Monon Trail rant

[lashicoN]

To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.

Stolen but to the point i am trying to make. not all that has a right to carry has the sense to do so and should be taught or forced to be taught how to safely carry and defend. but, if you are alright with a nut with a gun....i guess i am becoming more anti second ammendment.

The entire point of the 2nd Amendment is to make sure our government can't infringe on our right to keep and bear arms, so that we can keep our state secure and free. Freedom is the goal. So to suggest someone should be forced to do anything to maintain freedom is about the most hypocritical, insane thing to say, ever.

 

[Sgood]

I guess I just dont see the problem of making sure someone has training and has enough sense to carry a weapon is infringing on the second amendment. you still have your right to carry but must prove you are capable of doing so, without becoming a threat to the security and safety of others.

Do you really want a person that is just a wannabee vigilante jumping up and firing at a felony in progress that does not have the sense to look beyond his target. Where a young mother, may be standing. Maybe your daughter??

I know it is hypothetical , but could very well happen. I have seen it in a hunting situation more times than I would like to count. When a deer comes up between two people and one just gets blinders on....seeing nothing but the deer and not his hunting buddy or the farmers house across the field..

I wont even bring up Cheney or Knight

 

[lashicoN]

I guess I just dont see the problem of making sure someone has training and has enough sense to carry a weapon is infringing on the second amendment. you still have your right to carry but must prove you are capable of doing so, without becoming a threat to the security and safety of others.

Infringing on the second Amendment? The Second Amendment is just a limit on Federal Power. You're already born with the right to defend yourself and your state. You don't have to prove anything or get permission from anyone to exercise a natural right that you are born with. Liberty is more important than security and safety. If you want your children to be safe with firearms, teach them everything you know. I fully encourage and support that. It isn't our government's job to teach our kids how to keep and bear arms and it definitely isn't their job to teach full grown adults how to keep and bear arms safely. It's just their job to not infringe on our right to keep and bear said arms. Everything else is left up to us.

Do you really want a person that is just a wannabee vigilante jumping up and firing at a felony in progress that does not have the sense to look beyond his target. Where a young mother, may be standing. Maybe your daughter??

What are you talking about? When did I ever say that's what I wanted? None of what you said has anything to do with what we're talking about. Try to stay on the off-topic topic, please. You can't control the environment and you certainly can't control when and where you may have to defend yourself. Police officers have mandated training and they still put 3/4 of their bullets into neighbors houses in the Tuscon murder. State mandated training programs are a joke anyway.

 

[Kutnupe14]

"Well regulated" did not mean that the government should regulate the sale of arms. It meant "well equipped". The Second Amendment wouldn't make much sense if it said that the government should regulate the sale and barrel length of arms, but not infringe on the right to keep and bear them. A well regulated militia is a well armed and maintained (trained, like Sgood keeps bringing up, although training is not and should not be a mandate as he/she suggests) militia.

That's a pretty large leap, implying "regulated" as having the same meaning as "equipped." Check out what Alexander Hamilton believed "well regulated" meant. Further, the word militia is also used in the amendment. Do you believe that, as used in the Constitution, it had different meanings?

 

[KG1]

I guess I just dont see the problem of making sure someone has training and has enough sense to carry a weapon is infringing on the second amendment. you still have your right to carry but must prove you are capable of doing so, without becoming a threat to the security and safety of others.

Do you really want a person that is just a wannabee vigilante jumping up and firing at a felony in progress that does not have the sense to look beyond his target. Where a young mother, may be standing. Maybe your daughter??

I know it is hypothetical , but could very well happen. I have seen it in a hunting situation more times than I would like to count. When a deer comes up between two people and one just gets blinders on....seeing nothing but the deer and not his hunting buddy or the farmers house across the field..

I wont even bring up Cheney or Knight

Your hypothetical is just that. Sure anything is possible. We could sit around here all day and come up with "what if's" Show me some stats or studies to prove your position that wannabe vigilantes are roaming the streets shooting at would be criminals and missing their target and taking out young pregnant women. And your anecdotal hunting accident scenarios don't have anything to do with the discussion going on in this thread.

 

[Sgood]

What are you talking about? When did I ever say that's what I wanted? None of what you said has anything to do with what we're talking about. Try to stay on the off-topic topic, please. You can't control the environment and you certainly can't control when and where you may have to defend yourself. Police officers have mandated training and they still put 3/4 of their bullets into neighbors houses in the Tuscon murder. State mandated training programs are a joke anyway.[/QUOTE]


I am on point this is the agrument I made that started this whole conversation......And no it is not what you are saying but would be the result of giving a gun to anyone...even a felon that has been just released.

No you cant control the environment but you can control the individual that has a right to carry. and no matter how you want to bring in officer rounds hitting houses.....those stories do not out number the idiots that shot themselves or their children while cleaning an unloaded gun.
Everytime one of them stories hit the news....it is a hit to our rights and a feather in the cap to a democrat....

 

[gunowner930]

Mr. John Wayne himself right here, cant wait for a bad guy to cross his path so he can gun someone down. they will give any ole douche a ltc. A real leo wannabe!!
Personally I hope I never need to use my sidearm to defend me or my family but you better believe if i do, there will be one less bad guy with no collateral damages. why? because i have the training and enough range time to hit what I aim at and the sense to look beyond my target and to think while in a bad situation. NOT JUST TO HAVE BLINDERS ON AND JUST WANT TO SHOOT A BAD GUY AN FEEL LIKE A BIG MAN!!!!
I believe all applying for a permit should have to go thru a safety course of some kind before being approved. Maybe learn to look beyond the target and practice safe gun handling skills.
But go ahead and bash the new guy with a differewnt opinion than the masses, its okay. I do not need your approval or a new online friend.

You're getting bashed because of inflammatory comments like what is written above and your skinhead militia comment. This reminds me of genitalia compensation comments from anti-gunners.

 

[Sgood]

Your hypothetical is just that. Sure anything is possible. We could sit around here all day and come up with "what if's" Show me some stats or studies to prove your position that wannabe vigilantes are roaming the streets shooting at would be criminals and missing their target and taking out young pregnant women. And your anecdotal hunting accident scenarios don't have anything to do with the discussion going on in this thread.

it does, it proves that people gets tunnel vision when excited or a rush of adrenaline. as in the post above how many idiots shoot themselves or children while cleaning an unloaded gun...

If properly trained maybe he would have unloaded first. Different scenario...same outcome

 

[lashicoN]

That's a pretty large leap, implying "regulated" as having the same meaning as "equipped." Check out what Alexander Hamilton believed "well regulated" meant. Further, the word militia is also used in the amendment. Do you believe that, as used in the Constitution, it had different meanings?

A pretty large leap? LOL. So, let me get this straight...you believe that the 2nd Amendment means..."The government has the right to regulate the sale, barrel length, caliber, etc., of firearms, but cannot infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms."?

Maybe I'm wacky, but that doesn't make any sense to me. I'm pretty sure our founders were smarter than that, considering the rest of the Bill of Rights. Furthermore, as the Bill of Rights is a restriction on Federal Power, it makes even less sense to assume that any part of the Bill of Rights could be used to deny rights to the American people (through laws "regulating" or restricting the right to keep and bear any arm of choice), which is what you're getting at. They even included an Amendment to address exactly that.

I stand by what I said. I'm a history buff and I've done my homework on the Bill of Rights. I'm not the only educated person who knows that "regulated" does not mean laws imposed by the Federal government for the "regulation" of arms. It means, well equipment, well maintained, well managed, proper equipment, a stockpile of well regulated weapons to be used for defense.

As far as Alex goes, I'm sure he wasn't a fan of the 2nd Amendment, or probably any part of the BoR, because he wanted his own private army to order around as he pleased. A group of armed, free, citizens would have been quite a thorn in his side.

 

[Sgood]

You're getting bashed because of inflammatory comments like what is written above and your skinhead militia comment. This reminds me of genitalia compensation comments from anti-gunners.

ahhh if i only had a big penis........i wouldnt have an opinion.

maybe if i had a small one i would have to carry a big gun...so at least something i was packin was big.....

 

[gunowner930]

ahhh if i only had a big penis........i wouldnt have an opinion.

maybe if i had a small one i would have to carry a big gun...so at least something i was packin was big.....

You can share your opinion without calling someone a John Wayne wannabe or insinuating that lashicon is looking for racists to recruit into his skinhead militia.

 

[KG1]

ahhh if i only had a big penis........i wouldnt have an opinion.

maybe if i had a small one i would have to carry a big gun...so at least something i was packin was big.....

Wow, That sounds like a well reasoned rational argument. I guess we were all wrong and you've changed our minds.

 

[lashicoN]

No you cant control the environment but you can control the individual that has a right to carry.

I guess now we all know what Helmke intends to do during retirement, bombard INGO with ignorance.

You most certainly, absolutely, positively, cannot control the individual who wants to carry a firearm. All one needs to do is take a one minute glance at Chicago and their terrible failure of attempts to "control the individual that has a right to carry".

Gun control does not work. Shootings happen in Chicago all the time. Every summer they threaten to bring in the National Guard. It takes a special kind of blind ignorance to implement that policy year, after year, after decade with worse and worse results. It takes even larger ignorance to spew that line, in 2011, after decades of a failed policy where they tried to "control the individual that has a right to carry".

 

[IndyBeerman]

STOP FEEDING THE TROLL
VVVVVV

.

 

[Sgood]

Bottom line and I will drop it here and you can continue to negative rep me and bash all you want.....

An untrained man with a gun scares me more than a criminal ever will.. At least a criminal has to think about what he is or isnt going to do....an untrained man has accidents!!!!

 

[lashicoN]

An untrained man with a gun scares me more than a criminal ever will..quote]

Then you are not a rational person.

Total crimes in US: 11,877,218
Total accidents involving firearms: 613

 

[DFM914]

Your hypothetical is just that. Sure anything is possible. We could sit around here all day and come up with "what if's" Show me some stats or studies to prove your position that wannabe vigilantes are roaming the streets shooting at would be criminals and missing their target and taking out young pregnant women. And your anecdotal hunting accident scenarios don't have anything to do with the discussion going on in this thread.

 

[Sgood]

Then you are not a rational person.

Total crimes in US: 11,877,218
Total accidents involving firearms: 613

if only those 613 would have had some kind of firearm safety course.....maybe this could have been 0

 

[lashicoN]

if only those 613 would have had some kind of firearm safety course.....maybe this could have been 0

Sure. Every accident is preventable with a simple two hour training course.

What really makes my head spin is that you come onto this forum, advocating we relinquish our right to be free, because 600 people out of 311 Million people had an accident involving a firearm. Meanwhile, you say that you are less worried about the ELEVEN MILLION crimes annually committed in the US. That just sounds plain-old, insane.

 

[Boogeymanink]

Guys there is always trouble once and awhile on the monon its just alot of it is not anounced in the news nor does it happen so close together its just a fluke thats all