MicroBalrog
member
Actually she did. She said she doesn't know.
Leftist feminist with a handgun? Interesting concept
- Thread starter Shannon Harper
- Start date
- Status
Actually she did. She said she doesn't know.
Shannon: I have enjoyed reading your posts and find your insights to be well thought out. Still, I am left wondering how you believe a woman with a gun is no safer from a rapist than a woman without a gun. With proper training, including retention and awareness, it would seem to me that a woman would be just as effective as a man when it came to the use of a gun in a hostile situation. Are you saying that women are not as good with guns as men? Also, when you speak of the stats of women having their guns used against them do you believe that most of those women were properly trained in defensive tactics using a gun? I am asking you these questions because I really feel that sex is not a factor that can be used in determining ones ability with a firearm. To take it a step further, I have one last question. What do you think plays more of a role in the event that a person gets a gun taken away from them during an attack? 1: the physical strength or sex of the person 2: the awareness and proper training of the indivual in utilizing their weapon
Monkeyleg
Member.
Welcome, Shannon. If you like debate, you're going to like this forum!
First off, to address your point that FBI stats show that very few criminals a killed with guns, ergo guns are not effective for self defense: one does not follow the other.
Let's look at some other government stats. A 1994 study commissioned by the Department of Justice estimated that 1.5 citizens defend themselves with guns against criminals every year. An ongoing study by the criminology department at Florida State University estimates that number to be as high as 2.5 million.
That's roughly three to five times the number of criminal uses of firearms. Clearly, quite a few citizens have shown themselves to be capable of defending themselves successfully. Citing a low number of justifiable homicides merely points to the restraint show by those who confront criminals. No doubt many if not most of these folks had justification to shoot and kill, but chose not to.
Another point to of yours that needs to be addressed: "Plus, I know that the majority of my friends and people on campus feel safer without guns on campus, and I respect that right to feel safe."
You have many rights: the right to speak freely; the right to assemble; the right to be free from illegal searches and seizures; the right to an attorney; the right to a jury trial; etc. However, nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights is there mention of a right to "feel" anything. I may want to feel happy, but if I'm not, tough luck. You may "feel" that not having guns around is better, but you do not have the right to impose that view on someone who is legally in possession of a gun. You can certainly try to achieve your views legislatively, but your feelings have nothing to do with it.
I believe that if you leave feelings out of your arguments, you may find yourself in agreement with others on this forum more quickly than you imagined.
First off, to address your point that FBI stats show that very few criminals a killed with guns, ergo guns are not effective for self defense: one does not follow the other.
Let's look at some other government stats. A 1994 study commissioned by the Department of Justice estimated that 1.5 citizens defend themselves with guns against criminals every year. An ongoing study by the criminology department at Florida State University estimates that number to be as high as 2.5 million.
That's roughly three to five times the number of criminal uses of firearms. Clearly, quite a few citizens have shown themselves to be capable of defending themselves successfully. Citing a low number of justifiable homicides merely points to the restraint show by those who confront criminals. No doubt many if not most of these folks had justification to shoot and kill, but chose not to.
Another point to of yours that needs to be addressed: "Plus, I know that the majority of my friends and people on campus feel safer without guns on campus, and I respect that right to feel safe."
You have many rights: the right to speak freely; the right to assemble; the right to be free from illegal searches and seizures; the right to an attorney; the right to a jury trial; etc. However, nowhere in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights is there mention of a right to "feel" anything. I may want to feel happy, but if I'm not, tough luck. You may "feel" that not having guns around is better, but you do not have the right to impose that view on someone who is legally in possession of a gun. You can certainly try to achieve your views legislatively, but your feelings have nothing to do with it.
I believe that if you leave feelings out of your arguments, you may find yourself in agreement with others on this forum more quickly than you imagined.
Hkmp5sd
Member
Welcome.
You are looking at the result of only a small portion of all self-defense uses of firearms. Firearms are used approximately 600,000 times per year (conservative estimate) in self defense. In 99.9999% of these, no shots are fired. The mere presence of the firearm is enough to cause the badguy to seek other victims.
This is similar to the use of handguns by law enforcement officers. How many times per year do LEOs draw their weapons to subdue a suspect compared to how many times they fire that weapon in self defense?
In her book, The Death of Right and Wrong, former Los Angeles NOW president Tammy Bruce provides some interesting views on guns and gun control. She is another feminist that managed to overcome the years of leftist indoctrination and learn the truth about the 2nd Amendment and gun control (among other topics).
You are looking at the result of only a small portion of all self-defense uses of firearms. Firearms are used approximately 600,000 times per year (conservative estimate) in self defense. In 99.9999% of these, no shots are fired. The mere presence of the firearm is enough to cause the badguy to seek other victims.
This is similar to the use of handguns by law enforcement officers. How many times per year do LEOs draw their weapons to subdue a suspect compared to how many times they fire that weapon in self defense?
In her book, The Death of Right and Wrong, former Los Angeles NOW president Tammy Bruce provides some interesting views on guns and gun control. She is another feminist that managed to overcome the years of leftist indoctrination and learn the truth about the 2nd Amendment and gun control (among other topics).
A common argument against gun ownership, or guns in certain places (on a school campus, in churches, in hospitals, etc) is that people "would just feel safer if people didn't have guns" while in the location in question, or just in general. This implies one or both of the following:
1. People who carry guns will do bad things with them.
- This is a general condemnation of those who carry guns
2. People who do bad things with guns will obey the rule or law saying that they shouldn't carry into a given place.
- This makes the assumption that lawbreakers will follow laws.
Which do you believe?
I believe that people who do bad things with guns aren't any more likely to obey rules asking them not to carry a gun in a given location any more than they're likely to obey the rules against shooting, mugging or menacing people.
That being the case, a rule against being armed does not disarm the people that shouldn't have guns, but it does disarm the people who would be most trustworthy with firearms. Or so I see it.
Anyone else think it is funny that a very Liberal gentleman from Israel knows more about US gun laws and the history thereof than most Americans?
Hi Shannon, welcome to the war zone .....
I think you may believe, as many do - that the Second Amendment applies to "the militia" which in turn today is the National Guard.
If so, let me point you in this direction ....
Go to the following link:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html
What you will find is the current statute (United States Law) that defines what the "Militia" is. The statute reads as follows:
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > Sec. 311.
Next
Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes
(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)
The classes of the militia are -
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;
and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia
Obviously the Militia of the United States is not limited to the National Guard alone.
What about an individual right to "keep and bare arms?" You will find that the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights had plenty to say about individual rights concerning arms. However, so far as I know not one of them left any written opinion saying that "the people" should be barred from owning arms. But a lot of what they said was in a militia context, because frankly with few exceptions, everyone is part of the Militia. In other words, "The People" were the Militia, and as such were required to provide their own arms and ammunition. Obviously they couldn't do this if they were not allowed to have arms.
The U.S. vs. Miller decision does not contain the words "National Guard." However it does contain extensive quotes from 18th and 19th. Century Militia Acts, and clearly establishes that militia members are required to provide their own weapons and ammunition.
You are obviously interested and concerned about your own safety, and for that purpose you have obtained a handgun. Be thankful that you don't live in Chicago or Washington, DC - where you would be prohibited from owning a legal handgun. You will find that the people here are dedicated to protecting their rights to firearms ownership - and in the process are defending you're right to do the same.
I think you may believe, as many do - that the Second Amendment applies to "the militia" which in turn today is the National Guard.
If so, let me point you in this direction ....
Go to the following link:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html
What you will find is the current statute (United States Law) that defines what the "Militia" is. The statute reads as follows:
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > Sec. 311.
Next
Sec. 311. - Militia: composition and classes
(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)
The classes of the militia are -
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia;
and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia
Obviously the Militia of the United States is not limited to the National Guard alone.
What about an individual right to "keep and bare arms?" You will find that the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights had plenty to say about individual rights concerning arms. However, so far as I know not one of them left any written opinion saying that "the people" should be barred from owning arms. But a lot of what they said was in a militia context, because frankly with few exceptions, everyone is part of the Militia. In other words, "The People" were the Militia, and as such were required to provide their own arms and ammunition. Obviously they couldn't do this if they were not allowed to have arms.
