Ron Cook Must Be Against the 2nd Amendment..

[kovyman1127]

Taking the Burress situation out of the equation, you can tell that Cook has no respect for the 2nd amendment:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08337/932039-66.stm

"But a loaded gun in a public place is never the answer. Why not a bodyguard? Burress certainly could afford one."

Umm...so professional athletes aren't allowed to carry guns in public with a CCW if it's legal Ron? Granted, Burress wasn't carrying legally, but to say the above shows yet another Ron Cook narrow-minded article.

In other words, because you are an athlete, you give up your 2nd amendment rights.

[Gaucho]

"But a loaded gun in a public place is never the answer."

Sounds very reasonable to me.

[pfim]

He's describing Burress's situation specifically, and he's right.

[kovyman1127]

"But a loaded gun in a public place is never the answer."

Sounds very reasonable to me.

Ummm...suppose it's on a downtown public street and he has a CCW...being perfectly legal?

[kovyman1127]

He's describing Burress's situation specifically, and he's right.

Until the part where he states "But a loaded gun in a public place is never the answer."

[pfim]

He's describing Burress's situation specifically, and he's right.

Until the part where he states "But a loaded gun in a public place is never the answer."

The entire previous paragraph was describing his wealth and life as an athlete. I think you're taking that one line out of context.

If you're a professional athlete, a target, arming yourself isn't the best option. And it certainly isn't the best option when you go to a club and start drinking.

[Marshall Dylan]

Yes, Ron Cook IS against the Second Amendment. He's also not crazy about several other amendments.

[PensBeerGeek]

Yes, Ron Cook IS against the Second Amendment. He's also not crazy about several other amendments.

Ron Cook makes me not too crazy about the First.

[Sam's Drunk Dog]

I think that the article is saying that Ron Cook hates black people.

/End sarcasm

[MWB]

He's describing Burress's situation specifically, and he's right.

Until the part where he states "But a loaded gun in a public place is never the answer."

He shot himself in the leg, so it obviously wasn't the right answer for him.

[MWB]

NYC is notoriously strict on local carry law-interesting for a place thats notorious for street crime- so I assume that as soon as he showed up in town he was illegal. Its a shame this sort of thing happens and gives the anti-gun people more 'ammunition'.

With the left having firm control in Washington...our gun rights are screwed for now anyway. HR 6257, anybody?

'loaded gun in public never the right answer'.....right.....hopefully I can figure out exactly what the right answer is If I'm ever faced with a marauding group of miscreants intent on taking my life away...

Why do you think that gun rights are screwed? It's not like this is the first time the left has had firm control of Washington. With luck there will be more restrictions on the types of guns that can be bought and sold, but it's a little much to think that all of a sudden people won't be able to legally own and/or carry a weapon.

[Hockeynut!]

With luck there will be more restrictions on the types of guns that can be bought

what part of "shall not be infringed" is unclear to you?

I just hope that arms ownership soon reaches the point of Ethiopia or other third world countries where everyone carries an AK47 and most people have bazookas for protection. Then I'll know out country has reached the level our founding fathers wanted. Because countries like Ethiopia are so safe and secure.



She would approve.

[Hockeynut!]

Garbage? Check out the rate at which AK47s have been selling since the election. I know I'd feel much safer knowing everyone I pass on the street is locked and loaded. I mean, I'm sure the murder rate in countries like this:



is much lower than in the USofA.

[Hockeynut!]

The woman with the Ipod and gun photo was taken in Ethiopia.

I'm not advocating banning guns. But I don't think every slack jawed country boy who enjoys downing a six pack or five every night should have access to an AK 47 either. That's the problem with NRA-type advocates - there can't be any middle ground. If they try banning a weapon that an average, untrained person really should have no part in owning, they immediately scream "They're taking away all our guns!"

My question for both of you is do you think we'd be a safer people is everyone was carrying AK 47s. Because sales of those guns have skyrocketed since the election. There was just an article in the regional newspaper about how every dealer in a 2 country radius in my podunk region of the state is sold out and back ordered.

Somehow, that doesn't make me feel safe.

[MWB]

With luck there will be more restrictions on the types of guns that can be bought

what part of "shall not be infringed" is unclear to you?

So your argument is that the framers of the Constitution foresaw the advent of all types of guns and thought they would all be appropriate for all people to own? And to take it a step further, I assume you would say that any person should be able to have a gun then?

[Cosmo_kramer]

With luck there will be more restrictions on the types of guns that can be bought

what part of "shall not be infringed" is unclear to you?

As if there is no precedent putting restrictions on Amendments for maintaining civil safety. One clause in the First Amendment protects against the Government infringing upon the people's right of free speech; and yet the Supreme Court feels it has the right to restrict free speech to prevent an incitement to violence. Many argue that this is a necessary restriction. Also there is restrictions on freedom of speech when it comes to libel and slander. Is this not necessary? Shouldn't a man be prevented from accusing random people of being a sexual predator or a murderer (without just cause) and ruining their good name?

This same thought can thus be applied to gun restrictions. A mentally insane man that has threatened to kill John Doe (and with a history of violent acts) should not be allowed to purchase a gun, yes? This is a restriction. A man does not need an automatic rifle, a tank, nor a rocket launcher to defend his home... Restrictions are necessary if not for the sole reason that they protect us from the nuts and the idiots. I agree with what someone said in an early discussion about the Second Amendment. It's not necessarily that we need more restrictions, we just need to enforce the ones we have.

[MWB]

My question for both of you is do you think we'd be a safer people is everyone was carrying AK 47s.
Somehow, that doesn't make me feel safe.

just hypothetically: Hand everybody an AK and a sidearm. Everybody.
And see how long these mass murdering spree's last, if anybody even dares to attempt them. Watch what happens to armed robbery and murder and rape rates.

Or watch murder rates, suicides, and accidental shootings skyrocket. Who knows what would actually happen in your gun-ruled world, but I doubt it would be pretty.

[Cosmo_kramer]

just hypothetically: Hand everybody an AK and a sidearm. Everybody.
And see how long these mass murdering spree's last, if anybody even dares to attempt them. Watch what happens to armed robbery and murder and rape rates.

Giving everyone a gun is not going to stop people that (in their mind) are already prepared to die or are willing to sacrifice their life. Mass murderers usually only end by themselves dying.

However, since we're doing hypothetical: you give John a gun in a public store. Bob comes in and holds up the store at gunpoint. John takes matters into his own hand, raises his gun and shoots five times. Three bullets hit Bob, one bullet strikes the wall, the last bullet enters little Susie's head, who was hiding behind her mother. You find out that Bob's gun wasn't loaded.

[Cosmo_kramer]

Maybe? I don't know. That's why it's a hypothetical. Giving everyone a gun, however, is not going to ensure that crime will be stopped or prevented (let alone that everyone will carry a gun).

Also, don't forget about the group phenomenon. Just because you have the means doesn't mean you have the will to act.

[Cosmo_kramer]

However, since we're doing hypothetical: you give John a gun in a public store. Bob comes in and holds up the store at gunpoint. John takes matters into his own hand, raises his gun and shoots five times. Three bullets hit Bob, one bullet strikes the wall, the last bullet enters little Susie's head, who was hiding behind her mother. You find out that Bob's gun wasn't loaded.

Your magic bullet theory interests me. How, sir, did it travel around Susie's mom prior to exploding in Susie's brain?

There had to be a second shooter!!! From behind the candy rack! (Sorry I couldn't resist)

I never stated that she was fully concealed behind her mother, nor that her head was not poking out so that she could see what was going on (Little Susie as we all know is curious to a fault).

[Cosmo_kramer]

A man does not need an automatic rifle, a tank, nor a rocket launcher to defend his home...

This is short sighted. Painfully short sighted.

Im so glad everybody believes that the American way of life is gonna last forever and

A) there will never be any type of civil unrest that may cause you to need something significantly more a pump shotun to defend your home/neighborhood

B) the government will never decide it knows better than you do, and therefor will take any action it deems necessary to further any means it decides it wants to accomplish

C) no foreign armies will ever be rampaging through your suburban village

I think if the Government wants something (as in hypothetical B) they're going to get it... Unless you also have a nuclear bomb? If that's the case than each individual might as well be their own foreign country.

Okay, you got me.. If there's a foreign army knocking on your door, by all means use the tank...

[Cosmo_kramer]

Yeah I don't think it would take me too long to fire off some shots at a lunatic who was picking off innocent people around him. Though I would probably stop to consider if the people he was firing at deserved it. Victims of murder, sure, but they might have had it coming.

By all means.. Stop and consider each victim. Not like time is important or anything.

I think we both may have to concede these minor skirmishes, as fun as they are, because we're spamming an already distracted thread. I think some of these ideas, however, are close to anarchy.. Not that some of you aren't pro-anarchy, I just don't like my chances in a non-government world. How will I get my mail?

[PensBeerGeek]

My question for both of you is do you think we'd be a safer people is everyone was carrying AK 47s.
Somehow, that doesn't make me feel safe.

just hypothetically: Hand everybody an AK and a sidearm. Everybody.
And see how long these mass murdering spree's last, if anybody even dares to attempt them. Watch what happens to armed robbery and murder and rape rates.

Or watch murder rates, suicides, and accidental shootings skyrocket. Who knows what would actually happen in your gun-ruled world, but I doubt it would be pretty.

You mean like the Somalia that has become of Western Pennsylvania?

[Pitts]

In other words, because you are an athlete, you give up your 2nd amendment rights.

You're reading far too much into his quote. Besides, the 2nd amendment was for pioneers. It has no place in today's society.

[Pitts]

Or watch murder rates, suicides, and accidental shootings skyrocket. Who knows what would actually happen in your gun-ruled world, but I doubt it would be pretty.

Agreed. Next time someone cuts you off in traffic ... just shoot 'em!!! Problem solved. Don't like that guy eying your daughter ... just shoot 'em! problem solved. See where this goes?