Unitarian church shootings

[lady_zana]

In the United States, we have a God given and 2nd Amendment confirmed right to Keep and Bear Arms. The reason for this is clearly defined by a vast majority of our founders. It is not about hunting, target shooting etc. .

But one must consider that the founders of this nation were not envisioning a world like ours. I have no problem with someone owning a gun if they know how to use it, care for it, and keep it away from those who don't. It's these people with military issue weapons that bother me. The founders never meant for us to have machine guns in our houses.

[Puckstop31]

It's these people with military issue weapons that bother me. The founders never meant for us to have machine guns in our houses.

The primary arguement of the anti-gun types is that the 2nd Amendment is ONLY applicable to service in a militia. I could go into what a milita is, but that is not the point here. If that arguement was indeed true, then the founders DID intend for the people to possess military weapons.

I own military weapons, legally. Does that mean I bother you? A honest, law abiding citizen, well trained in their use?

Make all the gun laws you want. They never have and never will do squat to deter crime, because criminals by definition do not follow the law. A disarmed and defenceless citizenry are nothing but chattle.

[lady_zana]

The primary arguement of the anti-gun types is that the 2nd Amendment is ONLY applicable to service in a militia. I could go into what a milita is, but that is not the point here. If that arguement was indeed true, then the founders DID intend for the people to possess military weapons.

I own military weapons, legally. Does that mean I bother you? A honest, law abiding citizen, well trained in their use?

Make all the gun laws you want. They never have and never will do squat to deter crime, because criminals by definition do not follow the law. A disarmed and defenceless citizenry are nothing but chattle.

But their idea of a military weapon would have been vastly different from a 2008 idea of a military weapon because they could not have dreamed of the technology we have created.

I have a friend who is in the military. She has a couple small military issue handgun. I have no problem with that because she knows how to use them and how to keep people who don't from messing with them. What I have a problem with is the huge machine guns that people have in their house. I don't see any reason why someone would need something that looks like a rocket launcher in their home to defend themselves.

[Puckstop31]

But their idea of a military weapon would have been vastly different from a 2008 idea of a military weapon because they could not have dreamed of the technology we have created.

I have a friend who is in the military. She has a couple small military issue handgun. I have no problem with that because she knows how to use them and how to keep people who don't from messing with them. What I have a problem with is the huge machine guns that people have in their house. I don't see any reason why someone would need something that looks like a rocket launcher in their home to defend themselves.

I don't see how the technology improvements make a difference. The same arguement could be made all through history. "Sure, a musket is OK, but a RIFLED musket?" "Ok, a rifled musket is OK, but what about a lever action rifle" And so on and so forth. It should be about the paradigm of the day.

But, a little sensation much with the "HUGE machine gun" thing? How many people do you know with a 'huge machine gun' in their home. What do you define as a huge machine gun? Rocket launcher? Huh? Do you honestly know anybody who owns a 'machine gun'? BTW, the legal definition of a machine gun is a 'self loading weapon that will repeatedly fire while the trigger is depressed. I only know one person who has a license for such a thing. They are very difficult to obtain, as they should be.

[smokey the elder]

Getting back to the point...I don't want to argue the merits of the 2nd Amendment. There are valid points on both sides of the argument. The point is this is an example of man's inhumanity to man, and if the guy did not have a gun, and had so much hate, he'd use a bomb, a knife or a crossbow to kill people.

[sparks19]

Getting back to the point...I don't want to argue the merits of the 2nd Amendment. There are valid points on both sides of the argument. The point is this is an example of man's inhumanity to man, and if the guy did not have a gun, and had so much hate, he'd use a bomb, a knife or a crossbow to kill people.

Agreed.

it doesn't matter the means... what matters is that this HAPPENS at all. How can someone HATE so much that they would just take the lives of innocent people without blinking.

[Cataholic]

Getting back to the point...I don't want to argue the merits of the 2nd Amendment. There are valid points on both sides of the argument. The point is this is an example of man's inhumanity to man, and if the guy did not have a gun, and had so much hate, he'd use a bomb, a knife or a crossbow to kill people.

Ah...the second amendment. Kind of like a shield, then a weapon, all at the same time, depending on who is arguing the point.

I think that the problem IS man's inhumanity to man, and that includes my opinion that people that kill (leaving aside self defense, and perhaps a few other noted exceptions) are mentally unwell to begin with. So, imagine an honest, law-abiding, citizen, trained in weaponry (sic) going off the deep end. It happens. While guns might not be the problem, I don't see too much blunt instrument killing taking place. When is the last time we read about a mass knifing taking place? Or, a mass baseball bat event? Ten people killed with a broom....I guess it could happen, but, it seems that a gun is much more prevalent.

I AM concerned about my neighbor's "right" to carry a gun. His/her "right" has a way to irrevocably influence my family's life, to me, without a justifiable use. A handgun in the city? WhatEVER for?

[Puckstop31]

Ah...the second amendment. Kind of like a shield, then a weapon, all at the same time, depending on who is arguing the point.

I think that the problem IS man's inhumanity to man, and that includes my opinion that people that kill (leaving aside self defense, and perhaps a few other noted exceptions) are mentally unwell to begin with. So, imagine an honest, law-abiding, citizen, trained in weaponry (sic) going off the deep end. It happens. While guns might not be the problem, I don't see too much blunt instrument killing taking place. When is the last time we read about a mass knifing taking place? Or, a mass baseball bat event? Ten people killed with a broom....I guess it could happen, but, it seems that a gun is much more prevalent.

I cannot disagree about the problem being man's inhumanity to itself. We are a imperfect bunch and will always be that way. However, I refuse to believe that more than a very SMALL portion of us are the type who would commit thes unspeakable acts. Which brings me back to my point about judging entire groups based on the very small percentage of people who commit evil acts. I believe VERY strongly in the concept of individual liberty and responsibility. It is a free person's DUTY to strive to take care of themselves. If you place the responsibility for your well being into another's hand, well, you take a risk.

Read up on violence in the UK. They pretty much banned almost all firearms. So it turns to knives. Next, watch them ban knives. It turns to sticks and stones.

So why 'punish' the VASt majority of responsible people for the acts of a very, very few?

I AM concerned about my neighbor's "right" to carry a gun. His/her "right" has a way to irrevocably influence my family's life, to me, without a justifiable use. A handgun in the city? WhatEVER for?

Well, the chances of you being murdered by a person with a firearm are WAY, WAY lower than that of being killed by a drunk driver. Yet, I bet you don't fear my 'right' to drive.

I do understand the concept of hoplophobia, which you obviously have. It is the duty of me and my fellow responsible gun owners to behave in a manner which might help alleviate that fear. It is also too bad you very rarely hear about the c. 2.5 MILLION violent crimes that are prevented every year by a law abiding gun owner. A vast majority of those situations are defused with out even having to fire the weapon.

A handgun in the city? The only time I ever needed to use a weapon to protect myself was in a city. All I did was produce it and off he ran.

Finally, I love my family too much to put their safety into anyone's hands but my own. You are free to choose otherwise, but it would be wrong for YOU to make that choice for me.