It is time to revise/update the U.S. constitution.....

[dazzlingamy]

I am STRONGLY behind gun control, I don't believe anyone outside of police and security should carry one (besides farmers on the land etc) I believe the ordinary "layman" is not equipped to responsibly carry a firearm and have the forethought and knowledge to decide when appropriate to display it (i also think this quite often of the police as well as another suspect lays dead instead of in custody from a policeman who shoots to kill instead of wound)

I believe in the world, no one had the right to take someone elses life. NO ONE. But sadly we have gun prevalent in society anf they're not going away.

While i do agree that people obviously have the right to protect themselves, protecting yourself with a gun is STUPID. A gun is a lethal weapon, 9/10 you point it at someone they're not going to make it (Especially as most people don't even now how the shoot the bloody things and just point it at their heads!) There are other ways you an protect yourself, and living in a society where gun ownership is outlawed, most times the assailent isn't armed themselves and therefore their is no need for lethal force.

I TOTALLY disagree with the fact that this dude walked into a gun shop showed his ID got a quick background check into his criminal history and suddent a handgun and 30 rounds of ammo - i mean, this is not normal? who would WANT to live in a society where this is NORMAL? I believe people wanting to own guns should be ruthlessly psychologically tested before being able to purchase a weapon. (well i don't believe they should be able to purchase them, but in the least!)

bluntly, i've never touched a gun, but i'd rather have one, than not, should, say, a Katrina-style disaster befall Washington DC and it's 48 hours before law and order is restored.

[/B]

but if you lived in a socitey where joe from the street can buy a gun and then decide to be all gun toting and robbing in a state of lawlessness, you wouldn't need a gun to protect yourself.

I just think the thought process of "right to bear arms" means 'i have the right to shove a gun in the face of anyone who tries to mess with me and then shoot them because im "protecting myself" is bullshit. Total scary mental bullshit.

But regarding the free right rant from AB - no. Freedom of speech is something not to be messed with.

 

[fly so high!]

and what if we added to the mix
the same ratio of guns and munitions ratios to Blacksberg that Baghdad has?

I heard this from a CNN report and i was totally shocked at what they had to say about gun ownership.

They mentioned that there is over 600,000,000 firearms on the planet ( not just Baghdad! ).

The USA has 200,000,000 of them. 1/3 of the world's firearms .......this was not including military weapons.

The USA needs to DOWN-ARMS!

 

[anitram]

I've always thought American obsession with guns is weird. Other free and democratic societies do not express the same level of interest in guns and we're not missing anything. Right to bear arms...give me a break. It's an infringement of your rights? Yeah, so are about a thousand different activities, from things sanctioned by criminal law to those covered by tort law. I don't see how original intent can justify reliance on the 2nd amendment at all.

 

[Irvine511]

i am baffled by the gun culture as well.

but i have seen it. and i do not understand it.

my best friend sent me an email today, probably with the intent of starting a gun control debate with me. while i wasn't going to get involved -- and i think this particular issue is actually a poor example of a case upon which to base legislation -- he did write this, which i hope provides some sort of insight:

[q]But what I am hoping is that instead of launching on crusades against various things - sorry, but even if you were to ban guns in the state of Virginia, the only people who wouldn't have them are law-abiding citizens: it's just a fact - we actually take the opportunity to study this issue and find a way to prevent it. I.e. here, just as at Columbine, there were about 50 warning signs in the weeks/months prior - so why don't we look at ways of setting up alerts? These types of plays SCREAM out that there are serious internal issues - and even when you say hindsight is 20/20 - I would have been extremely leary about this... [/q]

 

[yolland]

Most likely nothing at all will be done anyhow...there's almost no political will to take on the NRA right now.

 

[LarryMullen's POPAngel]

I have never understood the gun culture in America, nor will I ever.

When I was little, my dad had an old hunting rifle that he kept on the top shelf of a closet. I had to have it explained to me many times the bullets were far away and not actually inside the gun. Even still, the thought of that gun in the house terrified me.

I think it's time we look at other societies that are free and do not have these same issues and begin work so that we can be more like them. Why are we so obsessed with our right to bear arms? So we can uphold the "we're America, don't fuck with us" bad ass attitude? Yeah, just look at where it's gotten us. Columbine, the Amish school house incident, Virginia Tech. Dozens of lives snuffed out, for absolutely nothing.

 

[yolland]

[q]here, just as at Columbine, there were about 50 warning signs in the weeks/months prior - so why don't we look at ways of setting up alerts? These types of plays SCREAM out that there are serious internal issues - and even when you say hindsight is 20/20 - I would have been extremely leary about this... [/q]

So, basically, it's the school's/parents'/mental health profession's/anyone and everyone who recognized he was messed up's fault, for not seeing to it that he was put under lock and key so he wouldn't be able to get his hands on a handgun?

Right, there's a viable strategy.

Legally, colleges are quite limited in what they can do about students who seem to have psychological problems, unless perhaps they've made direct physical threats on others, talked about trying to kill themselves (or attempted to), or are flunking out. There is some leeway in interpreting those restrictions, probably more so at private schools, but the scope of authority for, e.g., forcing someone to attend therapy regularly (which won't do much good if the person resists therapy, anyway) is not great.

 

[joyfulgirl]

My father had a rifle and a pistol. It was just part of farm/country life where I grew up. In the 18 years that I lived in that house, I don't think either gun was ever fired for any reason. They were there for protection (the KKK were still quite active where I grew up and my Dad had black friends) and for hunting if that were ever necessary (he didn't hunt for sport). Now that's responsible gun ownership and probably closer to what our forefathers had in mind. Unfortunately, we live in a different world today.

Originally posted by Irvine511
bluntly, i've never touched a gun, but i'd rather have one, than not, should, say, a Katrina-style disaster befall Washington DC and it's 48 hours before law and order is restored.

Same here. A friend bought a gun for that reason and when showing it to me I wouldn't even touch it, it freaked me out. Yet I respected his right to protect himself and trusted him with it. He eventually returned it, though, not quite comfortable with it himself.

 

[STING2]

My question was rhetorical. Having been a revolutionary war reinactor, and a history major, I am pretty sure I understand what was going on. And I would add to your impressive understanding, that the British did indeed launch a few successful operations seizing the sotred arms in other towns. They also targeted foundries down by the Cape of Cod, where there was quite a cannon ball making facility.

I would again state that it was important to the colonists before, during and after the war, to protect their right to bear arms, for the very reason that they feared a strong central governement.

[Q]"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -- Thomas Jefferson[/Q]

Yep, very worried about the Native Americans. I wonder, in the Federalist Papers, does it mention that argument?

Well, Thomas Jefferson may not be worried about Native Americans, but thousands of colonist who had seen their people slaughtered over the years since the first settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts by Native Americans know better. So would any of the colonist who served with the British Military in 3 wars against the French and Indians. Town militia's were necessary for security from the start of the first settlements, otherwise the colonial movement would have been wiped out in the early 1600s. The militia's were never formed in order to protect the "right to bear arms" etc. 90% of the colonist were farmers and even in England their right to bear arms would be protected given what they did for a living, even without all the issues of settling lands with hostile natives and foreign powers just over the horizon.

The colonist prior to the events surrounding the Revolution did not fear the British government and regarded themselves as British and were in fact proud to be apart of the British Empire. The weapons the militia's had were for the protection of the towns as well as to keep militia's ready to support the British military if needed, as so often happened in 3 wars over 50 years fought against the French and Indians. Prior to 1763, no colonist thought of their weapons as a means to resist and revolt against the British Empire an Empire that up to that time they were proud to be apart of. The weapons were necessary for the militia's as well as for daily farm and frontier life.

The second amendment states:


"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."


It did NOT say:


"As a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".

The British moves in late 1774 and early 1775 to sieze stores of ammo and supplies were about weakening a threatening military force in the form of the Massachusetts Militias. The British were not attempting to sieze all the muskets in every house, on every farm, in the state of Massachusetts. The colonist grievances against England from 1763 to 1775 had nothing to do with the "right to bear arms".

