2nd Amendment Rights

As a Democratic competitive shooter and hunter, I would ask Mr. Carter's view on the 2nd Amendment and gun control in general. Frequently I attend competitive shooting matches in the tri-state area with semi-automatic rifles (traditionally called high-power matches by shooting enthusiasts). Will Mr. Carter protect my right to carry firearms, own and shoot semi-automatic weapons (dubbed assault rifles by the uninformed), and carry concealed? This is a very important topic; so important in fact that the Supreme Court will rule on it in the next month or so. I feel the right to keep and bear arms is not negotiable and is as important as the first or fourth amendments. Often times political candidates say they support hunting and sportsmen afield as a way of deflecting the their actual views on gun control. What do you think?

James Rivers - Watauga County North Carolina

Comments

Gun Control? What does that mean? In the history of nations,

one can clearly see that disarming the population was always a pre-curser to the implementation and rise of Tyranny.

The government fears an "armed" public. The primary beneficiaries of "Gun Control" are the Government and those who have no regard for the "Rule of Law" (Criminals).

Federal law already, and rightly so, forbids the unlicensed private ownership of "Weapons of War, i.e. fully automatic weapons (machine guns), bombs, automatic converters, certain explosives and a list of others.

I am more weary of my government than those who own weapons. Criminals are not normally effcted by any law regulating thier activity, including owning guns.

I love freedom, liberty, safety, and some degree of control in my life. It is our Constitution which guarantees those things, not government.

I consider the government's control over who can own a gun in America to be a direct threat to my own freedom and liberty.

Liberal as I am , I am not willing to make some trades.

Liberty for safety is not a good trade.

Marshall Adame
2014 U.S. Congress Candidate NC-03

Geez, Marshall

Does it matter what kind of gun? We're talking about an "armed public," right? What about nuclear weapons? How about ricin?

Why would "guns" be so precious if what is precious is the right for the public to be armed?

No compromise possible here?

Hi Brunette, all the things you mention are already illegal

if in the hands of an individual, except for the "gun". Weapons of war, or mass destruction are already illegal to possess.

The point I was making, but maybe not well enough, is that placing one's trust in government for one's personal protection is a mistake. Any government as big as our own has more capacity and tendency to do more harm to you than to protect you. It is not necessarally "intended" harm, but harm is often the result of a government action intended to protect it's citizens.

Because we have a recognized right to arm ourselves, there will always be the potential for serious and tragic incident, but freedom and liberty comes at a price. No single person in North Korean has a fear of being attacked, shot or otherwise hurt by any other individual. For the most sake, they are very safe. They also live in terror of their own government, are starving and have no right to stand nose to nose with their government to address a grievence. They are sort of "safe", but not free to any degree.

It is my firm belief that should the U.S. government ever succeed in disarming the citizens of America, tyranny would be close behind.... and following that....revolution.

Marshall Adame
2014 U.S. Congress Candidate NC-03

I think you missed something, Marshall

The principle you espouse does not provide for the limits you later acknowledge by implication -- that is -- that ricin and nuclear arms are already illegal.

The point I made remains, which is that if the principle is in the 2nd amendment's "right to bear arms," then where is the line drawn? To answer that lines have been drawn in other ways doesn't answer at all. Any weapon might be developed at any time that is as lethal as ricin or a nuke. If your argument is that the citizenry is entitled to arm itself against its own government, then why would you draw limits as to how effective that citizens weaponry might be?

Explain to me how any citizen has as yet used fire arms to defy the "tyranny" of the government. Randy Weaver? Didn't work out, did it? David Koresh? Hmm, no, that didnt' work either.

Please provide an example of how this essential principle you believe in so firmly has been justified by experience in the United States. I am not asking about the American Revolution against England. I'm asking about this country, this Constitution, and how we the people have succesfully defended (WHAT?) against the U. S. A. by force of arms.

It's also interesting to me that people who say they are arguing in support a citizen's right to defend himself against the tyranny of the government -- are always offering examples of criminal acts by other citizens being resisted or otherwise contained instead. But THAT is not what the 2nd Amendment was about at all.

Funny that we hear these yelps of "Second Amendment Rights!" when the yelpers are actually talking about hunting or they're talking about protecting themselves against burglars. And we hear these yelps despite the fact that no one in this conversation has suggested taking away your hunting guns or the revolver locked in your nightstand.

You don't need an actual assault weapon for hunting or self-protection. And if you are thinking you've got to arm yourself against the day you and the federal government disagree about a point of law, you're not going to win no matter how many assault rifles you've stockpiled in the compound.

Actually Bru...whether the conversation is going on here or not

is irrelevant. A March article from the Boston Globe..in part...

The U.S. Supreme Court took up the politically charged issue of gun-control laws for the first time in 69 years, as a Washington man asked the justices to strike down a local law that prevents him from keeping a handgun in his home.

In one of the most closely watched cases of the term, Dick Heller, a security guard who carries a gun while on duty but cannot bring it home at night under a 1976 handgun ban, on Tuesday urged the Supreme Court to deliver a historic ruling: that the Second Amendment to the Constitution gives individuals a right to bear arms for their own self-defense.

"The framers wished to preserve the right to keep and bear arms," said Alan Gura, a lawyer representing Heller.

But Walter Dellinger, a lawyer for Washington, argued that the Second Amendment only gives states a collective right to have armed militias.

In any case, he said, the handgun ban should be upheld because it is reasonable for an urban area to ban a type of weapon "that is concealable and movable, that can be taken into schools and onto the Metro" and "can be easily stolen."

The court is expected to issue a ruling before its term ends in June, ensuring that its decision will be injected into the 2008 presidential campaign

.

I don't think Marshall is advocating that people stockpile weapons in anticipation of some tyrannical event perpetrated upon us by our government. On the other hand, a government that knows its citizens are armed has to be a bit more circumspect in how they screw the citizenry...as in the case of King George Bush. His rule by fiat will end soon because of a peaceful election. But what if it didn't? What if things got really bad and Bush declared Martial Law and said there would be no election...and used Blackwater to enforce his edict and tried to set our own troops against us?

I suppose you'll say I'm silly or crazy for even mentioning such a thing. We can ponder why Bush wanted to and did gut Posse Comitatus...and he has clearly violated our Constitution on many occassions.

The vast majority of gun owners in this country are responsible law abiding citizens. There are laws requiring background checks or a permit or special license to purchase a handgun. Ordinary citizens abide by these rules. Sometimes a nut-case slips through because there are other federal privacy laws that prevent authorities from knowing that person is also a psycho...if not yet a criminal. Criminals don't give a hoot about any of it. Tyrants don't care about the law either. Law abiding citizens shouldn't be legislated into becoming defensless against either...IMO.

I also opine you're putting a spin on Marshall's words that isn't fair. He didn't advocate people having the right to own the things you mentioned...poison gas, etc...and such hyperbole obscures reasonable discussion.

Stan Bozarth

Do you really think my neighbor and his shotgun

are a match for what Blackwater could throw at us if they so desired? Please.

I'm all for a person's right to keep a gun for personal protection, if they so choose. I'm all for a person's right to keep a gun for hunting, if they so choose. I'm all for a person's right to keep a gun for collecting purposes, if they so choose. I just want them to register their guns. I want them to license their guns. Personally, I think they should have to take out liability insurance in case one of their guns shoots one of my kids, dogs, cars, etc.

But I'm not silly enough to think that a citizen militia, armed with whatever y'all have is enough to stop Blackwater if GWB really wants a 3rd term.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors

Blackwater

Blackwater is way overrated. It may be unpopular and a demon in many folks eyes, but it is hardly capable of making a dent in a theoretical citizen vs blackwater showdown. A few thousand armed blackwater employees (may of whom are gun owners and wouldn't hire on to such an effort) against an armed and driven public wouldn't stand a snowball's chance.

James Rivers

James Rivers

I disagree,

but by this point, you won't be surprised by that. :)

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors

Give me proof

If you disagree, then give some reasons why you think an armed citizenry isn't more than a match for the lightly armed Blackwater (which has no domestic law enforcement authority whatsoever).

James Rivers

James Rivers

Blackwater Vs State Milita's by[take no prisoners] General James

Blackwater is way overrated. It may be unpopular and a demon in many folks eyes, but it is hardly capable of making a dent in a theoretical citizen vs blackwater showdown. A few thousand armed blackwater employees (may of whom are gun owners and wouldn't hire on to such an effort) against an armed and driven public wouldn't stand a snowball's chance.* General 2 star James Rivers

As commander of the 45 th Indiana state independent milita [Slam Dunk Hoosiers], where in the heck do you get your Intel? From Blackwater? You know dang well Blackwater has 40 spoff midget fighter jets and 34 Black painted Bell attack choppers, not counting their full production line of the Grizzy Attack Hummers. There is no way my Duck hunters and Rabbit dogs can hold them off in a full fledge firefight in a Kroger parking lot.

Yours.. Major Max

"Peace though superior firepower with the new and improve Chrisp's Cream Puffs."

I'm hoping Marshall will answer my questions

And that he will recognize the points I've made.

1. The Second Amendment has ZIP to do with hunting.

2. The Second Amendment has ZIP to do with defending yourself from a criminal.

3. The Second Amendment's purpose is inapplicable to today's circumstances only in part because WE HAVE A WELL ARMED MILITARY. We HAVE police. WE HAVE the National Guard.

And yes, Stan,

What if things got really bad and Bush declared Martial Law and said there would be no election...and used Blackwater to enforce his edict and tried to set our own troops against us?

, this is completely unrealistic. Extreme and unrealistic circumstances are not a good foundation for law or for interpretation of law.

The only effective armor you would have if you wanted to take on the U.S. government because you and "IT" are in disagreement over a matter of law would be a cyanide pill.

I didn't say Marshall advocated that people have ricin and nuclear arms. I didn't SPIN a damned thing. I am saying that the principle he is espousing [i.e. protection against tyranny of the government] does not present a constitutional argument against people possessing weapons that deadly and effective or even more deadly and effective.

After all, if you're talking about taking on the freakin' U. S. Government, you'd better have something better than a few assault rifles hanging around.

Please do me the favor of not intervening to answer a question I directed to Marshall. There was a reason I directed it to him, and I think he's more than capable of framing his own response.

Just a few comments....

Extreme and unrealistic?

I never dreamed the President of the United States and our Military would engage in widespread violations of the Geneva Conventions by knowingly and willfully abusing prisoners, and deny people the right of Habeas Corpus. Nor would I have dreamed our goverment would snatch people and take them someplace to be tortured....or systematically violate our laws in the name of "homeland" security, or gut Posse Comitatus...and spy on ordinary citizens.

Regarding taking on Blackwater...etc.?

You might want to spend some time studying both the French and US Vietnam Wars and the French and Norwegian resistance movements during WWII before making light of what an angry, armed, and committed citizenry can do.

Doing you the favor of not intervening.....?

I'm sorry. I thought this was a BLOG where people realized others would likely comment on their posts. I had no idea you were carrying on a private conversation and had special privileges.

(my unworthy self genuflecting and slowly backing away from your omnipotent and majestic presence...)

Stan Bozarth

The idea

was imbedded in my having addressed the questions to Marshall.

I don't mind the idea of you commenting on my comment. But in this case, my frustration is that you didn't address the points, and thus offered a distraction rather than a response.
Worse, you suggested that my challenging a further articulation of the principle that was supposed to be at the base of the conversation was "spin," which it certainly wasn't and isn't, and then -- while dismissing as "hyperbole" the idea that people would justify ownership of weapons comparable to ricin or nukes on the basis of arming themselves against tyranny -- you go on to offer an absurd scenario under which we the people have to arm for resistance against Blackwater.

I know that I should be more patient, but again, this is why I specifically addressed the question to Marshall to follow up on MARSHALL's point.

