The Day in a Quote

Posted on 10/06/2015, in Conceal Carry & SYG, Potpourri, Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. 32 Comments.

  1. Well………..to be fair, most of us have been saying that for years.

    Liked by 4 people

  2. well i know most wont like seeing this but the words chosen are CLEAR “the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed”…….that person is 100% wrong is his reading of that amendment……and since the “militia” means ALL able bodied citizens again the term “militia” refers to the PEOPLE…..also simple common sense fact if there is no right to own weapons then there is NO RIGHT TO LIFE!….if you cant defend your life then obviously your right to live has been denied.

    Like

    • yahtzeebutterfly

      Bill, do you have any thoughts about what kind of guns should be allowed and how many per person?

      Liked by 1 person

      • sidewinder50

        That would be my question, too. Should there not be a limit, at least, on how many per person? And what type of guns. Thinking on how many gz had/has in his arsenal and the latest shooter in Oregon.

        Liked by 2 people

        • TY both for the tone of your replies, not sure how a limit on the number of guns would help since a shooter could only use 2 at the same time…….i do know an armed group that some shooter tries to attack would stop them no matter how many or what type guns they had.

          Like

          • yahtzeebutterfly

            Bill,

            I’m just thinking that it is not fair to a police officer, with only one issued side arm, to have to be up against a person with multiple guns that might even include one of those AKs.

            Also, I can’t think of a past situation where a law-abiding, responsible gun owner has had to defend himself/herself against a armed group. Can you help me out with this as far as what you were thinking?

            Liked by 2 people

            • i was posting about an armed group being able to DEFEND against a shooter……unarmed they have no chance……..the POINT is simple taking guns away from law abiding citizens HELPS criminals and renders the law abiding defenseless.

              Like

            • yahtzeebutterfly

              Bill,

              Thanks for clarifying that you were talking about a group defending itself. I misread your earlier comment.

              Like

    • that person is 100% wrong is his reading of that amendment…

      That person was a sitting Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States.

      The 2nd Amendment was written at a time when the states had no National Guard to protect citizens on U.S. soil. Because America has a history of violence that goes back to the use of bows and arrows against rifles, and night riders with guns against unarmed people, it is important that citizens who want to bear arms have them. There’s no argument with you on the issue of self-defense.

      I think the real issue is when people use guns outside of self-defense and defending their castle.

      Liked by 3 people

      • there is no gun control law possible that would address you concern…….and that person even a sitting justice is a lawyer and they take the exact opposite side given the same set of facts daily all across this land……his credentials in no way make him correct and one doesnt need a law degree to understand the “right of the people” means the right of the PEOPLE.

        Like

        • Bill,
          One of the problems when discussing gun control are generalizations that sometimes give the impression of all or nothing. There are a few things that I’d like to see. Background checks are important, and they need to go deeper than the surface. Assault weapons should be banned. I’m against all acts of violence. Still, I respect the constitution and if people want guns to protect their castle and for hunting, then so be it. There are mornings when I wake up and hear the news, and wish that guns had never been invented.

          Liked by 2 people

        • but that judge is also a practitioner & scholar of the law which sorta does give his interpretation/definition of the language used in the 2nd amendment more weight than a lay person. just like a doctor would be best suited to explain what happens during a triple heart by-pass.
          its more complicated than simply reading a law verbatim.
          especially in this day and age about a really old law written in old fashion language

          Liked by 2 people

        • yahtzeebutterfly

          “I think the real issue is when people use guns outside of self-defense and defending their castle.” (Xena)

          “there is no gun control law possible that would address you concern” (Bill)

          I think there is, Bill:

          l. Eliminate SGY for any encounters except for protecting ones home.

          2. Ban assault weapons.

          3. Only allow an individual to carry one gun outside the house. (Do not allow a gun owner away from his/her house to have extra guns stored in car or carrying bag.)

          4. Limit gun magazines to 10 bullets.

          Liked by 2 people

          • with all due respect, the problem remains the same, no matter what laws you pass the criminals will NOT obey them……laws ONLY stop the law abiding……laws only impact the ;law abiding, the criminal make a mockery of the laws with their actions……and the stand your ground thing, are you saying a person when in public must RETREAT from any person that attempts to harm them? that they CANT stand their ground and defend their life? again that they must allow the criminal to harm them because they are NOT allowed to stand their ground?

            Like

    • ‘well regulated’… a forgotten, ignored or overlooked part of the 2nd A.

      13 armed shooters have stopped 13 mass shootings in the last 20 years or so.

      Over 1,000 mass shootings in the last 3 years, of which 7 were stopped by an armed civilian.

      In this year alone, so far… 1 armed person has stopped a mass shooting out of over 276….

      No one wants to take away our 2nd A right to own and bear arms. What we want is something on paper, something that says to the rest of the world, ‘we do not accept the way things are’ ‘we will not sit idly by while RWNJs continue to slaughter our families’, ‘we have a right to not be shot by a delusional fcuknut who convinced our President is coming to take all of our guns away’.

      Because it’s just not true.

      Like

      • Hey Mindyme! You know, I’ve seen “RWNJ” used on Twitter, but can’t figure out what it stands for beyond maybe “Right-Wing.”

        Thanks for those stats. Now, the question is, how many armed citizens were vigilantes and harmed innocent people? I heard something about an armed woman last week who drew a gun on a woman she suspected of shoplifting.

        Like

  3. yahtzeebutterfly

    sidewinder,

    “Thinking on how many gz had/has in his arsenal and the latest shooter in Oregon.”

    I would like to see a new law that says only the person a gun is registered to may use that gun. That includes holding it, using it for target practice, conceal-carrying it, and firing it.
    In other words, the registered owner of a gun may not lend or give it to another person or let another person hold it.

    (Remember how the gun gz used the night of February 25, 2012 was registered to Shelley? Also, later, as I recall, Mark Osterman lent his gun to gz.)

    Liked by 4 people

    • sidewinder50

      I do remember. Always wondered about that and where his was and why he was ‘conceal carrying’ hers. And I agree, generally no lending or borrowing of guns. There has to be a place to start with gun ownership, registration, how many per person. It’s not an overnight fix. Will take years but it has to start. Just like it took MADD to get through to the masses. Wasn’t overnight.

      Liked by 2 people

      • i think it’s because when she got that gun gz couldn’t get one registered to him because there was still that 3year waiting period after his DV restraining order.

        Liked by 2 people

        • sidewinder50

          So he borrowed Shellie’s. Shouldn’t he have been charged or fined because of this? Maybe this came up and I don’t remember. He said he took *his* gun everywhere. It wasn’t even his gun. And he wasn’t permitted to carry one(or just register but still carry) til the 3 year waiting period. Still outraged over Trayvon’s death and there is no point in rehashing I know but grrrrrrr. Double, triple for eternity – grrrrrrr.

          Liked by 2 people

          • Yeah he had to get it in her name. Then later he was able to get CCP & by the time he murdered Trayvon his waiting period was up. But in FL a gun doesn’t have to be registered to you for you to use or kill someone.

            My old BF had a 38 laying around & at the time I thought it was cool so I kept it for couple years & never registered it. In fact I don’t believe it was registered at all because he’s a German citizen so I doubt he would’ve registered it. At least not in his name. He ended up putting in a safety deposit box after I got a little rowdy once so I don’t have it anymore.

            Liked by 1 person

  4. Like

  5. yahtzeebutterfly

    Multitudes of precious lives, gone too soon through gun madness

    Liked by 2 people

  6. yahtzeebutterfly

    Here is the list of President Obama’s proposals to reduce gun violence:

    “SUMMARY: PRESIDENT OBAMA’S GUN-CONTROL PROPOSALS”

    http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/summary-president-obama-gun-proposals.aspx

    Liked by 2 people

  7. yahtzeebutterfly

    I would like to see a law enacted which requires a person who is conceal-carrying to wear a tag (officially issued) which informs the unarmed public that he/she is carrying a concealed gun.

    That way the unarmed public would be aware of its disadvantage during any encounter with the concealed-carrying individual.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I would like to see a law enacted which requires a person who is conceal-carrying to wear a tag (officially issued) which informs the unarmed public that he/she is carrying a concealed gun.

      That might help. At least people will be forewarned that, for example, when someone complains about them texting, that verbally defending themselves might result in being killed.

      Liked by 2 people

  8. crustyolemothman

    A simple thought, if there were no offensive weapons would there still be a need for defensive weapons? How many of the “defensive” weapons that the NRA is so much in favor of, actually turn into “offensive” weapons at some point in history? Does it not seem strange that so many people claim to be constitutional scholars when discussing the 2nd amendment, yet those same individuals seem to know so little about the rest of the constitution…

    Liked by 1 person

  9. I enjoyed this video. Hope you do too.

    Like

Your comments are welcomed.

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: