A LADY Educates U.S. Senators On The 2nd Amendment

[Jim Rose]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675&p r=goog-sl

[DonTom]

That was interesting. But what do we do, arm everybody at all times? It's one of those things that have no perfect answer.

-Don-

[Ken]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675&p r=goog-sl

I wish we had had that young lady over here to talk to our government deadheads before they banned all, including the - till then - legitimately held, handguns in the UK. The only people who profited from that bit of governmental stupidity were the criminals, burglars, muggers, rapists, robbers and other felons, who no longer had the possibility of retaliation from those they would attack.

Ken.

[Eric]

That was interesting. But what do we do, arm everybody at all times? It's one of those things that have no perfect answer.

-Don-

My opinion:

If concealed carry were legal everywhere - and it was understood (by would-be criminals) that the odds of the women they were thinking about attacking being armed was 50-50 or better, there'd be a lot fewer attacks!

[Eric]

I wish we had had that young lady over here to talk to our government deadheads before they banned all, including the - till then - legitimately held, handguns in the UK. The only people who profited from that bit of governmental stupidity were the criminals, burglars, muggers, rapists, robbers and other felons, who no longer had the possibility of retaliation from those they would attack.

Ken.

I hope that we - the American people - physically refuse to comply with any such law that is imposed upon us.

I will not be disarmed.

[Eric]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4069761537893819675&p r=goog-sl

Outstanding!

I especially liked the way she clearly rejected the often used argument about "hunting" and "sporting purposes."

BS.

The Second Amendment is about honoring our right to armed self-defense. Period.

[DonTom]

My opinion:

If concealed carry were legal everywhere - and it was understood (by would-be criminals) that the odds of the women they were thinking about attacking being armed was 50-50 or better, there'd be a lot fewer attacks!

I have wondered what it would be like if everybody (except for those who have been convicted of a felony and those under 18 or so) could legally have a hand gun everywhere.

Would you want to try that?

I am undecided.

I wonder if there would then be less road rage . . . or if there would be more murders from it.

And how safe it would be for the cops to stop a car for anything. Especially when there's a big disagreement.

-Don-

[Eric]

I have wondered what it would be like if everybody (except for those who have been convicted of a felony and those under 18 or so) could legally have a hand gun everywhere.

Would you want to try that?

I am undecided.

I wonder if there would then be less road rage . . . or if there would be more murders from it.

And how safe it would be for the cops to stop a car for anything. Especially when there's a big disagreement.

-Don-

Absolutely.

The fallacy is that being armed renders one prone to using the gun inappropriately. That is demonstrably false. For example, look at the number of CWP holders (millions of them) and then look at the number of gun crimes committed by CWP holders. It is virtually nil.

The only people who need to be disarmed are criminals.

[chiph]

then look at the number of gun crimes committed by CWP holders. It is virtually nil.then look at the number of gun crimes committed by CWP holders. It is virtually nil.

You are statistically more likely to be shot by an off-duty police officer than a CWP holder. They are some of the best citizens we have.

Chip H.

[Eric]

You are statistically more likely to be shot by an off-duty police officer than a CWP holder. They are some of the best citizens we have.

Chip H.

Yep !

And: Don has a veritable arsenal; yet he hasn't shot anyone or committed a crime.

The problem is - and always has been - the relatively small percentage of the population prone to gratuitous violence.

These people could be dealt with very effectively, if we had the will.

All it would take is a minimum mandatory 20 year sentence (no possibility of parole) upon conviction for the use or threatened use of a gun in the course of another crime - in addition to whatever the sentence is for the crime itself.

In short order, gun violence would virtually disappear.

The problem is we treat violent offenders with kid gloves; we permit them to repeat their crimes multiple times before throwing them away for good.

There is no excuse for unprovoked violence, ever. It should be dealt with severely.

[chiph]

These people could be dealt with very effectively, if we had the will.

There was a SciFi novel that came out a few years ago where the aliens culled violence from their genes. Anyone caught being violent was neutered, as well as anyone that had 50% or more of their genes. This meant parents, children & siblings.

Chip H.

[Eric]

There was a SciFi novel that came out a few years ago where the aliens culled violence from their genes. Anyone caught being violent was neutered, as well as anyone that had 50% or more of their genes. This meant parents, children & siblings.

Chip H.

I've never understood why anyone would oppose severe punishment of those who commit gratuitously violent acts. To my way of thinking, such people have shown they're a species of subhuman, to be taken out of civil society, if not forever then at least for a very long time. Ideally, long enough for them to become old/enfeebled so that they are no longer capable of violence, if they are ever released.

I'm a softie when it comes to non-violent crime. You can make those people work off their offense, compensate their victim - etc. But there is a line you don't cross - and that line is initiating physical force (or its threat) against someone who has not threatened you first.

[cefimovich]

To quote a previous post:"I wonder if there would then be less road rage . . . or if there would be more murders from it.

And how safe it would be for the cops to stop a car for anything. Especially when there's a big disagreement."

I lived in NY for 30 years where it was virtually impossible to get a handgun. I moved to Virginia when I was in my 30s and practically everyone here does own a handgun.

I'll vouch for their being much less road rage, the police seem much more at ease (even the ones who do highway stops). I also feel much safer and am much more willing to do things such as go hiking in the woods or even go to the supermarket after dark without being afraid.

I never thought I'd be saying this 15 years ago, but I actually am glad I live in a place where I know I can protect myself and my family. Even if I don't carry a firearm with me, I know that many of my fellow citizens are probably armed...and it actually makes me feel safe.

I used to live in both NYC as well as upstate NY. I have to say that the adage "an armed society is a polite society" holds very true. Even though Virginia is on the corridor between NY and Florida (and I understand that many drug runners drive through here) I think they're much more reluctant to stop knowing that they're not going to be tolerated.

Sadly enough, what I was seeing happen in NY was that the people who were law abiding citizens didn't have a firearm because they weren't supposed to. Which left the people who didn't obey the law to have them. In VA I know that the law abiding can carry....and I know that there are many more good and responsible people out there.

You'd have to have lived in both cultures to understand the difference. I live in a medium sized city in Virginia....and I feel MUCH safer down here.

[Eric]

To quote a previous post:"I wonder if there would then be less road rage . . . or if there would be more murders from it.

And how safe it would be for the cops to stop a car for anything. Especially when there's a big disagreement."

I lived in NY for 30 years where it was virtually impossible to get a handgun. I moved to Virginia when I was in my 30s and practically everyone here does own a handgun.

I'll vouch for their being much less road rage, the police seem much more at ease (even the ones who do highway stops). I also feel much safer and am much more willing to do things such as go hiking in the woods or even go to the supermarket after dark without being afraid.

I never thought I'd be saying this 15 years ago, but I actually am glad I live in a place where I know I can protect myself and my family. Even if I don't carry a firearm with me, I know that many of my fellow citizens are probably armed...and it actually makes me feel safe.

I used to live in both NYC as well as upstate NY. I have to say that the adage "an armed society is a polite society" holds very true. Even though Virginia is on the corridor between NY and Florida (and I understand that many drug runners drive through here) I think they're much more reluctant to stop knowing that they're not going to be tolerated.

Sadly enough, what I was seeing happen in NY was that the people who were law abiding citizens didn't have a firearm because they weren't supposed to. Which left the people who didn't obey the law to have them. In VA I know that the law abiding can carry....and I know that there are many more good and responsible people out there.

You'd have to have lived in both cultures to understand the difference. I live in a medium sized city in Virginia....and I feel MUCH safer down here.

Hi CE,

This has been my experience also.

And, we live in rural SW Va. - where I'd venture to say almost every adult male is armed (and many women, too) and familiar with how to use a gun. Yet the amount of violent crime here is far lower (on an absolute as well as a per capita basis) than in gun controlled New York City or Washington, DC.

Welcome to the site, by the way!