Too many Guns

[Punisher 67]

+ .................... Another great debate.................

[AndyKunz]

Yes Andy, I know it was the ACLU's fault, really, you have that little regard for the police??

I have no idea what you're talking about here, Bill, but just let me clarify where I stand with the cops:

My oldest son is a cop. We're very proud of him. His beat is one of the bad parts of town - drugs, gangs, etc.

Andy

[Bill-SOCAL]

I have no idea what you're talking about here, Bill, but just let me clarify where I stand with the cops:

My oldest son is a cop. We're very proud of him. His beat is one of the bad parts of town - drugs, gangs, etc.

Andy

SOrry about that, I meant Dr. Jet. He wrote this earlier:

One of the key elements you forget is that police are now "hesitating" before drawing their weapons. Why?

"Will I get sued by the ACLU if I draw my gun?"
"With the radical feminist police chief of Oakland suspend me for not being tolerant of the suspect's diversity?"
"Will I be terminated for being a racist, homophobe, bigot?"

Yes, they may have been armed, but their training on the range may have been neglected during their "Diversity Training".

My oldest friend is a cop, my uncle was a cop, and I count several as friends. I think they are better trained and better prepared than this.

[Bill-SOCAL]

This just in:

(CNN) -- One person was killed and three others were wounded during a shooting at a religious retreat Tuesday at a remote campground in southern California.

The shooting near the city of Temecula was reported about 7:23 p.m. (10:23 p.m. ET), said Sgt. Dennis Gutierrez, public information officer for the Riverside County Sheriff's Department.

Gutierrez did not offer many details about the shooting, saying officers had problems getting information because of a language barrier.

The retreat was for a Korean group, Gutierrez said. Police thought the shooter was one of the people injured, he added. Those wounded were in critical condition.

"Everybody was shot," Gutierrez said. "This apparently was a religious retreat. There are some ladies here who appear to be nuns who are very distraught about what just occurred here."

Unraveling the crime would take time, according to a sheriff's spokeswoman.

"The victims were in different locations, so it is a fairly big crime scene," Deputy Herlinda Valenzuela said.

Too bad those nuns were not armed themselves. They could have nipped this one in the bud!!

[Bill-SOCAL]

More tragedy:

http://www.witn.com/home/headlines/42658232.html

Two police shot, one fatally. They went into a situation where they knew the guy was armed, so no ambush theory here.

I guess what I am getting to is I wish hard core gun folks would just be truthful in their position instead of trying to trump up all kinds of silly rationale for their desire to be armed. You like it. It makes you feel better. I am totally OK with that as a reason.

Beyond that the facts are really not on your side and these absurd statements about how you're going to kill 'em all and let God sort them out when things go bad are just that, silly.

[Dr. Jet]

SOrry about that, I meant Dr. Jet. He wrote this earlier:




My oldest friend is a cop, my uncle was a cop, and I count several as friends. I think they are better trained and better prepared than this.

I have all the respect in the world for cops. I just think that their training is going in the wrong direction. The ACLU and the Vermin in Black Robes have them hesitating instead of taking action.

For example: In the Oakland shootings, some or all of them would still be alive if they approached that car with guns drawn when that cockroach popped out of the open sunroof and started firing. They knew he was a felon and a rape suspect.

Why did they not have their guns drawn? Liberalism. You don't want to OFFEND the suspect do you? You could get sued, lose your job, pay millions in "damages". In times past, before the ACLU and the Vermin in Black Robes dictated how a cop is supposed to act, cops would approach violent suspects with firepower at the ready.

Now they have to worry what will happen after they act.

[bustitup]

Steve said this one would get HOT

Do you really think if we are made to turn our guns in that the "Bad Guys" wont have guns anymore?.....I think you should just leave us "good guys" alone and dont worry about why we want to keep them because its really none of your business what the reason is.....

More tragedy:

http://www.witn.com/home/headlines/42658232.html

Two police shot, one fatally. They went into a situation where they knew the guy was armed, so no ambush theory here.

I guess what I am getting to is I wish hard core gun folks would just be truthful in their position instead of trying to trump up all kinds of silly rationale for their desire to be armed. You like it. It makes you feel better. I am totally OK with that as a reason.

Beyond that the facts are really not on your side and these absurd statements about how you're going to kill 'em all and let God sort them out when things go bad are just that, silly.

[Bill-SOCAL]

Steve said this one would get HOT

Do you really think if we are made to turn our guns in that the "Bad Guys" wont have guns anymore?.....I think you should just leave us "good guys" alone and dont worry about why we want to keep them because its really none of your business what the reason is.....

Missed the point entirely. I have said nothing about taking guns away from people. At this point the Genie is out of the bottle. But what I am saying is that we as a society need to recognize that guns are extremely dangerous and that there may be very good reasons to reconsider our attitude and approach to them.

For instance, I think that the use of a firearm in the commission of any felony should result in life in prison. Period. No parole. As it stands now you are likely to spend more time in jail for animal abuse than you will for a gun violation.

I think we need to look closer at having more restrictive training requirements to hopefully reduce the number of accidental deaths. I think you should have to prove you can safely use what the gun you are buying.

But most take your approach, it is none of our business, but you are wrong. It is very much our business as a society.

[Doby]

Imagine;

Bad guys doing bad things with guns (shooting).
The good citizens draw their guns and shoot
Cops show up and try and sort the mess out, and start shooting at anyone with a gun..
Bad guys dead, good citizens dead.

Cops get blamed for killing good citizens.....

Its only a matter of time.

Thank God for Canada, its not perfect but...................

[Bill-SOCAL]

The Second Amendment reads:

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.

The gun lobby and most enthusiasts read it like this: 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.


But almost always ignore this part: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

Notice that the Second Amendment says nothing about personal safety, security, home defense, etc. It talks about the security of the state.

Just something to think about.

[AndyKunz]

Almost sounds like the founding fathers were saying that it is necessary, for the States to keep themselves free from a Federal power grab, that the states need to have an armed militia of the citizens bearing arms.

I'll go for that.

According to the Supreme Court (just last year) the emphasis needs to be allowing citizens to bear arms.

I'll go for that, too.

Don't forget the first words are, "We the People, in order to form a more perfect union, ..." They weren't talking about the government providing the people with security, they were saying that the security comes from the people governing themselves within the guidelines of the Constitution.

The Second Amendment (and the others) are about LIMITING THE GOVERNMENTs rights. Remember, unless a right is specifically delegated to the Feds by the Constitution (not a judge), it remains with the States.

Andy

[Dr. Jet]

For instance, I think that the use of a firearm in the commission of any felony should result in life in prison. Period. No parole. As it stands now you are likely to spend more time in jail for animal abuse than you will for a gun violation.

Be careful there my friend. You sound like someone that subscribes to the Savage Nation with that philosophy.

Maybe you are getting over that mental disorder.....

[AndyKunz]

For instance, I think that the use of a firearm in the commission of any felony should result in life in prison. Period. No parole. As it stands now you are likely to spend more time in jail for animal abuse than you will for a gun violation.

I'd be willing to say, after you think about the unintended consequences, you really don't want that. The prosecuting attorneys will use any and all means to put a gun in a criminal's hand in order to "look tough" and get re-elected. It also becomes a bargaining chip for getting confessions to help put your buddy in jail. Criminals will be more than happy to squeal, falsely or not, about their buddies in order to avoid a life sentence. You can't trust criminals, whether elected or on the street! Put on a little heat and they'll tell you just want they think you want to hear.

Andy

[Dr. Jet]

You can't trust criminals, whether elected or on the street!

That sounds like a topic for another 'Heated" thread.

[Bill-SOCAL]

Almost sounds like the founding fathers were saying that it is necessary, for the States to keep themselves free from a Federal power grab, that the states need to have an armed militia of the citizens bearing arms.

I'll go for that.

Cool. And it already exists. It is called the "National Guard". The courts have held as much since around 1936 or so. The recent DC gun case changed that tone a bit. Until the 2007 decision the courts had never recognized an individual's right to arms. But like I said, that has been changed so a court ruling is OK.