What is your stand on gun ownership?

[jwinch2]

Please, those are USA statistics and the USA is 5% of the world population. Besides we see only guns there: and the other factors? hate, religion, race, age, region, and so on…?
Be reasonable: take 1 million ferocious discussions. Group A has got knives. Group B has got machine guns. Where there is more probability of deaths: in Group A or B?

Nope, wrong again. There were data from Australia as well as England there also. Take a look at the document link I provided, there are data from all over the world contained therein. Here it is again: law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7212&context=expresso

As for the rest, the phrase “1 million ferocious discussions” makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

I’m an ex soldier and have unfortunately seen what guns can do. Yes, I would love to see an end to war in fact, I pray for it regularly. But your rule is wrong. Perhaps you should raise your right hand and serve and find out for yourself?

I have seen more than you will see in your lifetime. No details.

Either way, this has nothing to do with a private citizen owning a gun, which is what the thread is about. If you want to start a thread on the horrors of war, I will be happy to agree that war is lousy and should be avoided.

Cities are battelfields, say american reporters. Pittsburgh 50 shootings a night. I didn ot invent, never been there.

Yes, Christ did come in peace but the Church also teaches that we are entitled to self defense and the defense of other innocents, even through violent means if necessary. Are you suggesting that the Church is wrong in her teaching?

NO.

Oh, and Gandhi thought the ability of a nation to defend itself through the force of arms was pretty important. “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.” Gandhi

Ghandi agains the British, not asking for arms that he refused.

I must be weird because what seems not very Christian to me is calling people dumb and stupid. because you disagree with them. I also find the act of resorting to attacks on others rather than being able to refute their argument to be rather pathetic.

Were did I insult people. Please quote

Our Blessed Lord was quoted on guns? Oh, you discovered a new book in the Bible? Certainly you will be submitting your findings to the Holy See any day now so that we can all benefit from your amazing discovery? And here I was thinking that the Canon of Sacred Scripture had closed years ago.

Boy, didnt you understand? Jesus coming on the 21st century talking about swords, horses donkeys, daggers??? iF YOU WANT, i EXPLAIN, BUT…

So if I roll into Africa, I will find a bunch of American guns? Or, will I find AK’s and other Russian derivatives?

Oh, and this has exactly what to do with private gun ownership?

russians and czech guns. Youmust have both sides. American Factories make guns, when every american has got one, they dont dismiss people, they sell them abroad. They wer not made in the Vatican.
In minute you find this, this (ooops, that is something!!!), and the-end-a-priceless-article
am I inventing? I did not to do much research, the data came into me in a no time.If one does not see the relationship between the possession of guns and the selling of guns, what can I do?

 

[jwinch2]

I tell you, the USA and Russia are just dumb and stupid as the have all it takes and are talking disarmment.

 

[po18guy]

Easy, very easy. It takes only a pen and a rubber: erase the 2nd amendment.

You desire national revolution and bloodshed in the US? Each of the other amendments depends upon the second amendment: de-centralized power contained by an armed citizenry. Without the threat of citizens who retain power (since we citizens are the government) in their hands, government would long ago have erased all of the amendments - if not the entire constitution! European history in the past several centuries bears this out. When seen on a time line, the entire continent has been in almost constant warfare and turmoil over recent centuries. Borders have changed and blood has been shed - without an armed citizenry. Why? Armed government and disarmed citizens. This has not happened to Switzerland - in part because it is essentially a military base. Not even the WWII axis powers which surrounded Switzerland dared invade her.

America’s founding fathers well knew the harsh rule of a despotic king. They formulated a system which allows for the non-violent change of power. It has worked peacefully in a nation that was settled violently. The worst of America’s violence today is centered in criminal sub-cultures. This has nothing to do with the constitution or armed, law-abiding citizens.

The American fathers guaranteed that power remains in the hands of the common citizen. Giving power to government (as we see now) is a guarantee of persecution of the Church.

 

[Corki]

Easy, very easy. It takes only a pen and a rubber: erase the 2nd amendment.

