- All
Comments (80) More Comments (80 total): Page: 1 2
- Add a
Comment
| Literotica Toy Store ADULT TOY & DVD STORE FAST & DISCREET |
Literotica XXX Webcams 24/7 LIVE CAMS - FREE PREVIEW W/AUDIO! |
Literotica Adult Movies STREAMING ADULT MOVIES PAY PER MINUTE |
English
Just Wrong
SusanJill, in the Loving Wives area of this site it is widely accepted that murder with a gun is a far less heinous crime than a wife committing adultery. Guns are necessary to ensure that the number of wives wandering is kept to a minimum.
It is a major problem here in Australia. Because we have banned guns, there is no way to keep all these adulterous wives in check.
D
To TobyT915
This comment is addressed to TobyT915.
Thank you for reading my story Toby and for giving me a generous vote of 1.
Now, this is the awkward part. I don't want to seem unappreciative of you reading what I wrote, all 6,450 words but I can't take your comment seriously.
You wrote two sentences and both sentences are grammatically incorrect.
First of all, plane is an aircraft that flies in the sky. Plain on the other hand is something that's as simple as you are.
Secondly, you ended your sentence with a proposition, something that's frowned upon in the English language.
Perhaps, after you graduate from the third grade you can try making another comment to my story, one that's grammatically correct and free of spelling errors.
Your ignorance only proves that your comment that my stories are all bullshit is just...bullshit.
Say "Hi," to your mother for me.
Oops...
Oops, sorry Toby but just as nitwit and dimwit is one word, bullshit is one word and not two words.
Thanks so much for the bashing 1 vote.
Sad but dumb.
The usual drivel by someone who knows nothing about firearms but listens to the liberals. As far as Heston's speech, DOHbama has sold far more firearms by his efforts then Heston or the NRA ever dreamed of. Just so you know, it happens in other countries too and many of them have tough gun laws.
Behring Anders Breivik killed 75, 2011, Norway
Mohammed Merah killed 7, 2012, France
Genildo Ferreira de França killed 14, 1997, Brazil
Michael Robert Ryan killed 16, 1987, UK
Eric Borel killed 15, 1995, France
Friedrich Leibacher killed 14, 2001,Switzerland
Christian Dornier killed 14, 1989, France
Ljubiša Bogdanović killed 13, 2013, Serbia
Derrick Bird killed 12, 2010, UK
Robert Steinhäuser killed 16, 2002, Germany
Tim Kretschmer killled 15, 2009, Germany
Wellington Menezes de Oliveira killed 12, 2011, Brazil
Bai Ningyang killed 12, 2006, China
Juhani Matti Saari killed 10, 2008, Finland
Huanming Wu killed 9, 2010, China
Ahmed Ibragimov killed 41, 1999, Russia
Ami Popper killed 7, 1990, Israel
Antoní Blažka killed 6, 2013, Czech Republic
Something else for you to ask yourself, why are the higher crime areas in the US the places with the toughest gun laws?
Inaccuracies of in your article. Referring to A.R. 15's as automatic Rifle however in some states it is legal to own a fully automatic rifle or machine gun by going to the ATF and obtaining a permit which takes a few months and you pay the yearly tax on
Average police response time over 15 minutes According to the Supreme Court the police are not there to protect and serve but they are there to prevent further criminal acts or words to that effect Not long ago last month a man tried to enter a church with a gun to shoot people another man legally carrying shot him to keep him from killing other people that did not make the news The Second Amendment protects the First Amendment and all the others
BigDog
Huh? Who's the Duh now?
You can add up all of those gun deaths in all of the countries in the world and they won't equal to one day of gun deaths in the United States. Go ahead. Take off your shoes and count. I'll wait until you get back to me.
Moreover, you just proved my point. Whether it's Charlton Heston, President Obama, or GW Bush and his cohorts, gun fanatics don't need a reason to buy guns. All they need to do is to wave the American flag and reference the second amendment, the only amendment they seemingly know by heart.
Listen, we're not dealing with the brightest bulbs. Too many people who buy guns, shouldn't be allowed to own a slingshot. Tell me this. How can you possibly feel safe, no matter how many guns you own, when your idiot, drunken, violent neighbor has one gun and is intent on shooting you when you least expect it.
Wouldn't you be safer if no one was allowed to own a gun other than the police and the military? Whatever happened to good, old fisticuffs? Is everyone in America too fat to fight?
Don't get me started or my next essay will be about your fat ass and your fat wife.
Sailboater
AR15 or AK47, who cares? You're hung up on one thing while missing the entire reason for the essay. Methinks you've been sniffing too much WD40 when cleaning your guns.
Listen, put the gun down, put the gun away and read the rest of the essay before you make a fool of yourself by making another idiotic comment.
Besides, shouldn't you be in school? Where's your mother? Is she not home supervising you?
Well put and sadly true
Sorry my vapid little nut jobs, but SJP is correct. About the only good thing about the NRA anymore is as an identification tag for idiocy. Not one of your arguments has the slightest merit yet you grass roots members continue to spew them as if they mean something; and at the upper levels the actual work to keep guns legal is done by legal and monetary threats. Holding a metaphorical gun to our heads. The second amendment is responsible for more deaths than were stopped by the thirteenth, and it's repeal is overdue.
To Pentafelix
Thank you...Daddy.
Only, I noticed that you haven't added me as one of your favorite daughters.
Is it because I turned you down for sex last night? Sorry, but I had a headache. Maybe if you add me as one of your favorite authors, I'll rock your world tonight.
Come into my room once Mom is asleep.
I took your story with tongue in cheek....
Guns are like tools, each gun has a specfic purpose just like each type of screwdriver is designed for a particular type of screw head. The only tools that have no specfic purpose are politicians. Oh, by the way, the NRA sucks and is no better than the president and congress.
@SusanJillParker Well said
Thank you for your thoughtfulness. I can't improve on your thoughts.
bill
The problem with our society
Really? Firearms have been in the hands of legal citizens for hundreds of years. It has only been in recent years that "mass murders" have been a problem. Anyone who honestly believes that removing or limiting legally owned firearms will stop or reduce "mass murders" is a wee bit nuts! The vast majority of legal owners of firearms use them responsibly and legally. Perhaps if our society held young people accountable for their actions, instead of saying: "it's not your fault", the young folks would become responsible adults, knowing right from wrong.
Why is it that when a person is killed by a shooter it is the fault of the weapon used, but when a person is killed in a drunk driving accident the death isn't blamed on the vehicle or the alcohol, but on the driver?
From my perspective, the ones who want more gun control are the criminals so that legal citizens are not able to properly to defend themselves; this includes politicians.
Title is a lie
You do not understand the Second Amendment. Pretty much everything you say about the Second is polemic.
Mostly spoken from a position of fear. Have there been any shootings in your immediate neighborhood? Meaning the house you can see from your porch. How many of your neighbors own guns? I think you would be surprised to find out.
You repeatedly claim the reason Second no longer exists except that is not true.
Alabama: That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 26 (enacted 1819, art. I, § 23, with "defence" in place of "defense," spelling changed 1901).
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Alaska: A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State. Art. I, § 19 (first sentence enacted 1959, second sentence added 1994).
[Individual right explicitly protected; provision enacted in 1994, when the individual right to bear arms was generally understood as aimed at protecting self-defense.]
Arizona: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men. Art. II, § 26 (enacted 1912).
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Arkansas: The citizens of this State shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense. Art. II, § 5 (enacted 1868, art. I, § 5).
1836: "That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Art. II, § 21.
[Self-defense right protected, Arkansas Game and Fish Com'n v. Murders, 327 Ark. 426 (1997); Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557 (1878).]
California: No provision.
Colorado: The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons. Art. II, § 13 (enacted 1876, art. II, § 13).
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17). The original 1818 text came from the Mississippi Constitution of 1817.
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Delaware: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use. Art. I, § 20 (enacted 1987).
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Florida: (a) The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law.
(b) There shall be a mandatory period of three days, excluding weekends and legal holidays, between the purchase and delivery at retail of any handgun. For the purposes of this section, "purchase" means the transfer of money or other valuable consideration to the retailer, and "handgun" means a firearm capable of being carried and used by one hand, such as a pistol or revolver. Holders of a concealed weapon permit as prescribed in Florida law shall not be subject to the provisions of this paragraph.
(c) The legislature shall enact legislation implementing subsection (b) of this section, effective no later than December 31, 1991, which shall provide that anyone violating the provisions of subsection (b) shall be guilty of a felony.
(d) This restriction shall not apply to a trade in of another handgun. Art. I, § 8 (sections (b)-(d) added in 1990).
1838: "That the free white men of this State shall have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Art. I, § 21.
1865: Clause omitted.
1868: "The people shall have the right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the lawful authority of the State." Art. I, § 22.
1885: "The right of the people to bear arms in defence of themselves and the lawful authority of the State, shall not be infringed, but the Legislature may prescribe the manner in which they may be borne." Art. I, § 20.
1968: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law." Art. I, § 8.
[Self-defense right protected, Alexander v. State, 450 So.2d 1212 (Fla. App. 1984).]
Georgia: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne. Art. I, § 1, ¶ VIII (enacted 1877, art. I, § XXII).
1865: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Art. I, § 4.
1868: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but the general assembly shall have power to prescribe by law the manner in which arms may be borne." Art. I, § 14.
[Self-defense right protected, McCoy v. State, 157 Ga. 767 (1924).]
Hawaii: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Art. I, § 17 (enacted 1959).
[No decision about whether self-defense right right is protected.]
Idaho: The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent the passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of any legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony. Art. I, § 11 (enacted 1978).
1889: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense; but the Legislature shall regulate the exercise of this right by law." Art. I, § 11.
[Self-defense right protected, In re Brickey, 70 P. 609 (Idaho 1902).]
Illinois: Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Art. I, § 22 (enacted 1970).
[Self-defense right protected, Kalodimos v. Village of Morton Grove, 470 N.E.2d 266, 273 (Ill. 1984).]
Indiana: The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State. Art. I, § 32 (enacted 1851, art. I, § 32).
1816: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State, and that the military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power. Art. I, § 20.
[Self-defense right protected, Kellogg v. City of Gary, 562 N.E.2d 685, 694 (Ind. 1990).]
Iowa: No provision.
Kansas: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Bill of Rights, § 4 (enacted 1859, art. I, § 4).
[Interpreted as collective right only, City of Salina v. Blaksley, 83 P. 619 (Kan. 1905), adhered to by City of Junction City v. Lee, 532 P.2d 1292 (Kan. 1975). But see City of Junction City v. Mevis, 601 P.2d 1145, 1151 (Kan. 1979) (striking down a gun control law, challenged by an individual citizen, on the grounds that it was “unconstitutionally overbroad,” and thus implicitly concluding that the right to bear arms did indeed belong to individual citizens).]
Kentucky: All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: ...
Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the State, subject to the power of the General Assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons. § 1 (enacted 1891).
1792: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. XII, § 23.
1799: "That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. X, § 23.
1850: "That the rights of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned; but the General Assembly may pass laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed arms." Art. XIII, § 25.
Louisiana: The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person. Art. I, § 11 (enacted 1974).
1879: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged. This shall not prevent the passage of laws to punish those who carry weapons concealed." Art. 3.
[Self-defense right protected, State v. Chaisson, 457 So.2d 1257, 1259 (La. App. 1984).]
Maine: Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned. Art. I, § 16 (enacted 1987, after a collective-rights interpretation of the original provision).
1819: "Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence; and this right shall never be questioned." Art. I, § 16.
[Self-defense right protected, State v. Brown, 571 A.2d 816 (Me. 1990).]
Maryland: No provision.
Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it. Pt. 1, art. 17 (enacted 1780).
[Interpreted as collective right only, Commonwealth v. Davis, 343 N.E.2d 847 (Mass. 1976).]
Michigan: Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 6 (enacted 1963).
1835: "Every person has a right to bear arms for the defence of himself and the State." Art. I, § 13.
1850: "Every person has a right to bear arms for the defense of himself and the state." Art. XVIII, § 7.
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Minnesota: No provision.
Mississippi: The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons. Art. III, § 12 (enacted 1890, art. 3, § 12).
1817: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State." Art. I, § 23.
1832: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and of the State." Art. I, § 23.
1868: "All persons shall have a right to keep and bear arms for their defence." Art. I, § 15.
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Missouri: That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1945).
1820: "That the people have the right peaceably to assemble for their common good, and to apply to those vested with the powers of government for redress of grievances by petition or remonstrance; and that their right to bear arms in defence of themselves and of the State cannot be questioned." Art. XIII, § 3.
1865: Same as above, but with "the lawful authority of the State" instead of "the State." Art. I, § 8.
1875: "That the right of no citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereto legally summoned, shall be called into question; but nothing herein contained is intended to justify the practice of wearing concealed weapons." Art. II, § 17.
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Montana: The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. Art. II, § 12 (enacted 1889).
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Nebraska: All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof. Art. I, § 1 (right to keep and bear arms enacted 1988).
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Nevada: Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes. Art. I, § 11(1) (enacted 1982).
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
New Hampshire: All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state. Pt. 1, art. 2-a (enacted 1982).
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
New Jersey: No provision.
New Mexico: No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms. Art. II, § 6 (first sentence enacted in 1971, second sentence added 1986).
1912: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons." Art. II, § 6.
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
New York: No provision.
North Carolina: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice. Art. 1, § 30 (enacted 1971).
1776: "That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Bill of Rights, § XVII.
1868: "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up, and the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Art. I, § 24.
1875: Same as 1868, but added "Nothing herein contained shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons, or prevent the Legislature from enacting penal statutes against said practice."
[Self-defense right protected, State v. Kerner. 107 S.E. 222, 225 (N.C. 1921).]
North Dakota: All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property and reputation; pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness; and to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed. Art. I, § 1 (right to keep and bear arms enacted 1984).
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Ohio: The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power. Art. I, § 4 (enacted 1851).
1802: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be kept up, and that the military shall be kept under strict subordination to the civil power." Art. VIII, § 20.
[Self-defense right protected, Arnold v. Cleveland, 616 N.E.2d 163, 169 (Ohio 1993).]
Oklahoma: The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power, when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons. Art. II, § 26 (enacted 1907).
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Oregon: The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.] Art. I, § 27 (enacted 1857, art. I, § 28).
[Self-defense right protected, State v. Hirsch, 114 P.3d 1104, 1110 (Ore. 2005).]
Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).
1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII.
[Self-defense right protected, Sayres v. Commonwealth, 88 Pa. 291 (1879).]
Rhode Island: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Art. I, § 22 (enacted 1842).
[Self-defense right protected, Mosby v. Devine, 851 A.2d 1031, 1043 (R.I. 2004).]
South Carolina: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. Art. 1, § 20 (enacted 1895).
1868: "The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence. As, in times of peace . . . ." Art. I, § 28.
[Right treated as an individual right, apparently aimed at least partly at self-defense, State v. Johnson, 16 S.C. 187 (1881);
South Dakota: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied. Art. VI, § 24 (enacted 1889).
[Self-defense right protected, Conaty v. Solem, 422 N.W.2d 102, 104 (S.D. 1988).]
Tennessee: That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime. Art. I, § 26 (enacted 1870).
1796: "That the freemen of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Art. XI, § 26.
1834: "That the free white men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence." Art. I, § 26.
[Self-defense right protected, State v. Foutch, 34 S.W. 1, 1 (Tenn. 1896).]
Texas: Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime. Art. I, § 23 (enacted 1876).
1836: "Every citizen shall have the right to bear arms in defence of himself and the republic. The military shall at all times and in all cases be subordinate to the civil power." Declaration of Rights, cl. 14.
1845: "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in lawful defence of himself or the State." Art. I, § 13.
1868: "Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defence of himself or the State, under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe." Art. I, § 13.
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Utah: The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the state, as well as for other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms. Art. I, § 6 (enacted 1984).
1896: "The people have the right to bear arms for their security and defense, but the legislature may regulate the exercise of this right by law."
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15).
[Self-defense right protected, State v. Rosenthal, 55 A. 610 (Vt. 1903).]
Virginia: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Art. I, § 13 (enacted 1776 without explicit right to keep and bear arms; "therefore, the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" added in 1971).
[No decision about whether self-defense right right is protected. Compare 1993 Va. Op. Atty. Gen. 13 (construing the right as collective) with 2006 WL 304006 (Va. Op. Atty. Gen.) (construing the right as individual).]
Washington: The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men. Art. I, § 24 (enacted 1889).
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
West Virginia: A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use. Art. III, § 22 (enacted 1986).
[Self-defense right explicitly protected.]
Wisconsin: The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose. Art. I, § 25 (enacted 1998).
[Self-defense right protected, State v. Fisher, 714 N.W.2d 495 (Wisc. 2006).]
Wyoming: The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied. Art. I, § 24 (enacted 1889).
Oh, Susanah!
There yah go again...trying to make sense out of the irrational and the irresponsible. Applying common sense to social problems has always been invariably rejected. The NRA membership and the toadying politicians who kiss their asses are proof that Humans are an evolutionary dead-end. (Remember? We've had this discussion before.)
Like visiting the zoo and as you pass the monkey cages, the Republicans inside are flinging their poo at you in between the bars.
Oh and hey, yhhmm, we shouldn't call them Republicans. They are dixiecrats, who in hysterical cowardice had fled the Democratic Party when the Civil Rights Act was passed. The declining GOP, desperate for voters, took them in.
Deluding themselves that they could control the superannuated masses of evangelizing hatemongers. Instead the dixiecrat monkeys took over the Republican zoo and the result is a half-century of Cheney/Bush incompetency and corruption that almost destroyed the American and Global economies.
Rights and politicians...
Taxpayers have elected to cut funding for mental health programs to nothing and getting information on someone who should not have a weapon is so secret that it has engendered the environment in which this can happen. The knee jerk is to confiscate guns. And while the President hinted again about gun control in his speech about SC, he also said that this sort of violent act does not happen in other countries; all the while the ticker running at the bottom of the screen was giving a headline bite of a terrorist organization's latest act of violence. So much for not happening in other countries.. The SC shooting was nothing less than a terrorist act against people who looked different than the shooter. Bigotry is so senseless!
As a shooter since 5 years old, a really long time ago, I find the thought of shooting any living thing most abhorrent. I don't even hunt. BUT I WILL defend my family and myself, and anyone else being in the line of fire of a person committing such an insane act of violence such as SC. Even the news reported he was not supposed to have a gun, but still had one.
As has been said by many before me, you can confiscate the guns from law abiding citizens but criminals will always be able to get one. I have defended people's right to the freedom of speech, and their other freedoms as enumerated in our Constitution for over 40 years. I am just exercising my same right in this post. For those who disagree with me, I will respect your point of view, but must humbly ask that we agree to disagree. And NO I am NOT a big fan of the NRA.
Totally Unfair
Taking potshots at TobyT915, BigDog167 and Sailboater. It's obvious they were completely unarmed.
Idiocy - and I mean yours, this time, Susan.
Understand this: I could kill you from 1 foot away just as dead by using that blunt piece of shaped metal (a.k.a. a butter knife) you use to butter your toast in the morning as I could with a .50 cal sniper rifle from 1000 ft away or a 9mm pistol from 10 feet away (questions of my veracity and accuracy as a target shooter/butter-knife-wielder aside). Either way you would be just as dead. So, the TECHNOLOGICAL METHODS of how we humans kill one another is NOT the real issue here, is it?
We can take issue with how EASY guns, and yes - handguns in particular - make it to kill one another, but that is both the benefit AND the curse of their existence. (The fact that this technology already exists and has been invented, makes their complete removal form our lives a mere fantasy, at best - aside.)
There are many cases where physically challenged people (elderly/in-firmed, or just plain smaller and weaker people of any gender) fending off larger, and more intimidating attackers - even multiple attackers - because they were able to arm themselves with one of those "accursed" handguns and either dissuade the attackers or successfully defend themselves from the attackers. So, any clear-thinking evaluation of the desirability or utility of these "accursed" handguns is entirely incomplete without taking the MANY cases of their legitimate use into account as well as the ridiculously sketchy "get off my lawn" "example" you chose to cite (and I will call you on the ridiculousness of your example there, too).
The REAL issue you SHOULD be asking about is not the instrumentality of the violence and death you rightly decry, but the SOCIAL CONDITIONING OF THE HEARTS AND MINDS OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE TOO WILLING TO USE WHATEVER MEANS OF GUNS OR VIOLENCE OF ANY TYPE FOR THE OPPRESSION OR VICTIMIZATION OF OTHERS!
Any effort you undertake to rid our society of "this curse of handguns and gun violence" without addressing FIRST the underlying problems of the hearts and minds of the people towards the propensity of yeilding to their violent impulses IS DOOMED TO UTTER FAILURE FROM THE START. After you successfully "get all the guns" form the hands of all us, what will you go after next, when the people resort to using knives or golf clubs to complete their violent impulses? ..a "get the Knives" campaign next? a "Golf is bad for the soul - so Get the Golf Clubs!" campaign? Is that what you would have is do next?
Surely, you can see the slippery slope you are on at that point, right?
So, why not let's address the REAL issue instead, then?
The HEARTS and MINDS of PEOPLE are the REAL issue about which you complain.
So, why don't we fix those instead of worrying about the instrumentality of how the wickedness of our violent impulses is expressed?
Oh, you say "hasn't the collective of religions over the centuries had that as their collective goal all along?" ...well, yes and no. ...but at least now, you're getting warmer to the really pertinent questions.
@GrandPaM So following your illogic....
We should do away with all laws and change the heart of mankind. In the c. 16,000 years of recorded history has that every happened? Can you cite an instance where greed, avarice, lust, and the quest for absolute power has been curtailed in a society? That's why we have laws and unfortunately even the rule of law has been coopted to protect property and not people.
I happen to agree with your position on the state of mankind and think that there probably is no solution in anyone's lifetime. Greed, avarice, lust, and grabbing for power will always be with us.
It makes more sense to me to mitigate the evil that we do by the implementation of laws and regulation. At least is makes it harder for evil to manifest itself and in the case of guns reduces the danger to ourselves from ourselves.
If you're going to wait until man is totally reformed, you better pack a lunch. Actually pack a lot of lunches. The good news is that there is good news but not in our lifetimes.
The absolute violence done to the 2nd Amendment has made this society perhaps the most violent on the planet. It's time for saner voices like SJP's to be heard.
No win Proposition , , ,
or is it a preposition, that shouldn't end a sentence. A Proposition being an offer of some type, sometimes made in a bar after too many drinks.
Actually there is strong opinion, by those who are supposed to know about these things, that there is nothing wrong with ending a sentence that way and that the "rule's" origin is in Latin construction, which really doesn't apply to modern English
As to the serious questions raised by your posting, I have some mixed feelings. I own two guns, which usually gather dust on a top shelf of my bedroom closet. They are taken out once or twice a year for trips to the gun range, where I drill holes in targets.
This makes me a gun owner but, in my opinion, not a gun nut.
The wording of the second amendment and its reference to a militia has caused all sorts of distortions on both sides of the issue, none of which I'm competent to judge.
It SHOULD, however, be obvious to most people that gun owners need to show evidence that they are not morons, psychotics or simply to dumb to live in order to purchase and/or continue to own hand guns (think drivers license renewal).
There should also be criminal background checks to prevent gun sales to those with
criminal records and prospective buyers should be required to take gun ownership and safety classes. There are NO constitutional rights that are unlimited and the right to bear arms should be no exception
Thank goodness for a bit of sanity
from what appears from a civilised place (with a tiny fraction of the USA's gun deaths) to be an increasingly insane USA. So thank you for giving me hope that there remains a wee bit of sanity in what remains the world's most powerful nation. All power to your elbow lassie!
The attached table is incomplete, as is Wiki's wont.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_b y_firearm-related_death_rate
As a seasoned internet researcher I am aware of Wiki's weaknesses. This table for example, does not include Russia. But it bears a wee examination. The only countries which have higher rates of gun deaths than the USA on it are:
Brazil
Columbia
El Salvador
Guatemala
Honduras
Venezuela
Jamaica
Mexi co
Panama
South Africa
and Swaziland.
All but the last two, which are in Southern Africa, are in the Americas. None are 'advanced economies'. None are places to which many US citizens choose to emigrate: the traffic is all the other way.
None are in Europe, Asia, or Australia/the Pacific islands. The Americas were of course famously arrogated to the USA's exclusive political, military and economic influence by the USA's infamous 'Monroe Doctrine'. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Monroe_Doctrine
T he NMA and its insane supporters are no doubt disappointed that the USA does not have the largest number of gun-related deaths per capita in the world. But the US gun industry makes huge profits from the carnage it causes elsewhere on the globe.
Congratulations to them.
I'm just very grateful that I live in a Europe which scarcely registers a notch in this insane world league table. The UK fortunately, unlike the USA, does not have a huge private arms lobby. So we were able to learn and tighten gun-use laws in the wake of the Hungerford and Dunblane massacres; the worst here in recent history.
I wish you well SusanJillParker. I have many sane friends in the USA. You've been added to the list.
Scotsman69 (...and a few wee kisses to help you on your way xxxxx)
Good Writing
As is normal for you, you have wrote some pretty good fiction with this piece. If you were going to write this as factual then you should get a few facts straight first.
The First, Second Amendments ARE NOT PART of the Constitution but ARE the first two amendments to the BILL OF RIGHTS. Which if you had checked are two separate documents signed by our Forefathers. Also if you had bothered to look you would have noticed that in States with more liberal gun laws (meaning more people owning guns), they have a much lower history of gun violence than their Sister States who have very restrictive gun laws. Look at the largest cities in this Country and you will see that in each one that is in a Liberal State has the highest history of gun violence, with Miami, Florida being the exception (most Floridians do not consider Miami as part of the State any longer because of the massive drug problems). Next lets look at a small town in Georgia where it is the Law for all adults to own a gun. This city has the lowest crime rate in the Country. If you have doubts look up Kennesaw, GA.. You would think with that many guns in this city that there would be a lot of gun related crime, at least by your logic, but that isn't the case. Perhaps you need to look at this from a different point of view, if you study history you will see examples of what some have called the Cold War. It has been going on since mankind has existed, He or She who has the best weapons makes the rules. If they both have the same weapons there is the Knowledge bred in all of us, whether you are a good person or a criminal. You want to Live with the least amount of trouble and you don't mess with someone who may or maynot have the same Guns as you, cause they might shoot back. Law abiding citizens in L.A. or Chicago or New York or any number of other cities in this country don't have that option because only their police and criminals have guns.
COULDN'T AGREE MORE!
THANKS FOR WRITING A COMMON SENSE ESSAY! MAYBE...JUST MAYBE, IT'LL GET PEOPLE THINKING. IN MY OWN SERIES "CREATION'S GUARDIAN, I STRIPPED EARTH OF ALL WEAPONS...BOY DID I EVER GET A TON OF NEGATIVE FEEDBACK FOR THAT ONE. GREAT JOB KEEP UP THE GOOG WORK!
By all means
Yes, lets limit the number of guns or remove all the guns that law abiding citizens can own because after all, it is only those people the legally own weapons that go on killing sprees.
How about coming up with a way to remove the weapons from the gangs and helping those with mental illness? What about those countries that have strict gun laws like Japan and yet they have mass killings with people knives and machetes. Do we start having a background check for those that want to purchase those? Are they going to have a ten day wait before they can pick them up? How about those people that use cars to kill? Deliberately driving into packs of bike riders or crashing through barriers to run down people in a farmers market?
A gun is a tool. It takes person to operate it. On its own it will not work. Does a gun kill a person? No, it is the person that pulled the trigger. The gun was only the tool used to do it.
To harleydancer
The 2nd Amendment is indeed part of the United States Constitution and not the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights served to inspired the 2nd Amendment.
Erotic literature causes rape?
So according to you reading erotic literature causes rape? Violent video games cause murder and spoons make you fat? It is the same thing as blaming guns for killing.
SJP, here is something maybe your fat ass should look into. (sorry for sinking to your level) Almost all of the US mass killers in the last 20 years were being treated for mental issues. Most were on drugs for it. Problem is that people with serious mental issues are not being prevented from buying weapons because of privacy laws. The government can record what you say on a cell phone but can not know if you tell your shrink about wanting to kill people.
Not a good site but they have done a good job gathering some of the info.
http://truthalerts.com/youll-never-guess-wh at-every-mass-shooting-has-in-common-and-it-isnt-w eapons/
To TobyT915
I owe you a public apology.
"I'm sorry."
After reading your last comment, I now realize that you're not a 3rd grader but by your immature insults are definitely a 7th grader. Junior High School better suits you than grammar school.
I apologize for my typo. Of course, I meant preposition and not proposition.
Please feel free to shoot yourself with your own gun.
The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution.
The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten amendments to the United States Constitution. Proposed to assuage the fears of Anti-Federalists who had opposed Constitutional ratification, these amendments guarantee a number of personal freedoms, limit the government's power in judicial and other proceedings, and reserve some powers to the states and the public. Originally the amendments applied only to the federal government, however, most were subsequently applied to the government of each state by way of the Fourteenth Amendment, through a process known as incorporation.
On June 8, 1789 Representative James Madison introduced a series of thirty-nine amendments to the constitution in the House of Representatives. Among his recommendations Madison proposed opening up the Constitution and inserting specific rights limiting the power of Congress in Article One, Section 9. Seven of these limitations would become part of the ten ratified Bill of Rights amendments. Ultimately, on September 25, 1789, Congress approved twelve articles of amendment to the Constitution and submitted them to the states for ratification. Contrary to Madison's original proposal that the articles be incorporated into the main body of the Constitution, they were proposed as "supplemental" additions to it. On December 15, 1791, Articles Three–Twelve, having been ratified by the required number of states, became Amendments One–Ten of the Constitution.
On May 7, 1992, after an unprecedented period of 202 years, 225 days, Article Two crossed the Constitutional threshold for ratification and became the Twenty-seventh Amendment. As a result, Article One alone remains unratified and still pending before the states.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Regulated? Hell no, Moses wouldn't put up with no regulation, that's fer sure.
My own wife
...Used a firearm once, her little .38 she carries everywhere. The guy harassing her in a Walmart parking lot suddenly saw God and chose to leave her alone.
I have pulled my handgun twice, once on the highway when some idiot did not like me going the speed limit and ran me off the road, then wished to fight. Once on my own property when a poacher was busy skinning out one of my Sheep.
The last time was two weeks ago, when a neighbor was busy beating his wife so badly she was taken to the hospital after, that time I used my rifle.
No shots were fired.
Many lives are saved by firearms, that does not make the news.
This author knows close to NOTHING about the truth of firearms.
And yet...
States with the most restrictive gun laws have the highest crime rates, coincidentally usually run by democrats. Conversely those with laws that give their citizens the right of choice have the lower crime rates. Notice I said CHOICE. If you don't want to purchase or own a gun, guess what? YOU DON'T HAVE TO!
For a dose of the real world, think about it from a criminals point of view:
In a state with restrictive gun laws I can get one illegally and do what I want long before law enforcement will arrive.
In a state with citizen choice the I have to rethink things. Yeah it will still take law enforcement a while to get there, but there is a good chance that one or more of the citizens in the establishment I plan to rob may be carrying. I might not even get the gun clear of my waist band before I am drawn on. And then there is the chance that grandma will shoot me as I turn to leave.
Now honestly, what state would you rather live in, one where criminals have plenty of lee way, or one they are less likely to do bad things?
A reasoned argument
It was hard for me to find a reason to comment on this.
SusanJillParker I respect and enjoy your work so don't think I won't stop reading what you write.
Where is the logic and reason in your argument? How can you disagree with the statement that guns don't kill people, people kill people. You say that is an illogical statement, but how can it be anything else but logical. A gun will not now or ever harm another person, or animal with out someone to operate it.
You say limit the number of guns people are allowed to own. Ban automatic firearms. I guarantee that will not in any way improve the situation or reduce gun violence. Those with intent to do harm will find a means and a method to carry out that harm. I think you should be grateful to the existence of guns and the limit they place on the amount of harm that can be done. Without guns think of the creative and dangerous ways people can find to kill other people. Instead of the Charleston church shooting with 9 dead we could have been reading about the Charleston church bombing with 30 dead and a number of critically injured. Instead of Sandy hook elementary shooting we could have been reading about the Sandy hook arson fire which killed 100's. A gun is nothing more than a projectile weapon, easiest to use and easiest to obtain. There are so many hundreds of ways to kill thousands of people with only a modicum of talent and an obsessive desire to do so. Knives, bows and arrows, axes, clubs, poison, biological agents, even the lowly yo-yo (a children's toy) is designed to kill people. If you think few or none of the above listed items can be used to kill people as fast as a gun can you are delusional. Ask anyone in combat jobs in the military how fast and how many different ways we can kill people. They trained us well. Guns have a fantastic ability to limit the creativity of true killers. Imagine how creative a killer could get just because he can't get to a gun.
Abolish the second amendment? It's out of date? Enact laws to limit it? You are in fantasy land honey. The reality is the fight to protect the second amendment is not even about the second amendment. It is a fight to protect the constitution and the bill of rights which give us our rights and freedoms. The reason people are so passionate of it is because it is merely the first of the amendments in the bill of rights to be blatantly and openly attacked and torn down. Which amendment is next after the second, the fifth? Maybe the fourth amendment? By the way, while no one was looking because you are all distracted by flashy politics and the debate surrounding the second amendment the other amendment have been under attack as well, especially the first in the form of censorship, limits on free speech, restrictions religious practices and government control over the press. The patriot act was a devastating blow to both the 4th and 5th amendments. So while you are blinded by a debate that shouldn't be happening we are quietly and secretly losing our other rights.
The second amendment has never gone out of date. Yes it gives every citizen in the united States the right to bear arms, for hunting, for self defense, in defense of this country and to fight an oppressive government. That is it's purpose. It does not limit the number of firearms per household not the type of firearms one person is allowed to own. It does not need to. The right to bear arms is not limited to just guns either. Guns are merely the most visable symbol. And yes I do mean every citizen has the right to bear arms, including criminals and crazy people. It is we the people's responsibility to make sure that guns are handled safely and used in an appropriate manner. That responsibility does not take away the right of anyone to bear arms. Although, I do agree that guns should be kept away from people who won't use them in a responsible and safe manner, that still does not take away that right.
Okay let's say you win. Take away guns. Nobody has guns in this imaginary world, not even the police or military. This will of course include firearm related weapons like cannons. In fact let's eliminate this invention of gunpowder (i'd miss the fireworks be hey that's life), no missiles, no rockets, no grenades, no explosives. Instead we have fantastic advances in physics, robotics, biology, chemistry, engineering well beyond what we have now. Instead we have rapid fire multi shot crossbows, kinetic launchers which fire slugs or razor sharp discs, lasers, poison gas bombs are common knowledge, easily obtainable and easy to make with household items, spring loaded or powered cutting edge weapons. Ina world without guns the problem will not be how do we stop the gun violence. With so many easy to obtain easy to use methods to kill people, we finally recognize what the problem really is. How do we stop the violence period. There is no gun violence without the violence. No need for gun control. Whaelse need is violence control.
How about instead of stupidly saying stop gun violence, more gun control and we don't need guns, we say fix the mental health system. Fix the health care system in general. Educate our criminals, don't imprison them. What about our food supply? How about funding projects to research alternative energy and provide free electricity.
Miss Parker, why don't you pick another issue you deal with instead of the one issue which everyone should (but doesn't) recognize is a non issue. The gun is not the problem in gun violence. The violence is the problem. And there is so much of it. Domestic violence, robbery, assault and battery, assault with a deadly weapon, murder.
MURDER MISS PARKER, with knives, guns, poison, blunt objects, hands and feet, who knows what else. The reality is guns are involved in less than a quarter of all violent crime. Guns account for less than 1% of deaths in the united States due to unnatural causes. Guns are involved in less than 5% of all crime committed nationwide. Guns are not now and never have been the problem. Violence is there problem and it takes people to be violent.
If you and your blind followers can't see that, you are all blind to truth, stupid with lies you've accepted and ignorant to reality and facts. That's right I just called you blind, stupid and ignorant. Please do not remain so. Even if you choose not to own and carry a gun, recognize the second amendment and how many what types of guns people choose to own is not now not had it ever been the true problem.
Will Turk
PS yes I signed my real name. Like you I am not afraid to be known. I look forward to reading more of your better work.
I can only assume...
...that the author was composing this as a brilliant piece of satire, ala Jonathan Swift's use of the Juvenalian method of satire. There are simply far too many extreme generalizations and overreactions for this to be an actual 'true' essay, so I must make the aforementioned assumption that it isn't. I will, however, need to dock you 1 star since it should have been posted in Humor and Satire. I think that if you had posted it there to begin with, it would have been correctly seen as the work of art that it is.
Of course, I could be wrong and this could simply be an absolute knee-jerk reaction to the recent shootings in South Carolina. I am hoping that this is not the case, as it would mean that the author is not only misinformed, but illogical to the greatest extent possible. I feel fairly certain this is not the case and that this was satire, but if I am wrong then the author has a lot to learn about rational thinking.
Satire can be chilling....
SusanJillParker, I will fight to protect your right to have a g.. oops lawn.
If you wish to carry, legally, it will be 4 days including 6 hours on our club firing range under my direction to safely handle and use a firearm in your home for $125.
I volunteer my time at the X X conservation club so they receive the money to support our women and youth firearm training and education (yes, NRA) certified instructor programs.
Thank you for sharing your... insightful piece on Lit.
x
Unfortunately
She did not mean this as satire. Reading many of her other pieces has shown she is the product of our liberal biased education system. spouting what she has been told rather than thinking for herself.
She is a wonderful story teller because that is all she has ever been exposed to, 'wouldn't it be nice..." fantasy world mentality. 'If we were in control we could..." etc. etc. etc.
She would be the type to say talk radio is bigoted lying scum, but will never listen to it for a few weeks to find out it is the truth.
BTW
Thanks to all of you that have served so we have the ability to voice our opinions, even the hair brained ones!
From a UK perspective
I Have just read carefully your essay. Yes, I agree there is a problem, with guns being available too easily. It’s horrible to hear stories of kids accidently shooting another person or themselves because they found their parents handgun.
As a highly educated uk citizen with some knowledge of the firearm legislation of both the UK and USA I would like to comment on your arguments, “Its all Bollocks”
In this antigun essay you mention that the UK banned handguns. In the UK the legally owned handguns were very rarely used in crime. In 17 years since handguns were banned, handgun crime has risen in the UK, year on year. This in a country where there are almost no legally held handguns, (we are allowed black powder pistols) why has it risen? Because criminals don't obey the law. Criminals will always be able to source weapons, they have no respect for the rules, pffff... they are very naughty!!
There are many legally owned firearms in the UK, you might not be able to buy a handgun, but there are many sports shooters in the UK. If you want to spend the money there are UK sportsmen using a full range of calibres, from .22 to accuracy international .50 BMG rifles. Yes, you can be trusted to own powerful fullbore rifles, but our government won’t trust its citizens to own a .22 pistol.
There are very few positives in any of the restrictive legislation I have seen implemented in the last couple of years, poorly thought out legislation and knee jerk reactions have never proved themselves to be robust and fit for purpose, indeed often the only outcome is they end up criminalizing the honest citizen for procession of something now being outlawed. Bad legislation does not get better with age.
Banning guns because of their looks, sorry you can’t have that, it has a muzzle break, flash hider, handle, a comfortable stock, pistol grip, swappable magazines, is absurd. The idea that magazine capacity restrictions will make anyone safer, yeah you can own 20 magazines, just make sure they only have ten rounds capacity. Not likely to make anyone safer. I seem to remember Connecticut created a registry for magazines capable of holding 10 rounds or more, oh yes that’s going to be a real blow for the criminal types.
There is no easy answer, perhaps the attention should be directed at drugs, gangs, poverty, discrimination, lack of access to health care. These are silently killing more each day than any firearms.
Your name calling to those who offered comments with an opinion differing from yours only reinforces the aura of ignorance shining brightly tonight.
re: woodcutter2
I've heard and read this as well. It's even scarier when you factor in that you are an island and don't have a completely lawless country sharing a huge southern border with you. I tell people all the time that if we outlaw guns, within a few weeks we will have new cartels in Mexico providing not only normal weapons, but fully automatic ones as well. We have shown that we cannot stop anything from coming across our borders in regards to drugs, how are we suddenly going to stop the guns from coming across? Especially if we create a market for them via prohibition.
In any case, thanks for your intelligent remarks and insightful views into the nature of the situation in the UK. I've heard that you are even restricted on carrying small knives and pepper spray. Very scary. :(
I tried to vote.
It won't accept it.
Your piece was so full of inaccuracies and outright fallacies there is not time or space in the comments to address them all. First off, the NRA would never be in favor of shooting a gun into the air. Nobody with an ounce of brains or who knows anything at all of gun safety would do such an asinine thing. That was one of the milder of your foolish diatribes against people who own firearms for what ever reason they choose to own them.
The idea the NRA is in favor of murder is ludicrous and shows your bias is based on lack of knowledge and fear than any reasoned approach to the issue. NRA membership is demonstrably some of the most law abiding people in the country, and murders by NRA members is an exceedingly small number, lower than 1%.
Your preposterous claim you are called three times a day by the NRA seeking donations is also patently absurd, and borderline actionable. Slander is still a crime in the United States of America.
Proud gun owner, but not an NRA member.
Guns and militias
Here is an idea. To get a gun you need to be old enough to join the US military. To get a gun you need to take a course on weapons, including learning how to fire and clean your weapons and weapon safety and security. This course would be certified to show you are safe with firearms and could be taken when at school. With your certificate and firearm you need to sign up for a recognised state militia and attend at least the training day a year to ensure that your skills are kept up to date.
Any weapons owned must be kept securely.
Felons would not be able to get certification but legal gun owners would be better trained.
AliHomeyGrass
"Here is an idea. To get a gun you need to be old enough to join the US military. To get a gun you need to take a course on weapons, including learning how to fire and clean your weapons and weapon safety and security."
AliHomeyGrass has the above suggestion and it sounds good on the surface but recently, a Navy Seal who suffered from PTSD shot and killed two of his Navy Seal buddies at a gun range. I can't think of anyone who knows more about guns and gun safety. Yet, two Navy Seals are dead and the other one is in jail.
Maybe we should have treated him for PTSD. Maybe we should have given him some simple mental tests. I wonder how many people would pass any test other than firing a gun at a gun range. Maybe, gees, I don't know, just something off the top of my head, we should have taken this Navy Seal's gun away and never brought him to a gun range.
To SonofCallicious
After I divorced my ex and left Boston, I moved to Springfield Mass, the 3rd largest city in Massachusetts and at the time the 20th worst city in the country for crime.
Every New Year's Eve, armed men, mostly Hispanic and black men, would fire their weapons in the air.
Now that I live out in the boonies near Hershey, PA, farmers fire their weapons in the air each New Year's Eve.
The point is, I didn't write that comment for nothing.
I didn't write that the NRA is in favor of murder. I wrote that the NRA is directly and indirectly responsible for dozens of murders every year, every month, every week, and every day. I dare say, if we didn't have the NRA, we'd have fewer guns and fewer death by guns.
Apparently, there are a lot of people with money in Hershey, PA. Unfortunately I'm not one of them. There are lots of conservative Republicans in Hershey and in PA. The NRA has targeted this area of the country for donations.
How do I know it's the NRA calling again and again and again? I go on line and do reverse searches of the phone number and read what others have written about the NRA tactics in soliciting donations.
Respectfully, I frequently enjoy your erotica but that diatribe was bullshit.
This dishonest presentation and Constitutional illiteracy would have embarrassed even Brian Williams on MSNBC.
Fortunately for us all the Bill of Rights can't be so easily erased by such demagoguery.
This synthetic hysteria puts me in mind of one of my favorite movie scenes, the film "A Man For All Seasons"
Roper: Arrest him!
Moore: For what?
Roper: He's dangerous! Libel. He's a spy! That man's bad!
Moore: There's no law against that.
Roper: God's law!
Moore: Then God can arrest him.
Roper: While you talk, he's gone!
Moore: Go he should, if he were the Devil, until he broke the law.
Roper: Now you give the Devil benefit of law!
Moore: Yes, what would you do? Cut a road through the law to get after the Devil?
Roper: Yes. I'd cut down every law in England to do that.
Moore: And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned on you... where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat?
This country is planted with laws from coast to coast...Man's laws, not God's, and if you cut them down...and you're just the man to do it...do you really think you could stand upright in the wind that would blow then?
Roper: Yes.
Moore: I give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake.
To woodcutter2
"Your name calling to those who offered comments with an opinion differing from yours only reinforces the aura of ignorance shining brightly tonight."
If you read what some of these posters have written in attacking me, attacking my story, and then giving me a bashing one vote, not for my well written story but because of my personal opinion, I have a right to defend myself, don't I?
Isn't this gun thing the entire premise behind someone defending myself? I don't have a write to call someone out when they treat me disrespectfully and call me names? Is that it?
Why if I had a gun right now, I'd shoot you (lol).
"See? That's how it all begins."
Then, when you add liquor, drugs, crime to the scenario, and mental illness to the scenario behind the ownership and/or possession of legal or illegal firearms, we have the perfect storm. We have a hurricane that's fed by the NRA who supports all legislation in favor of drugs and sues any city, town, or person who goes against their personal agendas. Any day now, I'm expecting NRA representatives coming to my door to serve me a summons in a lawsuit.
Only, I'm ready for them. Yeah! If they dare come to my door and if they try and serve me with a summons, I'm going to blast them in their faces with my super soaker water gun.
"Take that! And that! And that! Now get off my lawn!"
To acup
"She did not mean this as satire. Reading many of her other pieces has shown she is the product of our liberal biased education system. spouting what she has been told rather than thinking for herself.
She is a wonderful story teller because that is all she has ever been exposed to, 'wouldn't it be nice..." fantasy world mentality. 'If we were in control we could..." etc. etc. etc.
She would be the type to say talk radio is bigoted lying scum, but will never listen to it for a few weeks to find out it is the truth."
Born, raised, educated, and employed in Boston most of my life, as Popeye would say, I am what I am. Massachusetts doesn't march in step to those from other foreign countries, such as Texas (lol). We are free and mostly educated to think for ourselves. We'd rather defend ourselves with words than with opinions.
"Now get the fuck off of my lawn before I give you a good soaking with my super soaker water gun."
To extremedd
"SusanJillParker, I will fight to protect your right to have a g.. oops lawn.
If you wish to carry, legally, it will be 4 days including 6 hours on our club firing range under my direction to safely handle and use a firearm in your home for $125.
I volunteer my time at the X X conservation club so they receive the money to support our women and youth firearm training and education (yes, NRA) certified instructor programs.
Thank you for sharing your... insightful piece on Lit."
Thank you for the offer of training but I bought my super soaker water gun from Amazon for $19.95. Moreover, the water, my bullets of choice is unlimited, plentiful, and free. The last time I checked, I don't need a license, registration, and or training to be armed with my SSG.
Thank you for your kind offer and your intelligent comment. I hope you rewarded my hard work in writing such a brave and controversial review and essay with a 5 vote.
to mordbrand
Even though my review and essay may be humorous in some spots, the purpose of my review and essay was to release my helplessness and my rage.
More than someone walking in a school and murdering children, more than murdering people waiting in line to see a movie, and more than good people praying in church, no one does anything about the shootings, the mass murders, and the guns.
I don't think anything that I've written is funny, mordbrand. I think all that I've written, even though some of what I've written is tongue firmly planted in cheek, is serious, deadly serious.
Now get off my lawn. You're not welcome here. Normally, I'd invite you in for a cup of coffee but with all of those guns you're packing, I'd be afraid you'd shoot me.
to ironsoldier80
Listen, I don't care if people have guns. Many people need a gun to protect their families and defend themselves, especially those people who live where the police are not close by them. Those people are law abiding citizens and I defend their right to own a gun.
What makes me crazy is when President Bush failed to sign the 10 year ban again that bans automatic weapons. Why? Why did he do that? I don't understand. The only answer I come up with is that it's all about money. Every politician in Washington is not only owned by the NRA and gun manufacturers but are afraid of the NRA and gun manufacturers.
I'm tired of lobbyists circumventing the laws and buying every representative and congressmen and women's votes. I'm tire of the biggest criminals, old, Caucasian men who still hundreds of millions and billions, such as Vice President Cheney with his no bid contracts, and none of them go to jail.
The only ones paying the price for crime are young, angry black men. It's time we embraced our black brothers and gave them all of the opportunities that the white people have had. It's time we gave them free education, health care, and good jobs instead of spending all of our money in the middle east. It's time we stop making all of are goods in third world countries and built our factories here.
If people had free college educations and good paying jobs, I wouldn't be wasting my time writing stupid reviews and essays and responding to your idiotic comments.
Now get off my lawn.
To foolscap
Huh? A well regulated militia? Where are you from because I want to make sure that I never go there?
I can just see you armed to the teeth with handguns, rifles, shotguns, and an AK47 standing in front of your made up militia flag next to the American flag and chewing tobacco. I thought we killed off trailer trash like you when we started building planned housing and malls.
You're like a dinosaur. You're dead but don't even know it. Go away and whatever you do, do not step on my lawn.
@SusanJillParker... I must not have been clear...
It was irony or something like that. The 2nd Amendment has been so abused that the purpose of un-infringed gun ownership-- security of the states using well regulated militia-- has been lost in the empty rhetoric of individual gun rights.
Which of us here in this forum are members of the National Guard? I believe several commenters here have been in fire fights and seen the horrific carnage that ensued. Some are gun rights advocates others favor some sort of regulation. I doubt that any of us want to ban them- just use reasonable regulation.
If you were to read my earlier comments again you will see that I have, in my own clumsy way, supported your position as I understood it. I don't want to take guns away but I think it's insane to insist that automatic weapons should be in the hands of anyone who wants them. Those who have guns should be held accountable and the most efficient way to do that is through registration... locally would be my preference... and very very tight control of ammunition and the materials needed to make it.
If you have a need for a weapon take responsibility for it. If you lose control through inaction and lack of security you should share responsibility for any crime committed with the weapon.
Yes, I am a dinosaur, I guess. I have never felt the need to own a gun but had responsibility for the weapon issued to me while serving in the AF from 69-73 and tried to be proficient. Since that time I have not owned a gun. I have had guns pointed at me on three occasions and have always found a creative alternative to gunplay to get things resolved peacefully.
The 2nd calls for a well regulated militia and the NRA wants nothing to do with regulation.
To foolscap
You're right. I did misinterpret your comment.
I apologize. I could only imagine an armed militia marching through my neighborhood in the way of the Guardian or Hell's Angels.
One thing you should know about me is that I hate models, cheerleaders, parades, marching bands, uniforms and uniformity, flags, and fireworks. Fireworks make me sad. Over too soon, all that's left is the stench of acrid smoke.
To me...fireworks is like having sex with your husband after you've been married too long (lol).
"Is that it? Is that all there is? If that's all there is then...I may as well go to sleep or to a CFNM strip club. Bye!"
Click here to leave your own comment on this submission! or
Back to Speaking of Handguns...and the NRA or
More submissions by SusanJillParker.