The colonist had always had a military force in the form of the militia's and they wanted to continue that method of protecting their security primarily through town militia's after the Revolution. Things have changed though, and today the United States has the second largest standing military on the planet and town and states have police forces. Unlike in the late 1700s, citizens can no longer legally obtain the weapons capability that Thomas Jefferson said was necessary to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

 

[yolland]

My father had a rifle and a pistol. It was just part of farm/country life where I grew up. In the 18 years that I lived in that house, I don't think either gun was ever fired for any reason. They were there for protection (the KKK were still quite active where I grew up and my Dad had black friends) and for hunting if that were ever necessary (he didn't hunt for sport). Now that's responsible gun ownership and probably closer to what our forefathers had in mind. Unfortunately, we live in a different world today.

Most everyone where I grew up owned guns too, or so it seemed...usually a rifle and pistol, like you mention. My parents had bad associations with guns and wanted nothing to do with them. I've no problem with hunters and their rifles; it is true that a small percentage of gun homicides are committed with them (about 4%), but that much I can live with. Sometimes I do feel torn on the guns-for-defense issue when listening to people who live in isolated rural areas--as a neighbor of my oldest brother's (who lives in the country outside Asheville) told him, "I live half a mile up a rutted dirt mountain road that leads to nowhere but me. If I see a car I don't recognize pull up, it's either someone lost or it's trouble, and the police are 20 minutes away." I can understand that; on the other hand, virtually all the murders that take place in that area happen either in town and start out as fights or robberies, or in the home and as a result of "domestic incidents."

Why are we so obsessed with the simple reality of being vulnerable, why is that so hard for people to come to terms with--to the point that we'll support the kind of easy access that makes our chances of being a victim of gun homicide skyrocket, just so long as we can say, But see, I've got one, too?

 

[Dreadsox]

[Q]Well, Thomas Jefferson may not be worried about Native Americans, but thousands of colonist who had seen their people slaughtered over the years since the first settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts by Native Americans know better. So would any of the colonist who served with the British Military in 3 wars against the French and Indians. [/Q]

Again, you speak as if you are lecturing me. The settlers also did slaughtering if my memory serves correct. I have not said that there was no need for people to have had weapons.


[Q]n militia's were necessary for security from the start of the first settlements, otherwise the colonial movement would have been wiped out in the early 1600s. The militia's were never formed in order to protect the "right to bear arms" etc. 90% of the colonist were farmers and even in England their right to bear arms would be protected given what they did for a living, even without all the issues of settling lands with hostile natives and foreign powers just over the horizon. [/Q]

I never said militia's were formed to protect the right to bear arms professor. Stop doing what you do to every other poster in this forum. Stop putting owrds into my mouth.

[Q] colonist prior to the events surrounding the Revolution did not fear the British government and regarded themselves as British and were in fact proud to be apart of the British Empire.[/Q]

Well, you have got something right.

[Q]Prior to 1763, no colonist thought of their weapons as a means to resist and revolt against the British Empire an Empire that up to that time they were proud to be apart of. The weapons were necessary for the militia's as well as for daily farm and frontier life. [/Q]

And, when was the Constitution written? 1763? Wake up. The Constitution was written after the war when the thought of a tyrranical government disarming themwas on their minds.


[Q] "As a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".[/Q]

Ummm....glad to see you can read the text of the Constituion. I never said it said that, but I have read the first hand accounts of the debates that took place state by state, over each of the Ammendments. I have read the federalist papers. I would think that this is where the INTENT of the ammendment was discussed professor.

[Q] The British moves in late 1774 and early 1775 to sieze stores of ammo and supplies were about weakening a threatening military force in the form of the Massachusetts Militias. The British were not attempting to sieze all the muskets in every house, on every farm, in the state of Massachusetts. The colonist grievances against England from 1763 to 1775 had nothing to do with the "right to bear arms". [/Q]

I am a little surprised at your lack of understanding here with your military knowledge. I am just curious, exactly who do you think made up the militia? Where did the militia come from and where did they get their weapons?

The British moved on large concentrations of munitions because the farmers who made up the militias would not have had enough munitions to battle the superior forces.

Again, the reason the founding fathers wanted the new country armed was because without the success of the farmer/militiaman, the war would have been lost EARLY on.


Now you can post louder than me, longer than me, put words into my mouth, and twist my words, but the fact remains, there is a HISTORICAL RECORD in which the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS was debated, in each of the 13 colonies. There is a historical record of the men who said specifically why the ammendment was there.

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

Side bar, you speak of the native Americans as if they were Al-Qaeda. Aside from King Phillips War do you have any other grudges towards them?

 

[anitram]

It is unacceptable in any civilized society that a person who has had a history of mental illness, hospitalization and stalking is allowed to purchase a gun. Imposing limits on his 2nd amendment rights is fully justifiable. And the idea that the other students should have been armed to defend themselves is ridiculous. Let's all die in crossfire. What intelligent human being would attend a university where everyone's packing?

 

[Dreadsox]

It is unacceptable in any civilized society that a person who has had a history of mental illness, hospitalization and stalking is allowed to purchase a gun. Imposing limits on his 2nd amendment rights is fully justifiable. And the idea that the other students should have been armed to defend themselves is ridiculous. Let's all die in crossfire. What intelligent human being would attend a university where everyone's packing?

If this is how you interpret my statements, I can only say that is not what I meant.

It is unacceptable that NOBODY filed an official police report about this student. They went to the police, but did not want to file an official report. And THAT is the heart of the problem in this country, not the fact that law abiding people can purchase a weapon. The heart of the problem is that school officials and joe average citizen are hampered with the threat of litigation and laws that are back asswards, protecting the criminal and not the victem.

When I was first married, three months into our marriage, our downstairs neighbor attempted to break in on my wife. He was unsuccessful. The police told my wife and I there was no evidence that he tried to get in on her so there was nothing they could do, other than tell us that we could get a restraining order. A process, that does little to bring sanity to an insane situation. It is his word against hers.

And as far as education, and schools rights.....The laws are not in the schools favor either when it comes to doing something about students that are potential problems for classmates.

The reality is, no gun law as framed by Virginia law currently stands would have changed a thing. However, the one thing that could have changed was someone having the intestinal fortitude to actually file some type of charges against him.

 

[deep]

Hey Dread,

How many guns do you own?

 

[Irvine511]

should being admitted to a mental institution for any reason be enough to disqualify someone from ever being able to purchase a gun, much like being convicted of a felony disqualifies someone?

it seems to me that if we're going to kick people out of the military for being gay or we don't let anyone who's ever smoked marijuana work in some areas of the CIA, hospitalization seems a perfectly reasonable disqualification for handgun ownership.

 

[Dreadsox]

Hey Dread,

How many guns do you own?

Why do you ask?

 

[Dreadsox]

should being admitted to a mental institution for any reason be enough to disqualify someone from ever being able to purchase a gun, much like being convicted of a felony disqualifies someone?

it seems to me that if we're going to kick people out of the military for being gay or we don't let anyone who's ever smoked marijuana work in some areas of the CIA, hospitalization seems a perfectly reasonable disqualification for handgun ownership.

I would say yes to this....but...I am willing to bet that privacy law prevents this......

 

[deep]

Why do you ask?

Just
curious

I got a few.

 

[Dreadsox]

Just
curious

I got a few.

I do not publicly announce what I have or do not have. It helps keep people guessing. Kind of like Saddam and WMD.

[Q]In December 2005 -- more than a year before Monday's mass shootings -- a district court in Montgomery County, Va., ruled that Cho presented "an imminent danger to self or others." That was the necessary criterion for a detention order, so that Cho, who had been accused of stalking by two female schoolmates, could be evaluated by a state doctor and ordered to undergo outpatient care. [/Q]

If this is true.....HOW DID HE PURCHASE A GUN?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=3052278

 

[Dreadsox]

nevre mind...I am getting too cranky.

 

[STING2]

[Q]Well, Thomas Jefferson may not be worried about Native Americans, but thousands of colonist who had seen their people slaughtered over the years since the first settlements in Virginia and Massachusetts by Native Americans know better. So would any of the colonist who served with the British Military in 3 wars against the French and Indians. [/Q]

Again, you speak as if you are lecturing me. The settlers also did slaughtering if my memory serves correct. I have not said that there was no need for people to have had weapons.


