Agree 200%

_________________
Deelip Menezes
www.deelip.com

Yes I'm sure that would have completely changed their minds. Are you kidding me?!?! They would have been highfiving. The idea was for the people to have the same stuff as the governments so they wouldn't have to worry about falling under their rule.

They also knew guns were tools. And they repected them. I bet they would even have allowed us to have automatic weapons and we would be allowed to carry them without getting a grant from the government.

And thanks for proving my point Todd. The 12 year old legally purchased the Glock? So if we made a law outlawing them he wouldn't have it?

For heaven's sake Kevin, the government isn't your problem. What are you? A Pakistan? Looks like you want your society to head down a path where you have militias and warlords extending their middle fingers to the elected government. That is a recipe for a failed state. And we have so many of them out there to prove it.

_________________
Deelip Menezes
www.deelip.com

That's exactly right. Anyone, who thinks the second amendment has anything at all to do with hunting is an abject fool.

The Second Amendment is all about protecting your family and fellow countrymen from tyranny.

There's always a leftist welfare queen ready to get lost in a "Batman fantasy" while dying his hair red and wanting to kill you because he found himself in his leftist fantasies. Just don't screw with me because of it.

He's a creation of your doctrine.

This may seem off-topic but it's not, because this cold blooded killer is being used for political opportunity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sPM3dn_G ... re=related

No but at some point in time someone did. And I doubt it was for hunting small fury animals.

_________________
Todd Hudgins

This is correct. The 2nd amendment was written for 2 reasons.

1. To arm it's citizens in case of outside attack. The US did not have a standing army at that time.
2. To arm it's citizens in case of "internal" attack. We had just fought a very nasty war to get out from underneath the control of a despotic government. They did not want that to happen again. By arming the citizens with as much power as the gov't the gov't would be wary of trying to rule too harshly. Some will argue that failed...

_________________
Sean Dotson, PE
RND Automation & Engineering
Free 30 day trial of iPropWiz v5
Follow @seandotson & @mcadforums & @rndautomationon Twitter

[quote="deelip"

For heaven's sake Kevin, the government isn't your problem. [/quote]

This is what people usually say right before it DOES become a problem.

There is a famous quote that is incorrectly attributed to Isoroku Yamamoto, Commander-in-Chief of the Imperial Japanese Navy during World War II. He (supposedly) said when asked if a land invasion of the US were ever an option...

"No. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass."

Will our gov't ever become despotic and try to force things upon us that we find illegal or immoral. Maybe. Maybe not. But having the insurance policy of an armed populous will make ANY gov't think twice about trying to do that. Think of it as an insurance policy that you hope to never have to use.

The bottom line is that it is the law of the land. Like it or not, it's fact. And it won't be changing anytime soon.

_________________
Sean Dotson, PE
RND Automation & Engineering
Free 30 day trial of iPropWiz v5
Follow @seandotson & @mcadforums & @rndautomationon Twitter

No, the government is our biggest problem. They feel the need to intrude everywhere and enforce fairness for the sake of power. I am not for anarchy at all, but our federal government has entirely too many far reaching powers.

To that point, this is a by product of the civil war. One of the reasons it was fought, was to preserve the Union. The outcome resulted in loss of States rights and increased federal power. (Don't get me wrong, abolition of slavery was a great thing).

And now, we have gotten to the point that when things go wrong, people look to their government for a handout and solution. Government is never the solution to the problem, but it is frequently the source.

(wow, i came off sounding anti-government there, Kevin, Maybe I should move up to Michigan and join a militia )

_________________
Swim - Bike - Run ...Repeat
@BreakingChad
The Company Website

Just an objective opinion (I am not an anti-gun supporter)..



I assume you are referring to the Port Arthur massacre in Australia, this is the only significant shooting in our history and since 1996 when it happened we have had no mass shootings. How many mass shootings has there been in the US since 1996?
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-25/m ... 90/4153612
This does not even include all the gun related homicides per day in the US. If we compared these figures the difference would be overwhelming. You would make a good climate scientist, they are great at picking and choosing 'facts' that support their claims while omitting any contradictory evidence. What about this link instead, just about every second one is from the US.
http://www.dividedstates.com/list-of-ma ... the-world/



Why not, because you want to believe that is the case? Can you prove this? Guns don't kill people, people kill people - I couldn't agree more but you can't dispute the fact that if people don't have access guns (who don't need access to guns) then they can't use them for mass murder, period. There are f*#ked up people in every country in the world but if they don't have access they can't do as much damage, or maybe none at all.



