my mother is similarly petite, and has a gun < A GUN

Im not for banning guns, and Im not ANTI gun, I am for REGLUATING guns

do I want petite women such as yourself to not be able to defend themself with a gun,, NO

do I want mentally ill persons like james holmes to acquire an ARSENAL of weapons ,, NO


people pretend like the issue is simple and black and white(not you specifically), but there IS common sense middle ground between the two extremes of gun banning and complete freedom of weapon ownership,,,,,

not hard at all really

gun laws are state, yet you can have the safest and most dangerous cities in the SAME state,, so apparently its more than just the laws


http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/state-laws/illinois.aspx


in this list o 100 most dangerous cities, your examples ; chicago, ny and california rank as follows

79, NOT AT ALL, and anywhere from the bottom to the top of the list depending upon the city in california,,,

I don't think the issue is black and white, far from it...I know when it comes to common sense I am not lacking...

I am not yet convinced there is a middle ground when it comes to gun control...I am not yet convinced that stronger legislation is the answer to the problem as it has failed repeatedly....

What I am convinced of are my constitutional rights as a law abiding, tax paying citizen...So until it is proven that more and more gun control is the better way I am going to stick with the definition of a republic which is...

"A state in which the supreme power rests in the body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by representatives chosen directly or indirectly by them."

I dont know there will ever be the 'proof' either side looks for on this issue, because it has to do with so many factors beyond the MERE laws....

Right. But, are Americans smuggling the guns into Canada or, are the Canadians buying them and smuggling them in?

As for the US? I could see folks packing a freakin' bazooka if they so desired.

what Middleground can there possibly be between Freedom and Slavery,between a Rapist and his Victim?

NAZI FIREARMS LAW AND THE DISARMING OF THE GERMAN JEWS
17 Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, No. 3, 483-535 (2000)
Stephen P. Halbrook*


We are in danger of forgetting that the Bill of Rights reflects
experience with police excesses. It is not only under Nazi rule that
police excesses are inimical to freedom. It is easy to make light of
insistence on scrupulous regard for the safeguards of civil liberties
when invoked on behalf of the unworthy. It is too easy. History
bears testimony that by such disregard are the rights of liberty
extinguished, heedlessly at first, then stealthily, and brazenly in the
end.
Justice Felix Frankfurter1


The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow
the subject races to possess arms. History shows that all
conquerors who have allowed their subject races to carry arms
have prepared their own downfall by so doing.
Adolph Hitler2

Gun control laws are depicted as benign and historically progressive.3

However, German firearm laws and hysteria created against Jewish firearm owners
played a major role in laying the groundwork for the eradication of German Jewry in
the Holocaust. Disarming political opponents was a categorical imperative of the Nazi
regime.4 The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution declares: “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.”5 This right, which reflects a universal and
historical power of the people in a republic to resist tyranny,6 was not recognized in
the German Reich.
This article addresses German firearms laws and Nazi policies and practices
to disarm German citizens, particularly political opponents and Jews. It begins with
an account of post-World War I chaos, which led to the enactment in 1928 by the
liberal Weimar republic of Germany’s first comprehensive gun control law. Next, the
Nazi seizure of power in 1933 was consolidated by massive searches and seizures of
firearms from political opponents, who were invariably described as “communists.”
After five years of repression and eradication of dissidents, Hitler signed a new gun
control law in 1938, which benefitted Nazi party members and entities, but denied
firearm ownership to enemies of the state. Later that year, in Kristallnacht (the Night
of the Broken Glass), in one fell swoop, the Nazi regime disarmed Germany’s Jews.
Without any ability to defend themselves, the Jewish population could easily be sent
to concentration camps for the Final Solution. After World War II began, Nazi
authorities continued to register and mistrust civilian firearm owners, and German
resistence to the Nazi regime was unsuccessful.7

Again,regardless of what you hope,there is no middleground between you and that wish to do you harm!


http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf

Read it quite well!

Then move on to Peikoff's "Ominous Parallels!

There is NO Middleground between you and those who would do you harm,regardless how fervently you wish it!

The problem with this type of thinking for me lies in the FACT that the broad range repercussions of law enforcement are not MERE.....This should not be overlooked when implementing new legislation, but it almost always is...

there ought to be no Firearms-Crime in Chi-town,or in all of California as a matter of Fact!
The strict Gunlaws ought to prevent it!
Neither ought to be any in NYC,for the same reason!

And in Kennesaw,GA,you ought to have conditions similar to the OK-Corral daily!