The U.S. vs. Miller decision does not contain the words "National Guard." However it does contain extensive quotes from 18th and 19th. Century Militia Acts, and clearly establishes that militia members are required to provide their own weapons and ammunition.
You are obviously interested and concerned about your own safety, and for that purpose you have obtained a handgun. Be thankful that you don't live in Chicago or Washington, DC - where you would be prohibited from owning a legal handgun. You will find that the people here are dedicated to protecting their rights to firearms ownership - and in the process are defending you're right to do the same.
Don Gwinn
Moderator Emeritus
To punish someone for speaking in a manner which harms others without just cause (like shouting "fire" when there is none to cause a panic, or libeling someone so that they suffer loss) is not an infringement of the right to free speech.
No right can be invoked to protect behavior which actually does harm, whether it be firing a gun toward a person or slander. However, the right to keep and bear arms mentioned in the 2nd Amendment does protect the keeping and bearing of arms by definition. If it doesn't, there's no reason why it would even exist. Keeping a weapon is not an action which does harm or denies the rights of another person, as you can attest from personal experience, nor is keeping ("owning") that weapon.
Any and all analogies in that vein are fatally flawed.
On the other hand, if you're offering, and you have the power to get the Supreme Court to treat the 2nd Amendment just like the 1st Amendment, with all the same "abridgments" and "infringements" the 1st suffers, I'm all for it. Just be careful what you wish for! If we did that, there'd be federal bureaucracies in charge of ensuring that poor people had enough machine guns and there'd be public reloading presses in the libraries.
No right can be invoked to protect behavior which actually does harm, whether it be firing a gun toward a person or slander. However, the right to keep and bear arms mentioned in the 2nd Amendment does protect the keeping and bearing of arms by definition. If it doesn't, there's no reason why it would even exist. Keeping a weapon is not an action which does harm or denies the rights of another person, as you can attest from personal experience, nor is keeping ("owning") that weapon.
Any and all analogies in that vein are fatally flawed.
On the other hand, if you're offering, and you have the power to get the Supreme Court to treat the 2nd Amendment just like the 1st Amendment, with all the same "abridgments" and "infringements" the 1st suffers, I'm all for it. Just be careful what you wish for! If we did that, there'd be federal bureaucracies in charge of ensuring that poor people had enough machine guns and there'd be public reloading presses in the libraries.
For another perspective, Shannon, this is a website done by a very liberal, but pro-gun, feminist.
http://http://www.io.com/~wwwave/self-defense.cgiwww.io.com/~wwwave/display_article.cgi?153
There is also another idea I wanted to toss out to you and that is the the mere idea that *I* am armed may act as a deterent to men who come to realize that they just don't know who to victimize anymore.
An example of that happened last year. We had a temp guy working for our company. He was a jerk. During a potluck, he suggested to another woman and I that we should get him a plate of food because that was what women were for, his mother had done it and his "woman" did it at home. I suggested back that it looked like he was finally going to be losing some weight because if he was waiting around for someone to wait on him, he was going to die of starvation. Our co-workers laughed and one told him : "you'd better watch out..she carrys a gun..we don't piss her off." (he was kidding..they ticked me off all the time! ) The guy was shocked..and just looked at me kind of annoyed looking and said "man..you just can't **** with chicks anymore, you don't know if one of them will go nuts and shoot you."..well, you think? This guy as it turns out was fired for lying on his application about his criminal background, which included a bunch of violent stuff like domestic assault, assault on a police officer and assault with a deadly weapon, on more than one occasion..so..if he's concerned that the next time he gets liquored up and wants to mess with someone, that someone might mess back, then good. That person may not even have a gun..but the fact is this guy is not going to know for sure and is probably going to think about it.
http://http://www.io.com/~wwwave/self-defense.cgiwww.io.com/~wwwave/display_article.cgi?153
There is also another idea I wanted to toss out to you and that is the the mere idea that *I* am armed may act as a deterent to men who come to realize that they just don't know who to victimize anymore.