Comparing the primitive conditions of Vietnam, or even the form of warfare used in WWII to the possibilities for citizen resistance here in USA demonstrates that your own read on history hasn't caught up with recognition of the lay of the land in the United States in 2008. (It also fails to note that in those cases, the resistance was against occupiers.

History is what it is. You seem to think the items

I mentioned don't apply because of the current "lay of the land." You're not clear about what you think the "lay of the land" is. But, you apparently think I should know what you think it is, and since I don't I'm out of touch. Great argument, Bru.

If your idea of the "lay of the land" is what I imagine it to be, then all our talk about being a nation of laws and a democracy is idle chatter.

We might as well lay down and submit to whatever the government does and thank our lucky stars to be alive and occasionally be thrown a bread crumb. Like Cheney and Bush, we can talk tough and wear a flag pin to show our patriotism, but behave as cowards when push comes to shove. We'll just turn away and hide while our freedoms are stripped away because we, as a nation, are too cowardly or apathetic to actually fight for what we say we believe.

My point about Vietnam and the other references was simply to say that a few determined and passionate people can make a huge difference. They were willing to put themselves at risk for what they believed. THAT was my point! I should have spelled it out for you.

In my opinion, your remarks about poison gas and nukes were unrealistic and take away from meaningful discussion. It hardly matters.

See ya...

Stan Bozarth

Devil's advocate here, Stan

On the other hand, a government that knows its citizens are armed has to be a bit more circumspect in how they screw the citizenry

In this day and age, the "keep the government honest" argument to preserve the 2nd Amendment is not only weak, but possibly counterproductive, for a couple of different reasons:

a) A society that has known freedom for as long as we have doesn't need an armed citizenry to keep their government in check. One merely has to look to Western Europe for proof of that. The freedoms we've lost under Bush came about because we allowed anger and fear to guide our decisions, not because we were "afraid" of our own government. That's the real danger, not whether the police (or military) can kick down a door without worrying about being shot.

b) The second (and more paranoid) reason this is a bad argument is because the government makes (and interprets) the law. Aside from a small percentage of conservatives in Congress, you're not going to find too many elected/appointed officials who will share the belief that they (personally) are potential tyrants that need to be kept in check. Do you see what I'm getting at? In simple language:

"Please let us keep our guns so we can protect ourselves from you."

"Well, if that's all you're worried about, then you don't need those guns, because we're not a danger to you."

While Jefferson and some others might have viewed an armed populace as a deterrant to homegrown tyranny, the vast majority of the framers viewed it as the primary deterrant/defense against outside invaders. And it was. And it still was during the heady days of the Cold War. The Kremlin and the KGB explored numerous scenarios back and forth for years, and they kept bumping up against a 200 year-old militia in every city, town, village and lonely highway-crossing gas station, all over this country.

Could be, Steve...

You make some points that bear consideration.

I do disagree with this statement:

The freedoms we've lost under Bush came about because we allowed anger and fear to guide our decisions

I think we lost these freedoms because we failed to fight hard enough to keep them...or have them restored...and allowed a corrupt administration to violate our Constitution.

Stan Bozarth

This is going to sound elitist,

but most Americans don't really understand what's happened or believe there's anything to fight about.

The original Patriot Act was an emotionally-charged mistake, but the subsequent renewals and revisions are what really piss me off. In addition to leaving most of the original overreaching powers in place, we've even added domestic methamphetamine production and other non-terrorism crimes into the law, instead of stripping or repealing it.

And we're about to reelect a whole lot of Democrats who have kept this mistake alive, including our next President.

Hi Brunette. The 2nd Amendment Argument is well said here

in this link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The issue is not pro or anti-government, but rather a "Constitutional" question which does not lend itself to expediency or social fads. The Supreme court, in 2nd Amendment arguments, has always ruled, or chose to remain silent in favor of the individual.

Was the 2nd Amendment written to restrict the individual, or the Government?

This is very solid and unbiased reading. It only reports the facts and rulings.

Marshall Adame
2014 U.S. Congress Candidate NC-03

Randy Weaver and Waco did

Randy Weaver and Waco did work out. Randy Weaver, although he lost his son and wife to federal agents, did receive compensation in the multi-millions by an embarrassed govt. Waco caused quite the outrage and strengthened gun movement in a positive way. Folks saw what an out of control govt. can do when it is left unchecked.

I have an example. It took place in Carthage Tennessee right after WWII. Many WWII vets weren't allowed to vote by the local sheriff. They gathered up arms, confronted a large govt. force, killed a few of them, and voted.

Also what you ask more may not be quantifiable. The mere fact that the citizenry is armed might work to prevent tyranny. Similar to how the mere possession of nukes prevents other nuke wielding countries from nuking us. Also, history is not over. There may come the time when we need to be armed. Let's hope not, but Americans are famous for not trusting government.

I do need a semi-automatic (dubbed assault weapons by the uninformed) for whatever I want it for. Hunting, self-defense,etc are all good uses and needs to permission from anyone.

You say we haven't talked about what the 2nd Amendment is all about. I beg to differ. If you read my prior posts I say the 2nd Amendment has nothing at all to do with hunting and everything to do with a balance of power. When I say balance of power I am talking about tyranny.

As for winning against a tyrannical government. Prove we cannot win. In a survey conducted of soldiers for just such a scenario, a majority of them said they would not fire on U.S. citizens. 85 million gun owners is quite a force. This is quite impressive considering there have never been more than 500 known IRA members at any one time!! I think if those blokes could keep the nation of Britain at bay for all those years then we could make quite a dent ourselves. Take Chechnya's rebels as another example. A rag tag ban of Muslims is still keeping the Russian army at bay. A rag tag band of rebels in a place called Afghanistan eschewed the Soviet Army!!! A few dozen poorly armed Jewish civilians kept the mighty German Army at bay in the Warsaw Ghetto for nearly year. A citizen force defeated a British Army in our war for independence. A very lightly armed band of Al Quaeda fights is still keeping the American Army at bay in Afghanistan and Iraq. So you are very, very wrong on this count.