I have not read one posting in this thread where someone has made the statement that mentally competent people shouldn't be allowed to bear arms. That allows them to protect them-selves

I have read posting where people believe that incompetent people should have the right to bear arms until an offence has occured by their own personal actions.

Many of the largest populated cities in the U.S. were developed through organized crime rings'. The deaths' that occured were some of the most horrific mutilations of human beings. Not all of these deaths were by the use of guns but other weapons ( the right to bear arms).

People want to apply the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS in two different directions. ONE: it means to them that as a militia state there used to protect it, but not wanting to accept that under that description there part of the U.S. militia. SECOND: it means to them that they have the right to bear arms, but consider them selves' not part of the militia and only to protect them self. It can only have ONE meaning to be defind and applied if equal consideration is to be effective under the Constitution.

The graphic's and arguement's in defence of everyone has the right to bear arms regardless of the mental condition are the same arguement's posted back in November and December of 2012. These are basicly saved in a file by people and reposted when this discussion beings again with out adding any further importance to the discussion on how to help ALL INDIVIDUAL WHETHER THEIR VICTIMS OR NOT VICTIMS TODATE.

http://www.capitalisminstitute.org/handgun-ban/

Democrat Leader: We’re Going to Ban Handguns Next

Jan SchakowskyPeople who defend their tyrannical leaders have to engage in mental aerobics — namely denial and delusions. Every day, dozens of leftists post on our Facebook page claiming “nobody wants to ban your guns”… even though Obama is literally having press conferences about banning guns I own. Either way, this should be proof that yes, a comprehensive gun ban is their goal.

A Democrat leader in the House of Representatives, Rep. Jan Schakowsky from Illinois, is promising that an assault weapons ban is “just the beginning”. Handguns are next, just like they are in Illinois. In other words, the gun control laws that are failing in Chicago are soon going to be the goal for the entire country.

There’s a reason that the political divide in America is so strong and is growing stronger. Some people want tyranny regardless of how many people it kills, how many lives it ruins, and regardless of what studies show. They aren’t motivated by facts — they want the state to grow in power, and it’s only about that. The conversation and admission is below.

Breitbart.com reports:

“We want everything on the table,” Schakowsky told Mattera. “This is a moment of opportunity. There’s no question about it.”

One poignant exchange was as follows:

Schakowsky: We’re on a roll now, and I think we’ve got to take the–you know, we’re gonna push as hard as we can and as far as we can.

Mattera: So the assault weapons ban is just the beginning?

Schakowsky: Oh absolutely. I mean, I’m against handguns. We have, in Illinois, the Council Against Handgun… something [Violence]. Yeah, I’m a member of that. So, absolutely.

Get ready, because it’s going to be a rough ride over the next few years. They want to ban assault weapons, and they want to repeat the mistakes of Chicago, the UK, and DC — they want to ban handguns as well. Remember, handgun crime doubled in the UK after the handgun ban. Not just crime — handgun crime specifically. The ban was a complete and total failure.

They’ve lied about the statistics. They’ve ignored the facts. They’ve used sexism to justify disarming women. Don’t make a mistake — your well being was never their goal.

Of course, the original intent of the Second Amendment is clear, but that won’t slow them. Their goal isn’t the law, it isn’t liberty, it isn’t safety — their goal is power. And that’s it.


So much for the Goddamn Middleground!

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal."
-- Janet Reno

Keep up your,They Don't Mean it-Rhetoric until that fateful 4AM-Knock,errm,Door bursting open!


another POS!

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/12948-dianne-feinstein-ptsd-is-a-new-phenomenon

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) wants to ban assault weapons. That’s not surprise. She also seems to be fine with retired police officers being exempted from the rule. However, she opposes veterans being exempted due to the possibility of PTSD. However, Real Clear Politics shared this little bit from the good senator [emphasis added by yours truly]:

The problem with expanding this is that, you know, with the advent of PTSD, which I think is a new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War, it’s not clear how the seller or transferrer of a firearm covered by this bill would verify that an individual was a member, or a veteran, and that there was no impairment of that individual with respect to having a weapon like this.

Really? A new phenomenon as a product of the Iraq War? PTSD, which means Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, is hardly “new.” In fact, it has a fairly long history.

Among the earliest diagnosis which would fit this criteria were soliders in the 19th century who were dianosed with “exhaustion.” In World War I, the condition was referred to as being “shell shocked.” In the Korean War, it was “battle fatigue.” The term PTSD was coined in the 1970’s in the aftermath of the Vietnam War.

In fact, most alive today are more familiar with the Vietnam era PTSD vets, as those are the ones that usually raised us. How prevelant was the condition with that group of veterans?:

According to the results gathered using these assessment tools, an estimated 15.2% of male and 8.5% of female Vietnam theater Veterans met criteria for current PTSD (Schlenger et al., 1992; see Table 1). Those with high levels of war-zone exposure had significantly higher rates, with 35.8% of men and 17.5% of women meeting criteria for current PTSD.

When you think of the numbers of men and women who were in Vietnam, you see that there leaves a lot of people who suffer from this condition. One of those, I honestly believe, is my father.

Feinstein may believe it’s only a recent phenomenon, but clearly it’s not. Of course, she also believes it’s associated with war. Guess what? She’s wrong again.

PTSD affects a wide variety of people. Among the most common victims are rape victims. You know who else finds themselves suffering from PTSD? Police officers.

Officers who have been involved in shootouts often find themsleves in therapy, dealing with the aftermath. This is particularly true if they lose a partner in the shootout. Oddly enough, these officers are often back on the streets a short time afterward. Yes, armed with “assault weapons” as defined by Feinstein’s bill.

In fact, millions of PTSD sufferers have owned firearms through the years. A miniscule number of them have committed any kind of atrocity. However, Feinstein would punish these millions of people because of what a handful of people have done, most of whom don’t seem to have PTSD. Now why is that?

Could it be because Sen. Feinstein doesn’t know jack about what she’s talking about? Whatever you do, don’t let John McCain know…not that it would matter. McCain’s not worried about taking shots at Democrats right now.

yeah, its either one way or the other,,,,NOT!

but nice strawmans,,,,now who is gonna post all the irrelevant anti gun quotes from famous revered persons?

Have you watched any drug commercials lately? The listed "possible" side effects of many prescription drugs are a longer list, and worse than the symptom the drug is supposed to be fixing.

MOST drugs just mask symptoms. They don't cure disease.

There is a thing called drug abuse and it is not limited to illegal drugs. Most drug abuse is prescription drugs.

Your analogy is not a good one. Drugs and guns are not even close to the same thing, and there is no constitutional amendment about drugs or people having the right to them.

These are two separate topics.

not really, the comparison was showing an analogous logic

a false premise that only the extremes exist and nothing in the middle matters or counts,,,,


harm and death are not SIDE effects of guns, they are why they are manufactured

unlike drugs,, which are designed to help but often have 'side effects'

and yet, just as there are situations where people need drugs to help and situations where people need guns to protect

there is also situations where people have a dangerous mixture of drugs, OR WEAPONS< or an abundance/overdose of weapons or drugs

it makes sense to regulate enough to try to avoid those situations happening as often,,,,

I dont want people who need and use drugs to not have access to the drugs they are in need of

I do want people who would abuse drugs to have less access to that risk through regulations, and I want to see people who would harm others with weapons for reasons BEYOND any reasonable self defense excuse, have less access to that risk through regulations

Seems the second link I placed doesn't work right. So....This is how Canadian Gun Laws would have affected some incidents.



Take note: I am not a gun control fanatic. I am a member of the NRA and have personal use of a military grade small arms range. The system works. Too rigid....definitely! But it works.

And if you Regulate a Women to Not have a Gun, and she is Killed without the Means to Defend Herself; Then What?
Before we start to Pass New Laws, how about we Enforce the Laws that are Already on the Books; Criminals don't buy their Weapons by Legal Means.

And if you Regulate a Women to Not have a Gun, and she is Killed without the Means to Defend Herself; Then What?
Before we start to Pass New Laws, how about we Enforce the Laws that are Already on the Books; Criminals don't buy their Weapons by Legal Means.

This is exactly right -- there are hundreds of laws about gun regulations but no one to enforce them. No one bothers to enforce the ones we already have.

If I wanted to sell a gun, no stupid legislation is going to tell me to do a background check on a person I've known all my life.

Or anyone else for that matter.

The government has no business in my business. That's my opinion, I'm sure they don't agree.

who supports regulations that prevent women from having 'a gun'?

yes, we need to enforce the laws and allow them to evolve with the technology,,,


and people who dont do things legally , are therefore called 'criminals',, goes without saying that they dont follow the laws...

All of this discussion seems to be very USA centric. The rest of the world, who have much less rates of deaths by firearms and dare I say other crimes, shake their collective heads. I am glad that I live in a country where the population is not so afraid of the government that they need to be armed or feel that human life is worth so little that you can be shot running away from s crime (not a threat to anyone). I am also grateful that my children do not go to schools where there are armed guards or indeed armed teachers. It seems that the majority of mass killings in the US are not committed by criminals but by ordinary people who have ready access to firearms when the reach a crisis in their lives.