Support H.R. 5013

For one, gun grabbers like you.

"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."


"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command: for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive. In spite of all the nominal powers, vested in Congress by the constitution, were the system once adopted in its fullest latitude, still the actual exercise of them would be frequently interrupted by popular jealousy. I am bold to say, that ten just and constitutional measures would be resisted, where one unjust or oppressive law would be enforced. The powers vested in Congress are little more than nominal; nay real power cannot be vested in them, nor in any body, but in the people. The source of power is in the people of this country, and cannot for ages, and probably never will, be removed."

You MUST be kidding!!!
What about the people that work as security officers?
Most of the ones that carry firearms own their weapon,so they need it for a job.
I used to moonlight for a courier service,and I carried lots of cash.
I carried a weapon for protection.

Sport shooting and hunting.
Both are time honored respected traditions in this country.

Most police officers own their own weapon.
Are they cowards or criminals?

You have shown a remarkable naivete regarding weapons and the law.

I was kidding MM. Relax.

It was just the irony of it... using the standard conservative argument to say "if you aren't doing anything wrong, why worry..." that made me chuckle a bit.

In my hometown (a small New England mill town) some years ago there was a major flood. The authorities seeing what was coming order major segments of the community evacuated. Some people refused to leave their homes at which point the police, backed up by the National Guard went in and forcibly removed them. Property damage was immense and to a degree the town has never recovered, but no lives were lost. Under CJ's new and improved social contract that would have been a much more interesting operation.

Well, why should nature get to have all the fun when plumbing new depths for disaster? What God can do, Remington (or Colt or Beretta or Armalite) can surely add to!

BS, did you shoot yourself in the foot as a youngster?

Quite the contrary. I was raised around them and went beer can plinking with a borrowed .22 a few summers myself. Then I grew up and put away childish things. What's your excuse?

Well, if you consider guns childish, then it certainly is a relief that you gave them up.

It's a pity you never reached that stage of development. Still, there's always time to grow up...

Can you stay on topic there little spamtroll, or are you off your meds?

cjhsa- Now here is a good example of what some people are talking about. I happen to agree with you that the right to bear arms is a very important freedom that we have in the US. When I looked at your remark (quoted above), I found it to be a real turnoff.

So you have a situation where we are in agreement on the principle of the discussion, but I did not appreciate the way that you presented your disagreement with the poster.

I agree with you Phoenix, however, I suggest you read through the entire thread.

I have read through a good part of it. I find that often you couch your discussions in an inflammatory tone, that is very sarcastic, and IMO, meant to insult.

I have told this story before, so those who have heard it, can scroll past. I had a colleague who was extremely bright, and had many good ideas. She also tended to be abrasive, sarcastic, and beliggerently agressive.

We were at a meeting, and she started on one of her diatribes. I fought her tooth and nail.

When I left the meeting, I realized something. When the issue was first presented, I had agreed completely with her "take" on the matter. When she started to "attack" the other people at the meeting, I felt impelled to argue against her.

The result was that even those who were on her side, had to fight against her, because of the manner in which she presented herself. So she really shot herself in the foot!

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.5013:

It sounds reasonable to me. A person has the right to protect his own person and property.




I am a little uncomfortable with this. In an emotionally loaded, emergency situation, I question the wisdom of allowing a person to bear arms in a congregate facility. The emergency facility is not the person's home. If, and only if, the facility were being guarded appropriately by the law, in the interest of public safety, it seems reasonable to me that guns need to be outlawed in that particular situation.

It is a person's choice to be housed in an emergency congregate facility. If he believes that he would be safer with his weapon, it is his choice to opt out of staying in the emergency facility.

These were my first thoughts on this particular situation. I would like some feedback from other members.

Personally, phoenix, I see little potential for good and GREAT potential for harm in introducing firearms into what is already a dangerous and emotionally charged situation. Disaster response is a tough enough job without the possibility of armed mobs or heavily armed individual yahoos intent on protecting "them and theirs."

In a disaster situation the last thing aside from my life or my family's lives I am going to give up is my guns.

Anyone who tries to take them from me is the enemy.

I understand the issue of community housing. I think the intent of the bill is that people should have a place to store their guns safely, rather than have them confiscated.

blacksmithn- It's a tough "call". I understand what you are saying, and there is a part of me that realizes that people, in an emergency situation, are apt to behave in a less civilized fashion than under normal circumstances.

The problem is, that there is a greater issue involved, and that concerns individual freedoms, and the ability to protect one's own person and property. I think that those freedoms override any real threat, (and I do believe that the threat would be real) that having armed people in the midst of an emergency would engender.

As an aside, I would suspect that if the guns were taken away from law abiding citizens, the criminal element would still find a way to keep a weapon (as they always have, despite the laws). If my suspicion is correct, it would be a far more dangerous situation if the criminal element would have the firepower, while the law abiding citizen would have nothing to use in the defense from one of these criminals.

It is not an easy question, and there are no clear answers. The only thing, that I believe overrides everything, is our constitutional protections, which, IMO, trumps any particular concern.

cj-- And that's PRECISELY the response that rescue workers and first responders should NOT have to face. They have better things to do than worry about the firearms wielding guy-- who may or may not be a maniac, but how can they tell one from the other? And how much valuable time will be lost while they try to sort you (presuming you're not a maniac) out from the ones who can't be trusted?