An example of that happened last year. We had a temp guy working for our company. He was a jerk. During a potluck, he suggested to another woman and I that we should get him a plate of food because that was what women were for, his mother had done it and his "woman" did it at home. I suggested back that it looked like he was finally going to be losing some weight because if he was waiting around for someone to wait on him, he was going to die of starvation. Our co-workers laughed and one told him : "you'd better watch out..she carrys a gun..we don't piss her off." (he was kidding..they ticked me off all the time!
) The guy was shocked..and just looked at me kind of annoyed looking and said "man..you just can't **** with chicks anymore, you don't know if one of them will go nuts and shoot you."..well, you think? This guy as it turns out was fired for lying on his application about his criminal background, which included a bunch of violent stuff like domestic assault, assault on a police officer and assault with a deadly weapon, on more than one occasion..so..if he's concerned that the next time he gets liquored up and wants to mess with someone, that someone might mess back, then good. That person may not even have a gun..but the fact is this guy is not going to know for sure and is probably going to think about it.Shannon................perps are usually NOT killed when a victim resorts to armed self defense. Often,the gun is not even fired. The flaw in this logic is equating a successful use of a firearm for self defense with the bad guy being killed.
Lets say you're attacked (I hope it never really happens) .....you resist.....buying time to go for the Bersa. Your attacker comes at you again only to find himself looking into the barrel of your pistol. He decides to back off and get out of Dodge. You didn't kill him.......you never fired a shot but you did protect yourself. The outcome was still very good. See what I'm getting at??
My wife also has a Bersa .380. It's a good gun for its moderate price. Many lower priced guns are junk.......the Bersa is not. It's actually a good value.
Welcome to THR. I'm a new member myself. You'll like it here.
Lets say you're attacked (I hope it never really happens) .....you resist.....buying time to go for the Bersa. Your attacker comes at you again only to find himself looking into the barrel of your pistol. He decides to back off and get out of Dodge. You didn't kill him.......you never fired a shot but you did protect yourself. The outcome was still very good. See what I'm getting at??
My wife also has a Bersa .380. It's a good gun for its moderate price. Many lower priced guns are junk.......the Bersa is not. It's actually a good value.
Welcome to THR. I'm a new member myself. You'll like it here.
Shannon, you're obviously doing a lot of research and obtaining a lot of statistics and numbers, to which I offer the quote, " Numbers don't lie, but Liars use numbers."
You can mold numbers to fit any agenda. Politicians do it every day. And by signing on to this forum, you've shown that you're willing to look at the same types of figures put into a different (and in my opinion, a correct) perspective.
And on another similar note; your statistics about handgun effectiveness is COMPLETELY flawed; you quote statistics regarding self defense "kills", which has nothing to do with the effectiveness of a handgun. The use of a handgun to simply deter a rapist or murderer far outweighs the number of times a trigger is pulled in self defense. Just as the threat of a gun keeps criminals' victims in submission.....it works both ways successfully.
I certainly hope I am never forced to even unlock my safe under duress, but after being the victim of armed robbery twice, I most definately will use my handguns to defend my home and family.
We don't shoot to kill, we shoot to survive.
You can mold numbers to fit any agenda. Politicians do it every day. And by signing on to this forum, you've shown that you're willing to look at the same types of figures put into a different (and in my opinion, a correct) perspective.
And on another similar note; your statistics about handgun effectiveness is COMPLETELY flawed; you quote statistics regarding self defense "kills", which has nothing to do with the effectiveness of a handgun. The use of a handgun to simply deter a rapist or murderer far outweighs the number of times a trigger is pulled in self defense. Just as the threat of a gun keeps criminals' victims in submission.....it works both ways successfully.
I certainly hope I am never forced to even unlock my safe under duress, but after being the victim of armed robbery twice, I most definately will use my handguns to defend my home and family.
We don't shoot to kill, we shoot to survive.
I think a case study would be appropriate at this point.
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=48610
Please explain the consequences if someone in a similar situation does not have a right to carry a gun, and avoids carrying one so as not to violate the law?
