Why do you think we have the second amendment

[Astute One]

Don't adress any other points, we get it. The silence speaks volumes.

Yep, you are a good shot as you continue to SHOOT THE MESSENGER.

Sounds like you would like to change the topic of discussion to the First Amendment?

Fine with me, but don't worry, I won't deprive you of that right in the USA, so go ahead, speak volumes.

I'll be quiet while you dig your whole, Oops, I mean express your opinion.

[Pseudo Intellectual]

Gun law

On May 1, 1982 the city passed an ordinance [sec 34-1a] requiring every head of household to maintain a firearm together with ammunition. It was passed partly in response to a 1981 handgun ban in Morton Grove, Illinois. Kennesaw's law was amended in 1983 to exempt those who conscientiously object to owning a firearm, convicted felons, those who cannot afford a firearm, and those with a mental or physical disability that would prevent them from owning a firearm. It mentions no penalty for its violation. No one has ever been charged under the ordinance.[4] In the first year, home burglaries dropped from 65, to 26 in 1983, to 11 in 1984.[5]

And to this day, Kennesaw had a murder rate of zero and a zero rapes. Violent crime is the lowest in the nation. ref[ http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Kennesaw&state=GA]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia

Yes, that's it. Thanks.

[Roughneck]

My point is that more guns means more crime and as Eggy said the second amendment should be tweeked a little bit for the over all safty of Americans of course this is just my opinion.

It's interesting that in countries that ban guns, non-gun crimes see a rise. There's a whole agency dedicated to knife-related crimes in the U.K.

[Michelle]

Yes, that's it. Thanks.

http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Atlanta&state=GA

Oddly enough, it's a suburb of Atlanta, that has a crime rate higher than national average.

[eqgumby]

Yep, you are a good shot as you continue to SHOOT THE MESSENGER.

Sounds like you would like to change the topic of discussion to the First Amendment?

Fine with me, but don't worry, I won't deprive you of that right in the USA, so go ahead, speak volumes.

I'll be quiet while you dig your whole, Oops, I mean express your opinion.

Still no response. Keep talking. And please, really, your self aggrandizing as some sort of "messenger" carries no weight here.

If you have a point to discuss, rather than preach, feel free. Until you can respond rationally, you bring nothing to the table.

[Astute One]

...thereby locking you in as dolt of the year...

Do you SERIOUSLY want to have superior firepower as it relates to the Federal Government of the United States of America? Your twenty or thirty guns, even your fully automatic ones are NO threat to the government, just a danger to the citizens surrounding you. It's statements like the one you just made that invalidate EVERYTHING you said prior to this moment. Well done.

My statement does NOT invalidate everything I stated. It's common sense and it validates that you have none.

My guns are only a danger to my enemy during conflict. There is no danger to those around me anymore than a police officer presents danger to a crowd just by being there.

If someone is going to use those superior weapons against me, then your are darn right I want them also. A very close friend of mine has a license to own automatic weapons. He has his own personal collection, and I'm glad he is my friend.

What would happen if our President who is slow at making decisions about war, sat on his decision to declare war or act if your town was invaded by a foriegn military?

What would you do?

Would you cower down in your house and let others fight the fight?

Would you fight if you were given an automatic weapon to fight with?

Would you fight if you were given a baseball bat?

What would you do besides be silent?

Edited March 31, 2010 by Astute One

[J.B.]

http://www.cityrating.com/citycrime.asp?city=Atlanta&state=GA

Oddly enough, it's a suburb of Atlanta, that has a crime rate higher than national average.

Maybe not odd? Have you checked out the crime stats in Atlanta before and after their gun-rule? Perhaps that contributed to Atlanta's rise? The criminals left that suburb and hit Atlanta instead?

And, Astute. . . Red Dawn? Do you know something the rest of us don't? Um, the terrorists so far have not shown themselves capable of invading an American town. They've just been sneaking small groups over here to try and bomb us all.

And Tuna, our major problem with hitting the M.E. is that no one in gov. has the guts to do what we'd really need to crush this problem, which would be to mobilize everything and go WW2 on their asses. I doubt that'd be good to do, but it's what we needed if we wanted to finish this war quick. . . it wouldn't take nearly the resources to send our military into action within our own borders, though I know you're right that the soldiers wouldn't do it. They'd be fighting their own people.

Edited March 31, 2010 by J.B.

[The Silver Thong]

It's interesting that in countries that ban guns, non-gun crimes see a rise. There's a whole agency dedicated to knife-related crimes in the U.K.

Who said anything about banning gun? This has never been about a ban.

Edited March 31, 2010 by The Silver Thong

[Michelle]

Maybe not odd? Have you checked out the crime stats in Atlanta before and after their gun-rule? Perhaps that contributed to Atlanta's rise? The criminals left that suburb and hit Atlanta instead?

Atlanta has always had a higher crime rate... from what I remember. I don't believe it changed much.

[Pseudo Intellectual]

Who said anything about banning gun? This has never been about a ban.

Many cities with strict gun laws have high crime rates.

[The Silver Thong]

Many cities with strict gun laws have high crime rates.

I live in a city with a population of 1.2 million people and in 2008 we had 34 homicides with only a handful due to guns and of those tha majority were gang related meaning they shot each other. I don't know how that compares to an American city with the same population but to me thats pretty low.

[eqgumby]

My statement does NOT invalidate everything I stated. It's common sense and it validates that you have none.

My guns are only a danger to my enemy during conflict. There is no danger to those around me anymore than a police officer presents danger to a crowd just by being there.

If someone is going to use those superior weapons against me, then your are darn right I want them also. A very close friend of mine has a license to own automatic weapons. He has his own personal collection, and I'm glad he is my friend.

What would happen if our President who is slow at making decisions about war, sat on his decision to declare war or act if your town was invaded by a foreign military?

What would you do?

Would you cower down in your house and let others fight the fight?

Would you fight if you were given an automatic weapon to fight with?

Would you fight if you were given a baseball bat?

What would you do besides be silent?

Yes, the fear of your hometown being invaded by a foreign government is reason to stock-pile weapons that match the fire power of the US military....keep digging that hole, eventually you'll have a bunker.

Seriously, I do nothing but support the second amendment, I'm just not deluded enough to do so out of some irrational fear that the Florida panhandle is in imminent danger of being invaded by Cuba.

[Pseudo Intellectual]

I live in a city with a population of 1.2 million people and in 2008 we had 34 homicides with only a handful due to guns and of those tha majority were gang related meaning they shot each other. I don't know how that compares to an American city with the same population but to me thats pretty low.

I don't know anything about Calgary's gun laws, so I can't really comment on this. Maybe it works there, but that doesn't mean it would work every where else.

[The Silver Thong]

I don't know anything about Calgary's gun laws, so I can't really comment on this. Maybe it works there, but that doesn't mean it would work every where else.

Basicly our gun laws are you can have one in your home but you can't walk around with one or have one in your car with out it properly secured and that goes for the home as well guns are required to be secured. You will never find anyone (almost) but a gang member on the street with a weapon and the gang bangers shoot each other not that that is a bad thing but sometime they pop a by stander. Zero tolerance for full automatics sawed off shot guns or pistol grip shot guns, switch blades are also illegal as with any knife on a person over 7 inch I do believe. I have absalutly no fear of being shoot in this city even by a gang banger. I like living here as it's a pretty good feeling that I don't have to arm myself.

I know that some American cities would be in chaos if a gun ban was introduced however gun ownership should be a little more difficult as it does weed out the illegal weapons. Not a hundred percent but with laws implimented that punish those with illegal guns make it far more a risk for the bady to have one. Caught with an illegal weapon automatic 5 yrs in jail or 10 or what ever it takes to deter illegal guns. Make it so the crooks don't want to have a gun.

Edited March 31, 2010 by The Silver Thong

[Pseudo Intellectual]

Basicly our gun laws are you can have one in your home but you can't walk around with one or have one in your car with out it properly secured and that goes for the home as well guns are required to be secured. You will never find anyone but a gang member on the street with a weapon and the gang bangers shoot each other not that that is a bad thing but sometime they pop a by stander. Zero tolerance for full automatics sawed off shot guns or pistol grip shot guns, switch blades are also illegal as with any knife on a person over 7 inch I do believe. I have absalutly no fear of being shoot in this city even by a gang banger. I like living here as it's a pretty good feeling that I don't have to arm myself.

If you're allowed to own and keep guns in your home, then of course that's going to reduce crime. Why would a criminal enter a home if the people inside were armed?

I know that some American cities would be in chaos if a gun ban was introduced however gun ownership should be a little more difficult as it does weed out the illegal weapons. Not a hundred percent but with laws implimented that punish those with illegal guns make it far more a risk for the bady to have own. Caught with an illegal weapon automatic 5 yrs in jail or 10 or what ever it takes to deter illegal guns. Make it so the crooks don't want to have a gun.

Unfortunately, criminals, by definition, don't care about the law. Make guns illegal, they'll break the law to acquire a gun. Heck, murder is illegal, isn't it? Why are there still so many murderers, then?

[Michelle]

Basicly our gun laws are you can have one in your home but you can't walk around with one or have one in your car with out it properly secured and that goes for the home as well guns are required to be secured. You will never find anyone (almost) but a gang member on the street with a weapon and the gang bangers shoot each other not that that is a bad thing but sometime they pop a by stander. Zero tolerance for full automatics sawed off shot guns or pistol grip shot guns, switch blades are also illegal as with any knife on a person over 7 inch I do believe. I have absalutly no fear of being shoot in this city even by a gang banger. I like living here as it's a pretty good feeling that I don't have to arm myself.

I know that some American cities would be in chaos if a gun ban was introduced however gun ownership should be a little more difficult as it does weed out the illegal weapons. Not a hundred percent but with laws implimented that punish those with illegal guns make it far more a risk for the bady to have own. Caught with an illegal weapon automatic 5 yrs in jail or 10 or what ever it takes to deter illegal guns. Make it so the crooks don't want to have a gun.

Speaking of...NOW they decide we need tougher laws.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

House Democratic Leader Gary Odom passed a measure through the House Finance Committee Tuesday that will more than double the minimum time served for armed robbers.

“The unanimous vote today by the House Finance Committee ensures that this bill will be funded without additional cost to taxpayers,” said Rep. Odom (D-Nashville).

The bill doesn’t cost taxpayers because it is written to require that non-violent felons serve sentences in very extensive community corrections programs, under which they would pay restitution to their victims. By requiring these persons to serve in these programs, the measure would free up cells for the most violent criminals in society.

The bill, inspired by a West Nashville constituent held at gunpoint by a criminal who pleaded guilty to earlier armed robbery charges, will more than double the minimum amount of time served for aggravated robbery.

“A constituent came to me and said: ‘Gary this guy pointed a gun at me and robbed me in broad daylight in my yard. I was angry when I learned that he had done it before and should have still been in jail,’” said Rep. Odom.

The violent offender in the West Nashville case, under this legislation, would have served six of the eight years sentenced instead of only 2.4 years, said Rep. Odom.

The bill has been endorsed by the chiefs of police in the four major Tennessee cities, in all three grand divisions. Nashville Police Chief Ronal Serpas says the bill will increase public safety and that it is “smart on crime.”

Rep. Odom plans to have the bill on the floor of the House by next week. The bill also moved forward in the Senate Tuesday afternoon, unanimously passing the Judiciary Committee.

[The Silver Thong]

Speaking of...NOW they decide we need tougher laws.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

House Democratic Leader Gary Odom passed a measure through the House Finance Committee Tuesday that will more than double the minimum time served for armed robbers.

“The unanimous vote today by the House Finance Committee ensures that this bill will be funded without additional cost to taxpayers,” said Rep. Odom (D-Nashville).

The bill doesn’t cost taxpayers because it is written to require that non-violent felons serve sentences in very extensive community corrections programs, under which they would pay restitution to their victims. By requiring these persons to serve in these programs, the measure would free up cells for the most violent criminals in society.

The bill, inspired by a West Nashville constituent held at gunpoint by a criminal who pleaded guilty to earlier armed robbery charges, will more than double the minimum amount of time served for aggravated robbery.

“A constituent came to me and said: ‘Gary this guy pointed a gun at me and robbed me in broad daylight in my yard. I was angry when I learned that he had done it before and should have still been in jail,’” said Rep. Odom.

The violent offender in the West Nashville case, under this legislation, would have served six of the eight years sentenced instead of only 2.4 years, said Rep. Odom.

The bill has been endorsed by the chiefs of police in the four major Tennessee cities, in all three grand divisions. Nashville Police Chief Ronal Serpas says the bill will increase public safety and that it is “smart on crime.”

Rep. Odom plans to have the bill on the floor of the House by next week. The bill also moved forward in the Senate Tuesday afternoon, unanimously passing the Judiciary Committee.

Well look at that. See this is what I was trying to say all along. Thanks for the find Michelle, whats your take on this new proposed law?

[Michelle]

Well look at that. See this is what I was trying to say all along. Thanks for the find Michelle, whats your take on this new proposed law?

I think any crime with a gun should get five years minimum just for the illegal gun, above and beyond the crime. Four people were shot here in a city park this past weekend, and of course it's gang related. All of the guys arrested had a long record and I wonder what the hell they were doing out of jail to begin with. They were only 18 to 20 years old. It's been a problem for far too long. :angry2:

[Poopie]

Well look at that. See this is what I was trying to say all along. Thanks for the find Michelle, whats your take on this new proposed law?

This is so far from what you've been arguing, but if you agree with the proposed law than we finally found some common ground... Penalties for violent crimes w/ firearms should be on par with the harshest forms of punishment...

[The Silver Thong]

This is so far from what you've been arguing, but if you agree with the proposed law than we finally found some common ground... Penalties for violent crimes w/ firearms should be on par with the harshest forms of punishment...

No it isn't I posted the exact (pretty close) layout of what this bill proposes befor I new it existed. I never once said to ban guns or to get rid of the 2nd amendment but to tweak it and by saying that I meant improve it, as I'm not a constitutional lawyer nor an American I say I called it pretty good. If you don't like that I called it almost spot on then what can I say.

Forgot to say that ya I like this proposal and it most likely will pass. ya a little common ground

Edited March 31, 2010 by The Silver Thong

[Roughneck]

Who said anything about banning gun? This has never been about a ban.

A ban on guns correlates to "less" guns.

I live in a city with a population of 1.2 million people and in 2008 we had 34 homicides with only a handful due to guns and of those tha majority were gang related meaning they shot each other. I don't know how that compares to an American city with the same population but to me thats pretty low.

That's culture and education doing it's good work. I live in North Dakota, which isn't as bad as some states when it comes to gun-toting freedoms, but we are one of the least violent states in the Union. Population isn't as high as some states, but the gun restrictions are much more lax. So everyone owning and carrying a firearm doesn't necessarily negate my safety more than it would in California where I have to make sure I don't accidentally drive through a gang neighborhood.

If you honestly believe the US populace as a whole is properly educated and cultured enough to negate the ownership of firearms you really haven't lived in the areas that contradict that thought. The US is a very odd country, and we are not socially ready to be able to respectfully convince our own people that weapons are not necessary. I honestly don't think we ever will be. The US is the last country that will achieve a Utopian status. I'd bet Somalia would reach it before we do. Starting by banning guns ignores more important things like better education and social welfare. There's a reason why our jails are overflowing. Guns or no guns (or a less availability of guns, even).

[The Silver Thong]

Hey Roughneck that was a surprising post kinda caught me off guard there a little and i do appreciate the honesty. I guess you have a point that I and some others over look and it's insecurity. It's tough I guess not to be afraid and I am lucky to live where I do and posts like yours make me realize I take it for granted. I do love coming to the States I always have a blast down there and to be honest have never witnessed anything I would call crime worthy thank goodness. It is weird seeing regular folks with guns though.

I think this new bill that Michelle posted will make a large difference once the thugs realize there 2 years here and 2 years there in jail are about to come to an end. Lets hope anyway. Later man.

[J.B.]

Gun bans are never the answer. People kill because they want to. Proper education/therapy/punishment is the only way to go. Once we're ready for a gun reduction/ban, I mean honestly, it will be irrelevant, we won't care by then because we really won't need them.

However, there should be serious education in managing your emotions and safety before a person ever touches a firearm.

Edited April 1, 2010 by J.B.