Celtic Heroes

First off, derp. It does sound that you store your guns properly, and have gone through various forms of training. I applaud that. I agree with stricter gun laws (and it sounds like you aren't against that so long as it doesn't tread on your rights).

There are some things I disagree with in some of your posts. Feel free to clarify if I have misread something.

What part of "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" do you people not get. If you want to live like that fine by me, but don't come to my state and tell us how we should live.

I understand the American fascination with the Amendments. I do think, however, that a lot of times the Amendments are paraphrased and used to one's advantage.

The actual second amendment is as follows: "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."

This right to arms is directly linked to, or for the purpose of, having a well regulated militia. The problem is that you don't have a well regulated militia, and most gun owners in the States couldn't be whipped into militia shape should such a situation be needed. Well it could be argued that the US Army has filled that role. I'm not trying to take guns away... but I am saying that the terms of the Amendment have always been up for debate. It will continue to be debated until it is clarified.

The Amendment itself is vague, and has been subject to certain restrictions. You already admit that fully automatic weapons are not legal. I assume you also don't think that the average citizen should be allowed to buy a rocket launcher. The term "arms" is wide ranging. Laws have also been put in place to limit who can legally have guns.

Yes and not one of the kids in Sandy Hook was killed with an "assault rifle" they were killed with hand guns.

You are gravely mistaken, and have bought into one misguided report. The police issued a report to combat the rumours: http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284 The medical examiner has also said that the long gun was the murder weapon.

For personal protection. If the principal at SH elem. would of had a gun there might have been different outcome.

If 30 round clips were not produced, there might also have been a different outcome. No way there would be 27 people dead if he had to change clips after 5 rounds. I use 5 rounds as an example, because that is what is in place in Canada.

The first 10 amendments also known as the bill of rights were put into the constitution for the citizens protection, these amendments are more special to the citizenry because it prevents the government from doing these things. The reason why we are not a British colony now.

I do agree with you that the Bill of Rights was put in place as a way to curb a corrupt government. There are certain things that were not anticipated, however. Think about what you could say and print in 1791 with relation to African-Americans. You can't get away with that today, and with good reason. There are many cases where the freedom of speech and freedom of the press are not protected.

I think "rights" are a bit of a funny thing. They often create a Catch 22 of sorts. A right for one person can sometimes create a violation to a second party.

I think you over-exaggerate what might have happened. You wouldn't be a British colony now... you would have gained independence the way the rest of us did: Through political methods. Besides, you were an independent nation well before the Bill of Rights was introduced, so I'm not sure how you are connecting the Bill of Rights to avoidance of being a British colony.

Gangs aren't as big in the USA as 10 years ago. On doing some research on gang related gun murders, the uk has more per capita than the states as many parts of the uk have become mob rule on the streets. However the total gun crime per capita (gang and not) is less than half of that in the states

True pigman. My point is simply that it is one major difference between the US and Canada (not the UK). I put it in my list because it is something outside of the normal social fabric, thus I called it an anomaly. Perhaps I shouldn't have called it that, as I can see it being taken the wrong way.

Point being, US gang deaths account for about 2000 of the total annual murders... somewhere in the range of 10% - 15% of the total.

That being said, Canadian gang violence is up over the past 20 years, and has been up and down over the past 10 years...

@people who grew up on farm

Use god damn traps! They are reusable and are cheaper in long run

In Australia we have dingoes (wild dogs) and they threaten our cattle but instead of spending money on guns and ammo we spend it on upgraded fences and traps

It works perfectly

You can't really compare Australia to North America for several reasons, but regarding farms and farm protection... there are some distinct differences.

I don't know much about dingos, but my impression is that they are not a problem for the whole of Australia. I assume they live in certain areas. Sure, they may be a threat to farms in those areas, but not all. It would be fine for those area farmers to have fences and traps in place.

North America is much more expansive, and we don't worry about one type of animal. We have to pay attention to several.

However, the biggest difference is that in being an island, Australia has never had to deal with rabies. It simply hasn't been introduced to the ecosystem. Rabid animals do not act like sane animals. They are dangerous and unpredictable. Dingos might be scared away with a loud sound... rabid animals just keep staggering at you in a daze.

"the right to bear arms shall not be infringed"

None of the amendments state, "the right to be able to purchase ammunition shall not be infringed."
Yayyy for loopholes!
Look at the eighteenth amendment, now look at America and how many deaths there are each year from drunk drivers.
Nearly one third of car accident fatalities are from drunk drivers.
If somehow the eighteenth amendment got revoked, then how can they not justify taking away "our right to bear arms"?
(Most) People were all for revoking the amendment that prohibited the sale of liquor, but now that people our trying to take our guns away I find it rather hypocritical to say, "It's my right!" Well, what about the people who were against alcohol being legalized?
It was other people's rights to not have to worry about an idiot drunkard mug them or in today's standards, plow into them with a motor vehicle, but their right was taken away in ?1917? (Sorry I have a awful memory when it comes to dates)
Alright, The way is see it is if another amendment gets re-appealed then why shouldn't all of them?
Look at what is going on behind all this gun debated, they are trying to re-appeal the 22nd amendment.
Wow, just wow.


Please correct me if any of this info isn't accurate, I hate giving false info.

Very true Dersu, but I beg you to read the Federalist Papers. Slavery was addressed in that also.

The problem is that you don't have a well regulated militia, and most gun owners in the States couldn't be whipped into militia shape should such a situation be needed.

Actually we do have state funded militia, called National Guard. They are under control of the state they belong to but can serve as regular military units in overseas campaigns.

You are gravely mistaken, and have bought into one misguided report. The police issued a report to combat the rumours: http://www.ct.gov/despp/cwp/view.asp?Q=517284 The medical examiner has also said that the long gun was the murder weapon.

It was official stated in the report by the medical examiner, that there were no bullets over 10mm used in the shootings.

If 30 round clips were not produced, there might also have been a different outcome. No way there would be 27 people dead if he had to change clips after 5 rounds. I use 5 rounds as an example, because that is what is in place in Canada.

You do realize, in most assault rifles, a trained person can reload (any size magazine) in under 4 seconds? So why do you say that there is no way that much damage could have been done? You can easily purchase webbing in which you can store up to 12 magazines.

You wouldn't be a British colony now... you would have gained independence the way the rest of us did: Through political methods.

How can you say that for sure? If it hasn't been for the creation of the US, Britain would still of had no reason to allow for independent nations to break away from its empire.
PS- and speaking of Timothy McVeigh, he attended the same high school I am currently a student at.

Well this interesting thread


Well people who still believe the abuses from goverment cannot happen in this day and age should read more news and history books to find event in 2013 some goverment still abuse and kill their citizens .

When people refer to drugs is not only the addicts but the trade itselfs , the violence the generates is not only related to addicts , but dealers , traffickers And the list goes on and believe me how drugs get in america weapons will do the same from blackmarket to protect their illicit bussiness.


And more important a alarm system is deterrant for criminal to proceed with a crime , that will not stop him for doing crime he already aim to do if not look a bank robbers .and more important police may take 5 minutes after a call from alarm system company and1- 3 more minutes as the alarm system company try to check if is false alarm ( the home owner or bussines owner gets a fine from $50 to $150 from a false emergency so alarm companies make sure is a real emergency so they waste a few 1 - 3minutes. So 6+ minutes is alot time.

I live in alaska, and average police response time to most residences is anywhere from 10-45 minutes. I'll keep my guns thank you very much, and let the cops deal with bagging and tagging.

I live in alaska, and average police response time to most residences is anywhere from 10-45 minutes. I'll keep my guns thank you very much, and let the cops deal with bagging and tagging.

They have internet in Alaska ?

ok check out this simple expirement.
put 20 people in a room.
give every single one of em a gun.
now lets assume one of them is a criminal.
suddenly, he pulls out his gun.
he's going to have 19 bullets in his head before he can do much damage.

Now, lets put the same 20 people in the room.
Nobody is allowed to have a gun.
the criminal illegally sneaks a gun into the room.
he pulls it out.
he is now large and in charge. He can go on to do whatever he wants, and noone can oppose him or stop him.
congratulations, by taking away the good peoples' guns, you killed em all.
the "bad guys" will always have guns. They will get them illegally, steal them, whatever. They dont obey the laws we have now, so if you make those laws stricter, do you think they will obey them then? The only people you are restricting with the laws are the "good guys". The fathers that want to own a gun to protect their family. The single mothers who cant afford to live in a good neighborhood, and need a gun to feel safe. Stricter gun laws will not slow down criminals at all. It will cripple the good, law abiding citizens, allowing the criminals to get away with anything. You can look at the statistics... Countries that have strict gun laws have rampant crime. Countries where the majority of the citizens are armed have record low crime rates. I believe its in switzerland, where everyone is required to spend a certain amount of time in the military, and then when they leave the military, they keep their gun. They know how to use it, and when. This means that in switzerland, their is a gun in every house. guess what their crime rates are?