-03 |
Subject	untitled
Message	It is said that one third of the general population has some degree of "mental illness". The problem is to determine exactly who is unfit to have firearms handy. That said, guns are too loud anyway. If someone bent on harm sneeks into my house, I’ll take him out quietly so as not to wake anyone else.

User	mae | 2008-12-03 |
Subject	untitled
Message	You know, I have no problem with the Second Amendment. But personally, I don’t like guns and I can’t see myself using one against another human being. I have a problem with people just going out and buying a gun and not taking proper training in knowing how to use it. I don’t want criminals to be the only armed citizens, however. So, for me, I guess I’m really kind of conflicted about it all. Just a few months ago, a man a few miles from here bought guns and went on a shooting rampage. He killed 6 people, completely innocent people. This wasn’t in a city; it was out in the country; the town was mostly just a crossing with a tavern and a gas station. It was determined later that the man had mental problems. There is no requirement for a background check for past criminal activity or mental illness in the state of Washington. Some people think such background checks would have saved these lives; others disagree. I don’t know. I do know our founding fathers could never have imagined what this "right" would eventually protect. mae

User	Blue Monk | 2008-12-02 |
Subject	untitled
Message	In this case it may be that the winner is the only one left alive to write anything at all. Aside from the self protection angle, let’s not forget that at some points in history we have been and may again be called to fight for our very freedom. That’s the real reason for the Second Amendment.

User	mae | 2008-12-02 |
Subject	untitled
Message	The winner writes history, huh? mae

User	Blue Monk | 2008-12-02 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Who determines if an armed citizen is "responsible?" Perhaps if after any unfortunate encounter where possible injury to life was present, the law abiding citizen and his/her loved ones survive such an encounter unharmed. "Gun control means being able to hit what you’re shooting at."

User	mae | 2008-12-02 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Now guys, I didn’t say anyone wanted to make it illegal or take away our right to bear arms. That’s not what I meant. Nonetheless, I may have overstepped my point with my statement, so I will clarify. Everything I’ve read has said that law enforcement supports guns in the hands of private, TRAINED citizens. How many people do you know who have guns also have actual training in the use of a firearm? We are ALWAYS advised by the police to contact them in the event of a violent emergency; to go back inside our homes and lock the door We are told not to go after or confront the criminal. I would call pulling a gun on a criminal confronting him. mae Who determines if an armed citizen is "responsible?"

User	latentlylyrical | 2008-12-01 |
Subject	to mae:
Message	Could you give a specific example of law enforcement agencies that do not like the idea of armed law-abiding citizens. The cops I have talked to have no problem with responsible, law-abiding citizens owning guns; in fact, they appreciate knowing that they are not alone against armed criminals. Think about it, mae...if it becomes illegal for private citizens to own guns, then only the criminals and the police will have guns. Guns are dangerous, yes. As are many things in our society: hot stoves, automobiles, knives, drugs, you name it. The fact is, guns arent the only deadly weapon available to those who want to kill. Why punish law-abiding gun owners in the name of preventing violence when other means of violence will always be near at hand?

User	Blue Monk | 2008-11-30 |
Subject	untitled
Message	I must disagree with that last statement.

User	mae | 2008-11-30 |
Subject	untitled
Message	And that is no comfort at all, guys. Whether she would have or not is a matter of conjecture. The fact is, she walked across the street to my house, borrowed my gun, drove down the highway to a rest area and shot herself with it. She gave me some big story about why she wanted to borrow it and I believed her. I don’t like guns. I didn’t like that one and I’ll never own another one. My husband has one but I don’t know where it is, which is just fine with me. I couldn’t ever shoot anyone, anyway. If someone broke into my house and I pulled a gun out, they’d wind up taking it away from me and shooting me with it. In fact, that’s the fallacy in all this arming of the populace talk. Most law-abiding citizens are not inclined to shoot another person, even in self-defense, though a person might be able to shoot someone to protect their children. Most often, the criminal they are confronting forcibly takes the gun away and turns it on their victim. You wind up with an innocent person being shot and another gun taken for the street. The fact is, most of us just don’t possess the mindset to use a gun against another human being. Check with any law-enforcement agency. They deplore the idea of regular citizens arming themselves for protection. It only adds to the mayhem. mae

User	cabbalistic | 2008-11-29 |
Subject	untitled
Message	That sucks. But like Blue Monk says, she would’ve found another way to kill herself.

User	mae | 2008-11-29 |
Subject	untitled
Message	suicide, cabbalistic. mae

User	Blue Monk | 2008-11-25 |
Subject	untitled
Message	I’ve had two friends who committed suicide by shooting themselves. It seems they were suffering from clinical depression. Too bad it was not diagnosed until AFTER they were dead. Perhaps there would have been some treatment if anyone could recognize the signs. As to the guns... either guy could have figured out other ways t do themselves in, but perhaps it would not have been so "easy". There will always be a catch as to the exercise of our rights. In my own opinion neither of my friends should have had a gun available to them, but as an undiagnosed mental illness in both cases, no one could tell that there was a problem until it was too late. Fortunately neither were inclined to take anyone with them but that’s not always the case. In every beautiful meadow there’s a cow pie somewhere waiting to be stepped in.

