How you do you feel about gun rights?

[Venkman]

Originally Posted by OrangeUte

then why the phrase "well regulated militia"? IMO, you are wrong. The court's have left interpretation largely to legislation and regulation and have not addressed it. I can just as easily argue that the introductory phrase is a limiting phrase as you can that it is merely introductory. The fact is though, that self-defense and hunting rights have trumped my own interpretation, and I am fine with that.

The militia back then was defined as all able bodied men (in fact, I think it still is). Well regulated basically meant you were ready, willing, and able to defend yourself and your community, ie. you could shoot straight. Didn't have anything to do with the government regulating you. Who cares what the courts say, the original intent is clear to anyone who studies it. Even gun hating liberal law profs like Lawrence Tribe and Alan Dershowitz are honest enough to admit that it's an individual right

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by marsupial

He was undoing all the safety locks in our home before he was 2. At 6, I wouldn't put cracking the safe passed him. However, if an intruder enters your home with a gun, is a gun locked up in a combination safe going to be much good to you?

you can buy safes that are quick-access. that is, can be opened in literally 2 seconds. You just have to know the quick-access punch combination.

You can have a pistol safe like this right next to your bed.

[jay santos]

You guys surprise me with how much you abhor fundamentalism when it comes to the Bible but you take that approach with the constitutution. Times change. The second ammendment is outdated. We need a new perspective on guns.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by jay santos

You guys surprise me with how much you abhor fundamentalism when it comes to the Bible but you take that approach with the constitutution. Times change. The second ammendment is outdated. We need a new perspective on guns.

Easy to say that when you live in Happy Valley. I live in a place where there are armed breakins in the middle of the day.

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Easy to say that when you live in Happy Valley. I live in a place where there are armed breakins in the middle of the day.

But you can't possibly believe that loose gun laws = less likely chance your family will be victim of gun toting criminal.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by jay santos

But you can't possibly believe that loose gun laws = less likely chance your family will be victim of gun toting criminal.

rather I don't think that tightening gun laws will prevent these criminals from using guns.

Because the only people that follow guns laws are <duh> law-abiding citizens.

Just a few weeks ago there a neighbor's house was surrounded by police, as a burglar had fled from a stolen car and entered the house.

Lady in my ward recently murdered by her husband. And convenience store near my house, owner was murdered. A guy in my ward, his sister was working at gas station, and ended up killing an armed robber.

If you don't think guns are a deterrent to criminals, why don't you do an experiment and put a sign on your house "Gun-free home".

[jay santos]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

rather I don't think that tightening gun laws will prevent these criminals from using guns.

Because the only people that follow guns laws are <duh> law-abiding citizens.

Just a few weeks ago there a neighbor's house was surrounded by police, as a burglar had fled from a stolen car and entered the house.

Lady in my ward recently murdered by her husband. And convenience store near my house, owner was murdered. A guy in my ward, his sister was working at gas station, and ended up killing an armed robber.

If you don't think guns are a deterrent to criminals, why don't you do an experiment and put a sign on your house "Gun-free home".

So you think gun crime would go up if we tightened gun laws because criminals would feel safe to enter homes knowing there would likely be no one with a gun facing them inside?

I'm ignorant on the literature or studies of what happens when a criminal with a gun goes into a house and is faced by a homeowner with a gun. I'm thinking those probably end up bloodier than if the homeowner never had a gun, but I could be wrong.

[Archaea]

Originally Posted by jay santos

You guys surprise me with how much you abhor fundamentalism when it comes to the Bible but you take that approach with the constitutution. Times change. The second ammendment is outdated. We need a new perspective on guns.

It's not fundamentalist, it's libertarian. Leave me the hell alone; stop trying to control me, regulate me and tell me how to live.

[OrangeUte]

Originally Posted by Venkman

The militia back then was defined as all able bodied men (in fact, I think it still is). Well regulated basically meant you were ready, willing, and able to defend yourself and your community, ie. you could shoot straight. Didn't have anything to do with the government regulating you. Who cares what the courts say, the original intent is clear to anyone who studies it. Even gun hating liberal law profs like Lawrence Tribe and Alan Dershowitz are honest enough to admit that it's an individual right

at the least well regulated would refer to operational, which would tend to imply some level of organization in the militia to defend and protect the state. all of which is limiting language to the middle clause of the right. likewise, i don't dispute the right, but i don't believe that the right is as broad as the nra type groups claim.

[SeattleUte]

When is Santos not full of it? Please tell me. The guy gets everything wrong.