Page 1 of 3

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 12:20 pm
by QUINNSCOMMENTARY
First, I do own a gun, a .22 rifle that I earned selling greeting cards door to door when I was fourteen. Many years ago I earned a Distinguished Riflemen designation in the NRA.

But I think that any decision the takes the context of life in 1791 and applies it to 2008 without some adjustment in logic is wrong.

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Some people argue that “regulated does not mean regulating the ownership of guns and I agree, but I also believe that “regulated means an organized militia. Thus the purpose of the amendment was to give comfort to those who at the time feared standing armies, were not too sure of England or their own Federal government and rather were more closely aligned with each state.

Militias were the main forces in the Revolution and in the context of the late 18th century militias were needed for protection not only from outside the borders but from Indians and some would argue even from militias from other states.

If you take this amendment literally then how can you logically assume they didn’t also mean assault weapons just because they had no idea what that was? They had no idea what the Federal government and our armed forces would be in the 21st century either or the diminished role of the several states for that matter.

I argue that at the time the right to carry a gun was not even a question; it was simply done and necessary, like owning a horse. I bet you can’t own a horse and keep it in your backyard in most places today.

What was in question was the role of local militia and the ability of citizens to come together under arms. So the best way to do that was a well regulated militia, with guns.

A great legal mind at work, I wish.

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:14 pm
by Accountable
The right to bear arms is for protection against the government. There are more guns than people in the US, so to make guns illegal only disarms law-abiding people. This liberal columnist sums it up nicely:

The record will show that our home-grown shooters have blown through the city's so-called strict handgun ban like John Riggins going up the middle. Over the past 20 years, there have been more than 6,500 homicides in the nation's capital, most committed with firearms, predominantly handguns. In 1976, the year the ban was put in place, the District had 135 gun-related murders, according to CNN. Last year, the number reached 143. Thus far this year, we've had 85 murders.

Complete Article here

None of that matters. The Constitution of the United States confirms (rather than confers) our individual right to keep and bear arms. If anyone thinks it needs changing, there is a process for amendments.

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:31 pm
by Chookie
Accountable;900728 wrote: There are more guns than people in the US...........


So, why the hell do you need any more?

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:41 pm
by RedGlitter
Well said, Acc.

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:44 pm
by RedGlitter
Simply echoing common sense.

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:47 pm
by Accountable
Chookie;900745 wrote: So, why the hell do you need any more?
:wah: It's not a manufacturing mandate!

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 1:49 pm
by Accountable
rjwould;900737 wrote: What politician is going to challenge boys an their toys in an election year?



this decision, while important, only affacts the DC area, but here is a good exchange that gives some real insight.
Thanks, I'll read it. I've been trying to find the actual opinion, but all I can find are snippets in columns slanted one way or the other.

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 6:10 pm
by CARLA
I agree totally I wish they thought like us. ;)

[QUOTE]But I think that any decision the takes the context of life in 1791 and applies it to 2008 without some adjustment in logic is wrong. [/QUOTE]

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 1:43 am
by Galbally
Its all very well having the right to get these peashooters, but what if you need serious firepower? What about flamethrowers? Landmines, gattling guns, and exocet missiles? Your not that free in my opinion, in Sierra Leone now, those people are allowed to have whatever weapons they want, and use them, on anyone. There are really free. :rolleyes:

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:30 am
by hoppy
I have yet to see or hear of one person using their gun rights and getting away with it unless they're killing defenseless animals.

C'mon RJ. You are obviously not paying attention. Homeowners and shopkeepers have defended themselves with rightfully owned firearms countless times.

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:32 am
by Victoria
Galbally;901303 wrote: Its all very well having the right to get these peashooters, but what if you need serious firepower? What about flamethrowers? Landmines, gattling guns, and exocet missiles? Your not that free in my opinion, in Sierra Leone now, those people are allowed to have whatever weapons they want, and use them, on anyone. There are really free. :rolleyes:


Ha Ha well said..

See I don't get American gun laws. But then I live in a place where even an air gun (BB gun) is frowned on.

I read that there are about 11,000 fatal shootings in the US each year.

Were all of these carried out by honest citizens protecting themselves? I doubt it.

The US gov wont or cant do anything to curb the tide of gun deaths. I don't know why but I guess money is involved somewhere.



And yet take one incident when about 3,000 people were killed and the whole country is in uproar measures are taken security is tightened and even a war is started ( which means more dead).

Oh wait now I get it... its ok for you lot to shoot each other but you just don't want to let anyone else get involved

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:33 am
by hoppy
You people have every right to face the coming storm armed only with your beliefs, if you so choose. Let me face things my own way.

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:03 am
by QUINNSCOMMENTARY
Last night in a town a few miles away two girls who just graduated high school got into a heated argument outside one of the girls homes. One of the girls ran across the street to her house came back with a gun and shot the other girl to death.

But at least she had a right to that gun.

No, the gun did not kill the girl, her "friend" with the help of eash access to a gun and one can only wonder what would have happened if the gun had not been in the home.

Just maybe two lives would not have been destroyed.

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:04 am
by hoppy
rjwould;901326 wrote: They end up broke due to legal costs. What really is troubling to me about the situation is that those involved in promoting guns (NRA and manufacturers)

never have to use a gun for self defense themselves because they take the millions they make off subscription holders and advertisers and live in fortresses. They get on TV and talk about how they wave that thing around to scare those would be criminals, but its interesting that they never have to use it.

Our right to bare arms should be changed to our right to buy arms, because thats all it amounts to.


I never heard it put that way before. Maybe they never have to use their gun because everyone knows they have one or more.

I'm a life member of the NRA. I'm an annual member of the JPFO, (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership). No, I'm not Jewish but I admire the Jewish people and would be proud to be Jewish.

The majority of Americans are pro gun. The media would love it if you believed otherwise but, why do you think Americans still can own guns? Because enough voters say we should.

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:05 am
by Accountable
rjwould;901326 wrote: Our right to bare arms should be changed to our right to buy arms, because thats all it amounts to.
It's far more basic than that. The Second Amendment, and all the rest of the Bill of Rights, was written to guard against government tyranny. Any additional benefit is gravy.

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:13 am
by QUINNSCOMMENTARY
Accountable;901332 wrote: It's far more basic than that. The Second Amendment, and all the rest of the Bill of Rights, was written to guard against government tyranny. Any additional benefit is gravy.


You are correct in that, but that logic just adds to the argument that the 2nd amendment was designed to preserve the right of citizens of the states to come together under arms, perhaps to protect against an overly intrusive federal government or for other reasons.

Wait, overly intrusive federal government, you say? A lot of good the right to have a gun has done. :-2:-2:-2

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:18 am
by QUINNSCOMMENTARY
hoppy;901331 wrote: I never heard it put that way before. Maybe they never have to use their gun because everyone knows they have one or more.

I'm a life member of the NRA. I'm an annual member of the JPFO, (Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership). No, I'm not Jewish but I admire the Jewish people and would be proud to be Jewish.

The majority of Americans are pro gun. The media would love it if you believed otherwise but, why do you think Americans still can own guns? Because enough voters say we should.


I need my gun to protect myself...from...........other people with guns. But if neither of us had a gun, we could protect ourselves from each other with, oh, I don't know, baseball bats, water pistols, spit balls. :-5

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:21 am
by hoppy
QUINNSCOMMENTARY;901339 wrote: I need my gun to protect myself...from...........other people with guns. But if neither of us had a gun, we could protect ourselves from each other with, oh, I don't know, baseball bats, water pistols, spit balls. :-5


I've seen some pretty sophisticated home made guns. Built with common home workshop tools. Black gunpowder is easily made. Done it myself. SOMEONE will always have something that goes bang.

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:39 am
by hoppy
rjwould;901344 wrote: Do you think anyone really knows who they are or what they look like? I had to google the board members of the NRA to find out their names. Wayne LaPeire is the only known name to me.

The media loves it any way it can get it, they would prefer disagreement and strife between us, just as the government and other corporate interests would.

The voters are manipulated by marketing, clear and simple.


Anti-gun nuts resent the NRA because we are so well organized. The anti-gun people just can't gather enough support to count. And I love it.

People know who owns guns and who don't. Lots of people are competition shooters. Winners are often written about in newspapers. Collectors are known to many. Where I live, most adults hunt ducks, pheasants, deer and turkey. It's a safe bet at least 3 out of 5 households has one or more guns. 5 blocks from where I sit now, someone has legal full auto weapons. Yet, I feel perfectly safe.

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:08 am
by Galbally
hoppy;901323 wrote: You people have every right to face the coming storm armed only with your beliefs, if you so choose. Let me face things my own way.




And the law, the state, and the military to enforce it of course.



What is the coming storm hoppy?



Do you think possessing a handgun and several boxes of 9mm ammunition is going to prolong your life, or those of your family for very long if basic civilization in a continent with a heavily armed population of 300 millions breaks down? A naive point of view if you don't mind me saying so.

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 6:29 am
by hoppy
Galbally;901386 wrote: And the law, the state, and the military to enforce it of course.



What is the coming storm hoppy?



Do you think possessing a handgun and several boxes of 9mm ammunition is going to prolong your life, or those of your family for very long if basic civilization in a continent with a heavily armed population of 300 millions breaks down? A naive point of view if you don't mind me saying so.


You are right. I have no faith in 9mm's. Had too many of 'em. they suck. I do have faith in my 30/06 Garand though. The best battle rifle ever.

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 7:57 am
by yaaarrrgg
Accountable;901332 wrote: It's far more basic than that. The Second Amendment, and all the rest of the Bill of Rights, was written to guard against government tyranny. Any additional benefit is gravy.


Why do Americans assume violence is the best approach? Raising a gun at a politician will most likely increase your chances of being killed in return. Peaceful non-violent resistance is almost always the best route.

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:13 am
by hoppy
yaaarrrgg;901456 wrote: Why do Americans assume violence is the best approach? Raising a gun at a politician will most likely increase your chances of being killed in return. Peaceful non-violent resistance is almost always the best route.


Don't you get it? It's about DEFENDING yourself, should the need arise.

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:18 am
by hoppy
rjwould;901471 wrote: Perhaps you could describe a scenario, Hoppy. Maybe then I could understand.


I doubt it.

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 8:28 am
by hoppy
rjwould;901479 wrote: Sounds like a cop out to me, Hoppy. Make your case, if not for me, at least others whom may be interested and sympathetic.


Anyone who read all these posts know where I stand. I gotta go now, to mail off my donations to the NRA and the JPFO.

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 9:23 am
by hoppy
rjwould;901471 wrote: Perhaps you could describe a scenario, Hoppy. Maybe then I could understand.


If you watch TV you would see videos of security camera film of armed thugs entering convenience stores, the clerk using his own gun to shoot or run them off. Saw a number of those incidents. Can't remember the names of those shows but the film is a real happening. If I had time I could find incidents of home invaders coming out second best, in newdpapers.

You said using a gun would cost you everything in court. Where I live, when you apply for a permit to carry, you take classes. You are taught how to carry, where you can't carry and when NOT to shoot. Like, if the thug is running away or outside your premises. If you keep a legal gun and an armed thug is in your home and facing you, shoot by all means. Exotic ammo is frowned on too.

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 9:29 am
by hoppy
What is so hard about understanding someone wanting to preserve their life and the lives of their families? I don't understand you people. Maybe if I was born and raised in a concrete jungle I would feel different. I'm tickled s**tless I was not.

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 9:45 am
by hoppy
rjwould;901471 wrote: Perhaps you could describe a scenario, Hoppy. Maybe then I could understand.


You asking for a scenario is another way to stall and look for an opening. Scenarios are obvious to anyone who ever been anywhere or saw anything. I feel your just looking for a laugh. You can't be serious.

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:11 am
by BTS
QUINNSCOMMENTARY;901330 wrote: Last night in a town a few miles away two girls who just graduated high school got into a heated argument outside one of the girls homes. One of the girls ran across the street to her house came back with a gun and shot the other girl to death.



But at least she had a right to that gun.



No, the gun did not kill the girl, her "friend" with the help of eash access to a gun and one can only wonder what would have happened if the gun had not been in the home.



Just maybe two lives would not have been destroyed.


Buh Humbug..............



Ted Kenneydy's car has killed more people than my guns ever have..........

So let's outlaw cars then?

Or should we have outlawed Teddy Kennedy, then?

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:34 am
by hoppy
rjwould;901542 wrote: Thats strange that you would suggest that you might feel more safe had you been born and raised in a concrete jungle.


That's not what I said.

Time for Hoppy to go. He's starting to lose it. If he stays any longer, he'll likely be banned.

BYE!

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:43 am
by CARLA
I'm glad I grew up in a ERA where guns were to expensive for post WWII families to buy. They were busy working and putting food on the table didn't matter if there was a 2nd ammendment. I never saw or touched a gun till I was 20 years old. I never want to see one up close or touch one again.

Argue all you want nothing good comes from kids having access to guns, or in most cases adults having access to guns. Someone eventually gets shot by one of them, and often killed, or everyone around them dies as well. Sorry I would rather live in a World that is less violent and GUNS are violent. They were designed to kill period no other use for them, be it killing for sport, war, your neighbor, animals all they do is kill. :( But hey your choice to keep them in your homes that's your business.

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:46 am
by hoppy
CARLA;901575 wrote: I'm glad I grew up in a ERA where guns were to expensive for post WWII families to buy. They were busy working and putting food on the table didn't matter if there was a 2nd ammendment. I never saw or touched a gun till I was 20 years old. I never want to see one up close or touch one again.

Argue all you want nothing good comes from kids having access to guns, or in most cases adults having access to guns. Someone eventually gets shot by one of them, and often killed, or everyone around them dies as well. Sorry I would rather live in a World that is less violent and GUNS are violent. They were designed to kill period no other use for them, be it killing for sport, war, your neighbor, animals all they do is kill. :( But hey your choice to keep them in your homes that's your business.


By your thinking then, knives were only meant to stab.

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:47 am
by BTS
Re: The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yaaarrrgg

Why do Americans assume violence is the best approach? Raising a gun at a politician will most likely increase your chances of being killed in return. Peaceful non-violent resistance is almost always the best route.







hoppy;901469 wrote: Don't you get it? It's about DEFENDING yourself, should the need arise.


hoppy do you mean like these cases?



The first is one where a woman did not need a gun.......... and never spent one day in court or had these exuberant court bills as rj would have you believe if you do defend yourself..........wonder where he gets that spiel from?









Woman Kills Intruder With Bare Hands

PORTLAND, Ore., Sept. 8, 2006



Luling Woman Kills Intruder, Deputies Say - New Orleans News Story ...





Woman kills intruder who attacked her roommate



From the Star Tribune of June 27, 2008

Shot-at meth addict is sentenced for St. Paul burglary



As he stood awaiting sentencing Friday in Ramsey County District Court, Michael G. Spencer had become more than just a methamphetamine addict convicted of burglary.



District Judge Michael Monahan told Spencer that he now was a poster boy for this week's U.S. Supreme Court ruling saying Americans had a right to own guns for self-defense.

From the Press-Enterprise of June 26, 2008

Homeowner justified in shooting drunken man, S.B. County district attorney's office finds



A 53-year-old San Bernardino homeowner, fearful that he was dealing with a dangerous burglar, was legally justified in killing a drunken man during a 3 a.m. confrontation on the homeowner's front walkway, prosecutors said Thursday.



The finding of justifiable homicide means that no criminal charges will be filed against Brad Nielsen for the June 15 slaying of Joshua Munoz, 23, in the Devil Canyon area of northwest San Bernardino.



There are hundreds of cases where the average armed citizen has defended their life, family and property and have not spent one day in court............



Here is JUST ONE site of hundreds that has up to date defence stories:



http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefense ... ogger.html


The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:52 am
by CARLA
In a way your correct but GUNS are way more efficient in there overall design as killing instruments only. Never used a gun to chop up veggies.

[QUOTE]By your thinking then, knives were only meant to stab.[/QUOTE]

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:52 am
by hoppy
BTS;901583 wrote: Re: The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by yaaarrrgg

Why do Americans assume violence is the best approach? Raising a gun at a politician will most likely increase your chances of being killed in return. Peaceful non-violent resistance is almost always the best route.









hoppy do you mean like these cases?



The first is one where a woman did not need a gun.......... and never spent one day in court or had these exuberant court bills as rj would have you believe if you do defend yourself..........wonder where he gets that spiel from?









Woman Kills Intruder With Bare Hands

PORTLAND, Ore., Sept. 8, 2006



Luling Woman Kills Intruder, Deputies Say - New Orleans News Story ...





Woman kills intruder who attacked her roommate



From the Star Tribune of June 27, 2008

Shot-at meth addict is sentenced for St. Paul burglary



As he stood awaiting sentencing Friday in Ramsey County District Court, Michael G. Spencer had become more than just a methamphetamine addict convicted of burglary.



District Judge Michael Monahan told Spencer that he now was a poster boy for this week's U.S. Supreme Court ruling saying Americans had a right to own guns for self-defense.

From the Press-Enterprise of June 26, 2008

Homeowner justified in shooting drunken man, S.B. County district attorney's office finds



A 53-year-old San Bernardino homeowner, fearful that he was dealing with a dangerous burglar, was legally justified in killing a drunken man during a 3 a.m. confrontation on the homeowner's front walkway, prosecutors said Thursday.



The finding of justifiable homicide means that no criminal charges will be filed against Brad Nielsen for the June 15 slaying of Joshua Munoz, 23, in the Devil Canyon area of northwest San Bernardino.



There are hundreds of cases where the average armed citizen has defended their life, family and property and have not spent one day in court............



Here is JUST ONE site of hundreds that has up to date defence stories:



http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefense ... ogger.html




Right on.

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:57 am
by hoppy
CARLA;901595 wrote: In a way your correct but GUNS are way more efficient in there overall design as killing instruments only. Never used a gun to chop up veggies.


Well, I never used a knife to stab someone. Shot some watermelons once though.

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 12:01 pm
by K.Snyder
Victoria;901321 wrote: Ha Ha well said..

See I don't get American gun laws. But then I live in a place where even an air gun (BB gun) is frowned on.

I read that there are about 11,000 fatal shootings in the US each year.

Were all of these carried out by honest citizens protecting themselves? I doubt it.

The US gov wont or cant do anything to curb the tide of gun deaths. I don't know why but I guess money is involved somewhere.



And yet take one incident when about 3,000 people were killed and the whole country is in uproar measures are taken security is tightened and even a war is started ( which means more dead).

Oh wait now I get it... its ok for you lot to shoot each other but you just don't want to let anyone else get involved


It's not exactly that black and white Victoria...

Most gun related deaths are caused by inner city gang members I do believe...These gang bangers go around killing other gang members because someone stepped on their territory or someone looked at them wrong...Most of the time it's because of drug deals that either go wrong:rolleyes: or because the other guy just wanted to steal the drugs and felt that it was more convenient to just kill the guy...

Take away guns and what do you have?...

A whole alot of fire...

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 12:34 pm
by CARLA
Freightening in every category my statment is true these are very dangerous times for our children, for this I'm truly sad. :mad: Interesting Charts RJ I'm sure they didn't even have charts of youth violence when we were growing up.

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 2:15 pm
by yaaarrrgg
hoppy;901523 wrote: What is so hard about understanding someone wanting to preserve their life and the lives of their families? I don't understand you people. Maybe if I was born and raised in a concrete jungle I would feel different. I'm tickled s**tless I was not.


Are you really safer? My kids are morel likely to find the gun and play with it, than for me to actually need it on an intruder. I know several people that were shot accidentally, one kid that died. I found my parent's gun and played with it as a kid, and knew where the ammo was as well. They kept it for the ominous intruder as well, but he never showed up....

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 2:23 pm
by K.Snyder
yaaarrrgg;901782 wrote: Are you really safer? My kids are morel likely to find the gun and play with it, than for me to actually need it on an intruder. I know several people that were shot accidentally, one kid that died. I found my parent's gun and played with it as a kid, and knew where the ammo was as well. They kept it for the ominous intruder as well, but he never showed up....


If parents were effective in teaching their children, their children would know not to play with guns...

But on that note the guns should be in a locked mechanism somewhere...Like a very small safe...A safe that will probably only take about 20 seconds to open from those in which knows the combination...And spitting out the garb that 20 seconds is too long because the intruder will over take you by then, then it would be a good thing because if an intruder is on to you within 20 seconds then the gun wouldn't make any difference what so ever and in fact will probably spell your demise...

Very simple really...If you have the money to buy a gun you have the money to buy a safe...

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 2:37 pm
by CARLA
KS that is how it should be, not how it is.

I remember seeing a piece on 20/20 where they took kids of all ages with their parents behind glass that the kids couldn't see through. All the parent assured them that their kids were trained to never pick up a gun of any kind and point it at anyone.

Well guess what they put a gun not in plain sight they found it and each and everyone of them picked it up pointed it at themselve, and others and pulled the trigger. Some of the parents were visible shaken as they had put in countless hours training them to never do what they just did.

[QUOTE]Very simple really...If you have the money to buy a gun you have the money to buy a safe...[/QUOTE]

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 2:40 pm
by Accountable
yaaarrrgg;901456 wrote: Why do Americans assume violence is the best approach? Raising a gun at a politician will most likely increase your chances of being killed in return. Peaceful non-violent resistance is almost always the best route.
Who has said that? I mean ever .... in history.

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 2:43 pm
by K.Snyder
CARLA;901795 wrote: KS that is how it should be, not how it is.

I remember seeing a piece on 20/20 where they took kids of all ages with their parents behind glass that the kids couldn't see through. All the parent assured them that their kids were trained to never pick up a gun of any kind and point it at anyone.

Well guess what they put a gun not in plain sight they found it and each and everyone of them picked it up pointed it at themselve, and others and pulled the trigger. Some of the parents were visible shaken as they had put in countless hours training them to never do what they just did.


I understand...I do however question the parents picked to do this...

But I do realize that children below the ages of 8 are the ones more susceptible in playing with guns without realizing their potential...But on that note if you place a gun where your average 7 year old or younger can get it "you" as a parent need common sense not extended knowledge in gun safety...

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 2:50 pm
by hoppy
Simple question. How much money, time and effort do you anti-gun people expend for your cause? That's the difference. We pro gun people organize and fork over cash, time and energy for our cause. For the most part, anti-gun people go on boards and forums and bitch, and little else. That's a fact, Jack.

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 2:55 pm
by Chookie
CARLA;901575 wrote: I'm glad I grew up in a ERA where guns were to expensive for post WWII families to buy. They were busy working and putting food on the table didn't matter if there was a 2nd ammendment. I never saw or touched a gun till I was 20 years old. I never want to see one up close or touch one again.

Argue all you want nothing good comes from kids having access to guns, or in most cases adults having access to guns. Someone eventually gets shot by one of them, and often killed, or everyone around them dies as well. Sorry I would rather live in a World that is less violent and GUNS are violent. They were designed to kill period no other use for them, be it killing for sport, war, your neighbor, animals all they do is kill. :( But hey your choice to keep them in your homes that's your business.


I couldn't agree more. A gun has only one purpose it is designed and built to kill. Now, before anyone gets riled up, I am a gun owner and user, I use guns to kill (for food, naturally) but that is the only reason guns exist - TO KILL.

America and Gun Violence

American children are more at risk from firearms than the children of any other industrialized nation. In one year, firearms killed no children in Japan, 19 in Great Britain, 57 in Germany, 109 in France, 153 in Canada, and 5,285 in the United States. (Centers for Disease Control)


From the above citation, it seems that the Centres for Disease Control consider "Gun Violence" to be a disease. If so, it is a disease confined to the USA. Canada has an equivalent percentage of gun ownership yet the statistics show that deaths from this source are almost non-existent in Canada.........

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 2:58 pm
by Accountable
rjwould;901590 wrote: I've been looking around the internet for some statistics and came across this. Since Carla raised the point on what the price is that our children pay for societies want to own guns, I think its relevant.
I chased that link to ground for ya, RJ. Here's the report it came from.



It screams for more discipline, more education & training, and wider publicity when a child gets killed. It justifies adding gun safety to our school curriculum. It does not justify taking away one of the basic freedoms our country was founded on.



I chuckle at the irony when I imagine such an argument being used replacing gunfire and death for teen sex & pregnancy.

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:09 pm
by CARLA
Once again I agree but it ain't happening.

[QUOTE]"you" as a parent need common sense not extended knowledge in gun safety...


Hoppy not the case and you know it. It's people with your attitude that have guns that scare the living crap out of me.

[QUOTE]Simple question. How much money, time and effort do you anti-gun people expend for your cause? That's the difference. We pro gun people organize and fork over cash, time and energy for our cause. For the most part, anti-gun people go on boards and forums and bitch, and little else. That's a fact, Jack. [/QUOTE]

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:14 pm
by hoppy
rjwould;901821 wrote: Communication is the best way to solve problems, not marketing techniques, which is what you're bragging about.

When people pay money for someone else to do their talking for them, other than in the case of legal representation, thats not unity, its puppetry.


Then your side clearly needs to learn to communicate. Lol.

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:19 pm
by K.Snyder
" Situation: A pair of thrill killers have measured you and your young son for coffins ... and they're armed with high-tech fighting knives.

Lesson: A weapon in the hand beats two that are sheathed--and it takes more than two mad dogs to kill a man whose Father Wolf instinct is aroused.

Prelude

Generations before, there had been Leopold and Loeb. Now there was Tulloch and Parker. High-achieving high school kids from good families who had something missing in their hearts. They had decided to run off to exotic places and lead lives of criminal adventure. First, of course, they needed money. Their plan: raid a home, take everything of value (with emphasis on ATM cards) and repeat as necessary when they ran low on cash.

And, not incidentally, to murder all victims and witnesses. That way, no one could testify against them. Besides, they thought, it would be cool to see what it felt like to kill a human being.

They had picked a likely house in an area they thought sufficiently remote that no one would hear the screams of their victims. Nearby they had dug a shallow grave for the corpses they planned to create. If they took the victims' blue Beemer, maybe the summer house would just seem abandoned and no one would know anything had happened until the killers were long, long gone.

Robert Tulloch made sure his knife was in place, then strode to the door of the home they had targeted and began pounding on it insistently.

The Incident

It is the night of July 17, 2000. Andrew Patti, 47, is at the family's Vershire, Vermont vacation home. His wife Diane is away at work, and Andrew is alone reading to his 11-year-old son Andy. Andrew is on edge. Moments before, their dog has barked in a way its owner knows indicates the presence of a stranger, and he has felt a sudden sense of being watched, a sense that someone is outside the window. Andrew has done something uncharacteristic: he has drawn his Glock and gone to the window to look, but sees nothing. Now the Glock is back in his holster, but Patti has a nagging sense of foreboding.

In his native New York, most would look askance at a man who wore a pistol at home, but Patti is not your average New Yorker. A grown child of The City, he has long ago come to realize that bad things happen to good people, and it is the job of good people to keep themselves and other good people from suffering. He and his wife operate a business devoted to the care of special needs children. And he has come to understand that having a gun and knowing how to use it is like having a first aid kit or a fire extinguisher and knowing how to use them, too.

And now Robert Tulloch's fist hammers on the Pattis' door.

Andrew is on his feet instantly, giving a hand signal to Andy to stay where he is. Many people, including stranded motorists and such, have knocked on this door before. There is something demanding, something dangerous in the staccato pounding he hears. Andrew Patti does something that is unusual for him. He clears his Glock from its leather thumb-break scabbard under his untucked shirt, and holds the drawn pistol behind him as he goes to answer the door.

He knows enough not to open it without seeing what's outside. With his free hand, he pulls the blind aside and looks through the window. He sees a tall young man with a narrow, long-nosed, lupine face. It does not occur to him at the time, but the face bears a striking resemblance to that of Dylan Klebold, one of the Columbine High School mass murderers.

The face is not back away from the door where he would expect it. The stranger is poised at the very threshold, his breath steaming the glass, as if he is coiled to charge through the door the instant it is opened. Patti asks him sharply, "What's up?" The stranger tells him he has car trouble and needs help.

Everything is wrong: the posture, the body language, the sense of having been watched through the window moments before. Whatever alerted his dog earlier, Patti realizes, has frightened her enough that she hasn't come to answer the door with him. All his well-honed New York street senses are screaming alarms.

He tells the man on the other side of the door that he can't help him. The tall man remains insistent. "Do you have jumper cables?" No.

Then, as ominous as the Big Bad Wolf: "Let me in."

No.

"C'mon, let me use your phone."

Patti doesn't think one more "no" is going to make any difference. His life experience and everything he is seeing tells him this is not a motorist in trouble, this is someone who is very serious, and very dangerous, and almost certainly not alone. It is time to answer with a little body language of his own.

Andrew Patti raises his Glock.

It's not gunpoint, not a threatening gesture. He just lets the man see it. And the response confirms everything Patti has been sensing.

"Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! Whoa," snaps the tall man outside. "I just want to use your phone!"

Suspicions confirmed. An innocent person would have been shocked. This man's voice holds only anger and frustration. It's the voice of a combatant, an aggressor.

Andrew Patti thinks fast. If he rushes for the phone, this man might try to kick in the door. Andy could get hurt. At best he might have to kill a man in front of his son. He needs to buy time. He says, 'TII tell you what I'll do. I'll call Ward's Garage for you." The man on the other side agrees.

Andy is across the room, away from the window and the door, where his dad has gestured for him to go when the hammering began at the door. Now Andrew closes the blind and gestures to his son to follow him as he quickly goes to the phone, not to call the garage, but to call the police.

It doesn't work. The line is dead. Father and son sprint upstairs, but it's the same story with the phone in the master bedroom.

The youth asks, "What's wrong, Dad'?" The armed citizen replies, "'They've cut the wires."

Second Strike

Andrew Patti and his son stayed up a very long time that night, unable to call for assistance. Andrew was too smart to go outside and risk ambush or leave his son alone. When he finally slept, it was with his Glock resting on his chest.

He would not know until several months later just how right his assessment of the situation was. The moment he opened the door, Robert Tulloch, 17, was planning to sink a razor-sharp hunting knife into him. A few feet away, hidden in the bushes and wearing a ski mask, was his 16 year old partner, six-foot James Parker, armed with a folding knife. Patti's unexpected display of the pistol frightened them off.

The deadly teens surfaced again six months later, a few miles across the slate line in the village of Etna near Hanover, New Hampshire. It had taken them a while to gel over nearly being shot by their last intended victim. As they hardened their courage, they ramped up their equipment. They were now armed with high-quality SOG SEAL 2000 combat knives they had purchased over the Internet. This time their victims were a middle-aged couple who were both college professors at Hanover's Ivy League Dartmouth.

Half (rhymes with Ralph) and Suzanne Zantop were only a few years older than Andrew and Diane Patti, and were like them in many ways. Both couples were caring and compassionate and went out of their way for others in need. Both couples were educated, cultured, and well liked by those who knew them. But there was one critical difference. Andrew Patti was a street-wise armed citizen, and the Zantops were not.

Tulloch and Parker gained entry into the Zantops' $470,000 home on the pre text of being students who needed to talk to them about a research survey. The Zantops were people who lived to help students, and welcomed them inside.

The carnage that followed was appalling. Both teens wielded their knives with merciless savagery. When it was over, the gentle professors lay dead in a lake of blood with wounds akin to those suffered by Nicole Brown Simpson and Ron Goldman in another highly-publicized double knife homicide.

It became national news. This writer works for a police department a short drive from Hanover, and watched from the sidelines as a task force led by New Hampshire State Police and Hanover PD expertly investigated what the media dubbed "the Dartmouth Murders." Realizing that law enforcement was closing in on them, Tulloch and Parker fled, hitchhiking toward the heartland. Before long, they were recognized at a truck stop by an alert police sergeant in Indiana. Arrest, trial, verdicts and sentencing came swiftly.

So did confession. It is from those documents that we know how the two young men planned a murder and robbery spree, and how shaken they were by their first intended victim pulling a pistol and putting them to flight. At this writing, Tulloch and Parker are spending their lives in the New Hampshire State Penitentiary. The friends and relatives of the Zantops are coping with their grief, and so are the families of the two young murderers.

All that is left is to learn the lessons. And the lessons we learn from these two encounters, the attempted home invasion murder of the Pattis and the successful home invasion murder of the Zantops, are stark and compelling.

Lessons

I believe the story of the Pattis' survival first broke in New Hampshire's statewide newspaper, the Manchester Union Leader, published until his death by NRA director William Loeb. That paper has always been strongly pro-gun. Most media outlets made only a passing reference to what had happened July 17, 2000, in Vermont, or ignored it entirely.

Two writers who picked up on it were reporters for an anti-gun newspaper, the Boston Globe. Dick Lehr and Mitchell Zuckoff spoke at length with Andrew Patti. They thought what happened to him and Andy--and what almost happened to them at the hands of the two killer teens--was so important to the overall story that the Patti incident is the opening chapter of their excellent and best-selling book, Judgment Ridge: the True Story Behind the Dartmouth Murders. It is from their research that we have the word-for-word by play of Andrew Patti's encounter with the two young men who intended to murder him until they saw his pistol.

Lehr and Zuckoff describe Andrew Patti thus in their book. "... he was a serious gun enthusiast who liked firearms the way he liked sharp cars. He respected their coiled power and enjoyed his ability to control and command them. The feel of a well-oiled gun at his side satisfied his own father's most frequent warning--'Be careful. Strange things happen.' Andrew had passed his love of guns to Andy. One of the boy's prized possessions was a dime with a small bullet hole he had placed dead center." Ironically, what this father was reading to this son at the time the encounter with Parker and Tulloch took place was "an adventure story about a hunter pursuing a wise and elusive buck."

It was as if two sadists had broken into a pet shop to find puppies to torture to death, and discovered that they had opened the full-grown Doberman's cage by mistake. The two would-be killers literally fled for their lives. The lesson: they were cowards.

Carry Comfortably

The authors of Judgment Ridge report that the slayers had talked about what to do if they were visited by police investigating the Zantop murders. Their plan would be to attack the officers, "knocking one of them out ... and maybe even killing them," with their own duty pistols, one of the killers confessed later. But, when officers confronted Parker, he proved to be a craven coward who literally pulsed with guilt. According to Judgment Ridge, at that point Parker's "Adam's apple bobbed like a cork in rough seas. The side of his neck pulsed so violently it reminded (Sergeant Robert) Bruno of the movie Alien--a creature seemed ready to burst through Jim parker's neck," Once again, instead of attacking armed men, they fled from them.

When they were arrested in Indiana, the murderers surrendered meekly after taking one look at the arresting officer. Sergeant Bill Ward, and the service automatic he carried at his hip. Photos alter their extradition show Parker with his head lowered as demurely as a debutante as he is escorted by Hanover cops armed with their issue Glock 22s. Clearly, these two young butchers had no stomach for assaulting armed men.

The accessibility of Patti's weapon was critical. When he discussed and re-enacted the incident on television, Andrew Patti appeared to be demonstrating an intermediate size, standard frame Glock. Lehr and Zuekoff describe the weapon that saved him and his son as a 9mm Glock. That would indicate a Glock 19, a light and compact pistol a generation of police officers and armed citizens alike have found comfortable for 24/7 carry. A gun you can carry all the time is, by definition, a gun that is likely to be with you when you need it in a fast breaking emergency like the one Patti faced.

I know cops who have investigated home invasions who, as a result, carry their off duty weapons on their persons at all times, even when at home. The reason is, as one investigator put it, "These things happen so fast that there often isn't time to get to another room or open a locked container to get to your gun." That might well have been the case with Andrew Patti if his pistol bad not been strapped to his belt, discreetly concealed under an untucked shirt where it would frighten no one until the need to intimidate two young men planning horrific multiple murder became apparent.

Being Aware

Trust your senses and your street smarts. Andrew Patti didn't pull a gun on Robert Tulloch until the aggregate of all he had observed confirmed that he and his young son were in real danger. But he was ready to react as soon as his danger alert was triggered, and he was able to process input. The body language, vocalization, and facial expression of Tulloch, we know now, were all valid indicators of hostile intent. Knowing his dog's reaction to different situations and being able to correctly read it this time, and that "sixth sense" awareness of being watched, were things Patti wisely processed, allowing him to react but not over-react. Our subconscious will process danger cues without taking time to explain to us the details, telling us only, "be wary!" It may be only later that we figure out bow our subconscious processed that input, but when the subconscious tells us to beware, we should listen. This mental process is well documented to a best selling book from a few years ago, The Gift of Fear by Gavin de Becker. The phenomenon is called precognition.

Remember that the overwhelming majority of armed encounters between law-abiding citizens with guns and dangerous criminals end with no shots fired, as Patti's did. Dr Edgar Suter, founder of Doctors for Integrity of Policy Research, said recently on the Net: "'There have been 15 studies on the defensive use of firearms in America. Without exception, the studies find approximately I million to 4 million defensive uses of firearms annually." Dr. Suter told of Dr Philip Cook, who set out to do his own study of the subject because he didn't believe the figure could be so high ... and who discovered through his own research that the figure was indeed "as many as 4 million.'"

Let us close with a well-deserved commendation to the savvy and professional police officers who solved the Zantop murder case and brought Tulloch and Parker to justice. Commendation is also due to Dick Lehr and Mitchell Zuckoff for their excellent book Judgment Ridge: the True Story Behind the Dartmouth Murders, published by HarperCollins in 2003. "

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m ... tBody;col1



An incident among many...

I thought it was blatantly evident these killers didn't use guns because they knew the sound of a gun would be even more crucial to their capture...

To me the illegality of guns in America will do nothing but bring murder more frequently to suburban cities where people won't fear breaking into anyones house knowing that there will not be anyone inside with a gun to protect themselves...

"We killed them because we didn't want witnesses" -- Robert Tulloch...

Which is the reason for the knives most assuredly...

The Second Amendment – I think they are wrong.

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2008 3:32 pm
by CARLA
Thank you its just that simple. I know many EMT's they roll to twice and many gun shot victims they they do car accidents now. :thinking:

[QUOTE]I guess its safe to say you haven't bothered checking out any of the links I've provided. No matter how you cut it, as a public safety issue, guns are more dangerous then they are helpful.[/QUOTE]