the right to bear arms

[88sins]

they also have not been able to stop the drug trade or poverty or cancer, are you personally taking up any of those initiatives into your own hands?

prior failure is not an excuse to discard civility.

corruption is one of the major reasons why bigger and bigger weapons are allowed to enter the country. The other factor is inefficiency in services that prevent such activity - We should lobby for the improvement in those areas rather than lobby to change the laws so average citizens can bear arms.

First off to answer your questions, I neither support nor tolerate illegal drugs being sold nor consumed around me nor my family, to the point that I cut off any family member that deals with that, whether weed coke ex or horse or any mix of them.
Secondly i do assist i alleviating the effects of poverty, to the extent of which I will not divulge here.
Thirdly i am not a biologist/pharmacologist/oncologist so my input into cancer research is limited.


Now down to brass tacks
Who ever said anything about "discard civility"? If citizens firearm ownership is essentially the discarding of civilization, then no one other than the police & defense forces should be allowed to carry weapons period. Not the businessman that gets robbed often, nor the pallie of a top ranking officials with a few dollars or influence, not even the security companies(that often don't even screen persons properly before applying for an fuec for them) Exercising the right to defend oneself is a basic right of all living things, from running from an attacker to being able to stand & defend yourself and your family and your home that may not be able to defend themselves from an aggressor.

The way things are now, if you are found with a knife, ice pick, screwdriver or even a needle on your person, you can be charged with an offense regardless of whether or not you have used it to this effect. Not that any of those things will do you any kind of good in a self defense situation where an armed man can end your life from 50 feet away then rob your corpse then walk away to hide out for a while. All the people are asking for is a means of leveling the playing field by being able to put some doubt and more than a little fear of mortality into the minds of the murderous miscreants that would do them harm.This is simply because they are tired of being beaten, robbed, raped & murdered. Your sentiments are your own and I can appreciate that, however much they may differ form mine.

If you put someone to manage all your assets, & that person fails miserably at the task causing you immeasurable losses & displays no guilt or remorse, losing everything you have worked for all your life, would you gladly let them manage your affairs again after you bounce back? or would you try secure your own affairs?

[rocknrolla]

gun control and enforcement by the authorities is what is needed, not arming the citizens.

Since they evidently failed over the last 15+ years to do this, despite numerous "crime plans", political promises & half wit maneuvers, and seemingly don't have a handle on the situation currently or in the foreseeable future (as viewed by the public), then what are persons that wish to protect their family supposed to do?

hire armed guards with tax payers' dollars, use the bus route escort and helicopter so u not on the ground among the strife you cause the country.

and NONSENSE about upgrade.. criminals now are getting the largest weaponry they can. long time they couldnt get weaponry full stop so they used cutlass and knife. now that they getting what they want. it matters not if citizens are armed or not to them. they will always try to bring in the biggest and best.

Duane seems to infer that if we get access to ak47s and ar-15s that criminals will bring in rocket launchers and tanks... lmao

so much for customs and coast guard eh? if a man can bring in a tank in this country, we might as well give up our sovereignty. what a failure of a system.

i agree with all other posters.. if a bandit think someone is armed they will stay away because criminals like EASY UNARMED TARGETS.

Criminal Psychology 101

[rocknrolla]

Then the bandits will get bigger guns and before you know it we walking around with rocket launchers.

So.....the bandits have got bigger guns now..........

Civilians don't have any......

Is your argument invalid?

i don't see how.

If each side keeps getting bigger guns, where will it stop? Why start a never ending cycle that will spin out of control?

Well I disagree
The fellows who break in are not stupid-just criminal.
The concept of getting shot as you break in is not on their mind.Once it is there will be a reduction.
Bigger guns are not practical(climb over a fence and run with a shot gun) in terms of what the burglar needs

I say arm the citizens who qualify and want the ability to defend their home

you don't have to agree.

at the end of the day it is a fact that criminals are now using glocs, semi automatics and machine guns when previously bandits used to come into your house with cutlass.
it is a titt for tatt and if you fuel it, it will get out of control.

gun control and enforcement by the authorities is what is needed, not arming the citizens.

gun control actually means allowing registration of firearms by civillians just so u know.

and enforcement by the authorities? i not saying they dont enforce, but they have to be there.. if a man head could get chop off and placed on a sidewalk without anyone seeing, do u really think law enforcement can be everywhere they need to be at once?

listen by the time they reach u dont get 40 shots and the bandits disappear into the bushes.

The task is simply ridiculous to depend on police officers to always be around when you need help. it is impossible. the ministers keep talkin, the commissioner keep talkin about trying... but the officers on the street when they reach out there does realize "there is only so much we can do and cant honour the promises of the politicians".. place their hand in their pocket and speak, hear and see no evil.

some people need to face reality out here.

when guns are outlawed.. only criminals will have guns. and law abiding citizens are sacrificial lambs to the state and its incompetencies.

[rocknrolla]

there must be a provision for concealed carry. u dont want to advertise that u have a gun. but to have it concealed (pistol) except for use in dire emergencies.

[88sins]

there must be a provision for concealed carry. u dont want to advertise that u have a gun. but to have it concealed (pistol) except for use in dire emergencies.

I believe that a concealed carry provision related to sidearms would lead to problems very quickly, potentially that criminals would be able to access pistols a little more freely w/o a license(just steal a pistol, or buy one from some shady character willing to sell it to them). Or some unstable hothead fool that believes he's superman because he has a concealed weapon on him might be all too happy to shoot someone w/o proper cause. Or a child could hide a pistol in his bag & take it to school in a rage or to show off & we all know the possible scenarios of that. That's why I personally wouldn't recommend starting with allowing pistols or cc from the beginning. Most rifles are not as easy to hide as a pistol, unless trini's plan to start wearing trench coats & dashiki's on a regular basis in the kinda heat we get here. Too easy to hide=too easy to be misused & abused. Businessmen with a desire to protect their stores can keep a weapon concealed behind the register, or have concealed armed security if need be.

An armed population not only defends themselves, they are also there to support the police by acting as a deterrent to those that would flout the law. Additionally, they are also there to assist the police and the defense forces in the event that those that are supposed to uphold the law or a nations sovereignty would need their assistance.

[rocknrolla]

there must be a provision for concealed carry. u dont want to advertise that u have a gun. but to have it concealed (pistol) except for use in dire emergencies.

I believe that a concealed carry provision related to sidearms would lead to problems very quickly, potentially that criminals would be able to access pistols a little more freely w/o a license(just steal a pistol, or buy one from some shady character willing to sell it to them). Or some unstable hothead fool that believes he's superman because he has a concealed weapon on him might be all too happy to shoot someone w/o proper cause. Or a child could hide a pistol in his bag & take it to school in a rage or to show off & we all know the possible scenarios of that. That's why I personally wouldn't recommend starting with allowing pistols or cc from the beginning. Most rifles are not as easy to hide as a pistol, unless trini's plan to start wearing trench coats & dashiki's on a regular basis in the kinda heat we get here. Too easy to hide=too easy to be misused & abused. Businessmen with a desire to protect their stores can keep a weapon concealed behind the register, or have concealed armed security if need be.

An armed population not only defends themselves, they are also there to support the police by acting as a deterrent to those that would flout the law. Additionally, they are also there to assist the police and the defense forces in the event that those that are supposed to uphold the law or a nations sovereignty would need their assistance.

good points and for that reason.. i support "Gun Control". have everyone register for their gun and register each gun they purchase and own. unregistered guns can lead to a fine/confiscation/jailtime. we will store this in a database. the government itself will sell guns to the public and a log of sales for each customer is kept. how many bullets they bought, type etc.

furthermore, all who apply should be required to go through a training period, much like police training if not at police training camp self to be trained in the use of firearms including situational training etc. sort of like in Sweden. train everyone to defend themselves. make a sort of training and examination process out of it. 1 year bootcamp or something to that effect.

[Redman]

Then the bandits will get bigger guns and before you know it we walking around with rocket launchers.