[Q]n militia's were necessary for security from the start of the first settlements, otherwise the colonial movement would have been wiped out in the early 1600s. The militia's were never formed in order to protect the "right to bear arms" etc. 90% of the colonist were farmers and even in England their right to bear arms would be protected given what they did for a living, even without all the issues of settling lands with hostile natives and foreign powers just over the horizon. [/Q]

I never said militia's were formed to protect the right to bear arms professor. Stop doing what you do to every other poster in this forum. Stop putting owrds into my mouth.

[Q] colonist prior to the events surrounding the Revolution did not fear the British government and regarded themselves as British and were in fact proud to be apart of the British Empire.[/Q]

Well, you have got something right.

[Q]Prior to 1763, no colonist thought of their weapons as a means to resist and revolt against the British Empire an Empire that up to that time they were proud to be apart of. The weapons were necessary for the militia's as well as for daily farm and frontier life. [/Q]

And, when was the Constitution written? 1763? Wake up. The Constitution was written after the war when the thought of a tyrranical government disarming themwas on their minds.


[Q] "As a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".[/Q]

Ummm....glad to see you can read the text of the Constituion. I never said it said that, but I have read the first hand accounts of the debates that took place state by state, over each of the Ammendments. I have read the federalist papers. I would think that this is where the INTENT of the ammendment was discussed professor.

[Q] The British moves in late 1774 and early 1775 to sieze stores of ammo and supplies were about weakening a threatening military force in the form of the Massachusetts Militias. The British were not attempting to sieze all the muskets in every house, on every farm, in the state of Massachusetts. The colonist grievances against England from 1763 to 1775 had nothing to do with the "right to bear arms". [/Q]

I am a little surprised at your lack of understanding here with your military knowledge. I am just curious, exactly who do you think made up the militia? Where did the militia come from and where did they get their weapons?

The British moved on large concentrations of munitions because the farmers who made up the militias would not have had enough munitions to battle the superior forces.

Again, the reason the founding fathers wanted the new country armed was because without the success of the farmer/militiaman, the war would have been lost EARLY on.


Now you can post louder than me, longer than me, put words into my mouth, and twist my words, but the fact remains, there is a HISTORICAL RECORD in which the RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS was debated, in each of the 13 colonies. There is a historical record of the men who said specifically why the ammendment was there.

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

Side bar, you speak of the native Americans as if they were Al-Qaeda. Aside from King Phillips War do you have any other grudges towards them?

I'm well aware that the constitution was written after the war, but you started this line of debate by talking about Lexington and Concord and I was responding to that as well as the following qoute:

"I would again state that it was important to the colonists before, during and after the war, to protect their right to bear arms, for the very reason that they feared a strong central governement."

The colonist were not afraid of a strong central government taking away their guns before the war and they did not go to war because of the "right to bear arms".

The Militias came from the population 90% of whom were farmers but that does not change the fact many in the Militia's were professionals and were the main military force in the colonies for security. The description of them as just being simple farmers with no clue who individually went after the British is false. The militia companies of each town were organized and trained for variety of missions including assisting the British Army. Farmers, whether in the militia or not, had firearms to protect their livestock and hunt. It was not to stop a hypothetical tyranical government and the British military was not out to sieze farmers firearms which even in England would be considered a necessity for one that had a farm.

The Militia's were military forces that had previously aided the limited number of British military forces in the colonies. When the growing conflict moved towards war, the militia companies that had earlier supported and supplemented British military forces became hostile military formations, and the British Army in Boston, heavily outnumbered, wanted to weaken the militia's ability to threaten them.

The largest stores of ammo and supplies were actually in Worcester. The Militia there actually had 15 cannon!

The Militia's had been the main military force in the colonies with the exception of a few periods going all the way back to Jamestown in 1607. In the absense of a significant standing army, the militia's were necessary for security.

Regardless of the fact that many of the founding fathers considered it important to not infringe upon the right to bear arms for fear of hypothetical tyranical government, US citizens have long since lost the legal ability to obtain weapons to successfully oppose the government. The capability that Thomas Jefferson and others wanted US citizens to have no longer exist. So this is not an arguement that can used in regards to whether there needs to be stricter gun control or a total ban on guns for civilians in 2007.



If you think King Philips War was the only case of Indians slaughtering colonist, you are greatly mistaken. The #1 threat to the security of colonist from Georgia to Maine(then Massachusetts) during the pre-Revolutionary war period were Indians. Indians raided and slaughtered colonist for several hundred years all the way up and down the eastern seaboard. Colonist certainly did their share of slaughtering as well and there was fighting between various Indian tribes also. There were also several towns, where at least for a period of time, Indians and Colonist lived together peacefully such as Sudbury Massachusetts.

 

[Dreadsox]

Have a nice day Sting. You have a wonderful grasp af statistics, data ect.

Again, You put words into my mouth. I have blocked you for periods of time, because quite frankly, there is no discussion with you.

I did not state that the colonists went to war for the right to bear arms.

The fact that the the colonists went to a confederate system of government COMPLTELY supports my position that a strong central governement was feared by the colonists.

My point is that Lexington and Concord was indeed an attempt at disarming the colonists by getting the munitions (be the musketballs, poder, ect). You yourself state that 90% of the militia's were farmers. Obviously, they were not supplied their weapons by the government. They were their weapons. As for the taking of farmers weapons you have ignored my statement that the munitions were more important to the British than the actual weapons so by disarming, the materials stored in Concord were important.

[Q]Regardless of the fact that many of the founding fathers considered it important to not infringe upon the right to bear arms for fear of hypothetical tyranical government, US citizens have long since lost the legal ability to obtain weapons to successfully oppose the government.[/Q]

Speaking of "hypothetically tyrranical" how many of the rights we have do you support the governement removal of?


I do not give a rats ass who had what in Worcester. Its nice to know, but it would have been in loyalist territory based on what I know at the time, not much of a concern. Hence the raid on Ticonderoga to get cannon.


[Q]If you think King Philips War was the only case of Indians slaughtering colonist, you are greatly mistaken. The #1 threat to the security of colonist from Georgia to Maine(then Massachusetts) during the pre-Revolutionary war period were Indians. Indians raided and slaughtered colonist for several hundred years all the way up and down the eastern seaboard. Colonist certainly did their share of slaughtering as well and there was fighting between various Indian tribes also. There were also several towns, where at least for a period of time, Indians and Colonist lived together peacefully such as Sudbury Massachusetts.[/Q]

Gee...I di dnot know that.....LOL

Actually, the Native Americans were getting along pretty well throughout PLYMOUTH COLONY while the 1st generation of Pilgrims and Wampanoags were alive. It was during the next generation and the influence of Massachusetts Bay Colony that the tenor of the relationship in Massachusetts began to change.

And yet we dismiss the founding fathers and peoples written records of this Amendment with it doesn't matter because the US Army could kick our ass today if it wanted to....LOL

 

[Zoots]

I haven't read thru the whole thread but I agree that there should be stricter gun control laws! Way stricter! I want to say only the police and other law enforcement authorities should be able to possess guns of any kind. But I don't know if it's practical or not. I don't care about hunters. Human life is way more precious than the need for a hunting hobby!

 

[martha]

hospitalization seems a perfectly reasonable disqualification for handgun ownership.

California had a similar problem. We outlawed gun ownership for people convicted of certain degrees of domestic violence. That created quite a problem on some police forces.

 

[anitram]

If this is true.....HOW DID HE PURCHASE A GUN?
http://abcnews.go.com/US/print?id=3052278

That's what I was referring to before. One has got to wonder about the sanity of a law in that state which would permit such an individual to buy a gun.

And sure, history of mental illness hospitalization should result in an automatic preclusion to gun ownership. Why not? Your rights end where public peril begins.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

deep, Dreadsox, do you actually feel that insecure? Can I ask what kind of areas you live in? Is there ridiculously high crime?

I think this is what is most hard for us outside the US to understand. It's not the stereotype painted image of the redneck NRA member who drives this huge SUV, has an American flag in the front yard, gets around in God Bless America t-shirts and owns a small armoury that they think is literally their God given right to own - that's too easy to write off as crazy in some "only in America" way. What is hard to understand is the regular, average, middle class suburban living person who feels the need to own a gun/s. An actual feeling of need. That's where I think there is a key difference. I live in a city of 5 million, that comes with all the regular issues of a city of that size. I personally live pretty close to the city. I grew up in a suburb that had virtually no crime. If you were lying in bed and remembered you didn't lock your car out in the street, you really didn't think it was worth getting up and going and locking the thing, the risk of theft did not even register, perhaps petty theft from some 'naughty' local kid if you left something obvious exposed on the dashboard, but you wouldn't worry about the car itself. Just as an example. I now live in an inner city area, a mix of young couples, students, 20 something's living close to work etc. There's also a decent amount of crime in the area that means you definitely do get out of bed to lock your car, you do double check the house is all locked up, you do even angle where you place your belongings within your house so as the expensive stuff isn't so obvious to anyone peering through a window. Stuff happens, and you hear pretty regular stories from others living in the area.

It is, however, certainly not a dangerous area. Crime happens, very regularly, but it's not violent. Maybe that's the difference. My point is, I've lived in an area where I once left a brand new big screen TV in it's box on the front porch overnight without any concerns, and now in an area where we had to re-arrange the whole living room when we bought a plasma so that should we be watching it with the blinds open, no-one from the street could see it as we knew that would be pretty much asking for it. In neither situation though would I even contemplate owning a gun, nor do I feel any need for anything like that. At all. I can't imagine anywhere in a city like Sydney feeling the need to own one, and Sydney most definitely has it's fair share of dangerous areas and crime, as any city of it's size does.

I just can't fathom ever feeling the need to own one.

 

[A_Wanderer]

And yet we dismiss the founding fathers and peoples written records of this Amendment with it doesn't matter because the US Army could kick our ass today if it wanted to....LOL

Hmmm if only they were able to warn about the danger of a standing army back them.

 

[Dreadsox]

deep, Dreadsox, do you actually feel that insecure? Can I ask what kind of areas you live in? Is there ridiculously high crime?

I just can't fathom ever feeling the need to own one.

I am not sure why owning a gun makes one "insecure".

I live in a rural area. The big news over the last 10 years is Dunkin Dognuts (heh) and McDonalds arriving in town. Life has become busy in the last few years in our town!

Most of the "townies" those born and raised here own guns. I am not a townie and our "Old Home Day" is one in which people who are not townies, just do not fit in.

The gun controversy has blazed in my town hot and cold over the last ten years. A police chief was basically run out of town for not giving enough gun permits, quite an interesting town meeting when the NRA showed up, and attempts were made to cut the chief's salary to 25,000.

Most people I know hunt...deer, coyote, wild turkey. We have a massive clam bake in town in the summer. Everyone knows everybody else, or at least, it feels like we do. Nobody is insecure to my knowledge, other than people denied permits, and quite frankly, I am not sure that bothers me. Seeing a grown man cry publicly because he wants his 15 year old to be able to carry troubles me. They lost, and I was happy to see the chief win that battle.

Insecure though? Nah, most days my neighbors and I do not lock the doors to our homes. Then again, my dog is still home, and when we are not home, the lab in him disappears and the pit bull in him kind of takes over.

Not sure I answered your question or not. But, I still do not remember saying I owned a weapon.

 

[Dreadsox]

Hmmm if only they were able to warn about the danger of a standing army back them.

lol

 

[Dreadsox]

That's what I was referring to before. One has got to wonder about the sanity of a law in that state which would permit such an individual to buy a gun.

And sure, history of mental illness hospitalization should result in an automatic preclusion to gun ownership. Why not? Your rights end where public peril begins.

I think this goes to what I was saying. I believe there was a statistic that indicated that a majority of the weapons used in crimes in New York came from Virginia. I wish I could remember where I heard that in the last 24 hours. And THAT cuts to the heart of the issue.

Why are these people going to Virginia to get their weapons?

Because it is a state that has shitty gun control laws period.