User	cabbalistic | 2008-11-22 |
Subject	untitled
Message	’I owned a gun once. I friend of mine borrowed it and killed herself. She left two little boys motherless and I haven’t owned or shot a gun since. Nor will I ever again.’ !!! Suicide, or accident?

User	mae | 2008-11-21 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Sheakhan: Solution? Make gun ownership less a privledge and a choice, and more mandatory, So what then, for people like me who won’t have a gun in the house? Will I be breaking the law for NOT owning a gun? That’s absolutely ludicrous. I owned a gun once. I friend of mine borrowed it and killed herself. She left two little boys motherless and I haven’t owned or shot a gun since. Nor will I ever again. So arrest me. mae

User	liquid | 2008-11-21 |
Subject	untitled
Message	I’m sorry, I don’t quite understand. How, exactly, is giving everyone a gun going to PREVENT gun violence?

User	Sheakhan | 2008-11-03 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Simple fact: The harder it becomes to obtain guns, the less people will own them. Those who obtain them illegally, and subsequently use them illegally will continue to do so. The result? The few people with guns have more power. The unarmed will be less defended. The likelihood of terrible gun crimes will increase. Gun control simply takes guns away from honest, law abiding citizens, and does nothing to reduce the power wielded by those who obtain, and will continue to obtain their weapons illegally. Solution? Make gun ownership less a privledge and a choice, and more mandatory, increase safety regulations on gun placement in the home to reduce likelihood of children finding them or playing with them. The result? If everyone has a gun, or is likely to have a gun, the rate of attacks will likely lower, considering that only a truly foolish individual is apt to pull a gun on someone else who has a gun surrounded by people who also have guns. This has been proven to work in the past, in a town in georgia: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1818862/posts and in the whole of Switzerland: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland Moral of the story? Guns kill people, and criminals are just as afraid of being shot as anyone else.

User	latentlylyrical | 2008-11-02 |
Subject	untitled
Message	I am glad to have my snake gun under my bed. Snakes are dangerous, and plentiful. They also come in many varieties, including those with legs. No one will be dragging me or my girls off at gunpoint, if it should ever come to that. Not without a fight, anyhow.

User	Blue Monk | 2008-11-01 |
Subject	untitled
Message	A big rush to buy guns is going on right now across the USA. Apparently many people are realizing that if Obama wins, their right to purchase and even own firearms may become seriously erroded. That’s a shame too, because probably no one needs a gun handy to protect themselves and their family more than the inner-city blacks who will apparently be the deciding factor to put Obama in. "History teaches that all conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by doing so." Adolf Hitler "The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subject races to possess arms." Adolf Hitler "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." Thomas Jefferson "The world is filled with violence. Because criminals carry guns, we decent law-abiding citizens should also have guns. Otherwise they will win and the decent people will lose." James Earl Jones "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." Richard Henry Lee ’Whoever said the pen is mightier than the sword obviously never encountered automatic weapons." General MacArthur "Americans have the right and advantage of being armed, unlike the people of other countries, whose leaders are afraid to trust them with arms." James Madison "To my mind it is wholly irresponsible to go into the world incapable of preventing violence, injury, crime, and death. How feeble is the mindset to accept defenselessness. How unnatural. How cheap. How cowardly. How pathetic." Ted Nugent "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." Joseph Story "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe." Noah Webster "Gun Control: The notion that Matthew Shepard tied to a fence post in the middle of Wyoming is morally superior to Matthew Shepard explaining to the local sheriff how his attackers got all those fatal bullet holes." Dan Weiner "Hell, when the man said Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, I just thought he was making a delivery!" James Wesley, Rawles "I believe that guns don’t kill people, husbands that come home early do." Daniel Lawrence Whitney (Larry the Cable Guy) "Give a guy a gun, he thinks he’s Superman. Give him two and he thinks he’s God." Superintendent Pang from the film Hard Boiled "Guns. Lots of guns." Neo from the film The Matrix "The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it’s goodbye to the Bill of Rights." Unknown "Guns don’t kill people, people kill people." Unknown "If we outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." Unknown "You want more gun control? Use both hands." Unknown "Smith & Wesson, the original point and click interface." Unknown "Guns, the American way to keep crime at bay. "Civilized" Europeans must settle for extra Vaseline. Oh, the criminals are not worried at all and look forward to having plenty of helpless victims. The new anti-gun laws should work at least as well as the current crop of anti-drug laws and the so-called "war on drugs". We can call the new one a "war on formerly legal gun owners." It all boils down to having yet another means to control people, if and when the "law" decides to. On the other hand, the "war on drugs" might become more reasonable under Obama. As long as they keep the jails full, they don’t care how it’s done. God bless America, regardless of what Obama’s own preacher says.

User	Blue Monk | 2007-12-12 |
Subject	untitled
Message	I’m still laughing about the Right to Bare Arms.

User	machine dream | 2007-12-11 |
Subject	untitled
Message	Nations with similar governments and religions are the least likely to wage war on each other. If a nation wants to go to war the UN is powerless to stop it. Regarding the media prepping the people, they’ve been doing so for years. It’s been a long time since I read a news item about a woman shooting a rapist, grandpa shooting a burglar, or another deserving degenerate.