Palhaco

it is not always what is said exactly that is heard

ask any good lawyer

if you plant the seed it may grow

to say there are other ways to protect yourself is 100% true
sometimes those other ways are not an option

is all i said

------
your statement

129340_1376_thumb
Joined Tue 04/10/07
Posts: 285

Fri 04/27/07 10:01 AM
I never said that anyone who was killed during a mass murder incident
was not smart enough to protect themselves.. I think it's pretty obvious
I didn't say that....
----
i agree but the insinuation of street smarts as away could leasd to
someone thinging that was your meaning

It is a slippery slope when you place restrictions on anything. Who is
to decide who is fit to own a firearm? The right to keep and bear arms
is in place to protect the citizens from becoming the ruled, if the
restrictions start, where do they stop? When we are no longer free? How
many times has our government passed a law with good intentions, only to
have it further added to, restricting our freedoms?

Yes agreed, maybe that was a bad way to put it... but I was just
using street smarts as an example... My point was that because your
carrying a gun, does not make you safe right? You need to use other
things to guide you as well. I think that the cops would agree with me
on that. I think sometimes, people forget that, and it gives a false
sense of security to some, not all....

Palhaco

i agree i justr was trying to make a point

70, by that logic, why even have laws at all?

Some people just like to debate, be careful could lead to a suspension,
happened before. State opinion & let go.
Bandying words with a fool.

previous post

70, by that logic, why even have laws at all?

------------------

now yer talking

Fri 04/27/07 10:02 AM
your statement
I believe you don't have a clue what my thoughts are on this subject,
because you've misconstrued and misquoted me more than once.

------
if copy and paste misquotes you then i am sorry

I'm not talking about copy and paste, I'm talking about your apaprent
inability to understand what it is I am saying.

_________________
another statement
And what's more, I think it's ridiculous to assume that just because I
believe there should be restrictions on WHO gets to own firearms, that
that will automatically lead to other freedoms being taken away.

read your history books

What's that got to do with the subject discussion? If there are
RESTRICTIONS imposed on who can or cannot carry a firearm, like there
are already in place, what other freedoms are going to be directly
affected by that? What other freedoms that we currently enjoy ARE
directly affected by that?

How can you state that just "anyone" should be able to walk into a store
and buy/own/use a firearm is beyond me. It's completely irresponsible
and illogical thinking, IMO.

I do believe citizens should have a right to keep a gun on their
property in order to protect both their property and, of course, their
lives.

I don't believe just anyone should be able to carry a gun on their
person (i.e., a concealed ...or unconcealed, for that matter...weapon).

My reasons for this should be evident, I would think.

But if they're not, then let me ask you, how do we differentiate between
citizens such as the VA Tech gunman and a normal, reasonable, logical,
individual?

IMO, we can't just go around arbitrarily allowing "just anyone" to "go
armed" for that very reason.

This is why police officers and the military and similar fields undergo
rigorous training in the proper and safe use of firearms, and, I
believe, psychological testing, even, to determine if they are indeed
mentally fit to be carrying weapons.

Not everyone should have that "right."

At least with some sort of imposed restrictions on gun ownership you
lessen the risk of a weapon being in the hands of some psychopath, to
some extent, anyway.

Laws are necessary, but you have to look at the whole scope of things,
and what are the tradeoffs? Passing gun control is not going to prevent
violence. The patriot act was designed to stop terrorism, but where will
it stop? On a much smaller scale, seat belt tickets. I always wear one,
and think everyone should, but when my state passed the law, it was
stated that it would always be a secondary offense (can't be stopped for
it), but a few years later, ever hear of click it or ticket? I'm just
saying that you can't keep passing laws based on trying to save people
from themselves, and trade off your freedoms in the process. No matter
how many laws are passed, it will never be a perfect world. My opinion,
the right to keep and bear arms is necessary for the citizens to remain
free. Where would the checks and balances be if the only weopons were
owned by the government?

I agree that not just anyone should be able to buy agun, there are
background checks. There should be testing. You have to be licensed and
go to training to carry a concealed weopon in Ohio.

repost from this thread



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



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



Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, 13
million Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, the mentally ill, and others, who
were unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.



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



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



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



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



That places total victims who lost their lives because of gun control at
approximately 56 million in the last century. Since we should learn from
the mistakes of history, the next time someone talks in favor of gun
control, find out which group of citizens they wish to have
exterminated.



It has now been 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced to
surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed, a program costing
the government more than $500 million dollars. The results
Australia-wide; Homicides are up 3.2%, Assaults are up 8 %, and Armed
robberies are up 44%.



In Australias state of Victoria, homicides with firearms are up 300%!
Over the previous 25 years, figures show a steady decrease in armed
robberies and Australian politicians are on the spot and at a loss to
explain how no improvement in "safety" has been observed after such
monumental effort and expense was successfully expended in "ridding
society of guns."



It's time to state it plainly; Guns in the hands of honest citizens save
lives, protect children and property and, yes, gun-control laws only
affect the law-abiding citizens.



(Thanks Paul Harvey!)

I'm not stupid, but how do you spell weopon/ I know that's not right.
weapon that looks better

i am pretty sure i posted somewhere maybe in one of the va tech
threads

convicted felons

nor

mental patients

should not be permited firearm ownership

Lots of people talk, while few truely listen.

Laws are only effective if people obey them. There was a law against
murder, did that stop the nutcase in Virginia. There is a law against
speeding on the highway, get on any interstate and drive the speed limit
then count the cars that pass you. Drive around Washington D.C. and see
how many crack dealers are on the corners and how many of them have
illegal handguns tucked into their belts under their shirts. Yet the
consensus is to pass another law anytime something bad happens. There
would be one hell of a lot less crime and our streets would be a lot
safer if we would simply enforce the laws that already exist instead of
going through a feel good frenzy of new more restrictive legislation
every time something bad happens.

Adj, you may very well have posted that convicted felons or mental
patients should not have the right to own a firearm in some other
thread, but, so far our interhcange goes, what I got from you (and some
others involved in THIS particular discussion) is that ANYONE who is a
citizen here should be allowed to go armed.

I think that restrictions should be placed not only on criminals and the
mentally ill, however, but should also extend to those who demonstrate
via a series of personality assessment type questions, as well as just
general Q&A about general firearm knowledge and safety issues, and
through "hands-on" testing on a firing range, as well. Pretty much the
same kind of training that military personnel or police officers have to
go through.

As in VT guy, some people are good at hiding conditions. He passed
physc eval. So problems can be hidden by anyone.

By some, certainly; not necesarily by "anyone." I'm wondering just how
psychcologically "revealing" the test is, anyway.

Test was court ordered outpatient test.

He had a court-ordered outpatient test for the purpose of determinining
whether or not he was deemed psychologically fit to purchase and carry a
weapon? An outpatient from where? A psychiatric facility?

Could you please elaborate on your answers somewhat? perhaps provide
links to specific information about this? Because what you're saying is
very vague and can be very easily misconstrued.