So.....the bandits have got bigger guns now..........

Civilians don't have any......

Is your argument invalid?

i don't see how.

If each side keeps getting bigger guns, where will it stop? Why start a never ending cycle that will spin out of control?

Well I disagree
The fellows who break in are not stupid-just criminal.
The concept of getting shot as you break in is not on their mind.Once it is there will be a reduction.
Bigger guns are not practical(climb over a fence and run with a shot gun) in terms of what the burglar needs

I say arm the citizens who qualify and want the ability to defend their home

you don't have to agree.

at the end of the day it is a fact that criminals are now using glocs, semi automatics and machine guns when previously bandits used to come into your house with cutlass.
it is a titt for tatt and if you fuel it, it will get out of control.

gun control and enforcement by the authorities is what is needed, not arming the citizens.

If it was a tit for tat scenario why the escalation from cutlass?
Gun laws have not changed, so there is a contradiction somewhere.

Guns are more accessible than before,and more effective than a cutlass,and inherently more concealable,so that would logically support wider criminal use of fire arms.

The realities that we live with don't lend themselves to gun control and enforcement being the solution.
They are a part of the solution

Allow fire arms for home defense.

[rocknrolla]

Then the bandits will get bigger guns and before you know it we walking around with rocket launchers.

So.....the bandits have got bigger guns now..........

Civilians don't have any......

Is your argument invalid?

i don't see how.

If each side keeps getting bigger guns, where will it stop? Why start a never ending cycle that will spin out of control?

Well I disagree
The fellows who break in are not stupid-just criminal.
The concept of getting shot as you break in is not on their mind.Once it is there will be a reduction.
Bigger guns are not practical(climb over a fence and run with a shot gun) in terms of what the burglar needs

I say arm the citizens who qualify and want the ability to defend their home

you don't have to agree.

at the end of the day it is a fact that criminals are now using glocs, semi automatics and machine guns when previously bandits used to come into your house with cutlass.
it is a titt for tatt and if you fuel it, it will get out of control.

gun control and enforcement by the authorities is what is needed, not arming the citizens.

If it was a tit for tat scenario why the escalation from cutlass?
Gun laws have not changed, so there is a contradiction somewhere.

Guns are more accessible than before,and more effective than a cutlass,and inherently more concealable,so that would logically support wider criminal use of fire arms.

The realities that we live with don't lend themselves to gun control and enforcement being the solution.
They are a part of the solution

Allow fire arms for home defense.

just note "gun control" as uve used it doesnt have the same meaning in the political sphere. gun control refers to registration and logging of firearm owners.

what we have in trinidad is gun denial and elitism

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Bandits have bigger better Arms now because of their war with one another and not because of legitimate gun owners.

Therefore I cannot see your logic that if more people are given legitimate guns that there will be an "Arms Race".

so if the war is between them, why do you want one?

[cinco]

I want bear arms RAWWWRRR

[rocknrolla]

Bandits have bigger better Arms now because of their war with one another and not because of legitimate gun owners.

Therefore I cannot see your logic that if more people are given legitimate guns that there will be an "Arms Race".

so if the war is between them, why do you want one?

to help clean up the spillover that threatens innocent civillians.

[tourniquet]

I want bear arms RAWWWRRR

[Firewall]

Then the bandits will get bigger guns and before you know it we walking around with rocket launchers.

So.....the bandits have got bigger guns now..........

Civilians don't have any......

Is your argument invalid?

i don't see how.

If each side keeps getting bigger guns, where will it stop? Why start a never ending cycle that will spin out of control?

Usually you make a reasoned argument, however, your stance on this topic, with your reason as stated above seems a bit like a rant based on personal preference (which is also your right)

Refer to the parts in red.....

Escalation has already led to ONE side having "bigger guns" i.e. criminals with assault rifles etc.
Which is the other side that you see arming themselves?

The sentiment which you have continuously posted as an argument against allowing citizens permissions to own guns seems to be invalidated by the simple fact that this escalation is mutually exclusive to citizens owning guns (it has happened regardless of this fact.)

Additionally,

Bandits have bigger better Arms now because of their war with one another and not because of legitimate gun owners.

Therefore I cannot see your logic that if more people are given legitimate guns that there will be an "Arms Race".

so if the war is between them, why do you want one?

So, you are saying that bandits ONLY shoot/rob/kill/rape/terrorize other bandits...........

Tuner Admin must come with its own private bubble.

Agreed there are pros and cons to citizens owning firearms, however, the above posted reason has to be one of the most naive EVER.

[sMASH]

We already have gun control. It regulates LEGALLY issued arms. THe problem lies with the illegal arms. If the system can control that then we good.

You pacifists are confusing hooligans with criminals.
Hooligans do stuff off of the top of their heads, without consideration of the consequences.
Criminals will seek an easy target with little threat to themselves. They have nothing to prove, just things to gain. If they can't enjoy those things because of incarceration, injury, or death, then it is not worth taking.

Criminals usually live to fight another day. They will grand charge to intimidate an suppress any opposition but if it gets thick, they turn tail n head for the hills.

The law in Texas is AGAINST having your weapons concealed. The main
Reason being that the arms are supposed to act as deterrent first. then if the miscreants are not deterred then it is a means of defense.



Monkey know which tree to climb, after evaluating the trees

[rocknrolla]

actually the stuff Duane is saying has come straight out of the democratic platform in USA lol. i know it oh too well. a product of superimposing foreign political justifications on outr country but he forgot to note that we have never had the right to bear arms in this country.

also a political viewpoint is biased from onset. the populous should never accept a political viewpoint unless they themselves drove it to the platform. much data is ignored. simple facts like places where gun restriction is in place statistically have higher levels of gun related crime. whereas areas where full gun rights are installed have less gun crime spillover and more "store owner ghee's attempted robber pellets for breakfast" news reports.

[rocknrolla]

We already have gun control. It regulates LEGALLY issued arms. THe problem lies with the illegal arms. If the system can control that then we good.

You pacifists are confusing hooligans with criminals.
Hooligans do stuff off of the top of their heads, without consideration of the consequences.
Criminals will seek an easy target with little threat to themselves. They have nothing to prove, just things to gain. If they can't enjoy those things because of incarceration, injury, or death, then it is not worth taking.

Criminals usually live to fight another day. They will grand charge to intimidate an suppress any opposition but if it gets thick, they turn tail n head for the hills.

The law in Texas is AGAINST having your weapons concealed. The main
Reason being that the arms are supposed to act as deterrent first. then if the miscreants are not deterred then it is a means of defense.



Monkey know which tree to climb, after evaluating the trees

it does take too long. padna of mine finally getting his after 7 years stalled application.

dont see why we cant walk in a gun store.. produce id, 2 utility bills, birth certificate, passport, bank account statement header etc and showing we of age and walk out with a gun. add "passed on gun training certificate" to that mix and i think we would be ok

criminals will still be using hidden(illegal guns) cuz they dont want to be on the system database to get tracked when they commit a crime.

these databases are very efficient now. u can pull up everyone with a 45 magnum in the country in 3 clicks of a mouse. see their ammunition purchase history etc.

[88sins]

we all have to remember that this is T&T, & these heartless spineless crooked lying thieving useless politicians that i wouldn't use to wipe my ass(i wouldn't want to get my ass dutty) don't want an armed citizenry for more than a few a reasons.
I wonder who can guess the PRIMARY reason? Take a shot at it nah(pun very frickin intended)

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ what I'm saying is that while utopic, we should strive for a society that does not require guns for anything. And yes that is my opinion.

I think if citizens start arming themselves (especially where the prime motive is to feel badder than the criminals) then it will start a cycle of who has the bigger gun. i.e. if I get a revolver, the bandit gets a gloc, I get semi-automatic, the bandits get machine guns and so it goes

I respect your primal need to hold a weapon; I just think that passing legislation for everyone to bear arms in T&T not a way forward for our society. As alot of you also pointed out where corruption and 3rd world thinking abound.

[rocknrolla]

rofl at calling the right to bear arms utopic, then suggestic we should strive for a society that doesnt need guns.

but ur right that's not utopia, that is heaven manifest on earth lol

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

rofl at calling the right to bear arms utopic, then suggestic we should strive for a society that doesnt need guns.

but ur right that's not utopia, that is heaven manifest on earth lol

simple primary school comprehension

i said a society that has no need for guns is utopic

[pugboy]

Strive and reality are two different things though

[wagonrunner]

with the rampant stupidity prevalent today, arming the populace would create Zimmerman style killings.
too many are too insecure to carry a weapon which they would depend to equalize imaginary situations.

[pugboy]

Probably, there are a lot more ppl with gun licenses than one would think though

[88sins]

Duane my boy, as long as there are those among us that are guided by a broken moral compass, willing & able to harm others with no other purpose than personal gain in whatever form, humans will never see a peaceful existence, and as a result will always need a mechanism to ensure self preservation.

[Redman]

Non violence never solve nuttin.

Just saying...

Seriously tho, just have a qualification process,medical,psych,and a bond, and allow people to own a fire arm strictly for their homes.
If you caught with it outside your property on your person ,forfeit the bond,take a fine and lose any right to own a fire arm.
If you going to the range it must be unloaded in your trunk.

And there you have gun control and enforcement.

[rocknrolla]

http://therightscoop.com/if-there-ever- ... bject_map={%22576545805700224%22%3A250760818395532}&action_type_map={%22576545805700224%22%3A%22og.likes%22}&action_ref_map={%22576545805700224%22%3A%22s%3DshowShareBarUI%3Ap%3Dfacebook-like%22}

[rocknrolla]

Non violence never solve nuttin.

Just saying...

Seriously tho, just have a qualification process,medical,psych,and a bond, and allow people to own a fire arm strictly for their homes.
If you caught with it outside your property on your person ,forfeit the bond,take a fine and lose any right to own a fire arm.
If you going to the range it must be unloaded in your trunk.

And there you have gun control and enforcement.

u gonna need it loaded to buss 2 in carjackers' and other daytime robbery business.

[88sins]

already have ting for carjackers, jus hard to get it installed here

[Firewall]

^ what I'm saying is that while utopic, we should strive for a society that does not require guns for anything. And yes that is my opinion.

I agree with the above

I think if citizens start arming themselves (especially where the prime motive is to feel badder than the criminals) then it will start a cycle of who has the bigger gun. i.e. if I get a revolver, the bandit gets a gloc, I get semi-automatic, the bandits get machine guns and so it goes

Waaaaw, so wanting ACCESS to a means of defense automatically means that the prime motive is to "feel badder than the criminals" Where did that generalization come from????

Unless you meant that "IF" such is the prime motive, then.........etc, which is a statement requiring factual evidence of such (afaik, there has been no study or research linking the wanting of access to legal firearms by citizens to the level of "badness" they feel upon ownership

I respect your primal need to hold a weapon;


Your negative portrayal of wanting to "hold a weapon" as being primal has no basis in fact except within your opinion. However, if by primal need you mean the RIGHT to defend oneself by the use of an available TOOL, then i guess that I am primal. Additionally, the numerous first world countries which already allow the citizenry access to firearms should have their "status" revoked because they are obviously too "primal"


I just think that passing legislation for everyone to bear arms in T&T not a way forward for our society.
Are there not existing legislation and channels to go through for ownership?

As alot of you also pointed out where corruption and 3rd world thinking abound.

Honestly, one may make the case that you think that opening up firearm ownership would be giving people a "license to kill".

However, there are just two things more:

1)
With the relative ease of obtaining an illegal firearm, only the law abiding citizens (or persons respecting the rule of law) do not have one, or access to one.........agree?
What then would change their mindset from law abiding to "primal".
Let's use you as an example: Apart from your personal distaste of firearms, would owning one so drastically change your behavior?

2)
As stated over and over ad nauseum, "when firearms are outlawed, only outlaws will have firearms"

[sMASH]

i said a society that has no need for guns is utopic

'He who desires peace, prepare for war'