US Gun debate formerly "Tough Times apparently" from Versa forum

[Knightro2]

Again I'm bored at work but now currently on "lock down". There was an incident at one of our warehouses where 2 people got into an fight. One guy went and grabbed a gun from his car, shot the guy in the chest, and then shot himself in the head. Exciting stuff. Luckily the guy who got shot in the chest looks like he'll be ok from what I've been able to find out.

Anyhoo, thought I would just post that. The forum has been kinda quiet lately.

[srellim234]

I know that people aren't thinking rationally when they do stuff like that, but if you have a problem with someone and you're going to shoot yourself, why take the problem person with you?

Anyway, sorry to hear about the hassle. I hope everything gets cleared up and back to normal for you quickly.

[Knightro2]

Well, this also stems from a new law that just went into action in Florida. It allows a person who legally owns a firearm to keep it in their car even while at work. Gotta love Florida for the retirees screwing up elections and gun toten' good ol' boys and their guns.

[keanucosmo]

I don't think it has anything to do with the new law. We had a similar incident back in the 80's at my workplace. Well before Georgia's law that allows people to legally keep guns in their car at a workplace. People always carried guns in their cars anyway, the law just meant they couldn't get fired for doing it.

[Bubs daddy]

Quote »Well, this also stems from a new law that just went into action in Florida. It allows a person who legally owns a firearm to keep it in their car even while at work.[/quote]No, it stems from some unstable guy who selfishly and irresponsibly tried to kill someone. This guy could have walked into a mall and done the same thing.

He could have hit the guy over the head with a wrench. Or run him over with a forklift.

Any US citizen can open carry here in AZ. People aren't grabbing their gun at every chance and shooting each other. This is an unfortunate incident.

And all the university shootings. How could this happen? There's a law that prohibits firearms on school grounds.

[Ginsu]

Don't think I'm being preachy here against Americans, because Canada has just as many problems (like racism against Native people, especially on the prairies), but it seems to me like the law is a symptom of an underlying culture of violence throughout society. Why do you need to carry a gun on your way to work in a large city like Tampa? You're not going to be hunting deer on the freeway. Is it for self defense? If so, then the problem is self-made. But even passing a law banning all firearms at this point would do nothing to stop the culture of violence. People need to change their beliefs about community, social responsibilities, etc. There seem to be fewer citizen-on-citizen violent crimes in places like Japan, China, and India, which have far bigger cities than us.

(It probably wouldn't hurt to tone down the glorification of violence in Hollywood, too. But I'm just as guilty in that part).

[Bubs daddy]

Quote »Why do you need to carry a gun on your way to work in a large city like Tampa? You're not going to be hunting deer on the freeway. Is it for self defense? If so, then the problem is self-made. But even passing a law banning all firearms at this point would do nothing to stop the culture of violence. People need to change their beliefs about community, social responsibilities, etc.[/quote]It's not a question of need. It's in our Constitution. The right to bear arms is a right. A person does not have to carry if they don't want, but it is a constitutionally protected right.
Modified by Bubs daddy at 10:48 PM 2/17/2009

[skyliner34gtr]

Sorry to be a bit negative but the truth is the truth and dont take offense to it......Although you guys have the "right" to bear arms, it is not "right" to do so. That just shows how screwed up the US really is. What it would be like to always carry a firearm, I would never know but I DO know that in doing so, you are provoking violence and always causing it. Guns dont kill people, people kill people!!

I like to think of the US as our neighbor and ally, but in true honesty, if the US was more like Canada, maybe they too would of held the title of the worlds best country to live in. Paying for a doctor, constantly watching over your back, millions of homeless people, and some states being habited by people who dont know how to count to 10, dont know how to distinguish tuna from chicken and cant even recite their states and capitals like the alphabet, oh, and cant say the alphabet included. But, like all countries, we have our share of people as well, just not as much.

http://www.english-vancouver.c...pment/

[fjwagner]

It's not a question of need. It's in our Constitution. The right to bear arms is a right. A person does not have to carry if they don't want.

