# Are you pro-gun?



## ryan933

The Second Amendment, as passed September 25, 1789: 
"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." 

Recent history has seen politicians like Clinton and Flynn use images of police officers alongside anti-gun propaganda to give the appearance of law enforcement support for their anti-constitutional agenda. :BM: 



Ryan


----------



## TheFuzz357

I agree with some checks and balances in place. What we have now can be over restrictive to people who may be responsible enough to own and use a firearm. But I don't believe that "everyone" should be allowed to own a gun. We have very specific laws in place right now that we could enforce and probably clear up more than half of the problems we face with illegal gun use but the courts are wishy-washy on actually following the laws. Minimum Mandatory sentencing only works if it is "mandatory" and our liberal court systems has a very hard time abiding by those laws. 
Ryan I think you need to have another choice up there. Possibly, "I agree to responsible gun ownership for those who have proved their responsibility."
The next step of course is to define "responsiblilty". That's where people will have disagreements. If more people legally carried firearms and our criminals didn't know who was carrying and who wasn't they may think twice about who they assault with a dangerous weapon. The way the laws are right now we have effectively taken firearms out of the hands of responsible gun owners/would be gun owners because of "scairdy-cat" politics.
:sb: 
I haven't voted yet because I can't agree with any of the possible answers. :2c:


----------



## Officer Dunngeon

ryan933 said:


> The Second Amendment, as passed September 25, 1789:
> "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."


I think our forefathers meant for the right to bear arms to provide protection against takeover by another country or even "Big Brother." The right to bear arms was invoked during Shay's rebellion in the late 1700's when farmers used armed force as a way of action for lower taxes and judicial reform against the newly formed government. The founding fathers kept the Bill of Rights at the time of it's birth flexible enough in their meanings so that future generations of Americans could intrepret them as needed for whatever new issues would arise.

It's scary to think about firearms landing in the hands of the wrong people, both legally and illegally, but we need to keep this freedom for the general good of the people. Right now I think the pot is merely simmering - but who knows how life will be when we are long gone? Anyone read 1984, Farenheit 451, etc.?


----------



## USMCTrooper

DISCLAIMER: The following is in no way inferred to represent Flynn or anyone whose view is more anti than pro gun*******



"This year will go down in history. For the first time a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient and the world will follow our lead into the future".


Any guess who said this and when???


----------



## Otto

Hitler, 1939?


----------



## ryan933

Adolph Hitler...just before he went on a tear across Europe! 

The disarmament of the populace has preceded every reign of tyranny in modern history. 

Don't think it could never happen in the good old USA!

Ryan


----------



## ryan933

MSP357, I agree with you 100%. 

Ryan


----------



## Officer Dunngeon

ryan933 said:


> The disarmament of the populace has preceded every reign of tyranny in modern history.
> 
> Don't think it could never happen in the good old USA!


My point exactly.


----------



## ryan933

Dunngeon,
I have to disagree with you concerning the founding fathers intent of the second amendment.

The "Federalist Papers" were written by the framers of the constitution to clarify the true intent of the constitution to the common man. It clearly states the importance of the right of the people to be armed, and the reasons for it. One very important reason is obviously to keep our government in check, but that was not all. I highly recommend everyone read it at least once. You can find it at your local library.

What follows are quotes that reveal the mindset of our founding fathers in designing the constitution. While I do believe in reasonable checks and balances with respect to gun ownership, I am minimalist in that belief.

This is a bit long, but worth the read. You will find that while the concept of the militia runs throughout, it is also made clear that the militia is composed of the body of the people. This means the founding fathers recognized that more people with guns is better than a few who fall into certain categories.

==========================================
*Patrick Henry*:

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able may have a gun." 
==========================================
*Thomas Jefferson*, in an early draft of the Virginia constitution:

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms in his own lands." 
==========================================
*Samuel Adams*:

"Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: first, a right to life, secondly to liberty, thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can." 
==========================================
*John Adams*:

"Arms in the hands of the citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defense of the country, the overthrow of tyranny or private self-defense." 
==========================================
*Richard Henry Lee*, Additional Letters form the Federal Farmer, 1788:

"Militias, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves and include all men capable of bearing arms. 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." 
==========================================
*Trench Coxe*, writing as "the Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, 1788:

"The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from 16 to 60. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? It is feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." 
==========================================
ANTECEDENTS Connecticut gun code of 1650:

"All persons shall bear arms, and every male person shall have in continual readiness a good musket or other gun, fit for service." 
==========================================
Article 3 of the West Virginia state constitution:

"A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use."
========================================== 
Virginia Declaration of Rights 13 (June 12, 1776), drafted by *George Mason*:

"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
==========================================
From "A Journal of the Times", calling the citizens of Boston to arm themselves in response to British abuses of power, 1769:

"Instances of the licentious and outrageous behavior of the military conservators of the peace still multiply upon us, some of which are of such nature and have been carried to so great lengths as must serve fully to evince that a late vote of this town, calling upon the inhabitants to provide themselves with arms for their defense, was a measure as prudent as it was legal. It is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the [English] Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defense, and as Mr. Blackstone observes it is to be made use of when the sanctions of society and law are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression." 
==========================================
*George Mason's* Fairfax County Militia Plan, 1775:

"And we do each of us, for ourselves respectively, promise and engage to keep a good firelock in proper order, and to furnish ourselves as soon as possible with, and always keep by us, one pound of gunpowder, four pounds of lead, one dozen gunflints, and a pair of bullet moulds, with a cartouch box, or powder horn, and bag for balls." 
==========================================
*Patrick Henry*, 1775:

"They tell us that we are weak-unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Three million people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us." 
==========================================
*Thomas Paine*, writing to religious pacifists in 1775:

The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside. Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them; the weak would become a prey to the strong." 
==========================================
*Noah Webster*, 1787:

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." 
==========================================
*James Madison*, "The influence of the State and Federal Governments Compared, "46 Federalist New York Packet, January 29,1788:

"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. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, that could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it." 
===========================================

*Alexander Hamilton*, "Concerning the Militia," 29 Federalist Daily Advertiser, January 10, 1788:

"There is something so far fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery. Where, in the name of common sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular states are to have the sole and exclusive appointment of the officers? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the states ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia." 
==========================================
A proposed amendment to the Federal Constitution, as passed by the Pennsylvania legislature:

"That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own states or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals." 
==========================================

Ryan


----------



## mpd61

I would like to admit up front that I get teary-eyed thinking of the Constitution, those who have died defending it, and the lame shit-birds who want to focus narrowly on the militia part, while ignoring the "people"
part of the Second Amendment.
:shock:

As Professor Akhil Amar (Yale) said;

* "When the Constitution means "states" it says so... the 
ultimate right to keep and bear arms belongs to "the people"
not the "states"...Thus the "people" at the core of the Second
Amendment are the citizens-the same "we the people" who
"ordain and establish" the Constitution and whose right to 
assemble is at the core of the First Amendment.*

The founding fathers intent, in pledging the right to keep and bear arms, was not solely to depose oppressors. They conceived the right to bear arms as conclusive to their belief in a cardinal right for each individual.

Thomas R. Dye, author of Power & Society stated;

_*"Governmental power must be balanced against individual
freedom. A democratic society must exercise police powers
to protect its citizens, yet it must not unduly restrict
individual liberty."
*_

Finally, as Police officers, we have neither the resources, nor the responsibility to be there for each of our citizens. The U.S. Supreme Court made it quite clear that we as individuals are on our own when it comes to protection. In the landmark case of Warren v. District of Columbia (1981) the court held that "government and it's agents are under no general duty to provide public service, such as police protection, to any individual citizen."

The simple fact is that ultimately, we are responsible as citizens to provide for our own personal protection, not our government. 
Anyone of you thinks otherwise, I pray you have time to call 911 and get to your panic room. YIKES!!!!
:HS:


----------



## Killjoy

As one could probably tell from my earlier posts, I am solidly pro 2nd amendment. This in itself is a strange statement if one thinks about it; I have to let people know that I am in favor of the constitution. I have never seen the ACLU in their fevor to release criminals who they believe to be convicted unconstitutionally or overturn laws they view as unconstitutional run to the defense of the 2nd amendment....I'm sure it doesn't fit in with their left wing views. As a police officer I view responsible private ownership of firearms as a positive thing. We certainly cannot be everywhere at once; in fact, most policing is reactive in nature, with the crime already been committed. It has been said that an armed society is a polite society, and this is true. Criminals that have been interviewed have said time and time again that they prefer a public without access to firearms to defend themselves. One only has to look at the quagmire that is our nations capitol. Practically no private citizen in Washington DC can own a firearm and their certainly is no "carry conceal" program, yet the crime rate there is horrible, and after nearly 30 years allegedly without firearms, the city is worse off than is was before. In that great, safe "firearms free" bastion of England, the crime rate has skyrocketed in the last ten years. In London violent crime is up six times from what it was in the early nineties. The early ninties, incidentally, is when England banned the last vestiges of private firearm ownership. It is more dangerous to walk the streets of London than New York, Detroit or LA. Score one for the anti-gun people!!

I believe the relentless march against firearms ownership is indicative of a plague infecting the psyche of the US; the belief that no one is responsible for anything. Convicted of robbery?; blame your parents for poor upbringing. Convicted of rape?; blame the media for its negative portrayals. Convicted of murder?; its society's problem for alienating you. Slip and fall?; blame the department store. This attitude bleeds over into feelings about self defense. I once read a paper in which the author stated his disgust at the fact that in our society it is considered strange or crazy to have any sort of knowledge of self defense. If someone is a black belt in Karate or possesses a knowledge of firearms that person is viewed with mixed suspicion and fear. It is not "normal" in our society to have this attitude. Someone break into your house? Call the police and pray for the best; its not your job to defend yourself. I would rather have my girlfriend blow .38 caliber holes through some asshole that broke into our apartment than sit like a lemming waiting for police. I once listened to a 911 tape of some piece of crap raping a girl who had dialed 911 and the phone happened to be next to her the whole time. In fact,the mope didn't even flee; you could hear the police come into the house and grab the guy. All I could think when he was breaking down her door was, "I wish she had a gun in her room so she could blow that sick f*ck out of his socks". 

Of course certain checks are needed in our society; licensing is a necessary evil. Proper training is also necessary; an untrained person with a firearms is more of a danger to themselves than any criminals (I feel this way about some cops, but that is another story). In conclusion it has never been PROVEN that a reduction in firearms leads to drop in crime. Many "gun rich" environments like Arizona have fairly low crime rates, statisically speaking. Leave the 2nd amendment alone!


----------



## Guest

Anybody find it ironic that so many who flip out about defending and broadly interpreting the First Amendment, are so against the Second one?


----------



## SRRerg

To quote Charlton Heston: The Second Amendment is the right that guarantees all others."


----------



## Joe B

*2nd*



SRRerg said:


> To quote Charlton Heston: The Second Amendment is the right that guarantees all others."


That's absolutely correct, hypothetically speaking if you lost the 2nd Amendment and were suddenly faced with loosing the rest of the amendments, just how would you defend the Constitution?


----------



## ryan933

That is absolutely correct! The second amendment is our insurance policy.

Sadly there are many people who do not understand this.  

Keep this in mind when you go to vote in November.

Ryan


----------



## Otto

Without arms, our Constitution is just words on paper. I don't know who said it first, but I think it very true.


----------



## John J

=D>


----------



## Nightstick

People fear guns. Yet, while guns make it easier for bad things to happen, they also make it easier for people to protect themselves.



With the avalanche of horrific news stories about guns over the years, it's no wonder people find it hard to believe that, according to surveys (one I conducted for 2002 for my book, "The Bias Against Guns," and three earlier academic surveys by different researchers published in such journals as the Journal of Criminal Justice) there are about two million defensive gun uses (search) each year; guns are used defensively four times more frequently than they are to commit crimes. 

The rebuttal to this claim always is: If these events were really happening, wouldn't we hear about them on the news? Many people tell me that they have never heard of an incident of defensive gun use. There is a good reason for their confusion. In 2001, the three major television networks -- ABC, CBS, and NBC -- ran 190,000 words' worth of gun-crime stories on their morning and evening national news broadcasts. But they ran not a single story mentioning a private citizen using a gun to stop a crime. 

The print media was almost as biased: The New York Times ran 50,745 words on contemporaneous gun crimes, but only one short, 163-word story on a retired police officer who used his gun to stop a robbery. For USA Today, the tally was 5,660 words on gun crimes versus zero on defensive uses. 

Just take some of the 18 defensive gun uses that I found covered by newspapers around the country during the first 10 days of December: 

-- Little Rock, Ark: After the assailant attacked him and his son-in-law with a poker, a 64-year-old minister shot a man dead on church grounds. The attacker had engaged in a string of assaults in an apparent drug-induced frenzy. 

-- Corpus Christi, Texas: A woman shot to death her ex-husband, who had broken into her house. The woman had a restraining order against the ex-husband. 

-- Tampa Bay, Fla.: A 71-year-old man, Melvin Spaulding, shot 20-year-old James Moore in the arm as Moore and two friends were beating up his neighbor, 63-year-old George Lowe. Spaulding had a concealed weapons permit. 

--Bellevue, Wash.: A man shot a pit bull that lunged to within a foot of him and his family. Police said the man's family had been repeatedly menaced in the past by the dog. 

-- Jonesboro, Ga.: A father out walking with his 11-year-old daughter was attacked by an armed robber. The police say the father shot the attacker in self-defense and will not face charges. 

-- Houston, Texas: Andrea McNabb shot two of the three men who tried to rob her plumbing business on the afternoon of Dec. 1. 

-- Philadelphia, Pa: A pharmacy manager fatally shot one robber and wounded another after the robbers threatened to kill workers at the store. The wounded robber escaped. 

Part of the reason defensive gun use isn't covered in the media may be simple news judgment. If a news editor faces two stories, one with a dead body on the ground and another where a woman brandished a gun and the attacker ran away, no shots fired, almost anyone would pick the first story as more newsworthy. In 2002, some 90 percent of the time when people used guns defensively, they stopped the criminals simply by brandishing the gun. 

But that doesn't explain all the disparity in coverage. It doesn't, for example, explain why, in some heavily covered public middle and high school shootings, the media mentioned in only 1 percent or fewer of their stories that the attacks were stopped when citizens used guns to stop the attacks. 

The unbalanced reporting is probably greatest in cases where children die from accidental gunshots fired by another child. Most people have seen the public-service ads showing the voices or pictures of children between the ages of four and eight, never over the age of eight, and the impression is that there is an epidemic of accidental deaths involving small children. The exaggerated media attention given these particularly tragic deaths makes these claims believable. 

The debate over laws requiring that people lock up their guns in their home usually concentrates on the deaths of these younger children. The trigger and barrel locks mandated by these laws are often only considered reliable for preventing the access to guns by children under age 7. 

The truth is that in 1999, for children whose ages correspond with the public service ads, 31 children under the age of 10 died from an accidental gunshot and only six of these cases appear to have involved another child under 10 as the culprit. Nor was this year unusual. Between 1995 and 1999, only five to nine cases a year involved a child wounding or killing another child with a gun. For children under 15, there were a total of 81 accidental gun deaths of all types in 1999. Any death is tragic, but it should be noted that more children under five drowned in bathtubs or plastic water buckets than from guns. 

The gun deaths are covered extensively as well as prominently, with individual cases getting up to 88 separate news stories. In contrast, when children use guns to save lives, the event might at most get one brief mention in a small local paper. Yet these events do occur. 

--In February, 2002, the South Bend, Indiana Tribune reported the story of an 11-year-old boy who shot and killed a man holding a box cutter to his grandmother's neck. Trained to use a firearm, the boy killed the assailant in one shot, even though the man was using his grandmother as a shield. 

--In May, 2001 in Louisianna, a 12-year-old girl shot and killed her mother's abusive ex-boyfriend after he broke into their home and began choking her mother. The story appeared in the New Orleans Advocate. 

--In January, 2001, in Angie, Louisianna, a 13 year-old boy stopped for burglars from entering his home by firing the family's shotgun, wounding one robber and scaring off the other three. The four men were planning on attacking the boy's mother--an 85-pound terminal cancer patient--in order to steal her pain medication. 

As a couple of reporters told me, journalists are uncomfortable printing such positive gun stories because they worry that it will encourage children to get access to guns. The whole process snowballs, however, because the exaggeration of the risks--along with lack of coverage of the benefits--cements the perceived risks more and more firmly in newspaper editors and reporters minds. This makes them ever more reluctant to publish such stories. 

While all this coverage affects the overall gun-control debate, it also directly shapes perceptions of proposed legislation. Take the upcoming debate over renewing the so-called assault-weapons ban. This past summer CNN repeatedly showed a news segment that starts off with a machine gun firing and claims that the guns covered by the ban do much more damage than other guns. CNN later attempted to clarify the segment by saying that the real problem was with the ammunition used in these guns. But neither of these points is true. The law does not deal at all with machine guns (though the pictures of machine guns sure are compelling)--and the "assault weapons" fire the same bullets at the same rate, and accomplish the exact same thing, as other semi-automatic guns not covered by the ban. 

The unbalanced presentation dominates not just the media but also government reports and polling. Studies by the Justice and Treasury Departments have long evaluated just the cost guns impose on society. Every year, Treasury puts out a report on the top 10 guns used in crime, and each report serves as the basis for dozens of news stories. But why not also provide a report--at least once--on the top 10 guns used defensively? Similarly, numerous government reports estimate the cost of injuries from guns, but none measures the number of injuries prevented when guns are used defensively. 

National polls further reinforce these biased perceptions. Not one of the national polls (as far as I was able to find) gave respondents an option to mention that gun control might actually be harmful. Probably the least biased polls still give respondents just two choices: supporting "tougher gun-control legislation to help in the fight against gun crime" or "better enforcement of current laws." Yet, both options ultimately imply that gun control is good. 

But if we really want to save lives, we need to address the whole truth about guns--including the costs of not owning guns. We never, for example, hear about the families who couldn't defend themselves and were harmed because they didn't have guns. 

Discussing only the costs of guns and not their benefits poses the real threat to public safety as people make mistakes on how best to defend themselves and their families. 

John R. Lott, Jr., a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of "The Bias Against Guns" (Regnery 2003).


----------



## Otto

About a week ago, the (anti gun) Center For Disease Control published the results of a recent study they conducted (commisioned?) which concluded essentially that stricter gun control laws have not had any impact on crime.

For some reason the mainstream media didn't give it much airtime.


----------



## Killjoy

Excellent post Nightstick! Covered almost evry point!


----------



## Guest

Nightstick,

Kudo's to you &amp; your research. You've written what the news media (print &amp; TV) don't want to hear or refuse to hear. It's a sad state of affairs if the news won't report happenings which crimes are thwarted through the use or just brandishing a firearm but only report negative uses. I guess it doesn't sell papers or advertisements. 

Nobody cares to see anybody shot but if it's violent criminals behaving that way on other violent criminals, John Q. Public doesn't mind. It's only when some poor innocent is shot down the street that the red flags are raised. "We need more gun control......" etc etc. 

The US has over 10,000 laws nationwide regarding the use of guns. It's about time we started enforcing existing gun laws instead of making newer, more restrictive gun laws that target law abiding citizens.

Last I looked, local PD's did not issue LTC to drug dealers &amp; thugs. Guns that the criminals use are usually stolen or bought through illegal means. 

You guys want more gun control, vote for the Democrats in the upcoming 2004 election. You'll get it, and more taxes too.


----------



## phuzz01

Just to clarify, Nightstick was posting an article written by John Lott, Jr., an economist from the University of Chicago, not his own work. Lott has also written two books, "More Guns Less Crime" (first ed. 1998 second ed. 2000), and "The Bias Against Guns" (2002 I think). As an economist, he basically looks at the relationship between guns and crime from an empirical standpoint. While his econometric techniques have some flaws, his work is pretty fascinating.

[edited to add] Oh yeah, Lott's website is http://www.johnrlott.com/ And if you want some pretty technical pieces (econometrics wise) on both sides of the debate, see David Friedman's webpage on the concealed carry controversy: http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Lott_v_Teret/Lott_Mustard_Controversy.html


----------



## masstoazcop

*Doctors cause more deaths*

I was reading an article a while back which said doctor's cause me preventable deaths a year than deaths caused by firearms. Does anyone know where I can find that article so I can send it to those tree huggers.


----------



## mpd61

Professor Gary Kleck (Univ Florida?) published a good study back in the mid 90's regarding defensive use of firearms in the US. Probably find it quickly by Google.
8)


----------



## Guest

mpd61 said:


> Professor Gary Kleck (Univ Florida?) published a good study back in the mid 90's regarding defensive use of firearms in the US. Probably find it quickly by Google.
> 8)


You mean this one MPD61:

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control-gcdguse.html

8)


----------



## ryan933

Anti-gun bias is rampant in the media and the medical field. My wife's doctor recently asked her if we have any guns in the house? How does such a question has anything to do with my wife's health care? Clearly there is a hidden agenda in that question! :evil:

At work, a flyer from the Mayo Clinic was placed in all employee mailboxes. This flyer contained all sorts of health tips. However, the last page had a screed about how a gun in your home was more likely to kill a child or a friend than an intruder! I contacted the PR guy at the Mayo Clinic and set him straight! I also told my HR manager I never wanted to see a Mayo Clinic flyer in my mailbox again! :evil: :evil:

By the way, if you value your right to keep and bear arms, let me suggest that you join the NRA. You may not agree with everything they say or do, but the fact is they are the most powerful pro gun organization in the nation. A one year membership is about $35. Is your second amendment right worth $35 a year? :shock:

The anti-gun crowd has no problem donating big bucks to Handgun Control Inc. :evil:

Please, support organizations that support your rights!

http://www.nra.org/

Ryan


----------



## mpd61

ryan933 said:


> Anti-gun bias is rampant in the media and the medical field. My wife's doctor recently asked her if we have any guns in the house? How does such a question has anything to do with my wife's health care? Clearly there is a hidden agenda in that question! :evil:
> 
> Please, support organizations that support your rights!
> 
> http://www.nra.org/
> 
> Ryan


My two oldest kids were asked to fill out questionaires at the pediatricians office about three (3) years ago. YUP! you guessed it; Do your parents or anyone else living with you keep guns in the house? WTF???

I'll bet this info is getting routing to the CDC or some other Health and Human Service Department to be used when a future Liberal administration takes the reins eh? Think I'm paranoid? we'll just see won't we?
:shock:


----------



## JoninNH

My brother graduated high school in 2002, every year since 1996 he was given a questionaire at school [in NH] and on it, it asked, "Does anyone in your Household have firearms?" "Have you ever seen a member of your family with a firearm?" and "Have you ever touched a firearm?" Ever year. Like clock work. Now these are supposed to be confidential surveys, right, but the teachers, after walking around to make sure everyone had thiere eyes on thier own papers (aka looking themselves) would collect them. I picked my brother up from school one day and saw a few teachers in the lounge going through the papers, looking at the answers.

According to my brother, it was taught in his HS health class that guns were bad, period, etc.

I am a proud life member of the NRA. I own firearms. And I vote.


----------



## PearlOnyx

I too remember doing one of these surveys in high school, and thinking the same things. I always wondered what really happened to this information. The surveys we filled out were even worse, asking about drug and alcohol activity, sexual experience, guns, domestic abuse etc. Knowing what I know now, I'd probably refuse to fill it out.


----------



## JoninNH

PearlOnyx said:


> I too remember doing one of these surveys in high school, and thinking the same things. I always wondered what really happened to this information. The surveys we filled out were even worse, asking about drug and alcohol activity, sexual experience, guns, domestic abuse etc. Knowing what I know now, I'd probably refuse to fill it out.


His had those drug, alcohol and sex questions on it too, as did mine.

I remember one question, "Are either of your parents an alcoholic? If so, which one?"

And we were both sent to the principals office for refusing to fill out the stupid thing... there was nothing the principal could do to us, we weren't violating the rules so one day a year we sat in the lunchroom for an hour and a half with thirty other students who refused to take the test.


----------



## USMCTrooper

You're Kidding!!!! :shock: Call # 1 would have been to an attorney and call # 2 would have been to the News! Punishment for failing to fill out a survey? I am hoping this was a while ago and not within the last 5 years.


----------



## dcs2244

*politics/progun*

I believe that every law abiding citizen should be required to own a firearm and be trained in its proper and legal use.

Further, if you own or carry a firearm at work, you need to join the NRA.

As far as "ballistic fingerprinting" goes, it is a misnomer: the so-called fingerprint changes over time due to the use of the firearm.

Lastly, I have a bumper sticker posted in my workshop: "More people have died in Ted Kennedy's car than have been killed by my 'assault rifle'"


www.nra.org


----------



## q5_po

An armed society is a polite society!


----------



## JoninNH

USMCTrooper said:


> You're Kidding!!!! :shock: Call # 1 would have been to an attorney and call # 2 would have been to the News! Punishment for failing to fill out a survey? I am hoping this was a while ago and not within the last 5 years.


Sitting in the cafe with thirty other students wasn't a punishment... it was a solution. You see, you can't have us sititng in the classroom with people who are taking it... we'd _disrupt_ them. ::gasp:: What if others refused to take the survey!? Most of us who refused to take the survey spent the time goofing off somewhere in the building.

My brother used the time to study while I decided to take an early leave from school. 8)

But your right, some parents did call the school board and it was in the local paper, but it was toned down news, not real news. It didn't bleed so it didn't lead.

My brother left high school in 2002, so it was two-ta-six years ago for him.


----------



## JoninNH

*Re: politics/progun*



dcs2244 said:


> Lastly, I have a bumper sticker posted in my workshop: "More people have died in Ted Kennedy's car than have been killed by my 'assault rifle'"


I have a bumper sticker that says, "If Guns cause crime then spoons cause Rosie O'Donnell to be fat"

"Most people cannot be trusted, so we should have laws against guns... which most people will abide by because they can be trusted?"

"One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors." -Plato


----------



## dcs2244

q5_po,

That quote is adapted from "Democracy in America", by Alexis De Tocqueville. He began traveling around America in 1831. He noted how polite our society was, owing to the fact that every one carried a gun: if you ran your suck, you had to be prepared to back it up.

It is interesting that the definitive work about America was written by a frenchie...

joninNH, nice one about that pig O'Donnell...

Dave


----------



## PearlOnyx

Personally, the survey was seven years ago for me.


----------



## Irish Wampanoag

I dont believe in gun control but I also dont believe in gun uncontrol!!!!

A simple trip to your local gun range and the characters there who look like the belong to the michigan militia has me convinced there should be some kind of regulations. However not the dumb ass laws Assachusetts have enacted.


scenario conducted through out the country:
A gun buyer comes in to the local gun shop. Oh Hi I am thinking about buying an UZI so I can hunt deer(What he really needs it for is to hunt people):ninja:


----------



## lokiluvr

I believe that gun rights are not much different from driving rights, at the correct age, everyone gets them rights. And what you do with them is up to you, treat them right, and keep them. Abuse them and lose them.


----------



## SOT

Driving is a privilage and is not in the Constitution. You have just relegated a "right" to a privilage. So if you abuse your right come privilage to free speech, religion, press, should we revoke that too?

Why not say slaves are free until they do something that would make them have to become slaves again?



lokiluvr said:


> I believe that gun rights are not much different from driving rights, at the correct age, everyone gets them rights. And what you do with them is up to you, treat them right, and keep them. Abuse them and lose them.


----------



## lokiluvr

Any one that screws up bad enough, will lose their freedom. Plain and simple.


----------



## FedCop

The Second Amendment is definitely a right to the "people," not the state. I believe that gun ownership is about protection....not from government, but from home intruders and other criminals. If a U.S. President is hellbent on destroying his/her country and it's citizens, then small arms will not serve as a deterrent against F-16s, M-1 tanks and balistic missiles. Everyone should read the U.S. Constitution in the modern context. Our forefathers were great thinkers, but they were not infallible.


----------



## FedCop

Lets stop all this bravado bullshit about protecting our constitution with guns! Our constitution is being trampled on every day by right wing nuts and left wing nuts and how many times have Americans protected their constitutional rights with firearms? None, since the end of the 19th century, yet our constitution's meaning has been changed many times since then. If you really want to protect your rights, then participate in the political system and vote in every election. The biggest threat to our constitution is by means of interpretation and perspective, done so by the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government. Seek knowledge and be informed.


----------



## SOT

That is the most bullshit answer I've seen in a long time. Every day the Constitution is protected from enemies both foreign and domestic by arms, not to mention the Bill of Rights, various state constitutions....

Real simple version for you:
The Second is what allows all the others to exist.



FedCop said:


> Lets stop all this bravado bullshit about protecting our constitution with guns! Our constitution is being trampled on every day by right wing nuts and left wing nuts and how many times have Americans protected their constitutional rights with firearms? None, since the end of the 19th century, yet our constitution's meaning has been changed many times since then. If you really want to protect your rights, then participate in the political system and vote in every election. The biggest threat to our constitution is by means of interpretation and perspective, done so by the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of government. Seek knowledge and be informed.


----------



## FedCop

If you don't think the constitution has been changed many times, look at some Supreme Court cases in the 20th Century: Roe V. Wade (right to privacy), Plessy Vs. Ferguson (separate but equal), and what about "FRUITS OF THE POISONOUS TREE THEORY" of the 4th Amendment????????? Show me exactly where that is written in the constitution......it isn't, it was interpreted! Our biggest threat to our rights is internal. Seek knowledge and be informed!


----------



## SOT

Again read the post:

You say that our Constitution has not been defended by arms since the 19th Century...
that's BS of the highest order.



FedCop said:


> If you don't think the constitution has been changed many times, look at some Supreme Court cases in the 20th Century: Roe V. Wade (right to privacy), Plessy Vs. Ferguson (separate but equal), and what about "FRUITS OF THE POISONOUS TREE THEORY" of the 4th Amendment????????? Show me exactly where that is written in the constitution......it isn't, it was interpreted! Our biggest threat to our rights is internal. Seek knowledge and be informed!


----------



## FedCop

The original argument was for using firearms to protect our rights against our OWN Government, which has not happened in over 100 years!!!!!!! 
Terroists and other enemies of this country are not after our constitution, per se, they are trying to destroy our entire way of life. For example, terrorists bombed England, but England does not have a constitution. 


SOT_II said:


> Again read the post:
> 
> You say that our Constitution has not been defended by arms since the 19th Century...
> that's BS of the highest order.


----------



## mpd61

Alright!!!!

Go to your corners!
:BE:


----------



## SOT

When you take the military OATH you are directly affirming your willingness to support and defend the constitution against enemies foreign and domestic...

I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

So by the nature of any military action it is in direct support of defending the Constitution. A threat to our "way of life" is a direct threat to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. A set of documents that was born out of conflict and war and "defended" by arms.

The fact that the guns exist is one form of check and balance, or don't you see that?
Now as to people defending against their government...
Just ask the folks down in NOLA that had defend against looting. Left with no other support, and in the general Lockean view of the social contract, people must take up arms to protect their Constitutional rights for LACK of government. In certain and hopefully limited cases they may have to defend against agents of the Government. 
How many police officers are going to end up without a badge and in jail for looting? No one knows yet but would I be "wrong" for defending my property against looters? Even if they were agents of the state, acting under their own volition? 

There are other examples if you would like to discuss this further...but to say the average citizen doesn't protect his or her Constitution.


----------



## FedCop

SOT_II
Dude, judging by your past posts, you argue for the sake of arguing. Furthermore, your position on the constitution is the same as mine, as stated in my ealier posts! I am an educated man, but for the life of me I cannot figure out what you are debating. I guess this converasation has come to its natural conclusion, but I am not sure what that is. Good luck and stay safe.

UOTE=SOT_II]When you take the military OATH you are directly affirming your willingness to support and defend the constitution against enemies foreign and domestic...

I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

So by the nature of any military action it is in direct support of defending the Constitution. A threat to our "way of life" is a direct threat to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. A set of documents that was born out of conflict and war and "defended" by arms.

The fact that the guns exist is one form of check and balance, or don't you see that?
Now as to people defending against their government...
Just ask the folks down in NOLA that had defend against looting. Left with no other support, and in the general Lockean view of the social contract, people must take up arms to protect their Constitutional rights for LACK of government. In certain and hopefully limited cases they may have to defend against agents of the Government. 
How many police officers are going to end up without a badge and in jail for looting? No one knows yet but would I be "wrong" for defending my property against looters? Even if they were agents of the state, acting under their own volition?

There are other examples if you would like to discuss this further...but to say the average citizen doesn't protect his or her Constitution.[/QUOTE]


----------



## THE RP

Heres to RYAN933 and the unbelievable history and Con. Law Lesson he has just offered to us all...Outstanding job


----------



## Irish Wampanoag

I dont believe in gun control unless the dirtbag I am casing has one!!!!!:cake:


----------



## SOT

Read the thread again and maybe you will figure it out.
Short version:
You said, "Lets stop all this bravado bullshit about protecting our constitution with guns! Our constitution is being trampled on every day by right wing nuts and left wing nuts and how many times have Americans protected their constitutional rights with firearms? None,"

I said, "BS"...
that's what we were talking about...and it seems you are now in agreement that that statement is BS....

Plus what do you expect, I'm evil Bert dammit!



FedCop said:


> SOT_II
> Dude, judging by your past posts, you argue for the sake of arguing. Furthermore, your position on the constitution is the same as mine, as stated in my ealier posts! I am an educated man, but for the life of me I cannot figure out what you are debating. I guess this converasation has come to its natural conclusion, but I am not sure what that is. Good luck and stay safe.
> 
> UOTE=SOT_II]When you take the military OATH you are directly affirming your willingness to support and defend the constitution against enemies foreign and domestic...
> 
> I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
> 
> So by the nature of any military action it is in direct support of defending the Constitution. A threat to our "way of life" is a direct threat to the Constitution and Bill of Rights. A set of documents that was born out of conflict and war and "defended" by arms.
> 
> The fact that the guns exist is one form of check and balance, or don't you see that?
> Now as to people defending against their government...
> Just ask the folks down in NOLA that had defend against looting. Left with no other support, and in the general Lockean view of the social contract, people must take up arms to protect their Constitutional rights for LACK of government. In certain and hopefully limited cases they may have to defend against agents of the Government.
> How many police officers are going to end up without a badge and in jail for looting? No one knows yet but would I be "wrong" for defending my property against looters? Even if they were agents of the state, acting under their own volition?
> 
> There are other examples if you would like to discuss this further...but to say the average citizen doesn't protect his or her Constitution.


[/QUOTE]


----------



## mpd61

SOT II,

You're my hero buddy! I will always defend you. When the FEMA scabs show up at your door, let me know and I'll be right there to help!

FEMA and France, Don't trust em!
:BM:


----------



## SOT

Thanks man!


----------



## JoninNH

"The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms. History shows that all conquerors who have allowed their subjected peoples to carry arms have prepared their own downfall by so doing. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that the underdog is a sine qua non for the overthrow of any sovereignty. So let's not have any native militia or police." -- *Adolph Hitler*, Edict of March 18, 1938

* "Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA. Ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State" -- *Heinrich Himmler*

* "All military type firearms are to be handed in immediately...The SS, SA and Stahlhelm give every respectable German man the opportunity of campaigning with them. Therefore any one who does not belong to one of the above named organizations and who unjustifiably nevertheless keeps his weapon...must be regarded as an enemy of the national government." -- *Director, SA Oberfuhrer Bad Tolz*, March 1933


----------



## Guest

"Guns don't kill people...I do."
*-Some huge guy in Happy Gilmore:naughty: *


----------



## dcs2244

I believe that most excellent 'huge guy' from Happy Gilmore is none other than the same cat who played 'jaws' in the James Bond flix...


----------



## edogs334

I'm too lazy to read through the other 5 pages worth of posts, so maybe the following has already been posted. Also, I'm not a cop (not yet, at least), so my views are from the perspective of a regular joe citizen.

I tend to agree with people who are more in the center of the pro/anti gun issue. Probably a little right of center, come to think of it. FYI: I don't own a gun and the town I live in is probably one of the most restrictive in the Commonwealth (in terms of granting Class A LTC's or even licenses or FID's for small-bore ammo guns). I don't think everyone should be allowed to own a gun (or guns) just because the first amendment says so. I mean, there are a lot of whacko's and coock's out there, some of whom don't even have crimimal records (at least not yet). However, I don't think law-abiding, responsible, upstanding citizens should not be allowed to own a gun for protection if they so desire. Hence, I think that my town has been a bit out of line as of late in terms of some of the highly publicized cases of people they denied Class A LTC's to. One of them was an individual who was in the military and needed to have a gun in order to keep up with the firearms proficiency of his particular unit. I'm pretty sure he's currently suing the town. I mean, to deny a license to a guy like that?! Maybe I don't have all the facts, but THAT's completely whacko. :thumbdow: 

Anyways, I think the issue of gun control isn't quite as simple as some people make it out to be. There are all sorts of "what if's" and other issues that need to be worked out before a truly fair, accountable and responsible regulatory system can replace the one we currently have.


----------



## edogs334

Oh yeah, I only have a pepper spray FID because I know that I would be denied a Class A LTC even if I tried to apply for one. I'm not involved with any abusive 209a spouse and I don't have a job that requires me to carry a firearm. So the "general protection" reason would definitely NOT cut it with the chief in my town. 

On another note, I went to college in Worcester and I heard about a place called Boston Gun Range, which was a facility/business in central MA that offered gun rental, target practice and gun classes. I was wondering if anyone on this forum knows of any places in the metro Boston area that offers comparable facilities/classes.


----------



## edogs334

Some clarification on my original post. I meant to say that not everyone under the entire sun should be allowed to own gun. I agree with having a process of thorough background checks, permitting and registering in place. Imagine what it would be like if a career criminal could just walk into a gun dealer with cash and buy all the guns he/she desired (without a permit or a background check). However, I think that a town is being too stingent when it denies a permit to a person who has thoroughly demonstrated that he/she is a responsible, law-abiding citizen and is physically and psychologically able to own/use a firearm responsibly.


----------



## Curious EMT

EDOGS, i agree with some you say.
But why a gun registry? Thats just a means for the gvt to recover firearms when they ban them. Even RHODE ISLAND has a LAW stating there shal be NO gun registry in the state.

Do it the VT way: NICS check and you're on your way.

I am very pro gun, and it took being the victim of a violent crime to realize this. (I was never an anti, I just had a neutral view). My full time job is anti (as they're located in a more blue state than MA) and their policy is no guns while working or in company car. That rule is blown away by me and a few of my coworkers daily.
My dept. I work part time for has no policy on civy's carying.. I've adopted the dont ask, dont tell. It gets cold and quiet at zero-dark-thirty and I dont have a secure dispatch center... You're *not* getting over that counter....


----------



## Curious EMT

If 86% of cops are pro-gun, why are the police unions anti?


----------



## Killjoy

Influence from the dems, who are overwhelmingly anti-gun. Unions have traditionally been in the dems pocket because of the perceived "socialist" connection of unions and the "blue collar" roots of the democrats, both outdated notions.


----------



## BB-59

Am I pro-gun? Yes! But look at our Attorney General and his basic destruction of all things firearms.

Look at SF and there ban. How many officers ( be honest now) believe only they should carry firearms on or off duty. Look at some of the restrictions that places like Cambridge and Boston place on licensing and ownership.

How much of that stops crime? If you beleive it does please compare places that have very few restrictions and those that have a lot and compare the violent crime.

Hell, SF Politicians feel we should get rid of the military and let police repel invasions!
(Hannity&Colmes)


----------



## stm4710

I am pro gun.


----------



## j809

I am somewhat pro-gun. I don't believe that every Tom,Dick and Harry and Jane should get a Class A LTC and carry guns on them. Less guns out there makes my job safer. I don't carry off-duty, why?, because if i carry the only means of defending my self is through deadly force (no OC,baton,etc). So carry a cellphone and make a call, be a good witness. It amazes me how many people that are NOT police officers love to carry guns with 99% of them having no more training then the NRA basic safety course. I do not have a problem with someone getting a gun to protect their home and go to the range but they should not be able to carry these weapons on them. That is my opinion and I am sure I will get blasted from some of the pro-gun people.


----------



## mpd61

j809 said:


> I am somewhat pro-gun. I don't believe that every Tom,Dick and Harry and Jane should get a Class A LTC and carry guns on them. Less guns out there makes my job safer. I don't carry off-duty, why?, because if i carry the only means of defending my self is through deadly force (no OC,baton,etc). So carry a cellphone and make a call, be a good witness. It amazes me how many people that are NOT police officers love to carry guns with 99% of them having no more training then the NRA basic safety course. I do not have a problem with someone getting a gun to protect their home and go to the range but they should not be able to carry these weapons on them. That is my opinion and I am sure I will get blasted from some of the pro-gun people.


It's only the fondest of memories I have of you that keeps me from giving you the public tongue lashing you have invited..............
:A: 
Seriously though, you make some good points. It's all about rights and choices. Felons and those with mental health issues or tangible concerns in their history/background don't need to carry. 
You need to reconsider your NOT carry. Your Phone/witness point arguably replaces your OC/Baton, however, god forbid bullets start flying you might concede it would be helpful to be able to respond in kind.
:-k


----------



## SOT

There is no "right to drive" in the Constitution. Driving is a privilage, not a right. To to equate one to the other is just plain silly.


----------



## jasonbr

j809 said:


> I am somewhat pro-gun. I don't believe that every Tom,Dick and Harry and Jane should get a Class A LTC and carry guns on them. Less guns out there makes my job safer. I don't carry off-duty, why?, because if i carry the only means of defending my self is through deadly force (no OC,baton,etc). So carry a cellphone and make a call, be a good witness. It amazes me how many people that are NOT police officers love to carry guns with 99% of them having no more training then the NRA basic safety course. I do not have a problem with someone getting a gun to protect their home and go to the range but they should not be able to carry these weapons on them. That is my opinion and I am sure I will get blasted from some of the pro-gun people.


Most of this makes no sense......
tell me again why you can't carry OC? And it's unlawful to defend your home with deadly force.


----------



## j809

jasonbr said:


> Most of this makes no sense......
> tell me again why you can't carry OC? And it's unlawful to defend your home with deadly force.


I am all for carrying a firearm in your home, i don't want every tom,dick and harry with a class A LTC carrying when they go grocery shopping. On the other item, yes i can carry OC and a baton and a set of cuffs and a handgun, but why do that off-duty. If you carry a firearm off-duty and nothing else then the only force you can use if need be is deadly force. Too many nutjobs out there carrying guns on them for no reason. I stopped a woman one morning for speeding and she tells me that she is carrying two handguns on her, an automatic and a snub revolver, because she is going jogging at the track. Give me a break. I saw another guy once who is a florist going shopping at Stop & Shop carrying an 44 Magnum.


----------



## Ranger83

edogs334 said:


> ///On another note, I went to college in Worcester and I heard about a place called Boston Gun Range, which was a facility/business in central MA that offered gun rental, target practice and gun classes. I was wondering if anyone on this forum knows of any places in the metro Boston area that offers comparable facilities/classes.


There's a list of clubs at www.goal.org. Depends on what you're into (rifle, pistol, shotgun) and where you live. If you don't own a rifle (or have a LCF) many clubs host CMP events. CMP = Civilian Marksmanship Program - www.odcmp.com. They will sell you an ex-GI M1 Garand (if you're legal) and use the proceeds to fund marksmanship training.

Ironically MA, whcih has a ton of gun laws, has more competitive shooting events than the other five New England states combined.


----------



## Curious EMT

jasonbr said:


> And it's unlawful to defend your home with deadly force.


It is? I'de like to read that MGL please. The last one I posted up here not only CLEARLY says there's no duty to retreat, it provides civil immunity if it is determined the shooting was "good".

That would be 231/85u


----------



## jasonbr

Curious EMT said:


> It is? I'de like to read that MGL please. The last one I posted up here not only CLEARLY says there's no duty to retreat, it provides civil immunity if it is determined the shooting was "good".
> 
> That would be 231/85u


There is no 'sanctity of the home' clause in MGL's. Granted there is no 'duty to retreat', however, the ONLY time you can use deadly force is when you fear serious bodily injury or death. Unfortunately "protecting your home" doesn't fall under that category. A home is property, and if you use deadly force to defend property your going to jail.....

oh... and there is no such thing as "civil immunity" in Massachusettes - it doesn't exist.

J-809: It just seemed like most of your concernes are already addressed by the MGL's....


----------



## SOT

Yes so only the police can carry...and they will be there 24/7 to protect every citizen, right? 
MA has a pretty tough application process, so one would imagine if they are carrying legal, then they aren't nut jobs...right...all those rules make sense right?



j809 said:


> I am all for carrying a firearm in your home, i don't want every tom,dick and harry with a class A LTC carrying when they go grocery shopping. On the other item, yes i can carry OC and a baton and a set of cuffs and a handgun, but why do that off-duty. If you carry a firearm off-duty and nothing else then the only force you can use if need be is deadly force. Too many nutjobs out there carrying guns on them for no reason. I stopped a woman one morning for speeding and she tells me that she is carrying two handguns on her, an automatic and a snub revolver, because she is going jogging at the track. Give me a break. I saw another guy once who is a florist going shopping at Stop & Shop carrying an 44 Magnum.


----------



## Curious EMT

jasonbr said:


> There is no 'sanctity of the home' clause in MGL's. Granted there is no 'duty to retreat', however, the ONLY time you can use deadly force is when you fear serious bodily injury or death. Unfortunately "protecting your home" doesn't fall under that category. A home is property, and if you use deadly force to defend property your going to jail.....
> 
> oh... and there is no such thing as "civil immunity" in Massachusettes - it doesn't exist.
> 
> J-809: It just seemed like most of your concernes are already addressed by the MGL's....


Correct. There is no "sanctity of the home". You can not use force to defend property. If you're in your house, then you'de be protecting yourself. Someone unlawfuly in your house while you are in it IS a threat to life and safety, and warrants using force to defend one's self...

And the quote on civil liability in regards to such shootings is as follows... Maybe I misunderstand "no person shall be liable"??

"*No person *who is a lawful occupant of a dwelling *shall be liable in an action for damages* for death or injuries to an unlawful occupant of said dwelling resulting from the acts of said lawful occupant; provided, however, that said lawful occupant was in the dwelling at the time of the occurrence and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said lawful dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said lawful occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling."


----------



## jasonbr

Curious EMT said:


> Correct. There is no "sanctity of the home". You can not use force to defend property. If you're in your house, then you'de be protecting yourself. Someone unlawfuly in your house while you are in it IS a threat to life and safety, and warrants using force to defend one's self...
> 
> And the quote on civil liability in regards to such shootings is as follows... Maybe I misunderstand "no person shall be liable"??
> 
> "*No person *who is a lawful occupant of a dwelling *shall be liable in an action for damages* for death or injuries to an unlawful occupant of said dwelling resulting from the acts of said lawful occupant; provided, however, that said lawful occupant was in the dwelling at the time of the occurrence and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said lawful dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said lawful occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling."


You're first statement is completely wrong and will put you in Jail. Just because someone is unlawfully in your home DOES NOT mean you can kill them. That is exactly what the 'sanctity of the home' clause is and Mass does not have one. You should really already know this if you have a gun.

You're second statement is amusing. Your scarcasm is funny, but yes, you misunderstood. There is a very large difference between "civil immunity" and "no person shall be liable". What that law is for is when the person DOES sue you.

But seriously, if you do actually carry a gun, you really should know the laws a lot better. Especially the ones that allow for you to use deadly force - it's very simple: ONLY WHEN YOU FEAR DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY.


----------



## NFAfan

j809 said:


> I am somewhat pro-gun. I don't believe that every Tom,Dick and Harry and Jane should get a Class A LTC and carry guns on them. Less guns out there makes my job safer. I don't carry off-duty, why?, because if i carry the only means of defending my self is through deadly force (no OC,baton,etc). So carry a cellphone and make a call, be a good witness. It amazes me how many people that are NOT police officers love to carry guns with 99% of them having no more training then the NRA basic safety course. I do not have a problem with someone getting a gun to protect their home and go to the range but they should not be able to carry these weapons on them. That is my opinion and I am sure I will get blasted from some of the pro-gun people.


Thats about as lame a stand on any subject as I've ever heard.

You think that having fewer "law abiding citizens" carrying guns makes your job safer?
Boy are you mistaken.

You say you don't carry off duty? What are you going to do when some criminal that recognizes you as the cop who screwed him over gets you into a situation where you need a gun to defend your life? You going to throw your cell phone at him and hope you hit him in a lethal spot? You can still make a call without drawing your weapon, you can still evade a situation by using some other form of weapon at hand, but ultimately if you don't have your gun on you, you have screwed yourself, your family and any other citizen who might be in danger as a result of any conflict that might ensue.

"Better to have and not need than need and not have"....... ring a bell??????

As far as people with an NRA basic safety course goes, you are mistaken again. Your figure of 99% is so far out of the ballpark its laughable. It is widely known that most citizens who carry a gun have far more range time logged than most cops do. Many cops shoot only when its required and thats not much in most departments. The citizens who carry, practice more because its also their hobby and passion and many are damned better shots than most police are.

"Be a good witness".......hard to do if you are ventilated.

I hope and pray that the horseshoe that protects you never falls out of your ass. You will only have to become a victim once and it will change your mind forever.


----------



## j809

You are obviously one of the gun nuts that I am refering to and definitely not a cop. You would argue anything to keep your precious Class A LTC.


----------



## NFAfan

No need to "argue" anything, the facts of the matter speak for themselves.

By the way, I've been carrying a gun since you were ten years old. I think I know a little bit about when and when it should not be used.


----------



## Curious EMT

jasonbr said:


> Just because someone is unlawfully in your home DOES NOT mean you can kill them.
> But seriously, if you do actually carry a gun, you really should know the laws a lot better. Especially the ones that allow for you to use deadly force - it's very simple: ONLY WHEN YOU FEAR DEATH OR SERIOUS INJURY.


Someone unlawfully in your house while you're occupying it is a very real threat to your life, no?
j809, Im not even going to touch your left-wing antics.... Time and again your Brady Campaign-esque beliefs have been proven to be counter-effective; dozens of reports from federal law enforcement agencies can be cited to corroborate that. If the departments that enforece these laws are openly publishing that the laws dont work.....


----------



## jasonbr

Curious EMT said:


> Someone unlawfully in your house while you're occupying it is a very real threat to your life, no?


the act of someone unlawfully stepping foot into your home is not justification to use deadly force.


----------



## kwflatbed

jasonbr said:


> the act of someone unlawfully stepping foot into your home is not justification to use deadly force.


My family comes first, not some scumbag.
Enter my home at your own risk, you will leave feet first and horizontal.


----------



## Curious EMT

jasonbr said:


> the act of someone unlawfully stepping foot into your home is not justification to use deadly force.


Reading comprehension.
Inherent: Occurring as a natural part or consequence.

Being in my house unlawfully is naturally a threat to me and my family's life and safety.

Dont bring a college law book to a gun fight


----------



## Ranger83

SOT_II said:


> Yes so only the police can carry...and they will be there 24/7 to protect every citizen, right?
> MA has a pretty tough application process, so one would imagine if they are carrying legal, then they aren't nut jobs...right...all those rules make sense right?


Actually it depends on the Chief in the city or town. Some automatically grant unrestricted Class A LCF. Others never grant them and make the applicant pursue a hearing. Others allow it but with a more complex process. For example, in Boston, only certain categories (like Pharmacists or Small Business Owners) are ever granted an unrestricted Class A LCF, and are required to qualify out at the range. Boston also bans certain types of firearms that are legal elsewhere in the state. But someone who lives outside of Boston with an unrestricted LCF can carry in Boston as is lawful. Boston politicians are SHOCKED - yes SHOCKED that gun crime has greatly increased while the number of officers deployed has decreased - apparently they thought that criminals obey laws. It's a lot cheaper to pass a law than pay officers to go out and arrest criminals and put them in jail.

The state has some restrictive laws (which will likely cost Mr. Reilly big in the Governor's race) and the requirement to register with the criminal records board does not sit well with most gun owners. But there are still a dozen or so states that ban CCW altogether for citizens, although that number has been decreasing.


----------



## Killjoy

> For example, in Boston, only certain categories (like Pharmacists or Small Business Owners) are ever granted an unrestricted Class A LCF, and are required to qualify out at the range. Boston also bans certain types of firearms that are legal elsewhere in the state. But someone who lives outside of Boston with an unrestricted LCF can carry in Boston as is lawful. Boston politicians are SHOCKED - yes SHOCKED that gun crime has greatly increased while the number of officers deployed has decreased - apparently they thought that criminals obey laws. It's a lot cheaper to pass a law than pay officers to go out and arrest criminals and put them in jail.


So true, brother!


----------



## PBC FL Cop

jasonbr said:


> Just because someone is unlawfully in your home DOES NOT mean you can kill them.


Thankfully it DOES in my state!!!!!!


----------



## jasonbr

Curious EMT said:


> Reading comprehension.
> Inherent: Occurring as a natural part or consequence.
> 
> Being in my house unlawfully is naturally a threat to me and my family's life and safety.
> 
> Dont bring a college law book to a gun fight


You guys are rediculous, there are consequences for your actions, and killing a guy that just wants your DVD player is manslaughter.

Bring that law book to your criminal trial that will put you in jail for the next 5-10. Then you can bring that same book to your civil trial, for wrongful death, that will transfer all your assets to said scumbag's family. (Which is awfully benificial for your family your trying to protect)

Don't get me wrong, if the BG poses a real threat, shoot 'em. But the fact they are in your house unlawfully is not justification to shoot them. The fact is that 9 times out of 10 the BG does not want a confrontation and would rather flee than confront the homeowner (Especially if you are armed!!!!!). If you come hoping around the corner Rambo style, and shoot him dead while he's walking around pinching your stuff, you are going to jail for a long time.

Do whatever you want, just make sure you ask for a jury trial.....


----------



## PBC FL Cop

jasonbr said:


> Don't get me wrong, if the BG poses a real threat, shoot 'em.


Anyone that breaks into my family's home, poses a real threat, failing to recognize this only shows one's lack of training and experience. I'll carry my law book to my trial before I'll have my family carry it to my funeral.


----------



## kwflatbed

A 22 year old with years of experience, need I say more.


----------



## MJP18

I'd rather be seen by twelve than carried by six.


----------



## SOT

LTC



Ranger83 said:


> Actually it depends on the Chief in the city or town. Some automatically grant unrestricted Class A LCF. Others never grant them and make the applicant pursue a hearing. Others allow it but with a more complex process. For example, in Boston, only certain categories (like Pharmacists or Small Business Owners) are ever granted an unrestricted Class A LCF, and are required to qualify out at the range. Boston also bans certain types of firearms that are legal elsewhere in the state. But someone who lives outside of Boston with an unrestricted LCF can carry in Boston as is lawful. Boston politicians are SHOCKED - yes SHOCKED that gun crime has greatly increased while the number of officers deployed has decreased - apparently they thought that criminals obey laws. It's a lot cheaper to pass a law than pay officers to go out and arrest criminals and put them in jail.
> 
> The state has some restrictive laws (which will likely cost Mr. Reilly big in the Governor's race) and the requirement to register with the criminal records board does not sit well with most gun owners. But there are still a dozen or so states that ban CCW altogether for citizens, although that number has been decreasing.


----------



## jasonbr

KW: I'm confused, you have experience in killing home intruders? 

How bout if a couple 14 yr olds were trying to steal beer out of your fridge? Would you go for a head shot or shoot them in the torso? 

Or would this convienently be an exception to everyone's rule of immediate erradication?


----------



## kwflatbed

jasonbr

I am not worried about the 14 year that wants to steal a beer but I am worried about the drug crazed, needing a fix person that you read about in the papers daily. Home invations
are on the rise in every city and town and a lot of them end up with the home owners on the loosing end and dead.

I am 42 years your senior with 64 years of lifes experences.

Yes I have drawn my weapon and we will leave it at that, my family comes first not the scumbag that you seem to want to protect.

Yes I am very Pro Gun. I am a life endowment member of the NRA and also a member of GOAL.

God forbid that you are ever put into a situation that you have to defend your family and your home. Your attitude leads me to belive that there would not be a good ending to the situation.

Gun saftey and training teach you the basics, but lifes experences will teach you more.


----------



## SOT

Look in MA it's pretty simple. If you are in fear for your life or of serious bodily injury, or that of another. You can take the needed action....(basically) and that action is you shoot to stop an action. You don't shoot to warn, wound, kill etc you shoot to stop an action.

Somone is coming at you with a knife, you shoot until you are no longer in fear for your life...you shoot to stop them from coming towards you and (in theory) killing you or doing serious bodily harm.

In MA you will basically be screwed over anyway but the hope is you won't be dead.

The real test is would you rather be dead or in court....your call.



jasonbr said:


> KW: I'm confused, you have experience in killing home intruders?
> 
> How bout if a couple 14 yr olds were trying to steal beer out of your fridge? Would you go for a head shot or shoot them in the torso?
> 
> Or would this convienently be an exception to everyone's rule of immediate erradication?


----------



## jasonbr

I agree. I just don't agree with all the posts saying that whoever enters the house unlawfully is getting shot up, due to the notion that the sheer act of the BG entering your house is a threat to your life, and therefor warrants the use of deadly force. SOT is right, and that's what i've been saying over and over again in this thread. 

You have to assess the threat and act accordingly, not just start pulling the trigger because the BG is unlawfully in your house. 

How about alive and not in court?


----------



## lofu

jasonbr said:


> KW: I'm confused, you have experience in killing home intruders?
> 
> How bout if a couple 14 yr olds were trying to steal beer out of your fridge? Would you go for a head shot or shoot them in the torso?
> 
> Or would this convienently be an exception to everyone's rule of immediate erradication?


If said 14 year olds refused to show me their hands when ordered to do so and were advancing towards me, I would aim for center of mass. Also, my fridge is in my kitchen and right next to me fridge is one of those wooden blocks with about five very sharp knives in it. God forbid one of those 14 year olds dropped my beer and reached for those. Basically, if I were able to articulate that I was in fear of serious bodily injury or death, I'll take that to court.


----------



## BB-59

I find it amazing that the people who want to disarm us the most either have firearms themselves or (like Rosie and Ted K.) have expensive security (with guns) to protect them. What did Barbara Strisseand (spelled wrong, I know) say "gun control is not for people like us".

How about New Orleans? After "civilized society" failed and people were left to fend for themselves the first thing the Mayor, (who left for week to settle his family) did was want to confiscate firearms from private citizens so they could not protect themselves from the scum that was praying on them. I guess in the eyes of liberals it is better to be robbed. raped, and murdered, but not protect yourself or your family.

You never heard of this problem in guess. I wonder what there gun laws are like. Do I think there should be background checks and reasonable requirements? Absolutely!

By the way, why cannot the private citizen in MA own a GLOCK? Because our AG (who owns one) says it is not a safe gun. If that is the case (and it is pure BS) all LE in the state should be made to get rid of them. I guess the rule is "do as I say, and not as I do".


----------



## maracuja

Pro-Gun & God Bless America and the Founding Fathers.


----------



## Guest

maracuja said:


> Pro-Gun & God Bless America and the Founding Fathers.


Amen.


----------



## Irish_Cop_In_Va

As the name may suggest I'm on the job in Virginia, but am orginally from Massachusetts. Having lived in both states I can say that allowing citzens the full breath of their Second Amendments rights like we do here in VA with out question gives people a greater sense of well being and personal safety as opposed to the leftist near communistic laws that prevail back in MA. I hope Ya'll keep up the good fight and be safe out there. By the way I'm new to Mass cops so let me officially say "hi" to everyone. 

-Northern by birth, Southern and gun touting by the Grace of God!...............still love the Red Sox though!


----------

