Hard core 2nd. amenders

[Whosyer]

Well, you WERE at 50, until your new user welcomes and one-liners were removed. Do avoid any future such posts, they'll just be deleted and earn you a temporary ban.

Blessings,
Bill

That's odd. The individual that started this thread, made a similar "quip" about "50 posts". And while the references to "yosemite sam" and "paranoid gun toters" aren't quite as extreme as the OP's "skinhead " comments, they're close enough to make one wonder if they aren't one and the same. Or if you want to put your tin foil hat one, associates of one another. Both seem intent on "trollish" behaviour. Just my .

 

[ryknoll3]

Let me clarify when I state put "everyones mind at ease". When I see someone carrying who is not LEO, it makes me anxious. Im anxious because who is to say this individual wont overreact to a situation and begin duel wielding, guns ablazing, let God sort them out whether they can hit the broadside of a barn. However if I knew that said individual had been forced to endure exhaustive training that was on par with LEO my perception of said individuals abilities is improved. Unfortunately we all know perfectly law abiding citizens who are well intentioned but arnt quite cerebral enough to exercise good judgement. And yes Im aware that any scenarios I describe are the exception not the norm but I believe carrying is becoming more prevalent. In summation I am not opposed to citizens carrying, I just like the idea that minimum skills are established for the responsibility of carrying.

Yeah, seeing a cop with a gun puts my mind at ease too...

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/1161/why_women_shouldnt_be_cops/

 

[jbombelli]

Have fun in the classifieds. Take a few little red dots with you, awarded in honor of jbombelli. They help out quite a bit over there.

You're welcome.

The hell of it is..

I accidentally positive rep'd him. LOL.


Oh well. I'm sure others will make up for error.

 

[beararms1776]

About 11% of police shootings kill an innocent person - about 2% of shootings by
citizens kill an innocent person. The odds of a defensive gun user killing an innocent
person are less than 1 in 26,000.279 And that is with citizens using guns to prevent crimes
almost 2,500,000 times every year.

BoR, you left out gang, driveby and robbery.

 

[KG1]

Huh! With someone shooting rounds off here in the complex at 3AM I'm not about to. Only a criminal who wants to f*** it up for everyone would want that.
You see, that's what a terrorist wants, then only they have weapons.

I was reffering to the RC plane with the propeller. Guess I should've used purple

 

[beararms1776]

I was reffering to the RC plane with the propeller. Guess I should've used purple

Oh yeah that thing with the sharp edges and spins at 6800 rpm. Gotcha!

 

[KG1]

The hell of it is..

I accidentally positive rep'd him. LOL.


Oh well. I'm sure others will make up for error.

You put him back in the green

 

[Patternpimp]

My intentions in the thread were not to troll, merely express that my opinion wasn't to far removed from the original poster. You know it is just an opinion. Anyway I have been scolded by the mod and must now get back at repairing my reputation. I hope this turn of events doesn't harm my political aspirations. As before everyone including jbombelli have an excellent holiday.

 

[Bill of Rights]

BoR, you left out gang, driveby and robbery.

I think what Guy (Smith, of Gun Facts) was referencing was DGUs by citizens. Did you mean defensive shootings targeting gang members, driveby shooters, and robbers?

 

[jbombelli]

My intentions in the thread were not to troll, merely express that my opinion wasn't to far removed from the original poster. You know it is just an opinion. Anyway I have been scolded by the mod and must now get back at repairing my reputation. I hope this turn of events doesn't harm my political aspirations. As before everyone including jbombelli have an excellent holiday.

The fact that others may hold the same opinion as you doesn't make it right. In this case it simply means that others are wrong, too.

Have a happy 4th yourself. Just try not to celebrate it by advocating for more restrictions on those rights for which our forefathers sacrificed everything.

 

[beararms1776]

I think what Guy (Smith, of Gun Facts) was referencing was DGUs by citizens. Did you mean defensive shootings targeting gang members, driveby shooters, and robbers?

I was just stacking all the stats and comparing the totals of lost innocent people. I see what your explaining to the poster though.

 

[thebishopp]

Most certainly but lets think about the odds of it is all Im saying.

I don't know about that. I know of two cases in one year (at my old Dept.) where an officer accidentally discharged his weapon. One while in his apartment - went through the wall and lodged across the street in the apartment of someone else. The 2nd was when an officer was re-holstering his weapon and left his finger on the trigger (claimed he didn't and that it was a malfunction of some sort but we all know the guy) round went into the ground, scared the crap out of the other officer who was putting a suspect into the back of his cruiser (thought he was shot because a piece of bullet or concrete hit him in the back of the leg) as well as the suspect himself. Really quite a funny story but the point being that was two in a 1 year period versus 0 citizen accidental shootings for that year.

Actually the fact that LEOs handle weapons, and not just going to the range (some if not most only see the range once a year for mandatory qualification) means that they will be more prone to incidents where the firearm may be used (accidentally or otherwise).

As for the claim that training will make someone less likely to go "crazy" and pull out their weapons and start waving it around. Training doesn't remove the dirty harry complex from someone. They will have it whether they go through training or not. While training may help with technical skills, it can't change someone's personality and their personality will determine how they handle themselves in any situation.

Look at that DEA guy who shot himself in the foot while speaking to a class at school?

It's like driving. The more you do it the more chance you will be in an accident. It's like the saying we motorcycle riders have. There are only two types of bike riders. Those who have and those who will.


EDIT: Thanks to BOR for posting the stats.

 

[Sgood]

That's odd. The individual that started this thread, made a similar "quip" about "50 posts". And while the references to "yosemite sam" and "paranoid gun toters" aren't quite as extreme as the OP's "skinhead " comments, they're close enough to make one wonder if they aren't one and the same. Or if you want to put your tin foil hat one, associates of one another. Both seem intent on "trollish" behaviour. Just my .

Difference here is, I paid my $10 bucks and dont have to wait to 50 post to use the classifieds. If I new I could have done that from the beginning....I would have never had posted in this forum to begin with.

And on another note and we will leave it at we will agree to dissagree.....It is funny how anyone that has a different opinion from the masses is a troll....

 

[2A_Tom]

Huh! With someone shooting rounds off here in the complex at 3AM I'm not about to. Only a criminal who wants to f*** it up for everyone would want that.
You see, that's what a terrorist wants, then only they have weapons.

76 are you calling Sarah B., Nancy P., Harry R., BHO and rhe rest of our government. Terrorists? Or did I read something into uour post that you didn't mean?

Preceding lines are in purple.

 

[Sgood]

For my part, I'm ok with this with the caveat that someone who commits a crime of that magnitude should not be released at all. Problem solved. If someone commits OWI twice, it is a felony. Sooooo.... This person is barred from ever lawfully possessing a firearm why? Would it not make more sense to bar them from touching a car or a whiskey or beer bottle? Why should that person be forever helpless?

Blessings,
Bill

My feelings on this is yes, they should never be allowed to drive again!!! And as far as being forever helpless...well while driving under the influence he was playing russian roulette with his life and whoever he passed at the time....so no he does not deserve the right any longer.....

 

[J_Wales]

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.
-Second Amendment, United States Constitution

The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.
-Article 1, Section 32, Constitution of the State of Indiana


End of discussion.

 

[henktermaat]

What part of "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand.

Stupidity is no excuse for limiting the freedom of others.

 

[96firephoenix]

My feelings on this is yes, they should never be allowed to drive again!!! And as far as being forever helpless...well while driving under the influence he was playing russian roulette with his life and whoever he passed at the time....so no he does not deserve the right any longer.....

so you want to restrict someone's rights due to a completely unrelated crime? How does driving drunk twice effect someone's reasonable need to defend himself?

Thats like taking away someone's driver's licence for libel and slander.

 

[jbombelli]

What part of "Shall not be infringed" don't you understand.

Stupidity is no excuse for limiting the freedom of others.

This.


The right to keep and bear arms is an inherent held by all people, no matter who they are, no matter what they do, no matter what they've done.

This is what the 2nd Amendment recognizes (NOT grants). Otherwise it would read "...the right of those people determined by the legislature, courts and law enforcement to be of acceptable moral character..." not "the people..."

So many just don't get it.

 

[Sgood]

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.
-Second Amendment, United States Constitution

The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State.
-Article 1, Section 32, Constitution of the State of Indiana


End of discussion.

For one I do not see the people as the meaning of a well regulated militia. I would think that the national gaurd has taken the place of the militia of the past......Just not sure what you do not understand, I do not want to take your guns or mine for that fact....i just think people need some help with safety......Just think if we could cut down the accidental shootings, such as the one in Martinsville this week.....by something as simple as a safe or trigger locks......

We would give the anti gunners less ammunition to fight against us....but instead you would just rather agrue "will not be infringed" or "a well regulated militia"

Other than that I am done with this post.........And for those that give me neg rep for my opinion....I will return it!!.....but i seem to get more green than red...GO FIGURE!!!!