Welcome To The Wild West???
POSTED BY: deepgirl187
UPDATED: Monday, April 7, 2025 06:19
VIEWED: 7905
PAGE 2 of 13
Yeah Jong, not the most intelligent of quotes. The second amendment is not about shooting Bambi or the guy climbing in through your window. Those are just icing on the cake. It's about the people being able to protect themselves from an overbearing government. Here's what Framer James Madison had to say about the right to bear arms in Federalist Paper 46.
Quote:
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
It means that the 2nd Amendment finally means what it was suppose to mean. What's so hard to understand ?
It is not those who use the term "Islamo-Fascism" who are sullying the name of Islam; it is the Islamo-Fascists. - Dennis Prager
" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Making it a crime to have a gun does not reduce crime - it simply turns well-intentioned, law-abiding gun owners into criminals. It doesn't stop someone who was already a criminal from getting or using a gun simply because it's against the law; burglary, carjacking, dealing drugs, those are all against the law, and that hasn't stopped them. Neither have tougher sentences for gun crimes stopped them from happening. Letting ordinary law-abiding citizens defend themselves isn't any guarantee that things will get better, but it's a start.
In my neighborhood, the police response time is a fucking joke. There are cops everywhere; they just don't come when you call 911. I've had drive-bys, I had a guy shot in the fucking head because some crack-smoker wanted his watch - and it was a fucking $20 TIMEX, not even a nice watch! I've called the cops for things like drive-by shootings, and they were good enough to show up THREE HOURS LATER. When my car was stolen, they showed up the next day.
Sad to say, in some cities, and in some neighborhoods of those cities, the cops are worse than useless. I say "worse than" because there is the myth that they'll come running when you call, so you have this fantasy that you're protected. You're not, unless you can protect yourself. The standard line around here is, "We only call 911 after the shit goes down, to come and clean up the mess."
Sad but true.
So I'm a gun owner. Does that mean I'm looking for an excuse to shoot someone? Hell to tha NO! I'm hoping I never, ever have to - but I'm trained just in case. Had I been aware that someone was stealing my car, I wouldn't have shot them - I'd have put a 7.62x39mm full metal jacketed bullet right into my own engine block. That means the car isn't going anywhere; I built that engine, and I've got spares, so that's the least harmful way to finish that situation. After that, if the thieves were in their own car, I'd have pumped a couple rounds into THEIR engine block. Now they're not going anywhere in a hurry. At that point, I'd have held them until the cops showed up, and I'd have probably faced a misdemeanor weapons charge for discharging a firearm inside city limits - but that beats a manslaughter charge and it's cheaper than buying a new car. As it was, I never got the chance; I didn't hear a thing -slept right through it. So did all three of my dogs. Might be time to get some new dogs. :)
Next, if you're going to own a gun, GET TRAINED IN HOW TO USE IT! Here's a real simple starting point that my dad taught me when I was six, and it's stayed with me for life:
In your entire life, no one is ever going to hand you an unloaded gun. Until you yourself remove the magazine, cycle the action and visually verify that it's unloaded for yourself, and then check it again, EVERY GUN IS LOADED AND LETHAL.
How many times have we seen it in the news? "Man shoots self while cleaning his gun." Often times, these are long-time gun owners who just didn't check and re-check.
Rule number two: never point a gun at someone unless you're willing to shoot them and watch them die. Don't fuck around; these are not toys. If someone points a handgun at me, one of two things is going to happen: (a) He's going to shoot me, or (b) I'm going to step into him, grab the gun and twist it toward his thumb, HARD, and disarm him or cause him to shoot himself in the gut. Me backing away isn't an option, because now he's still got a gun and I'm too far away to make a useful counterattack.
DC would do well to stop trying to criminalize every law-abiding gun owner and start trying to open up the ranges and get these people properly trained, and even to license them to carry concealed handguns. Simply trying to sweep it all under the rug hasn't worked at all. And if a criminal isn't sure that you're NOT armed and prepared to defend yourself, it makes him less likely to target you. If there's a good chance that you ARE armed, it makes it less likely still. But if he can be assured that you are unarmed, you are an inviting target indeed.
This isn't the "wi
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
All it means is that the benchwarmers at the supreme court are perhaps a bit more semi-literate than your average politician and can read the abundantly clear text of the second amendment without drooling and gibbering, which sets them about a half-step above the politicians that seem to think unarmed-victim zones actually reduce crime in spite of the hard cold fact that every single one has become a hellzone, and tends to spawn mass shootings by folks who prefer unarmed targets.
All it means is that for fucking once, those pissants up on the hill admitted we have the right to defend ourselves and just watch the DC cops go berserk now, since, one a person does begin to defend themself, they start asking QUESTIONS... like... what, exactly, do we need those bully-parasite scum in blue lording over us FOR anyway ?
The police unions are likely shitting bricks right now, cause more guns = less crime, and less crime means less NEED for their nasty little mafia, and I'll not shed a bitter tear when the budget axe comes down and seperates a few of em from the feeding trough of our tax dollar, that's for sure.
And as for those wild west claims of the cowardly chicken littles who have their own agenda and reasons for wanting everyone ELSE disarmed (since so MANY of them have been caught carrying illegally, yes ?) that's right on schedule, but you know....
Kennesaw Georgia (look it up) doesn't have that problem, and in fact, doesn't have a CRIME problem any fekkin more neither, do the math with the sister city that DID forment a gun ban (resulting in a near instantaneous crime increase of over 15%..) and certain realities become abundantly clear.
Michigan was also predicted to become a wild west bloodbath when WE went right-to-carry, but again, no such thing occured and crime dropped like a ROCK, I was living right next to Flint, MI at the time and it was a damned horrific place, and within a couple months the whole atmosphere the place changed, apparently the criminal element sought greener pastures, many of em over in Wisconsin where it's still a free feeding zone of easy victims.
All that aside however....
A gun is like a spare tire, a fire extinguisher, the idea is to never NEED it, but should you need it, you need it NOW, not five miles away in the holster of some colors-wearing badge-bearing goon parked at the local coffeehouse trying to get up under the skirt of the night waitress.
And like any powerful tool, it can be dangerous to YOU if you don't know how to use and maintain it properly, it's not a magic wand like on TV.
I don't favor the idea of Gov involvement in licensing and training because it's a historically proven fact that we cannot trust them to not abuse it, the model I have proposed is that the manufacturers, in exchange for immunity from this ridiculous flood of lawsuits, simply require a standardised training and safety course to be passed as a condition of sale, and possibly a discount for a more advanced and intensive course over a basic one as it further reduces liability and safety/legal issues.
Speaking of....
You DO realize that popping a cap on someone, even in the most clear cut case of self-defense generally tends to make the cops and local courts go berserk on you, resulting in a minimum of $30,000.00 USD worth of legal fees on average and likely a civil suit by the perps next of kin on top of that, right ?
Worse and worse, something no one ever seems to think about is who has to clean up the mess (and that'll be YOU, or your family), which entails not only a substantial degree of pyschological trauma, but also certain biohazard risks in addition - I've cleaned up after a shooting (not mine) before and it's pretty damned awful.
And lets not even go there about having to rip out panelling and drywall to replace an electrical conduit struck by a stray round....
You do NOT wanna have to shoot someone if you can help it, but if it's them or you...
Make sure it's YOU - stay alive till help arrives, don't expect a prompt response to that 911 call, that's mispla
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
You DO realize that popping a cap on someone, even in the most clear cut case of self-defense generally tends to make the cops and local courts go berserk on you, resulting in a minimum of $30,000.00 USD worth of legal fees on average and likely a civil suit by the perps next of kin on top of that, right ?
Which brings to mind a point brought up today on Sirius' Left-Wing talk radio station: One statistic you'll NEVER hear about is the number of crimes prevented simply because the victim was armed and pulled his or her gun, causing the perp to simply run away to find someone a little more vulnerable.
And for those of you who don't know exactly what the 2nd Amendment says, I'll post it here, in its entirety:
Quote:
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
That's it. That's the entire Second Amendment. A lot of people point to the "well-regulated militia" part of it as meaning those serving in the armed forces, the reserves, or other "militia" units that are organized and have gatherings and specific training, but historically (based on the state constitutions of the time of the framing of the Constitution), "militia" was meant to encompass every able-bodied citizen who COULD serve in time of dire need, not those who actually DID serve, or were members of any organized military or para-military unit. As such, the "militia" of the Founding Fathers was, simply, the entire citizenry of the nation. That's you and me. This was written SPECIFICALLY to ensure that no outside invader (like the British of the time) NOR any oppressive government WITHIN our borders could gain a foothold, because we the people are the final guardians of our own liberty.
Mike
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The police unions are likely shitting bricks right now, cause more guns = less crime, and less crime means less NEED for their nasty little mafia, and I'll not shed a bitter tear when the budget axe comes down and seperates a few of em from the feeding trough of our tax dollar, that's for sure.
