I don't understand why we even teach "rape prevention" why don't we teach "do not rape." If a women wants to carry a gun, or any other weapon for that matter to make her feel safe than I don't see a problem. I understand wanting to ban weapons on campus or what not but do gun free zones actually prevent mass shootings and other scary things people with guns can do? I think not.
they didn't ban concealed weapons. they just made them illegal to carry on campuses of universities. Besides, why not knives? Easy to conceal, and can be used against a sex offender quite effectively thanks to the close-range nature of both knives and rapists.
(and personally, despite me being for gun control, I am all for the use of revolvers. Only six shots, longer reload, but it gets the job done and anyone can use it. Besides, it is more suited for home defense than a rifle with a 30 round magazine; hard to aim a rifle quickly in tight quarters.)
"In light of our nation's extensive practice of restricting citizens' freedom to carry firearms in a concealed manner, we hold that this activity does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment's protections."
You believe that Colorado HB 1226 is the final measure? These people have an agenda of what they want, and these are all just incremental steps to get to that point. Just look at the wording here: ...Our nation's extensive practice restricting citizens' freedom. If the court decided that conceal carry is not "bearing arms" what is? Only "open carry?" Then why are open carry bans in place in many cities?
look; rapists aren't exactly known for distance work; very up close and personal. wielding a knife against a dude with his dick exposed and up close would be more effective anyways. (whereas a gun would either need to be hidden long enough to shoot him or pulled out before he has any element of surprise and after he has revealed his intentions.)
if you're not down to get guns banned, keep on voting; the whole process depends on people voting anyways. if there are still people who want to keep their guns, they aren't to ban guns outright. Just don't get all pissy when the majority feels the need to control guns every now and again.
we've been through this cycle before; public hates guns, then it loves guns, then back to hating guns. no need to stress over a constantly changing public opinion, even if it currently disagrees with your beliefs.
A women who is petite of stature would hardly be able to fend off an attacker with a knife. You think the rapist says "stand there a minute while I rape you please, and dont stab me ma'am." The gun is the great equalizer. Rapists are opportunity hunters and go after the most vunerable indeviduals. Simply knowing a woman has a gun isoften dterrent enough, according to those who were interviewd in prison. Based on data from Colorado State University crime reports, between 1998-2002, while it was illegal to conceal carry on campus, the amount of rapes was significantly higher then after that law was repealed in 2003.
Believe me, I do vote. I am incredibly active in my government. I stay in constant contact with my state reps and senators. And yes, I will get "pissy" when the majority of lawmakers want to control guns. For several reasons. First and formost because it is a direct attack on a Constitutional right that has already been eroded to an almost nonexistant right and secondly because most of the people, in this state at least, do NOT want stricter gun control. At every townhall meating, open judiciary and floor hearing the anti-gun nuts have been severely outnumbered. According to state lawmakers themselves, their facebook pages,email inboxes and answering machines are overflowing with people who are against stricter gun control, yet they vote for it anyways. Believe me, we wont forget this next year when we put these mongrels out on their ass.
I will stress because over the last two and a quarter centuries, the 2nd amendment has been watered down to the point where our lawmakers today might actually belive that it has something to do with deer hunting, and they certaintly try to convince us that is the case. I am not fighting for the whole amendment because the whole amendment no longer exists. We are clinging the very last vestiges of what it is supposed to be.
iunno; rapists do kinda make themselves vulnerable when STICKING A MEATSTICK INTO SOMEONE WITHOUT PERMISSION. If a petite lady can slice up sausage when making dinner, she'll have no problems cutting a motherfucker.
cocks aren't known to develop armor plating mid-coitus. And even if a dickslash can't be achieved, a stab to the leg can make fleeing easier and a stab to the arm can make his grip a lot looser. (not to mention the other, more lethal stab-zones that are slightly less available)
a pocketknife can be placed into a pocket, silently/stealthily drawn, can and will discourage attackers if pulled preemptively, and with technique, can subdue any attacker, regardless of size or strength. Just because you can't kill with it as easily as you could a handgun, doesn't mean it's any less lethal.
The topic of this thread and Colorado legislation are relative to one another. The comment I replied to is directly related to the Colorado bill. While there may be states who have different laws and bills, thats not what we are talking about.
I am aware that the courts decision is technically correct. Due to the "extensive practice restricting citizens' freedom" (the courts words, not mine) a precedent has been set forth that was never intended by the Constitution. The interpretation of the 2nd Amendment has been frought with conflicting views since its inception. The right to bear arms has been similarly upheld and denied by different courts based on judicial activism on both sides of the issue. Unfortunately, first person context has been rarely cited and the original intent of the right has been muddied and confused over the past two and a quarter centuries. Combine that with many measures that have passed through the decades which have diluted and eroded the right until we arrive at the modern day where people believe that the founders of this nation were concerned with deer population.
Finally, as I said before, if the "right to bear arms" does not mean bearing them concealed and does not mean bearing them openly, how the hell else are we supposed to bear them?
Should I put a sticky note for me to see whenever I step out my front door "check your Constitution here." My rights dont apply outside my private residence? Really? Sadly, that is once again "technically" correct.
Look, I dont carry weapons with me anywhere except to the duck blind and the range. Other then that I keep them at home. But,some people do want to carry them because they live in fear which is something I disagree with, but, hey, its their life. There are plenty of states and munincipalities that do allow open carry of firearms. Oddly enough, they arent any more prone to crime then anywhere else!
Whenever your views are so absurd and conflicting its hard to walk in a straight line, so to speak. Of course they have the perfect defence "things mean what I say they mean, not what they actually mean."
Colorados own "puke pee and flee" defense as one of our state senators put it. Make sure you carry your spit wads ladies! student rape is one of the most common violent crimes on college campuses and has been for many years. now we want to make it illegal to conceal carry on campus. you know because of all those violent criminals who have a ccw permit. yeah right...
"but were protecting our children," our lawmkers mantra. but at the same time the ones who want weapons banned vote against and effectively kill jessicas law in the same fucking judiciary hearing it is un god damned believeable that citizens are so gullible.
I dont believe our government, whether at the state or federal level is inherantly evil. I believe that the government, as it was intended by our founders, is one of the best forms of any government designed in the history of mankind. Is it perfect? No, certaintly it is not. But it was designed by humans which were flawed in some ways of thinking and it is interpeted by humans who are flawed in some ways as well. But, it is plainly obvious that the intent was create a lawmaking authority which was beholden to the rights of the citizens, regardless of the personal wishes and aspirations of the lawmakers.
That being said, I do believe there are people within the government who believe that they are above the boundries and limitations set forth by the Constitution. I believe they hold that binding legal document, which the the supreme law of the land, in contempt and feel that it restricts power to which they feel entitled to.
Despite the genius with which the governing powers ofthis country were designed, they are not impervious to the egos and wickedness of some men and women who are involved with it. It comes in all forms, from all ideologies, and, luckially, we are able to weed it out through the power of our votes whenever we see fit. Unfortunately, we rarely care enough to do so.
If believing this way makes me a "conspiracy theorist" in your opinion, so be it.
Now, explain to me how universal background checks will be enforced? Explain to me how you are so sure that people who have criminal intent will conduct a background check before trading a weapon for drugs? Explain to me how a 15 round magazine is safer then a 16 round magazine? Explain to me how banning these magazines in Colorado will prevent a criminal in this state from driving for an hour to Cheyenne and purchasing them there? Explain to me how banning concealed cary on college campuses is going to prevent somone WITHOUT a CCW permit from hiding a gun on themselves and bringing it on campus? Explain tome how taxing a (so far) still constitutional right is going to prevent crime?
Explain to me how the legislators of this state (Colorado) can sit in a judciary committee hearing and say that the above 4 measures are to "protect children" and at the same time, kill measures that would impose mandatory jail time for sexual assault on a child, and possible lifetime sentance for habitual sexual predators? Are you absolutely certain that my child, and yours are their top priority? With this kind of hypocrisy coming from my state capitol, I have serious doubts.
"That being said, I do believe there are people within the government who believe that they are above the boundries and limitations set forth by the Constitution. I believe they hold that binding legal document, which the the supreme law of the land, in contempt and feel that it restricts power to which they feel entitled to."
I don't believe this. I simply believe they ignore the constitution. Same general idea as what you're saying, I just believe their intentions are different.
"Now, explain to me how universal background checks will be enforced? Explain to me how you are so sure that people who have criminal intent will conduct a background check before trading a weapon for drugs? Explain to me how a 15 round magazine is safer then a 16 round magazine? Explain to me how banning these magazines in Colorado will prevent a criminal in this state from driving for an hour to Cheyenne and purchasing them there? Explain to me how banning concealed cary on college campuses is going to prevent somone WITHOUT a CCW permit from hiding a gun on themselves and bringing it on campus? Explain tome how taxing a (so far) still constitutional right is going to prevent crime?"
I don't know how they will be enforced, but they should be. You shouldn't be able to just go and buy a gun whenever you want. There is nothing wrong with background checks and they simply should exist. As for the stuff in Colorado, it will minorly prevent things but overall how are we really supposed to know what it prevents seeing as we are judging by what doesn't happen. And it could prevent some people. Basically, it could help but it can't hurt. So tell me why are you so against something that at worst, does nothing?
I don't know what goes on in Colorado or why. There are a lot of stupid people in the legislature. North Carolina passed a bill that basically says rising sea levels are to be ignored for four years. Arizona. Need I say more?
Honestly, the simple idea of a background check doesnt bother me in the least. The fact the ONLY way it can be enforced is through registration is what bothers me. I have never registered a gun, and I never will. Its not the governments damn buisness. The reason that stricter gun laws are such a big deal, despite how minor and benign they seem is they are incremental steps to remove guns entirely. We have already lost 90% of the original intent of the 2nd amendment, and our lawmakers want us to believe it is being upheld becase we are still allowed to shoot deer. Anyone who honestly thinks that has anything to do with the right to bear arms ought to be ashamed of themself.
Im useing colorado as an example because #1 I live here and am very aware of what is going on. Secondly because its a perfect example of the fact that stricter gun control has nothing to do with childrens safety. If it did, they would be looking out for their safety on all fronts. That mantra is an excuse to push a malicious and unconstitutional political agenda.
And yet the only reason this is a problem is because it's in the constitution. Remember when prohibition was in the constitution? Other countries don't have guns, many of them are fine. Other countries have actual strict gun control, not what the spoiled Americans think is strict gun control. You do not need anything beyond a hunting rifle and/or a pistol. Anything else exists for the sole purpose of killing a human being. Nothing else.
I think that women should have the option to carry a gun. If it makes them feel safe and they look confident, then statistically they are less likely to be targeted as a victim. There are of course other ways to fight back that can be done quickly and take very little strength. Like poking a hole through the weak spot in the throat above where your collar bones meet or poking out an eye. You only need one free arm and a very small amount of time. My parents taught me all that when I was young, in case someone ever tried to "steal me" as they put it.
Truthfully, I think that I could probably handle one normal attacker without a gun. I've practiced my self defense moves, I know how to break away from numerous holds without relying on strength, I know where the vulnerable spots on the body are, and I am not afraid to really hurt someone if they attack me first. That said, I think that a gun could be indispensable if there is more than one attacker or if an attacker is armed, which is why I will probably buy one someday when I own my own home. Guns aren't bad, you just never hear about them when people are responsible, things go right, and they stay in a locked box for 50 years.
No....you are supposed to carry a single load shotgun around with you and fire it off in the air to scare any attackers that aren't aware that you have a giant shotgun and limited ammunition and you are now free to be attacked.
You have to make sure you don't hit any endangered birds with your shot and face any lawsuits about your lead shot contaminating ground water.....as well as the fines for firing a weapon in the city. But hey....they can't be trusted to just start poppin around, can they? They might hurt someone....like the attackers surrounding her.