Do you trust your neighbor to own a sword?

[Kantuckkeean]

Under Florida law no gun signs do not carry any weight of law, you can legally walk into any building not forbidden by law with no guns allowed signs as long as you leave if told to do so by property management.

It’s the same in many states, with some notable exceptions like federal properties...

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[Kantuckkeean]

Ok, now we have common ground. I totally agree with you, however I think you may be insulted that folks dont agree with you. Its clear you feel you are more open minded about the problem. Please define the problem as you see it so we can help solve it.

As I stated previously, I’m pro-2nd Amendment, have a lifetime permit to carry, and own numerous pistols, rifles, and shotguns for hunting and for protecting my family from criminals and tyranny.

Innocent people and school kids getting killed in mass shootings is a problem that we’d like to see greatly reduced.

What can be done that doesn’t infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens, yet reduces the frequency and/or lethality of such events?

The “good guy with a gun” may be part of the solution but it only goes so far... remember the Parkland tragedy where the security guard hid safely behind a concrete pillar? Many examples can be presented where the “good guy” tried and was out-gunned or didn’t even try.

Kindest regards,
Kantuck

 

[Tahts-a-dats-ago]

I've learned that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land but we can leave out the "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness" thing only applies to 2nd amendment believers. The rest of us have to just grin and bear it, (no pun intended) so ya'll can exercise the right to have unlimited access to those firearms
and our right to go about our daily business without looking for exits and making plans of what to do if someone opens up doesn't mean as much.

Have a great weekend folks. Say "hi" to your friends and neighbors and remember. We live in the greatest country in the world,

Yes, the Constitution (along with the Declaration of Independence) is the supreme law of these United States. All laws must flow from within the confines of those supreme laws - meaning no "law" can be legal law if that "law" is not within the specific powers granted to the government.

"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" comes from the preamble of the Declaration of Independence - a means of specifying the purpose for the statements that follow (in that document).

In context....

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."

The Constitution is the result of the "consent of the governed" - whereas the governed [the people] granted government specific, limited, powers, and only those specific powers. [See the 9th and 10th Amendments for clarification]

The pursuit of happiness is a recognized right; not happiness itself, and not happiness brought about by way of infringing upon the rights of others. The right to keep and bear arms is another specifically recognized right of the people.

Talk of limited rights is frequently bandied about - usually rather dishonestly - but in reality what it means (legally) is that actions can have legal consequences. The Constitution covers that, and provides legal protections for those accused of taking actions that aren't legal.

Put bluntly:

We are endowed (by our creator) with the right to keep and bear arms. That right does not extend to the point of wrongfully using arms to cause harm to another.

We are endowed (by our creator) with the right to pursue happiness. That right does not extend to the point of restricting someone else's right (such as their right to bear arms).

You don't have to take my word for it; there are a plethora of written statements (from the framers, those who ratified the Constitution, and early Justices) detailing the intent behind our supreme laws and the limits on the powers granted to the government.

If truly interested in the the intent of our Supreme Laws (intent is the purpose for the law - what the law means, and what it was designed to do) I highly recommend reading the following:

Federalist papers
Anti-federalist papers
Congressional archives (pay close attention to the stated intent for each law and the discussions about the various proposals that resulted in the Constitution and the BOR)

The thoughts of various founding fathers/framers - Washington, Madison, Franklin, Jefferson, Adams, Jay, etc...

BTW - "unalienable rights" means that our rights can not be taken, or given, away.

 

[Duckshot]

The right to arms belongs to the people. The government is only allowed arms by the consent of the people.

Why is government limiting the people's rights instead of the people regulating the government's privilege?

 

[Duckshot]

Fair enough Taht-dats-ago.

The way I see it, the right to defend oneself, or others as the circumstances dictate, is a Natural Right. The Right to modern arms is merely a natural Liberty under this Right.

The Natural right to defense has only one of two definite sources. Either rights come from God, or they come out of the barrel of a gun. Take your pick.

But, if rights come out of the barrel of a gun, wouldn't it be nice to be Equal?

 

[Tahts-a-dats-ago]

Innocent people and school kids getting killed in mass shootings is a problem that we’d like to see greatly reduced.

What can be done that doesn’t infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens, yet reduces the frequency and/or lethality of such events?


Kindest regards,
Kantuck

I agree 100%

As for those convicted for violent crimes, I believe there are steps that could be taken.

1. Stop releasing them back into the public.

2. If released, a permanent "ankle bracelet" or some other means of continuous monitoring device that tracks their movements and sends out a signal (read by background systems or something similar) that alerts the "gun" store and law enforcement (while preventing a sale). If I had my way, any effort to tamper with said device would initiate an immediate injection that would render the convict immobile for hours and alert law enforcement.

3. Require permission granted for every movement a released convict makes - only specified locations (to and from work, to/from doctor, to/from a specific store, etc..). Travel outside the permitted locations and the bracelet automatically injects the convict - immobilizing him/her for hours and notifying law enforcement.

As for those who have no convictions for violent crimes...

1. If the person is deemed potentially dangerous and had his/her day in court - why is that person not under constant supervision? I don't mean the parents watching over junior; I mean in a mental ward, locked down, and prohibited from leaving the grounds until he/she is no longer a potential threat.

2. The media needs to stop making people famous for their horrific actions.

3. We need to rethink some of the drugs that are being prescribed. If a drug has the potential to cause severe depression, anger, angst, etc.. it either needs to be prescribed only when the patient can be constantly supervised, or other medications need to be used.

4. Let the patient decide if they will give up their right to keep/bear arms in return for being prescribed medications that can cause certain potentially dangerous mental conditions. Make the print very legible, and make the patient sign such an agreement (if the patient wants the medication). If the patient signs the agreement (and is prescribed the medication) they are put on a do-not-sell list that goes into the background system.

I am very leery about letting doctors/pharmacists decide who can or cannot own a firearm. That is a very slippery slope; one that I am not comfortable with in the slightest.

 

[Tahts-a-dats-ago]

Fair enough Taht-dats-ago.

The way I see it, the right to defend oneself, or others as the circumstances dictate, is a Natural Right. The Right to modern arms is merely a natural Liberty under this Right.

The Natural right to defense has only one of two definite sources. Either rights come from God, or they come out of the barrel of a gun. Take your pick.

But, if rights come out of the barrel of a gun, wouldn't it be nice to be Equal?

I agree 100%

What was the old saying...

God created man, Samuel Colt made them equal...

Something along those lines (I think)

 

[Tesorodeoro]

I would be willing to bet big money that B. Hole had spend months of his life playing murderous video games.
Another sign of the times.

seems the reply with quote is not working.

so we ban video games, right? I'm kinda confused with your logic here. He didn't throw a PS4 at anyone or a GTA cassette.

Maybe we should send these mentally stressed folks to your house because you got the answers and three weeks later, viola, another fine, upstanding citizen that won't ever go astray. Waddda you think?

when did political parties enter into this discussion? I thought it was reserved for bleeding heart liberals and gun nuts.. As an aside, if you came to my house to installl a dishwasher and I saw the grip of a handgun sticking out of your belt holster or pocket, your employer would lose a client right then.

I never said that anything should be banned. I said it’s a symptom of the times. Per the violent video games...we should raise our children (in two parent homes IMHO) with values and morals to really not take pleasure in games that are truley distgusting. You do realize some of these games give you an opportunity to violate whomever you encounter in the game? That should be repulsive to people...disturbing. ITS NOT TO MANY PEOPLE. There is conditioning going on. You are obviously aware because you referenced GTA. I grew up playing games involving cartoon characters trying to gather coins. My dad grew up playing with scrap pieces of lumber.

I think there is a deeper societal problem THAT CANNOT BE SOLVED BY servants. There in lies your confusion. I’m not looking to servants to solve our problems.

Send people with mental illness to my home because I have all the answers? Not sure where that comes into play. Bizarre really.

I’m just saying...if you can listen....focusing on what mentally ill people are grabbing at to leash out with is probably really not going to solve anything other than to punish everyone else who isn’t dealing with severe issues. I think anybody with eyes and ears can see the deterioration of our society. This needs to be worked on...not sure how. A pill likely won’t be effective. It will take several generations. Can you agree?

If the focus is really to stop senseless violence...maybe the focus shouldn’t be on an obviously unrealistic goal (getting rid of all weapons in America).

Rather than try and pick out arguing points...do you get the general tone of what I’m saying? I’m not saying video games were to blame.

 

[crashbandicoot]

crashbandicoot:

The purpose of an expert study is to clearly define the problem, then offer intelligent solutions.

Unlike many members here, I don't pretend to have the answers. There is strong data indicating "mental illness" is a convenient distraction from the real issues, but more work needs to be done on that.

I'm not afraid of the answer(s), so I'm willing to wait for intelligent answers that aren't founded on pre-conceived notions.

There is one immediate change I'd like to see. Once a killer has been positively identified (and many of them are dead at the scene, so that part isn't too tough) I'd like the mass media to never mention his name again. There's significant evidence many of these mass killings are copycat events - that's one reason they tend to cluster.

I'm not suggesting a law against it. I'm suggesting an intelligent policy where the news concentrates on the names of the victims, and tells their stories, and ignores the murderers.


Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

The problem doesn,t need defining,it,s pretty clear,you don,t need a expert study to spout more platitudes and expert gobbledy gook.The mass killers are plain nuts,with few exceptions they are known to have mental issues and have had former interactions with the police yet nothing was done to get them help or put them somewhere they can,t hurt anyone else.Looks like we could put there name on a registry so if they try to buy a gun their name will come up as a prohibited person.Wait,I forgot we can,t do that!The suicides are more problematic,often a suicide risk does not show symptoms of that,regardless of the means used to effect the suicide.If identified,certainly help should be provided as long as that help doesn,t consist of pumping them full of psychoactive drugs that have as side effects the desire to harm oneself or others.That,s not a distraction.Gang killings also are problematic,gang violence contains a strong cultural element that nobody wants to address,that includes the experts too.I really don,t know what to do about it either,I doubt that a study will either.I can go along with your deal not to identify mass killers but I see the copycat thing as a distraction from the real issues.We do need to know the history of the killers,their interactions with police,mental health,idiosyncracies,that can be done without invoking their names.As others have said,I see you as a intelligent person,surely you have some definite opinions of what you,d like to see happen beyond this expert study you keep invoking.I,ve given what I see as a few opinions and observations,why can,t you do the same?What does bookaroo see as a solution?The world wonders.

 

[RobNC]

Well, I'm not going to debate or throw dust on anybody with their point of view. It is a fact we live in violent times where there is little to no regard for human life or any life for that matter.
I live a simple life. Work, come home to my wife and repeat. It's always been my policy to leave other people be, to let them live the way they see fit. I don't stick my nose in anyone's business and expect the same in return. If they ask me for help I will give it if I can.

There is no intent within me to harm others or cause others stress or "drama". Again, I'm expecting the same in return.
Now let's switch gears a bit and talk about today's thought process- That what others want for you without your consent is how you should live, act, or conform to. Uhh, that is when I start to get annoyed. Yes, I am a permit holder. I've carried for over 15 yrs now. I've yet to have a situation where it was necessary to "pull down" on somebody. And you know what? I don't want it to come to that.

I'm trained to avoid such conflicts and avoid places and situations that would cause such an event. I'm also trained to react when there is no other choice. Avoidance and awareness are my friends. And I've always done those things. Doing my part to stay out of trouble.

I don't think anyone that legally carries does so because they are looking to pick a fight or start trouble. Can't speak for all, only myself but if someone went to the trouble and expense of getting a legal carry permit seems stupid to mess it all up. My reason for carrying is to preserve the lives of my family and myself. I'd rather give someone the shirt off my back if they needed it. However people are getting meaner and they don't "need" things as much as they "want" them.

It's greed, gang behavior, drug habits, and going down the wrong path that push the majority of these people to do the acts we hear about that hurt other innocent people. Some others just snap under the pressure of life and rather than look within themselves and get help, they choose to hurt others instead of fixing themselves and their problems.

While I'm not blind to the pitfalls of life, there is no excuse for meaning bodily harm upon those that you have no reason to hurt. So some may say "Why are you carrying a gun then?" Really simple answer which goes back to the beginning of my post- "I will not let others harm my family or myself when I've not given them reason to." If someone has went to the level where they are rushing you, there is no question of their intent. Common sense though tells you if you see some idiot stalking a parking lot with a rifle, best thing to do is get the H outta there and be on the phone with law enforcement to report it. Just because you are carrying doesn't mean you should try to be superman or pretend you are law enforcement. If you can't remove yourself from the situation, take cover best you can find. Handgun vs rifle seldom ends well. Survival should be a concealed carry permit holder's goal- this is not the Matrix and you aren't Neo.

 

[crashbandicoot]

Very well said Rob.

 

[RobNC]

Very well said Rob.

Thank You Sir. I wish you well and everyone else here. All good people here.

 

[Old Bookaroo]

Charlie P. (NY) -

Again, your only "solution" is to ban something. I discussed above the common sense steps taken to reduce automobile fatalities. Answers that worked.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

 

[Tesorodeoro]

Thank You Sir. I wish you well and everyone else here. All good people here.

Indeed

 

[Old Bookaroo]

DDDinMD:

If you're serious about having a conversation, don't open with an insult.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

 

[RobNC]

To Old Bookaroo:

I respect your point of view, even though we might not see eye to eye 100%. What you said about mentally ill people getting media attention is a valid point. It also exposed a bigger problem- The media in general. The media gets people worked up in a number of ways, they play on people's emotions for a story and ratings. Reality TV, fabulous celebrities, unrealistic shows that distort young people's minds and give them an unattainable goal. The lies of this world and the marketing of lies to the general public is a true vector of evil. Look at all we have seen in the past few years with racial tension ramped up beyond belief. Every time that starts to slightly scab over, another idiot somewhere harms someone of one race or another. The media runs it in the ground. They play and feed off that animosity for weeks and months, further alienating scores of people against one another and they don't even know each other!

I don't know you sir, but I think your heart is in the right place though. I believe you want SOMETHING to happen, anything to happen that may help our sick society a tiny bit. You can't help those that do not think they need it (mental illness, emotionally damaged people that can't recover and resent everything, rapists, child molestors, and murderers). We also can't subject the sane, lawful, and honorable to being painted with a brush they didn't deserve ( taking away their arms because a neighbor that is troublesome and holds a grudge tells the lie the person is a threat simply because they can't force their will on that person). There is much room for abuse, corruption, and malicious intent with "red flag" style laws.

We have to start teaching children it is NOT ok to hurt others, to plot and conspire against another kid just because a certain group does not like them. It's not ok to pick on kids because of their weight, their hair, their skin color, the way they talk , or the clothes they wear. We have to start with the children and teach them there is more to a person than how they look, how they talk, their color, etc. That is the root of the problem- "parents" today don't PARENT anymore. They throw it off to anyone else, even Nintendo, Xbox, the TV, the gang down the road, anybody but them- the parent. Not everyone is cut out to be a parent, and that lack of guidance creates damaged misguided children who continue to grow into misguided teens and adults. When there no consequences to bad actions as a youth they continue to evolve and think they can do as they please throughout their life.

Let's get the children right, teach them right from wrong, good from evil. Stop allowing "educators" to push their agenda in classrooms and get back to the basics- Mathematics, History, Grammar, Family Matters, and Decency. Not Ms. Hogjawz teaching them how to hate what she hates, or her making those kids dislike each other because she favors one over another. The teacher should love all the students, not her paycheck and surely shouldn't toss them off to "the computer" while she sits back and plays on her cellphone.

Sadly it is frustrating what young kids have to be brought up in today. They are pressured at school, on the streets, at home and everywhere. Not even safe in class from someone's personal agenda or war on the world.
Yes, the children is where we should be starting. But that is just me. I could be way off base here. Too much going wrong from day one of a child's life.

 

[Tesorodeoro]

Rob thanks for making me look less intelligent and reiterating my point in a more intelligent manner.

 

[Old Bookaroo]

crashbandicoot:

The first step is to recognize there is a major problem. People ought to be able to go to school and go to work and drive down the street without getting shot. Too many of our fellow citizens are needlessly dying.

Until Americans perceive there's something wrong, they aren't going to spend any effort to make things right.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

 

[Tesorodeoro]

crashbandicoot:

The first step is to recognize there is a major problem. People ought to be able to go to school and go to work and drive down the street without getting shot. Too many of our fellow citizens are needlessly dying.

Until Americans perceive there's something wrong, they aren't going to spend any effort to make things right.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo

Who’s doing the shooting? What can we do about them?
How would we best approach these folks without affecting all the rest?

Is it realistic to think we can regulate or control everyone in order to effectively control a small group of deranged people?

 

[Old Bookaroo]

RobNC:

Your post is thoughtful and makes some good points. Yes, it starts with children. Who is raising them? A parent or parent, of course. Sometimes a grandparent. School, television, computers, phones, "society" all play a role. Their friends make a tremendous difference in their lives.

Great people raise kids who don't turn out, and jerks have kids who turn out just fine. But parents do make a huge difference.

It gets tough if those parents didn't have parents. Where's the family blueprint? Children learn from how their parents act - from what they do - far more than what they say. Hit a kid, and the kid learns it's OK to hit somebody who is smaller than you are. Years ago a wise neighbor lady told us, when our kids were about to go to school, "Now everyone is going to know how you speak with each other." We're primates and we learn by imitation.

Most teachers are dedicated and work very, very hard to do the best they can to teach children. If we want better kids and better schools we need to devote the proper resources to them. Why does a sportsball star make $100,000,000 and teachers are fortunate to drag down fifty grand a year?

It's extremely hard to be a child today. In some respects (they aren't working in coal mines and cotton mills, although far too many are out there in tobacco and other fields) it's harder than it has ever been.

Good luck to all,

The Old Bookaroo