As mentioned previously, the CDC just announced that they have no good evidence that gun control laws prevent crime. That means that there's no good evidence that lack of gun control laws increases crime, either. In the absence of such evidence, why not let everyone carry? It's already been tried in VT and AK, and surprise -- there's no blood running in the streets. Even if there weren't that pesky second amendment, and even if there weren't an unenumerated right to personal self defense by any reasonable means (nukes, MOABs, and bioweapons are out, at least for self defense), doesn't there need to be a practical reason to ban guns beyond simply, "they scare some people?" If we're going to ban everything that scares people, let's start with halloween costumes. (Ever since seeing Donnie Darko, skeleton costumes have begun to scare me, and let's not forget (Munch) Scream masks.)
http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=48610
Please explain the consequences if someone in a similar situation does not have a right to carry a gun, and avoids carrying one so as not to violate the law?
As mentioned previously, the CDC just announced that they have no good evidence that gun control laws prevent crime. That means that there's no good evidence that lack of gun control laws increases crime, either. In the absence of such evidence, why not let everyone carry? It's already been tried in VT and AK, and surprise -- there's no blood running in the streets. Even if there weren't that pesky second amendment, and even if there weren't an unenumerated right to personal self defense by any reasonable means (nukes, MOABs, and bioweapons are out, at least for self defense), doesn't there need to be a practical reason to ban guns beyond simply, "they scare some people?" If we're going to ban everything that scares people, let's start with halloween costumes. (Ever since seeing Donnie Darko, skeleton costumes have begun to scare me, and let's not forget (Munch) Scream masks.)
Oh, boy.
Umm. Hmm. Have you actually read US v. Miller? Google can locate the actual US v. Miller case, or you can hit the high points here:
http://www.jpfo.org/miller.htm
*sigh*
Is it so much to ask that Federal judges read Federal law? Am I asking too much for a Federal judge to bloody well know what he's opining about?
The US Code is the body and text of Federal Law in the United States. Title 10 of the US Code deals with the military of the United States.
Perusing Title 10 of the Law of the Land, we find Chapter 13, entitled (catchily enough) The Militia; and it defines exactly what, and who, the militia is:
Egads. Federal Law. Right there in black-and-white. And the judge doesn't have a clue. Bad judge! Bad, bad judge!
In case you don't take my word for it, Cornell has the US Code on line here:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/
Check for yourself.
LawDog
Umm. Hmm. Have you actually read US v. Miller? Google can locate the actual US v. Miller case, or you can hit the high points here:
http://www.jpfo.org/miller.htm
*sigh*
Is it so much to ask that Federal judges read Federal law? Am I asking too much for a Federal judge to bloody well know what he's opining about?
The US Code is the body and text of Federal Law in the United States. Title 10 of the US Code deals with the military of the United States.
Perusing Title 10 of the Law of the Land, we find Chapter 13, entitled (catchily enough) The Militia; and it defines exactly what, and who, the militia is:
(Highlights are mine, for dramatic emphasis.)
Egads. Federal Law. Right there in black-and-white. And the judge doesn't have a clue. Bad judge! Bad, bad judge!
In case you don't take my word for it, Cornell has the US Code on line here:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/
Check for yourself.
LawDog
another okie
Member
One argument about types of weapons covered by the Second Amendment is that it protects the right of citizens to possess all those types of weapons which are appropriate to their role as militia, which would be infantry weapons - rifles, shotguns, pistols, submachine guns - and not crew-served weapons such as artillery or nuclear weapons.
I'm not saying I agree with that point of view, so don't flame me, just that it's a good way to deal with the folks who say "You want every nut in the world to have nuclear weapons."
I'm not saying I agree with that point of view, so don't flame me, just that it's a good way to deal with the folks who say "You want every nut in the world to have nuclear weapons."
feedthehogs
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2003
- Messages
- 1,801
Post deleted by moderator. FTH, you have e-mail.
Preacherman
Preacherman
Standing Wolf
Member in memoriam
More women not only buy into "this idea," but are buying and carrying guns. More power to them.
Please don't quote the VPC without citing. It wastes people's time to read it. Most of us have read enough of that garbage to know exactly where to stuff the rest.
While you're doing "research," try www.guncite.com
While you're doing "research," try www.guncite.com
Phil in Seattle
Member
Actually Old Fuff if you look closely you will see that it gets even worse than that for the folks that push the National Guard is the only militia line.
The National Guard cannot at all be taken to be the militia that is spoken of in the Second Amendmant., because in all reality the National Guard is a Federal force and that would mean that the 2A is saying that the Federal Government cannot disarm itself.
The National Guard is part of the Army, and not the militia.
This is made clear in the 1990 Supreme Court case Perpich vs. Department of Defense.
Then Minnesota Gov. Rudy Perpich claimed the DoD violated the Constitution when it ordered the Minnesota National Guard (which he claimed was the 'state militia') to duty outside the state without his consent or that of the state legislature.
The Supreme Court ruled against Perpich. It held the National Guard is an integral component of the US Army Reserve system (it has been since 1916). It further supported its ruling by specifying the difference between the “special militia†(in this case the Minnesota Guard) instead of the “general militia†(citizens with privately procured and owned arms) as expressed in the 2nd Amendment.
Basically the National Guard does exactly what the federal government tells it to do regardless of what the Governor in their home state wishes.
Since 1933 all persons who have enlisted in a State National Guard unit have simultaneously enlisted in the National Guard of the United States. Their National Guard enlistment (Federal) takes priority.
Langenator
Member
Actually Okie, infantry weapons do include what the Army classifies as 'crew-served weapons'-at least, if you want to go higher than the squad level.
The Table of Organization & Equipment (TO&E) for a 9 man infantry squad includes the following:
7 M4 or M16 assault carbines/rifles. 2 of these have M203 40mm grenade launchers attached.
2 M249 Squad Automatic Weapons-belt fed, 5.56mm, but still not crew served according to the Army.
At platoon level, you have a MG section, 5-7 soldiers, containing 2 M240B or M60 machine guns, the rest armed with M4/M16s. These MGs are crew served, by Army definition.
And at company level, even in light infantry units, you have 60mm mortars and anti-tank missiles. Of course, Mechanized Infantry has armored vehicles.
Of course, none of these weapons, with the possible exception of some pre-1986 M16s and M60s, can be purchased by John Q. Public.
If the intent of the Framers was for a citizen militia, responsible for providing their own arms, and those arms being contemporary infantry arms, and this intent was secured by 2A, then all the gun control acts, from 1934 onward, should be unconstitutional.
And for Shannon-
The DoJ National Crime Victimization Survey, 1979-1987, showed that a woman who did not resist a crime being committed against her was 2.5 times more likely to be seriously injured than one who resisted with a gun. This resistance includes the simple act of brandishing the weapon.
The Table of Organization & Equipment (TO&E) for a 9 man infantry squad includes the following:
7 M4 or M16 assault carbines/rifles. 2 of these have M203 40mm grenade launchers attached.
2 M249 Squad Automatic Weapons-belt fed, 5.56mm, but still not crew served according to the Army.
At platoon level, you have a MG section, 5-7 soldiers, containing 2 M240B or M60 machine guns, the rest armed with M4/M16s. These MGs are crew served, by Army definition.
And at company level, even in light infantry units, you have 60mm mortars and anti-tank missiles. Of course, Mechanized Infantry has armored vehicles.
Of course, none of these weapons, with the possible exception of some pre-1986 M16s and M60s, can be purchased by John Q. Public.
If the intent of the Framers was for a citizen militia, responsible for providing their own arms, and those arms being contemporary infantry arms, and this intent was secured by 2A, then all the gun control acts, from 1934 onward, should be unconstitutional.
And for Shannon-
The DoJ National Crime Victimization Survey, 1979-1987, showed that a woman who did not resist a crime being committed against her was 2.5 times more likely to be seriously injured than one who resisted with a gun. This resistance includes the simple act of brandishing the weapon.
P95Carry
Moderator Emeritus
Shannon ... may I add my welcome to you also!
I subscribed to this thread from the get go ... and most points have been well dealt with ..... so hardly need to add much as other than pure repetition.
But, do think tho ..... any and every woman ... with adequate training ... should (and could) carry ..... as a means of protection against attack by would-be rapists, muggers .. whatever.
Indeed ... the very possession and display of a carry piece has and will in almost all cases defuze a situation ... NO need for shots fired. It is time that you ladies were demonstating your total reluctance to being a victim.
The cases where '' the weapon was used against them'' are relatively few and far between .... but the emphasis has to be on training ... adequate at least such that the potential victim wins out ..... and as you'll see quoted in many threads here ... ''situational awareness '' ..... counts for much.
I reiterate also .. remember and remember well ..... the ONLY gun users and carriers that represet real threat are .... and always will be .... the criminal fraternity ...... and NO amount of legislation directed at the legal and responsible gun owner, will change that. It is ONLY the non law followers that are the threat ...nd they will ALWAYS ... always, have guns.
I subscribed to this thread from the get go ... and most points have been well dealt with ..... so hardly need to add much as other than pure repetition.
But, do think tho ..... any and every woman ... with adequate training ... should (and could) carry ..... as a means of protection against attack by would-be rapists, muggers .. whatever.
Indeed ... the very possession and display of a carry piece has and will in almost all cases defuze a situation ... NO need for shots fired. It is time that you ladies were demonstating your total reluctance to being a victim.
The cases where '' the weapon was used against them'' are relatively few and far between .... but the emphasis has to be on training ... adequate at least such that the potential victim wins out ..... and as you'll see quoted in many threads here ... ''situational awareness '' ..... counts for much.
I reiterate also .. remember and remember well ..... the ONLY gun users and carriers that represet real threat are .... and always will be .... the criminal fraternity ...... and NO amount of legislation directed at the legal and responsible gun owner, will change that. It is ONLY the non law followers that are the threat ...nd they will ALWAYS ... always, have guns.
Phil:
Yup, I know what you’re saying. It goes back to the Constitution, Section 8/15 & 16, and the Militia Act of 1792, which specified under what circumstances the president could take control of a state’s militia. Today the National Guard still remain under state control, unless federalized - as is going on now with regards to service in Iraq. Yes, they are part of the DOD which among other things provides weapons and equipment.
The point I was trying to make to Shannon was that the Second Amendment was not intended to “protect†any “rights†of states to maintain a militia. Throughout the Bill of Rights, people have rights; government(s) has powers (or restrictions on them).
To this country’s founders the militia and the people were one and the same. “The†principal military force was to be each individual with a musket over the fireplace. In time of war or emergency they would become part of a Volunteer or Militia Regiment, or join one of the Regular Military Services.
The right of individuals to “bare arms†as individuals was a necessary and obvious component of the militia system. Again, the founders did not want the militia to be dependent on the government. Once that happened they might become part of the problem, rather then a bulwark to insure that government couldn’t usurp the other rights and freedoms.
Be that as it may, if you want to tramatize a young, male liberal tell him that he's in the Militia of the United States ...
And then prove it ....
Yup, I know what you’re saying. It goes back to the Constitution, Section 8/15 & 16, and the Militia Act of 1792, which specified under what circumstances the president could take control of a state’s militia. Today the National Guard still remain under state control, unless federalized - as is going on now with regards to service in Iraq. Yes, they are part of the DOD which among other things provides weapons and equipment.
The point I was trying to make to Shannon was that the Second Amendment was not intended to “protect†any “rights†of states to maintain a militia. Throughout the Bill of Rights, people have rights; government(s) has powers (or restrictions on them).
To this country’s founders the militia and the people were one and the same. “The†principal military force was to be each individual with a musket over the fireplace. In time of war or emergency they would become part of a Volunteer or Militia Regiment, or join one of the Regular Military Services.
The right of individuals to “bare arms†as individuals was a necessary and obvious component of the militia system. Again, the founders did not want the militia to be dependent on the government. Once that happened they might become part of the problem, rather then a bulwark to insure that government couldn’t usurp the other rights and freedoms.
Be that as it may, if you want to tramatize a young, male liberal tell him that he's in the Militia of the United States ...
And then prove it ....
Gary Kleck of Florida State University pegs that figure at around 1%. But I am unaware of the actual circumstances. Was the stolen gun on-person or in a sock drawer? Also, police are disarmed quite often, and when they are, they are shot 96% of the time. Would you disarm the police? Citizens don't have to arrest, frisk and handcuff their assailants. Instead they can retreat under the power of their firearm.
Slim if you've left your firearms behind.
It is very plausible. Galco and Bianchi make some nice CCW purses (or fanny packs). I would rather do actual on-body carry, rather than in purses and packs.
They have no right to feel safe, unless you take the tack of FDR's "freedom from fear," routine. Those are what are as "positive rights." That is, they are not natural rights but rights which government can "grant" legislatively. However, it never works and results in the legislature passing all sorts of laws, and layer upon layer of laws designed to do what the last laws failed to do. That is just one basis in socialism. Baaaad mojo.
It might or it might not. But that is not the debate here. The debate is whether a slim legislative majority of 50%+1 can take your tools way. They can, but it ain't right.
According to the studies I have read, rape, and other violent attacks are usually without weapons. Only 8% of each carry a weapon of any sort (knife, gun, club, screw driver), and in the case of rape, that weapon is often a knife, taken from the victim's knife drawer.
Gray Peterson
Member
Shannon,
Let's dispense with the second amendment arguments, or self defense arguments.
How can one argue that the University of Utah, as a creation, funded by, and therefor controlled by, the state of Utah, have any sort of rights? I don't understand how the University of Utah can claim to be a corporate entity therefor entitled to private landlord status over UofU property and therefor have unlimited and unqualified right to ban carry permit holders from their property, even by visitors.
Taken to it's most logical extreme, a state funded university that is headed up by homophobic bigots at the level of the board of directors or trustees or whoever could decide to ban gays from campus because they are "diseased" and "spread moral degeneracy". There's no specific protection at the state level against such determination, in fact given the political makeup of the state, you'd have plenty of supporters.
But that would be wrong, wouldn't it?
Even more so, the State Legislature has made clear that only the Legislature has the authority to regulate firearms. This is made more clear by the redefining of the dangerous weapons statute recently. So why does the U of U keep fighting for a right that it doesn't have?
Let's dispense with the second amendment arguments, or self defense arguments.
How can one argue that the University of Utah, as a creation, funded by, and therefor controlled by, the state of Utah, have any sort of rights? I don't understand how the University of Utah can claim to be a corporate entity therefor entitled to private landlord status over UofU property and therefor have unlimited and unqualified right to ban carry permit holders from their property, even by visitors.
Taken to it's most logical extreme, a state funded university that is headed up by homophobic bigots at the level of the board of directors or trustees or whoever could decide to ban gays from campus because they are "diseased" and "spread moral degeneracy". There's no specific protection at the state level against such determination, in fact given the political makeup of the state, you'd have plenty of supporters.
But that would be wrong, wouldn't it?
Even more so, the State Legislature has made clear that only the Legislature has the authority to regulate firearms. This is made more clear by the redefining of the dangerous weapons statute recently. So why does the U of U keep fighting for a right that it doesn't have?
3 gun
Member
You’re at least 50% correct with this statement. Gun control laws can't work. A law about a certain type of gun, size of a magazine, or rate of fire does nothing but make criminals of people who have done no harm to anyone with their now illegal firearm. It does nothing to stop the criminal misuse of a firearm. You should only seek to punish those who do harm to others.
Firearm laws are about power and control, not crime.
Orthonym
Member
Welcome, Shannon!
And may I say, pay no attention to the convoluted arguments espoused by the theoretical guys here; Of the four women who are willing to answer my phone calls, three of them have nice little cute little S&W J-frame revolvers.
No, folks, not to shoot me, but because they're intelligent, prudent women. (I hope that's the case )
And may I say, pay no attention to the convoluted arguments espoused by the theoretical guys here; Of the four women who are willing to answer my phone calls, three of them have nice little cute little S&W J-frame revolvers.
No, folks, not to shoot me, but because they're intelligent, prudent women. (I hope that's the case
)- Status
Similar threads
- Locked