Jump to content
philpot123

Gun rights/control/ownership

Recommended Posts

Before anyone calls for a ban on any type weapon or ammunition, they

should read the actual 2nd amendment. I don't see where it says the

right is limited to only having a single shot weapon to be used for hunting

of small wild animals, or limited to use for skeet shooting at a club range.

I would be more interested in holding Eric Holder responsible for the

weapons furnished to illegal and/or foreign owners. Or to put the same

restrictions on gun shows that retail stores have.

 

Soon our government will be telling us what names we are allowed to

use or give our children just like Iceland, Germany, and Denmark do

already: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21280101

Amen grammydragon

Share this post


Link to post
Soon our government will be telling us what names we are allowed to

use or give our children just like Iceland, Germany, and Denmark do

already: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-21280101

This is what's known as a slippery slope fallacy. 'Right to choosing your name' is not at all related to gun control and it makes no sense to bring it into this argument. I have absolutely no idea what point you're trying to make here, since the first paragraph of your post seems to imply you see that some regulation/restriction/control/registration makes sense/is necessary. Could you please explain your post a little further but by sticking to the topic of guns, not bringing up a name lawsuit in another country? ^^

Share this post


Link to post

I see the old 'I'm too young to know' argument is being used. In response, unless your IQ is above 165 then I'm not interested in what you have to say, because you're not clever enough to know what you're talking about.

 

I will accept two scientific degrees, one of which has to be Masters level or above, instead of valid proof of your high IQ. Certainly if you don't have even a single science degree I'm not at all interested in your opinion, because you are not clever or logical enough to know.

Share this post


Link to post

Sock, I feel grammydragon was using that as an analogy only. I see other people that do the same thing on here as well.

 

Kestra, there is a difference in how the younger generation thinks and feels compared to a lot of how the older generation thinks and feels. I see it all the time on here and even at work and in the world, but this is normal with generations. I know because of how I looked at the world when I was younger. Now in my older age I have certainly changed a lot of my views because of my children, politics etc. I remember my mother telling me I would change as I aged, and I argued with her about it, laugh.gif Well all I can say is history does repeat itself.

Share this post


Link to post
Sock, I feel grammydragon was using that as an analogy only. I see other people that do the same thing on here as well.

 

Kestra, there is a difference in how the younger generation thinks and feels compared to a lot of how the older generation thinks and feels. I see it all the time on here and even at work and in the world, but this is normal with generations. I know because of how I looked at the world when I was younger. Now in my older age I have certainly changed a lot of my views because of my children, politics etc. I remember my mother telling me I would change as I aged, and I argued with her about it, laugh.gif Well all I can say is history does repeat itself.

We've made progress about a lot of things, too. If we all still thought like this we'd have no racial rights whatsoever.

 

Also, analogy or not it's still an unrelated fallacy...

Share this post


Link to post
Kestra, there is a difference in how the younger generation thinks and feels compared to a lot of how the older generation thinks and feels. I see it all the time on here and even at work and in the world, but this is normal with generations. I know because of how I looked at the world when I was younger. Now in my older age I have certainly changed a lot of my views because of my children, politics etc. I remember my mother telling me I would change as I aged, and I argued with her about it, laugh.gif Well all I can say is history does repeat itself.

While, yes, this is true and there *are* absolutely differences in the way people of different generations see things that doesn't actually mean that a person is wrong simply because they're from a younger generation than yours. They may be wrong because of other things (which, in a debate, one would respectfully point out) but the age of the person presenting the argument should absolutely *not* be a factor in the discussion.

 

My age does not automatically put me in the wrong when talking to someone in their 60's any more than it automatically puts me in the right when talking to a teen. As with every other discussion on this board the age of the poster is totally irrelevant when it comes to talking about gun control.

Share this post


Link to post

Alrighty...

This has been an amusing thread to go through.

I've noticed two things here.

One - most of the anti-gun posters are a) young cool.gif live in a city, and c) are great at regurging the popular opinion of the day.

a) So they have an unbiased and updated view of gun control and aren't just clinging to old ideas for the sake of tradition or purely because 'this is how it's always been done'.

b ) So they have more experience with criminal behavior since cities have higher crime rates, thus they have a more first-hand experience about what sort of gun control is needed for self-protection, which is mostly what the debate is all about. Who here is arguing that farmers shouldn't protect their livestock?

c) Yet you aren't regurgitating the popular opinion from when you were young?

 

You are forgetting one group of people here and it's people who belong to countries with stricter gun control laws that WORK. If it's working in other places, why can't it work in america? Too many citizens paranoid of the government they elected and the military that sacrifices their lives for them, or is it too many citizens afraid of their fellow citizens?

 

On another forum I go to, because a woman shined a flashlight in another woman's face at the park, she is now considering getting either a taser or a handgun. She felt threatened by a beam of light enough to start picking out which lethal weapon to buy. Doesn't that just sound so paranoid, and the birth of a trigger happy 'shoot-now-ask-questions-later' type of gun carrier? Would it be such a bad thing to make someone like this take a gun safety course to learn that a gun isn't something you resort to when someone is being rude to you?

Edited by Syaoransbear

Share this post


Link to post

Alrighty...

This has been an amusing thread to go through.

I've noticed two things here.

One - most of the anti-gun posters are a) young cool.gif live in a city, and c) are great at regurging the popular opinion of the day.

Two - and most thankfully, you appear to have never been a victim.

 

I carry concealed. Every where.

You will never know that if you are in public with me. That's ummm...what concealed means kiddies.

So there is absolutely no way what so ever that I'm affecting you, or your business/pleasure if we are out in public at the same time.

 

And if you are going to spend all your outing being paranoid that someone around you IS carrying a gun...then who is actually affecting your good time outing...you, yourself...or the grandmotherly, good looking woman wink.gif walking across the mall from you, sitting at the next table over in the restaurant, or sitting two rows behind you in a movie theater.

 

I will have guns in my home for protection, and on the privacy of my own property, I will carry a side arm...unconcealed...on my person to protect my livestock, my self, and my children from any danger that would come along.

 

I'm really uninterested in any gun control rhetoric, personally, because long after they attempt to ban gun ownership, I will still have a concealed carry permit, and will continue carrying a weapon every where I go, and the only time some young anti-gun person would know I was carrying a weapon, would be when I push them down, cover their body, and defend their life from some crazed idiot trying to mass murder the public.

And if it ends up being MY bullet between the eyes of the crazed shooter, I will go home content, happy, and satisfied that the young, anti-gun person lived to vote...even if it is against my personal rights.

 

Love,

Your local (hot) grandmotherly LEO

I'm 68 and have been anti gun and pro MINIMAL ownership and STRICT control all my life. I have never lived in a city, and am about as rural as you can get.

 

I am glad some people who used to think as you do are changing their minds:

 

Bethune used to be a fervent pro.

 

And even the gun manufacturers are getting desperate.

 

The main reason there ARE victims is because so many people carry concealed - people - LOADS of them - who have no idea what they are doing. I will give criminals one thing: they usually know how to use the nasty things. MANY MANY people who keep a gun at home"just in case" haven't the faintest notion, and when they try to use the things, assuming the attacker (if any - that's awful about the flashlight, and someone was recently shot by a COP for having a CUCUMBER in a bag...) - doesn't get it off them and use it against them - they miss.

 

It has never occurred to me that anyone around me is carrying. Except in the US. A country which I do actually avoid visiting these days. Seriously. Not only because of the guns, but that certainly doesn't help.

 

Signed: Another hot grandmother who would NEVER want to have a gun on her to "defend the grandchildren.". Throw my body over them - sure. But outside of the US, I don't expect I will ever have to do so.

Edited by fuzzbucket

Share this post


Link to post

One, I know how to use a gun.

 

Where I live in the South and the crime we have, you better have a pistol on you. I carry myself and I will always carry no matter what the government says. I would rather be alive than 6ft under.

 

It is our right to have guns. Look at the 2nd amendment. Obama is being more like a dictator everyday in more ways than one, it is not about just guns. My age generation understands what I am talking about very clearly.

Share this post


Link to post
It is our right to have guns. Look at the 2nd amendment. Obama is being more like a dictator everyday in more ways than one, it is not about just guns. My age generation understands what I am talking about very clearly.

See my previous point about the Constitution being changeable. While I can understand people making the point that this is what the law currently says, I've yet to see anyone adress wether or not it should be changed. That is, after all, what this debate is about isn't it? *Should* the law be changed. Saying You can't because the Constitution says [X] doesn't adress the issue.

 

Now I can understand Phil's point where he says he's (broadly) against most legislation by the Federal Government, and that he thinks all of it should be reduced rather than added to. I don't agree with him, but I can understand the point (and I hope Phil will correct me if I've mis-paraphrased him there). What I don't get are people who says, in essence, "It is this way and it shouldn't be changed". Why shouldn't it be changed? Can you give me a good reason why the Constitution should not be amended again?

 

Incidently I think you'll find that fuzzbucket *is* your generation, and she clearly disagrees with you. As does the gentleman in one of the links she provided. Your 'age generation', then, clearly doesn't agree with you en mass. Nor does your 'age generation' magically make you more of an authority on this matter. If your only argument against gun control is your age... then I'm afraid it's a completely invalid argument.

 

I also find your determination to continue carrying a gun even if it were made illegal to be very worrying. Do you have so little regard for the law?

Share this post


Link to post
See my previous point about the Constitution being changeable. While I can understand people making the point that this is what the law currently says, I've yet to see anyone address whether or not it should be changed. That is, after all, what this debate is about isn't it? *Should* the law be changed. Saying You can't because the Constitution says [X] doesn't address the issue.

 

Now I can understand Phil's point where he says he's (broadly) against most legislation by the Federal Government, and that he thinks all of it should be reduced rather than added to. I don't agree with him, but I can understand the point (and I hope Phil will correct me if I've mis-paraphrased him there). What I don't get are people who says, in essence, "It is this way and it shouldn't be changed". Why shouldn't it be changed? Can you give me a good reason why the Constitution should not be amended again?

 

Incidentally I think you'll find that fuzzbucket *is* your generation, and she clearly disagrees with you. As does the gentleman in one of the links she provided. Your 'age generation', then, clearly doesn't agree with you en mass. Nor does your 'age generation' magically make you more of an authority on this matter. If your only argument against gun control is your age... then I'm afraid it's a completely invalid argument.

 

I also find your determination to continue carrying a gun even if it were made illegal to be very worrying. Do you have so little regard for the law?

I guess if it is OK for "ordinary people" to break the law, that makes it OK for criminals to do so too, anyway. xd.png

 

blink.gif But wait - if you break the law you ARE a criminal, So that would make you (generic) a criminal for carrying, if the law is changed. Just like the criminals you now want to defend yourselves from. Ummmmm....

 

"That guy" used to be VERY much for the status quo, and campaigned for it. Research - ACTUAL FACTS - made him change his mind. The world DOES change. I am sure the US constitution has been changed, though I don't have the background to know this for a fact. When you think of the changes in the world - and the US - since the thing was written, changes would HAVE to happen. A total hypothetical example - there could have been something in it written in such language which meant that space exploration was Not OK. That would have had to change when such a thing became possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Where I live in the South and the crime we have, you better have a pistol on you. I carry myself and I will always carry no matter what the government says. I would rather be alive than 6ft under.

The irony being you are precisely the kind of criminal you rally so much against; no matter what, you will always have a gun.

 

And frankly it doesn't seem to matter where you are, you're gonna get shot.

Share this post


Link to post

It is our right to have guns. Look at the 2nd amendment. Obama is being more like a dictator everyday in more ways than one, it is not about just guns.

Oh brother.

 

Anyway, I'm anti gun. (I support guns within reason)

I'm 13, but I live in a very small town in the middle of Republican farmer land.

 

Not much more to say, I don't want to type a giant thing up right now.

Edited by MaggieXawesomeness

Share this post


Link to post

Again: I am not against gun ownership, with reasonable control. This is me making a point.

 

Before anyone calls for a ban on any type weapon or ammunition, they

should read the actual 2nd amendment.

 

Good idea!

 

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. (Second Amendment)

 

I don't see where it says the

right is limited to only having a single shot weapon to be used for hunting

of small wild animals, or limited to use for skeet shooting at a club range.

 

Well, to be fair, at the time, the Constitution was composed, we didn't have assault rifles. The technology did not exist. There's nothing saying an individual shouldn't own a nuclear bomb either, but do you want someone down the street building a nuclear device? After all, munitions of that sort would also be covered as "arms," if small enough to be carried by one person.

 

But let's look at the second amendment's history, shall we?

 

Robert Whitehill, from Pennsylvania, sought to clarify the Constitution during the drafting, explicitly granting individuals the right to hunt on their own land in season -- this was rejected outright without debate. Instead, delegates altered the language of the Second Amendment several times to emphasize the military aspect of the amendment rather than private ownership. Pennsylvania then went on to propose an amendment that added the personal right to bear arms as well as the second amendment during ratification meetings. These were also rejected.

 

The first four drafts of the second amendment said something like this: A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

 

On September 4, the Senate changed the language of the Second Amendment by removing the definition of militia, and striking the conscientious objector clause. On the 9th, it was proposed "for the common defence" be added, but it was defeated, on the grounds of being redundant.

 

If that bit were there: for the common defence, and the conscientious objector clause were not removed -- do you think we'd be having the same conversations? After all, the conscientious objector bit was taken out so that the government could then pass a law making it so that every able-bodied male had to serve if called.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not going to get into a huge debate or anything, so I'll drop my opinion and leave. It's not anything crazy, though.

 

I'm not wholly against people owning guns, or at least the concept of it. I live in a small Texas town, where most people have guns and are proud of their Confederate heritage. I understand that if anyone told them "we're taking away your guns", more problems would just be created. More problems is not what America needs.

 

But, I am FOR reasonable control. I believe that we need regulation and other methods of handling the complications that come with the gun culture. Guns are getting more dangerous, and so are the people using them. But we can't just take away everyone's arms. Extremes of "freedom to bear arms" and "no guns for anyone" would just cause more problems than they would solve. A middle ground needs to be reached.

 

I don't think regular citizens need assault weapons, personally. A pistol or handgun, perfectly fine. As for hunting guns- I don't wholly approve of hunting in the first place.

 

Don't ask me what methods would work, or what kind of control I'm asking for. I'm not a politician, nor have I made an intensive study of this.

Share this post


Link to post
One, I know how to use a gun.

 

Where I live in the South and the crime we have, you better have a pistol on you. I carry myself and I will always carry no matter what the government says. I would rather be alive than 6ft under.

 

It is our right to have guns. Look at the 2nd amendment. Obama is being more like a dictator everyday in more ways than one, it is not about just guns. My age generation understands what I am talking about very clearly.

Now tell me how will the gun you allways carry on you help you if you one day wall into a bank, and as soon as the dor closes a criminal will put an asoult rifle or shotgun in your face. Will you try to act as a tipical Hollywood superhero, or will you try to get alive from it without harming others.

 

A dont get any of the people that are saying that nothing bad can happen to them only becouse they carry a gun around all the time, and that it will help them if something bad will ocure, Well you know what, best case scenarios are extremly rare.

 

And as for 2nd amendment. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to prevent the new Federal Government established in 1789 from disarming the state militias and replacing them with a Federal standing army. It was a concern that was relevant perhaps for a few years around the birth of the country. It is irrelevant today. Americans do not rely on state militias in 2012 for theyr freedom from the federal government. And in 1789 there was no Asoult Rifles, so those shuld be baned and be ilegal to use outside of army or police.

 

Share this post


Link to post

I ignored the post previously about young urban people being anti-gun, because it seemed obvious to me the person had not read the thread. As is often the case, when someone delves into personal attacks and stereotypes, the discussion starts centering around that. Having said that, I just saw an article on the NRA's "enemy" list. I had no idea it was so extensive. It's wayyyy beyond young urbans. Here's a partial list as stated by the article:

 

• AARP;

 

• AFL-CIO;

 

• American Medical Association;

 

• American Bar Association;

 

• American Jewish Committee;

 

• Anti-Defamation League;

 

• B`nai B`rith;

 

• Children`s Defense Fund;

 

• Environmental Action Foundation;

 

• Episcopal Church;

 

• Lauder Foundation;

 

• League of Women Voters of the United States;

 

• National Association of Police Organizations;

 

• National Coalition Against Domestic Violence;

 

• National Association for the Advancement of Colored People;

 

• National Council of La Raza;

 

• National Urban League;

 

• National Spinal Cord Injury Association;

 

• Southern Christian Leadership Conference;

 

• U.S. Catholic Conference;

 

• United Methodist Church;

 

• United Church of Christ;

 

• U.S. Conference of Mayors;

 

• and the YWCA of the USA.

 

I mean, really? That's a really extensive list.

 

Source

Share this post


Link to post

Well you know what, best case scenarios are extremly rare.

 

Untrue. Self-defense with firearms happens FAR more often than homicides with firearms.

 

I'm sure I'm missing a response to one of my posts way back there, so if anyone had a burning question they had aimed at me, feel free to ask it again. tongue.gif

Edited by philpot123

Share this post


Link to post
Well, to be fair, at the time, the Constitution was composed, we didn't have assault rifles. The technology did not exist. There's nothing saying an individual shouldn't own a nuclear bomb either, but do you want someone down the street building a nuclear device? After all, munitions of that sort would also be covered as "arms," if small enough to be carried by one person.

 

By this standard, free speech would not be protected for television, radio and internet....since these also didn't exist when the Constitution was drawn up.

Share this post


Link to post

By this standard, free speech would not be protected for television, radio and internet....since these also didn't exist when the Constitution was drawn up.

 

It could be argued that certain types of arms are more analogous to perjury, defamation, noise control, etc.

Share this post


Link to post

Untrue. Self-defense with firearms happens FAR more often than homicides with firearms.

 

I looked at some numbers wich stat that self defences happen around 250000 times a year in US, but i`m more intereste to see how many are succesfull in real life dangerouse situations like murder atempts, profesional thefts gone wrong and such, and of course how many mass murders were prevented with self-defense.

Share this post


Link to post

I looked at some numbers wich stat that self defences happen around 250000 times a year in US, but i`m more intereste to see how many are succesfull in real life dangerouse situations like murder atempts, profesional thefts gone wrong and such, and of course how many mass murders were prevented with self-defense.

Most estimates place it over 250,000. Some say 2.5 million, some say around 100,000, so in reality, it's probably somewhere in between. If you want to browse some stories, check out this blog. Yes, it's NRA run, but they pull the stories from local news organizations, so you can check them out for their authenticity if you so desire.

 

The Armed Citizen

Share this post


Link to post

Wait, what did they do?  blink.gif

The Supreme Court ruled, in 2008, that the 2nd amendment isn't actually about only owning a gun if you're in a militia, that that is simply an example that was used as to when owning a weapon would be necessary and therefore protected by the Constitution.

 

However, they also ruled that they right to bear arms can be limited. They held that the right to own weapons is already limited, and that the places where one can carry them is already limited, and they in no way were attempting to change those things with the decision in the particular case they were hearing.

 

That's what I feel is sometimes lacking in this discussion. People talk about gun control as if any limiting of the 2nd amendment would lead to the government crushing us all. The fact is that the 2nd amendment is already limited, and has been for quite a while. This discussion is not about what will happen if we place certain restrictions on that right, because we already do that. This is just about what are reasonable restrictions considering both the state of the country, the advances in weaponry, and which guns are in "common use".

 

All the guns that everyone owns right now have been obtained under a 2nd amendment that already has limitations. So the idea that any kind of gun control will keep people from owning guns seems a bit ridiculous given that there are hundreds of millions of them owned in this country.

 

Honestly, except for the AWB, I'm not sure which gun safety measures that are currently under consideration are going to so impact most people negatively. There's overwhelming support for universal background checks (which strangely people claim won't work despite the fact that, even with the lack of standard info that should be, but is not, available right now, millions of people who shouldn't have guns have been denied them through those checks, so yes, they do work), stopping straw purchases should be a given, I never knew what the problem with letting the CDC gather statistics and study the actual causes of gun violence was in the first place (which, since gun owners say is not due to gun owning, they should be open to allowing so we can determine the actual causes), and goodness knows the mental health system needs an overhaul.

 

The only other problem I see is the high capacity magazine ban but, frankly, I've always seen that as more a matter of convenience, and I don't necessarily see that as being covered by the 2nd amendment, although there's certainly disagreement there.

 

But to tell you the truth, I don't think that the White House is expecting the AWB or the high capacity clip ban to pass. I think it would be a bonus for them if they did, but I don't think it's their top priority. Because, have you noticed that when the President speaks about this, he talks about the mass shootings, but he also includes Chicago? And Chicago's problem is not mass shootings, it's the everyday gun violence that is America's biggest gun problem. That's where most of the deaths occur, and I think that's the real target here. And things like background checks, cracking down on trafficking and straw purchases, building the ATF back up, collecting gun statistics, and fixing the mental health system are reasonable ways to attack that problem, and I think that's absolutely the real goal.

 

But, let's face it, the NRA tends to get in the way of even the things that upwards of 90% of the country supports (things that they used to support themselves). By pushing for the AWB, it helps keep them focused on putting out that fire and, more importantly, creates a situation where coming to a compromise would be losing the AWB and, possibly, the magazine ban, and enacting all of the other provisions - which are undoubtedly the most important.

Edited by skauble

Share this post


Link to post

I fully expect the magazine capacity limit to pass. I also expect it to be largely ineffective at keeping high-cap mags off the streets. It'll mostly just increase the cost of what's already out there.

Share this post


Link to post

I fully expect the magazine capacity limit to pass. I also expect it to be largely ineffective at keeping high-cap mags off the streets. It'll mostly just increase the cost of what's already out there.

But it would have to get through the House. That's where the hang up to all of the actual weapons/accessories bans will hit problems. That's why I think that including things like the AWB and the magazine ban are useful, because they can be shed in a deal to get the rest through.

 

As for having them still on the street, the thing is that it takes time for things like that to begin to fade from circulation. Will there still be some, of course. But the ones out there would be illegal, so they'd be confiscated every time they surfaced. If the ATF was allowed to be a functioning agency, slowly the inventory on the street would begin to thin.

 

Which doesn't mean that I think they'd disappear, just that I think that a ban along with a more realistic amount of oversight would have an eventual impact.

 

But the high capacity magazine ban seems to be aimed at the mass shooting incidents, and it might actually make a difference in those particular circumstances.

 

Overall I think that it comes down to how well the case can be made that the magazines are necessary for common uses of guns these days. It's easy to make the case that people like them, but probably harder to make one that people's usage of guns would be broadly restricted because of a ban.

Share this post


Link to post

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.