Fear of Gun Control

[road kill]

This question is way to subjective but I can honestly say, I would bring what I believed to be superior firepower for the occasion. No sense in making it a fair fight for the criminal as they do not fight fair. Will they have body armor? Will there be multiple perps? Will I be defending only myself or my family as well? Give me a compact semi-auto rifle and more bullets that I need and my chances of keeping an assailant under duress will most likely be achieved. You surely dont want to give them a chance to fire back once you are provoked! This is probably the same reason cops use more than just hand guns when they feel the situation warrants it. Why pigeon hole yourself when the intruder could care less. Maybe a handgun makes you feel safe, but when it becomes time for kill or be killed, are you really ready for that? By your posts, I dont think so, so maybe your argument should be on how you can dial 911 in all the scenarios you mention. And if that doesn't set off a light bulb, maybe you could pretend you are a single mother who has just had multiple intruders enter her home.

Reminds me of the scene in "The Untouchables!"



Sums the whole mess up nicely.

[zeus3925]

Who do you think obeys laws?

Are you under the assumption that criminals will start obeying this Private Background Check idea?

Do you not think that ONLY Law Abiders will obey this law?

Thanks

It is not a matter of making outlaws obey the laws. It is a matter of doing as much as can be done to keep firearms out of the hands of the felons and nuts. It also gives a gun seller another tool to know who may be a threat to public safety, A purchasers who is not a felon or a mental health risk should have nothing to fear from a background check.

[Gerry Clinchy]

It is not a matter of making outlaws obey the laws. It is a matter of doing as much as can be done to keep firearms out of the hands of the felons and nuts. It also gives a gun seller another tool to know who may be a threat to public safety, A purchasers who is not a felon or a mental health risk should have nothing to fear from a background check.

Have I missed something? I don't think anyone objects to the background checks.

[jeff evans]

3 quick questions regarding the defense of one self.

1) What type of gun would one most likely have by his bed in case of a home intruder?

2) What type of gun would one most likely have in ones car in close proximity to defend ones self?

3) What type of gun would one have the ability to carry on ones self to fend off an attacker?

If your answer to any of the 3 is anything but a hand gun your either a liar or dillusional. To defend ones self with a Bush Master or any other "assault rifle" is truly a bogus argument in the way we go about our daily lives. Now, if you want to say that your sitting at the window waiting 24/7 for any intruder. well then I am in complete agreement with you. However if that is the case what type of life are you living? A life of fear!!

You may not be aware but our lives changed on new years eve when no one was looking. The president signed into law the "national defense authorization act," which allows the government to DETAIN AMERICAN CITIZENS INDEFINITELY WITHOUT FORMAL CHARGES OR A TRIAL (we used to have a constitutional right to habeas corpus as citizens) the law also has provisions for THE US GOVERNMENT TO KILL AMERICAN CITIZENS EVEN ON AMERICAN SOIL if the government feels you are a threat. This president has no regard for our constitution and is systematically destroying it. Can you see the writing on the wall? Before complete gun control can happen the government needed the NDAA enacted, you are aware that Hillary clinton was supposed to sign a sweeping gun ban with the united nations this summer but at the last minute decided to wait, wonder why? So any person or groups who protests when our 2nd Ammendment rights are taken will be deemed a threat and will be detained without formal charges or a trial, or killed per the NDAA.

So when someone asks "why one needs a high capacity rifle," thats why! If I hear one more politician purposefully mislead the public and prey on the constitutionally misinformed by asking "why does someone need an assault weapon to hunt with?" I'm going to climb thought the tv, push them off their chair and finish the interview for them oops then I would fall victim to the NDAA

[sick lids]

who cares what treaties we sign

Ask an old Indian all about them.

