Girl shoots herself with grandma's gun at SC store

[Dysphoria]

Its moot because the societies that existed in Europe at the time led to the two world wars. They could have been prevented with a culture and legal system that promoted civil liberties, including gun rights.

The same thing with free speech rights. And aren't people worried now that even though wire tapping isn't a big deal, its part of an erosion of our laws on privacy?

The thing about gun rights is also that it gives the courts a legal precedent on which to defend other rights, which can extend far beyond gun rights.

I guess you are not familiar with the history of Germany and how Hitler came into power. Oh yes they did have the right of free speech. On November 8, 1923, Hitler held a rally in Munich and proclaimed a revolution. The following day, he led 2,000 armed "brown-shirts" in an attempt to take over the Bavarian government. This is when inflation in Germany was at it's highest. People were not confident in their government and they were looking for a new leader, someone with promises of greatness and stability. Hitler was able to overthrow the government with around 2000 armed man. Would this maybe be example of the Right to bear arm law? He did it in dare times and with large support from the people.

[redfish]

I guess you are not familiar with the history of Germany and how Hitler came into power. Oh yes they did have the right of free speech. On November 8, 1923, Hitler held a rally in Munich and proclaimed a revolution. The following day, he led 2,000 armed "brown-shirts" in an attempt to take over the Bavarian government. This is when inflation in Germany was at it's highest. People were not confident in their government and they were looking for a new leader, someone with promises of greatness and stability. Hitler was able to overthrow the government with around 2000 armed man. Would this maybe be example of the Right to bear arm law? He did it in dare times and with large support from the people.

I am familiar with the history of Germany. Hitler was able to put himself into power because Germany was not a democracy. He was appointed Chancellor by the Emperor, and used that position to manipulate the political situation. Politicians in other parties were scared of opposing him. So he kept on building power until he could do something like that without a check. And its not true that the public supported Hitler at first; the Nazi party NEVER won a majority of votes by any fair election.

[Dysphoria]

Germany was in a great depression, and he was able to use that to his advantage. There is a book about it, I forgot the name... I have to go back to work though...

Cheers!

[redfish]

Germany was in a great depression, and he was able to use that to his advantage. There is a book about it, I forgot the name... I have to go back to work though...

Cheers!

He did use the depression to his advantage, but I repeat the Nazi party never won a majority in a fair election, and Hitler's rise to power began when he was appointed Chancellor. Hitler did have a base of support though, I think it was around 30%, and the depression and other circumstances of the time made his propaganda more believable though, when Nazis controlled Germany and proved that they could turn around the economy around he got more and more people believing in him

[Bryan R.]

See, resort to name calling (typical lib) instead of answering my question. Here it is again for wanna be gun grabbers: HOW ARE YOU GOING TO TAKE MY GUNS WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE ANY?

The answer: You can't. You have no recourse to try and dis-arm me.

To answer your question, yes... I'd take up arms if they tried to ban guns. I have no problem fighting for OUR freedoms. What are you going to do when they ban the freedom of speech? How will you save your rights? You can't. You'll rely on people like me to protect you. I just pray it never comes to that.

That is an extremely naive way of thinking. How would I disarm you? I would taise your ass. And yes you would fall and would not be able to shoot me. BTW, banning guns would not take guns away from officials of course. And also, nowhere did I call any "name".

[RAID 0]

That is an extremely naive way of thinking. How would I disarm you? I would taise your ass. And yes you would fall and would not be able to shoot me. BTW, banning guns would not take guns away from officials of course. And also, nowhere did I call any "name".

That's a very naive way of thinking. How are you going to "taise" me? Can you "taise" me from over 200 meters? I don't think so. My 7.62x54R can go a lot farther than any taser, and if you're closer... I've got a 00 Buck with your name on it. :shiftyninja:

[evo_spook]

wierd.....

every post "Raid" makes, is a pro-post for Gun control laws in the US to be toughened that someone as immature as he is displaying in his posts about guns and shooting is really disturbing.

[RAID 0]

wierd.....

every post "Raid" makes, is a pro-post for Gun control laws in the US to be toughened that someone as immature as he is displaying in his posts about guns and shooting is really disturbing.

HAHAHAHAH! Guess what Spook, I pass my background check EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. I have my handgun permit that I had to take a test to get.

I've never hurt anyone, but yet... you think I shouldn't be able to own a gun. Too bad for you I'm gonna keep buying them. I love my guns! Whoo hooo! None of you can do a damn thing to take them away so keep on bitching.

[Verdelite]

I am neither a redneck nor a republican. I have 2300 guns last count, I have ammo for all of them. I also have a CDWL permit for the state of Kentucky. There are some states in the us such as Ill. That REQUIRE you to get a permit before you can even own said gun, and guess what? Chicago still has an assload of gun crimes. I have 2 daughters, one is 5 and the other is 7, and they have both shot and own there own weapons. Ignorant people are the ones that hurt themselves and others with guns. I own 57 fully automatic weapons, and a handfull of them are even used worldwide as military, like my Mp5k and my M16 for one. I have permits for everything I own and have even been searched by the ATF from time and again like im the criminal. I dont really care what any of you people here believe or keep choosing to talk about, but guns dont kill people. Ignorant people with guns kill people.

[RAID 0]

GONADS

Your name suits you.

[+Troll Subscriber¹]

You're comparing freedom of using a weapon to freedom of speech?

Jeeez you seem to be just as gun fanatical as the criminals who'd have no problem shooting at innocent people...

Sad really that everyday people (not sport related people) are that attached to products that only serve purpose to hurt/kill/cause destruction when used.

I understand that you may not realize the way our government works. The first amendment we have is the freedom of speech. The second is the right to bear arms. So disagree all you want, but freedom of speech is no different than the right to bear arms in terms of the law.

[spenser.d]

I don't think guns should be banned altogether, but I do think restrictions such like we place on cigarette smoking should be put in place (i.e. you can't have a gun in a public place, such as a grocery store :rolleyes:). And no, I don't think that we should spend money trying to check everyone, but it should just be that if you're caught with a gun in a place where it's restricted, you'll be in deep ****.

It's absolutely not necessary to carry a gun on you wherever you go. I don't really care much that people do so, but when stupid **** like this happens, it certainly makes me wonder about things.

-Spenser

[RAID 0]

I understand that you may not realize the way our government works. The first amendment we have is the freedom of speech. The second is the right to bear arms. So disagree all you want, but freedom of speech is no different than the right to bear arms in terms of the law.

This is what so many do not understand.

[ambushed]

This is what so many do not understand.

The part I don't understand is when American's talk as if their constitution is the infallible word of god (assuming he exists). It was written by man and as such should be open to scrutiny like any other law and evolve as necessary to keep with society's trends. It was originally written hundreds of years ago for a time quite different to the one in which we currently live. If it's no longer relevant to the general consensus of society, by all means change it. It's silly to think of a right to bear arms as being on the same level as basic human rights.

The authors of the Constitution were clearly aware that changes would be necessary from time to time if the Constitution was to endure and cope with the effects of the anticipated growth of the nation. However, they were also conscious that such change should not be easy, lest it permit ill-conceived and hastily passed amendments. Balancing this, they also wanted to ensure that an overly rigid requirement of unanimity would not block action desired by the vast majority of the population.

wikipedia

Edited June 13, 2008 by ambushed

[BoJo]

I swear there are terms in a concealed carry permit that state you have to exercise due care etc. If not, there really should be.

[Bryan R.]

That's a very naive way of thinking. How are you going to "taise" me? Can you "taise" me from over 200 meters? I don't think so. My 7.62x54R can go a lot farther than any taser, and if you're closer... I've got a 00 Buck with your name on it. :shiftyninja:

Again, you act like it's some sort of game. Like you enjoy talking about taking someone's life and have no problem in doing so. What kind of situation would you be in if a criminal was 200 meters away and you were in danger of your life? Maybe war, but not in residential situations. If someone broke into your home a taser would do just as well as a gun, besides the fact that a burglar in my home would not live. Keep in mind also, that you cannot use your gun as lethal force without being in absolute danger yourself, unless an intruder was in your home I believe.

[Konstanov]

Again, you act like it's some sort of game. Like you enjoy talking about taking someone's life and have no problem in doing so. What kind of situation would you be in if a criminal was 200 meters away and you were in danger of your life? Maybe war, but not in residential situations. If someone broke into your home a taser would do just as well as a gun, besides the fact that a burglar in my home would not live. Keep in mind also, that you cannot use your gun as lethal force without being in absolute danger yourself, unless an intruder was in your home I believe.

If I am close enough to tase him that means he is close enough to slash the artery in my arm and make me bleed out to death while he has a small burn. I know the heavy penalties of killing someone, the only problem with killing someone is that I would rather live with that on my conscious than the day to day regret that I could have saved a family member from a intruder.

[Deletedforeverhaha]

The part I don't understand is when American's talk as if their constitution is the infallible word of god (assuming he exists). It was written by man and as such should be open to scrutiny like any other law and evolve as necessary to keep with society's trends. It was originally written hundreds of years ago for a time quite different to the one in which we currently live. If it's no longer relevant to the general consensus of society, by all means change it. It's silly to think of a right to bear arms as being on the same level as basic human rights.

wikipedia

Don't make me laugh. The Constitution is what makes America "America". If our constitution disappeared, then we might as well be another country that's labeled "democratic" and nothing more.

[Semental]

well honestly the world isnt a safe place

id imagine the old lady needed her gun

but arent there safeties and stuff?

I swear there are terms in a concealed carry permit that state you have to exercise due care etc. If not, there really should be.

You're absolutely right. How the Hell did the little girl know how to turn off the safety and get the it off so quickly that the grandmother did not notice the girl with the gun? If the safety was not on, she did not exercise due care, and the grandmother needs to have her concealed weapon permit taken away.

Society has evolved since than and the need for people to bear arms is long gone... I do assume that you live in a civilised society...

Other countries have a ban on guns with no issues at all.

Really? Is that why Great Britain and Australia are experiencing escalading crime rates? Are they not civilized nations?

Could we please stop with the absolutely daft comparisons?

Cars are not made as forms of killing/destruction and/or to hurt as their main function. It's when idiots are behind the wheel people get hurt.

As I said earlier in this thread, every day items being turned into weapons. I can kill someone with a wooden stool, but it's hardly in a position to be banned.

Guns are made for the sole purpose of killing/destruction and hurt, so it's even worse when you get an idiot behind a gun, than an idiot behind a car.

Guns can't be turned into weapons, as they are weapons in the first place :blink:

I thought the primary functions of a gun were to: 1) provide safety and security against criminals; 2) to kill animals for the purpose of consumption. Yes in both cases "harm" is done, but both reasons are perfectly legitimate.

The part I don't understand is when American's talk as if their constitution is the infallible word of god (assuming he exists). wikipedia

U.S. Americans talk about the Constitution (Bill of Rights section) as a document that secures their rights as citizens. They (most) believe that those rights protected in it should never be taken away. However, because you are a non-U.S. citizen, i do not understand why you care how they feel about their rights as long as they do not try to push their rights on you. In fact, although other nations' citizens' opinions are interesting and may form a basis for some American opinions, i do not believe they are relevant here. U.S. citizens' rights are an internal matter and only our citizens' beliefs have weight when it comes to controlling our own affairs.

Do not construe my opinion as telling you to shut up. I am not. I just don't know why other nations care about what our rights as citizens are unless our government is attempting to suppress them.

I have no issue with police having guns.

That is totally not at all what i posted. The police in London apparently are having crime problems that have worsened shortly after the ban of privately owned guns. The possession of guns by only the police (and criminals) in the U.K. is the problem. A ban on guns only takes them out of law-abiding citizens' hands and leaves them defenseless against criminals. Do you think that a criminal gives a damn about what the law says and would turn in his guns? Hell no, criminals are law breakers by definition.

[ambushed]

Don't make me laugh. The Constitution is what makes America "America". If our constitution disappeared, then we might as well be another country that's labeled "democratic" and nothing more.

I never suggested scrapping it, but making amending it as times change is something it's authors knew would be needed. But the idea that nothing of it should ever be scrutinised because that's what it's founders opined 300 years ago is absurd. The US is not the same place it was 300 years ago. If you cared to read your own constitution you would notice it has been amended 17 times since conception up until as recently as 1992. Hell the 18th amendment was completely scraped by the 21st amendment due to changing societal opinions. Clearly the cornerstones of "what it means to be an American" has changed significantly since 1789.

U.S. Americans talk about the Constitution (Bill of Rights section) as a document that secures their rights as citizens. They (most) believe that those rights protected in it should never be taken away. However, because you are a non-U.S. citizen, i do not understand why you care how they feel about their rights as long as they do not try to push their rights on you. In fact, although other nations' citizens' opinions are interesting and may form a basis for some American opinions, i do not believe they are relevant here. U.S. citizens' rights are an internal matter and only our citizens' beliefs have weight when it comes to controlling our own affairs.

Do not construe my opinion as telling you to shut up. I am not. I just don't know why other nations care about what our rights as citizens are unless our government is attempting to suppress them.

See above. The constitution has many times been ammended and some of those rights HAVE been taken away by your own people. I wouldn't mind hearinng an educated respose.

While US policy does not directly affect me it doesn't make my argument any less valid.

And the jist of this thread has been involving gun control. I care if innocent people needlessly lose their life regardless of where they come from and I would hope you feel the same way.

Really? Is that why Great Britain and Australia are experiencing escalading crime rates? Are they not civilized nations?

And BTW, correlation does not equal causation. There are many other factors that play a part in crime rates than just guns

Edited June 13, 2008 by ambushed

[RAID 0]

Again, you act like it's some sort of game. Like you enjoy talking about taking someone's life and have no problem in doing so. What kind of situation would you be in if a criminal was 200 meters away and you were in danger of your life? Maybe war, but not in residential situations. If someone broke into your home a taser would do just as well as a gun, besides the fact that a burglar in my home would not live. Keep in mind also, that you cannot use your gun as lethal force without being in absolute danger yourself, unless an intruder was in your home I believe.

Interesting. I act like it's a game. I enjoy talking about taking some one's life. Glad we got that out of the way. :rolleyes:

If someone broke into your home a taser would do just as well as a gun, besides the fact that a burglar in my home would not live.

So now you're the one who's saying you're going to take a life. Double standards much?

[Alfista]

In the not so distant future. much more people will carry guns with them.

unfortunately it is inevitable.

its very easy to get a license for a gun and carry it.

i useed over 15 types of guns such as machine guns and even mortyrs when i was in the military

and i just cant stand a gun.

it is VERY easy to be careless and make a mistake like what happened to that little child.

[WelshBluebird]

I am familiar with the history of Germany. Hitler was able to put himself into power because Germany was not a democracy. He was appointed Chancellor by the Emperor, and used that position to manipulate the political situation. Politicians in other parties were scared of opposing him. So he kept on building power until he could do something like that without a check. And its not true that the public supported Hitler at first; the Nazi party NEVER won a majority of votes by any fair election.

I should know more about this as one of my exams next week is about germany history, but I'm pretty sure Germany was a democracy during that time. The Emperor (kaiser) abdicated and fled the country after the first world war, and a new democratic system was put in place (weimar republic). While it is correct that Hitler was made chancellor by the president (not the emperor), that president was elected by the Germany people.

And again while I think you are right that the nazi party never won a fair majority, the nazi party got into a position of power with the formation of a coalition government (during the weimar republic years, coalition governments were common because of proportional representation).

Although what this has to do with the original topic, I have no idea.

[FloatingFatMan]

See, resort to name calling (typical lib) instead of answering my question. Here it is again for wanna be gun grabbers: HOW ARE YOU GOING TO TAKE MY GUNS WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE ANY?

The answer: You can't. You have no recourse to try and dis-arm me.

Not that I'm advocating the banning of private citizens in the US owning guns, but IF they passed such a law, getting your guns off you wouldn't be hard.

1. They'd sent a letter to all registered gun owners telling them when and where to surrender their weapons.

2. Most law abiding citizens would turn up and surrender them

3. Those that don't would be visited by cops and arrested, and their weapons confiscated. (You forget, your cops aren't private citizens and would remain armed)

4. Those that resist would be fitted for a body bag.

Simple really.

Of course, banning guns really won't work in a nation that has always enjoyed the right to carry weapons. It's just not practical and the end result would be that criminals with their illegal and unregistered guns would just run riot over the now disarmed populace. Gun control laws can really only work if the general populace isn't already armed, so really, it's FAR too late to implement it in the US.

I do think, though, that they should look in to tightening the regulations as you what TYPE of weapons people can own. No one outside of the army really needs things like a fully automatic AK47. Rifles, sure. Shotguns, sure. Handguns, sure. But a weapon capable of spitting out hundreds of rounds a minute? WHY?

[Bryan R.]

So now you're the one who's saying you're going to take a life. Double standards much?

No that's not a double standard. Read the entire thread and you'll see my view. I am against a ban on guns because our country as a whole does not want them banned. Your problem here is your outlook on guns. You think they are a way to take someone's life, and not a way to protect yourself by any means. The same result is accomplished by a gun however you look at it, but the way you view a gun is very important.