The Supreme Court has ruled that private ownership of firearms is an individual right.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

As much as many of you want to you can't change that. So don't go away mad just go away, you are hurting the Democratic party.

David

[Ian David]

1. Our gun ownership is safe. Nobody is going to-- or can-- come to take them away.

However, you might have to sell all your guns to pay for health insurance premiums.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

2. I doubt it.

The city that I work for has a good plan. The company my wife works for has a fantastic plan. Our income is such that I won't have to resort to selling anything to pay for health insurance premiums.

David

[tularetom]

3. Do you ever actually use a gun?

Or do you just spend all your time here on DU trying to convince people how safe we are because of guns.

Guns are OK, they are a fact of life. I collect antique firearms and have several dozen of them. I enjoy black powder shooting and occasionally get to try for some ducks pheasants or turkeys.

But there is a lot more to my life than guns. Somehow I sense that isn't the case for you.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

4. I go target shooting every few months.

Mostly I golf about 4 days a week, play soccer 3 days a week, play poker 1 day a week and tournament bass fish once every couple of weeks. Obviously I fit 40 to 60 hours of work in there every week. I don't no where you got the idea that I think we are safer because of guns, the statistics prove that idea very wrong. The danger that we face from guns though is from criminals or from ourselves if we are suicidal. The statistics also prove that out.

David

[corruptmewithpower]

7. You are very much mistaken on your statistics.

We are a great deal safer than most people in the world because we have guns.

Death by Gun Control

http://www.jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

25. Well that would depend.

There would be fewer deaths if there were no guns at all. That however is quite unrealistic and people that really wanted to kill each other would find a way.

David

[corruptmewithpower]

32. Yes, that is unrealistic.

And however flippant you may be, the reality of the past century is very very bloody. You really should read the link I provided you. It might even open your eyes.

"Truth They Cannot Refute

Death by Gun Control delivers the essential - and gut wrenching -- truth that the anti-self defense "gun control" advocates never try to refute. They simply cannot refute the facts or the formula.

Here's the Formula: Hatred + Government + Disarmed Civilians = Genocide

What makes the argument so powerful? Two factors. First, it makes common sense: unarmed defenseless people have no hope against armed aggressors. Second, it states the historical truth: evil governments did wipe out 170,000,000 innocent non-military lives in the 20th Century alone."

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

33. I'm not sure what your point is.

I agree with you.

David

[tularetom]

8. I don't think the danger with guns is from criminals but from nuts

I've dealt with a burglar in my own house and I never felt particularly threatened. But there is simply no way to defend against some armed loony walking into some public place and opening fire on people like the one n NY the other day, or the nutcase who shot three police officers because he was scared Obama was gonna take his guns away.

[Taitertots]

10. There is a way to defend yourself from armed loonies

Carry a Concealed Handgun

[tularetom]

11. I'd venture a guess that the three cops that got shot were well armed

Didn't do them much good did it?

[Taitertots]

14. The rest of the cops with guns...

are the only reason that psycho is not on the loose still.

[tularetom]

15. Gee let's see - psycho 3 cops 1

I don't like those odds.

And in Oakland a couple weeks ago - nut 4 cops 1.

Don't like those odds at all.

So tell me again how carrying a concealed handgun will protect me from nutcases like this well all the firepower the cops had could not protect them?

[Taitertots]

16. Compared to your unarmed odds

I'll take those odds over certain death.

[tularetom]

18. WTF are you talking about "unarmed odds"?

You don't stand a chance of getting some pissant popgun out before one of these nuts takes you out. The odds are very slim dude, whether you are armed or not.

Best to give up your romantic idea of shooting it out with the bad guys and live in the real world.

If one of these assholes decides to fire at you, you are pretty much toast.

No matter what the NRA tells you.

[Taitertots]

19. WTF are you talking about "don't stand a chance"

I guess no one has ever used a gun to protect themselves from a crime.
I guess my .45 cal Kimber is a pissant popgun.

The odds armed are a lot better than absolute zero, which you seem to embrace.

[tularetom]

20. I'm not talking about "crime" remember, I'm talking about nuts

And yes you can probably use a firearm to protect yourself against a criminal. I've done it.
What I'm saying is you cannot protect yourself against someone who doesn't give a rats ass whether or not he kills you or if he is killed himself.
It ain't like confronting a burglar my friend. Grow up.
Have a nice evening.

[Caliman73]

29. What do you think that these"nuts" are doing when they carry firearms ...

into places where they are restricted? They are committing a crime. They are criminals. They have usually planned to commit the crime before carrying it out. They usually pick places where they know people will not be carrying weapons for defense. Why do you think "nuts" never go into a police station and take out their "craziness" on a bunch of police in their station. I never hear about "nuts" going to a gun shop or range to take everyone out. These people are criminals the moment they decide that they are going to use firearms to harm another person or to rob.

Regarding the chances of stopping a "nut" in other situations, I guess the volunteer security guard who stopped that church shooter didn't get your memo.

The truth is you never know what can happen in the heat of an attack, but like the other poster said, if you are armed, there is a chance you can fight back. If you aren't armed all you can hope to do is find a good hiding place.

[Taitertots]

34. Short of being shot by surprise by the first bullet...

Someone with a gun has a very good chance of being able to draw and defend themselves. A chance which is totally ceded if someone isn't carrying. The vast majority of the people involved in mass shootings have had ample time to draw if they had guns.


If only these nuts would pick places that had guns so we could see if it was possible to stop them. Yet those almost never happen. It is almost like these nuts realize that armed resistance is to be avoided and target places where there won't be any.

[pipoman]

23. Well, there you go then, help yourself,

I on the other hand know that in most of the mass shooting cases there are more people who don't get shot than those who do, I'll take my chances on not being the first shot. Maybe I'll prevail, maybe I won't, but I won't be cowering under a desk kissing my as good bye.

The whole idea that many here have, that a person doesn't have a chance against an armed criminal is, very simply, nonsense. You say, "You don't stand a chance of getting some pissant popgun out before one of these nuts takes you out.", I say my $1,000 Kimber .45 and my 180 hours of defensive firearms training gives me a distinct upper hand if I were to ever find myself in one of these situations.

"Best to give up your romantic idea of shooting it out with the bad guys and live in the real world."

Romantic? Tell ya' what, you live in your "real world" and I'll live in mine.

"If one of these assholes decides to fire at you, you are pretty much toast."

My partner of 15 years was shot in the belly by a nut with a .357 mag, guess what? He shot the guy in the melon and went on to live and work another day.

"No matter what the NRA tells you."

Your preconceived notions are not right nor universal, no matter what Scary Brady tells you.

[rl6214]

35. This would be an arguement

against open carry. The perp knew the officers were carrying guns and he targeted them. I have a CCL and carry 99% of the time. There is a movement in Texas to make open carry legal. I think if this did pass I would still carry concealed as I don't want to become a target, I would rather have my element of surprise.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

26. The statistics say you are wrong.

Mass shootings account for a very small percentage of gun homicides.

David

[corruptmewithpower]

39. FYI : 8 million vs. 185 million plus

Total Deaths During the 20th Century
Approximately 4,126,000,000 people have died during this century from all causes. If man-made megadeaths account for 185 million of them, then one out of every 22 (or 4.5%) human deaths during the 20th Century have been caused by fellow humans.


Homicide:
Very, very rough estimate until I research this more fully: 8.5 million murders worldwide, 1900-1999.

http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat8.htm#Smoking

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

45. Not sure how that applies here.

[corruptmewithpower]

5. I don't own any guns, but I'm glad you and many other civilians do.

It is very important to me, that we have the right to keep and bear arms. The murder of unarmed civilians by tyrannical governments is by far the largest cause of premature death of the twentieth century. More than 5% or one in twenty of everyone who lived during the twentieth century was murdered by his or her own government. We must never let those in authority be the only ones with the guns.


"Power kills, absolute Power kills absolutely. This new Power Principle is the message emerging from my previous work on the causes of war1 and this book on genocide and government mass murder--what I call democide--in this century. The more power a government has, the more it can act arbitrarily according to the whims and desires of the elite, the more it will make war on others and murder its foreign and domestic subjects. The more constrained the power of governments, the more it is diffused, checked and balanced, the less it will aggress on others and commit democide."

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP1.HTM

[kestrel91316]

6. I'm gun-neutral. My dad had a deer rifle and a pistol. I never had

any interest in learning to use them. But I have no objection to that sort of gun ownership.

I DO have a problem with people stockpiling semi-automatic weapons and millions of rounds of hollow points, who have never hunted meat to eat in their lives. And who want weapons merely to fulfill their fantasy of helping the South to rise again, or whatever.

And no, I don't think people with severe psychological problems should be owning guns.

[Taitertots]

9. Sounds like you do have a problem with gun ownership

You object to the majority of gun owners. Most of which never hunt. Most of which own semi-autos.


Good thing there already are safe guards to keep known disturbed people from buying guns.

[kestrel91316]

13. I tend to disagree. I'd bet serious money (if I had any) that the

majority of gun owners DO hunt. And that the majority don't own semi-autos.

My point is, I don't object to the general principle of gun ownership. But I DO think you can have too much of a good thing. Sort of like my views on abortion - keep it safe, legal, and rare.

You will be relieved to know that I am not an anti-gun activist in the slightest. And I don't do knee-jerk votes in support of all legislation to restrict guns.

I'm a big fan of free speech, too, but support laws against yelling "FIRE!!" in a crowded theater. Unlike right-wingers, I do not think in terms of black and white - I recognize lots of shades of gray. As a Democrat, I trust you do, too.

[Statistical]

21. Wrong & Wrong.

Semi autos are the largest segement of firearms sold today.

Semi auto pistols outsell revolvers by a margin of about 5:1.

In virtually every poll the majority of gun owners report they are NOT hunters.
There is a poll right now in main forum proving that. By 3:1 margin gun owners self identify as non-hunters.

[bossy22]

37. the math

there are about 80-100 million gun owners in this country

only about 12-20 million hunters

the majority of handguns being sold are semi-auto

a great portion of long guns being sold are semi-auto

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

27. Who does think that people with severe psychological problems should own guns?

[NRaleighLiberal]

12. I agree with Michael Moore on his view on guns. Just a sign of how dysfunctional we are as a whole.

Why people are so scared shitless all the time is just beyond me. Yes, it is a right. People can own them and I can't argue with that. But I sure can express my absolute wonder of people that, beyond hunting, think they need them.

[Taitertots]

17. Why do people need to be able to defend themselves?

Do you think you need to protect your life?

[NRaleighLiberal]

30. I am just not afraid. I live my life. I don't and won't own a gun.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

31. I'm not afraid either. I also live my life. I respect your right not to own a gun.

[Statistical]

22. Do you think we need cops/LEO?

A police officer is a firearm delivery service.

The bad news is delivery time is usually at least 5-10 minutes (even for rush orders).

If we need police then we need privately armed citizens. Being scared has nothing to do with it.

Two years ago we had bad tropical storm and it knocked out power for about 5 days. Lots of people in the neighborhood were scared. I wasn't. Good locks, generator, pantry full of can goods, camp stove, and yes firearms.

We heard sirens even night for 5 days straight. Never was concerned. My wife talked to people in the neighborhood and one lady said she wasn't able to sleep. She said the news was saying police were not able to respond to all the calls. "What do you do when the police won't come" her words.

There are times when a firearm is a useful tool and it has nothing to do w/ hunting.

[pipoman]

24. You're right,

there is no crime problem, no carjackings, no home invasion, no mass shooting, no armed burglary, no armed robbery, no rape, and no reason to be prepared to defend yourself. Damned paranoid freaks!

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

28. Feel free to express your opinion, it is your right.

[rl6214]

36. What do you do for a hobby?

My hobby happens to be target shooting. Being able to take a weapon and make it better. Being able to control my body, my muscles, my breathing to make that shot. The eye hand coordination. When I did my qualifying for my CCL liscense, I scored a 249 out of 250. I had one shot miss the center target by a quarter of an inch, thus missing out on a perfect score. That takes years of training and control over my body. That's what I enjoy.

[NRaleighLiberal]

50. Garden. Kayak. grow things, take pictures of things. I am a dove -

loathe violence of any type.

[rl6214]

51. And how is anything I do with my hobby

Violent?

I don't shoot anybody or anything other than a paper target.

[NRaleighLiberal]

52. to me - guns are noise, potential violence, rapid projectile. just my opinion.

I hate them. Always have, always will.

[HamdenRice]

38. This court also decided Bush won in 2000. Both decisions were wrong, will be reversed. nt

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

46. The court was 7-2 in regards to the 2nd Amendment as an individual right.

It may get reversed in 50 or 60 years.

David

[Hugabear]

40. You say that like it's written in stone. It is not.

Supreme Courts can go back and revisit issues as society evolves. The Supreme Court once upheld slavery as well. And aren't we constantly in fear that some Rethug president will appoint right-wing justices to overturn Roe v Wade?

There are many of us who believe that the 2nd Amendment refers to the right of states to organize a militia, and doesn't mean that you can stockpile as many assault rifles in your basement as you desire. Not only that, but times have changed since the 1700s. I don't foresee it happening anytime soon, but hopefully a future Supreme Court will come back and reinterpret the 2nd Amendment in a way that can finally set things right.

[slackmaster]

41. Maybe it needs to be written in stones

There are many of us who believe that the 2nd Amendment refers to the right of states to organize a militia...

That is simply nonsense.

Its PURPOSE is to reserve the right of states to form effective militias, but the RIGHT it refers to is unquestionably that of individuals.

[Hugabear]

42. If it's an absolute right, then ANYBODY should be able to exercise it.

We don't prohibit former felons from exercising their right to free speech once they've served their sentences. So should a felon be allowed to purchase an assault rifle?

[slackmaster]

43. Who said it is an "absolute" right?

We don't prohibit former felons from exercising their right to free speech once they've served their sentences. So should a felon be allowed to purchase an assault rifle?

I think if a person is worthy of being released from prison, he or she should have all civil rights restored. Anyone who cannot be trusted to vote, work with children or on government contracts, or own a firearm, should be either in prison or in a secure psychiatric facility.

BTW what exactly do you mean by "assault rifle"?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

47. The court was 7-2 in regards to the 2nd Amendment as an individual right.

[Pullo]

49. It is the 1939 Miller decision that needs to be readdressed.....

True to the Roberts court meme, Heller was applied only to that specific case. Several justices voiced concerns with the 1939 Miller decision. Kennedy even called it "deficient"

[baldguy]

44. At one time they also ruled Dred Scott was merely property.

The same people who ruled in favor of your pet court decision also appointed Bush to the Presidency.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

48. It won't change any time soon.