RE: Defending the House with Guns!

RE: Defending the House with Guns! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

kdsub -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 7:53:05 AM)
quote: Maybe they went and robbed a gun hater Nah... just some dumb ass that leaves his gun in the car... then they'll come back to you someday armed better. Butch

cloudboy -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 8:13:43 AM)
I wonder how unsafe the wife in this incident felt beforehand. Some of my female clients have had unstable boyfriends and husbands who kept guns under the bed or in side drawers. In two cases the women left the relationship altogether (before anything really bad happened.) For the spouse of an unstable man, a gun has to be an unspeakable menace.

Hillwilliam -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 8:41:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy For the spouse of an unstable man a gun has to be an unspeakable menace. I'm so glad that women are never unstable. [8\|]

BamaD -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 8:56:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam My firearm protected me and mine once. Noone even had to get hurt. The group of young gentlemen decided that there was easier prey elsewhere. Maybe they went and robbed a gun hater. I, two members of my family and a few friends have also had experiences like yours. And even Blumberg has admitted that guns are used to stop crimes far more often than to committ them.

BamaD -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 9:04:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Joe, you mustn't blame this on guns. Guns are lovely. [:)] I'm not blaming guns. I'm blaming society whom thinks law enforcement should be tightly regulated, while Billy-Bob, the redneck moron with a shotgun can have all the protections that law enforcement get due to the 2nd amendment, without all the limitations and regulations that do go with it. Put another way; some people can not shout 'fire' in a crowded threater, but, those that have a corrupted viewpoint of the 1st are allowed. Does that sound fair? If you want the protections of the 2nd amendment; your held to the same regulations, duties, and rules of "A well regulated militia...." (i.e. police officers). As I pointed out, police officers are checked often to see, what, if any life stress-ers are creating a possible problem. Police Officers have families the same as anyone else. Some make bad financial decisions, just like anyone else. Police officers may know many things; but they are human the same as you and me. When 'up against a wall', the mind has a strange way of 'figuring' solutions that no sane person would arrive at. That is why there are internal reviews of the officer's behavior and status. To keep 'insane police officers' from rampaging through town and killing people! We have people whom have legally purchased a firearm; yet, how stable is the individual? How about four years down the road when any number of 'life's crap' decides to take its toll on the individual? Do we have any routine systems to check the individual with a firearm? Since many of recent mass shootings seem to have two qualities: 1 ) a person experience some heavy difficulties in life and 2 ) Easy access to a firearm. This is in part because you have, as has been repeatedly pointed out, totally distorted the 2nd. You even once, long ago admitted that your definition of the 2nd is completly at odds with the writters definition but that your superior wisdom overrides it. Notice that last week you ignored the case in St Louis where an 11 year old stopped a home invasion with......a gun.

CreativeDominant -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 9:21:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Joe, you mustn't blame this on guns. Guns are lovely. [:)] I'm not blaming guns. I'm blaming society whom thinks law enforcement should be tightly regulated, while Billy-Bob, the redneck moron with a shotgun can have all the protections that law enforcement get due to the 2nd amendment, without all the limitations and regulations that do go with it. Put another way; some people can not shout 'fire' in a crowded threater, but, those that have a corrupted viewpoint of the 1st are allowed. Does that sound fair? If you want the protections of the 2nd amendment; your held to the same regulations, duties, and rules of "A well regulated militia...." (i.e. police officers). As I pointed out, police officers are checked often to see, what, if any life stress-ers are creating a possible problem. Police Officers have families the same as anyone else. Some make bad financial decisions, just like anyone else. Police officers may know many things; but they are human the same as you and me. When 'up against a wall', the mind has a strange way of 'figuring' solutions that no sane person would arrive at. That is why there are internal reviews of the officer's behavior and status. To keep 'insane police officers' from rampaging through town and killing people! We have people whom have legally purchased a firearm; yet, how stable is the individual? How about four years down the road when any number of 'life's crap' decides to take its toll on the individual? Do we have any routine systems to check the individual with a firearm? Since many of recent mass shootings seem to have two qualities: 1 ) a person experience some heavy difficulties in life and 2 ) Easy access to a firearm. This is in part because you have, as has been repeatedly pointed out, totally distorted the 2nd. You even once, long ago admitted that your definition of the 2nd is completly at odds with the writters definition but that your superior wisdom overrides it. Notice that last week you ignored the case in St Louis where an 11 year old stopped a home invasion with......a gun. Come on, Bama...you know that story has to be a hoax. First...an 11 year-old with a gun? That's only those who want to kill their classmates and teachers. Second...defense of home and family? Come on Bama, you KNOW that the only reason there's a gun in the home is so somebody "kin go shoot sumpin'".

subrob1967 -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 10:22:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether "A well regulated militia...." (i.e. police officers). Police officers are not militia, bozo. A well regulated militia (according to colonial history): 1 ) A direct chain of command system 2 ) Rules of conduct 3 ) Penalties for violation of #2 4 ) Rules regarding all aspects of duty Police officers have a chain of command. They must follow laws and regulations. If they do not, they get penalized for them. So 'yes', modern era police officers are the 18th century version of "A well regulated militia....". Back in the 18th century, most communities did not have a standing police force. How did law enforcement handle highwaymen? Pirates? Natives attacking? They called the militia! The militia was the police force when the local sheriff or 'administer of justice' could not handle the problem on their own. Large cities would be the first to have a standing police force in the 19th century (Boston being the first). Outside of that, militias were the 'backbone' of law enforcement if they needed help. When my hometown was formed, just two dozen families lived within. It had one 'law enforcement' official whom handled it and a few surrounding towns. In 2015, you would have me believe just one law man could keep my town safe from crime? YOUR AN IDIOT if you think that is possible. It takes a militia group to keep the town safe. We call them the police! So Joe shows his true colors and wants to go back to the 1800's and own black people.... Got it.

BamaD -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 10:22:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub quote: Maybe they went and robbed a gun hater Nah... just some dumb ass that leaves his gun in the car... then they'll come back to you someday armed better. Butch His was over a decade ago, they haven't come back yet, and neither I, my family or freinds have had anyone come back for 2nds.

BamaD -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 10:24:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: PeonForHer Joe, you mustn't blame this on guns. Guns are lovely. [:)] I'm not blaming guns. I'm blaming society whom thinks law enforcement should be tightly regulated, while Billy-Bob, the redneck moron with a shotgun can have all the protections that law enforcement get due to the 2nd amendment, without all the limitations and regulations that do go with it. Put another way; some people can not shout 'fire' in a crowded threater, but, those that have a corrupted viewpoint of the 1st are allowed. Does that sound fair? If you want the protections of the 2nd amendment; your held to the same regulations, duties, and rules of "A well regulated militia...." (i.e. police officers). As I pointed out, police officers are checked often to see, what, if any life stress-ers are creating a possible problem. Police Officers have families the same as anyone else. Some make bad financial decisions, just like anyone else. Police officers may know many things; but they are human the same as you and me. When 'up against a wall', the mind has a strange way of 'figuring' solutions that no sane person would arrive at. That is why there are internal reviews of the officer's behavior and status. To keep 'insane police officers' from rampaging through town and killing people! We have people whom have legally purchased a firearm; yet, how stable is the individual? How about four years down the road when any number of 'life's crap' decides to take its toll on the individual? Do we have any routine systems to check the individual with a firearm? Since many of recent mass shootings seem to have two qualities: 1 ) a person experience some heavy difficulties in life and 2 ) Easy access to a firearm. This is in part because you have, as has been repeatedly pointed out, totally distorted the 2nd. You even once, long ago admitted that your definition of the 2nd is completly at odds with the writters definition but that your superior wisdom overrides it. Notice that last week you ignored the case in St Louis where an 11 year old stopped a home invasion with......a gun. Come on, Bama...you know that story has to be a hoax. First...an 11 year-old with a gun? That's only those who want to kill their classmates and teachers. Second...defense of home and family? Come on Bama, you KNOW that the only reason there's a gun in the home is so somebody "kin go shoot sumpin'". LOL

kdsub -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 10:55:03 AM)
Yea... funny how many guns do... in fact i would say a good many crimes are committed with stolen guns... just this week in my little town there have been two guns stolen from parked cars at our local Wall Mart... we gun owners are just too careless as a whole I'm afraid. Butch

BamaD -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 11:10:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Yea... funny how many guns do... in fact i would say a good many crimes are committed with stolen guns... just this week in my little town there have been two guns stolen from parked cars at our local Wall Mart... we gun owners are just too careless as a whole I'm afraid. Butch No, some gun owners are careless. Gun owners as a whole are not. Part of the problem is with the stores, in those cases did Walmart ban guns from the store? If they did it forced the owners to store their guns in less than preffered situations. Here they are only allowed to ban open carry. If the gun owner had his firearm on him it couldn't be stolen from his car.

thompsonx -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 12:26:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether A well regulated militia (according to colonial history): According to the dick act there are no more militia. Consequently your opinions about a non existant organization are less than interesting to the point of irrelevancy

thompsonx -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 12:39:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD No, some gun owners are careless. Gun owners as a whole are not. This would be your ignorant unsubstantiated opinion and nothing more. quote: Part of the problem is with the stores, in those cases did Walmart ban guns from the store? A store, like an individual has the legal right to say whether they allow guns on their premisis. It is not for some sniviling punk to tell another that they must accomodate you. For you to seek to avoid responsibility it typical. It is always someone elses fault. Does not the gun owner have a responsibility to be responsible? quote: If they did it forced What right do you have to force the store owner to allow you to come in his store armed? quote: the owners to store their guns in less than preffered situations. Just anoter case of a not responsible gun owner that you would excuse. quote: Here they are only allowed to ban open carry. If the gun owner had his firearm on him it couldn't be stolen from his car. Didn't I cite you a case where a "responsible gun owner" was robbed of his new pistol as he left the store?

joether -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 12:43:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether In order for your 'argument' to be true; *ALL SIX* would have to be untrue. You're making shit up again. [:D] If I'm making shit up; it should be easy to produce evidence. Where is your evidence? [:D] Right in front of you: Your claim that the validity of my position depends on irrelevant factors. To say you made that up may have been overly optimistic, perhaps you really believe it, but I thought it a kindness at the time to give your (already questionable) sanity the benefit of doubt. First off, your 'position' is to attack me on any topic and subject, irrelevent of the topic or subject. That's not a discussion or debate; that's animosity! Second, you do not have the facts nor the evidence. So you make as much noise as you can to 'battle me'. Third, you have yet to make an ACTUAL solid arguement....RELATED....to the primary thread. Fourth, my sanity is quite stable. That you do not have access to my medical records is a good thing! An you would not know a mental or emotional disorder if you were speaking to someone that had such a problem!

joether -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 12:59:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether "A well regulated militia...." (i.e. police officers). Police officers are not militia, bozo. A well regulated militia (according to colonial history): 1 ) A direct chain of command system 2 ) Rules of conduct 3 ) Penalties for violation of #2 4 ) Rules regarding all aspects of duty Police officers have a chain of command. They must follow laws and regulations. If they do not, they get penalized for them. So 'yes', modern era police officers are the 18th century version of "A well regulated militia....". Back in the 18th century, most communities did not have a standing police force. How did law enforcement handle highwaymen? Pirates? Natives attacking? They called the militia! The militia was the police force when the local sheriff or 'administer of justice' could not handle the problem on their own. Large cities would be the first to have a standing police force in the 19th century (Boston being the first). Outside of that, militias were the 'backbone' of law enforcement if they needed help. When my hometown was formed, just two dozen families lived within. It had one 'law enforcement' official whom handled it and a few surrounding towns. In 2015, you would have me believe just one law man could keep my town safe from crime? YOUR AN IDIOT if you think that is possible. It takes a militia group to keep the town safe. We call them the police! my freakin' goodness---that police departments share something in common with militia in terms of organizational/administrative structure, does not make them the militia referred to in the constitution. by your definition, the local elks club and the boy scouts are the militia too. I seriously think you need help. "A well regulated militia...." is not Bob, with his pistol. The framers had in mind a group of individuals whom would handle problems as an organization that protects the citizens from criminals and invaders alike. They had no idea how this organization would evolve over time. Just like they had no idea how firearm technology would change with the passage of time. That you can not seem to understand this basic concept, is your problem, not mine! With the passage of the Posse Comitatus Act, it further required townships to devise a force of individuals to exist as a police force, rather than (using a modern term) national guard. This organization would have protections from local, state, and even federal laws thanks to the 2nd amendment. So, Jim the farmer and Bob the deer hunter own a musket. Jim is part of the local militia. Bob is not. If a law came down (through what ever legal group) that muskets can only be used in a law enforcement capability. This would mean Jim the farmer could have and use his musket without change (being as he's part of the militia). Bob however, will either have to hunt deer with some other instrument of destruction or find a new career. That is how the 18th century (an un-corrupted) 2nd amendment operated. Within the last twenty years, the amendment has slowly been 'modified' so that any thug could have a gun. That any person, could have a gun, for any reason. The laws original meaning was forgotten and destablized from existing interpretations. A corrupt law is one in which one or more individuals use it to gain a financial, political, or philosophical advantage that is well outside the confines or spirit (two separate document types) of the law. When this happens, the law starts to undermine the harmony the nation has enjoyed. None of us should be surprised that tragedies like the one in the OP take place almost weekly now. Because the 2nd amendment is being used and abused in a manner it was not designed to accomplish. The framers never stated firearms would be the sole property of government either. This means that unless one belonged to the local militia, they could have a firearm however they would have to abide by regulations at the local, state, and federal level.

thompsonx -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 1:07:31 PM)
quote: First off, your 'position' is to attack me on any topic and subject, irrelevent of the topic or subject. That's not a discussion or debate; that's animosity! It looks more to me like anal myopia. First: You are an easy target why not point out your ignorance. You don't seem to have any problem pointing out the ignorance of others Second: If you did not say such monumentally stupid things no one would "pounce" on you. third: When you do make a meaningful point you gloat like a third grader doing the happy dance...payback kinda sux huh??? fourth: No one dislikes you...think the relationship between the clint eastwood character and his barber in the movie "grand torino". By the same token no one wants to hold hands with you either. This is a discussion board with a limited number of members. Get over yourself.

joether -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 1:11:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 quote: ORIGINAL: joether Couldn't live with events nor see his kids suffer due to his financial problems and actions. An example of the ugly side of capitalism in America! How many have to die, before we decide to take steps to rein in the bullshit from the gun lobby and the lunatic right? Would this be a result of the gun lobby or the capitalist right? If financial problems triggered this, then perhaps the best solution would be to eliminate financial problems in society. This would be the result of a society that ignores the reality for a fantasy. Its been well documented that one does not need a mental or emotional disorder to sudden erupt and kill people (including their loved ones). There have been many instances in which a heated argument led to one side drawing a firearm and killing the other. That Mr. Short felt he did not have any useful options shows a particular flaw in capitalism. The idea that capitalism does not need government to keep it controlled at all times. In order for capitalism to do well, it needs structure to the chaos of the market. One only has to study the whole of the NYSE to understand this concept of regulated capitalism. Could there been an option that allowed Mr. Short an alternative to events? Dont know... The gun lobby does not care about average citizens. It cards about the gun industry's bottom line. If sensible firearm laws were proposed that the gun industry felt would lower their profits by even 0.00001%; the gun lobby would automatically oppose it. Most Americans want a number of sensible firearm laws (this includes firearm owners as well). Yet, the gun lobby is so powerful in our nation's government, that these laws are basically destroyed. Which is why I'm not to surprised at the situation mentioned in the OP. I am sad to here that a fellow citizen had so much grief they could not handle life. Perhaps if people knew and could take action to help Mr. Short, this tragedy could have been avoided. One of those things would be a routine mental/emotional health check that we most states require of law enforcement. If a person is deemed to have a mental, emotional or both disorder that could impact society and compromise their abilities; they are routinely 'benched' until things can be restored if possible. If not, that person might have to find new career.

joether -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 1:29:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: cloudboy I wonder how unsafe the wife in this incident felt beforehand. Some of my female clients have had unstable boyfriends and husbands who kept guns under the bed or in side drawers. In two cases the women left the relationship altogether (before anything really bad happened.) For the spouse of an unstable man, a gun has to be an unspeakable menace. An unchecked firearm that is not secured, when one or more individuals of that household suffer a mental, emotional (or both) disorder; is just asking for problems! Or of children finding dad's gun, thinks its a toy, BAM, junior or someone else is dead. Happens all the time.... Most women's shelters have many stories in which their boyfriend or husband stated he needed a firearm, but behaved more belligerent, aggressive, and stand-off-ish. In which several studies from different schools have pointed out, individuals are more likely to own a firearm. One does not see firearms used so carelessly when the husband is stable, in control, loving, and about as aggressive as anyone else. Its been show from new sources and psychology study that when someone becomes angry enough; the front section of their brain 'turns off'. That the back half of the brain, the area that handles emotions, has to pull double duty (which it is not able to handle). This is known as 'Blind Rage'. An argument due to money problems (for example) between a pair of adults results in tempers flaring. One moment they are arguing, the next one is crying over the body of the other who has one or more gunshot wounds. Happens all the time! None of the people 'defending' firearms has a leg to stand on in the argument. They do not have a counter to stuff like this. A person with a firearm in their household are many times more likely to have it used or be used in a situation that created tragedy (i.e. suicide), then to be used to defend from an intruder. The argument that firearms are there to protect against that evil intruder is just bullshit. Do these people subscribe to 'Padlock Monthy'? Do they were a NBC suit 24/7 because they are more likely to die from a tough flu virus than someone murdering them? No of course not. Because the arguments are bullshit!

joether -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 1:35:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam My firearm protected me and mine once. Noone even had to get hurt. The group of young gentlemen decided that there was easier prey elsewhere. Maybe they went and robbed a gun hater. I, two members of my family and a few friends have also had experiences like yours. And even Blumberg has admitted that guns are used to stop crimes far more often than to committ them. Yes, and your leaving out information in that 'argument'. The majority of those instances in which a firearm was used to stop a crime was.... ...In the hands of a LAW ENFORCEMENT individual! A person whom is part of that '...Well Regulated Militia....' mentioned in the 2nd amendment! That you either understood Bloomberg's explanation and are intellectually dishonest, or you did not, in which case your not well informed. Why is it when it comes to firearm discussions, those on the right are often intellectually dishonest? I can understand one being ignorant or uninformed; but spewing shit they knew is out of context is just low!

joether -> RE: Defending the House with Guns! (9/12/2015 1:38:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: subrob1967 quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: joether "A well regulated militia...." (i.e. police officers). Police officers are not militia, bozo. A well regulated militia (according to colonial history): 1 ) A direct chain of command system 2 ) Rules of conduct 3 ) Penalties for violation of #2 4 ) Rules regarding all aspects of duty Police officers have a chain of command. They must follow laws and regulations. If they do not, they get penalized for them. So 'yes', modern era police officers are the 18th century version of "A well regulated militia....". Back in the 18th century, most communities did not have a standing police force. How did law enforcement handle highwaymen? Pirates? Natives attacking? They called the militia! The militia was the police force when the local sheriff or 'administer of justice' could not handle the problem on their own. Large cities would be the first to have a standing police force in the 19th century (Boston being the first). Outside of that, militias were the 'backbone' of law enforcement if they needed help. When my hometown was formed, just two dozen families lived within. It had one 'law enforcement' official whom handled it and a few surrounding towns. In 2015, you would have me believe just one law man could keep my town safe from crime? YOUR AN IDIOT if you think that is possible. It takes a militia group to keep the town safe. We call them the police! So Joe shows his true colors and wants to go back to the 1800's and own black people.... Got it. Talk about a moronic, knee jerk reaction to the topic. Did you even engage your brain once in that post? The answer is 'no' on the grounds that I never stated 'lets go back to the 1800's and own blacks'. Try using that lump three feet above your ass as something besides a paper weight!

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875