dc0de wrote:
Here is some moving testimony from Suzanna Gratia-Huppe, who lost both of her parents when a crazed gunman opened fire during lunchtime in a Texas diner.

Should make you determine if you're a REAL American...

You're totally right. It makes much more sense to fight a crazed gunmen with dozens of armed civilians than to restrict his ability to purchase assault weapons. Let's take it one step further; let's mandate that everyone has to carry a gun. Then we'd all be perfectly safe from each other.

-janelane

janelane wrote:

dc0de wrote:
Here is some moving testimony from Suzanna Gratia-Huppe, who lost both of her parents when a crazed gunman opened fire during lunchtime in a Texas diner.

Should make you determine if you're a REAL American...

You're totally right. It makes much more sense to fight a crazed gunmen with dozens of armed civilians than to restrict his ability to purchase assault weapons. Let's take it one step further; let's mandate that everyone has to carry a gun. Then we'd all be perfectly safe from each other.

-janelane

Actually, if you look at the locations where Open Carry is allowed, you'll find that the crime rate is significantly lower than the areas where handguns are forbidden.

However, the REAL purpose of the 2nd Ammendment is to protect ALL OF US against the Government.

If you trust the government implicitly, I will still help you once the scales fall from your eyes.

dc0de wrote:
Actually, if you look at the locations where Open Carry is allowed, you'll find that the crime rate is significantly lower than the areas where handguns are forbidden.

However, the REAL purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect ALL OF US against the Government.

When asked why I keep a 12 gauge by the bed, or why I carry a pistol in my purse, I respond that I refuse to be a helpless victim of criminals. When asked why I have so many other firearms, I refer the inquirer to the U.S. Constitution and the World History section of the local library.

Stefanie wrote:

Simon C. Ion wrote:
I'm not concerned about the guy with a gun. If someone wants to hurt me, they'll find a way.

True enough, if someone wants to hurt someone else, consequences be damned, they have a good chance at succeeding. Besides, criminals don't obey laws, including weapons bans, so they'll obtain whatever weapons they want. Where we disagree is that I'd rather have a fighting chance of making it home alive, regardless of whether the crime being perpetrated is random or specifically aimed at me (most likely, random).

Simon C. Ion wrote:
I'm concerned about the guy with a gun who has had absolutely no training at all. (The state of Alabama does not require an applicant for a concealed carry permit to provide any proof of weapons training, or engage in any state mandated training program.) IMO, a weapons safety and basic marksmanship course should be a prerequisite for obtaining *any* type of firearms permit.

While I'm equally concerned about that hypothetical guy with no training, the only prerequisite for enjoying the benefits of our Constitutional rights should be American citizenship. All state firearms-related permit requirements are infringements of our rights under the Second Amendment, as are the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (mainly, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban provision, which had nothing to do with actual "assault rifles," but then, most legislators can't be bothered with facts).

In some ways, Americans are more savvy than they were in the past; and in other ways, we're less savvy. Sadly, many Americans today don't grow up knowing how to handle weapons, particularly firearms. You think it's a good idea that anyone who carries a weapon should have some proficiency in "safety and basic marksmanship," and so do I. However, demonstrating such proficiency to the government is not required by the Constitution. By the same token, should citizens be required to demonstrate proficiency in grammar, spelling, literature, politics, and/or philosophy before exercising their First Amendment right to free speech? Yes, you can argue that there's a more direct public safety issue involved with the irresponsible use of firearms than with the irresponsible use of free speech, but in no way does that safety concern override the Constitutional rights of the people. I'll refrain from quoting Benjamin Franklin, as I'm sure you get the point.

dc0de wrote:
Actually, if you look at the locations where Open Carry is allowed, you'll find that the crime rate is significantly lower than the areas where handguns are forbidden.

However, the REAL purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect ALL OF US against the Government.

When asked why I keep a 12 gauge by the bed, or why I carry a pistol in my purse, I respond that I refuse to be a helpless victim of criminals. When asked why I have so many other firearms, I refer the inquirer to the U.S. Constitution and the World History section of the local library.

Well put.

Remember, when seconds count, the police are minutes away...

janelane wrote:
It makes much more sense to fight a crazed gunmen with dozens of armed civilians than to restrict his ability to purchase assault weapons.

Should we also restrict his ability to manufacture "assault" weapons?

janelane continued:
Let's take it one step further; let's mandate that everyone has to carry a gun. Then we'd all be perfectly safe from each other.

I'm not concerned about the guy with a gun. If someone wants to hurt me, they'll find a way. I'm concerned about the guy with a gun who has had absolutely no training at all. (The state of Alabama does not require an applicant for a concealed carry permit to provide any proof of weapons training, or engage in any state mandated training program.) IMO, a weapons safety and basic marksmanship course should be a prerequisite for obtaining *any* type of firearms permit.

Simon C. Ion wrote:
I'm not concerned about the guy with a gun. If someone wants to hurt me, they'll find a way.

True enough, if someone wants to hurt someone else, consequences be damned, they have a good chance at succeeding. Besides, criminals don't obey laws, including weapons bans, so they'll obtain whatever weapons they want. Where we disagree is that I'd rather have a fighting chance of making it home alive, regardless of whether the crime being perpetrated is random or specifically aimed at me (most likely, random).

Simon C. Ion wrote:
I'm concerned about the guy with a gun who has had absolutely no training at all. (The state of Alabama does not require an applicant for a concealed carry permit to provide any proof of weapons training, or engage in any state mandated training program.) IMO, a weapons safety and basic marksmanship course should be a prerequisite for obtaining *any* type of firearms permit.

While I'm equally concerned about that hypothetical guy with no training, the only prerequisite for enjoying the benefits of our Constitutional rights should be American citizenship. All state firearms-related permit requirements are infringements of our rights under the Second Amendment, as are the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (mainly, the Federal Assault Weapons Ban provision, which had nothing to do with actual "assault rifles," but then, most legislators can't be bothered with facts).

In some ways, Americans are more savvy than they were in the past; and in other ways, we're less savvy. Sadly, many Americans today don't grow up knowing how to handle weapons, particularly firearms. You think it's a good idea that anyone who carries a weapon should have some proficiency in "safety and basic marksmanship," and so do I. However, demonstrating such proficiency to the government is not required by the Constitution. By the same token, should citizens be required to demonstrate proficiency in grammar, spelling, literature, politics, and/or philosophy before exercising their First Amendment right to free speech? Yes, you can argue that there's a more direct public safety issue involved with the irresponsible use of firearms than with the irresponsible use of free speech, but in no way does that safety concern override the Constitutional rights of the people. I'll refrain from quoting Benjamin Franklin, as I'm sure you get the point.