More weapons regulations

Remove all ads!

I know and the numbers I quoted came from a survey the actual percentage of reports is much much lower. It's impossible to estimate what is hidden from a survey and what's not. You can't estimate something which you have absolutely no information on. Also most rapes are not committed by someone who stalks women in the bush in a dark park, many are done by close friends, stable dating partners or even husbands who have somewhat of a problem accepting the word "no". While that does not make it less of a rape, I find it a bit difficult to believe that the women in these cases actually are prepared to shoot the perpetrators before it's too late. Or considering the situations I doubt they are even in the position where they are able to pull out their firearm.

 

This an excellent point. I've also seen statistics that something like half of all rapes are committed by someone who knows the victim personally; i.e., a close acquaintence, a boyfriend, or a husband. I agree with Morgoroth that this does not in any way lessen the charge of rape. However, Morgoroth makes the excellent point that even if these women were armed with a gun, would they be willing to shoot a friend, boyfriend, or husband in such a situation? I've never shot someone, so I cannot speak from experience, but I imagine that it is much harder to shoot someone you know versus a complete stranger.

 

Out of curiousity, do you feel the same way about pregnancy?

 

I have always said that I find it puzzling that you need to permit to get a shed, but you just need working parts and a partner of the opposite sex to get a kid. As an aside, I think that taking a course prior to getting pregnant would be great, although the feasibility of making that a rule (versus taking a course before getting a gun) isn't high.

 

That's why I referred to the right of freedom of movement. It is inscribed in the constitution, is it?

 

There are freedoms and there are rights. Basic freedoms are outlined in the 1st amendment.

There is no freedom or right regarding movement in the Constitution (or amendments).

 

I've always assumed that "the pursuit of happiness" implied that you had the right to pursue that happiness anywhere in the country. I'm probably wrong.

We used to have a test (or rite of passage, at least) for parenthood -- it was called "marriage" -- it may not have been legally enforced to any great degree, but it WAS socially enforced -- note the huge stigma that was attached to illegitimate births and the continuing popularity of the insult "bastard".

Sadly, some people were really obnoxious about that social enforcement and there was a rebellion. Now we glorify people who break that taboo. Of course, humiliating and degrading the violators wasn't a good policy either.

But in answer to your question, Snook, in an ideal world, every baby would be born to two parents who are responsible adults with means of support, committed to each other and committed to the welfare of the baby. Sadly, that's not the case these days.

 

Sorry fabius, i had missed your reply.
The answer is yes, no & maybe, depending on your state.

In NC, you don't have to take a firearms basics &/or safety class to purchase a firearm but you do need to take a class to get a CCW or a hunting permit.
It varies by state, some are stricter & some not as strict.
More strict: California less strict: Vermont
Here is a good list, just click on the state to get a general overview. http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/Default.aspx#?st=VT
Hope that clears up more than it confuses.

 

The pursuit of happiness is enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, which is not a legal document, as it was written and signed before any kind of United States of Ameria was ever formed. That's a good thing, too, because if it were legal, we'd have no right to ever jail or detain anyone (liberty) in any way, and any use of lethal force in any setting would be a blatant violation of someone's rights (life). Basically, this would lead to anarchy. Yea, they wanted something that sounded cool there, but I don't think they thought more about it than that.

 

This is not an attack on the democratic party just a laugh at a corrupt mayor who just happens to be a democrat.
http://blog.al.com/spotnews/2008/07/mayor_larry_langford_escorted.html

Mr Langford is apparently a bigger crook than Blago

But thats not my point in posting this. Watch the video & look at the picture(larger here) of the police escorting him
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=849021

They are FN P90's. Unfortunately they are unloaded!! There aren't any magazines loaded on the firearms!
compare the pictures with this shot of a P90 with a magazine to what the cops are carrying.

http://www.cmmginc.com/cmmg_images/tbl_images/Receivers Firearms/FN_P90.jpg

It's just hilarious, i wonder how many gun people caught that when it was first run on tv.

I didn't even know that birmingham had P90's.

 

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

If Congress decides to pass laws, say, making it illegal to stroll down the sidewalk, the courts will laugh and laugh and laugh. And then strike down the law as unconstitutional.

 

Yes, I have to say I think the 9th and 10th amendments are among my favorites. Then again, it's hard to choose, really.