https://www.washingtonpost.com/...dgun-to-save-womans-life/

Yes they are that man should have just called the police to handle it they would have been there in a few minutes

hopefully the dummies of AT won't be demanding that gun owners become a protected employment class

a good number of CCW holders don't respect no guns signs at malls or theaters because in their wingnut minds their rights > a business or another persons' rights

*stokes the flames*

I didn't carry into a downtown bar and got jumped on the way home.

But i agree that you shouldn't carry when drinking, so.....

The thing about no gun zones is people know they are no gun zones. Right or wrong. Why do you think massacres happen in them so often?

Your average CCW holder wouldn't be too much help in an ambush situation, but deterrence has its merits.

massacres don't have any bearing on the matter at hand here:

sorry, your gun rights do not trump (2016!) another person's rights.

carrying concealed in a place that has banned firearms is a self important asshole move.

fluff your matter at hand

my rights are more important than yours! fluff you, fluffhead!

I certainly won't be making that argument.... because there shouldn't be *any* protected employment classes.

If an employer wants to say "You may not exercise your constitutional rights on this private property", he or she should have every right to do so.

In the private, non-governmental relationship between employee and employer, either party should be free to terminate - or refuse to initiate - the relationship at any time for any reason.

And business owners should be free to choose whether or not to accept a customer for any reason. People should be free to decide which relationships they wish to enter into. The government has no business forcing any private citizen to deal with any other private citizen if he or she does not wish to do so.


But back to the point.... every time there's a highly publicized shooting, 2nd amendment advocates point out that a good person with a gun could possibly have changed the situation. And those who wish to eliminate or weaken the 2nd amendment are usually quick to call this a bogus claim. The latter are the people I was interested in making sure they saw this article :)

thats how slavery and wars have started :(

yep, the dingdongy gun owners who think their gun rights trump everyone elses' rights are just plain dummies, akula. thinkin they're more important than others.

Yeh i want to wait a few min for the police to show up and haul off my corpse. how would i be stepping on you rights? I have to wonder how many people you are walking by every day that have a ccp and you have no idea. God how pissed off you must be to know that they are everywhere. Take a positive story like this and turn is into something bad smh

http://i.imgur.com/RFfp8Yh.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/...2015_Chapel_Hill_shooting

This college student shot his three neighbors over parking spaces.

In NC you get a background check for gun-store handgun purchases. But if you fail you can go ahead and buy a rifle because no background check is required. Also, the whole state is open carry with no permit so you can walk into anyplace with your gun and bullets on your hip/belt, etc. A concealed carry permit is only a short 5-hour training away.

Using the NRA's logic, if only those three Muslim college student neighbors had all been open carry gun-owners, this tragedy could have been avoided, right?

LOL

Nice to see NC infringed gun owners rights so easily. They should also enact a mandatory 5 hour training on how to vote and see how well that goes over.

only land owners should be allowed to vote

Actually, yes.

You're responding in a thread about someone using a gun to stop a murder, and mocking the idea that if one of these victims had been armed, perhaps some or all of these murders could have been stopped as well.

Your position doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

I love it when people think oh just call the police and let them handle it ...

just a few examples of officers being saved or helped by people who just happened to have a gun when needed most. I'm pretty sure these officers have no complaints about these people using a gun to save their life.
http://www.sightm1911.com/lib/ccw/officer_peril.htm

and then most recently
-----------------------------
------------------------

Police: Gun owner saved cop from attack by kids

POLICE ARE crediting a vigilant gun owner with saving the life of an Upper Darby cop Friday after he saw the officer being attacked and surrounded by a large group of teens.

"There were 40 kids. If it wasn't for the good Samaritan stepping forward, he'd have been dead meat," Upper Darby Police Superintendent Michael Chitwood said. "There's no doubt they would have attacked him."

About 3 p.m. every weekday, from six to eight township police officers patrol the area near Upper Darby High School as nearly 4,000 kids pour out of the building on Lansdowne Avenue near School Lane.

Most kids and most days are good, Chitwood said.

Friday was not.

That afternoon alone, police responded to three fights in three locations near the school. When the dust settled, eight teens, ages 13 to 17, were charged with crimes, and two officers were injured so severely that it's unclear when they'll be able to return to work, Chitwood said.

The most egregious of the incidents took place on Wayne Avenue near Marshall Road, less than a mile from the high school.

An officer who broke up a fight between two teen boys that had attracted a large crowd at that location was holding one of the combatants at bay when the teen's opponent attacked the officer, Chitwood said.

"As he breaks up the fight, he takes one kid and then the other jumps [on] him. Now he's fighting two of them and he's calling for an assist officer at the same time," Chitwood said. "There's a crowd of 40 or 50 kids watching the fight, and they all move in towards the officer."

That's when the good Samaritan, who lives on the block, came out of his house with a gun in his hand and told the teens to get away from the cop, Chitwood said.

"He had the gun in his hand, but he didn't point it at the kids, he just told them to back off," Chitwood said. "If this guy didn't come out and come to the aid of the officer, this officer would have had significant problems."

The 35-year-old gun owner, who has a concealed-carry permit, kept the group of teens at bay until responding officers arrived, Chitwood said.

Read more at http://www.philly.com/....html#IuAZ6paECbvQvrl0.99

They tried to require a state issued ID (drivers license or a $5 state ID card) to vote and hell was raised. Proving who you are is pretty extraordinary measures obviously.

My point was the hilarity of hearing the NRA call for all the muslim immigrants in NC to be armed.

You clearly don't know your history very well. Read up on why we have that amendment and then come back.

Did the NRA actually call for that? Unless I missed it, the Wikipedia article you linked made no mention of it. I just tried googling a little and couldn't find anything relevant with "NRA North Carolina" or "NRA North Carolina muslim". I'm too lazy to try anything more.

Forgive trife and atryn displays of Stockholm syndrome. At this stage they are being held hostage by their own ignorance.

Chances are that most people in America will get through life without any serious threat to their lives other than old age. But we live in a world teaming with life and death. It's a fight for survival. You never know what someone is thinking, and those nutjobs that carry into places with gun bans just understand that just because their is a ban doesn't mean it's completely safe. In Iraq I was driving through the green zone and I heard the whiz of a round zip by my head in the gunners hatch. The green zone is supposed to be the safest place in Iraq because it had so much security. But hey no matter where you go nothing is completely safe.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_syllogism

^^ was used in this thread.

The NRA says for people to survive a home invasion they should be armed for self defense.
- Your first response to me confirmed this.
In this case the victims were immigrant muslims.
- The facts of the case, Wiki and news articles confirm this
Therefore the NRA believes the immigrant muslims should have been armed.
- QED

The NRA believes all people are better off if they have a way to defend themselves in their homes.

I don't see how these people being Muslim immigrants makes that a laughable belief.

.

I am aware of the history of the amendment. If you would actually learn the history you would understand the second amendment was so the government couldn't disarm the people (and take power).

Nice try with the holier than though bullfluff.

Incorrect. The constitution had granted to the Federal government the power to run the military. When the Bill of Rights was being debated, the issue was the STATES power against the federal government. Specifically, the State militias were dependent on the federal government for arms. The power that was granted in the 2nd amendment was to allow citizens to own/retain firearms so that when serving in the militia they could come armed without relying on the federal government to supply the arms.

The 2nd amendment was never about crime prevention or self defense in the sense you hear it used today. That was the role of the police (local/state, not federal).

In reality, the people never maintained enough arms to supply the state militias when called and thus they were still dependent on the federal government. The state militias as they were known at that time have long since gone away. The closest thing to that today is the National Guard, which is, in effect, a captive force of the federal government. Have you ever known someone to join the Guard and be told "show up with your gun ready"? No. That entire concept, on which the 2nd amendment was based, is now defunct.

fluff, you are defunct.

Are you retarded? Where did I say anything about self defense? The British baned the ownership of firearms and it was viewed as an act of tyranny. The drafters of the declaration of independence wanted to make sure the government was prohibited from doing the same.

Let's break this down barney style for the legally retarded.

What the 2nd amendment actually says:

"
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 statement above, talks about a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state. No where does it say anything about being reliant on the federal government or granting the power of forming militias to the federal government. The second independent statement says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". No where does it say if the government allows you, you can be armed. No where does it say where you can keep and bear arms.

The colonial people viewed the right to arming themselves and bear arms as part of a "state militia" as important because:

1. Enabling the people to organize a militia system.
2. Participating in law enforcement;
3. Deterring tyrannical government
4. Repelling invasion;
5. Suppressing insurrection
6. Facilitating a natural right of self-defense.(this even links back to English common law)

You are clearly wrong. You and Trife can get back to smelling each others farts and masterbating to your Barrack Hussein Obama porn.

Of course there is nothing about granting the powers to form the militia to the federal government. I said that. try reading.

What it does say is "being necessary to the security of a free State". Now, go read the history. The militias were the balance of the STATE against the FEDERAL government. The 2nd amendment was created so that the STATE militia did NOT rely on the FEDERAL government to be armed.

God, why do I have to spell this out for you.

I have read the whole history. You are the one putting forth an argument based soley on a fraction of the 2nd amendment.

Also, you are claiming this "The 2nd amendment was never about crime prevention or self defense in the sense you hear it used today. " you may want to actually read up on the viewpoints and state constitutions that were drafted before you make this argument. Again. Wrong.

As far as the federal govt is concerned, you were the one who brought up the federal govt being granted the power to form a military. I am merely pointing out that you are trying to rely on the dependant clause about the state militia while ignoring the whole "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". It is you whom cannot read. It is YOU who needs to read up before running your suck.

Just move to Canada, we drink and smoke so much weed we don't care about fighting or killing each other, also we are very tired after work to give a what about anything but our beds.

Flappy headed woman? Gross...

http://vignette1.wikia.nocookie.net/...002712&path-prefix=es

Well put. How can something so simple and common sense become so totally screwed up in the courts?

That is messed up, her own daughter tried to kill her with a steak knife at work. Which means she must have purposely taken it with her for that intent, who carries a steak knife around with them.

You're correct in what we assume: my right to life > you're right to be arbitrary

^^^
contrived inference

trifes always right

and thats the bottom line

cuz i said so

"Investigators searched Hicks' home and seized two fully loaded handguns, a fully loaded AR-15 Bushmaster rifle, two shotguns, five other rifles, two other handguns and two pellet guns. They also seized numerous magazines with varying amounts of ammunition, boxes of ammunition, shotgun shells, BBs, gun scopes and other gun-related items, according to a warrant. Investigators also seized two desktop computers, three cellphones and a digital camera."

I loled...

Let s pretend for once a us citizen needs a gun or two for diffrent purpuses including self defense in diffrent situations.
Now i ll be damn, but what will one do with 14 fire weapons?. Unless his name is mrford who collects em for fun, hobby... why would anyone need to be better armed than stalone in Vietnam and Afghanistan?

Believe it or not, I am not the only person who collects guns as a hobby.

Weird, I know.

I do as well

Anyone following this bill? I wonder what's going to happen, would be nice if suppressors weren't regulated anymore:
H.R.3799 - Hearing Protection Act of 2015
https://www.congress.gov/...-congress/house-bill/3799

I have many guns 10+ and each one has a purpose. You cant have self defense and hunting all rolled into one or two guns just dosent work that way. And why dose it matter if you have 14 guns you can only fire one or two at once anyways.

I scrolled all the way down for this????

Actually at the time of its drafting the federal government was weak, and needed reliance on state militias to ensure the defense of the country. Coming from the too weak federal gov't that existed under The Articles of Confederation, the second amendment clearly was for the people to be Armed to protect themselves from the now more powerful Federal Gov't granted under The Constitution.

bonus


I love guns

http://www.politico.com/...s-second-amendment-106856

The amendment grew out of the political tumult surrounding the drafting of the Constitution, which was done in secret by a group of mostly young men, many of whom had served together in the Continental Army. Having seen the chaos and mob violence that followed the Revolution, these “Federalists” feared the consequences of a weak central authority. They produced a charter that shifted power—at the time in the hands of the states—to a new national government.

“Anti-Federalists” opposed this new Constitution. The foes worried, among other things, that the new government would establish a “standing army” of professional soldiers and would disarm the 13 state militias, made up of part-time citizen-soldiers and revered as bulwarks against tyranny. These militias were the product of a world of civic duty and governmental compulsion utterly alien to us today. Every white man age 16 to 60 was enrolled. He was actually required to own—and bring—a musket or other military weapon.

On June 8, 1789, James Madison—an ardent Federalist who had won election to Congress only after agreeing to push for changes to the newly ratified Constitution—proposed 17 amendments on topics ranging from the size of congressional districts to legislative pay to the right to religious freedom. One addressed the “well regulated militia” and the right “to keep and bear arms.” We don’t really know what he meant by it. At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities.

There is not a single word about an individual’s right to a gun for self-defense or recreation in Madison’s notes from the Constitutional Convention. Nor was it mentioned, with a few scattered exceptions, in the records of the ratification debates in the states. Nor did the U.S. House of Representatives discuss the topic as it marked up the Bill of Rights. In fact, the original version passed by the House included a conscientious objector provision. “A well regulated militia,” it explained, “composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

you are arguing semantics regarding a document that was written hundreds of years ago in a language that has evolved to a point that letters are even different now....

what a colossal waste of time that is

Quality research they must have done over at politico. In federalist Number 46, James Madison wrote:

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes."

I am not sure how he could have been any blunter. "Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation"

He I saying Anericans will be armed. I am glad your research concluded he never had any mention of self defense related to the constitutional convention. Ferlist paper 46 was published...

I suppose the "arms" we're just for show.

Where did you learn to research fluff? Cerb? Alin? Perhaps choose a better source next time.