Are you a gun owner? If not then how do you know that semi automatic wouldn't constitute a good hunting or self defense weapon. They have been doing just such for about a hundred years. This seems to be one of those "made up" issues by hypocritical liberal Dems (like Rosie O'Donnell) for the purpose of making a problems where there is not one. Rosie by the way "yelped" as you say for the confiscation of handguns. A short while later it was learned here bodyguards carried, yep you guessed it, semi-automatic handguns!!! I don't put much stock in what an anti-gunner says. They are usually hypocrites.

James Rivers

James Rivers

Randy Weaver and Waco did

Randy Weaver and Waco did work out. Randy Weaver, although he lost his son and wife to federal agents, did receive compensation in the multi-millions by an embarrassed govt. Waco caused quite the outrage and strengthened gun movement in a positive way. Folks saw what an out of control govt. can do when it is left unchecked.

I have an example. It took place in Carthage Tennessee right after WWII. Many WWII vets weren't allowed to vote by the local sheriff. They gathered up arms, confronted a large govt. force, killed a few of them, and voted.

Also what you ask more may not be quantifiable. The mere fact that the citizenry is armed might work to prevent tyranny. Similar to how the mere possession of nukes prevents other nuke wielding countries from nuking us. Also, history is not over. There may come the time when we need to be armed. Let's hope not, but Americans are famous for not trusting government.

I do need a semi-automatic (dubbed assault weapons by the uninformed) for whatever I want it for. Hunting, self-defense,etc are all good uses and needs to permission from anyone.

You say we haven't talked about what the 2nd Amendment is all about. I beg to differ. If you read my prior posts I say the 2nd Amendment has nothing at all to do with hunting and everything to do with a balance of power. When I say balance of power I am talking about tyranny.

As for winning against a tyrannical government. Prove we cannot win. In a survey conducted of soldiers for just such a scenario, a majority of them said they would not fire on U.S. citizens. 85 million gun owners is quite a force. This is quite impressive considering there have never been more than 500 known IRA members at any one time!! I think if those blokes could keep the nation of Britain at bay for all those years then we could make quite a dent ourselves. Take Chechnya's rebels as another example. A rag tag ban of Muslims is still keeping the Russian army at bay. A rag tag band of rebels in a place called Afghanistan eschewed the Soviet Army!!! A few dozen poorly armed Jewish civilians kept the mighty German Army at bay in the Warsaw Ghetto for nearly a year. A citizen force defeated a British Army in our war for independence. A very lightly armed band of Al Quaeda fights is still keeping the American Army at bay in Afghanistan and Iraq. So you are very, very wrong on this count.

Are you a gun owner? If not then how do you know that semi automatic wouldn't constitute a good hunting or self defense weapon. They have been doing just such for about a hundred years. This seems to be one of those "made up" issues by hypocritical liberal Dems (like Rosie O'Donnell) for the purpose of making a problems where there is not one. Rosie by the way "yelped" as you say for the confiscation of handguns. A short while later it was learned here bodyguards carried, yep you guessed it, semi-automatic handguns!!! I don't put much stock in what an anti-gunner says. They are usually hypocrites.

James Rivers

James Rivers

Maybe you're just bonkers

Randy Weaver and Waco did work out. Randy Weaver, although he lost his son and wife to federal agents, did receive compensation in the multi-millions by an embarrassed govt. Waco caused quite the outrage and strengthened gun movement in a positive way. Folks saw what an out of control govt. can do when it is left unchecked.

Hey, you're right! So what if he lost his wife and child -- He's got lots of money now! Hey, yeah! Koresh really showed 'em, huh?

No, I don't think Weaver or Waco are good examples of how you can win by deciding for yourself what the law is. And if you think that your cause was strengthened by either event, I think you've got serious perspective issues.

I never said I was or was not "anti-gun" or "pro-gun." (but your post is placed oddly so maybe you weren't addressing that rant to me). In any case, I don't think of myself as either pro- or anti-guns. Not sure what Rosie O'Donnell has to do with any of the foregoing discussion. Looks to me like you're setting up strawmen and are more interested in whipping yourself into a lather than following a discussion.

Randy Weaver didn't decide

Randy Weaver didn't decide for himself what the law was. The government decided for themselves what the law would be. They rewrote the rules of engagement, which is highly, highly illegal for law enforcement to do. Len Houruchi, the "highly trained" FBI sniper was not held accountable for shooting Randy's wife. Randy did the next best thing - he went after the govt. in civil court. Didn't you say in an earlier post that you believe gun owner should get liability insurance if they shoot your kid? Are you after money, lots of money? LOL!!!! You say you don't know much about Rosie O'Donels situation. I believe you know very little about the Randy Weaver/Waco situations as well. Why post on something you don't know much about?

In the case of Koresh, who by the way ran every day from his compound into town and could have been picked up peaceably, showed what happens when a government gets out of control. The fact remains that 87 men, women and children were incinerated. Not one weapons violation was ever found or recorded. Not sure how you classify Koresh or Weaver. How about enlightening us.

James Rivers

James Rivers

Re: Liability Insurance.

Didn't you say in an earlier post that you believe gun owner should get liability insurance if they shoot your kid?

Brunette wasn't the one who said that, I was. I can understand you confusing us, though - we liberal ladies all look alike.

I have to carry a minimum amount of liability insurance in order to legally operate my car in NC. That's because my car is potentially a dangerous weapon. I don't see why it's such a bad thing to ask gun owners to carry a similar type of insurance in order to use their guns. It's not infringing on your freedom; it's just protecting me and my family from having to pay the medical bills if you shoot my eye out. Or whatever. You get my point, I'm sure.

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors

other objects

Ok Linda, what about knives, baseball bats, matches (they cause arson you know), backyard swimming pools and half filled 5 gallon buckets? All those kill kids. Why not regulate them also (especially backyard swimming pools which kill more kids than do guns). Regulating a basic right is a slippery slope.

James Rivers

James Rivers

Prove they don't

James Rivers

James Rivers

Can't prove a negative, James.

You're ducking the question because you don't have a better argument.

Why should we not require gun owners to carry a minimum of liability insurance?

Be the change you wish to see in the world. --Gandhi
Pointing at Naked Emperors

Your ducking the question

Linda,

Again, you have no proof and operate only on emotion. For someone who knows next to nothing about firearms, you make some pretty serious assumptions concerning firearms. Like I said on the wolf posting (which you have been proven wrong), I won't do your research for you. If you don't believe what I say then prove me wrong. Like most liberals you are unable to do that and thus operate on the emotional level. To wean you off your futile and ridiculous stance I will once again demonstrate the fallacy of posting based on emotion.

In 2003, for the United States, the Centers for Disease Control reports that 28 children under age 10 died from accidental gunshot wounds.

Contrast that against bathtubs and five gallon buckets.

In 2004 over 90 children age 10 and under drowned in bathtubs. 30 children under age 5 drowned in five-gallon plastic water buckets.

Take the top ten greatest hazards to children by "Careful Parents" an organization devoted to keeping kids safe. (http://marshallbrain.com/cp/) They are in rank order:

Top 10
Tylenol
Alligators
Pot on the stove
Cigarette butts
Honey
Dogs
Rip currents
Windows
Balloons
Mercury

Nowhere on the page were firearms even mentioned!!!!! Now why aren't firearms mentioned given your polemic rants to the contrary? LOL!! The answer lies in the fact that many other devices or animals are far more dangerous to kids than guns.

Professor and firearms researcher John Lott sums it up best by saying: " With some 90 million gun owners and about 40 million children under 10, it is hard to find any item as commonly owned in American homes, as potentially as lethal, that has as low of an accidental death rate."

Now my dear Linda it us up to you to prove me wrong from here on out. The usual one line witty quips are getting old. You may not agree with what I say, but if you can't prove it wrong then why post? LOL!!!

James Rivers

James Rivers

Rivers without a paddle

"Careful Parents" is a book, it is not an organization. It is written by Marshall Brain, the man behind How Stuff Works and other projects that use people's imaginations to teach. The list is an author's top ten of hazards, it is not a definitive top ten and it is not ranked as you claim.

Making sweeping insulting generalizations to respond to commenters:

no proof and operate only on emotion

and pulling random text from the internet to bolster undermine your "case" is a sure sign of desperation.

Quit while you're behind. Go clean your guns, re-read the instruction manuals and brush up on your reading comprehension before pulling the trigger again.

The second amendment give you the right to bear arms. It doesn't give you the right to shoot. The first amendment give you the right to free speech but it doesn't give you the right to shoot your mouth off.

We live in a society where people can hold opposing points of views without having to prove each other right or wrong.

A bit touchy

Gregflint,

You seem a bit miffed that I trouced Linda (again) with facts and websites that show half empty five gallon buckets and swimming pools kill more kids than guns. You, as many misguided liberals, hate it when you are proven wrong time and time again so you do what you did - operate on emotion and say a lot about nothing. Just what is your point? Is your point that Linda indeed won't answer to my post? Or is it that you guys are beaten and you want me to quit? Or maybe you don't exactly know what you are trying to say.

As for opposing viewpoints. Practice what you preach. If you don't want to own a gun then great - that's your right. Many of you on this site, however, wish to take that right away from others, and this is the real issue (maybe you should brush up on YOUR reading comprehension or lack of it). LOL!!! Until you can explain yourself, what you believe in, and why (like I have throughout this thread) then you hold little credibility. Or maybe you are one of those cheerleader types like Robert P or Linda who are afraid to engage in a meaty dialouge concerning guns. Which is it or you don't know? LOL!!

James Rivers

James Rivers

Red herring

Switching to kid gun deaths is a favorite NRA red herring because it ignores injuries and because it's young adult males that get killed and injured by guns in the large numbers.

At this point we can shut off comments James or Betsy.

When someone comes out supporting the whackos at Waco and saying that grabbing your gun and shootin' some folks is the way to protect your vote - I don't think we need to go any further.

Jesus Swept ticked me off. Too short. I loved the characters and then POOF it was over.
-me

I didn't say I supported

I didn't say I supported folks at Waco. Why do you call them wackos? Do you have proof of that? What do you know of Waco. Like Brunett, enlighten us. How do you respond to 87 dead men, women and children? That ok with you? Another one line quip driven by emotion does nothing to improve your perforance (or lack of it). LOL!!

James Rivers

James Rivers

Pop 2nd amendent History Quiz for James! You failed!

1.This is quite impressive considering there have never been more than 500 known IRA members at any one time!! I think if those blokes could keep the nation of Britain at bay for all those years then we could make quite a dent ourselves.*James

Wrong answer! No doubt you are using M-5 view of history. The Irish revolution had been going on for many centuries and over 400 thousand Irishman died in it's fight for freedom from the British elite Tories.

2. Take Chechnya's rebels as another example. A rag tag ban of Muslims is still keeping the Russian army at bay. A rag tag band of rebels in a place called Afghanistan eschewed the Soviet Army!!!*James

Wrong Answer! The Russia army that try control the Chechnya's Muslins was under force and vastly weak from it's past Empire ventures. In short, you had a farm team trying to play in the Big leaques with bush leaquers.

3.A few dozen poorly armed Jewish civilians kept the mighty German Army at bay in the Warsaw Ghetto for nearly year.*James

Wrong answer! The SS simply seal the area off and let it burn. The SS was vastly weak and spread thin on the Eastern Front against the Soviet Hords.

4.A citizen force defeated a British Army in our war for independence.*James

Wrong Answer! It was not a citizen Army, but a highly trained regular army and French Navy in the end that defeated the Greatest known army of that time. You need to stop reading neo-con reverse federalist history of the American revolution.

5. A very lightly armed band of Al Quaeda fights is still keeping the American Army at bay in Afghanistan and Iraq. So you are very, very wrong on this count.*James

Wrong answer again! Since the ancient times of Alexander The Great, and over history including the Brits and a host of Indian tribes and the Mongol Hords, Not counting the former Soviet Army, Afghanistan is the toughest place to fight a war on the planet. The Soviets were defeated by our CIA and Stinger missiles to so-called Al Quaeda army which did not exist at that time.

History is not your strong point since you use standard genric establishment control myths as your source.

This seems to be one of those "made up" issues by hypocritical liberal Dems (like Rosie O'Donnell) for the purpose of making a problems where there is not one. Rosie by the way "yelped" as you say for the confiscation of handguns. A short while later it was learned here bodyguards carried, yep you guessed it, semi-automatic handguns!!! I don't put much stock in what an anti-gunner says. They are usually hypocrites* James

And stop beating up on Rosie as a excuse for your NRA program answers. Rosie is a great American understands the Constitution more than you do on civil rights and the principles of Liberty. Besides, she fiqure out that 9/11 was a inside job like many, many folks like Jesse Ventura who is the greatest supporter of the 2 nd amendent in American and I believe Mexico now.....Shape up man and stop acting like a brain dead program Republican.

Oh Max!

I think it's too late for poor Mr. Rivers.
He got so upset ranting about Rosie O'Donnell that he blew out the line connecting his inner-tube, got thrown out by some surly locals, and is off now looking for another internet cafe.

Oh Bru! Oh James! Waiter! More Romania StarBucks Coffee please!

found an internet cafe and can continue our discourse. Here in Bucharest I inquired about gun control. The European Union is trying its best to have Romania live by its gun control laws. Romania is resisting so far. The peasant population has guns and are not willing to give them up. Interestingly enough the government doesn't seem all that concerned that peasants own weapons. Perhaps they know the peasants would go a long way in repelling another communist takeover* James

Mr Rivers! Are you aware that communism failed 18 years ago and most Romanias couldn't care less about it or even heard of it now. Are you on a mission for the CIA and work yourself into a Communist Coffee House cell?

Gun control in Romania

MaxeyBoy,

So you are an expert on how Romanians feel on guns. I am here talking with them about it, and you profess to know something more? Most of the Romanians I talked with say Romania is pretty liberal with weapons now that Communism is over. Citizens are allowed to purchase and own weapons for self-protection and hunting. A few years ago near the town of Braslov, high in the Carpathians, it was rumored that many of the peasants owned high capacity machine guns. The government did an exploratory turn in program and were shocked when the peasants began turning in all manner of machine guns left over from WWII. Tommy Guns were common as were German made machine guns. Now if guns are such a problem as you mistakenly indicate then why weren't all those weapons causing problems all these years? They weren't. Just like they don't in the good ole USA. One other thing about Romania - it is popular in Romania for citizens and foreigners alike to hunt big game. Romania is home to the largest wolf population in Eastern Europe. Brown bear, elk and wild boar are all popular animals hunted there.

I am here in Budapest right now and will be sure to ask about guns here also. Perhaps you would do well to research a little before running your mouth. LOL!!!!

James Rivers

James Rivers

Romania Sword Control by James Rivers?

Gun control in Romania

MaxeyBoy,* James

Stop calling me MaxeyBoy! I am highly trained human male trained in the Art of Kung Fu and Brazil toe kicking. You must be some old Republican Queen on the make or either you are slapped happy from a bad night at some Gay Bikers night club.

So you are an expert on how Romanians feel on guns. I am here talking with them about it, and you profess to know something more? Most of the Romanians I talked with say Romania is pretty liberal with weapons now that Communism is over. Citizens are allowed to purchase and own weapons for self-protection and hunting. A few years ago near the town of Braslov, high in the Carpathians, it was rumored that many of the peasants owned high capacity machine guns. The government did an exploratory turn in program and were shocked when the peasants began turning in all manner of machine guns left over from WWII. Tommy Guns were common as were German made machine guns. Now if guns are such a problem as you mistakenly indicate then why weren't all those weapons causing problems all these years? They weren't. Just like they don't in the good ole USA. One other thing about Romania - it is popular in Romania for citizens and foreigners alike to hunt big game. Romania is home to the largest wolf population in Eastern Europe. Brown bear, elk and wild boar are all popular animals hunted there.

I am here in Budapest right now and will be sure to ask about guns here also. Perhaps you would do well to research a little before running your mouth. LOL!!!! *James Rivers

If you are in Romania, than I am on the planet Mars with a Alien Lizard Rock group on tour. Stupid fool! Don't know the first weapon control law was in Romania when the ancient Romans ruled those screw up mongo Barbarians 2000 years ago. The Romanias called it " the "irrumator" Sword and Dragger Control law"

And stop trying to be expert on Romania history, they lost in WW2 to the Russians after being con by Hilter.

Maximum trash

Maxey Boy,

You explained nothing, giving only excuses for the performance of various military units and governments against lightly armed citizens. Here we go again so I can clarify it for you again. Also, try not to rewrite history any more than you already have.

1. There have never been more than 500 identified IRA members. How many are you saying there are? You gave no stats. MI5 is a pretty respectable organization, and running counter to a nations own intelligence agency's estimate is not embedded in common sense. The fact remains that fewer than 500 IRA members kept the nation of England at bay.

2. You say the Russian armed forces were understrength and weak. They had tanks, artillery, a standing army, training, and many, many more resources than the lightly armed (mostly semi-automatic rifles). If you say the Russian were bush league then the rebels were in pee-wee division. The end result is a poorly armed, poorly trained, non-professional force of rebels staved off a Russian Army. By the way, the rebels are still giving the Russian Army hell these days. The Russian Army is pretty strong right now, and the Pee Wee leauge is the same as it has always been - lightly armed.

3. The SS vastly weak? Whoa there. The Russians were giving them problems on the Eastern Front, but the SS was by no means weak. It was still the strongest, most professional fighting force on the planet at that time. Again, an army with tanks, artillery, bombs, etc. was stopped cold by a few dozen very, very, very poorly armed peasants. The SS did burn the Warsaw Ghetto to the ground - in testament to the fact it would have been impossible to suppress a few dozen lightly armed Jews by trying to shoot it out with them. Does the fact that those Jews, unlike no others, withstood the strongest army on the planet for a year with hand me down weapons not register with you. Yes they were burned out and lost, but that is not what we are looking at here my misguided friend.

