Guns And The Laws That Govern Them

Thomas Jefferson was a Founder of this Republic.
He wrote the Declaration of Independence.
He was America 's 3rd President.
He was the Founder of the University of Virginia.
He was an inventive genius, among many other things.

There survives a letter from him to his 12 year old nephew
wherein he tells the boy ALWAYS to take his gun with him
when he goes out for a walk and to practice with it for proficiency.



I believe that 12 was the age that u were scorning.


FOR THE RECORD:
I 'd have sold the customer the merchandise, regardless of age.
That is a free country.





David

Should being a confirmed racist bar a person from the ability to get a gun permit?

Is not racism a "mental illness" and aren't in most states mental disabilities used to determine if a person is fit to carry a gun?

Racists with guns should be illegal.

It seems the problems are not the guns themselves but that most people are unfit to own and care for guns sensibly.

So on a gun permit it should ask if you are of sound mind and a non-racist.

"Confirmed" HOW??? By whom????



Obviously not; thay have as much right to defend
their lives as anyone else.

Their lives do not depend on their opinions; "equal protection of the laws."







Obviously not; the entire Bill of Rights was written and fully enacted by racists.
If thay had not been racists, then by what reasoning
did thay countenance African slavery?????
Thay enacted the Supreme Law of the Land.






U have it twisted around backward.
No State is fit to interfere with anyone carrying a gun,
tho criminals can be arrested for their violations of law.
The Supreme Law of the Land disables government from interfering with civilian gun possession,
the same way as going to or staying home from church.
No one needs any license for that.

EVERYONE is freely entitled to have plenty of opinions
that Rex dislikes !



That is un-Constitutional.


The problem is that SOME people remain un-armed.
That shud be a crime.


No one is authorized to grant a gun "permit"
the same as no one is authorized to grant a permit to sleep at home
instead of going to Church.


Rex is a true liberal:
he believes in heavy-handed THOUGHT CONTROL.

I agree Dave. If you have them at all everybody should be entitled.

A person's words, actions and deeds confirm if a person is a racist not the opinions of others. It is the mass of evidence of racism not the conjured projected bias of judges.

In other words, racism is not created by those who observe but those who perpetrate.

Though people juries/judges do stand in objection to people it is based upon the preponderance of evidence and not personal bias...



Racism is a criminal state of mind and guns should be restricted from such individuals.

Man Accidentally Kills Self With Gun During Demonstration On Gun Safety
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/25/man-shoots-himself_n_4853983.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000013

comment:
Famous last words, "See, it's not loaded!".

A confirmed racists is a little vague. According to some on this site and in the media, disagreeing with the president makes one a racist. Next thing you know it will be illegal to own a gun and have an opinion that doesn't jive with whoever happens to be in office. There shouldn't be a restriction on your 2nd Amendment just because your 1st Amendment usage is ignorant. Based on that, we could start to deny all sorts of Amendment rights to all sorts of people. Being someone from a left bent, shouldn't you be all about choice?

Choice is not always a right but sometimes choice is a privilege.

I am all for people having a choice to own a gun as long as there is not a particular personal conflict (i.e. stupidity, mental illness, racism, propensity for violence, anger issues, post traumatic stress, immaturity, etc...) that makes that choice detrimental to society as a whole.

People should have to check boxes on a gun registration form that states they do not have any of these maladies.

Help me to understand this:
in England when a violent criminal attack occurs
(e.g., a robbery or a felonious assault) the victim
is within his rights to kill the perpetrator? True or False?????

When I sit on a jury,
I will treat a racist and an anti-racist EXACTLY THE SAME.

Thay will both be judged by their CONDUCT,
not by their opinions, not by their values.

Its funny; the passionate hatred
that Rex hurls against racists,
I directed against the communists, b4 Christmas of 1991.





David

It's a grey area. So false. The victim might be within his rights. There's some notion of appropriate response.

I 'm very shocked, in a negative sense.
'Twas not always thus. England used to be a free country and PROUD of it.
My grandfather came from a place called: "Devon Shire" in the 18OOs.
Self defense was an absolute vindication; pure ez logic.; decent.

Now, your government has gone into partnership with evil,
disarming good, protecting its partner. a good place from which to stay away


Presumably, socialism exercised its malevolent influences, in favor of evil.

