Top Nav

Would You Give Up Your Right to Self Defense?

Would You Give Up Your Right to Self Defense?

Would You Give Up Your Right to Self Defense?

The shooting in Connecticut was a terrible tragedy, which has driven our country into deeply divided debates regarding our constitutional rights on gun ownership. An Americans view on our constitutional right to bear arms is influenced by how we were raised by our parents, personal values & beliefs, political views and party affiliations. If every American were asked to give up their right to self-defense if attacked by another person bent on inflicting serious bodily injury or death, we would be hard pressed to find anyone of use who would do so for the greater good. Remember the second amendment is about personal defense, it is not about hunting or sporting purposes and did not limit what type of firearms our ancestors used or possessed when the bill of rights were first enacted.

As terrible as the events were on December 14th, it is not the first time America has seen mass killings at its public schools.

The Bath School Disaster of 1927

The Bath School Disaster of 1927 killed 44 people and injured 58 others. While just as tragic as the mass killing in Connecticut on December 14th, 2012 it also bears some similar characteristics. The killer was not a student, warning signs were not reported by those who witnessed them. The behavior of this killer made those who witnessed it believe he was getting ready to do something. The people who witnessed the signs did not notify law enforcement so they could investigate to find out what exactly the killer was planning to do. They later told law enforcement they thought he was going to kill himself, admitting they did not report their suspicions.

The school was not prepared for such an attack. The schools teachers, staff, and administrators were not taking school security seriously enough to have preventive measures in place to stop attacks on the school or students. In this case, observant teachers, staff, and administrators could have discovered the suspect was hiding explosives inside the school prior to the event and prevented it.

Sandy Hook Elementary School 2012

Sandy Hook Elementary School teachers, staff, and administrators, acted bravely when the killer began attempting to enter the school, later making entry through the locked glass doors by shooting out the glass panels. They activated the schools lock-down procedures in an attempt to protect the student’s lives till Law Enforcement arrived on scene. In their final acts of bravery and love for their students they put themselves in front of the students to stop the killer’s bullets.

What draws these two points in time so close together?

  • An unforeseen killer no one predicted would act out against the schools students?
  • People may have noticed warning signs and did not report them to law enforcement?
  • Failed security measures or none in place to ensure the schools physical safety and the student’s safety while attending?

What could have been done to prevent this?

If those people who interacted with the killer and his family noticed the warning signs and contacted law enforcement it may have prevented or changed the outcome of this incident. Warning signs you ask? While some warning signs may vary from killer to killer they all have similarities.

The killer goes through stages each giving off warning signs:

  • Fantasizing about the act of killing those who they are targeting
  • Planning the act
  • Preparing physically and mentally to kill
  • Going to the location they intend on killing people
  • Carrying out the killings

While the killer is going through the stages:

  • They will say troubling things
  • Demonstrate disturbed behaviors
  • While they gather their weapons to kill

It is always noticed by someone! Law Enforcement and the media alike find these people and interview them after the terrible incident. Inevitably these witnesses all say in things like: “If I had only known I would have called the police”.

Stricter gun laws would not have prevented this incident.

If the firearms used by the killer had been properly locked up and secured from unauthorized persons, it is hard to say this would have stopped or only delayed him from trying to injure people or kill people. The reality is we will never know since it was during the process of accessing the firearms he took the life of his mother.

Why do I say this killer is an unauthorized person to possess firearms? Two main reasons: First under Federal and Connecticut state laws he could not posses these firearms due to being under 21 years of age. Second according to news reports he was a person suffering from a mental illness, and pending court actions on this. If this is true, he would have been prevented from possession or ownership of firearms by both state and federal laws as he would have been an unauthorized person.

“CRIMINALS DO NOT FOLLOW FIREARMS LAWS”

The killer was not following the Federal Firearms Laws or those of the State of Connecticut that were in place to prevent him from possessing firearms. I would like to point out he is not the first criminal to disregard the laws the rest of society chooses to follow.

The school building was not prepared for such an attacker. It was vulnerable through the glass doors which were locked, but not impenetrable. The attacker had to break through the glass to gain entry to the school. This is not to say the use of ballistic glass or installing security films such as 3M™ Safety & Security Window Films to non-ballistic glass doors would have stopped the attacker. However they may have slowed the killer down enough for law enforcement to stop him.

If the school had a School Resource Officer or Armed Security Personnel on site it would have added another layer of resistance to slow or stop such a killer(s) actions, while law enforcement was on the way to the school.

The school was a gun free zone, thus removing any chance a law abiding citizen with a concealed carry permit would be on site who could have taken actions in the event a school resource officer or armed security personnel were not available at the onset of this incident.

What should you do?

When I was a Law Enforcement Officer people would often ask questions about what they should do or should have done about different situations. This was my standard answer:

If the situation or someone’s actions do not look right, if it does not feel right, or sound right, then it is probably not right and some thing is wrong!

When should you call law enforcement? If the situation is one you feel warrants notifying law enforcement then you should call. Think of this, what is the worst that could happen is you were wrong? “Nothing” You acted on what you honestly believed needed a law enforcement response. Now think of this what is the worst that could happen if you failed to act and the situation needed a law enforcement response? These simple guidelines could be applied to any situation to anyone in their daily lives only requiring you to be aware of your surroundings and take action when necessary.

Sources: Bath School Disaster of 1927
3M Safety & Security Window Films 

Print Friendly

,

  • http://twitter.com/orgogroup ORGO

    Absolutely not. I own businesses. One of them was broken into two years ago at 3am by two methed up 20-somethings who smashed out a glass door, stole a bunch of stuff, and were gone in less than a minute. The cops responded immediately thanks to an alarm company dispatch, but they all left after an hour or so of clearing the building and gathering evidence. So here I am, all alone at 4am, with a smashed out door, two meth heads on the loose in the neighborhood, with no one covering my back. I had no idea if the perps were coming back, or who else in the neighborhood might want to take advantage of my already bad situation. I had a gun in my vehicle which i retrieved after the cops left. There is no way I was going to be a victim of a couple of drugged up thugs. The police in my city are great, but can’t be everywhere at once.
    The two guys that broke in to my place were eventually arrested. They had broken into 13 businesses total within 3 miles of mine, and had no plans to stop. Since then, within a half mile of my business, we have had three daytime armed robberies, numerous drug arrests, and a carjacking a couple of blocks away. I have owned guns for over 45 years, went through all the hoops to get a concealed weapons permit, keep my guns locked up when I’m not in control of them, and have never harmed anyone or broken any gun law. The bottom line is that criminals don’t care about gun laws or gun bans. In fact criminals would love a gun ban. It would be like passing a law that says you can’t lock your house or car.

    You can bet that any politician that passes gun control laws or bans will make themselves exempt from them. They only want to punish the law-abiding gun owners.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1294323180 Joe Sobotka

    Helz no! I honestly don’t know why some people can’t get it through their thick skulls, that gun laws HURT law abiding citizens and HELP criminals. It truly boggles my mind.

  • http://www.facebook.com/sam.beavin.9 Sam Beavin

    Simply stated- NO!

  • Stu Strickler

    I’m not giving up anything, and I don’t know anyone who is that stupid!

  • Daniel Morgan

    Good article Matt, with a fine reflection of how such tragedies are not altogether a modern anomoly. But I will take issue on your statement that the 2nd amendment’s purpose is for personal defense. In truth, the 2nd amendment – like all the first ten amendments to the bill of rights – is an inalienable right, granted us by our creator, and designed as a hedge against a tyrannical government. And, while I’m certain that personal defense fits into that purpose, protection against an over bearing, tyrannical government was first and foremost in the mind of James Madison when he wrote it. And allow me, if you will, to further state that the 2nd amendment – as well as the other first ten amendments (and a few later ones) – are NOT rights granted to us by the government, but meant to be but a brief list of restrictions and limitations placed against government from interfering in the natural rights of its citizens. All other rights not therein renumerated belong to states – as stated in the tenth amendment.
    And, while I often hear that the founding fathers could not have envisioned “assault weapons” – let me further submit that neither could they have envisioned television, radio, or the internet, automobiles, space travel, or a host of other everyday things that we take for granted in the modern society.
    No less than the father of our country said:
    ” A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to mainatin a status of independence from any who
    might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
    ~ George Washington
    Anyone familiar with the Federalist Papers knows that the foundersworked hard at, and fought over, the exact wording of the Bill of Rights – especially the second amendment. But it’s clear throughout those discussions that it was their intent that “the people” be armed with arms comparable to those possesed by their government. And since no one can lawfully own tanks, fighter aircraft, warships, etc it’s clear that “the people” are already woefully out-gunned – save for a few collectors of some of the above.
    As you’ve so factually stated, little or nothing could have been done to stop either of these horrific tragedies from occurring, even though they took place some 85 years apart. With all our knowledge and understanding of the human condition, and over 20,000 gun laws already on the books the perpertrators still prevailed. Truth be told, such things happen. And, generally, they can’t be stopped anymore than you or I can be stopped from driving up over the sidewalk and into a crowded parking lot, or city park. Tragic as they are, they occur. And posing severe restrictions on the rights of 300+ million Americans and thier firearms won’t prevent them either. Would that it could – but it won’t.

    • Mark

      Daniel, this is the first time I’ve heard anyone agree with my take on 2A. Someone recently told me how adamant they were about the “right to keep and bear arms that the Second Ammendment gives me”. You should have seen the gawk he gave me when I told him “2A does no such thing”. And I launched into essentially the explanation you just gave.

      • Mark

        ….now if we could just get the Feds and the States to grasp it.

  • jamohio

    Great article Matt!! You’ve hit on all the valid points. Which makes me wonder what the Federal governments “real” motives are!

  • rev. dave

    I will never become defenseless. I won’t give up my guns, or my Constitution, while I still have my life. I will always have a knife, and always have had one since age 8. (Never had to use it as a weapon either.) I may also be carrying a flail, knuckle dusters, straight razor, garrotte, a fist-load, or collapsible baton – or maybe more than one of the above or something else. No, I won’t be made nor willingly become, defenseless. Dead maybe, but we all go there in the end anyway.

  • Joe

    No.

    • KenInMontana

      Seconded, enthusiastically.

  • Pete C.

    While I will agree that the 2nd Amendment is somewhat about self-defense, it is more about self-defense from the Federal Government, the same government that is trying to take away this right. In every country that the government has turned on its own people, it did so by first stripping them of their arms. Our federal government has become way too large, has taken on more authority than it was ever designed to take on, and we have ourselves to blame. John Adams said something to the affect that those who give up a bit of liberty for added security deserve neither. We have decided to have more medical security and financial security by allowing our federal government to lord over programs such as social programs, social security, medical care, etc. Now we wonder why the people of this country are turning to the federal government to provide them with their personal security. I’m ashamed of a lot of fellow Americans, who gave up so much for so little. However, if we lose the 2nd amendment as well, this country is over.

    • FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS

      Sir,
      The day our government comes knocking on you’re door to take you’re firearms, you call me. I’ll defend your 2nd Amendment rights if you defend mine! Shall not infringe means just what it says! They know it. But as long as they can have the debate over a right that is undebateable, they have power. Let them try and legislate me out of my right to keep and bear arms! They’ll see what 6 million angry 2nd Amendment supporters are capable of!

  • SilenceFeinstein

    No. I have too much invested for the safety of my family, myself, and my property.

  • FROM MY COLD DEAD HANDS

    Why is it that the anti-gun grabbers, the media, and our own government, continue to use the protections of the 1st Amendment, to infringe on the 2nd? Shall not infringe is pretty easy for the rest of us to understand. Why is there even discussion or debate over any of it? The Constitution was penned by the people, for the people. That means all of us. It doesn’t mean if we don’t like one right over another, that we can ban this, and restrict that? Otherwise, we might as well ban the media from broadcasting any news stories that have to do with firearms altogether? I mean that’s what we’re talking about right? If we don’t like this right, we can infringe, ban, or restrict it at will? So if we don’t like the news media’s anti-gun news broadcasts, we should be able to infringe, ban, or restrict upon their 1st Amendment right to freedom of the press, by using arms against them? Because that’s what they are doing to our 2nd Amendment rights. Using one right to infringe upon another. What good is our 2nd Amendment rights and protections, if we have to defend it to the 1st Amendment rights of free speech, and freedom of the press? Arms means arms? It doesn’t distinguish between muskets or semi-automatic repeaters. While progress among military weapons technology, and civilian weapons technology has advanced over the last 250 years, so has the power of the media outlets globally? The Constitution and it’s Amendments, penned by our forefathers, stands as written. Our nation’s military personnel, and political leaders are sworn to protect it, not infringe upon it. Power to the people is Democracy. Power to the leadership is Socialistic tyranny in it’s purest form. Give us you’re guns….and get on the train.-Nazi Germany, 1941. In other words…”If you don’t stand for something. You’ll fall for anything”! You can have my gun when you take it from my cold dead hands! Discussion OVER!

  • R L Miller

    when written the founding fathers had single shot weapons, being a vietnam veteran and using an m-16 i have seen the devastation of these weapons on a human body, the bushmaster 223 is not a hunting weapon nor is it a weapon that needs to be in the hands of shooting enthusiasts, and yes a shotgun or a 16 round pistol will do the same thing, that is why my opinion is limit pistols to 6 rounds and leave the shotguns to 5 rounds and all you rid the country of the 30 round rifles that were made for killing human beings at war to the military, and please i have my share of shotguns and pistols and the government is not going to take them away so save your comments on me being a pussy, this is just my opinion.

    • Annon

      Sorry Sir I disagree with you and your missing the point of the article.

      The founding fathers had “British Brown Bess’s” which was the most effective firearm of war at the time and believed every American should have one, How is this different than everyone having the right to own an AR15, if any thing they would have wanted us to have access to the same firearms as our military.

      As far as being a hunting weapon, my wife and I use ours to hunt deer, coyotes, fox, other varmints in South Dakota. They are very accurate and yes for some things in our state we are limited by hunting regulations to 5 round magazines such as big game, but for things such as coyotes we are allowed to and do use twenty and thirty round magazines.

      Your comment about the government not trying to take them away, well they have tried before, even succeed for several years with the AWB which expired in 2004,

      Your foolish to think this is just about my firearm of choice this is about all firearms, and our rights as Americans which Daniel Morgan expanded upon earlier in comments. I agreed with all of his reasons regarding the 2nd amendment although he went into much more detail than I did.

      Being a fourth generation son of an immigrant from Germany, no one would have thought when Hitler banned gun owner ship in Germany, in 1934. He would have done this so his military machine would commit the greatest atrocities of the twentieth century during world war II against the Jews, Gypsies, and anyone else he deemed as an inferior race was sent to the death camps.

      So if we do not stand together now for our rights, we will all pay in the end.
      and if we fail I’ll see you while we stand in line together eh comrade.
      IMHO
      Dick

      • R L Miller

        you radical dicks are the problem in america todayanon when did anybody take your weapons from you? and if you hunt with them your not a sportsman you are a moron, and keep your comrade crap to yourself if you actually believe the crap you just wrote i hope you and your wife have not passed your genes to any offspring.

        • cpthowdy

          “Annon” calls you “sir in his post, which makes several good points, is logical, and cites historical fact.

          Your retort starts with, “you radical dicks….” ANY claim you may have had to a valid argument is destroyed in your first three words. You are ignorant, sir, but you ARE efficient,

          • R L Miller

            he called me comrade at the bottom pal and your probably a fanatic just like ninety percent of the people on here.

          • Tea Pot Boiling

            He was too nice to call you a comrade. You are a Fuckin Idiot ! What part of tyranny and abusive government don’t you understand ? A RIGHT not EXERCISED or GIVEN UP VOLUNTERELLY , is a RIGHT LOST !

          • R L Miller

            you fucking morons talk of tyranny and a government out to screw you over, move to a different country if you think it’s bad here, you’re just a bunch of fucking zealots that think you can have and do what you want no questions asked, and all you are are minor little boils on societies ass.

          • Annon

            Sir, you are a tied and dyed comrad, we are no more zelots than you are! And jost so you know i meant we would see each other again while standing in line for our ride on the train to the re-education camps, if we fail to defend our rights. However now i fear you will be like the pictures of WWII crying and begging the guards saying this is america you cant do this, much like many of those who Hitler & Stalinsent to their deaths. And yes i fear your previous service and being a gun owner makes you a threat to the state once we lose all our rights. Unless you become a spy for the state on the hopes of saving your own butt. Very well then comrade atleast I choose freedom, live free, die free, those that willingly give up their rights do not deserve them, much like you comrade.

          • Tea Pot Boiling

            First, let me apologize for calling you a name. It was flat out wrong. I must constantly remind myself that we all are entitled to an opinion . I’m going to chronologically go over in part of what you said, which put every body up in arms against you. You started off by saying; ” when written the founding fathers had single shot weapons”. And you are absolutely correct !

            Please understand, collectively we all know that to be a historical fact. But here is the point I’m going to attempt to share with you and it requires you to have an open mind. Please stay with me ! Here is what the founders wrote in the Bill of Rights;

            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.

            Now keeping to its true form, I interpret this as dealing with two issues. First it talks about the nation forming armed services to protect us from others, and secondly it speaks about us the individual, having the right to keep a weapon.(paraphrasing)

            Where you went wrong I fear, is by referencing the types of weapons you feel that should not be in the hands of civilians. But let me emphatically state, the framers could not have envisioned the types of weapons and arms we use today. They wrote in generality which I argue covers all types of arms. By limiting the type of weapon you choose to buy, by limiting the amount of ammo you purchase, by limiting the quantity of weapons in your arsenal, are all infringements upon your rights.

            Remember, the United States came to be because of an over bearing British Government (king George III), and “We the People” vowed that this will not happen again. So in the spirit of todays government we the people must never let our elected officials forget that the people do have a voice and that the people will revolt when it is felt that the government is interfering with individual rights.

            So the question which was, “would you give up your right to self defense” should be a resounding HELL NO ! Have yourself a safe New Year !

          • Fla Catman

            Let’s pay more attention to that very first clause of the Second Amendment, the part about “A well regulated militia…..”. I have observed that quite a few of those clamoring for high powered, excessive magazine capacity style weapons are anything BUT well regulated and fall within the realm of being considered mentally disturbed individuals. Even Gen. Stanley McCrystal (commander of US forces in Iraq) opined in a major newspaper op-ed that these military grade weapons do not belong in the hands of “civilians”, these are weapons of modern warfare not hunting or sporting rifles.

            As an aside: statistics (as mentioned in just about every NRA self defense training class) seem to indicate that a defender will be able to fire less than 3 rounds at an attacker who is usually within a personal space of less than 15 feet. These fantasies of defending your family from ravening “jack booted thugs” are just that…..FANTASIES!

            Yes, I have several Glock magazines of 17 and 34 round capacity. Quite nice at the range but pretty useless in a self defense encounter. Hmmmm, maybe I should consider organized crime or at least joining a local Doomsday Prepper group.

          • Privateer

            Or more properly “you are” or “”you’re” …learn to use proper english you ignorant wretch.

          • R L Miller

            fuck you mr english teacher, your tiny ego feeling better now? why don’t you go read your cosmo now dork.

          • Privateer

            After you, chump :P (and sorry I don’t swing that way) :)

          • Privateer

            Sorry, chump, but I must decline your invitation as I don’t swing that way. :)

  • Blogengeezer

    The Scottish were denied weaponry equal to that of their ‘self appointed Masters’. It predictably resulted in generations of predation by totalitarian government. Predation by terror over the defenseless lowly masses (Subjects). After the predation became unbearable, the rising of ‘William Wallace’ as a motivating leader, became history. Let us as CITIZENS prevent yet another repeat… of History, less we predictably require another ‘William Wallace’…

  • http://www.facebook.com/davidhendrick.behrens David Hendrick Behrens

    Law Abiding Chicagoans’ have had their 2nd Amendment Right trashed decades ago, they have no Gun Rights and cannot buy legal handguns or any semi-auto firearms, so there all left defenseless and helpless. The City of Chicago, Drug Gangs are heavily armed with all kinds of fire arms, bought and stolen illegally and as most are illegal fully-auto firearms. Chicago has the highest murder rate in America, this year alone over 500 were killed in gun violence, 60 were school children. Congress has no plans to disarm the Drug Gangs, they just plan, want to disarm all law abiding Americans. The Mexican Drug Cartels sell illegal drugs to the Chicago Drug Gangs and Congress makes no attempt to stop them at all and Obama helped arm them more in Fast-Furious.

  • http://www.facebook.com/carl.turner3 Carl Turner

    No, I will not give up my second admendment rights. The goverment hasjust about taken as much as we should allow them to. I remember Nakita Kruchevf pounding his shoe on the table and saying “We will bury you (The united States) from withion”, Looks like their plan is working to me . If you don’t remember who he was or I didn’t spell it correct, He was the leader of russia during the early 1960′s.

    I served in Vietnam and saw what man could do to man first hand. I would remind you that part of thetime we were fighting a enemny that hid in tunnels, used our trash to make bombs and had weponsthat used 10 or 20 shot clips to fight us. They were able to attack us anywhere they wanted . We were the the best trained best equiped army in the world. We bomed them we shelled them and we still couldn’t beat them.

    It is just like a person that is determened to commit a crime. You are not going to stop them. If you take away 30 shot clips, they will just bring 50 10 shot clips. It only takes a second to change a clip. It doesn’t matter how many rounds there are in it.

    During the last century, around the world countrys that took away their citizens right to own firearms, then that same goverment killed almost 100,000,000 of their own citizens. If you have nothing to defend yourself with, then you can’t defend yourself. If you tthink it couldn’t happen here, read your history books. How many American Indians did we kill.
    I think that the gun laws don’t need to be changed. Unless they change them so we can put trained and legeally carring citizens in every school in the country. Look at other countrys that have more armed citizens per capata They have a lot less crime. Look a Russia where you can’t own a gun. Their crime rate is much higher than ours. Their capital crimes are higher than ours.
    I say leave gun laws alone

    • http://twitter.com/johnsha03825476 john shaw

      sorry to change subject I would just like to thank you for your sevice for our country and for all of us and our familes Thank You.

  • Brian B

    If the Hero teacher who gave her life to protect the students had been licensed to carry and been carrying that day then all or at least most of this tragedy could nave been avoided .

  • Sage

    “Why do I say this killer is an unauthorized person to possess firearms? Two main reasons: First under Federal and Connecticut state laws he could not posses these firearms due to being under 21 years of age.”

    What Federal Firearms Laws make possession of any of these guns by a person under 21 illegal? You sir are part of the problem, another ex-LEO that does not know the law!

    • Annon

      I think he is refering to the 4473 form, those questions are based on actual laws. Plus Conneticut has some of the strictest state gun laws in the nation. You would have to be 21 or older to possess an AR15 in this state.

      • Guest

        I referred to the writer’s statement that Federal law prohibits possession due to being under the age of 18. Tha is not true.

    • Annon

      Remember this shooter was known to have mental health issues that were
      diagnosed, and there are both federal and state laws applying to this
      case.

      Connecticut state laws prevented his possession of handguns and any gun
      defined as an assault weapon under Connecticut state law due to he was
      under 21 years of age.

      18 USC 922(x) generally prohibits persons under 18 years of age from possessing handguns or handgun ammunition

      FYI possession is having it under ones physical control.

      Below is directly from the ATF website:

      Identify Prohibited Persons

      The Gun Control Act (GCA) makes it unlawful for certain
      categories of persons to ship, transport, receive, or possess firearms. 18 USC
      922(g). Transfers of firearms to any such prohibited persons are also unlawful.
      18 USC 922(d).

      These categories include any person:

      Under indictment or
      information in any court for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term
      exceeding one year;

      convicted of a crime
      punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;

      who is a fugitive from
      justice;

      who is an unlawful user of or
      addicted to any controlled substance;

      who has been adjudicated as a
      mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;

      who is an illegal alien;

      who has been discharged from
      the military under dishonorable conditions;

      who has renounced his or her United States
      citizenship;

      who is subject to a court
      order restraining the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an
      intimate partner or child of the intimate partner; or

      who has been convicted of a
      misdemeanor crime of domestic violence (enacted by the Omnibus
      Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, Pub. L. No. 104-208, effective
      September 30, 1996). 18 USC 922(g) and (n).

  • http://www.facebook.com/bruce.tyrrell.7 Bruce Tyrrell

    “Why do I say this killer is an unauthorized person to possess firearms? Two main reasons: First under Federal and Connecticut state laws he could not posses these firearms due to being under 21 years of age.”

    What Federal firearms laws prohibit a person under 21 years of age to possess firearms?

  • http://www.facebook.com/bruce.tyrrell.7 Bruce Tyrrell

    What Federal Firearms Laws prohibit persons under 21 years of age to possess firearms?

    • KenInMontana

      18 U.S.C. 922(b)(1), 27 CFR 478.99(b)

  • harry fugginknutts

    Charles Heston said it best “you can have my gun when you pry it from my cold dead hand!”.

  • Angus

    Sorry guys, I’m going to take heat for this one…..The second amendment is about personal defense, hunting and sports. And had the forefathers seen the advent of assault weapons on the horizon, they would have re-worded the amendment. Well-trained marksmen do not need to spray-&-pray to defend, hunt or enjoy sports. Only trained soldiers need the killing power available in assault platforms. Want to truly see the tragedies minimized in this country? Then we need to (1) Quit cutting mental health care budgets, and rather, expand them. & (2) Mentally evolve into the 21st Century, and realize that the right and privilege of gun ownership should not include the fantasy ownership of high power high capacity killing machines for every Tom, Dick and Harry, unless they are directly involved with law enforcement or military reserves, as in Switzerland, where it works quite well. I realize guns don’t kill…people do. But when our mental health system gets its legs cut out from under it by idiot politicians, those that fall through the cracks WIILL fantasize about thinning the herd, and WILL attain the tools to do it, and will attempt to go out in a blaze of glory if at all possible. IF…IF we are truly serious about putting a dent in the senseless loss of life we have seen, it would be worth considering. None of my friends or family need an assault rifle……we’re deadly accurate with pistol and hunting rifle alone, and we understand the true intent of the forefathers words, and are quite content with that. Just my .02 worth…think about it……. Angus

  • Just a guy

    Self defense is innate,if someone throws a punch we act without thought. Those that want to hurt us or our families are either criminal or mentally unstable (even if it is
    temporary or drug induced) we have to assume they have no conscience, moral
    code or legal standard that they adhere to. We are not afforded the time to
    evaluate there ultimate intention, we have to assume they are there to inflicted
    physical harm. The defense of one’s family is an obligation every person has.
    If we are confronted by force directed at our family or ourselves it isn’t a
    question of whether or not we will respond, only the effectiveness of that
    response. I personally don’t want to hurt anyone; I certainly don’t
    “want” to take a life. If I could be guaranteed that no one else in
    the world has a fire arm I would gladly give mine up, but you can’t un-ring a
    bell. As long bad guys have fire arms it is my reasonability to have a secure
    fire arm, maintain it in working order and develop proficiency with it in order
    to protect myself and my family.

  • http://twitter.com/johnsha03825476 john shaw

    No I will not, We are bound by our Creator to defend ourselves and others. God stood up to evil and banished lucifer and his follwers from heaven. Their are a lot of good thoughts written here. Yes arms changed since the founding, the reason for the BOR’s was based on human nature which is always constant. Society as a whole we have internet, computors and cars etc. but we are not perfect as a whole human race we still murder, rape, rob and have dictators just a ruthless as any in previous times. Secound since when is law enforcement or the government made up of perfect people thay have a human nature also, its fool hardy to think because they work for the police or the feds they do not have hate, envy or a lust for power and do anything they can to keep it. Remember we are all human with human fralities that is what our founders based the contitution on and made sure to spell out our God given rights to keep our government incheck. I would also say where are all the “gun nuts” running around that I should be afraid of? I have been to machine guns shoots and gunshows the so called “gun nuts” were of the finenest folks going, and everday working people. Possible 300 miliion gun owners out there and I not the slitest afraid of any of us.

  • Viola B. Hall

    If you think Vincent`s story is impossible…, two weeks ago my brother
    brought in $8894 sitting there 20 hour’s a week from there house and
    their best friend’s sister-in-law`s neighbour has done this for three
    months and easily made over $8894 in their spare time from there laptop.
    follow the advice available here… jump15.comCHECK IT OUT

  • p0rkch0pian

    [2Amendment] C r i m i n a l s must be isolated from us,
    From:DANIEL WARRENSFORD To:2Amendment

    Weeks after Newtown massacre, nearby Stamford hosts gun show
    By Ebong Udoma | Reuters / Yahoo News– Fri, Jan 4, 2013
    Dan-O

    From
    Ebong Udoma’s agitpropaganda: “On December 14, 2012, Gunman Adam
    Lanza, 20, armed with a semi-automatic assault rifle, killed 20 first
    graders and six staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School in
    Newtown.”

    We know that, Udoma, you agitpropagandistic troll.

    On
    that same day, the c r i m i n a l Goth, who should already have
    been safely tucked away in an insane asylum, got access to legally-owned
    firearms left unsecured by his mother.

    On that same day, our Second Amendment continued to exist. On that same day, our laws continued to allow c
    r i m i n a l Goths to infest our streets – instead of being locked away.

    On
    that same day, the C r i m i n a l Goth went to a Gun- Free Zone
    to wreak his Evil havoc – a zone k n o w n by authorities to be a
    Magnet for Criminals.

    So, who’s at fault here? Americans who
    insist on exercising their Second Amendment Rights? No! At fault is
    Government at all levels, which insists on p r o t e c t i n g C r
    i m i n a l s and their “rights” and “dignity” – to the detriment of
    good, law-abiding Americans!

    Evil does not consist in the nature
    of our Second Amendment, or Protectors and Defenders of the Amendment
    [which/who provide for protection against Tyranny and the destruction of
    our Constitution and Nation] .

    Rather, Evil consists in the
    minds and actions of
    individuals and governments hell-bent on: (a) Depriving Americans of
    fundamental Rights, and; (b) Seeking to subject Good Citizens to the
    ravages of Criminals, in the name of “compassion.”

    Bottom line:
    Starting now, if not sooner, C r i m i n a l s must be isolated
    from us, so that we may continue to exercise our Rights to Life,
    Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

  • Freedom Fighter

    The only time I will give up my Right to Self Defense is when they pry my guns from my cold dead hands and not before then!

  • Robert G.

    I will never give up my right to defend myself, Family, My property, and or the public that is being abused. We have that right by the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America.

  • Tugboat

    Did any of the shooters in any of these situations get their weapons from a legal source like a FFL gun shop and go through all the background checks required by law?
    Probably NO! Showing that the existing gun laws and those being considered do nothing to keep those who want a firearm to get one.

    The laws only hamper the LAW ABIDING CITIZEN and keep us from defending our selves and our loved ones