4. The defining moment of the Revolutionary War was the over the mountain march to King's Mountain. This march of untrained mountaineers with their Kentucky Long Rifles gave a blow to the British that Washington's trained army never could - a victory against larger numbers (trained numbers). After the mountaineers got done with Major Ferguson and others at King's Mountain, Washington was able to maneuver and finally surround the Brits at Yorktown. This battle is often referred to as the "Prelude to Yorktown". Layette and the French, no doubt, aided us in critical moments, but it was the untrained, freedom loving patriot who solved the riddle of banishing the British Army from our continent. When you skip over facts with poorly framed generalizations it hurts your cause and lends credence to your opponents facts and assumptions.

5. About all you said in this trail off commentary is Afghanistan is a tough place to fight. Where isn't a tough place to fight. If you are saying the terrain is the reason, and not the lightly armed Al Queda fighters, then think again. The above examples show that a lightly armed force can stave off a superior force. Why not say the British lost the Revolutionary War because they found it too hard to fight Francis Marion in the swamps or the over the mountain men at King's Mountain. So with that being said, a lightly armed band of gun owners should be able to defeat an overzealous entity here in the United States if they stick to the Rocky Mountain, Ozark and Appalachian Mountains? LOL!! Your own pedantic argument has come back to haunt you.

And I am crazy and wacko. Let me get this right. Rosie is a great American, 9/11 was contrived by the Bush Administration, and Mexico is an authority on something. This is the best yet. Folks like you ensure I will be owning guns for a long time!!!

How is Rosie a great American? Is being a hypocrite being a great American? Rosie says I shouldn't own a gun, yet she is guarded by body guards with guns. She lives in a private community patrolled by security guards with guns. And I am the problem? You folks are tasting defeat and reacting in a very emotional, disconnected way. Maxey, you make no sense. Please explain how Rosie is a great American.

9/11 is a conspiracy. I will simply say this: Prove it. If I am brain dead then you don't have one.

James Rivers

James Rivers

James drove off Kings Mountain to Cowpens as a Tory Pig

4. The defining moment of the Revolutionary War was the over the mountain march to King's Mountain. This march of untrained mountaineers with their Kentucky Long Rifles gave a blow to the British that Washington's trained army never could - a victory against larger numbers (trained numbers). After the mountaineers got done with Major Ferguson and others at King's Mountain, Washington was able to maneuver and finally surround the Brits at Yorktown. This battle is often referred to as the "Prelude to Yorktown". Layette and the French, no doubt, aided us in critical moments, but it was the untrained, freedom loving patriot who solved the riddle of banishing the British Army from our continent. When you skip over facts with poorly framed generalizations it hurts your cause and lends credence to your opponents facts and assumptions.* Senior Moment James

Listen your Tory sucking hypocrite! I am not going to answer all of your stupid questions and answers, unless you pay me 100 dollars in Gold Coin per question to straight out your Red State fascist brain. Now pay up or go to the nearest payday loan office.

King Mountain did not change the Revolutionary War you dumb F###. It was Cowpens and that Great American General Danial Morgan who chase the redcoats from the Carolinas........And other thing, The only reason the Mountain boys kick the Tories butt at King Mountain since the only Brit Commander Major Ferguson didn't use his first repeating rifle in the world....

9/11 is a conspiracy?

Maxey Boy,

You explained nothing, giving only excuses for the performance of various military units and governments against lightly armed citizens. Here we go again so I can clarify it for you again. Also, try not to rewrite history any more than you already have.

1. There have never been more than 500 identified IRA members. How many are you saying there are? You gave no stats. MI5 is a pretty respectable organization, and running counter to a nations own intelligence agency's estimate is not embedded in common sense. The fact remains that fewer than 500 IRA members kept the nation of England at bay.

2. You say the Russian armed forces were understrength and weak. They had tanks, artillery, a standing army, training, and many, many more resources than the lightly armed (mostly semi-automatic rifles). If you say the Russian were bush league then the rebels were in pee-wee division. The end result is a poorly armed, poorly trained, non-professional force of rebels staved off a Russian Army. By the way, the rebels are still giving the Russian Army hell these days. The Russian Army is pretty strong right now, and the Pee Wee leauge is the same as it has always been - lightly armed.

3. The SS vastly weak? Whoa there. The Russians were giving them problems on the Eastern Front, but the SS was by no means weak. It was still the strongest, most professional fighting force on the planet at that time. Again, an army with tanks, artillery, bombs, etc. was stopped cold by a few dozen very, very, very poorly armed peasants. The SS did burn the Warsaw Ghetto to the ground - in testament to the fact it would have been impossible to suppress a few dozen lightly armed Jews by trying to shoot it out with them. Does the fact that those Jews, unlike no others, withstood the strongest army on the planet for a year with hand me down weapons not register with you. Yes they were burned out and lost, but that is not what we are looking at here my misguided friend.

4. The defining moment of the Revolutionary War was the over the mountain march to King's Mountain. This march of untrained mountaineers with their Kentucky Long Rifles gave a blow to the British that Washington's trained army never could - a victory against larger numbers (trained numbers). After the mountaineers got done with Major Ferguson and others at King's Mountain, Washington was able to maneuver and finally surround the Brits at Yorktown. This battle is often referred to as the "Prelude to Yorktown". Layette and the French, no doubt, aided us in critical moments, but it was the untrained, freedom loving patriot who solved the riddle of banishing the British Army from our continent. When you skip over facts with poorly framed generalizations it hurts your cause and lends credence to your opponents facts and assumptions.

5. About all you said in this trail off commentary is Afghanistan is a tough place to fight. Where isn't a tough place to fight. If you are saying the terrain is the reason, and not the lightly armed Al Queda fighters, then think again. The above examples show that a lightly armed force can stave off a superior force. Why not say the British lost the Revolutionary War because they found it too hard to fight Francis Marion in the swamps or the over the mountain men at King's Mountain. So with that being said, a lightly armed band of gun owners should be able to defeat an overzealous entity here in the United States if they stick to the Rocky Mountain, Ozark and Appalachian Mountains? LOL!! Your own pedantic argument has come back to haunt you.

And I am crazy and wacko. Let me get this right. Rosie is a great American, 9/11 was contrived by the Bush Administration, and Mexico is an authority on something. This is the best yet. Folks like you ensure I will be owning guns for a long time!!!

How is Rosie a great American? Is being a hypocrite being a great American? Rosie says I shouldn't own a gun, yet she is guarded by body guards with guns. She lives in a private community patrolled by security guards with guns. And I am the problem? You folks are tasting defeat and reacting in a very emotional, disconnected way. Maxey, you make no sense. Please explain how Rosie is a great American.

9/11 is a conspiracy. I will simply say this: Prove it. If I am brain dead then you don't have one.

James Rivers

James Rivers

James Rivers

James hates Rosie because of her Sexual beliefs?

How is Rosie a great American? Is being a hypocrite being a great American? * Rosie Gay hater James

Listen Fool! Another outbreak like that! And I will have Jesse Ventura kick your Rosie inside job butt. You do understand that Willie Nelson is Jesse's sidekick since they both claim it was a inside job....

9/11 is a conspiracy. I will simply say this: Prove it. If I am brain dead then you don't have one* James

Knock yourself out Brainless and I want a report on my desk in the morning on why you are a sock puppet special ops dude from Alien Lizard HeadQuarters sneaking around this site to prove what big Blackwater promoter you are.

http://www.loosechange911.com/films.shtml

I can't stans it no longer - my .02 cents on the .02 amendment

First guns do not make a country safer. The USA demonstrates this quite well. Our death by gun rate tops the list.

Japan had 34 murders by gun in 1995, roughly the same as Durham, NC. Just a reminder here, Japan has about 125 million inhabitants while Durham has about 200,000.

The idea that an armed populace is somehow feared by the government might have been valid in the USA for the Greatest Generation, but since then we have become fat and lazy. A trained platoon of Blackwater goons would only be limited by ammo in the number of armed citizens they could wipe out. The Viet Cong, Soviet & Norwegian patisans and our Revolutionary ancestors were a much tougher people used to deprivation and hard toil. Also, plenty of countries with very lightly armed populations exist, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, England, France, without their governemts taking undue advantage. Do you seriously think that Bush/Cheney worried for one second about armed Americans confronting the government over the most costly and foolish mistake this country has ever made? (Iraq)

I invite you to scroll down to near the bottom of this data site to see gun deaths for children under 15 years old. That should make any sensible person cringe.

Alvin York applied to be a conscientious objector. He didn't want to go kill Germans.

In some comment Mr. Rivers mentioned his "God given right" to own guns. I am surprise that he got away with that statement. Mr. Rivers, are you serious?? I do not think the Book of Heston is approved canon. If God has anything to say about killing, "Thou shalt not kill." sums it up fairly well. I do not recall anything in the bible relalting to a right to kill five human beings in five seconds from 500 yeards. (like an assault rifle can)

I would like to say that I have nothing against true subsistence hunting or "well regulated" gun ownership as per the seocond amendment. Hunters do play a role in maintaining healthy prey populations but that is only because predators have been wiped out in many places. Left alone Nature will find a balance. The reintroduction of the gray wolf to Yellowstone has had far reaching benefits both to natural and human interests in the area.

For me it's a matter of direction. Do we as a nation wish to add to the 200-300 million (including about 77 illion handguns) guns already out there and become more like Somalia, South Africa or the Middle East or do we wish to head toward a more enlightened future with guns becoming less prevalent in our society due to strictly enforced regulations and governmental buyback programs. I have lived in Japan and spent a week in South Africa, and I know in which environment I'd prefer to raise a family.

Person County Democrats

I actively oppose gerrymandering. Do you?

Statistics

I agree with some parts of your post, but I think you need newer statistics than the ones cited in the first paragraph. Although I couldn't find any recent studies along the same lines as that one, other studies have shown a decrease in violent crime since it peaked in 1993. The study you cite was done in 1994.

Not that we're in as good position as we could be, but our homicide rates today are significantly lower than quite a few countries like Brazil and Russia. I wish I could say we were lower than some countries with better economic stability, but that's not the case.

Thanks

But a few more points I'd like to make:

- I don't like the use of gun-related suicides in studies because it's been shown that people will simply commit suicide in other ways, noted in this article.

- Whatever Finland is doing, we need to be. If they have more households with guns (by percentage) and yet still have less than 1/7th of the amount of gun homicides as we do, they must know something we don't.

- As I previously mentioned without going in-depth, I believe that homicide rates are more based on economic situation than anything else. The majority of the gun crimes in the US occur in poor inner-cities such as Detroit and DC. This article compares Finland and the US by noting that the bottom 10% in the US purchase 1.8% of consumer goods while the bottom 10% in Finland purchase 4.2%, about 2.3 times as much.

2nd Amendement in Moses Stone?

In some comment Mr. Rivers mentioned his "God given right" to own guns. I am surprise that he got away with that statement. Mr. Rivers, are you serious?? I do not think the Book of Heston is approved canon. If God has anything to say about killing, "Thou shalt not kill." sums it up fairly well. I do not recall anything in the bible relalting to a right to kill five human beings in five seconds from 500 yeards. (like an assault rifle can)* PCD

Sure the book of Heston approve wholesale killing for the wayward children of Israel. Good Grief man, any religious fool knows that when Moses came down from the mountain with the 20 commandents and found the Children of Israel dancing around the Golden baby cow and partying like crazy. He lost his cool and toss the 20 commandments at the drunken pot smoking Israel partying children and wipe out 40 thousand of them with half of the tablets. Now do you understand why Moses ended up with 10 commandments and wholesale stoning of sin?

Pages