It's a shame when the victim has to display an appropriate response to an inappropriate action by someone willing to assault them. Crooks are under no such dictate.

Its literally a grave injustice
to be legally required to expose your own life to additional danger
for the benefit of protecting the criminal predator. Worse than a shame; its evil.

That government is committed to evil. Its socialist.


England used to be good (not that I was ever there).




Notice how I use italics
going for a twisted, distortive effect, like liberal.

That's all rubbish Dave. I never said anything to justify you going on such a rant.. Zimmerman had to show he was at risk. He might easily have got off here. He might never have been charged.

You have misunderstood what I said in your hysterical rush to attack our system which, in this respect, is very much like your own. And, I imagine, that of all western countries.

The question begged is why you have done that.

I don't rate socialism either but not for that reason. Common sense applies.

From what I see Dave, our "socialist" party is more to the right than the official GOP. Labour's front bench are quite a posh lot.

I cannot begin to guess how to understand that post.
As a natural born American, my political frame of reference
is the Supreme Law of the Land; as ice is constituted of water,
government here is constituted of the Constitution.
A man is conservative, right, if he is steadfastly orthodox LITERAL
in his application of Constitutional principles.
IF he distorts those principles, twisting them, then he is liberal.

If he rejects them all together, then he is radical ("from the root").

Those criteria can be applied to non-political considerations;
e.g., if someone refuses to adhere to paradigmatic spelling,
instituting his own substitutes for selected words, then he is liberal
in regard to that paradime. There can be many other applications of those criteria.

I cannot begin to guess the subject matter of the conservation in England of 2014.
I know what it was when King Louis XV1 called the Estates General, but not now.





David

ANOTHER WIN FOR GUN CONTROL!

How gun control helped a stalker kill my husband
By Nicole Goeser
Published February 25, 2014


In April 2009, my husband was shot six times in front of me
in the middle of a busy restaurant by a man who was stalking me.
I have a license to carry a handgun but because of the law at that time
in my home state of Tennessee, I had to leave the gun that I normally
carried for self defense, locked in my car that night.

My husband Ben and I ran our mobile karaoke business out of a
restaurant that served alcohol and my gun was forbidden there.
I obeyed the law but my stalker, who was carrying a gun illegally, ignored it. [The murderer did not obay the law.]

I noticed my stalker (a former karaoke customer) in the crowd that
night and I knew something was not right. This was a man that I had
blocked from my social network account due to inappropriate messages
he had sent me.

He had never threatened me or my husband but he was definitely creepy.

My husband Ben had asked him to leave me alone before he showed
up at this venue where I had never seen him before.

I realized at that point I was being stalked.

I asked the management at the restaurant to remove him.
When they approached him and asked him to leave, he pulled out
a .45 semi-auto and shot Ben. He then stood over him and continued
to fire five more rounds into my husband.

I could only watch in horror and helplessness. [Victim OBAYED the anti-gun law.]

Since that terrible night I have learned that gun free zones are a
predator's playground. This is where my stalker found us and where
we were defenseless.

We all have a fight or flight response when we sense danger.
We make decisions based on the options we have at that moment.
Decisions must sometimes be made in a matter of seconds.

My only option that night was flight. Fight was not something
I was able to do because I was denied that chance.
That basic human right was taken from me by a Legislature that
unintentionally helped a predator hunt down his prey.

I hope that lawmakers around the nation will begin to understand
that when you disarm law abiding citizens, you do not help protect
law abiding citizens. Instead, you actually make it easier for those
with evil intentions to be met with no little or no resistance.


In one way, I was lucky on the night my husband was shot and killed --
and so was everyone else in the restaurant. A United States Marine
happened to be in the crowd, he tackled the man who killed my husband
and held him until the police came.

I have been told the police arrived within 3 minutes after getting the 911 call.
I can tell you that when something so terrible is happening to yourself
or someone you love, even three minutes seems like an eternity.
The familiar saying "when seconds count, the police are only minutes away"
is very true.

I respect law enforcement. They have a very difficult job but even
they know they cannot be anywhere and everywhere at anytime.

The majority of rank and file police officers I have spoken with
support right to carry laws. They would much rather find an innocent
person with a smoking gun and a dead bad guy than the other way around.

Unfortunately, most law enforcement officers fear speaking out in
support of right to carry laws for fear of retaliation by their superiors,
who, more often than not, are attuned to politics and not inclined to
support self defense laws.

Then there are those who fear gun license holders might do something
wrong with a gun or hurt an innocent bystander.

I personally am more concerned about a bad guy shooting indiscriminately
with no regard for innocent life rather than a license holder who has
had state certified training and fears criminal and civil penalties.
Those penalties act as very real deterrents for good people.
Less than one percent of license holders ever do anything wrong with a gun.
I can't think of any segment of society that is more law abiding.

It's time for law abiding people, who have taken proper legal measures
to provide for their own self defense, to be legally allowed to carry
a gun to places where they have a right to be present.

Evil can visit us anywhere. Signs posted on doors declaring
"no guns allowed" do nothing to protect any of us.

Since my husband's murder, the law has been changed in the state
of Tennessee. Handgun carry license holders can now carry their guns
into establishments that serve alcohol -- as long as they are not
drinking alcohol and as long as the establishment has not posted
a "no guns allowed" SIGN.

At least this gives law abiding citizens the ability to try to protect themselves.
A right that my husband, Ben and I were tragically denied on the night he died.


Nicole Goeser is author of "Denied a Chance: How gun control helped a
stalker murder my husband." Her story will be featured on February 25
at 10 p.m. ET on Investigation Discovery Network.

[All emfasis and colored remarks were added by David.]

Ukrainian Citizens Want Their Own
Constitutional Amendment to Own Guns

FEBRUARY 24 2014

BY DAN CANNON

I’m sure you’ve been following the situation in Ukraine with at least
some interest given the media coverage there. If you aren’t aware,
there was an overthrow of the government there. However, it was not
a bloodless coup. Dozens of protestors were killed by armed police during demonstrations.

Now, it seems, at least some Ukrainian citizens are recognizing why
it is important to protect the citizenry’s right to keep and bear arms
and are pushing to have an amendment added to their constitution
that would protect that right.

According to Ukrainian Gun Owners,

Today every citizen of Ukraine understands why our country has
hundreds of thousands of policemen. Last illusions were crushed when
riot police used rubber batons and boots at the Independence Square
on peaceful citizens.

After such actions we realize that it is not enough to only adopt the Gun Law.



As of today Ukrainian Gun Owners Association will start to work on the
preparation of amendments to the Constitution, which will provide
an unconditional right for Ukrainian citizens to bear arms.

People should have the right to bear arms,
which will be put in written into the Constitution.

Authorities should not and will not be stronger than its people!

Armed people are treated with respect!

[All emfasis has been added by David.]

DISARMING THE POLICE

Apparently some law enforcement officers in Minnesota don’t like
being treated like regular ol’ citizens in regards to their gun carry rights.

As you may have heard, the NFL recently announced that even off duty
police officers would be prohibited from carrying firearms into NFL stadiums
(I’ll continue to watch from home if I watch at all).

Evidently, they some officers didn’t like that. According to The Star Tribune,

The National Football League has been slapped with a lawsuit by two
Minnesota law enforcement organizations challenging its authority
to prohibit off-duty officers from bringing guns into stadiums.

Since 2003, state law has allowed licensed peace officers to carry
weapons in private establishments, even when signs banning guns are posted
but in September, the NFL alerted team owners that it was instituting
a new policy forbidding anyone other than on-duty officers and private
security personnel working its games to carry weapons in stadiums.



Not only does that policy violate state law, it’s unenforceable, argues
a lawsuit filed Tuesday in Hennepin County District Court. The suit
picked up steam after an off-duty Minneapolis police officer attending
the Minnesota Vikings’ final game in December was told to take his gun
and lock it in his car.

“This is the most unsafe thing you could do,” said Dennis Flaherty,
executive director of the Minnesota Police and Peace Officers
Association, one of the plaintiffs. “Officers are trained and encouraged
to be able to respond 24 hours a day. This is terrible public policy.”

So far, only the Dallas Cowboys have challenged the NFL on the rule,
citing state law that supersedes the rule. According to CBS DFW,

According to the NFL memo, “off-duty officers who attempt to bring
firearms into an NFL facility will be denied entry.”

But a Texas state law overrides the NFL policy. As long as officers
attending the game check in at a specific gate and inform Security
where they are sitting – they can have their guns.