[zeus3925]

You may not be aware but our lives changed on new years eve when no one was looking. The president signed into law the "national defense authorization act," which allows the government to DETAIN AMERICAN CITIZENS INDEFINITELY WITHOUT FORMAL CHARGES OR A TRIAL (we used to have a constitutional right to habeas corpus as citizens) the law also has provisions for THE US GOVERNMENT TO KILL AMERICAN CITIZENS EVEN ON AMERICAN SOIL if the government feels you are a threat. This president has no regard for our constitution and is systematically destroying it. Can you see the writing on the wall? Before complete gun control can happen the government needed the NDAA enacted, you are aware that Hillary clinton was supposed to sign a sweeping gun ban with the united nations this summer but at the last minute decided to wait, wonder why? So any person or groups who protests when our 2nd Ammendment rights are taken will be deemed a threat and will be detained without formal charges or a trial, or killed per the NDAA.

So when someone asks "why one needs a high capacity rifle," thats why! If I hear one more politician purposefully mislead the public and prey on the constitutionally misinformed by asking "why does someone need an assault weapon to hunt with?" I'm going to climb thought the tv, push them off their chair and finish the interview for them oops then I would fall victim to the NDAA

I don't know where you got your info. The NDAA deals with the yearly funding of the military not the persecution of the citizenry. Don't take my word for it. The text is on the net.

[jeff evans]

Here's a start....http://rt.com/usa/news/ndaa-injuncti...detention-376/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/1...n_2347774.html

Let me know if I missed something, although the bill does have a lot of defense spending related jargon intertwined.

[charly_t]

I remember when Oklahoma was a dry state.........NOT.............boot-leggers did a very good business. It will be the same with guns if gun control laws get too restrictive. Heck we can't stop a lot of the "over the border" business now. Guns and ammo will get expensive but for the right price they will still be available. Talk about over crowded courts.

[Pete]

The Second Amendment has been ruled to specifically extend to firearms “in common use” by the military by the U.S. Supreme Court ruling in U.S. v Miller (1939). In Printz v U.S. (1997) Justice Thomas wrote: “In Miller we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen’s right to possess a sawed-off shot gun because that weapon had not been shown to be “ordinary military equipment” that could “could contribute to the common defense”.

Pete

[Pete]

On September 13, 1994, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban went into effect. A Washington Post editorial published two days later was candid about the ban’s real purpose:“[N]o one should have any illusions about what was accomplished [by the ban]. Assault weapons play a part in only a small percentage of crime. The provision is mainly symbolic; its virtue will be if it turns out to be, as hoped, a stepping stone to broader gun control.”In a challenge to the authority of the Federal government to require State and Local Law Enforcement to enforce Federal Law (Printz v United States) the U.S. Supreme Court rendered a decision in 1997. For the majority opinion Justice Scalia wrote: “…. this Court never has sanctioned explicitly a federal command to the States to promulgate and enforce laws and regulations When we were at last confronted squarely with a federal statute that unambiguously required the States to enact or administer a federal regulatory program, our decision should have come as no surprise….. It is an essential attribute of the States’ retained sovereignty that they remain independent and autonomous within their proper sphere of authority.”So why should non-gun owners, a majority of Americans, care about maintaining the 2nd Amendment right for citizens to bear arms of any kind?The answer is “The Battle of Athens, TN”. The Cantrell family had controlled the economy and politics of McMinn County, Tennessee since the 1930s. Paul Cantrell had been Sheriff from 1936 -1940 and in 1942 was elected to the State Senate. His chief deputy, Paul Mansfield, was subsequently elected to two terms as Sheriff. In 1946 returning WWII veterans put up a popular candidate for Sheriff. On August 1 Sheriff Mansfield and 200 “deputies” stormed the post office polling place to take control of the ballot boxes wounding an objecting observer in the process. The veterans bearing military style weapons, laid siege to the Sheriff’s office demanding return of the ballot boxes for public counting of the votes as prescribed in Tennessee law. After exchange of gun fire and blowing open the locked doors, the veterans secured the ballot boxes thereby protecting the integrity of the election. And this is precisely why all Americans should be concerned about protecting all of our right to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the Second Amendment!Throughout history, disarming the populace has always preceded tyrants’ accession of power. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao all disarmed their citizens prior to installing their murderous regimes. At the beginning of our own nation’s revolution, one of the first moves made by the British government was an attempt to disarm our citizens. When our Founding Fathers ensured that the 2nd Amendment was made a part of our Constitution, they were not just wasting ink. They were acting to ensure our present security was never forcibly endangered by tyrants, foreign or domestic.