Durbin's Reply

[Woods Walker]

I do not understand what the problem is here. Americans have an inalienable birthright to keep and bear arms as spelled out in our Constitution that SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. I'm getting a little sick of this inane arguement that just keeps going in circles.

Either you understand and accept that reality or you don't. If you don't then either change the Constitution or move.

Good luck with both.

[Deebz]

I guess some people just don't read words good WW....

[JPH]

I guess some people just don't read words good WW....

Oh, I read words real good, Deebz. Here are a few I've read on this forum:
"... black on black crimes are the number one source of the criminal activity!...we have become a nation of low class, dependent on the Government teat, worthless individuals who don't believe they should be held accountable for their actions. If there was actually a means to round up the inner city youth and gangs that are the true source of the majority of gun violence, and segregate them from society, we'd see a major drop in all crime in this nation."

"...the lower class will begin to no longer be satisfied with Government handouts; at that time the actual war between the classes will erupt... I certainly don't plan on having blue helmeted UN peacekeepers telling me when I can leave my house, when I can go to the grocery store, or how much gas I can purchase for my truck. Those peacekeepers will have fully automatic weapons, I will have my AR-15 and my high capacity magazines."

"I'm well aware that the slavery issue was NOT the main cause of the Civil War."

"The War of Northern Aggression was just that...This parallels what we may witness in the near future if Obama were to actually implement his apparent emergency powers and institute martial law. "

"You don't like this country, found your own."

"If you served, without a clear understanding why, then that sounds like a personal problem."

"And they (slaves) WERE property at the time...chattel, bought and paid for just as your horse or cow, By the law of the land, they were property... Just as in a stampede, it is acceptable to shoot the cattle before they can kill you, or to turn them aside, or to pile up the bodies so the rest go around. Property that had to be controlled."

Are you willing to accept these words simply because they were said in defense of gun ownership? Does a person have to agree with these words in order to be a defender of the 2A?

I do understand words and I do understand the 2A but I do not understand why it is necessary to accept the kind of thinking expressed here in order to be a gun advocate. Worse yet, I do not understand why the members of this forum are letting these things pass.

The direction these threads have taken have bothered me, so I've carefully read over my contributions to them. I did show more emotion than I should have when a poster questioned my military service. Otherwise I think I've expressed myself in a clear and unemotional manner. I think that I have been civil. i have nothing more to offer to the debate. That being said, I am really shocked to see the type of thinking represented in the words above and I'm disappointed in everyone is letting them go unchallenged.

[rthomas4]

Apparently there are a few liberals here who don't like to hear the truth. So, jph and unclebuck, was anything I posted false?? When you consider the number of shooting deaths in Chicago for the year 2012, and to date; that alone supports my argument. Even the NAACP has recently commented that blacks killing blacks is the reason they support gun bans!!!!!!! Think back to the days prior to the influx of drug cartels and gang activity. Can either of you claim that the current violence in the cities was equal to what we are witnessing today?????? My point was that it's unfair to use Canadian crime figures as a measuring stick when studying American gun violence, due to the lower populations and fewer major metropolitan areas, as well as the demographics of those population centers.

To answer the questions about why we should not ban certain types of guns or have magazine restrictions, I would reply that if we give up one single right we will eventually lose them all. I would also point out that the only time I have to limit my magazine capacity to only 3 rounds in a shotgun, is when I'm hunting Migratory Birds and because the Federal law requires a 3 shot limit. No other restrictions on shotgun capacities exist in SC for deer, turkey, quail or any other small game or varmint hunting. Also, considering that when I'm hunting deer in the swamps and the dogs are running them, the odds are that without at least the capability of 5 shots, I'd be missing more than hitting. It isn't easy to hit a running deer when it's in the water and running through thickets that even a beagle can't get through. As for an AR style rifle, I like to be able to shoot multiple targets when I encounter a pack of coyotes that consists of 15 or more. Just as I often use a bolt action rifle with 1 in the chamber and 4 in the magazine, when I have an opportunity to shoot two or three deer in a food plot, the AR or my BAR make it much simpler to achieve. Also, having higher capacity magazines enable individuals to protect themselves, their families and properties when being attacked by multiple armed thugs. Why should I be limited to 7 rounds, when I could be facing 5 or 6 bad guys with evil intentions and each of them is armed with even a single shot weapon or knife? When we use the Second Amendment as grounds for not sacrificing guaranteed rights, it's because we believe that the framers of the Constitution believed that "we the people" should have access to the same type of arms that our government has. I'd be willing to bet that if German citizens could go back and do things differently, their hindsight would significantly improve.

What many people believe isn't "needed" for hunting, is usually based on what they are used to in their hunting environment, and what most people view as sufficient for protection doesn't take into account the different situations and scenarios that could be encountered. I for one, don't believe that the Federal Government has the right to dictate to it's citizens what they can or can not own, just as they should not endeavor to tell us what we can eat, how large our drinks can be, or what type or amount of insurance we must purchase!

[JPH]

rthomas4, I don't care what the race of a shooter or a victim is. What difference does that make?

You want to "round up the inner city youth...and segregate them from society". Do you have any idea what you are saying to the world when you say that?

And to this question. "Also, considering that when I'm hunting deer in the swamps and the dogs are running them, the odds are that without at least the capability of 5 shots, I'd be missing more than hitting. It isn't easy to hit a running deer when it's in the water and running through thickets that even a beagle can't get through."

How did I know you were a dog hunter? I dunno, maybe you should not be taking shots at running deer when by your own admission, you'll miss more than you hit.

[rthomas4]

Typical liberal response. Take something and twist it to suit your agenda. I believe in political circles that's called "spin". Facts are simply facts, and facts are that most crime in this country is committed by blacks on other blacks. My comments about rounding up the gangs and segregating them from the rest of society are simply an effort to demonstrate the ridiculousness of mandating any type of gun bans or restrictions. I noticed that when I made my tongue in cheek comment about branding "mental defect" on the foreheads of psychopaths, that didn't stir any similar reaction. And as for my comment about hunting deer and possibly needing 5 shots, have you ever hunted in the swamps of South Carolina? Have you ever hunted on a dog driven hunt? That is our traditional method of deer hunting, and I will even admit that I've missed a deer with a .308 that was standing still broadside at about 60 yards. If you've never missed a deer, then you sir, are either a liar, or have never done much hunting!!!! Now with that being said, I guess your next diatribe will be to accuse me of calling you a liar.

[JPH]

I don't know what I'm "spinning". I'm using your own words for goodness sake! I understand that there is an issue with crime in many predominantly black communities. I'm just not sure I follow why that is pertinent in the gun debate. Are you saying that shooting deaths are not such a bad thing as long as they happen to black people? Is segregation really your answer?

I've missed plenty but it's been a long time since I've shot at a running deer and I have never, ever shot with the intention of missing. If that is your tradition, than I hope it dies like some of your other Southern traditions (see segregation).

Maybe the issue is that you launch words and bullets without thinking of how they will land.

[rthomas4]

Again, you spin. I never said anything about an "intention" to miss, I said that the odds are......

Again, the point about the relationship between blacks and crime was to point out that Canada doesn't have the same racial demographics and as many big cities with inner city crime. When studying violent crime statistics and comparing Canada and the US, it's like comparing apples to oranges. Obviously you got too wrapped up in the factual comment to understand the point.

If there is a problem with my words, I'd suggest it's in your liberal interpretation of them.

I believe the entire problem that you have with my comments go back to my reference to The War of Northern Aggression, which is a historically correct term for the events that transpired in this country during Lincoln's presidency. It is a fact that he unconstitutionally sent Union troops to occupy South Carolina sovereign soil. Then sent a Union naval vessel to supply and support the occupation. These historical facts can not be disputed; thus it was indeed an act of aggression that launched the nation into a civil war.

[JPH]

Again, the point about the relationship between blacks and crime was to point out that Canada doesn't have the same racial demographics and as many big cities with inner city crime. When studying violent crime statistics and comparing Canada and the US, it's like comparing apples to oranges. Obviously you got too wrapped up in the factual comment to understand the point.

Really? Montreal is 26% black and Chicago is 36% black. Seems pretty close to me. Toronto is 49% foreign born while Chicago is only 21% foreign born. This is not a racial problem.

[xmatax]

"rthomas4, I don't care what the race of a shooter or a victim is. What difference does that make?

You want to "round up the inner city youth...and segregate them from society". Do you have any idea what you are saying to the world when you say that?"

<--- Liberal here just weighing in...

I find two meanings in the statement for the context of the argument, both of which will hold credence depending on how you look at them.

Literally = Round up the people causing the crime and eliminate them from US population, eliminate a few to save many.
Figuratively = Singling out an area of concern where we can concentrate and focus on to reverse the trends nationally, focus on a few to save many.

JPH...I have followed the thread very closely and I agree with you that "something" else is at play here to cause these tragedies to happen at a more alarming rate. I do not think for one second a reasonably prudent person would take a fully automatic, semi automatic, glock, 30-06, shotgun, or any other weapon into an area to cause harm to other individuals.

Rthomas...I would agree with you that there are certain areas and/or demographics within the US as a whole that don't "fit the norm" with respect to national averages.

Instead of arguing over minute details or the smallest excerpts from what is sometimes a very thought provoking post, why don't we compliment one another on thoughtfulness, ask questions as to why a person feels a way they do about something you view differently, and go back to being civil with one another. We ALL have the same goal in mind, that is the safety and well being of ourselves and the citizens of this great nation, just differences on how to get there.

In conclusion: I think we need to focus on these areas of concern to understand what is going on BEFORE jumping to conclusions about banning guns, clip sizes, etc. because it is real, it has recently been driven by emotion, and if we take one step and it doesn't work we'll likely take more steps in the same direction and based on history, won't be able to back out (ie: losing 2nd amendment rights).

I am also quite disturbed at how this thread, and other recent threads, have taken a turn to such extremes. This forum, while having people who differed in opinions, was very level-headed and people would express their views whether they agreed or disagreed with each other. Lately it seems people have gone to extremes and resorted to tactics I would expect from public forums such as CNN, FOX, MSNBC, or even ESPN. I know everyone here is mature and thoughtful, but lately it seems like we are lowering our standards as human beings and beating this topic into the ground when we know full well how each other feels/stands on the issues of the 2a.