the right to bear arms

[pugboy]

I know more than a few ppl with legal guns,
None of them would be classed as changed to primal,
In fact they all hide/prefer nobody knows they carry a gun and
Given our legal system would only use as a last resort.

Of course there will always be folks who think a gun will get rid of their shortman syndrome

[kjaglal76]

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.

so jus lie down and take bullet ent? bcuz we doh want d bandits to get bigger guns ent?

fun fact: d bandits already have big guns, while citizens doh have chit, any gun cud harm/kill/defend, is time law abiding citizens be afforded the oppurtunity to defend themselves

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

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?

perhaps it might. Road rage in a gun toting society may be a recipe for disaster.

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

well then we would be better off having a 7 page discussion on getting rid of the outlaws!

Let me use an extreme example: The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
This is an international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, for obvious reasons due to the terrible and long lasting destruction caused by these types of weapons.

There is a reason the UN supports such a treaty and works hard towards non-proliferation and disarmament - because proliferation of these weapons would be catastrophic for the entire planet in the event of conflict.

No doubt the treaty has its issues, problems and loop-holes, but I think it is a step in the right direction once conducted in a fair manner that achieves its goals.

[rocknrolla]

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?

perhaps it might. Road rage in a gun toting society may be a recipe for disaster.

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

well then we would be better off having a 7 page discussion on getting rid of the outlaws!

Let me use an extreme example: The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
This is an international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, for obvious reasons due to the terrible and long lasting destruction caused by these types of weapons.

There is a reason the UN supports such a treaty and works hard towards non-proliferation and disarmament - because proliferation of these weapons would be catastrophic for the entire planet in the event of conflict.

No doubt the treaty has its issues, problems and loop-holes, but I think it is a step in the right direction once conducted in a fair manner that achieves its goals.

when they get through with the treaty let me know. for now.. all smart ppl in all countries not gonna give up their guns. not a surprise that backwards trinidad cannot find the proper rhetoric to agree with gun rights unanimously. CRIMINALS WILL NEVER GIVE UP ILLEGAL WEAPONRY TO HOLD AN ADVANTAGE IN HOSTILE ASSAULT AND ROBBERY.

[Firewall]

To address the Road Rage and other similar issues:

In a word.....consequences.

Legal firearms are as a common practice worldwide, cataloged. Therefore unlike illegal ones there would be a ballistics database to identify the owner after which consequences for their actions can be brought to bear.

Again, making firearms available does not mean that they will be shared like candy. There will still be the need to meet the requirements for ownership, aiding in insuring responsible owners. (Citing as reference the people who already have legal firearms and have not gone around on shooting sprees)

As to the second point:

While the analogy may be extreme, we can look at a few salient points wherin other correlations may be made in rebuttal

There is the call, and efforts for the disarmament of nuclear arsenals. However, do the so called "superpowers" disarm themselves, leaving themselves open to attack, in the interest of the greater good?

The over-arching philosophy for the prevention of nuclear warfare is mutually assured distruction, which coincidentally, as stated before is a form of prevention.

Would countries with links to terrorism (lets call them criminals to further the analogy) think to launch a nuclear icbm on say....the United States (in this instance the civilian) if there was the fear of reprisal?

However, on a smaller scale with firearms, this seems to work counterintuitively where criminals would attack to steal legal firearms with no care for their own personal mutually assured destruction.

To use another analogy (but less extreme than nuclear):

The majority of people are against censorship in any form but would hypocritically accept "firearm bans"

As with choice, one need not "indulge" if it goes against their personal beliefs, however the choice is there for those that wish to (with the relevant legal framework to guide behaviour)

[Redman]

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?

perhaps it might. Road rage in a gun toting society may be a recipe for disaster.

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

well then we would be better off having a 7 page discussion on getting rid of the outlaws!

Let me use an extreme example: The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
This is an international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons, for obvious reasons due to the terrible and long lasting destruction caused by these types of weapons.

There is a reason the UN supports such a treaty and works hard towards non-proliferation and disarmament - because proliferation of these weapons would be catastrophic for the entire planet in the event of conflict.

No doubt the treaty has its issues, problems and loop-holes, but I think it is a step in the right direction once conducted in a fair manner that achieves its goals.

And how has that worked out for the UN.
the biggest culprits ,the us and Russia have not done anything other than token reductions of some classes of their arsenal.
And those that want nuc s have them any way.


If you don't want a fire arm that's fine, but the reality is that there is a quantity of fire arms in the hands of individuals with the intent to do harm.
There are those of us that are primal enough to want to protect our families against one of these fellows.
Why shouldn't we be allowed to?

If hypothetically there was an armed citizen who intervened at the Navy yard, or any of the mass shootings going back to columbine, stopping the shooter before much harm was done, many people would be alive

[88sins]

I wonder how many persons would be willing to make themselves present to sign up for a petition to show the stats desire of what percentage of the country wants the right to keep & carry firearms and non lethal defensive weapons. Not just firearms, but tazers, pepper spray & others as well that are currently prohibited.
I'm willing to bet the amount of people might fill the whole of POS(or at the very least pack the QPS).

[sMASH]

Personally, I don't want a firearm. But I want more citizens who are deemed stable, the opportunity to have. I would be better off with tazzers and pepper spray.

But I would feel safer when there is a greater proportion of people with guns that will use it for good than vice versa.




Mutually assured destruction will ensure stability.


Bandits will take the easy, self preservative way.

[PariaMan]

Bandits coming into your house to rape your wife and children with guns and rifles and all the state allow you to have is a cutlass. No taser, no pepper spray no gun.

I wonder if Duanes wife and children were raped and abused in his own house while he watches on impotently if he would still have the same opinion!

The bandits in the states fear nothing more than hearing the click of a pump action shot gun when entering a dark house!

[kjaglal76]

I wonder if Duanes wife and children were raped and abused in his own house while he watches on impotently if he would still have the same opinion!

excuse duane, he resides in a bubble

[RIPEBREDFRUIT]

thank goodness a fish gun does not require a permit.
trespass in my house and its a spear in your chest you shall collect.

i dont want a firearm either..... im good with what i have

[DFC]

i believe every man should have a beer in each hand.

[wagonrunner]

[rocknrolla]

I wonder how many persons would be willing to make themselves present to sign up for a petition to show the stats desire of what percentage of the country wants the right to keep & carry firearms and non lethal defensive weapons. Not just firearms, but tazers, pepper spray & others as well that are currently prohibited.
I'm willing to bet the amount of people might fill the whole of POS(or at the very least pack the QPS).

im down

[88sins]

Who else is in?

[88sins]

Instructions for the current situation as is

[Redman]

Who else is in?

That eh hard -I have a maxi load a men waiting to sign up

I wonder if Duanes wife and children were raped and abused in his own house while he watches on impotently if he would still have the same opinion!

This is crap.

[*KRONIK*]

Who else is in?

I bringing a whole maxi full....

[PariaMan]

Who else is in?

That eh hard -I have a maxi load a men waiting to sign up

I wonder if Duanes wife and children were raped and abused in his own house while he watches on impotently if he would still have the same opinion!

This is crap.

Why? This is a reality! It has happened in trinidad many times!

Someone is breaking into your house in the middle of the night. What do you do?
What is the recommendation from the Police?
How can you defend yourself?
What are the options?
When you know the bandits coming in fully armed?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

I wonder if Duanes wife and children were raped and abused in his own house while he watches on impotently if he would still have the same opinion!

I am not basing my decision on a petty concept that "oh I'm not affected" that is not the case at all. I think I am absolutely affected and while I do feel more secure mentally with a firearm I do not think that is the answer to our core problem.

I've been held up at gun point and stuffed in my own trunk already (2001) and I still feel the same way about arming citizens.

the point I'm making is that we need to address the issue of bandits coming into people's houses in the first place rather than find a plaster for a sore that would soon fester and next thing we have the wild west where bandits come with a rocket launcher by your house - what then?

[[X]~Outlaw]

Duane you're talking about escalation but right now law abiding citizens have no means to defend themselves.

If things do escalate and bandits do get "bigger" guns that would still be better than now. Why? Because at least then you have a fighting chance to retaliate, now..you have NONE.

[pugboy]

These are the kind of things prospective political parties should be putting to the population instead of normal old tief thing
This would guarantee a lot of voters to come out either way

[Redman]

Who else is in?

That eh hard -I have a maxi load a men waiting to sign up

I wonder if Duanes wife and children were raped and abused in his own house while he watches on impotently if he would still have the same opinion!

This is crap.

Why? This is a reality! It has happened in trinidad many times!

Someone is breaking into your house in the middle of the night. What do you do?
What is the recommendation from the Police?
How can you defend yourself?
What are the options?
When you know the bandits coming in fully armed?

If you need to bring these kinda extreme scenarios into an argument to make a point you don't have one.

[Redman]

I wonder if Duanes wife and children were raped and abused in his own house while he watches on impotently if he would still have the same opinion!

I am not basing my decision on a petty concept that "oh I'm not affected" that is not the case at all. I think I am absolutely affected and while I do feel more secure mentally with a firearm I do not think that is the answer to our core problem.

I've been held up at gun point and stuffed in my own trunk already (2001) and I still feel the same way about arming citizens.

the point I'm making is that we need to address the issue of bandits coming into people's houses in the first place rather than find a plaster for a sore that would soon fester and next thing we have the wild west where bandits come with a rocket launcher by your house - what then?

But the reality is what we have today is a system that is broken. So the reality is that the citizenry is at a significant disadvantage.

It's like trying to win a car race when you are the only one in the race obeying the speed limit.

There is a way that we can screen prospective applicants ,train and bond them to a required level of behaviour.

I don't know ANY one that has a legal gun that limes late,drinks more than socially ,does drugs, or behaves in any extreme manner.

The challenge we have is in fact to maintain an oversite process that is effective,implemented and maintained.

[kjaglal76]

Who else is in?

That eh hard -I have a maxi load a men waiting to sign up

I wonder if Duanes wife and children were raped and abused in his own house while he watches on impotently if he would still have the same opinion!

This is crap.

Why? This is a reality! It has happened in trinidad many times!

Someone is breaking into your house in the middle of the night. What do you do?
What is the recommendation from the Police?
How can you defend yourself?
What are the options?
When you know the bandits coming in fully armed?

If you need to bring these kinda extreme scenarios into an argument to make a point you don't have one.

pal dat i reality, it happens right thru in trini, that aint extreme, is the norm.

come up for some air plz

[MG Man]

half the population cannot even handle a car properly / responsibly.....gi dem guns??
O_o

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

Duane you're talking about escalation but right now law abiding citizens have no means to defend themselves.

If things do escalate and bandits do get "bigger" guns that would still be better than now. Why? Because at least then you have a fighting chance to retaliate, now..you have NONE.

if you are using ratio as an argument i.e. "bigger guns give us a better fighting chance", then should the government allow everyone to carry as much firepower as they feel necessary so as to increase their chances? where is the legal limit set?

[kjaglal76]

half the population cannot even handle a car properly / responsibly.....gi dem guns??
O_o

stop pulling stats out yur bamcee plz, nuh bcuz.ppl.doh come "race" in carpark doh mean dey cant drive

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

I wonder if Duanes wife and children were raped and abused in his own house while he watches on impotently if he would still have the same opinion!

I am not basing my decision on a petty concept that "oh I'm not affected" that is not the case at all. I think I am absolutely affected and while I do feel more secure mentally with a firearm I do not think that is the answer to our core problem.

I've been held up at gun point and stuffed in my own trunk already (2001) and I still feel the same way about arming citizens.

the point I'm making is that we need to address the issue of bandits coming into people's houses in the first place rather than find a plaster for a sore that would soon fester and next thing we have the wild west where bandits come with a rocket launcher by your house - what then?

But the reality is what we have today is a system that is broken. So the reality is that the citizenry is at a significant disadvantage.

It's like trying to win a car race when you are the only one in the race obeying the speed limit.

the problem there then is the enforcement of the rules of the race. The solution in such a race CANNOT be to let everyone break the rules!!!

There is a way that we can screen prospective applicants ,train and bond them to a required level of behaviour.

I am all for that, but if done properly alot of people who think they deserve a firearm license will not get one unless that screen process is relaxed.

I don't know ANY one that has a legal gun that limes late,drinks more than socially ,does drugs, or behaves in any extreme manner.

probably because of the current process to get a licensed firearm?

relax the process and make it easier to get a licensed firearm and that will change.

The challenge we have is in fact to maintain an oversite process that is effective,implemented and maintained.

if we apply that to a crime plan then the gun problem will not exist in the first place and citizens will not need to arm themselves.

[PariaMan]

Not gee then guns. But wanting to protect your family should be a valid reason to want a gun and once you meet good character criteria you should get it!

It should not be that only big business men have the right to defend themselves!