Modified by Bubs daddy at 4:02 PM 2/17/2009

when the Constitution was written, the right to bear arms was necessary to bring together the voluntary militias and have the ability to fight at a moment's notice. I do not think our founding father's anticipated people wandering the streets with concealed firearms. I am very much a conservative, but I struggle with the argument you bring forward. Fred

[Bubs daddy]

Quote »Sorry to be a bit negative but the truth is the truth and dont take offense to it......Although you guys have the "right" to bear arms, it is not "right" to do so. That just shows how screwed up the US really is. What it would be like to always carry a firearm, I would never know but I DO know that in doing so, you are provoking violence and always causing it. Guns dont kill people, people kill people!!I like to think of the US as our neighbor and ally, but in true honesty, if the US was more like Canada, maybe they too would of held the title of the worlds best country to live in. Paying for a doctor, constantly watching over your back, millions of homeless people, and some states being habited by people who dont know how to count to 10, dont know how to distinguish tuna from chicken and cant even recite their states and capitals like the alphabet, oh, and cant say the alphabet included. But, like all countries, we have our share of people as well, just not as much.

[/quote]Not right to do so? LOL. So you're the arbiter of what is right regarding our constitution?

It is precisely our right and also right to carry if one chooses to in this country. Your ignorance is indeed frightful and a gun no more provokes violence than driving your daily commute provokes racing.

I won't justify your other comments with a response.

And to be more like Canada? No thanks.

[Bubs daddy]

Quote »when the Constitution was written, the right to bear arms was necessary to bring together the voluntary militias and have the ability to fight at a moment's notice. I do not think our founding father's anticipated people wandering the streets with concealed firearms. I am very much a conservative, but I struggle with the argument you bring forward. Fred

[/quote]Such a position is not a conservative position.

The founding fathers did not anticipate internet pornography either. So do we nix the first amendment of free speech? Indeed, like the person yelling "Fire!" in a theater, with rights comes responsibilities. The responsibilities for the concealed carrier are his. I can't brandish a firearm for no good reason. I can't carry in certain places. I can't just shoot my gun for any reason. I have the responsibility.

Explain to me how Washington DC, which have some of the most restrictive laws on guns has such a high incidence of gun violence? People can't get a permit there to carry concealed.

Cars kill far, far more people than guns do every year. Maybe we should all stop driving.
Modified by Bubs daddy at 4:41 PM 2/17/2009

[skyliner34gtr]

Not right to do so? LOL. So you're the arbiter of what is right regarding our constitution?

It is precisely our right and also right to carry if one chooses to in this country. Your ignorance is indeed frightful and a gun no more provokes violence than driving your daily commute provokes racing.

I won't justify your other comments with a response.

And to be more like Canada? No thanks.

I told you not to take offense and you did, so you have indeed the same ignorance that I have. Guns dont kill people, people kill people!! I think people should be screened with regards to mentality and personal issues ever so often, sorry you feel that way.

Wouldnt you like to go to a doctor and not pay for once? Hows about walk down the street and not having to look over your shoulder because of some gang? What about living in a country that is not sighted by every terrorlst in the world? I think you would like it here, but afraid to admit it.

[7speed]

Wouldnt you like to go to a doctor and not pay for once?

Umm...Canadians DO pay to go see their doctors. Have you compared the personal tax rate thresholds to those in the US? We pay more tax earlier than they do. And having a federally mandated program (universal medical care) administered provincially never made sense to me, but up until Jan 09, Albertans paid premiums for their 'right' to see a doctor without pulling out their wallet. I'm pretty sure that in BC, premiums are required.

Hows about walk down the street and not having to look over your shoulder because of some gang?

Every major city in Canada has gang issues. I know that in Calgary and Vancouver the problems are getting steadily worse. It's starting to spread beyond rival gangs killing each other, but killing bystanders as well. That being said, I don't look over my shoulder everywhere I go. If I'm gonna get shot, it will happen no matter which way I look. And it would happen whether I carry a firearm or not.

What about living in a country that is not sighted by every terrorlst in the world?

Are you a terrorlst? Do you think like one? If I may be permitted to make a limited judgement call, I would say that you don't. I find it ironic therefore that one who does not think like a terrorlst can accurately tell what 'every terrorlst' thinks. I personally believe that Canada is just as likely a terrorlst target as Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Yemen, and the USA. We have the largest proven oil reserves in the world, and that alone makes us very inviting to those with significant forces. Most Canadians joke about West Edmonton Mall having more submarines than the Canadian Navy...

I think you would like it here, but afraid to admit it.

I think you're right there though. I love Canada, and I am very proud to be Canadian. My love for my country despite its many issues also helps me see why Americans are so patriotic. I wish more Canadians were as passionate about their country as most Americans that I know are.

I suppose that to outsiders, Americans at times appear arrogant, but it is merely patriotism, and similarly, (most) Canadians are seen as laid back, cheerful people, when really it is just apathy to how things happen in our country. A nation where less than half of eligible voters make the little effort required to participate in democratic events is appalling to me. I remember my grandparents telling me about what it was like to live in a normally democratic nation which was occupied by the Nazis in WWII.

It saddens me greatly at how many people trifle with the fundamental right enjoyed by both Canadians and Americans to take part in and have a say about who runs their country, and how it gets run.

I'm rambling now, so I'll shut up.

To the OP, that event really sucks, its a tragedy that could have happened anywhere.

And as it's a Versa forum, something Nissan related:

Who loves their Versa? I do! I do!

Okay, really, I'm shutting up now.

[Bubs daddy]

Quote »I told you not to take offense and you did, so you have indeed the same ignorance that I have. Guns dont kill people, people kill people!! I think people should be screened with regards to mentality and personal issues ever so often, sorry you feel that way.

Wouldnt you like to go to a doctor and not pay for once? Hows about walk down the street and not having to look over your shoulder because of some gang? What about living in a country that is not sighted by every terrorlst in the world? I think you would like it here, but afraid to admit it.

[/quote]Afraid? Who said anything about not liking Canada? First of all, I have some advice for you. It is better to keep your mouth closed and appear the fool, then to open it and remove all doubt.

I have been to Canada. Several times. I like it there just fine.

So because you preface a statement "Don't take offense..." you expect whatever you say to go unchallenged? You expect me not to rebut your remarks as falacious and ignorant?

Where do you think the money comes from to pay for your doctor visit? If you think your healthcare is free, you're in for a surprise. I have exceptional health care where I live. We have one of the best level one trauma centers and medical facilities in the country.

I walk down the street all the time without looking over my shoulder. Because there are gangs in some areas and in some cities there are gangbangers hiding on every corner of every street? Your ignorance is amazing. You're doing your fellow Canadians no favor.

I was responding to the original post about the incident at a workplace. I never said jack about Canada in my original response. I suppose everyone here thinks all Canadians are like Bob and Doug McKenzie, eh?

Fortunately, I don't stereotype all Canadians with the same ignorant, uninformed and exaggerated broad brush that you seem to casually use. Otherwise, I would think my friends north of the border need to invest more in their public school system.

As far as terrorism, the last time I checked, Mumbai wasn't in the United States. Or Madrid. Or London. Or Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, Beslen, Northern Ireland, and the other hundreds of cities, countries, schools, and international commercial aircraft and water vessels over the last several decades where terrorism has taken place.

May your country never have to endure the grief, hardship and loss of a terrorlst attack of the scale of September 11, 2001, New York City, USA. November 26, 2008, Mumbai, India. March 11, 2004, Madrid, Spain. July 7, 2005, London, UK.
Modified by Bubs daddy at 4:36 AM 2/18/2009

[VersaMG08]

I'm all for the 2nd amendment. If you're going to use your gun against someone, by any means have a justifiable cause, or else you don't need to own one. Those who choose not to carry a weapon have every right to abide that position. Some people carry them for protection of private property or self defense, good for them!

It's a matter of how it's used and when it's used. People such as gangs, robbers, illegals and some who have no reason but to kill for fun ough to be locked up if not executed depending on the outcome.

I used to be in the military and we were taught to only shoot when someone tries to shoot you. There is a different level of force to use against someone starting from verbal, to visual, pepper spray, baton then to gun. Those are some examples.

[skyliner34gtr]

Sry for the comments Bubs, I dont know everything and just realized how much I dont know about some ways the economy works. Seems like alot of people here has there eyes open way farther than I do. My opinion on Guns still stand nonetheless.
Modified by skyliner34gtr at 7:41 PM 2/17/2009

[marleyfan]

Sorry Bubs but your arguments are a bit moronic. The right to bear arms referred specifically to the militia due to the need at that time in order to protect a newly formed country from the country it just violently broke away from. It doesn't matter what the forefathers may have foreseen. Does the need for an armed militia still exist? Does the average citizen packing a 9mm do so to protect the country? The right to free speech is still relevant today. The right to bear arms is not. The courts mistakenly misinterpreted the 2nd amendment and you are now stuck with a law which enables any idiot to get a gun and use it to settle some petty difference. Just cuz you have the right to doesn't mean you should. I look forward to your already insane murder rate skyrocketing as the economy worsens and people get more desperate. Think about it...it is a right you would definitely be better off without. Just my opinion....no offense. LOL

[VersaMG08]

This thread is going to get it pretty soon, watch it!

[They Call Me Whatshisname]

George bush republican democrat left wing right wing amendment.

There we go I set off all the mod-alarms.

~LAST~

[Bubs daddy]

Quote »Sorry Bubs but your arguments are a bit moronic. The right to bear arms referred specifically to the militia due to the need at that time in order to protect a newly formed country from the country it just violently broke away from. It doesn't matter what the forefathers may have foreseen. Does the need for an armed militia still exist? Does the average citizen packing a 9mm do so to protect the country? The right to free speech is still relevant today. The right to bear arms is not. The courts mistakenly misinterpreted the 2nd amendment and you are now stuck with a law which enables any idiot to get a gun and use it to settle some petty difference. Just cuz you have the right to doesn't mean you should. I look forward to your already insane murder rate skyrocketing as the economy worsens and people get more desperate. Think about it...it is a right you would definitely be better off without. Just my opinion....no offense. LOL[/quote]"Just cuz?" I can see the intellectual level I'm dealing with already on this issue.

Terrific. We have someone living in British Columbia telling us how the United States Constitution SHOULD be.

Is the second amendment relevant today? More than ever.

Sorry, it doesn't work the way that you describe. Because you deem something "irrelevant" doesn't make that right any less important to someone else who embraces that right. My right is constitutionally protected.

"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." It is the people. Then and now. Then, it was farmers, shopkeepers and tradesmen who would put down their plows, aprons and tools and bring up arms to protect them not only from enemies but the government, if necessary. They formed a militia. They also protected their own homes and property as individuals. Today, the same right exists for its citizens.

"Just cuz you have the right to doesn't mean you should."

Mind boggling.

YOU certainly don't have to use that right. But that doesn't mean that I can't. Using this logic, you shouldn't speak out and use your right to free speech because someone else tells you to stop. Should the police or the courts force you to testify against yourself? The fifth amendment protects you against self incrimination.

Good God, some of you need a history and civics lesson badly.

And I got news for you. Criminals don't follow the gun laws. Murderers don't follow gun laws. Law abiding citizens have the right to bear arms.

Who are you to tell me what right that I don't need? That is for me to decide, not you. Should someone tell you, you have no right to free speech? In America, it is not for you to decide what rights are relevant to me or other people.

