House passes measure expanding gun rights

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Highbury

How often have you guys that pack been in a gun fight to protect hearth and home? uh huh.....

well one time when I was not carrying, I came home and interrupted a young man helping himself to my belonging. He was carrying though.

I was very fortunate that he was not interested in killing me (this was 28 years ago) I don't know how criminals are these days.

Is that "uh huh" enough?

[GoldenRivet]

it only takes once.

i know a man who has a Concealed handgun permit who is a very good friend of mine... he is a 67-68 year old Vietnam veteran and has been forced to draw his .45 on three occasions.

each occasion resulted in a peaceful outcome (the would be robbers/muggers running away)

you dont have to be in a movie scene like shoot out once a month to justify carrying a hand gun... it only takes needing that pistol ONCE to justify it permanently.

[Highbury]

Originally Posted by Platapus

well one time when I was not carrying, I came home and interrupted a young man helping himself to my belonging. He was carrying though.

I was very fortunate that he was not interested in killing me (this was 28 years ago) I don't know how criminals are these days.

Is that "uh huh" enough?

LOL, ok so let me get this straight. He had a gun, you didn't, there was no shooting. If you had been armed do you think it would have ended the same? No, probably not. it is pretty likely that in a standoff between two armed men one of you would have been shot, probably killed. So your lack of a gun helped it end in a peaceful outcome.

Also, for the price of a nice firearm you could get a year or more of monitored security for your home, and he would not have been in there anyways. And again, nobody gets shot.

But if you feel that a firefight would have been a better resolution then oh well.. have fun at Nascar.

[GoldenRivet]

highbury... its that attitude that gives us something called "repeat offenders"

they get off with a slap on the wrist, they might serve a year or two in prison, and they get out early and go back to the same raping, stealing and murdering...

i dont like "repeat offenders"

i like "dead offenders"

peaceful outcome be damned... if i walk into my home and there is a robber or child molester or rapist in my house - the "justice system" will be the very least of his worries.

sorry, but these sh*t heads should be laying on the cold concrete in a clotted pile of their own gray matter.... if you think that having a living criminal commit 100 crimes is better than a dead criminal committing one... have fun at the ballet

[SUBMAN1]

Highbury is one of those people we label as a victim. A victim does not like people who are capable of defended themselves. Its a psychological condition that if you take away the ability to be a victim, then they lose their identity. You will not be able to overcome this, so don't bother responding.

-S

[Highbury]

LOL dude, I own firearms and would certainly not classify myself as a victim, but thanks for your opinion. All I am saying is I don't see the need for people to have military-grade assault weapons, or to carry a sidearm.

As for defending your home with firearms, I can certainly agree with that. Defending yourself with with a sidearm, I don't buy it but I agree it is debatable. But when someone says they need to be armed in case of foreign invaders in the US.... umm yeah.. anyone who wants assault weapons knows damn well it is just because they are, I admit, f**king sweet! That is why I play alot of combat sims... and after playing those sims I certainly don't want John Q. Public able to buy that sh*t!

[GoldenRivet]

we shall simply have to agree to disagree then.

I think that responsible, liable, moral, John Q Public with no criminal record should be able to own ANY firearm he or she wishes to own.

Be it an 1873 model colt peacemaker or a fully automatic MAK-90.

be it for collector purposes, or for home defense, or in case killer space elephants descend upon the planet it makes no difference what the reasoning is because you dont need a reason when you have a right.

but rest assured - i have the right - and i have the paperwork in order and at my house we have pistols, rifles, shotguns, fully automatic assault rifles, knives, sharp sticks, rocks and foul language and the intent to use any or all of them to defend home, property and family.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Highbury

LOL dude, I own firearms and would certainly not classify myself as a victim, but thanks for your opinion....

I certainly doubt it. Maybe you own a BB gun.

-S

[CaptainHaplo]

Welcome aboard CastleBravo, and good post as well.

The real question is that in that declaration, when it said the unalienable rights being "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", does it qualify that the "right of free speech" or "right to own a gun" are part of the three specifically defined?

[Highbury]

Originally Posted by SUBMAN1

I certainly doubt it. Maybe you own a BB gun.

-S

Where do you come off with these suppositions about people you don't know? No I don't own a BB gun, but I don't own assault weapons or handguns. I have 4 different hunting rifles and two vintage collectables (both were my Grandfather's). I stopped buying hunting rifles when I stopped hunting with rifles and got into bow hunting. I only buy them as tools, not toys.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Originally Posted by GoldenRivet

highbury... its that attitude that gives us something called "repeat offenders"

they get off with a slap on the wrist, they might serve a year or two in prison, and they get out early and go back to the same raping, stealing and murdering...

i dont like "repeat offenders"

i like "dead offenders"

peaceful outcome be damned... if i walk into my home and there is a robber or child molester or rapist in my house - the "justice system" will be the very least of his worries.

sorry, but these sh*t heads should be laying on the cold concrete in a clotted pile of their own gray matter.... if you think that having a living criminal commit 100 crimes is better than a dead criminal committing one... have fun at the ballet

What attitude? highbury had some good points. Its a long fricken stretch between owning a firearm and actually using it to kill someone. I seriously doubt anyone here could do that. *waits for the smegstorm*

[GoldenRivet]

any man is capable of killing another under the right circumstances.

robbing me blind, molesting my children and/or raping my wife are just a few of those circumstances which would result in my personal justification of deadly force.

anyone who has ever been in a situation where it will be "him or me" who will die - has always chosen the other guy to be the one to bite the bullet.

[CaptainHaplo]

Or - if they didn't - they aren't around to tell us about it now.

House passes measure expanding gun rights

The guns are bad, guns are good argument is an old one and very few are swayed one way or the other on the inter-web, so I will leave it alone. I’d like to confine my reply to the thread title, specifically the words ‘expanding…rights’ For a moment suspend the ‘gun’ in the middle and replace it with any right which is near and dear to you. If you’d like, use speech as the middle word.

A disclaimer here before I proceed. I am a citizen of the United States and as such will be basing my reply, as it continues, on that fact. I am aware that this is a multi-national forum and as such disagreements may occur. Bear with me because I am ignorant of many national, cultural, economic and political differences, so I will not attempt to delve into them.

Here goes………..

Imbedded in the US Declaration of Independence is this phrase;

that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

I have bolded two parts which I think relevant to any discussion about rights, and how they were perceived in the time when the US became a Republic. (I know this isn’t a governing document but it does give insight into the thinking of the people who started modern democracies)

Men (super-set men, all humans) are given rights by their Creator, not by their, or any government, or group of governments.

So you see the US Congress is in no position to expand anything. The right is given by the creator, and protected from government intervention by the US Constitution. If anything the congress denied people of the right guaranteed.

Now back to my original thesis…add in speech to the missing word, and deny that speech in ….. lets say WashingtonDC for 20 years. Then allow it again. Is that an expansion or re-establishment of what was ‘rightfully” had from birth?

I think what is often missed is the underlying right of self defense.