Battlezone Forums

Some interesting articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott# ... crime_rate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kleck

Clavin12 wrote: All right then. But remember that the reason it was put in the constitution was not just protection against criminals, but the government as well.

The reason it's in the constitution is to promote a well regulated militia, meaning that you need to be a member of the armed forces or a local militia to have the right to a firearm. Not all of the rednecks out there want to join the army, so they just skim over this little part and buy more rifles.

If I recall the wording was "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.".

That says people, not just militia men, though it does mention them being necessary. In any case the local militia (not a standing federal army mind you) WAS your average redneck, without special training.

That is the wording, but if you read it, the act of creating or joining the militia is implied.

"Because we need a militia, people can have guns, to be in the militia."

Red Devil wrote:tell that to Cornwallis :-p

we are rapidly careening towards a one-world economy/currency, government, and probably even religion.

good luck

Were it worked right, that could be a very good thing. Unfortunately, that's highly unlikely.

VSMIT wrote:That is the wording, but if you read it, the act of creating or joining the militia is implied.

"Because we need a militia, people can have guns, to be in the militia."

And like I said, the militia was the people. Every man with property had a gun then, and I highly doubt the founding fathers would want to change that.

ALSO: Why would the founding fathers use the term "people" to mean something different than it meant in all the other amendments?

I have my NC concealed carry, and carry maybe 50% of the time when I'm out and about. Or have it in my vehicle almost 100% of the time.

In North Carolina, businesses have the right to exclude firearms on their premises, so it makes it a pain. Universities and school property also restricts. I have a S&W 442 J-frame, hooded hammer revolver, so it's very concealable. About as concealable as guns go. I have carried into places that restrict firearms, but since it is so concealable, I feel pretty secure I won't be spotted. So if a situation arose where I needed it in an establishment that restricts, I'd be in a pretty pickle. But as the saying goes, "It's better to be tried by 12, than carried by 6."

If you live in a country that does not allow carrying, or you have never considered it, you may not be aware how much of a pain it is to carry responsibly. One place I do abide by the request is places that make their money primarily by alcohol sales. . .like bars. If I am caught in such a place by some freak chance, I am quite sure it would be a serious charge. Not to mention I'd lose my CC for the foreseeable future.

The right to carry does reduce crime because criminals are stupid and thus kill themselves off more readily.

Most crimes committed with guns are committed with illegal or stolen guns.

I personally would love to carry but I am in NJ.

Also @ PR, nice gun

Nielk1 wrote:The right to carry does reduce crime because criminals are stupid and thus kill themselves off more readily.

-snip-

...reminds me of a book I read back in the day when I did research papers; "More Guns, Less Crime" by John Lott...

haha, I still have it on my hd, uploaded it:

http://www.mediafire.com/?dxu7nc8yobpuoiu