Had Enough

[simmerhead 885]

the second amendment should allow me to own shoulder fired anti aircraft missile launchers......but I digress

Mr. Fatback the tone of your post has me fuming but I will bite my tongue at your obvious troll post.

suffice it to say that people with attitudes like yours are the reason I recently joined the NRA .

 

So anyone that doesn't share your opinion is a troll? Nice way to make an argument. I guess you're opposed to democracy, free speach and religion as well and bully everyone that doesn't share your infallible opinions.

[John_Cillis 2,406]

This is a copy of the letter that I sent to the Virginia Senate/Representatives:

 

 

Dear Representative/Senator:

 

You do not know me personally. I am an honorable veteran (US Navy 2003-2007). I am a registered voter. I may or may not have voted for you in the last election, but I do vote every election. For the most part, I am not involved in politics or the day to day laws that are brought before you for review. I am not here to do your job. I am simply requesting that you take the time to hear me out. I will let you know that I swore the same oath as you - “I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”. I believe that the Constitution of the United States is not a document, but is the very foundation that our country was built on. Any modification against the Constitution is a direct attack against our country.

 

The Second Amendment to the US Constitution states: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

 

The definition of INFRINGE is: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another.

 

I am not defending random acts of violence that have been in the news. There are people that simply do not care for the rights and liberties of others. My concern is when we as a country take the step in changing the Constitution that affects law abiding citizens and attacking their rights and liberties as such. These rights and liberties that I have sworn to protect with my life. These rights and liberties that many service members have died to protect. These rights and liberties that you have sworn to protect.

 

Please choose carefully when voting on making regulation changes involving gun control whether it is on which guns or on the size of magazines allowed for ownership or purchase. Criminals will never follow laws; please do not turn citizens into criminals.

 

Sincerely,

James R. Lee

Citizen, Taxpayer

 

The key words in the second amendment are "a well regulated militia". What did the framers of that amendment have in mind when they wrote it? That every citizen be armed with firepower unimaginable when it was drafted? I don't see well regulated militias around--I see an "every man for himself" mentality. Where do we stop in demanding our "rights". Is every citizen to become armed with enough firepower to wipe out a crowd of people in an effort to enforce their personal zone of safety? The argument that "criminals will be armed, peaceful citizens won't" has been around a long time. Is it really the intent of those seeking change in the free wheeling gun society we're becoming to disarm every citizen? I don't see that happening. Yes, automatic weapons may be taken off the market. But I don't see the government coming into the homes of those who've used them peacefully and legally to take what they have already away. Ammunition may become limited. Maybe for those who want to squeeze off a clip of a large number of rounds, exemptions could be made for shooting ranges. I don't know the answers. I do know that something has to change. This type of carnage wasn't happening when I was a youth. All of us, gun owners, veterans and peace time citizens, need to look for change. The answer isn't arming even more people.

 

My thoughts. I'm not here to offend anyone, but now that this discussion has been launched in our forums, I'm going to share my opinion. Final thought--I've lived under a constitution that gives me the right to free speech. Yet I've lived to accept the fact that I can't walk onto the floor of congress with my opinions--I have to be extended that courtesy after I have been fully cleared for reasons of security and order. Limits are placed on our rights now, rights even more fundemental than the right to bear arms.

 

John

[simmerhead 885]

 

 

Allow me to clarify your post... In 2010, drunken drivers killed 13,000 people. According to the CDC there were 10,400 firearm homicides in our country. Reviewing the statistics, we find that the majority of these gun-related deaths were criminal on criminal violence or justified police shootings, not innocent people killed as is the case of a death by a DUI.

 

Interesting, huh?

 

Sure is, and no NASCAR driver died in a race accident in 2010, so it would be safe to say that NASCAR racing isn't dangerous... Careless use of statistics can often lead to fallacious arguments.

[JohnFromCO 15]

However... the two semiautomatic pistols and .223-caliber Bushmaster rifle Lanza used in the shooting were registered to his mother. No regulation could have prevented this.

 

Correct, but she failed at her responsibilities as a gun owner and in many ways a parent. I understand no parent wants to see faults in their children but it is becoming obvious she was well aware of the mental deficiency her son had. Rather than get her son the best possible treatment she removed him from school and allowed him access to weapons. In many ways she was an accessory to the murders. She created a monster and in my opinion should not be looked upon as a victim.

 

There is no excuse for a person to have access to a weapon of any kind that you own without your knowledge and consent. There is also no excuse for a person with mental issues to have access to or ever handle a weapon you own. Gun ownership is a huge responsibility and should always be treated as such.

[William J.S.S 173]

I just don't see how people can take certain parts of the constitution these days still literal and not think as to how it applies now as opposed then.

 

You in favor honestly think that it is and was designed to allow you to own a automatic assault rifle with large mags just because?

 

Looking back at the time it was written I see certain parts that need to be take out and or completely rewritten. The right to bear arms is the first one I would start with.

 

People should have to jump through hoops and have to go through detailed and extensive checks for owning and walking around with firearms.

 

I see no real rational reason why Joe Blow next door should be able to have a small arsenal in His garage. There is simple no need on this earth for that type of rationality. None.

 

If there was a coherent argument to be able to have machine guns and the such that people sell now, with large mags/clips whatever I sure would like to hear it other than "the constitution" says so.

[Great Ozzie 101]

Rather than get her son the best possible treatment

 

Seems I saw a blurb about she was trying to get him help... he became aware of it and that was part what set him off.