Why not compare apples to oranges. You can't conceal a fertiliser bomb, you can't open a bank account and get a free fertiliser bomb, you can't build a fertiliser bomb without training and practice but you can pick up a gun and use it without any training, 100% of bombings are premeditated - shootings don't have to be, can you do a drive by fertiliser bombing?..well I guess but you won't walk away from it.



Why would any civilian need to carry a concealed weapon.. If the answer has to do with defending yourself from someone else with a gun then ipso facto you are proving my point.



Exactly the point..



Well the evidence speaks for itself, it works. I would never suggest to an american that they should give up their guns, I would quite possibly get shot, but perhaps gun reform to some degree is in order..

It isn't just magazine size that is the problem, it is the number of firearms and range of high powered weapons available to civilians that is out of control.



Nope will never happen, would be political suicide. Agreed it is unconstitutional, but reform is not. The constitution can be changed but the issue that really needs to be address is peoples attitudes to their 'right to bear arms'. I think it is too late for change but you have to wonder how many school shootings per year will Americans tolerate before they start changing their thinking. Is your right to freedom so ingrained in your right to bear arms? Are tougher restrictions on guns actually depriving people of their rights.. what about peoples rights to safety?

I find it interesting, the first reaction to a shooting such as this it to flock to your gun store to buy more guns.. makes sense.

_________________
Stew
"Oompa Loompas of science" - Sheldon Cooper
I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken

There were actually two knee jerk reactions.
1)Hand gun sales in Colorado (specifically) went up 25% over the last week alone. I believe I also heard on the radio this morning that concealed carry permit class registration went up like 35% the state as well. not sure what the national statistics are. I bet if I went to Walmart today, I wouldn't even be able to get 9mm shells for my gun.

2)The anti Gun lobby immediately came out and so much as stated "See, guns should be illegal, no one should have them"

Personally, I'll take my chances with my Ruger and potential crazies that have access to the same guns I do. You start taking that away and the crazies start looking down other avenues for destruction... A shoot can take out 10-20 (maybe even 50 if left unchecked), but once people start going to bombs, we start hitting numbers in the 50-100 range right out of the chute...

To live in a truly free nation, one cannot be completely secure. This is the sacrifice that I am willing to make.

_________________
Swim - Bike - Run ...Repeat
@BreakingChad
The Company Website

You had some intereresting points. But what was the population of Australia compared to America again since we are talking apples to apples? Yes, I know that isn't an entirely fair comparison, but it has to be considered.

You could ban all guns in the US tomorrow and a year from now people would still be getting shot by them.

Chad,

The new check before you leave home, wallet, phone, keys, gun.. So the solution is every time you go to the shops, movies, park, etc, you need to be packing, and for that matter, everyone in the cinema will be packing just in case someone decides to go on a rampage. Sounds more like a band-aid (for lack of a better word) than addressing the problem. What about in schools, do all schools need armed security guards or must teachers carry guns every day in case some bullied kid decides they have had enough..

We have not had any bombings because people can't get access to guns, surely this speaks to something. I think if someone chooses to use a bomb it will be unaffected by the availability of guns - it is just their weapon of choice. And for that matter not everyone who would use a gun would be prepared to build a bomb. Also, a lot of these crimes are based around reenactments, like the dark knight, the matrix, etc, that centre around guns but not bombings per se.

kellings,

I figured that would be a response but I did not bring Australia into the comparison. Even still if you correct the figures for the population difference nothing changes.

I agree, I said I think it is too late to ban guns, there are way too many on the streets for this to work. Gradual reform is a much better option. However guns are such part of your national identity that any change efforts will be slow coming or futile.

Any suggestions for addressing the root of the problem without banning guns?

_________________
Stew
"Oompa Loompas of science" - Sheldon Cooper
I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken

Well, this is one reason:- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18919608

_________________
Nick

So long and thanks for all the fish

Nick,

That is the last thing you want, citizens taking the law into their own hands. Particularly the elderly, if they shoot as well as they drive they are likely to kill more innocent bystanders than criminals. Or get himself killed and aggravate the armed robbers.. What is the governments official stance on being a hero in these situations?

_________________
Stew
"Oompa Loompas of science" - Sheldon Cooper
I thought I was wrong once but I was mistaken