GUN RIGHTS AND THE INNER CITY

[Hellkite06]

Just in case a race war? Guns for keeping the blacks down? dude, you're the most racist "liberal" i've seen to date.

[wysoft]

Quit wasting your time trying to outlaw objects that accomplish nothing on their own. Go out into your community and mentor the youth that you claim to wish to protect. You will accomplish nothing by outlawing objects, passing more laws, and so on. Nothing will happen until children wish to succeed in life and make something better of themselves and those around them. They will continue to flounder about and drag down the rest of us with them until the cycle of failure is broken.

[wysoft]

To expand on that, the real problem is not the violence; the violence is a side-effect of the failure of these children to succeed in life. Their parents and their parents' parents likely failed to succeed as well. There is a lack of direction and drive affecting the whole of the world's youth. I see it as a much bigger issue, in that western society has given up the dream of bettering itself as a whole, in exchange for the pursuit of profit and possessions. Youth now dream only of being rich.

[wysoft]

Inner-city teens kill eachother because they have been raised by a violent culture that solves problems almost exclusively through violence. I'm not even talking about black culture, because I see it all over the place, no matter what the race is. Outlawing guns is not going to immediately nullify a lifetime of violent upbringing that has taught these children that the way to get what you want is by hurting or killing another person. Guns are objects; they don't teach children these values.

[bluefalcon20002]

its the governments problem to raise your kids ? Its the goverments problem to install morals on the black people. We all make choices in life and we all have to live with it. You choose to sell drugs and go to jail.

It starts when your welfare parents start taking care of their own kids.

[bluefalcon20002]

The 2nd amendment is the last check and balance for the Government. Without gun ownership the government would have no problem walking over the citizen and enforcing what they want. You must really enjoy genocide as well lots of children and women died in countries where gun control was used. Its the drug dealer and gang banger who is killing, people. Chances are they have a felony and are not allowed to own a gun. Bring a butter knife to a gun fight and see who wins.

[2clones]

Get rid of the violent people since they are the real problem. It's not like people suddently started killing each other on the day the first gun was invented. It's my civil right to be able to defend myself.

The inner city problem is a cultural one. Rais your children better and you will have less crime.

[wesdh]

the children and people you say are being killed by guns are being killed by criminals and crooks who ignore the law. if you make gun control laws tighter and start making it illegal to posses firearms than your only un-arming law abiding citizens, the crooks and thugs don't follow the law so they, the ones that are killing people and making a problem with guns will still have firearms. and law abiding citizens will not be able to protect themselves,or their family from those crooks and thugs.

[Michaelangelina]

excellent commentary as usual.

[MeHimself]

be a difference.

[MeHimself]

I've heard pretty variable interpretations of the Second Amendment but I never thought I'd hear one that put its reference to guns in question. Neither we nor those who were around during the time of the Founders lived in the stone age and 'arms' is reasonably and even by definition understood to mean 'FIREarms', as they are the standard of defense in this age and anything less would be futile in defending against criminals, be they the everyday thief or the government, if you consider there to

[Dewdaahman]

"I don't need a document or for some man to tell me I can protect my right to defend my gift of life.." T.Nugent

"bear" arms is to carry, to exhibit, to show.. no interpretation needed there, unless you want us to change the Webster's Dictionary's definitions..

[smoovekid07]

I'm going to write a paper on this issue for my class. great issue.

[Jwriter4]

send me the paper when u write it. i would love to read

[smoovekid07]

sure.

[BernieMadoffLMAO]

you sound similar to the post 911 patriot act movement.

willing to sacrifice certain freedoms to protect us from a (CIA) created fantasy (al-CIA-da)

those who would sacrifice liberty for temporary security deserve neither-- BENJAMIN FRANKLIN

your theory is flawed, punish the majority for the actions of a few nimrods.

[Jwriter4]

That was said for the time in which that man lived... Society has progressed.. and there is no need to have all these guns around.... Wait until someone is your family is killed unjustly by a gun, only then will you able to understand why we need stricter gun control..........

[lckyl16]

No matter how strict you get, criminals will always have guns. According to some, Florida has a low crime rate...why? Because average people are packing heat. Teach those who own guns to use them safely. Teach them proper storage techniques. Perhaps teach others that guns can be safe. Go hunting, or even to a shooting range. Only idiots leave loaded guns in open spaces. Guns do not have to be dangerous, but they are in the hands of dumb, ignorant people who will do anything for a few dollars.

[lckyl16]

Also, the problem lies elsewhere, like violent gun games, or even violent movies. Kids are exposed to this everyday and to blame it on the "gun" is an overstatement on a mass proportion. Blame society...blame the media...blame school administrators...even blame ignorant parents...for not teaching life skills. Family Guy anyone?

[upabittoolate]

Hmm. A Franklin quote. I dare not call that original. Also, no 1 asked any inner city Americans (outside Manhattan) what they thought about the Patriot Act.

Nevertheless, the principles that drove the writing of the 2nd Amendment are not the same principles giverning us 240yrs latter.

[upabittoolate]

*governing us 240yrs later.

[Pentazoid111]

So you believe that because we are in the future, we should no longer be able to defend ourselves against the abusive forces residing in are governnemnt because we live in a modern society? That doesn't make any sense at all. Perhaps we should suspend the Ist and fourth amendments since they they are over 200 years old and they are no longer relevant

[BernieMadoffLMAO]

the reason there are gun problems in the "inner city" is because most minorities believe they are going to be the next lebron james, 50 cent or gay z.

our society has been brainwashed by tv and music and magazines, etc, etc, etc....

owning a gun is a constitutional right and there is a reason for us to have the right. to prevent tyranny.

until blacks and other minorities reach a level of enlightenment, crime will continue.

but according to their current level of intelligence, who knows.

[Jwriter4]

Owning a gun is not constitutional because the word gun isnt in the constitution buddy........

[stoopthebilll]

" the right to bare arms shall not be infrienged " thats close to what it says. you as an american have an inhernt right to defend your self. . . even agenst the kids, 'inner city kids' gang bangers are what i call them. whites arnt worried about blacks ownning guns because. . .blacks more often kill blacks. hell J, all the rednecks are just sitting by just waiting for the black folk to wipe each other out.

[Pentazoid111]

They said right to bear arms , and arms in this contexts are weapons, guns are weapons; therefore, guns are included in the category of arms. You don't know what you are talking about

[Jwriter4]

bear arms is open to interpretation.. Therefore if society wished to specify what types of weaponry is legal it can be done...

[Hellkite06]

@Jwriter4 its not open to interpretation. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is pretty cut and dry.

[upabittoolate]

You're equating gun ownership to aspirations to be a rapper or ballplayer? That's about as oversimplified as you can get. Have you ever set your feet in the inner city?

[Pentazoid111]

... in a cave orchestrated one of the most deadly attacks on american soil in US history. having a the most sophisticated military in the world does not make itthe most competent military just like a person will not necesarrily fly the most well-designed jet plane correctly .

[upabittoolate]

Like I said before, if you accept the notion that 9/11 was an outside job (I'm not sure if I completely do), then you must accept that it was men armed with razors who brought this country to a standstill; not men with assault rifles. That said, a GUN isn't helping your argument.

We lost 'Nam because of tactics & lack of support not weapons. We're losing Iraq for the same reasons.

I can make you a pipe bomb or a vest bomb that'll wreak more havoc than a Saiga or USAS 12.

Get real man.

[Pentazoid111]

You get real. You made the assumption that US citizens will be defeated because the US military possesses state of the art weapontry , not mean. I suggested that the US military could be defeated if US citizens developed the right tactics that would topple the US military. Don't try to twist what i said.

[upabittoolate]

You sound like a child. You also sound like you've never served. This argument is essentially a martial artist trying to tell a street thug why he should pick another fight.

If you honestly think that there's a possibility of "rebellion" by citizens a la the Revolutionary War, you need to look at google earth. That guerilla shit ain't gonna work against an AWAC. You also haven't a clue about the history of civil engineering in this country. Ever heard of the Eisenhower system?

[Pentazoid111]

You are a child. You assumed that a mutiny will never occur and you naively think that Just because we have the most sophisiticated military on the planet, then we must have the most competent military on the planet. Civil engineering does not have anything to do with warefare. China has a very sophisticated military , yet they don't want their citizens possessing firearms , because they are afraid of what their citizens will do to the Chinese military if they possessed any weapons.

[upabittoolate]

A child? You're a buffoon. The reason I mentioned civil engineering is because I was making a direct allusion to the Eisenhower Interstate Project. Do I need to tell you about the Arm Corps of Engineers? How's about the BLM?

You're telling me that 1 few nimrods with Intratecs is gonna overthrow the gov't? You moron. We live in an industrialized country.

[Pentazoid111]

Yeah, well your brains made of nuts. Yes a few' "nimrods" can overthrow the government if the government shows the level of incompetence that it did on 9/11. Are very intelligent US military failed to even toppled castro resorting to pathetic attempts like exploding cigars. You are a fool if you believe that a powerful military can not be defeated , for history has showned that a powerful military will rise and fall. The US military is Wile E. Coyote you can say.

[upabittoolate]

The country wasn't overthrown the last time I looked. Again you're making a circular argument; a poor 1 at that.

You can talk about your perception of gov't inefficiency all you like. But I can tell you about the well oiled machine that we call the US Military.

I guess you think a handful of right-wing nuts tallying less than a battalion will best a regimen if surrounded right? Quit playing RISK & thinking it's real life.

[Pentazoid111]

I never made a circular argument and I never said that the US government has been overthrown. you are pulling words out of your ass. US citizens have not reached the point where they want to overthrow the government yet; Right now, they want the US government to provide services for them ;

It is not a perception , it is a reality. Please rent someone's brain and then study US history and you will see that the US military and the CIA has been incompetent at accomplsihng its desired goals.

[Pentazoid111]

Well then what is the point of restricting gun used if a person will find some other means to carry out their violent act just like 9/11? violence will not cease if gun use is restricted and their is no point in banning them. If anything , we should apply gun control to the US military, but that will never happen

[upabittoolate]

While I approve of the principles that are expressed by the 2nd amendment, I can't deny the staggering numbers regarding the injury & death rates of "the good guys". In addition, I can't deny the by-gun murder rate in my own hometown. Ultimately, the 2nd amendment is antiquated. The founding fathers, while well meaning, didn't understand how advanced the military would get & how the concept of "protecting yourself against the gov't" isn't realistic for the modern era.

[Jwriter4]

exactly james!!

[upabittoolate]

Ultimately, the best "protection against the gov't" is to know 1's rights. Education is always the best weapon. Artillery is pretty useless if you wanna go up against the Service, Police or Nat'l Guard. Let's be honest.

Don't believe me? Just ask Randy Weaver.

[Pentazoid111]

It doesn't matter if you know your rights if the Secret service and other authorities in the US government will consistently violate the US constitution and have you arrested or even murdered if you are deemed a threat to their cause, just like many critics of Lincoln were arrested and jail for speaking out against his policies during the US civil war. Don't you think that some of the Japanese who were temporarily interned knew their rights as a US citizen, but that matter a lick to the govt.

[upabittoolate]

In that case, it doesn't matter who's carrying a Beretta or a Kalishikov either.

Don't believe me? Look at what happened in Ruby Ridge & Waco. Ultimately, knowing 1's rights is the only effective armament vs. the gov't.

[upabittoolate]

In addition, there's a brand new set of weapons on the 21st century horizon. I, myself, am much more dangerous than any gangbanger or summary thug because I've access to a bio-lab. Even more dangerous because I know some pretty accomplished hackers.

People often forget that 19 men holding box cutters stopped daily operation of the UNITED STATES for almost a month.

[Pentazoid111]

Just because the US military is the most advanced military in history and in the world, doesn't mean that handguns and Ak'47 will mean nothing to the US military. Remember how are ass got obliterated by rice patty farmers in the Vietnam war? The french military was defeated by a rag tag group of slaves on the island of Haiti and subsequently driven off by haitian slaves. During the 1917 Russian revolution , ordinary russians toppled the most power regime in the world at the time.

[upabittoolate]

In the end, 1 person w/a gun; hell, 1000 people w/guns won't match up to the US military. So your argument is getting kinda circular. Come with something else; something meaningful.

[Pentazoid111]

You have not been listening. The US government is incompetent. They failed to even topple castro regime, and they were defeated by rice pattie farmers in South east asia. Throughout history, many groups of people with disavantageous artillery have defeated a very powerful military. a mutiny could form in the US just like the mutiny that Coaleseced in Russia during the October Revolution. Even in this century , despite all of the state of the art surveilience system and weapontry, a guy in

[upabittoolate]

There's nothing wrong w/my ability to listen. The problem is your ability to understand a basic premise. I'll repeat it for you: a man with a computer, a law book or a test tube is 1000x more dangerous than a man toting a Glock.

Irrespective of every hypothetical you've tried to present, guns; primarily handguns, aren't good for the general, social good. That means that not only are ineffective "protection" from the gov't, they're actually MORE dangerous to domestic civilians.

[Pentazoid111]

They are not hypotheticals, they actually happened , moron. I won't bothered repeating the examples I listed since you can't comprehend. Who are you to determined whats beneficial for the social good? Humans were more violent towards each other 400 or 500 years ago than they are now , and they lacked AK' 47 and and handguns that we possess now . Guns are not the problem; Human nature is the problem.

[upabittoolate]

Moron? I guess Waco was a success for Koresh & the Davidians... right? I guess Ruby Ridge was an unmitigated triumph too... right?

You should put away the SofF and Guns & Ammo gun-porn.

Bottom line, having a rifle & thinking it's protection from "the gov't" is a terribly false sense of security. In much the same way walking the streets armed or having a pistol (w/1 under the hammer) at home is a false sense of security.

All jokes aside, you must own a .357...and a small penis.

[Pentazoid111]

girls don't have penises dipshit , and usually the persons with small penises are the ones who accuse their opponents of having small penises. You are running out of rebuttals so you resort to personal attacks. Nice strategy... Now go and play the "you mama" jokes with your peer group... ten year olds. Waco and Ruby ridge are a few cases. Timothy mcveigh killed 200 people and the 9/11 hijackers killed 3000 people and took out a good chunk of the pentagon.

[upabittoolate]

You. Your boyfriend. Somebody's tryna compensate. Nevertheless, it still sounds like you've never served. If you had, you'd know that there will be no clandestine or guerilla "rebellions". Simply put, the gov't'll find you. You can't run up a 14er w/o them finding you if they really wanted. So your notion of "protection" has fallen short.

McVeigh killed 200 people... with the help of >5 others. But if you think killing 200 people is "rebellion" you're nuttier than an oak tree.

[disneydiva21]

are you talking about making guns outlawed in the inner city or everywhere ??

[andsanp]

you start with prayer.

[TruthSerum101]

I HATE guns. Period.

I'm sorry to hear about your situation.

[Jwriter4]

Thank you truth.....

[Pentazoid111]

Why do you have a problem with US citizens carrying guns ? Just because there are a few bad apples in the crowd , that means that guns are all of a suddenly dangerous for everyone to used ? The 2nd amendment was put into placed for US citizens to possess guns to overthow the US government in case it become too tyrannical to function anymore. It has gone beyond tyranny.

[spareld]

that's not what this video is about. This video clearly states about kids and people that don't have license to possess them. It is easy as hell for a kid or drug dealer to go and get a gun rather it be from stores or black market. Shit they even sale guns at walmart. and you can't tell me you don't see something wrong with that?

[Pentazoid111]

Doesn't matter how many restrictions you placed on firearms , both kids and drug dealers will find ways to gains access to guns illegal. Marijuana is totally illegal everywhere in the US now , but look how widespread the used marijuana is by high school students in the US. Like the war on drugs, the war on drugs will be a total failure.

[Pentazoid111]

er... I mean the war on guns would be a total failure

[Jwriter4]

War on guns would be just gun control NOBODY will prohibit them completely there just needs to be more control...... Again the 2nd amendment doesnt say anything about GUNS...

[Pentazoid111]

It discusses ARMS and the founding fathers considered guns a form of bare arms. Stop trying to distort the original interpretation of the 2nd amendment. The second amendment was put into to place to take down the US government in case they got out of hand, which I think is now far beyond tyrannical. The founding fathers did not expect US citizens to overthrow the government with pitch forks, they expected US citizens to overthrow the government with GUNS!

[Jwriter4]

No that is the libertarian explanation behind it... Again that is one of many interpretations of why the 2nd amendment was made.. You werent alive back then.... all you can do is debate it...

[Pentazoid111]

which is the original interpretation of the founding fathers; I'll pm you links

[upabittoolate]

The "War on drugs" was simply a way of publicly vilifying street level pushers & users so no 1 would feel bad when they got excessive sentences hung around their necks.

If there was really a "war in drugs" I'd've never been deployed to Nicaragua to put Ortega back in power. Clinton would've never dropped "supplies" into Sarajevo.

The "war on drugs" was a catchphrase made up by Nixon/Goldwater to further subjugate poor people & minorities. 

Spare me.

[Pentazoid111]

accept it or not there were garguantuan attempts to restrict drug use in the United states and they fail miserably and inadvertenly , created the violent gangs in the inner city , and thus are responsible for the conditions that plagued the Inner city . More gangs will spring up if there is gun restriction provisions are made.

[spareld]

please don't bring up that whole marijuana thing since they are trying to legalize it. The war on drugs don't even compare to the war with gun violents. Beside don't compare something that is legal like guns that you can buy at walmart to drugs that you get from drug dealers

[Pentazoid111]

Its the same exACT war except you are replacing drug use with gun possession. Guns are legal for adults to purchase, not children. If you are not comfortable with talking about marijuana, we can talke about something that is illegal for children, but legal for adults... cigarettes. Even though cigarettes are totatlly illegal for children, there are many children and teenagers that do possess cigaretes. We can also talk about the widespread use of alcholol illegally amongst underaged undergrads

[Jwriter4]

spareld you're on point as usual!!!

[Jwriter4]

Pent you're trying to predict the future... There is nothing wrong with TRYING to place the limits in GOOD INTENTION to limit gun violence..... You cannot compare marijuana and prohibition with guns... Guns isnt something of constant everyday use like marijuana and alcohol is... C'mon stop trying to stretch..

[Pentazoid111]

In addition, J clearly says that there should be stricter gun control. Not to mentioned that The areas with the strictest gun control laws have the highest homicide rate in the country

[Jwriter4]

Homicide rates being high can just be a anomaly.. you cannot prove that it is as a direct cause of stricter gun control can you?

[215workhard]

A student was shot and wounded on a school bus in West Philadelphia Friday morning November 6

A teenager has been arrested after allegedly shooting another student on a school bus in West Philadelphia.

The shooting happened at about 8:10 am at 57th and Pine Streets.

Sources tell CBS 3, the 17-year-old victim was taken by ambulance to the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia to be treated for a gunshot wound to the head, behind his ear. He was listed in critical but stable condition.

[215workhard]

@215workhard Officers arrested the suspected 15-year-old male shooter in the 6100 block of Cedar Street. Sources say a 25 caliber handgun was also recovered and the bus driver positively identified the suspect.

School district officials say the bus was heading to CEP Miller School on Westminster Ave. Eleven other students were on the bus and were not injured.

No other injuries were reported.

[Pentazoid111]

Governments are not anymore responsible with handling guns and any other kind of firearm than your US citizens. In fact, the governments are generally more violent towards innocent people than your average US citizen , yet there are no cries to apply gun control laws to the US military. Most leading cause of deaths among children are not the result of a  firearm but rather things like car accidents. Should we restrict the number of cars on the road just because of car accidents?

[spareld]

Also those car accidents might be the cause of drunk driving or even using a cell phone and not paying attention to the road so if they would restrict cars they would have to bring up those subjects as well

[Pentazoid111]

Don't even compared drinking while driving to possessing and using a firearm. They are not the same thing. By your line of thinking , perhaps we should restrict the use of alcohol since there are a few individuals who attempt to drive while not sober.

[Pentazoid111]

The US constitution may not explicitly mentioned guns, but It also does not make exceptions for which firearms US citizens should not be able to defend themselves against individuals or against the US government. If you restrict what firearms people are able to possess , then there would be innocent civilians in situations where their attackers possesses a fire arm they have gotten a hold of illegally. Why do you rather have the government to possess guns than your average citizen?