WRZby the way, I am a card caring member of the NRA.....
Wrz wroteBackground checks are meaningless and a waste of time... since no
one, sane or crazy, can be denied arms ownership and possession, per the 2nd
Amendment. Check it out and tell me what you thing the Amendment says.Mr Wrz, if you are going to use the second admendment as your basis, at least
check your facts...In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two
landmark decisions officially establishing the interpretation of gun ownership.
In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the
Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm,
unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful
purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding
prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as
being consistent with the Second Amendment.So the 2nd Admendment
does NOT say you can own guns, a SCOTUS court case made that interpretation of
the 2nd admendment.
For home defense a multi shot shotgun is a whole lot more effective. How many
of you have fired an AR 15 M16 AK47? They are not designed for short range
accuracy but rather to put down a field of covering fire. Those weapons
don't work so well in the confines of a house in the dark.
To "LDS Liberal" you should also remember that there have been pleanty
of mass murders comitted by people without guns.9/11 in NY was
comitted by men with box cutters and airplanes, 2000 people killed.Tim McVeigh used fertilizer and diesel fuel to kill hundreds.Hitler killed millions using gas chambers.When you look at
history, the largest mass murders are comitted without guns.In 2007
Jeanne Assam prevented a mass murder by killing the would be murderer.The Trolley Square incident was ended by an off duty officer using a concealed
weapon.Principal Joel Myrick stopped Luke Woodham from comitting a
Columbine type murder after retrieving a gun from his car.It seems
that if you allow people to have access to guns, they are able to stop the crazy
people before many are killed or injured.
6,489 times a day, someone fights off a criminal using there guns? Where is
this? Even adjusted for population. Utah represents
just under 1 percent of the nations population. Even taking that number, that
would break down to 68 times a day Utah citizens are engaged in gun battles to
protect themselves or their property. I really really need to see the proof of
that number. Its a real head scratcher.68 times a day. Or 25,000
times a year... guns drawn, standing of a bad guy/gal.... in the state of
Utah.I have to tell you, if those are NRA numbers, they really need
to explain their source for numbers like this. Could be true... but hard to
Defense can become offense with an assault weapon with high capacity magazine
quickly. See the news.
Well let's see. If guns are for self defence, then how about some cannons?
maybe I should park howizers in my back yard and a tank or two in the
driveway. But wait! That might not be enough! Wll anyone sell me a F16? But
to be really safe I might need to make a preemtory strike, how about a nice
surplus B52? I don't live next to the ocean, so I guess a nuclear sub or a
carrier my be overkill, but the maybe they could be parked in the great salt
lake.What! You point out that I am not trained for any of those
weapon systems? Well the NRA better get busy setting up sessions, cause I jost
don't think a handgun or a mere 20 or more 100 shot assault wseapon is
going to be enough to protect me from all the crazy gun nuts out there.
To wrz 11:14 p.m. Feb. 17, 2013You ignore, or are unaware of, the
fact that there is a limited and reasonable time-place-manner exception to every
Constitutional right. You also ignore, or are unaware of, the fact that people
can waive their Constitutional rights, which happens when a person consents to a
background check by giving the information necessary to conduct the check. Your
arguments are not well-founded or well-based and, consequently, fail.
You never know when the black helicopters will come and you have to battle the
police and the U.S. military. Forget about semi-automatic weapons and
large-capacity ammunition clips. People need more lethal hardware to defend
themselves against a government they don't like and want to rid themselves
because they didn't choose it. The world's changing and, apparently,
many people don't know how else to deal with it except to arm
themselves.However, if it is the government they want, they
don't care how oppressive it is to the people they don't like. The
survivalists want a dictatorship of the like-minded, everyone carrying guns and
able to deal with any perceived threats they believe might cause themselves
harm. It doesn't matter if it's church or school, the mall or the
park; it's important to be ready to take action. The more armed people out
there, the more the frayed nerves, the greater the paranoia, the more necessary
it is to "protect" yourself.
@LDS Liberal:"Tell me how a back-ground check takes away a law abiding
citizens 2nd amendment right?"Background checks are meaningless
and a waste of time... since no one, sane or crazy, can be denied arms ownership
and possession, per the 2nd Amendment. Check it out and tell me what you thing
the Amendment says.Also, try the 4th Amendment for authorization to
do background checks ... 'The right of the people to be secure in their
persons, houses, papers, and effects against unreasonable searches and seizures
shall not be violated...'"So - YOU support them? and their
'right.' No questions asked?"Not me... I don't
support them. As I indicated, it's the US Constitution that supports them.
wrzSo, even if a crazy guy wants to 'keep and bear arms,' he is
authorized.9:48 a.m. Feb. 17, 2013=========Tell me
how a back-ground check takes away a law abiding citizens 2nd amendment
right?Christopher Dorner, [ex-LAPD cop]Adama Lanza, [New Town
Elementary massacre]James Holmes, [Aurora movie theater]Jacob
Roberts, [Portland mall shooter]Seung-Hui Cho, [Virgina Tech massacre]All crazies, all assault rifles.So - YOU support them?
and their "right".No questions asked?
As the letter itself admits, the statistics regarding guns used in self-defense
are wildly inconsistent. But here's a statistic to think about:
In 2011, there were about 330,000 deaths in the United States caused by guns. Of
these, two-thirds were suicides. The horrors of Newtown or Aurora
notwithstanding, mass murders using assault-type weapons make up a very small
percentage of the carnage. NBC Evening News reported a couple of weeks ago, for
instance, that on that particular day, before 6 p.m. EST, there had been 203
gun-related deaths. Ten times as many as died at Newtown. In less than one day.
Most gun deaths, of course, are caused by people wielding handguns.So, what do we do? I guess at some point we have to realize that if we as a
society are going to be irresponsible, we will have to start asking which right
is more important, the right to carry a gun or the right to life.
@Mark B: "So, using wrz's reasoning, it would be perfectly OK to set
up under the 1st amendment a religion which believes in and PRACTICES human
sacrifice. After all, it isn't banned in the Constitution, right?"The US Constitution says nothing about murder by sacrifice (or any other
method). If the sacrificed human is murdered, it's against STATE law.
That's a State issue. I would have thought you'd knew that, since
you're such a Constitutional scholar.
Isn't constant vomiting of right wing, NRA propaganda nauseating and
So, using wrz's reasoning, it would be perfectly OK to set up under the 1st
amendment a religion which believes in and PRACTICES human sacrifice. After all,
it isn't banned in the Constitution, right?
@Hutterite:"... and some sort of weapons restriction has to be
part of the solution."Sorry, Hutterite, but the US Constitution
disagrees with you. It says something like '...the right of the people to
keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.' So, even if a crazy guy wants
to 'keep and bear arms,' he is authorized.
"Guns are self-defense"No, no. Guns are authorized by the
US Constitution in order to maintain a well regulated militia.
You'll have plenty of guns available for 'defense'. And the
organisation of which you speak, it does a pretty good job of villainizing
itself, being so callous, inflexible and ideological. The status quo gotta go,
if you'll excuse the poor syntax, and some sort of weapons restriction has
to be part of the solution.