2nd Amendment - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to General Talk

2nd Amendment

Moderator: Football Moderators

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby Omaha Red Sox » Sat Jun 28, 2008 10:26 pm

eaglesrule wrote:Gun ownership is in part defended by a right to protect your home and family. Well in the next breath, the NRA and gun advocates also chime in that they "do it safely." What does that mean? Not keeping it loaded, bullets stored in separate areas? If the chief reason is for defense, it seems weird that one would make such a production out of making the weapon viable, when it could be an issue of seconds, seconds where decisions get made on the fly.


I assume, by this paragraph, that you are not a gun owner and/or have very little experience with firearms? That, or I'm completely misunderstanding what you're saying. Unfortunately, there are many gun owners who are your crazy types who just love the power aspect of holding a firearm. But, even more unfortunate, these are the types that you hear the most about. There are millions of us across the nation that are responsible gun owners, believe me. There are many more variables surrouding responsible gun handling than you might think. If you're carrying a handgun because you believe someone is in your home who shouldn't be, is it loaded, is it cocked, safety, where's the barrel pointed, where's your trigger finger, and is this gun reliable in a necessity situation? Most important, where's the rest of your family while you're investigating? There are many things to think about when you're holding such a powerful thing in your hand and safety cannot be stressed enough. There is a reason why responsible gun owners absolutely will not shoot with someone who has not taken a course in gun safety.
Omaha Red Sox
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe Ranker
Posts: 12290
Joined: 29 Jun 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Probably over there

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby eaglesrule » Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:03 pm

Omaha Red Sox wrote:
eaglesrule wrote:Gun ownership is in part defended by a right to protect your home and family. Well in the next breath, the NRA and gun advocates also chime in that they "do it safely." What does that mean? Not keeping it loaded, bullets stored in separate areas? If the chief reason is for defense, it seems weird that one would make such a production out of making the weapon viable, when it could be an issue of seconds, seconds where decisions get made on the fly.


I assume, by this paragraph, that you are not a gun owner and/or have very little experience with firearms? That, or I'm completely misunderstanding what you're saying. Unfortunately, there are many gun owners who are your crazy types who just love the power aspect of holding a firearm. But, even more unfortunate, these are the types that you hear the most about. There are millions of us across the nation that are responsible gun owners, believe me. There are many more variables surrouding responsible gun handling than you might think. If you're carrying a handgun because you believe someone is in your home who shouldn't be, is it loaded, is it cocked, safety, where's the barrel pointed, where's your trigger finger, and is this gun reliable in a necessity situation? Most important, where's the rest of your family while you're investigating? There are many things to think about when you're holding such a powerful thing in your hand and safety cannot be stressed enough. There is a reason why responsible gun owners absolutely will not shoot with someone who has not taken a course in gun safety.


I didn't really mean it as an attack on responsible gun owners. Overall gist of my post is that I think there are some things that don't make sense to me on either side. I admit I don't know a ton about it. Just saying, that if you are having a gun for home defense, aren't the bullets supposed to be stored separately from the gun, and you aren't supposed to keep it loaded? If so, isn't that a lot of stuff one would need to do to prepare the gun for defense? It would seem to me that if someone was in my home, the time between when I realized it, and had to confront said person wouldn't be that great.

That being said, my comment wasn't a broadside against gun owners. Personally, I feel uncomfortable with it in general, but am pretty much on the side of the second amendment being legit. (still don't like handguns, couldn't a shotgun defend your home too? what about a healthy does of nunchuk skills? One of my buds is against guns almost in their totality. It should be said at this point that I am a DC resident, and prior to that, lived in NYC. So, needless to say, I have a lot of very liberal acquaintances. And to a man, they discount the argument of resisting the government, but I don't see that as ridiculous. It seems to me that our armed forces have an especially tough time with asymmetrical warfare and insurgents, many of which don't have weaponry that is that far outside the scope of what you could get here. And we don't really "care" about those people in the same way we do here. So if the government were to oppress us, I think they would be even more limited in the scope of weapons and tactics it would use on its own citizenry. I.E. no nukes (obviously), airstrikes would have to be limited, etc. And once you get past that, anti-armor weapons aren't that unheard of to get.

I know this can get to "ridiculous" in a topic. I just don't understand the "gospel" nature of the arguments.

Even if I did want a gun, I'd probably mess up. I can take all the courses I want, all the practice, all the due care in the world to make sure the family is accounted for, I am pointing correctly, ammo stored properly, you name it -- and I could see being hesitant to pull the trigger anyway, because the line is so fine on self-defense versus undue force.

I don't have easy answers, and I think the DC gun ban and Fenty's defense of it is ridiculous. I live in D.C. and work in virginia. I have a five minute (TOPS) walk to the subway, and about seven minutes between the wait for the train and arrival in Virginia. I really don't see these laws making a stitch of difference to criminals. I mean Cho got his weapons in Virginia. It isn't some odyssey to get a gun in Virginia and bring it into the district. It's a joke.

Personally, it is clear that gun ownership laws aren't going to be stricter than they are now. Gun use laws however should go through the roof. You use one to rob, carjack, rape, etc., you should be slammed to such a degree that its a real deterrent. I think at this point, it's the only way. And I do say this as someone who is on the side of the second amendment, albeit slightly. I guess its like any of my other rights, sometimes, for me, its enough to know I could exercise it if I want, even if I am not compelled to at any given time.
The opening scene of the movie "Saving Private Ryan" is loosely based on games of dodgeball Brian Dawkins played in second grade.
eaglesrule
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2843
Joined: 3 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby knapplc » Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:12 pm

Eagles, I get the gist of your treatise there, but you're lumping a lot of disparate groups together with the assumptions you're making. Gun Control and Roe v. Wade are really separate arguments, and there really aren't parallels to draw between those for one side of gun control and those for one side of Roe, except in the most broad terms. Those are really, really separate issues.
Image
How 'bout them Huskers!
knapplc
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe RankerGolden Eagle EyeCafe MusketeerCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 18961
Joined: 27 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: It's an L, not an I

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby eaglesrule » Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:25 pm

knapplc wrote:Eagles, I get the gist of your treatise there, but you're lumping a lot of disparate groups together with the assumptions you're making. Gun Control and Roe v. Wade are really separate arguments, and there really aren't parallels to draw between those for one side of gun control and those for one side of Roe, except in the most broad terms. Those are really, really separate issues.


I'm aware of that. And they are different issues on the specifics etc., but in many ways, those two issues disproportionately seem to divide the parties. And in my experience, I haven't met a lot of pro-wade, pro-gun ownership folk, and conversely, haven't encountered a lot pro-life, pro gun control people. I know they have to exist, because my own feelings don't exist on an easy spectrum. That being said, they are similar in the way both issues have fervent defenders and opposers, and given the nature of what both issues are about (life or death), I think the political nature behind both (but not the facts) there are a lot of similarities.

I should articulate it better, but am a little frazzled (watching the girl's nephew). I am just saying, anecdotally mind you, that in my experience in NYC and DC, a lot of pro-wade people speak to abortion's constitutionality and how it has been upheld by the Supreme Court. Ok, Great. But now, when it's a decision that isn't something they agree with, it's partisan, fouled, etc., and the respect of the institution of the Supreme Court as well as the fact that the Constitution actually addressed the topic in question, doesn't seem to have the same gravitas. I know its a lot of lumping, etc., just saying I find it a touch curious. Something that was secondary to a right that had to be inferred in the Constitution and was upheld by the court is sacrosanct. But something that was mentioned specifically in the Constitution and upheld by the Supreme Court is discounted.

I know this isn't universal and easily compartmentalized, and I hope I am getting my feeling about it across without offending folk, I just find the whole dichotomy of those two cases specifically interesting, as it seems very party line on those rights, and those two have dominated a heck of a lot of Supreme Court chatter since I became aware of the news.

I guess the crux of my post and experience is, my perception of the pro-choice side is that the Supreme Court has ruled, and that's that, it's now constitutional. Now, I know that the pro-choice and "left" aren't as easily categorized as I am making it for utility's sake, but this decision is being given the same level of credence that the right seems to give towards abortion. The court is inviolate when its your issue, but its flawed and partisan when its not.
The opening scene of the movie "Saving Private Ryan" is loosely based on games of dodgeball Brian Dawkins played in second grade.
eaglesrule
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2843
Joined: 3 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby deerayfan072 » Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:40 pm

eaglesrule wrote:Gun ownership is in part defended by a right to protect your home and family. Well in the next breath, the NRA and gun advocates also chime in that they "do it safely." What does that mean? Not keeping it loaded, bullets stored in separate areas? If the chief reason is for defense, it seems weird that one would make such a production out of making the weapon viable, when it could be an issue of seconds, seconds where decisions get made on the fly.


My gun is always loaded and ready in case it is needed for defense. Being responsible does not mean leaving it unloaded
Image
deerayfan072
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb SupporterCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 18976
Joined: 15 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: On an Island

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby eaglesrule » Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:41 pm

deerayfan072 wrote:
eaglesrule wrote:Gun ownership is in part defended by a right to protect your home and family. Well in the next breath, the NRA and gun advocates also chime in that they "do it safely." What does that mean? Not keeping it loaded, bullets stored in separate areas? If the chief reason is for defense, it seems weird that one would make such a production out of making the weapon viable, when it could be an issue of seconds, seconds where decisions get made on the fly.


My gun is always loaded and ready in case it is needed for defense. Being responsible does not mean leaving it unloaded



good to know. What is responsible? Locked? BTW, not an attack on gun owners at all, hope its not taken as that. I
The opening scene of the movie "Saving Private Ryan" is loosely based on games of dodgeball Brian Dawkins played in second grade.
eaglesrule
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 2843
Joined: 3 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby Kilroy » Sun Jun 29, 2008 1:05 am

eaglesrule wrote:
deerayfan072 wrote:
eaglesrule wrote:Gun ownership is in part defended by a right to protect your home and family. Well in the next breath, the NRA and gun advocates also chime in that they "do it safely." What does that mean? Not keeping it loaded, bullets stored in separate areas? If the chief reason is for defense, it seems weird that one would make such a production out of making the weapon viable, when it could be an issue of seconds, seconds where decisions get made on the fly.


My gun is always loaded and ready in case it is needed for defense. Being responsible does not mean leaving it unloaded



good to know. What is responsible? Locked? BTW, not an attack on gun owners at all, hope its not taken as that. I


A lot of that depends on whether or not it's a house where children are present. If there are, then by all means the weapon should be under lock-and-key, either in a lockbox or gun safe or by placing a trigger guard on it.
Image

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." -- Voltaire
Kilroy
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeCafe Musketeer
Posts: 13587
Joined: 6 Oct 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Making My List and Checking It Twice...

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby joelamosobadiah » Sun Jun 29, 2008 9:32 am

If there is a child in the house, there should be no way that child has access to the weapon. I have known people to keep two guns readily available in the home. An older shotgun without any ammo anywhere near the weapon close to the front door. This could act as an extreme deterrent if there are no other ready options or as a safety net if you were in the country and just had a lot of strangers coming to the door asking for gas, a ride, etc. Just answer the door with your gun by your side and if they were planning on doing anything bad that will stop them in their tracks.
Then the second gun being loaded and readily accessible to the person that needs it (and I might add to nobody else) whether it be a shotgun or handgun.

I personally want a concealed handgun license. I don't ever expect to have to use it nor do I have the slightest desire to shoot somebody. I do however, want to have the best ability to have protection if I am required to protect myself, property, or family. The main reason I would want a concealed handgun license would be for protection for my family. If somebody broke into my house and I heard something and upon investigating found somebody running out of my house with some of my property, I would not shoot them. It's just not worth it. Now however, if I had a wife or family members in the house and I found them while they were still in the house, if they did anything except run away when I found them, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot.

Bottom line in my mind is that if they banned all guns in the US, whether it be protection, or for any reason and even if they banned all manufacturing of guns in the US, the people who wanted guns to do ill will would still find them somehow.

And as far as the locking up the gun issue, having a gun to protect your property and family does no good if there is an accident due to unsafe handling or accidental firing of the gun by a child. So in my mind, first priority is protection of your family due to keeping the weapon where it is completely inaccessible to a child until they are trained to the point where you are absolutely sure that they won't touch the weapon and if they were to touch it, hey would know exactly the right way to handle deadly weapon.
Image
joelamosobadiah
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe RankerGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterGolden Eagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 16386
Joined: 4 Sep 2006
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Gun control is hitting what you aim at.

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby deerayfan072 » Sun Jun 29, 2008 9:42 am

joelamosobadiah wrote:If there is a child in the house, there should be no way that child has access to the weapon. I have known people to keep two guns readily available in the home. An older shotgun without any ammo anywhere near the weapon close to the front door. This could act as an extreme deterrent if there are no other ready options or as a safety net if you were in the country and just had a lot of strangers coming to the door asking for gas, a ride, etc. Just answer the door with your gun by your side and if they were planning on doing anything bad that will stop them in their tracks.
Then the second gun being loaded and readily accessible to the person that needs it (and I might add to nobody else) whether it be a shotgun or handgun.

I personally want a concealed handgun license. I don't ever expect to have to use it nor do I have the slightest desire to shoot somebody. I do however, want to have the best ability to have protection if I am required to protect myself, property, or family. The main reason I would want a concealed handgun license would be for protection for my family. If somebody broke into my house and I heard something and upon investigating found somebody running out of my house with some of my property, I would not shoot them. It's just not worth it. Now however, if I had a wife or family members in the house and I found them while they were still in the house, if they did anything except run away when I found them, I wouldn't hesitate to shoot.

Bottom line in my mind is that if they banned all guns in the US, whether it be protection, or for any reason and even if they banned all manufacturing of guns in the US, the people who wanted guns to do ill will would still find them somehow.

And as far as the locking up the gun issue, having a gun to protect your property and family does no good if there is an accident due to unsafe handling or accidental firing of the gun by a child. So in my mind, first priority is protection of your family due to keeping the weapon where it is completely inaccessible to a child until they are trained to the point where you are absolutely sure that they won't touch the weapon and if they were to touch it, hey would know exactly the right way to handle deadly weapon.


Good thing about that is the class to get it. The class really explains and teaches you how to handle a weapon and the do's and do not's of gun ownership. ;-D
Image
deerayfan072
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeWeb SupporterCafe Blackjack Weekly Winner
Posts: 18976
Joined: 15 Apr 2005
Home Cafe: Football
Location: On an Island

Re: 2nd Amendment

Postby joelamosobadiah » Sun Jun 29, 2008 10:36 am

deerayfan072 wrote:
Good thing about that is the class to get it. The class really explains and teaches you how to handle a weapon and the do's and do not's of gun ownership. ;-D


I completely agree. It helps that from what I have heard Amarillo has one of the best ones in the region too. ;-D
Image
joelamosobadiah
Mod in Retirement
Mod in Retirement

User avatar
Cafe WriterCafe RankerGraphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterGolden Eagle EyePick 3 Weekly WinnerMatchup Meltdown SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 16386
Joined: 4 Sep 2006
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Gun control is hitting what you aim at.

Previous

Return to General Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 20:06 hours
(and 36 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact