Gun Issues page 39

2293 posts

Flag Post

That handgun would be illegal to fully load here in NY, Jhco. What a shame.

Speaking of which, I’m now going to have to either bury all my pre-ban magazines or start selling them out of state.

 
Flag Post

just have people take a competency(psychological evaluation) test
and also a test on proper gun use (with exams and such)

dont give weapons to retarded people or criminals

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thijser:
Originally posted by jhco50:

I mentioned large acquisitions of ammunition by odd sources. This is just one of the government agencies making these kind of purchases. The question is…why?

http://modernsurvivalblog.com/current-events-economics-politics/dhs-now-with-1-billion-rounds-of-ammo/

This link is just an example of too much power in the hands of the wrong people;

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-national-security-technology-and-liberty/reform-patriot-act-myths-realities

And the last link shows that it isn’t just this administration drunk with power. Read some of the myths and the truth the provide.

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech-national-security-technology-and-liberty/reform-patriot-act-myths-realities

Well a lot of important buildings have their own guards(and I hope you see why those have to train as well). And I hope you see why homeland security needs a lot more ammo then the rest.
My best guess on that? Someone in the department realized that half the year was already over but they still had plenty of budget left. So someone decided "Quick, order stuff that is small and expensive." and now someones office is filled with crates full of bullets.
 
Flag Post

For those that dismiss the 2nd amendment. Evolution of the amendment was as follows.

First version:

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”

Second version:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Final Version

“A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

For those that dismiss the 2nd amendment. Evolution of the amendment was as follows.

First version:

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.”

Second version:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”

Final Version

“A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

That’s an interesting series of changes… could be read as changing from ‘anyone can keep weapons’ (first version) to ‘everyone bar those with religious objections’ (2nd version) should keep weapons as part of the militia (which intimates that the militia is a separate entity from the population) to ‘only the state militia should not be prevented from keeping weapons’ (final version) – the state militia being separate from the population as implied in step 2.

Yes, I know that’s not what the SC ruled… just making an observation based on the change in use of language between the versions.

 
Flag Post

Don, one thing that it does indeed show is that jake-o’s presentation of our needing to read all of his links about “what-the-founding-fathers-wanted-the-2nd-Amend.-to be-because-of-various-papers-they-wrote” as being some kind of support of HIS position really isn’t actually that much in the way of support at all. Rather, it is more like what I said about the FF’s. There were OTHER thoughts on the matter.

He obviously found ONLY the papers of the FF’s that agreed w/ his POV. Surprise…SURPRISE.

The more realistic situation is demonstrated by his presentation above (& YOUR interpretation of it being pretty much spot on) in that, like most of the concepts put down in the Constitution were COMPROMISES of varying ideologies.

Why on earth would any mature person think that group of men (HEY…men ONLY, eh? I guess some things CHANGE…quite a lot over the years) would get together to hammer out something like the Constitution merely to “get the proper wording” set down on paper?

They got together in order to have (what was considered to be?) the great minds of the times to compound an amalgamation of their varying ideologies so that the most comprehensive set of human values and how to meld these into a superlatively functioning society could be wrought. Simply put: they wanted to hear from ALL facets of beliefs in order to be not only fair, but to be inclusive enough so that true harmony of a differing ppl might be achieved.

One thing is rather obvious, even the prevailing thinking AT THAT TIME on weaponry in the hands of the citizenry at large wasn’t unanimous. Likely because of the disparity of the lives of those various FF’s. The more rural based men knew well the necessity of having a gun. Those who resided in the urban areas certainly didn’t see a need to have a gun in a “city”.

I wonder if the 2nd wasn’t really intended to be as “sacred” as it has evolved as has weaponry. I believe that concerns about the strength of the “infant government” might be jeopardized were the citizenry to be “disarmed” is what prompted one side of the debate. This side felt those men who took up arms, THEIR ARMS, to fight AND DIE for this new country would CONTINUTE to do so in that it may survive in the form of ideals they fought for. The other side was spurred by just the opposite: that should the citizenry be armed, such a coup (a counter revolt by the Tories?) might be much easier.

Obviously, the issue needed to be addressed in order to establish some BOUNDRIES that could be referred to should questions arise involving the issue at a later date. I think the issue was more of an “appeasment compromise” made so the ratification of the Constitution could move forward.

Just as in our legal world today, if there ain’t a law on the books, a negative action can’t be addressed….at all. Just because the law is “there” very often doesn’t mean it HAS to be “enforced” in areas of “very minor infractions”. BUT, it has to be there so that the more grieves offenses CAN BE addressed.

Even then, because of the way many laws are written (HAVE TO BE?), I can’t tell ya how many times I have heard from the authorities: We can’t do anything about it until he actually BREAKS THE LAW. Mere “threat” or verbal disrespect of a law isn’t enough to intervene. Yeah, I well know about “restraining orders”. I’m talking about the many OTHER situations.

The FF’s weren’t going to allow all of their hard work of hoping to establish a “new order” of governing be derailed by ONE LITTLE STICKING POINT. They hammered out an OBVIOUSLY VAUGE amendment that could be viewed by the differing entities as they “needed to see” it in order to ratify. Yeah, the FF’s were just that “clever”.

 
Flag Post

i just want you all to remember heller v district of columbia the second amendment protects individual rights to own firearms there is really not much that laws will be able to due beyond what we currently have and that the sandy hook and aurora shooting were not failures of gun control i think had the gunman in aurora made a bomb the death toll would have been much higher and my only point is that you cant protect against crazy

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by darkninja210:

i just want you all to remember heller v district of columbia the second amendment protects individual rights to own firearms there is really not much that laws will be able to due beyond what we currently have and that the sandy hook and aurora shooting were not failures of gun control i think had the gun in aurora made a bomb the death toll would have been much higher and my only point is that you cant protect against crazy

  • make people take competency test (tested by trusted psychologist) , and they should also have no mental illnesses
  • make them take a firearms test – have them train to use a firearm properly and teach them of how to be a responsible and safe owner
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Galdos:
Originally posted by darkninja210:

i just want you all to remember heller v district of columbia the second amendment protects individual rights to own firearms there is really not much that laws will be able to due beyond what we currently have and that the sandy hook and aurora shooting were not failures of gun control i think had the gun in aurora made a bomb the death toll would have been much higher and my only point is that you cant protect against crazy

  • make people take competency test (tested by trusted psychologist) , and they should also have no mental illnesses
  • make them take a firearms test – have them train to use a firearm properly and teach them of how to be a responsible and safe owner

You obviously confuse a right with a privilege. How about you take my BS test to see if you can speak freely or be part a religion of your choice.

 
Flag Post

A gun can be pretty damn dangerous if someone who has no idea how to use it tries to use it. This is why people who want to drive a car need to get a driver’s license first.
Cars are transportation devices.
Guns on the other hand have only one purpose: to harm a target. It seems very reasonable to me to require some kind of qualification before you are cleared to use one.

Simply saying: “IT’S A RIGHT!!!” is not enough. Even rights can be questioned. If there is a reasonable argument to put limitations on it then it probably should be. And significant danger to others seems like a pretty strong argument to me.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by darkninja210:

i just want you all to remember heller v district of columbia the second amendment protects individual rights to own firearms there is really not much that laws will be able to due beyond what we currently have and that the sandy hook and aurora shooting were not failures of gun control i think had the gun in aurora made a bomb the death toll would have been much higher and my only point is that you cant protect against crazy

I think the bold part is what it all really boils down to. It doesn’t matter if it is cars, prescription drugs (and street), guns, drinking, etc. Irresponsible behavior—right up to & well into that of extremely bizarre—is the true source of such heinous acts. The irresponsibility can be placed at the feet of many areas.

In the “gun zone”, we’re talking about such a vastness of diversity that such “responsibility” is sooooooo spread out that trying to find RELEVANT “feet” to place these massacres is going to be quite impossible. At least, in any real aspect other than the shooter themself.

In the “gun zone”, even those who have guns aren’t all that responsible and end up hurting each other….at a Gun & Knife Show no less…LOL
No amount of legislation can stop STOOOPIDITY.
Yes, there are laws and rules…
But, there are ppl….and some ppl don’t follow laws, some ppl don’t know why laws exist, some ppl probably shouldn’t exist because they are eaten up w/ dumbass.
Where will we set the level for imprisoning being “dumb” in order to protect society?

Isn’t this what a lot of “gun control” laws are hoping to do?
Isn’t this what the latest ones really were?
Just a lot of “feel-good” thrown at an issue that actually hasn’t any “simple fixes”?
Any truly “significant” (< and just what the hell would THAT be?) measures would need a whole new Amendment to change the current situtation in America.

One might as well as think the words cars & guns are interchangeable when it comes to controlls & usage. Now, ya tell ME how ya’re gonna reduce the numbers of deaths & injuries caused by “crazy” AND irresponsible drivers//gunners?

