Finally a common sense article

This is a discussion on Finally a common sense article within the General Firearm Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Lifted this from "Gun Saves Lives". If already running I apologize. Harvard Psychiatrist: We Can?t Stop Mass Shooters ? Victims Must Be Able to Defend ...

Results 1 to 7 of 7
Like Tree6Likes
  • 6 Post By txron

Thread: Finally a common sense article

  1. #1
    Senior Member Array txron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    831

    Finally a common sense article

    Lifted this from "Gun Saves Lives". If already running I apologize.

    Harvard Psychiatrist: We Can?t Stop Mass Shooters ? Victims Must Be Able to Defend Themselves
    Tinman517, gregivq, niks and 3 others like this.
    No trees were harmed in the construction of this post. However a large number of electrons were indiscriminately aroused.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Senior Member
    Array Tinman517's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Las Vegas/S.F. BA
    Posts
    656
    Make a whole lot of sense to me.

  4. #3
    Senior Member Array DaGunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    543
    KNOWLEDGE: A tomato is a fruit.
    WISDOM: Not putting a tomato in a fruit salad.
    .

  5. #4
    New Member Array Haroon525's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Rawalpindi
    Posts
    9
    Nice article. I have read it.

  6. #5
    Distinguished Member Array Diddle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Central Kentucky
    Posts
    1,461
    Yes, good article..
    Diddle
    Indusrtrial Machine Tool Technician - Certified Refrigeration Technician - CET
    NRA Life Member

  7. #6
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,051
    The second amendment makes a lot more sense than this.
    The options seem pretty clear – we would either have to go back to the involuntary commitments to asylums that we saw back in the first half of the 1900′s in which anyone who exhibits any form of mental illness is simply locked away (which is not the most desirable solution) or we allow potential victims to defend themselves from these crazy people. Berg points out that these types of violent spree killers are exceedingly rare, with less than 1 in 100,000 schizophrenics ever committing crimes such as these. Doesn’t defending ourselves from these exceedingly rare occurrences make the most sense?
    Asylums were definitely people control, not uncommonly, class, culture, or political (Soviet Union signed on) warfare, but let's not throw 2A under the vast bus or our infinite understanding.
    The founders knew the issues of of insanity in their day. They recognized the right of the people to keep and bear arms and enshrined that right.
    It isn't "we" who may "allow potential victims to defend themselves". It is "We, the people" who must defend our rights against the lunatics running the political asylum. With rights enshrined, we are supposed to be the government that can't "allow" a right.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  8. #7
    Member Array vice87's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Oregon
    Posts
    482
    It's December 1941 in Casablanca, what time is it in New York?

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •