It does no such thing. It eases their minds and frees them to study.

Taking rights that affect them is admitting defeat and weakening their positions later in life.

They said the same about security guards...yet, nearly every HS across the nation has them.

They said the same about metal detectors...yet how many schools have them installed across the nation?

Going for a statement that either side of the discussion would feel at home using...:D

If you look back, I have not advocated taking away rights. I'd like to see citizens retain their rights and gun owners become more responsible with their cache. In this case, locking the guns up could have thwarted the killings. If everybody locks up their guns, there will be far fewer accidents, period.

That wouldn't have prevented Columbine though. An armed guard on the premises didn't stop it either.

Mmmm, is that not what I'm saying all along.

Break ins and murdered home owners aside.

The utopian solution you propose leaves out the criminal equation. With that nothing changes but the rights of the law abiding people.

So you're saying I am being duped by gun-sellers?

Really?

Because of this latest attack on my rights I I'll probably rejoin the NRA. I haven't been a member in over 30 years. An attack on my rights is an attack on me and I will join with other like-minded people as an act of self-preservation.

Signed,
A. Pawn

I mean keep them locked up unless you are in possession and control.

In my house weapons are in my possession and control whether I am present or not. See, my assumption is that my home is inviolate. A person present without my permission is a criminal and it is not my responsibility to protect him.

In fact, the opposite.

Well if you gun gets stolen out of you house and is used to murder someone I would like to see you in jail for a very very long time.

I do not understand the issue with locking up guns when they are not in use and no one is present.

Being in the house IS "locked up". The crime of breaking in and stealing the gun is where the problem starts.

I love guns, love shooting them, love holding them, just love them. But I don't love to have them in my house, the responsibility is to great a burden for me. I have more important things to worry about.

Unless your house has no windows and is built like Fort Knox, it is not locked up. There's also the hot new GF who you might have staying the weekend, the guy who comes to measure for carpets, the bug exterminator. Anybody could spread the word you have guns laying around, and a broken window later they are gone. Criminals don't obey laws, right?

Most people won't lose it but really angry, isolated people might react poorly to spending hours sighting on and shooting swarms of geeks. Seems like the deal now with games is it's OK to slaughter zombies cause they're not people.

To a guy like Lanza, I could imagine he might see the general public as zombies. Buncha people he doesn't like and can't relate to.

When you assume....

By definition, the weapon is not in your control if you don't have the ability to take it into your hands. It may be in a controlled environment....

Would you leave the cash equivalent of your gun lying on the kitchen table when you are not home?

I know I don't.... not expecting to get broken into and burglarized, but it has happened, so I don't make it easy in case it happens again.

Locking up your weapon when you are not home is not protecting the criminal, it's protecting everyone else.

I forget what country, maybe S. Africa but I was reading that while gun safes were widespread there was a problem with gang home invasions where they would hold the residents captive and use various sorts of coercion to force them to open the safe to get at the guns.

Fort knox huh. So the police state is at home? Gun safes are not impenetrable.

How about the death penalty for stealing one of these weapons of doom? It puts the responsibility at the feet of the criminals instead of creating more criminals for owning the weapons.


iPhone 4

When we characterize each other as illogical, insane and unsafe it is easier to ignore each other.

That's why I like to call it safer storage - safer than leaving them lying around all over the place. Anyone who doesn't see this an acceptable start is deluding themselves. And, the delusional can always find reasons to maintain their status quo.

For example....

When we characterize each other as illogical, insane and unsafe it is easier to ignore each other.

They aren't "weapons of doom" until they are used to kill innocent people. The goal is to keep them from becoming weapons of doom in the hands of the wrong people, as well as removing the opportunity for government representatives and others to call them such.

That is correct.

- Peter

Clearly, ole Ben was living in a different era.

We did just that here in Canada and I don't think we're suffering for it, excpt it's not temporary - it's part of our culture. It's no secret that Canadians value safety as much as freedom but given a choice they'll take safety first. Both by being and having a sense of safety, we've become free by that virtue.
There's no violent gun culture here. We trust the police to take of things and we know that we won't encounter an armed drunk or anyone else with a bad temper. This soceity as a whole is law abiding and peaceful. Who wouldn't want that for themselves and their family?

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/mobileweb/2012/10/14/gun-crime-canada_n_1964750.html

"OTTAWA - Crimes involving guns cost Canadians more than $3 billion a year, suggests an internal Justice Department study that may stoke the gun-control debate."


iPhone 4

If we wanted what Canada has to offer, I'm sure that we would have taken it years ago, and you'd be enjoying the same freedoms we have here in the US. We decided that Hockey was so bad that we didn't even have a season for it this year.

Old Ben had his words right...To most of us int he US, our liberty, our freedoms are much more important than perceived safety.

Who you gonna lock up if it is a corporate owned or government owned gun?

First in line of responsibility.

So if someone steals your car and crashes into a crowd,killing a bunch of people,should YOU or the person that stole your car be held responsible?

Objects whether guns,cars, or knives can not do anything unless someone picks them up and uses them for evil.

OK, as long as we cannot shake the apples and oranges car comments...

If you left your keys in the car with kids in it, and they started the car and ran people over.... Do you think you have any liability?

Cars are not guns and guns are not cars. Different rules apply. Not sure why people insist on treating them as equals.

Cars, hammers, guns.... they are all the same. Sporks too, a person who really cared could find a way to kill people with a spork....

If sporks are outlawed, only outlaws will have sporks.

I disagree -- it is in my control as it is in my house and my house is in my control, whether or not I am present. Were that not the case I would not have to carry liability insurance. I could tell the judge, "Hey, I wasn't home when the kid locked himself in the abandoned fridge" and everything would be okay.

I don't leave cash or guns on my kitchen table. "... a place for everything..."

Then why do people(not you specifically) keep saying we have to register cars and not guns? I am only bringing up the fact that some people WON'T separate the two.

I can see your point, but if you are held liable for the abandoned fridge, do you not imagine that people will want to hold you responsible for crimes committed with your stolen guns?

There are already insurance companies that will either not insure, or raise the premiums to insure homeowners with guns.

I believe David is in favor or registering guns....

Cars are the gun freaks favorite strawman.... look at how many people they kill.... they should be banned.
But, that argument cuts both ways, as cars are registered and regulated in ways that guns are not. It's a piss poor argument, and has done nothing to further the cause of the gun owners.
How about periodic gun inspections? Just like a car? Bring it in and show that it remains in your possession, is in good working order, and has not had any illegal modifications??

Illegal modifications of a vehicle means you cannot operate it on public roads...would the same go for firearms?

Handguns kill less people than fully automatic abortion clinics. Hows that for a strawman?


iPhone 4

Funny, when people kill people its usually because of a mental health issue.
Except when they do it with a gun.
Then it becomes a constitutional issue.

I think murder is murder no matter what weapon is used.
Guns, knives, sporks, dont kill people.
Mentally ill people do.

Maybe the answer lies in mental health care, and not constitutional law ?
And keeping sporks out of the hands of the criminally insane !

Not always. The mass murders are generally mental illness related, but in "normal" murders, arguments, drug deals, and robberies are popular circumstances. Read here:

FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 10

I agree with you about murder being murder, however you don't have to be mentally ill to commit it.

Given the number of crazy people I encounter on a regular basis, I think better access to mental health resources would probably be a good thing. And everyone knows no good can come from sporks.

More interesting reading here:

FBI — Expanded Homicide Data Table 8

FBI — Murder

Fridges have low value as a tool of self-defense.

Gun Control Tramples On The Certain Virtues Of A Heavily Armed Citizenry - Forbes

The Second Amendment was designed to ensure that individuals retained the right and means to defend themselves against any illegitimate attempt to do them harm, be it an attempt by a private outlaw or government agents violating their trust under the color of law. The Second Amendment was meant to guarantee individuals the right to protect themselves against government as much as against private bad guys and gangs.

That is why the gun grabbers’ assault on firearms is not only, not even primarily an attack merely on the means of self-defense but more fundamentally, the gun grabbers are engaged in a blatant attack on the very legitimacy of self-defense itself. It’s not really about the guns; it is about the government’s ability to demand submission of the people. Gun control is part and parcel of the ongoing collectivist effort to eviscerate individual sovereignty and replace it with dependence upon and allegiance to the state.

Well I guess now we all know what the second amendment is about and can quit arguing.

http://i168.photobucket.com/albums/u...ps44c8a9a9.gif

When exactly does this happen? Can you actually give some modern day examples when guns were used to protect an individual's rights from being taken by the federal government?

Battle of Athens (1946) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Battle of Athens Tenn 1946 - YouTube


Editor's Note — Our attention has been called to Mrs. Roosevelt's column
upon McMinn. She seems to have grasped the facts and significance better
than any other outside writer:

McMinn A Warning — By Eleanor Roosevelt

New York, Monday — After any war, the use of force throughout the world
is almost taken for granted. Men involved in the war have been trained
to use force, and they have discovered that, when you want something,
you can take it. The return to peacetime methods governed by law and
persuasion is usually difficult.

We in the U.S.A., who have long boasted that, in our political life,
freedom in the use of the secret ballot made it possible for us to
register the will of the people without the use of force, have had a
rude awakening as we read of conditions in McMinn County, Tennessee,
which brought about the use of force in the recent primary. If a
political machine does not allow the people free expression, then
freedom-loving people lose their faith in the machinery under which
their government functions.

In this particular case, a group of young veterans organized to oust the
local machine and elect their own slate in the primary. We may deplore
the use of force but we must also recognize the lesson which this
incident points for us all. When the majority of the people know what
they want, they will obtain it.

Any local, state or national government, or any political machine, in
order to live, must give the people assurance that they can express
their will freely and that their votes will be counted. The most
powerful machine cannot exist without the support of the people.
Political bosses and political machinery can be good, but the minute
they cease to express the will of the people, their days are numbered.

This is a lesson which wise political leaders learn young, and you can
be pretty sure that, when a boss stays in power, he gives the majority
of the people what they think they want. If he is bad and indulges in
practices which are dishonest, or if he acts for his own interests
alone, the people are unwilling to condone these practices.

When the people decide that conditions in their town, county, state or
country must change, they will change them. If the leadership has been
wise, they will be able to do it peacefully through a secret ballot
which is honestly counted, but if the leader has become inflated and too
sure of his own importance, he may bring about the kind of action which
was taken in Tennessee.

If we want to continue to be a mature people who, at home and abroad,
settle our difficulties peacefully and not through the use of force,
then we will take to heart this lesson and we will jealously guard our
rights. What goes on before an election, the threats or persuasion by
political leaders, may be bad but it cannot prevent the people from
really registering their will if they wish to.

The decisive action which has just occurred in our midst is a warning,
and one which we cannot afford to overlook.

Pearl High School, Mississippi: This incident began the morning of Oct. 1, 1997, when 16-year-old student Luke Windham entered the school with a rifle. Wearing only an orange jumpsuit and a trench coat and making no effort to hide his weapon, he initially entered the school and shot and killed two students, injuring seven others. He was stopped by assistant principal Joel Myrick, who retrieved a .45 cal. handgun from the glove box of his truck.

“I’ve always kept a gun in the truck just in case something like this ever happened,” said Myrick at the time, who went on to become principal of Corinth High School, Corinth, Miss.

Appalachia Law School, Virginia: On Jan. 16, 2002, Peter Odighizuwa, 43, a former student from Nigeria, arrived on the campus of the school with a handgun around 1:00 p.m. and immediately killed three people, at least two of them at point-blank range. Two students – Mikael Gross and Tracy Bridges – both retrieved handguns from their vehicles and confronted Odighizuwa. As former police officers, both men were trained to subdue suspects but the fact is they were on the scene and armed, and helped prevent more killings.

Muskegon, Michigan: From the Aug. 23, 1995, issue of the Muskegon Chronicle: “Plans to slay everyone in the Muskegon, Michigan, store and steal enough cash and jewelry to feed their ‘gnawing hunger for crack cocaine’ fell apart for a band of would-be killers after one of their victims fought back. Store owner Clare Cooper was returning behind the counter after showing three of the four conspirators some jewelry, when one of the group pulled out a gun and shot him four times in the back. Stumbling for the safety of his bullet-proof glass-encased counter, Cooper managed to grab his shotgun and fire as the suspects fled.“

Colorado Springs, Colo.: On Dec. 9, 2007, gunman Mathew Murray, 24, launched an armed attack against the parishioners of the New Life Church that ultimately left two innocent victims dead. But the toll could have been much higher, were it not for the heroic actions of former police officer Jeanne Assam from Minnesota. In an interview she said she very nearly decided not to go to church that morning but because she saw a headline on her computer indicating that two young people were murdered and a training center for Christian missionaries about 70 miles away in the Denver suburb of Arvada, she changed her mind. Murray shot a total of five people before an armed Assam shot and killed him. There were about 7,000 people at the church at the time of the attack.

“Criminologist Gary Kleck estimates that 2.5 million Americans use guns to defend themselves each year. Out of that number, 400,000 believe that but for their firearms, they would have been dead,” columnist Larry Elder wrote in July, following the shooting tragedy at the premier of the latest Batman movie in Aurora, Colo.

“We know from Census Bureau surveys that something beyond 100,000 uses of guns for self-defense occur every year,” adds Professor Emeritus James Q. Wilson, a public policy expert at the University of California-Los Angeles. “We know from smaller surveys of a commercial nature that the number may be as high as two-and-a-half or three million. We don’t know what the right number is, but whatever the right number is, it’s not a trivial number.”

Letter: This is what happens when government restricts guns - Quad Cities Online


Letter: This is what happens when government restricts guns

Share
Posted Online: Dec. 30, 2012, 6:00 am
Comment on this story | Print this story | Email this story
If it's hard for you to understand why Second Amendment advocates are so opposed to gun control, here's why:

-- 1911, Turkey established gun control.
From 1915-1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

--1929, The Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, approximately 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

= 1935, China established gun control.
From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

-- 1938, Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 6 to 7 million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and 12 million Christians who were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

- 1956, Cambodia established gun control.
From 1975 to 1977, one million "educated" people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

--1964, Guatemala established gun control.
From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

--1970, Uganda established gun control.
From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

You may think that this is America, not Uganda. You may think our government could never commit such an atrocity. Ask a Native American ... if you can find one.

Mike Brugger,
East Moline

Somehow the above post seems pretty oversimplified. I would be interested in knowing more in detail what happened.

Is that a live animal? Can I shoot it?!?

I was bored and decided to look into this thread.

I have no idea what the worked Militia means to you. The Constitution allows for I believe is a well regulated Militia.

To know what Militia meant back at the time the Constitution was written we need to look up what the Historical example of a Militia was or find some definition of the term that was written back at that time.

My understanding if it was that if you lived in some Town or Village every Male between certain ages was subject to being called up as a Militia and to provide their own Rifle and other equipment.

They were also expected to do some minimal Military type drills.

Militia certainly does not have the negative connotation that I am getting from this post.
Back to the subject; I am not sure what the NRA had in mind but personally I think the Police or hired Security Guards should do the Gun toting job.
I did think over the volunteer idea and decided that if People wanted to be un-armed Volunteers the more Eyes and Ears the better.