 

She created a monster and in my opinion should not be looked upon as a victim.

 

A little harsh man... she obviously did not anticipate being murdered by her own son.

 

Other than that... excellent stuff you have posted, imo.

 

You in favor honestly think that it is and was designed to allow you to own a automatic assault rifle with large mags just because?

 

I think "People should have to jump through hoops and have to go through detailed and extensive" educational process (in this case, firearms and the U.S. Constitution) before being allowed to fire off opinions such as the above... but then, that is just me.

 

If there was a coherent argument to be able to have machine guns and the such that people sell now, with large mags/clips whatever I sure would like to hear it other than "the constitution" says so.

 

I am loathe to participate in a conversation when the other party has not a clue what they are talking about.

[JohnFromCO 15]

The key words in the second amendment are "a well regulated militia".

 

That is actually incorrect and the Supreme Court ruled the same.

 

Remember the 2nd was written in older English style that does not follow current grammar standards. The commas actually break the amendment into separate thoughts.

 

"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."

 

So the 2nd allows for a well regulated militia to be formed. Which is necessary to the security of a free state. The right of the people to keep and bear arms. Shall not be infringed.

 

The 2nd clearly allows for individuals to own arms and form a militia if needed to secure the free state. Constitutional scholars and the SC agree on this. Thus Chicago's ban on all guns was overturned as being unconstitutional.

[simmerhead 885]

I am loathe to participate in a conversation when the other party has not a clue what they are talking about.

 

And yet you do...

[Great Ozzie 101]

The 2nd clearly allows for individuals to own arms and form a militia if needed to secure the free state. Constitutional scholars and the SC agree on this. Thus Chicago's ban on all guns was overturned as being unconstitutional.

 

Stay on it brother... I don't have the patience atm to deal with so much of what I have seen posted here.

 

Semper Fi.

 

P.S. Don't let Tom A. find out you were a jarhead... he'll have you working the chowhall at FANCON.

 

And yet you do...

 

Didn't say "I won't." :-P

[razorhog703 15]

I just don't see how people can take certain parts of the constitution these days still literal and not think as to how it applies now as opposed then.

 

You in favor honestly think that it is and was designed to allow you to own a automatic assault rifle with large mags just because?

 

Looking back at the time it was written I see certain parts that need to be take out and or completely rewritten. The right to bear arms is the first one I would start with.

 

People should have to jump through hoops and have to go through detailed and extensive checks for owning and walking around with firearms.

 

I see no real rational reason why Joe Blow next door should be able to have a small arsenal in His garage. There is simple no need on this earth for that type of rationality. None.

 

If there was a coherent argument to be able to have machine guns and the such that people sell now, with large mags/clips whatever I sure would like to hear it other than "the constitution" says so.

 

<Removed by Chase>

 

Once we go down the road of banning "parts" where do we draw a line?

 

I do appreciate the opinions of everyone regarding the issue I posted. I will petition my congressmen, and I welcome you to do the same if you agree or disagree.

Edited January 18, 2013 by Chase

[simmerhead 885]

Didn't say "I won't." :-P

 

LOL!

 

I just look at it this way: If Microsoft could just get off their lazy asses and continue developing flight simulators we wouldn't need guns since we'd be too busy having fun in 64 bit DX11 heaven!

[JohnFromCO 15]

Seems I saw a blurb about she was trying to get him help... he became aware of it and that was part what set him off.

 

 

 

A little harsh man... she obviously did not anticipate being murdered by her own son.

 

Other than that... excellent stuff you have posted, imo.

 

After I posted I understand it may be harsh but her son didn't pull any punches when he walked into the school.

 

From all the info I have read her son left HS after the school expressed concerns over his mental state. Rather than get immediate help she did want any parent might do and take time to review all options.

 

However, rather than do the appropriate thing of removing all weapons during this time she instead used guns as a bonding tool. She attempted to bond using weapons with a child with obvious mental issues. Common sense should have prevailed. She could have prevented all those children from being murdered by removing the guns from her house. Signs were there and she ignored them which is a very sad thing for all families involved. Not to be harsh but her actions had harsh consequences.

[76496 17]

When did this become a political forum? Come on people,this forum is supposed to be for enjoyment not to hash over political crap!!!!!!!!!!! I would like to see this topic banned from further dicussion on this forum. Hello Moderators.

[razorhog703 15]

From all the info I have read her son left HS after the school expressed concerns over his mental state. Rather than get immediate help she did want any parent might do and take time to review all options.

 

Alleged Aurora, Colo, shooter James Holmes met with not one, but at least three mental health professionals at the University of Colorado prior to the massacre. How long he met with each one and the depth of their involvement is not clear, but it adds to the picture of Holmes being clearly on their radar in the time period leading up to the shootings.

 

Seems there is a pattern here.

 

We, as a society, have become so detached from each other that we no longer care for the fellow man. Take a minute to check up on that person who seems "out of it", you may be doing more than just wasting your breath.

[lthendrix 25]

Sorry Mr. Fatback if my post was misconstrued as calling you a troll. to me a troll post is more about being a post that is inciteful and will most certainly cause a reaction. when I say troll post dont think of the under the bridge type think of fishing off the back of a moving boat ... called trolling.

any how although I disagree with your opinion , I respect the fact that your argument ,however asinine in my view, was well articulated concise and to the point and I really do revel in the fact that there are no restrictions on free speech

Also I am happy that the people on Avsim behave in such a civil manner .