Addendum (in response to EPR’s point): Yes, I greatly agree….a very strict level of measures must be taken to ensure that RESPONSIBLE ownership & opperation of either guns or cars is of huge importance. I just want to make it clear that I’m talking (above) about those who “fall through the cracks”. AND, as it currently is….the cracks for both guns & cars are damn BIG.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Galdos:

just have people take a competency(psychological evaluation) test
and also a test on proper gun use (with exams and such)

dont give weapons to retarded people or criminals

this is what they should do
and what i said after this

bad people will get guns not matter what the laws are. so why punish and disarm good guys, in so making them more vulnerable and increasing crime

thats why people should be allowed to at least defend their homes and businesses.

 
Flag Post

I agree Karma, I have always appreciated your wit and sensibility on many issues.For me thou i just look at it as part of the risk of living in a free society. I however took necessary precautions I got a carry permit when i was in TN. For the relevancy of discussion I dont really care how many tests and background checks i have to go throu they wont really affect me in keeping guns out of my hands. I dont have kides so im able to not have to be completely anal about the storage of my firearms i do however keep them in a locked container that only myself and wife know how to access Id really like to see a stronger push for responsible storage of firearms but thats just inviting laws to allow LE to go throu houses to see if firearms are stored correctly which im not down for. It is funny how you brought up people hurting themselves at gun shows from what i understand of that its because many people who have little to no experience with guns are no trying to get some and well hurting themselves in the process terrible shame. What i want is an education system and other social support systems that create an environment that cause such violent outbursts to lose prevalence by having an educated populace that doesnt turn to violence to solve petty issues and services to help people with at risk behavior before its too late.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Galdos:
Originally posted by Galdos:

just have people take a competency(psychological evaluation) test
and also a test on proper gun use (with exams and such)

dont give weapons to retarded people or criminals

this is what they should do
and what i said after this

bad people will get guns not matter what the laws are. so why punish and disarm good guys, in so making them more vulnerable and increasing crime

thats why people should be allowed to at least defend their homes and businesses.

How is requiring tests to reduce the risk for people around gun owners punishment?
I never understood that argument.

It’s just like driving tests: a safety measure. And due to the inherent danger potential in firearms it is a very important one.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by EPR89:
Originally posted by Galdos:
Originally posted by Galdos:

just have people take a competency(psychological evaluation) test
and also a test on proper gun use (with exams and such)

dont give weapons to retarded people or criminals

this is what they should do
and what i said after this

bad people will get guns not matter what the laws are. so why punish and disarm good guys, in so making them more vulnerable and increasing crime

thats why people should be allowed to at least defend their homes and businesses. I never understood that argument.

How is requiring tests to reduce the risk for people around gun owners punishment?

LOL….huge L O L
ERP, yeah….Glados is a little hard to understand.
{but, w/ HIM around….I don’t look so bad 0¿~}

I think what he’s wanting us to know is: BANNING all (any?) guns will then cause only outlaws to have outlawed guns. Which, if one earnestly believes that “law-abiding” citizens would actually give up their guns, would mean that in doing so…they then are at the “gun-powered” mercy of the criminal element.

That loss of ability//power to defend is what Glados et.al. is seeing as being the “punishment” for the “giving up” of gun ownership…..AND, (I’m guessing here) ANY OTHER forms of “management” of the issue.

It’s just like driving tests: a safety measure. And due to the inherent danger potential in firearms it is a very important one.

I hope I’ve been able to make myself crystal clear on this already.
I totally agree about how important it is to match power-capacity with handling-ability via some form to qualifying testing.

Thanks for giving me another chance to point out that I don’t really give much of a shit about “rights vs. privileges”. For me, it is an issue of an individual having the POTENTIAL to do great harm & death as a result of their actions. Ppl can argue about rights & privileges over the graves of those killed by inappropriate use of guns/cars….which includes use by good ppl who should NEVER HAVE been given use of either.

I’m a huge proponent of strong testing & equally stiff punishment for obviously dangerous infractions. When a society sets REASONABLE high standards, it is sending a clear message to all that such issues are to be taken very seriously. As it now stands, even w/ the many so-called-laws already in place, we are fucking lucky to be as “safe” as we currently are.

I’m NOT for “punishing” a goodly number of “border-liners”….ppl who are good but just don’t yet have the proper “skill sets” to be qualified to have car/gun. What is so hard for ppl to understand that a person IS NOT BORN WITH a high level of ability to either drive a car or own a gun? They have to be taught. The level of learning has to be tested & ascertained to be adequate in order to have this responsibility vested to them.

YES. I focus more on the responsibility aspect than I do the “rights or privilege” end of it.
I feel if one takes care of the responsibility end FIRST…the other end easily follows.
America seriously needs to understand that a battle for “gun rights” isn’t what the focus should be. The focus should be on how to make guns & cars have a much greater aura of responsibility surrounding them.

This CAN BE TAUGHT.
Whether or not it can be “learned” is up the true importance a society wants to establish in regard to the issue. Much of NOTHING can be “learned” about responsibilities when both “camps” of the issue are being represented by the extremists….mostly because the fucking assholes of the media “luv a circus”.

It is my deepest belief that if reasonable ppl can come together and discuss ways {EDUCATION….EDUCATION…EDUCATION} to work together to find the best possible ways we as a society can sensibly address the negativity of something that really isn’t going to “go away” for us.

 
Flag Post

Karma, I have not replied to any of your posts because they were pretty good. We differ on requiring anything that infringes on the 2nd amendment. It means and says what it means. I don’t dismiss our founders as compromising on the Constitution. They new what they were doing. The real reason for the Constitution was to be able to fund the government. The Continental Congress were unable to have any sway in the duties they did have, which were not many. Basically, our rule of law, although thorough and probably the best Constitution ever written, was to allow funding for our government.

It is only the law abiding citizen who follows laws. The criminal ignores them. Glados is right, the honest citizen would more than likely turn in their guns, not all of them, just some. Still, they would be afraid to use them for threat of prosecution. We can look at the UK to see this.

I look at rights differently than you do. Rights are God Given, or natural rights. Privileges are granted by the government. Privileges can be are easily taken, rights aren’t. I don’t look at my fellow man as stupid. Yes, we have a few who are a few bricks shy of a full stack, but the majority are upstanding and intelligent.

We are having record sales of firearms and ammunition. I look at this with a bit of disdain as It causes a shortage for all of us. Try finding .223 ammo right now. Popular firearms are gone, back ordered for months. Yet with all of these new shooters, experienced shooters will take them under their wings and teach them. Just recently an experienced shot-gunner took be under his wing and showed me something new. This is how the firearms community works. Our country has had the right to bear arms for 250 years. We have accepted some bad with the good

I do agree, there are those who have no business picking up a gun or driving a car. But we can’t take away the rights of others for these few…that is a dictatorship. It seems every time a person stubs a toe, do-gooders what a rash of new laws to prevent stubbed toes. They always become irrational and go overboard. There will always be some danger in just living. A good example of this over reaction is lead paint. People have lived and become adults for a hundred years with lead paint in their house. all of a sudden it has become so hazardous we have to treat it like it’s radiation. Irrational behavior like this has become rampant.

I listened to a program the other night with a doctor talking about the drugs I brought up earlier. She said these drugs, which are depressives, are causing irrational behavior in our young people. If they are not the right dosage, or if the person starts taking them to0 fast or quit them too fast, they cause depression, suicidal tendencies, or violence. All of the young people who have committed mass murders has been on some form of these drugs. Why don’t we research this? We have more children on these drugs than any other country in the world. The more I read about these drugs, the more I see a connection. If I can find material on these drugs, why can’t our government? Why do they ignore this possible cause and instead go after a right? Sounds a bit like politics to me.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by darkninja210:

i just want you all to remember heller v district of columbia the second amendment protects individual rights to own firearms there is really not much that laws will be able to due beyond what we currently have and that the sandy hook and aurora shooting were not failures of gun control i think had the gunman in aurora made a bomb the death toll would have been much higher and my only point is that you cant protect against crazy

A firearm registry is totally compatible with the 2nd amendment as is making the last legal owner of a gun economically responsible for any damages the gun does.

Originally posted by darkninja210:

  • make people take competency test (tested by trusted psychologist) , and they should also have no mental illnesses
  • make them take a firearms test – have them train to use a firearm properly and teach them of how to be a responsible and safe owner

You obviously confuse a right with a privilege. How about you take my BS test to see if you can speak freely or be part a religion of your choice.

The 2nd amendment protects two things. The Ownership and Carrying of Weapons. The bad wording means that buying, selling and passing on are not covered and can be regulated. If i remember correctly that was also a point stressed in the ruling heller v district of columbia.

 
Flag Post

Opps…your post almost qualifies as a “rant”….lol
AND, which is it?
Either ya don’t read my posts or ya do.
Stop being the drama queen.

Originally posted by jhco50:

Karma, I have not replied to any of your posts because they were pretty good. We differ on requiring anything that infringes on the 2nd amendment.

And, it is the “inch = a mile”, bull-headedness of zealous “gunners”, unable to see that any and everything can best be served by having a hard look at it and thereby being “tweaked a bit” to conform to current societal NEEDS…as long as such tweaking conforms to the Law of the Land (Constitution).

YOU deeply believe in this process in YOUR veiws on Gay marriage & abortion.

It means and says what it means.

NO.
It means what YOU want to believe it does.
The Constitution means what it means.
Yet, it took 10 Amendments just to get 9 of the 13 Colonies to ratify it.
And, several more to handle societal issues as they changed over the years.

I don’t dismiss our founders as compromising on the Constitution. They new what they were doing.

Yes, they “new”, for the most part, what they were doing.
Yet, they didn’t know EVERYTHING.
And, a lot of what ya’ve been saying sure sounds like ya didn’t understand that the precious Constitution is a amalgamation of many diverse ideologies.

The real reason for the Constitution was to be able to fund the government. The Continental Congress were unable to have any sway in the duties they did have, which were not many. Basically, our rule of law, although thorough and probably the best Constitution ever written, was to allow funding for our government.

Ya know…YOUR limited knowledge on U.S. history should also limit the strenght of your convictions on what our Constitution is all about. Couple that limitation w/ the likelihood that your sources of “education” come from very “conservatively” biased “educators”, and we have YOU.

The “real reason” for the Constitution WAS NOT to be able to fund the National govt.
That was only part of it.
Ya gave the real reason in your second sentence.
The Continental Congress (Articles of Confederatin) was formed to manage the Revolutionary War

It is only the law abiding citizen who follows laws. The criminal ignores them. Glados is right, the honest citizen would more than likely turn in their guns, not all of them, just some. Still, they would be afraid to use them for threat of prosecution. We can look at the UK to see this.

Your point being?
I haven’t seen ANY rational poster on this forum advocating a complete ban.
So, YOUR pushing of this point is moot.

And, when “we” look at the UK….it would appear that the “we” of this forum see quite a lot of differences than that which YOU see.

I look at rights differently than you do. Rights are God Given, or natural rights. Privileges are granted by the government. Privileges can be are easily taken, rights aren’t.

YOU don’t really know how I look at “rights”.
YOU only presume to know.
I am of the opinion that your own presumptive biases are what is part of the cause of why ya’re unable to understand many of the points made by posters on this forum.

I don’t look at my fellow man as stupid.

Quite the contrary.
At least as what ya’ve so stated many times.
BUT, when it comes to guns…..well, that is quite different…eh?

Yes, we have a few who are a few bricks shy of a full stack, but the majority are upstanding and intelligent.

Ya still don’t understand the “bell-curve of distribution”…do ya?
AND, ya just can’t grasp the concept of even the smartest ppl NOT HAVING good & full information in ALL areas. Not knowing something is not being stupid. Choosing to ignore information (esp. if it disagrees w/ your viewpoint) is what is stupid. <cough>..<cough>
We are having record sales of firearms and ammunition. I look at this with a bit of disdain as It causes a shortage for all of us. Try finding .223 ammo right now. Popular firearms are gone, back ordered for months.

Yeah, it looks like a lot of " upstanding & intelligent fellow man" are being a little stoooopid…eh?

Yet with all of these new shooters, experienced shooters will take them under their wings and teach them. Just recently an experienced shot-gunner took be under his wing and showed me something new. This is how the firearms community works.

Hooboy, once again…YOUR personal anecdotal experience is the norm for our society. It is NOT that area of “gunners” that concerns me. It is, as MOST of us here have been extolling, the highly inexperienced novice & highly ill-motivated whence the problem springs.

Our country has had the right to bear arms for 250 years. We have accepted some bad with the good

Yeah…yeah.
Save the protest placards for the parades.
Such terse crap does little to produce some meaningful insights to how TO SOVLE the “bad”.

I do agree, there are those who have no business picking up a gun or driving a car. But we can’t take away the rights of others for these few…that is a dictatorship.

I agree that YOU just can’t understand that most SANE ppl ARE NOT wanting to take away rights from righteous ppl. They are wanting to LIMIT what the stoopid & wackos can do. How hard is it for YOU to understand this? Oh yeah, paranoia can often blind ppl.

It seems every time a person stubs a toe, do-gooders what a rash of new laws to prevent stubbed toes. They always become irrational and go overboard.

No arguement there.
BUT, are YOU saying that EVERYONE who differs from YOUR thinking is this kind of ppl?
We already know how ya feel about “all those lefties” and how easily ya assign them to that definition.

There will always be some danger in just living.

Hey…thanks for the eye-opener.
Obviously something none of us knew.

A good example of this over reaction is lead paint. People have lived and become adults for a hundred years with lead paint in their house. all of a sudden it has become so hazardous we have to treat it like it’s radiation. Irrational behavior like this has become rampant.

NO!
All that paragraph is an example of is YOUR ignorance on the subject and a fine example of how YOU use a very closed mind to support many of your positions on this forum.
I listened to a program the other night with a doctor talking about the drugs I brought up earlier. She said these drugs, which are depressives, are causing irrational behavior in our young people. If they are not the right dosage, or if the person starts taking them to0 fast or quit them too fast, they cause depression, suicidal tendencies, or violence. All of the young people who have committed mass murders has been on some form of these drugs. Why don’t we research this? We have more children on these drugs than any other country in the world. The more I read about these drugs, the more I see a connection. If I can find material on these drugs, why can’t our government? Why do they ignore this possible cause and instead go after a right? Sounds a bit like politics to me.

Oh yeah, let’s now rant on about drug usage in the U.S. and how it ties into gun masacres. In case ya haven’t noticed, this area is one that many posters on the gun issues HAVE BEEN talking about. It falls under the “mental health” factor.

Addendum: It’s like what axlkoegoskyeg says about drug usage (in general, not just kids, below)…it certainly puts a person in a frame of mind that is “altered”. Yes, most “alterations” are benign…unless ya consider weight gain due to the munchies cuz of smoking pot to be harmful. However, it is when stronger drugs are either taken OR NOT TAKEN that the problems begin.

Here in Wichita, we had a newspaper delivery guy shot to death as he was driving on the freeway by a man who had stopped taking his “psycho-meds”. I can’t recall ATM the other kinds of very irrational behavior caused by such ppl who “went off their meds (drugs)”,,,,but they do happen.

AND, we really shouldn’t forget about booze. THAT certainly, UNDENIABLY changes the “farme of mind” of a person. It would be interesting to know the stats on ALL “inappropriate” gun usage broken down by the various kinds substances that alter “frames-of-mind”,,,including the unaltered (but should include such things as depression, anger, etc.)

 
Flag Post

I return…

Originally posted by jhco50:

Karma, I have not replied to any of your posts because they were pretty good. We differ on requiring anything that infringes on the 2nd amendment. It means and says what it means. I don’t dismiss our founders as compromising on the Constitution. They new what they were doing. The real reason for the Constitution was to be able to fund the government. The Continental Congress were unable to have any sway in the duties they did have, which were not many. Basically, our rule of law, although thorough and probably the best Constitution ever written, was to allow funding for our government.

It is only the law abiding citizen who follows laws. The criminal ignores them. Glados is right, the honest citizen would more than likely turn in their guns, not all of them, just some. Still, they would be afraid to use them for threat of prosecution. We can look at the UK to see this.

I look at rights differently than you do. Rights are God Given, or natural rights. Privileges are granted by the government. Privileges can be are easily taken, rights aren’t. I don’t look at my fellow man as stupid. Yes, we have a few who are a few bricks shy of a full stack, but the majority are upstanding and intelligent.

We are having record sales of firearms and ammunition. I look at this with a bit of disdain as It causes a shortage for all of us. Try finding .223 ammo right now. Popular firearms are gone, back ordered for months. Yet with all of these new shooters, experienced shooters will take them under their wings and teach them. Just recently an experienced shot-gunner took be under his wing and showed me something new. This is how the firearms community works. Our country has had the right to bear arms for 250 years. We have accepted some bad with the good

I do agree, there are those who have no business picking up a gun or driving a car. But we can’t take away the rights of others for these few…that is a dictatorship. It seems every time a person stubs a toe, do-gooders what a rash of new laws to prevent stubbed toes. They always become irrational and go overboard. There will always be some danger in just living. A good example of this over reaction is lead paint. People have lived and become adults for a hundred years with lead paint in their house. all of a sudden it has become so hazardous we have to treat it like it’s radiation. Irrational behavior like this has become rampant.

I listened to a program the other night with a doctor talking about the drugs I brought up earlier. She said these drugs, which are depressives, are causing irrational behavior in our young people. If they are not the right dosage, or if the person starts taking them to0 fast or quit them too fast, they cause depression, suicidal tendencies, or violence. All of the young people who have committed mass murders has been on some form of these drugs. Why don’t we research this? We have more children on these drugs than any other country in the world. The more I read about these drugs, the more I see a connection. If I can find material on these drugs, why can’t our government? Why do they ignore this possible cause and instead go after a right? Sounds a bit like politics to me.

Ok, lets go through it part by part, shall we?

It is only the law abiding citizen who follows laws. The criminal ignores them. Difference is not all that clear. A criminal can follow the law, if it suits him, and even a honest citizen can be forced to break the law under desperate situations. Either way, the way you put it seems to, again, ignore a quite important point of mine: While you claim that guns are necessary for self defense, my whole point is that the reason of making a law against guns is making self defense unnecessary. Now, am I saiyng there would be no crime if there were no guns? No, but there would be LESS crime if there were no guns, or if at least, to acquire then was a more difficult process… Besides, under regular circunstances, a killer wont hesitate to pull the trigger, but a regular person would. And that can make a huge difference

I look at rights differently than you do. Rights are God Given, or natural rights Now, how are we suppose to prove a specific right is natural or not? Besides, not negating the existance of a X or Y right, I cannot believe you can say any right is absolute. A serial killer, for a instance, at my viewpoint, doesnt have the right to live. So, looking at guns in the other hand, would it be fair to assume that, in the minute the possession of guns represents a danger to the very life of others, that means it is fair to negate that right? Coming from that assumption, deemed as guns were designed with the intention of killing, and are effective at it, cant we say a society on which anyone can acquire a gun would have more deaths, deemed as those who would have the desire of killing, would also have a easy mean of doing so?

I do agree, there are those who have no business picking up a gun or driving a car. But we can’t take away the rights of others for these few…that is a dictatorship But isnt part of the duty of a governmant to protect its citizens? Nobody is, of course, talking about preventing people from doing dangerous things… Assuming they are the only ones who are put in danger by these actions. But, in the wrong hands, a gun DO represents a great danger. So does a car, thus why we can take away ones driver license.

I have to strongly agree with you when it comes to the drugs, however. I support the right of anyone to do as it pleases with its own body, but the problem with drugs, is the level they can take someone. I live in Brazil, and I can tell you the following: One is simply no longer the same person when in drugs. Depending of the level of the addiction, one is capaeble of killing for another dose, and completely loses the sense of reasonable…

 
Flag Post
Now, am I saiyng there would be no crime if there were no guns? No, but there would be LESS crime if there were no guns

If that were the case then:

A) Why does Chicago, a city with arguably the strictest gun control policies in the country, have a massive, massive gun violence problem?

and

B) Why have gun violence fallen over the past decade+ while gun ownership rates have skyrocketed?

Besides, under regular circunstances, a killer wont hesitate to pull the trigger, but a regular person would. And that can make a huge difference

A killer would also be less likely to pull a gun out if he presumed the regular person also carried – hence why gun free zones are a joke.

But, in the wrong hands, a gun DO represents a great danger. So does a car, thus why we can take away ones driver license

Correct me if I’m wrong, but convicted felons can’t legally obtain a firearm. Sure, they can still get one illegally, but people with rescinded licenses can also drive illegally. Hell, illegals drive and they have never had a license period.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:
Now, am I saiyng there would be no crime if there were no guns? No, but there would be LESS crime if there were no guns

If that were the case then:

A) Why does Chicago, a city with arguably the strictest gun control policies in the country, have a massive, massive gun violence problem?

and

B) Why have gun violence fallen over the past decade+ while gun ownership rates have skyrocketed?

Besides, under regular circunstances, a killer wont hesitate to pull the trigger, but a regular person would. And that can make a huge difference

A killer would also be less likely to pull a gun out if he presumed the regular person also carried – hence why gun free zones are a joke.

But, in the wrong hands, a gun DO represents a great danger. So does a car, thus why we can take away ones driver license

Correct me if I’m wrong, but convicted felons can’t legally obtain a firearm. Sure, they can still get one illegally, but people with rescinded licenses can also drive illegally. Hell, illegals drive and they have never had a license period.

If what you say is true how come that the US with a vast number of guns has around the highest murder rate of any first world country?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by thijser:
Originally posted by issendorf:
Now, am I saiyng there would be no crime if there were no guns? No, but there would be LESS crime if there were no guns

If that were the case then:

A) Why does Chicago, a city with arguably the strictest gun control policies in the country, have a massive, massive gun violence problem?

and

B) Why have gun violence fallen over the past decade+ while gun ownership rates have skyrocketed?

Besides, under regular circunstances, a killer wont hesitate to pull the trigger, but a regular person would. And that can make a huge difference

A killer would also be less likely to pull a gun out if he presumed the regular person also carried – hence why gun free zones are a joke.

But, in the wrong hands, a gun DO represents a great danger. So does a car, thus why we can take away ones driver license

Correct me if I’m wrong, but convicted felons can’t legally obtain a firearm. Sure, they can still get one illegally, but people with rescinded licenses can also drive illegally. Hell, illegals drive and they have never had a license period.

If what you say is true how come that the US with a vast number of guns has around the highest murder rate of any first world country?

Because we’re violent – it isn’t that complicated. To think that gun control measures that have been tried (and subsequently failed) on smaller scale measures will suddenly and magically work at a national level is a joke. The problem America’s left has is they believe that guns are the root cause of our issues. They aren’t. The violence of mainstream American culture is – and that isn’t going to change with a few executive orders from Obama or with a new gun control measure from Washington.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by issendorf:

Because we’re violent – it isn’t that complicated. To think that gun control measures that have been tried (and subsequently failed) on smaller scale measures will suddenly and magically work at a national level is a joke. The problem America’s left has is they believe that guns are the root cause of our issues. They aren’t. The violence of mainstream American culture is – and that isn’t going to change with a few executive orders from Obama or with a new gun control measure from Washington.

You and I don’t often agree…at least not enough to make note of it (for many reasons).

HOWEVER, what ya say above is a well painted “picture” of American culture….
even if it is done via a crude, broad stroke of a “difficult-to-hold” brush.

 
Flag Post

It seems to me that it’s perfectly reasonable to require a little bit of background on someone before you give them permission to carry lethal force around wherever they go. What makes less sense is forbidding gun ownership in an area, be it a city, a state, or a local laundromat. The worst shootings we’ve had have been at universities, high schools, and now, sadly, elementary schools. Most (if not all) of these locations were designated “gun free” zones, so nobody outside of law enforcement could legally have any kind of firearm on the premises. If teachers (or in the case of Universities, even the students) had been able to carry arms on the premises, it’s reasonable to say that at least some of the shooting may not have happened at all. It’s a huge deterrent to know that, as soon as you start shooting, some 2+ people could be shooting back at you within a matter of seconds. Even if that dosn’t deter them, it would certainly put a stop to the violence much sooner, provided one of the gun-wielding individuals is in a neighboring room. If some 25% of law-abiding adults were carrying guns, criminals would know that 1 in every 4 people around him could end his life right then and there. That thought in itself would be plenty enough incentive for the more rational ones to reconsider. And the ones too insane to care about this would be subdued very quickly. Yes, it may be tragic for an innocent person to have to end a person’s life, but I’m betting that 98% of you would rather the gun-toting maniac be the one to go down rather than a nurse or a school teacher.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by XtremeHairball:

It seems to me that it’s perfectly reasonable to require a little bit of background on someone before you give them permission to carry lethal force around wherever they go. What makes less sense is forbidding gun ownership in an area, be it a city, a state, or a local laundromat. The worst shootings we’ve had have been at universities, high schools, and now, sadly, elementary schools. Most (if not all) of these locations were designated “gun free” zones, so nobody outside of law enforcement could legally have any kind of firearm on the premises. If teachers (or in the case of Universities, even the students) had been able to carry arms on the premises, it’s reasonable to say that at least some of the shooting may not have happened at all. It’s a huge deterrent to know that, as soon as you start shooting, some 2+ people could be shooting back at you within a matter of seconds. Even if that dosn’t deter them, it would certainly put a stop to the violence much sooner, provided one of the gun-wielding individuals is in a neighboring room. If some 25% of law-abiding adults were carrying guns, criminals would know that 1 in every 4 people around him could end his life right then and there. That thought in itself would be plenty enough incentive for the more rational ones to reconsider. And the ones too insane to care about this would be subdued very quickly. Yes, it may be tragic for an innocent person to have to end a person’s life, but I’m betting that 98% of you would rather the gun-toting maniac be the one to go down rather than a nurse or a school teacher.

and what if that gun owner panicks?
Life is not like movies, even 60% of real life soldiers never fired on their enemy in wwii