You have no clue what you're talking about. You are not the arbiter of what rights are relevant and what aren't to the individual who is as much a citizen. That's why they are rights.

Your argument is innaccurate and fallacious.

Oh, and by the way, if you look forward to murder rates going up as you stated, you need serious introspection.


Modified by Bubs daddy at 4:39 AM 2/18/2009

[manvan]

this should be moved to the politics board, anyways that sucks to hear man, i wonder if youll get hazard pay for it

[skyliner34gtr]

Reading previous posts, sounds like Bubs and Red Devil should get along great IMO! Maybe we Canadians should adopt the 2nd Amendment and go shoot Bubs, lol, he is verbally attacking us, AAAAHHHHH somebody please help us, now I always got to look over my shoulder because Bubs is a true patriot and you cant kill patriots, hes the walking dead, AAAHHHHH......

Bubs, it is our sole opinions and our freedom of speech to set forth our opinions in any way we deem necessary. You have alot of talent by the looks of grammar and maybe an important person wherever you work, but I am sure there are some Americans as well that dont agree with the constitution. We dont need to learn about your constitution, its a waste of time because we dont live by it, therefore we dont need a history lesson.

If your so patriotic, take this in as a proud American.

Inmates at Guantanamo Bay are getting top notch health care while half your country is getting none. (Terrorists getting better care than your own citizens!!!!)

9/11 was already known to happen prior to the events, the government ceased to believe it would happen (Fockin idiots) and apparently PROFESSIONAL INVERSTIGATORS revealed explosions going off RESULTING in the collapse of the Towers.

There got to be THOUSANDS more factual events that make me wonder about your government, but my question is, if it affects Canadians, how does it affect Americans? How can you live day to day knowing that alot of this grief and suffering could have been caused and started by the guy you voted into office? How can you go day to day knowing the Half of your citizens are not getting the Healthcare they do solemnly deserve as a True American, while the people who are directly involved with terrorlst and terrorlst activities are getting looked after, housed, medicines and the whole shebang, and not having to pay for it, but YOU are paying for it in your taxes?

If Canada was getting like that, I would move to Sweden or Germany. Think those facts over my friend and then respond accordingly making comments on how Canadians still live in Igloos and have no running water.
Modified by skyliner34gtr at 5:34 AM 2/18/2009

[biggie]

I would also appreciate other countries that don't understand the US to not tell us how to do things.

I'd much rather have a gun, espcially when all the law breakers (bad guys) have them.

Locked, may be moved or restarted in Politics.

[biggie]

Unlocked, renamed, and moved to Politics.

[bobotech]

People complain that the 2nd amendment wasn't written with semiautomatic rifles and standard capacity magazines (more than 10 rounds, I consider magazines that have less than 10 rounds to be small capacity), etc in mind. They say that "oh the 2nd was written in the day of the musket" and so forth.

HOWEVER those were the ONLY guns available in that time period. If the people needed to rise up against the government for whatever reason, they would be rising up against army with muskets.

Now fast forward to the future. If we are only allowed to own and bear bolt action rifles and revolvers, we would be VERY ill equipped if we had to rise up against our standing army. I think that there should be no outright bans saying what you can and cannot own. However I also understand the need for certain types of firearms to be regulated such as full auto guns. if you want something very unique and extremely potent, you should have to meet some higher standards than someone who just wants to buy a cheap 22.

In a nutshell, the 2nd was written to allow the people to not be afraid of their government, it wasn't written with hunting in mind. A government that you fear is one like the Nazis or Stalinists.

Do you want to fear your Government? I think not, I want them to work for me, not the other way around.

[audtatious]

When speaking with Canadians who have not spent any real time in the US, I find it sad they all think the whole country is like the Wild West.

[Cold_Zero]

when the Constitution was written, the right to bear arms was necessary to bring together the voluntary militias and have the ability to fight at a moment's notice.

And it is just as necessary today. Let me ask you this, who makes up the United States Military? Last time I checked the military operated on a Civilian Soldier model. So therefore gun ownership has a link today not only with the common citizenry, but with the United States Military as well. And really, who do you think would get drafted in a time of total war? The common citizens.

Quote »I do not think our founding father's anticipated people wandering the streets with concealed firearms.[/quote]It doesnt really matter what we think the founding fathers intended as if we need to divine what was in their head, because they wrote it down! And I would have to think for the time, gun packing citizens is exactly what the founding fathers would have envisioned when writing the 2nd Amendment.

[hsckris]

Sorry Bubs but your arguments are a bit moronic. The right to bear arms referred specifically to the militia due to the need at that time in order to protect a newly formed country from the country it just violently broke away from. It doesn't matter what the forefathers may have foreseen. Does the need for an armed militia still exist? Does the average citizen packing a 9mm do so to protect the country? The right to free speech is still relevant today. The right to bear arms is not. The courts mistakenly misinterpreted the 2nd amendment and you are now stuck with a law which enables any idiot to get a gun and use it to settle some petty difference. Just cuz you have the right to doesn't mean you should. I look forward to your already insane murder rate skyrocketing as the economy worsens and people get more desperate. Think about it...it is a right you would definitely be better off without. Just my opinion....no offense. LOL

I'd really like to know your credentials regarding constitutional interpretation. Are you an attorney? Con law scholar? poli sci major? I'm guessing none of the above. Not trying to be rude, but don't pretend to be an expert by calling something moronic and calling courts interpretations mistaken unless you are qualified to do so.

The reality is that there are two prevailing models of 2nd amendment interpretation, the individual rights model and the collective rights model.The individual rights model generally asserts that the Second Amendment amounts to the right of every citizen to own a firearm, while the collective rights model believes that the Second Amendment conveys a right of arms ownership only to collective bodies such as state militias.

I wrote an entire thesis on this particular issue. I promise you (all of you) it will not be settled on a discussion board.Let me just say this: it is clear from a reading of Jefferson and Madison that they were advocates of individual gun possession. Constitutional interpretation can include documetns beyond the Const. itself. Doing so is an attempt to arrive at the original intent. In this case, it would appear that the founders would subscribe to the individual rights model.

Further, William Blackstone interpreted early law as giving rise to an individual right to bear arms. William Blackstone was basically the father of the way modern law is practiced-- he literally wrote the book used for hundreds of years.

Lastly, debates over the Second Amendment in the House of Representatives serve as an important primary source. The majority of the debate from each of the two days, August 17th and August 20th 1789, did not address the issue of whether or not the proposed amendment would in fact convey an individual or collective right. Most of the debate centered on the formation of a national standing army and a clause that was omitted which allowed for those persons having religious scruples opposed to arms not being compelled into taking up arms. On the surface this debate then appears inconsequential to the overall question aside from one comment made by Mr. Scott referring to an “article in the Constitution which secures to the people the right of keeping arms.” Mr. Scott is referring to the proposed Second Amendment; this is contextually apparent because Mr. Scott is discussing the proposed sixth amendment which was about the aforementioned religious question. In light of this statement, the debate does not mention the issue of individual or collective right because the legislators believed the Second Amendment, as Mr. Scott claims, to convey an individual right, or as Mr. Scott puts it, ‘secure the people the right of keeping arms.’ Judging from the House of Representatives debate, it appears that contemporary thought among those that enacted the Constitution and took part in the original government of the United States was that the Second Amendment clearly depicted a right that was by nature individual. [citations omitted].
Modified by hsckris at 6:07 PM 2/18/2009

[ishkabibble]

I clicked on this thread hoping to see pics of Versas with gun racks. What a letdown.

[Cold_Zero]

When speaking with Canadians who have not spent any real time in the US, I find it sad they all think the whole country is like the Wild West.

Kind of like me thinking that the whole country of Canadian is ambigiously gay by watching Caillou (cartoon).