Sadly, I don't think that's how it will go - but that's the way it SHOULD be. If violent crime goes down, the cops will be only too happy to start writing more traffic tickets (even though red-light cameras and photo-radar SHOULD mean those same cops are even less necessary for even that duty). Cops ALWAYS want more cops on the streets. Hell, now they'll ask for more officers just to make sure the people they stop and search for guns actually have the legal right to have those guns. And of course, those guns you legally have the right to have will naturally be confiscated. Oh, you'll be able to get them back, after you shell out money, jump through the legal hoops, and PROVE beyond a doubt that you've done nothing illegal. Fates forbid the cops should ever have to prove that you DON'T have the right to own a gun before they confiscate it.
Of course, I could be a little jaded on the issue of the police. From where I sit, they're pretty much only there to get in a person's way...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by fivver:
Yeah Jong, not the most intelligent of quotes. The second amendment is not about shooting Bambi or the guy climbing in through your window. Those are just icing on the cake. It's about the people being able to protect themselves from an overbearing government. Here's what Framer James Madison had to say about the right to bear arms in Federalist Paper 46.Quote:
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
It was Madison, as you quoted, but also mainly Thomas Jefferson who was the architect of the Bill of Rights. He wanted less Federal Govt. and more individual and state's rights...the exact opposite of today's modern Democrats who want the Govt to control every aspect of your life, including a nanny-state that re-distributes hard-working & entrepeneurial wealth to the idle & un-deserving under-acheivers of our society. The writings of the other Framers & Founding Fathers such as Adams, Washington, Franklin, Paine, Henry, et al clearly demonstrate in mountains of documents and letters that their intention was for an individual's rights to gun ownership...and this has been widely interpreted by Constitutional scholars for 200 years....only until the 4 libtards on the Supreme Court yesterday stood fast with their un-constitutional "feelings" and voted against our Constitutional rights...shame on them! I would like to applaud Justice Kennedy...loudly! As the only moderate on the court, I think he's gotten it right twice this week...first by casting the deciding vote against the death penalty for child rapists, and then his vote to uphold the 2nd Amendment. **Note on the child rapist thing....yeah, no death penalty, but yes to manadatory prison sentences of 20 to life at hard labor.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Michigan was also predicted to become a wild west bloodbath when WE went right-to-carry, but again, no such thing occured and crime dropped like a ROCK, I was living right next to Flint, MI at the time and it was a damned horrific place, and within a couple months the whole atmosphere the place changed, apparently the criminal element sought greener pastures, many of em over in Wisconsin where it's still a free feeding zone of easy victims.
Around what time were you living in Flint, Frem? That drive-by I mentioned happened about eight years ago, and a few years after that (2003 or 2004), the amount of crime started to spike again. Haven't heard anything recently, but I live on the other side of the now.
**************************************************
"This is my timey-wimey detector. It goes ding when there's stuff. Also, it can boil an egg at 30 paces, whether you want it to or not, actually, so I've learned to stay away from hens. It's not pretty when they blow."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Actually the term militia was far more interchangeable with military than it is now. Also, the term 'to bear arms', was often used to refer to ones service in the military. Looking at the language as it is, in the context of it's time, the interpretation that it allows states to operate their own militia (that is citizen army, but not private weapon ownership by citizens in the modern theme) that is not under the control of the Federal government, is equally supported.
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
That's it. That's the entire Second Amendment. A lot of people point to the "well-regulated militia" part of it as meaning those serving in the armed forces, the reserves, or other "militia" units that are organized and have gatherings and specific training, but historically (based on the state constitutions of the time of the framing of the Constitution), "militia" was meant to encompass every able-bodied citizen who COULD serve in time of dire need, not those who actually DID serve, or were members of any organized military or para-military unit. As such, the "militia" of the Founding Fathers was, simply, the entire citizenry of the nation. That's you and me. This was written SPECIFICALLY to ensure that no outside invader (like the British of the time) NOR any oppressive government WITHIN our borders could gain a foothold, because we the people are the final guardians of our own liberty.
Truth is you can't be sure, the founding fathers may have been for more stringent weapon protection in the modern context, they may not. That's the problem, the constitution was written for the 1700's, not the 21st century.
More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yes Citizen, the Bill of Rights and the Constitution were written in the 1700's. However, whether its the 1700's or the 2000's or the 3000's, basic human rights do not change.
I refer here, specifically of course, to the right to defend oneself. To procure and maintain the tools necessary to keep one safe and, if need be, to fight back against tyranny both foreign AND domestic.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME