Is THIS your logic? To scare off criminals by open carry? If you want to effectively stop criminal activity, then the people need to adjust their system of justice for those criminals who break the laws. Back in Roman times, people who did bad things like Spartacus (forming an army of escaped slaves and killing off the citizens around them) or even people who didn't (Jesus), were crucified or fed to the lions. Criminals back then thoughy long and hard even before they tried something as simple as shoplifting. Armed robbery was certain death. Of course there is no need to be that drastic, but a basic system of hard labor for most convicted felons, and speedy executions for the more violent ones, would help bring the number of crimes way down. Don't worry about the guns, worry about the evil people who hurt others.
Laughable. What is the reasoning behind this? So I can put a target on my back "kill me first with the security guards"? LOL
...mebbe not..... 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 infringe http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/search/word,infringe INFRINGE, v.t. infrinj'. [L. infringo; in and frango,to break. See Break.] 1. To break, as contracts; to violate, either positively by contravention, or negatively by non-fulfillment or neglect of performance. A prince or a private person infringes an agreement or covenant by neglecting to perform its conditions, as well as by doing what is stipulated not to be done. 2. To break; to violate; to transgress; to neglect to fulfill or obey; as, to infringe a law. 3. To destroy or hinder; as, to infringe efficacy. [Little used.] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- infringed INFRING'ED, pp. Broken; violated; transgresses. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- infringement INFRINGEMENT, n. infrinj'ment. Act of violating; breach; violation; non-fulfillment; as the infringement of a treaty, compact or other agreement; the infringement of a law or constitution. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- infringer INFRING'ER, n. One who violates; a violator. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ....seems pretty clear to me
I am well aware of what infringed means. However that written.... how long ago? All rights are subject to regulation. You can't yell fire in a theater now can you?
I am well aware of what infringed means. However that written.... how long ago? All rights are subject to regulation. You can't yell fire in a theater now can you?
# LOL - here we go again, a previously "law-abiding " citizen withn no previous criminal record , legally purchased fire arms , goes beserk killing several fellow americans . Its debateable whether regulations re :concealed weapons would avoid reoccurences in future, as long as Americans - obssession with gun ownership , continue opposition to stricter gun controls. In common with most Europeans we do not share the enthusiasm of many americans for personal weapons . WE prefer our gun laws to theirs . In 2010 fewer than 100 people were murdered with a firearm in UK , whereas in US with a populations five times larger , was 8,775 . Statistical evidence prove that fewer guns in circulation proves that fewer people are victims of gun crimes. But , whatever evidence is presented to gun obsessed nutters , within a few weeks , they'd forgotten the Denver shooting and continue supporting returning to the Wild West gunslinger mentality. ..... ...
With Rights come great responsibility. No, you cannot yell "fire" in a theater, the results are obvious. That's irresponsible and if anyone was hurt or killed as a result of my action, I would pay, probably dearly, but to have it regulated by some "legal" response? I have heard it said that anytime you apply a regulation to a Right, it becomes something less than a Right, it becomes a Privilege. Rights cannot be taken away from you, however, Privilege can. You may surrender your Rights, but they cannot be forced from you. Age has nothing to our Bill of Rights. I sure hope you weren't implying that because it's got some dust on it, it's is less than it was, or, because it's archaic to you, it has no value to anyone else. Tell me it ain't so........
I am a huge supporter of the second amendment, but like all the amendments, they are not absolute. the govn't does indeed have the right to place restrictions on the ownership and carrying of weapons, as the supreme court has ruled.
you are confusing legal definitions, with secular definitions. the supreme court has already ruled that no rights are absolute.
The English, once a great people, are now nothing but a nation of sheep. They surrender their freedoms to be "protected" by their lords and masters of the government. You say eliminate guns and you eliminate gun crime? Maybe in England where guns have never been widespread, but the overall violent crime rate in the UK is far higher than here in the U.S., and you can't get the guns already in criminals' hands out of circulation. Ban 'em, and you have an entire new underworld market for deadly weapons, and the criminals will still brutalize the innocent; but they'll have a much more target rich environment of helpless victims. I am disgusted by the English, and the Europeans, and the political cowards here in the U.S. that betray this country every time they advocate for civilian disarmament.
Oh, it doesnt? Second Amendment: "A well regulated malitia being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." "infringed" = restrictions. "keep" = own. "bear" = carry.
I was being totally sarcastic friend. Chicago is a freaking shooting gallery. Concealed weapons are felony here, but don't tell that to the criminals...
You can make as many gun laws as you want and it will never stop those that want to purchase one from doing so. It is not those that purchase weapons legally that are the problem with agressive use of guns toward other people to begin with. I am personally tired of every incident of agression via use of a gun being used as the reason for enacting more laws against personal rights of the people.
LOL - you know what ,? the British have always been underestimated by plonkers like you. However , may I enquire where does your ancesters stem from ? What languages would you be speaking if not for the English ? Would america be what is is today , if not for its Anglo-Saxon heritage ? Judging from your posts , you're apparently know sweet f-all about England or even the rest of Europe with very similar gun controls /restrictions as ours. I very much doubt Britain's violent crime rate to be worse than US . How abt producing stats, o back up your ridiculous claims ? It depends whether you choose to compare a punch up in a British Pub as a violent crime with some american gun nutter going berserk and killing a dozen - plus citizens , within gun range. ...tata .
BULL $HIT - James Holmes and every other mass killer - purchased their weapons LEGALLY " Go check . ....
You'll recall I said that England was once a great land. She has made tremendous contributions to the world in terms of art and culture. Her tradition and history is replete with examples of greatness. Yes, she has been underestimated, and that has led to a great many would-be conquerors falling back in disarray when her fighting spirit has been aroused. Tragically, the "plonkers" like you have led her to embracing a path of pacifism, socialism, and betraying the British heart and soul thoroughly and completely. Certainly. You'll be glad to hear that the majority of my heritage is Scottish, with a little Welsh, diluted by some German. An Anglo-Saxon heritage that included such concepts as "a man's home is his castle"! I wonder how the Anglo-Saxons of the past would feel about today's UK government prosecuting British citizens for doing nothing more than defending their homes from invasion, often acting to facilitate the civil lawsuits of robbers and thieves who sue homeowners for making their lot more dangerous! The Anglo-Saxons of today are a pathetic shadow of the great people they once were! I know I meet more and more British expats who have come to the United States fleeing the stupidity of the socialist government, and lamenting the horrors of governmental failure to effectively combat a growing crime problem. I've heard enough first-hand accounts of what's going on in the UK to say that you are the one who apparently knows "f-all" about what's going on in your own country; but then socialists are known for their well-developed ability to inspect their own sphincters from the inside when facts don't support their agenda. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...73/UK-is-violent-crime-capital-of-Europe.html According to this article I found - just one of many, BTW - Eurostat, the European Commission's database of statistics, found that there were over 2,000 violent crimes recorded per 100,000 population in the UK in 2009, making it the most violent place in Europe. By comparison, America had an estimated rate of 466 violent crimes per 100,000 population. Pretty telling, Marlowe old chap. You're more likely to get mugged in broad daylight in London than at 3 am in New York City's Central Park! Gee, that's a convenient dodge, isn't it, Marlowe? Sorry, but it doesn't fly. Home invasions, assaults, robberies, muggings.... the list of violence the UK suffers from with far greater regularity than the US is long and distinguished. All I can say about the "nutter" who kills people here in the US is that he keeps choosing clearly marked "Gun Free Zones" to initiate his rampage, knowing that law-abiding people probably won't be armed and fighting back! We have a right to bear arms in this country, but too few of our citizens choose to responsibly exercise it! If these deranged lunatics searching for validation through violence saw those they would emulate getting their heads blown off by their intended victims with greater regularity I doubt you would see so many instances of it!
Well, then find a viable way to stop law abiding citizens from legally purchasing guns and then using them to commit crimes against innocent people. Btw, I believe the perp involved in the Aurora shooting purchased his weapons legally; i'm sure there are other cases that can be cited as well.
If people didn't have guns at all, then there would be no need for "gun free zones". Your assuming that everyone who is armed is a marksman with a gun and can keep their cool under the most difficult circumstances; the average citizen who carries a hand gun couldn't hit the side of a barn from 5 ft away from it. And if some armed citizen who fits into that category opened up in that Aurora theater, god only knows how many more people would have been killed or injured. The American people are getting fed up with NRA apologists making lame excuses and pointing the finger in the other direction. The latest incident in Aurora only cements the gun control advocates will to ban hand guns and assault weapons and someday they will succeed.
You are asking for the impossible. Man has initiated unprovoked violence against his fellow man since he first stood up and picked up a rock. We live in a free society that has recognized that we have a right to be armed to defend ourselves against such unprovoked violence, and the failure of the majority of the citizenry to do so is one of our greatest failings as a nation. In a free society, a responsibly armed and disciplined citizenry is the only solution to murderous criminal violence.
