At Ask Me Help Desk you can ask questions in any topic and have them
answered for free by our experts. To ask questions or participate in
answering them you must register for a free account. By registering you
will be able to:
Get free answers from experts in any of our 300+
topics.
and as for the criminal pyc stuff, lets agree to disargree. i mean who really knows whats going through these guys heads anyway.
Sorry, but this isn't a matter of disagreeing. When you have done some studying and reading about the criminal psyche, then maybe we can discuss it further. Right now you really don't know what you are talking about.
obviouly, look i'll read some stuff. i guess i shouldn't say stuff without reading up on it first. ok so maybe i don't know what i am talking about, but i don't know, i get this feeling that i am at least a little right. but maybe thats just me. well this disscussion was fun. man i don't get to voice my oppinions very often. well, i still believe what i believe. and i'll just keep doing that.
[quote=progunr]Unless it is designated as a State or Federal Park that is.[quote]
Fed Parks and Fish & Game are considering easing the rules so that if you're allowed to carry in the state where the Park/refuge is, you're allowed to carry in the Park. They're taking public comments on this now (I think deadline is June 30). Go to redirect and under proposals for comment, type RIN 1024-AD70 in search box. That will take you to the page so you can put your 2 cents in. (Just realized there's no 'cents' symbol on the keyboard <G>) (link is for regulations.gov)
One of my probs w/ those who thought it was for militia is that Jeferson, for one, didn't like peace-time standing armies, and that's what the militia is now. At one time there were State militias but they were jobbed off to the Fed in late 40s-early 50s (I used to play with Dad's SM helmet).
If you want an organization that fights to keep the 2nd as written but don't want the NRA, try the Second Amendment Sisters. I got one of my fav Ts from them: Firearms: the ultimate in feminine protection.
I was listening to an interview of a spokesperson for the 'Brady Coalition' who argued that the decision by SCOTUS was a good thing because it did clarify some important issues. I cannot find transcripts of it but basically his argument mirrors what Mark Kleiman ,a liberal professor writes in his blog 'The Reality-Based Community'. The Reality-Based Community
Quote:
With any luck, taking the "gun confiscation" card out of the political pack might actually reduce the fervor of the opposition the NRA can whip up to sensible measures such as requiring background checks for gun sales by private individuals (the current rule that requires them only for purchases from gun dealers), computerizing data on which dealers are selling the guns that get used in crimes, and developing and deploying technology that would allow police to identify, from a bullet or a shell casing found at a crime scene, when, to whom, and by whom the gun that produced that metal was lawfully transferred.
Scalia made it clear in his ruling that like the 1st Amerndment the 2nd Amendment is not absolute(and all the Amendments for that matter ......word to the Court that just blew the habeas rights to terrorists captured on the battlefield ).This ruling clearly removes indiscrimnate confiscation and also confirms that law enforcement agencies need serious tools with which to track and identify guns used to commit crimes.
This Heller decision is one of the rare great decisions by SCOTUS ....rare indeed .
Sorry, but this isn't a matter of disagreeing. When you have done some studying and reading about the criminal psyche, then maybe we can discuss it further. Right now you really don't know what you are talking about.
Oh Scott, chill out on the poor soul with your smarter than thou routine. There are many reasons people commit crimes. From the most brazen sociopath to the average guy that kills in heated passion. Now, comming from a retired Prison gaurd with 20+ years working in every aspect and with every discipline related to, tell me I don't know what I'm talking about Scott.
Better yet, tell them that all it would have taken, to very possibly save their son or daughters life, was for one person in that room to have been armed and able to put a stop to this mad mans rampage, if not before he even got a single shot off, at least before he fired the second, and third, and fourth, and..........you get the idea.
Anyone is capable of becoming a criminal, under the right circumstances, they are not always mentally ill.
I will stand by my opinion that anyone intent on committing a crime with a gun, will avoid any victim who could possibly be armed, and will target the victim who is the least likely to be in possession of a firearm themselves.
For every statistic presented, the opposing side will always be able to find someone, or some study or form of data to show conflicting views, so again, the ability to prove beyond any doubt that either side is correct in their beliefs will never be possible.
I respect everyone's opinion on this issue, but of course, I believe that I am on the correct side of the debate.
Although it's a good move to follow the Constitution, they will come up with so many regulations it will confuse the issue. Because thieves take guns from homes to the streets, there will probably be laws as to the size of the weapon as well as a clearance test for the home owner and occupants. Nothing is that simple when it comes to guns. (or anything else by the government)
Oh Scott, chill out on the poor soul with your smarter than thou routine. There are many reasons people commit crimes. From the most brazen sociopath to the average guy that kills in heated passion. Now, comming from a retired Prison gaurd with 20+ years working in every aspect and with every discipline related to, tell me I don't know what I'm talking about Scott.
It has nothing to do with being smarter. Just more knowledgeable and better informed. If you notice, I said there are many reasons people commit crimes. That is undeniable. But that doesn't mean that someone committing a crime is going to be deterred by the possibility that his victim or someone nearby is armed. Yes some might, but most would not, especially if they are armed themselves.
Better yet, tell them that all it would have taken, to very possibly save their son or daughters life, was for one person in that room to have been armed and able to put a stop to this mad mans rampage, if not before he even got a single shot off, at least before he fired the second, and third, and fourth, and..........you get the idea.I will stand by my opinion that anyone intent on committing a crime with a gun, will avoid any victim who could possibly be armed, and will target the victim who is the least likely to be in possession of a firearm themselves.
Maybe, but more likely it would have just contributed to the bloodbath. Remember most of the victims were young students, not likely to be well trained in using firearms. At least that's my opinion.
And yes, criminals are well known to take the path of least resistance. If presented with two houses, one alarmed and one not alarmed which do you think they will break into?
As to arming everyone, sorry I don't want to live in fear of someone over reacting or getting caught in a crossfire.
Linear Mode