Didn’t you every study US civics? You can’t just “erase” an emmendment. Once enacted, an ammendment can be repealed but that can only be done by passing another ammendment. The process is anything but easy. It requires support from 2/3 of both houses of Congress and from 3/4 of all of the state legislatures. The last one took over 200 years to gain that much support.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Nope, wrong again. There were data from Australia as well as England there also. Take a look at the document link I provided, there are data from all over the world contained therein. Here it is again: law.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=7212&context=expresso

So, before there were guns, it was an all year around massacres. You ask me to read 117 pages. Ok. In the first pages he makes some stunning assertions, comparing Godless Russia with Religious America. The statisctics were a cause or coincidence? russia had already the highest rate of alcohol comsumption. The sentence that this is a Russia gossip is not fundamented. Page 16 states"As indicated in the preceding footnote, the notion that more guns reduce crime is highly controversial. What the controversy has obscured from view is the corrosive effect of the Lott and Mustard work on the faith that more guns = more murder." I do not read more. At least, let’s say it it "controvertial, as the author puts it!

As for the rest, the phrase “1 million ferocious discussions” makes no sense whatsoever.

…because you say so but do not prove?

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

Didn’t you every study US civics? You can’t just “erase” an emmendment. Once enacted, an ammendment can be repealed but that can only be done by passing another ammendment. The process is anything but easy. It requires support from 2/3 of both houses of Congress and from 3/4 of all of the state legislatures. The last one took over 200 years to gain that much support.

Correct the Constitution.

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

You desire national revolution and bloodshed in the US? Each of the other amendments depends upon the second amendment: de-centralized power contained by an armed citizenry. Without the threat of citizens who retain power (since we citizens are the government) in their hands, government would long ago have erased all of the amendments - if not the entire constitution! European history in the past several centuries bears this out. When seen on a time line, the entire continent has been in almost constant warfare and turmoil over recent centuries. Borders have changed and blood has been shed - without an armed citizenry. Why? Armed government and disarmed citizens. This has not happened to Switzerland - in part because it is essentially a military base. Not even the WWII axis powers which surrounded Switzerland dared invade her.

America’s founding fathers well knew the harsh rule of a despotic king. They formulated a system which allows for the non-violent change of power. It has worked peacefully in a nation that was settled violently. The worst of America’s violence today is centered in criminal sub-cultures. This has nothing to do with the constitution or armed, law-abiding citizens.

The American fathers guaranteed that power remains in the hands of the common citizen. Giving power to government (as we see now) is a guarantee of persecution of the Church.

Then what is Police Force for? What are armed forces for.
when I read the 2nd amendment, I clearly am reading the intention of the legislator to assure that there would be aremed forces. BUT, as the first settlers were few, everybody had to be armed.

Nowadays, with Police and Armed Forces what are these need for? Instead of calling the Police, just call the neigbor next door !!!

These interpretations, against a tyrannical government seems so far-fetched from what I see written in the 2nd ammendment that someone must be dreaming.

So, first savings, disband Police and the Aremy.

 

[po18guy]

Then what is Police Force for? What are armed forces for.
when I read the 2nd amendment, I clearly am reading the intention of the legislator to assure that there would be aremed forces. BUT, as the first settlers were few, everybody had to be armed.

Nowadays, with Police and Armed Forces what are these need for? Instead of calling the Police, just call the neigbor next door !!!

These interpretations, against a tyrannical government seems so far-fetched from what I see written in the 2nd ammendment that someone must be dreaming.

So, first savings, disband Police and the Aremy.

The police always arrive second - after the criminal. The armed forces are for national defense, but most of ours are overseas right now. We cannot conflate or confuse the second amendment with the incidence of crime. Two separate issues. One is a freedom that is intended to be exercised with adult responsibility, while the other is licentious behavior.

In any event, self defense does not consist of calling the police. That is done post facto to report that a crime has already occurred.

The US constitution is a guarantor of individual rights, so each provision in the constitution, as well as each amendment, is applied to individuals.

 

[prh546k]

Hi on the question of Gun Control

I live in Queensland Australia.

Queensland is probably one of the easiest places in Australia to get a (long) Gun License but overall Australia is one of the hardest to get a License. And if you looked at the ability to get a carry and conceal license for a hand gun then you are looking at less than 1 in 25,000 - setting aside the Police and Military.

As far as long arms are concerned ie rifles or shot guns the requirements are that you must complete a competency test, be a member of a registered gun club and/or have a freehold area of land of at least 8 hectares (1 hectare = 2.471 Acres) on which you have a declared right to use the weapon ie a friend who is a farmer or something of that ilk.

A Rifle must not be over 45 calibre and must be a)single shot b) bolt action c) lever action. A shotgun may be single or double barreled but may not be any form of automatic action - here including bolt, lever or pump.

A licensed gun must not be left on any form of display and must be contained in an approved gun safe and transported in an approved locked carry case. It is an offence to leave such a case in view in a vehicle or to carry such on the street except from place of storage to the vehicle and/or the vehicle to the place of use ie car park to club or car park to the farm or place you’re going to use the weapon.

These restrictions were introduced as a direct result of a shooting rampage by a deranged man at Port Arthur in Tasmania.

According to the Australian Bureau of Criminology (not know as a pro firearms organization - in fact the major source of the draft legislation that has been introduced a) Death from Firearms (all categories) has increased by something of the order of 230% in 2008 (last year Stats published) excluding suicides 187%. Deaths in the commission of a crime rose by 141%. These increases are based on 1996 - the year of the murders at Port Arthur which was itself the highest year for fatal shootings on record to that time.

By the nature of the work I was previously engaged in I had a Carry and Conceal License. I never had to use a weapon against a person in Australia. However I did use a weapon on a number of occasions overseas and took at least 3 lives using a firearm. It is not something you ever come to grips with. It is not something of which to be proud. It is not something you can ever be at peace with, however I am alive and I would most certainly be dead had I not had a firearm - incidentally the killing I took part in were not with a hand gun - that is a short range defensive weapon or a weapon to control prisoners.

Where do I stand on Gun Control? - I wish they had never been invented but to have had them invented and only in the hands of criminals or the police (which is a responsive force) does not appear to be the answer.

By the way I also took 2 lives whilst under attack without using a gun.

If someone whishes to kill a gun is a luxury. We were killing each other with rocks for far longer than we have had guns - and I dare say that the numbers killed by rocks far exceeds those killed since the first fire arms were invented. I pray each day to be forgiven for the lives I took and for the eternal rest of those who died - both my attackers and my friends.

I believe that the only true way to control guns is through the expansion of the Universal Church of the Christ - the Catholic Church and the recognition that God Loves us so much that he sent His Holy Son to Die for Us.

I think this is a strange thread to find on this Site - a Site dedicated to the Love of God.

I for one will not return to this thread. I find it brings me no peace which is what I desire more than anything else except God’s Freely Given Love.

Peace be with you All

 

[Eddie_Mac]

Where do you live?

Texas.

Do you have a legal right to own a gun?

Yes. My Creator endowed me with certain unalienable rights and some of these rights are enumerated in the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I own last count 48 firearms.

If you see me in public I am packing.

My darling wife packs too.
What is the context of your country’s gun control law, if any?

Crime prevention which of course is absurd since the most violent and deadly cities have the most strict gun control.

Is it effective?

Reference my previous statement.

 

[Eddie_Mac]

Easy, very easy. It takes only a pen and a rubber: erase the 2nd amendment.

The thing about rights is that even if they are not enumerated they cannot be eliminated. They are given to us by God.

Even if the 2A was not in the BOR we would still have the right to keep and bear arms.

A good example of this is the right to life.

Abortion is legal. You can legally kill your unborn child anytime you want while still in the womb. This does not remove the unborn child’s right to life.

Pfaffenhoffen, if you do not want to arm yourself, that is your business and your right. Do not infringe on others. If you think that you can erase another person’s RKBA, then others can erase your freedom of religion or even right to life.

The Second Amendment is the reboot switch for the Constitution.

Eddie Mac
NRA Life Member
Texas State Rifle Association Life Member

 

[Brendan]

The police always arrive second - after the criminal.

Exactly

When Dominoes Pizza was advertising it’s “30 minutes or less guarantee”, their was a lot of discussion about that if one called for a pizza, an ambulance and the police; the pizza was most likely to arrive first.

The police are a response organization, as you so well put. The US Courts have ruled that they have no legal obligation to actual PROTECT anyone, simply to investigate the crime after the fact.

Some of us prefer not to be victims at all; therefore we cannot rely on the police to protect us, only to attempt to catch the attacker after the fact.

 

[Corki]

The police are a response organization, as you so well put. The US Courts have ruled that they have no legal obligation to actual PROTECT anyone, simply to investigate the crime after the fact.

Not only is it not the obligation of police to protect, their presence is not a deterrant. Police presence can deter street crime but, unless you have a guard at your house or paid neighborhood private police security, their job is not deterring crime at your home. Defending the home falls to the homeowner.

 

[coachkfan1]

My take on guns- Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!

 

[Pfaffenhoffen]

The police always arrive second - after the criminal. The armed forces are for national defense, but most of ours are overseas right now. We cannot conflate or confuse the second amendment with the incidence of crime. Two separate issues. One is a freedom that is intended to be exercised with adult responsibility, while the other is licentious behavior.

In any event, self defense does not consist of calling the police. That is done post facto to report that a crime has already occurred.

The US constitution is a guarantor of individual rights, so each provision in the constitution, as well as each amendment, is applied to individuals.

Sorry, your post is a big confusion, sorry.
The neibor arrives second, after the criminal. The owner arrives second to the house which was asssaulted, after the criminal! It seems ready-made sentences everybody uses to atttack the police. If poilice is useless, disbandi it.
Overseas? What are they doing losing battles outside in Vietnam, Afganistan and Iraq, should not they be inside home? Or disbanded?
The police is only to report crime? So, why do they come with guns and not only with pens, papers and PCs?
I thought that in Absolutism it was the King who made the laws. I though that after the French revolution it was the people who made the Laws. But it seems that in the States it is a Ditactorship of the Constitution. the People is powerless to change the Constitution. Is is agains all the principles of liberalism and democracy. It is a return to Absolutism, but instead of Kings,it is the “dictaortorship of the dead”, dead are the Founding Fathers.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

You have to complete handgun training (handgun training license/permit) course then fill out the required info for paperwork concerning legal ownership of said handgun.

No, you only have to do that if you want to carry concealed in Texas. If you are 18 and not a felon, you may buy and own a gun or more than one gun, no license needed.

We are allowed to own and keep guns in the US because we are to always be a “well armed militia” as our Founders believed in. It is more about government tyranny than mere crime deterrence.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Easy, very easy. It takes only a pen and a rubber: erase the 2nd amendment.

You are not at all familiar with our Constitution and the Bill of Rights if you think we can simply erase an amendment like that.

Why don’t you just mind your own business and enjoy your European lifestyle.

 

[Hail_Linus]

My family escaped from Cuba back in 1960. They, like all Cubans who fled at that time believed that Castro would be ousted once the people realized he was a Communist, and they would be able to return. They believed this because Cubans never tolerated tyranny and would always rebel when they felt oppressed. Unfortunately, Castro convinced everybody to turn in their gunss for the sake of peace and safety. Because they turned in their guns they became defenseless against the totalitarian regime and unable to oust Castro.

So basically, getting rid of the right of gun ownership is a very bad idea.

I know many people are killed every year but as the immortal Archie Bunker once said to his daughter, Gloria, “Would you rather they be thrown out of windows?”

 

[Jordan719]

You are not at all familiar with our Constitution and the Bill of Rights if you think we can simply erase an amendment like that.

Why don’t you just mind your own business and enjoy your European lifestyle.

Well said.