[Way OT] - JUST ONCE - VT Shootings

AZ Nomad wrote:

On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 16:57:31 -0400, Stormin Mormon wrote:



Please research the gun laws in Florida. You may be surpised to
find that more guns resulted in less violence.


Florida != Everywhere in the U.S.

A bigger factor is urban vs. rural life. If you have per capita gun
ownership equal to a rural setting but in a urban setting then you're
going to end up with massive loss of life. People just don't get along
that well when you are in close quarters. What works for one setting
doesn't necessarily work for the other.

A very intelligent observation! People in rural areas are
more likely to hunt, rather than rely upon the corner
grocery for ALL the meat in their diet, so gun ownership
makes sense - it's not just a sort of status symbol.

Tanada wrote:

"jofirey" wrote in message ...

Even the weather makes a huge difference.

When it gets too hot for too long here in the summer, people really do start
trying to kill each other.

Jo



Around here, the nut cases try to kill each other off with their driving. I suspect it is against the law around here to use turn signals. It is also mandatory to cut people off, weave in and out of lanes, and try to take out pedestrians. The other day, I was driving down a four lane road and there was a nut case coming at me straddling the center line. I hit the horn and he went back to his side of the road and gave me the finger.

Do you live in Arizona, too? ;-) I'm getting afraid to
drive to the grocery store (the closest being nearly two
miles away) because of the way people drive in Phoenix!
(The prize, so far, was the guy driving with a
pit-bull-sized dog sitting on his lap with its head out the
driver's window - that gave the driver REALLY good control
over his car!)

On Apr 20, 2:13 am, "EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque)"
wrote:
AZ Nomad wrote:
On Wed, 18 Apr 2007 12:29:34 -0700, EvelynVogtGamble(Divamanque) wrote:

AZ Nomad wrote:

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007 22:06:32 -0500, Pat wrote:

The right to bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights, not to deter
crime, but to deter oppressive government. Just governments honor and
protect the right to bear arms. Oppressive governments fear and prohibit the
right to bear arms.

Unless you're going to let people have every weaspon that the army and police
have (and that includes everything up to nukes), that just doesn't work and
frankly, I'd rather not have the drunk neighbor down the street have access to a
machine gun and a case of hand grenades.

Do you really think that you're going to take on a modern professional army with
a collection of rifles?

The freedom of speech that allows us to HAVE this discussion
is far, FAR more important than the "right to bear arms",
yet most people seem unaware that it is even under threat!

Yeah, but what about the right to arm bears?

They seem well enough provided by nature - why would they
NEED more? :-)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bear got TEEF bigger dan my hed. Wy he need arms?

Winnie

--

I'd sure like to see some evidence, please.

--

Christopher A. Young
You can't shout down a troll.
You have to starve them.
..

"Pat" wrote in message
et...
:
: For the record, Rosie has recently done a 180 on the gun issue.
:
:

Ummm...Okay I'm a Brit but please can I correct the NRA's statement
that "The right to bear arms" is enshrined in the consititution?

It actually says:

Amendment II

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.

Huh? You have a well regulated militia called the police force (okay
they may not be perfect) so presumably only they have the "right" to
bear arms not everyone who can buy a gun so easily. I was stunned when
I read one state only allows people to buy one gun a month!

Lesley

Slave of the Fabulous Furballs

PS Before anyone suggests I know nothing about guns. I used to do
target shooting when I was at uni. I held a full gun license (Hard to
get) so I could carry rifles to the range from my house- at one point,
I had some fairly impressive firepower at home since the club I was in
had some incidents where guns left in their storage got used by other
people and damaged

So yes I have used a gun....but I still don't believe they should be
carried as casually as they are in the US

On Apr 21, 10:26 am, Lesley wrote:
Ummm...Okay I'm a Brit but please can I correct the NRA's statement
that "The right to bear arms" is enshrined in the consititution?

It actually says:

Amendment II

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.

Huh? You have a well regulated militia called the police force (okay
they may not be perfect) so presumably only they have the "right" to
bear arms not everyone who can buy a gun so easily. I was stunned when
I read one state only allows people to buy one gun a month!

Lesley

Slave of the Fabulous Furballs

PS Before anyone suggests I know nothing about guns. I used to do
target shooting when I was at uni. I held a full gun license (Hard to
get) so I could carry rifles to the range from my house- at one point,
I had some fairly impressive firepower at home since the club I was in
had some incidents where guns left in their storage got used by other
people and damaged

So yes I have used a gun....but I still don't believe they should be
carried as casually as they are in the US

I agree with you, Leslie, that guns should never be carried casually,
not today.
DH & I were talking about this....about school shootings specifically.
I think it's more of a
culture problem than a problem with guns specifically. We both
remember when guns were
actually carried to school. It was as casual as anything and nobody
ever thought twice
about it. Skeet/trap shooting, and hunting too, was real popular with
high school boys back then and they carried
their guns on gun racks in the back window of their pickup trucks. Did
anyone ever shoot another kid on purpose?
Goodness, no. High school boys beat the hell out of each other with
their bare fists *often*, but it would have
never occurred to them to schoot each other.
Then what changed? Is it graphic violence on TV and video games? I
don't know. Guns are still guns and availability of them
really hasn't changed that much. Anyone who wanted one then could buy
one, and anyone who wants one now
can buy one. It's not the guns. It's the mindset, the cultural
changes, and so much more violence right up in our faces, from the
time today's teenagers were babies.
I don't like guns. I took a gun safety class and learned to use one. I
don't have a clue where the thing is now. But weirdly enough,
I'll argue my right to own it, and any other responsible adult's right
to own one if they want to. I just don't like them.

Sherry

On 21 Apr 2007 08:26:15 -0700, Lesley wrote:


Ummm...Okay I'm a Brit but please can I correct the NRA's statement
that "The right to bear arms" is enshrined in the consititution?

It actually says:

Amendment II

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.

Huh? You have a well regulated militia called the police force (okay
they may not be perfect) so presumably only they have the "right" to
bear arms not everyone who can buy a gun so easily. I was stunned when
I read one state only allows people to buy one gun a month!

Lesley

Slave of the Fabulous Furballs

PS Before anyone suggests I know nothing about guns. I used to do
target shooting when I was at uni. I held a full gun license (Hard to
get) so I could carry rifles to the range from my house- at one point,
I had some fairly impressive firepower at home since the club I was in
had some incidents where guns left in their storage got used by other
people and damaged

So yes I have used a gun....but I still don't believe they should be
carried as casually as they are in the US

It is a criminal offense to carry a firearm, a large knife or a club
"for the purpose of going armed".

Bud
--
The night is just the shadow of the Earth.

On Apr 21, 11:26 am, Lesley wrote:
Ummm...Okay I'm a Brit but please can I correct the NRA's statement
that "The right to bear arms" is enshrined in the consititution?

It actually says:

Amendment II

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.

Huh? You have a well regulated militia called the police force (okay
they may not be perfect) so presumably only they have the "right" to
bear arms not everyone who can buy a gun so easily. I was stunned when
I read one state only allows people to buy one gun a month!

Don't "correct" people when you are so wrong, please. No respectiable
constitutional scholar interprets the Second Amendment as involving
the police. The militia, as interpreted by the Militia Act, in the
tradition of British common law, was and is every able-bodied citizen
summoned for the defense of the community. Everyone was clear, at the
timie of the amendment that it did not protect the rights of the
constabulary to keep and bear arms. When have the agents of the STATE
ever needed their rights protected.

The argument, not as silly on its face, that the militia function was
superceded by the National Guard and has been ruled untrue by the
courts for over a century. The Militia Act is still in effect and the
definitiojn of the militia has not changed. The argument, promulgated
by a Hebrew-School teacher I had, that the Second Amendment was
intended to keep the state from discriminating against Jews, Blacks,
etc by not allowing them to join the militia, is a non-starter,
although it is kind of charming.

There is no way around the Second Amendment; honest gun-control
advocates say it must be repealed. Then they will have to deal with
the Ninth Amendment, which says that the federal govenment will not
take away rights that the people already have. The people already had
the right to keep and bear arms. Of course, properly interpreted, the
Ninth would make it very difficult to make laws. Which is good.

Your use of the word "correct" was off-putting.

"The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and
wording of the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and
court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that
what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own
and carry firearms in a peaceful manner."
-Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on
the Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, Second Session
(February 1982)

..Will in New Haven

--

The welfare of the people has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it
provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a
good conscience"
Albert Camus






Lesley

Slave of the Fabulous Furballs

PS Before anyone suggests I know nothing about guns. I used to do
target shooting when I was at uni. I held a full gun license (Hard to
get) so I could carry rifles to the range from my house- at one point,
I had some fairly impressive firepower at home since the club I was in
had some incidents where guns left in their storage got used by other
people and damaged

So yes I have used a gun....but I still don't believe they should be
carried as casually as they are in the US

"Sherry" wrote in message
oups.com...

I don't like guns. I took a gun safety class and learned to use
one. I
don't have a clue where the thing is now. But weirdly enough,
I'll argue my right to own it, and any other responsible
adult's right
to own one if they want to. I just don't like them.


Boy do I agree with this, Sherry. Never took the gun safety
class, they wouldn't have let me in as I am a gurl, and my father
wouldn't have signed the permission slip. Though I did get my
deer every hunting season...

Pam S.

"Will in New Haven" wrote in
message
ups.com...

There is no way around the Second Amendment; honest gun-control
advocates say it must be repealed. Then they will have to deal
with
the Ninth Amendment, which says that the federal govenment will
not
take away rights that the people already have. The people
already had
the right to keep and bear arms. Of course, properly
interpreted, the
Ninth would make it very difficult to make laws. Which is good.


YAY!!! I can keep my right to arm bears.

Pam S. dyslexic as usual