Why do the liberal Democrats want to take guns away from Americans? page 232

5861 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Your understanding of our government and Constitution are really lacking. There can be only one constitution. Codifying wouldn’t make it a constitution but a law. Do you even know how the constitution came about?

Yes, I know how it came aout, and no there is nothing to say we cannot have other government processes that use the same basic concept. Carve it on a stone tablet as an eternal truth. Give it to those whose own self-interest is in keeping things exactly the way they are. Add that this law must always stay the same, as an amendment to the main constitution.

It works Jhco. The logic is sound. It protects all gun owners from the evil gobernment, that wants to kill every American citizen and bury them in a mass grave in New Mexico, 300 million deep. You’re safe from the nasty feds. You don’t have to blow their brains out of the back of their heads anymore.

I get tired of your self aggrandizement.

Stop talking to the mirror and talk to me.

What makes you think anyone but you and your far left friends want to “fix” the constitution? the only people urinating on it are your friends, Bush in his last four years and Obama.

I never realised George Bush (Jr) and Barack Obama were my friends. Do I hang out with them often?

Your edit. To bring our nation back to health we need a real leader and not some egotistic socialist who would like to see America as a 3rd world country.

Well, its a good job we don’t have one of those then, isn’t it?

 
Flag Post

Yes, it is getting tiring and if you notice, I have backed way off in my posting. I get tired of having my posts deleted when I respond to personal attacks and such tactics as name calling when they don’t really have an argument. Then you have the total lack of knowledge of some subjects, but they insist they know everything. Firearms is one of those subjects as you can tell. It doesn’t matter that I know the subject in depth and could really educate them, they would rather blindly go on with their stupid arguments.

mm, I agree.

@Vika

It’s an odd thing. I’m unsure what to make of it exactly, but i think…well the general theory goes that liberals are much less tolerant than they suppose to be. I mean, i’d agree 100% with mytie’s irritation of the constant ‘agree or your a bigot’ rationale, except that i’d be giving him ideological ammo he simply doesn’t deserve. But it’s not like the liberal commentators deserve ideological ammo themselves. i’m just as disgusted with their cavalier ’let’s fuck over rather than understand the torys’ attitude that inevitably prevails here. I see guys like you and karma, and i’m reminded why i deserted liberalism in the first place. You don’t try to understand your enemies, and you sympathize overmuch with your allies, to the detriment of your arguments, in order to better solidify yourselves with the ranking ideology.

A perfect world for me would be mutual suspicion, each side disagreeing with each other over the right course to make, agreeing only on the most rational option, but citing disagreements to that proposal. That is, giving in, when the situation calls for it, but being at each other’s throats up until then. It’s why i’ve never sat well with european democracies, but have always felt a special kinship in US republicanism (via constitutional, not party grounds), thoroughly lacking in my own democracy, where everyone gets along, or else.

 
Flag Post
You don’t try to understand your enemies

I can’t. I have tried, but thinking of everyone else as pieces of shit to be ground underneath my shoes, to spit at them in the street, and to laugh out loud, clutching my sides with laughter when someone is killed in a multiple car pile-up is beyond my capability.

That’s all I’ve been able to get out of the hardliner mindset, Janton. That they truly don’t give a shit about anyone but themselves.

Even on this board, they refuse to compromise, ever. I have to compromise with them. Give ground, knowing I’ll never get it back. That at the next conflict, I have to retreat again, as they won’t give an inch. Jhco does it, MyTie does it, OmegaDoom does it.

Even when I compromise, its never enough for them. I have to agree wholeheartedly with their argument or I’m wrong, in their eyes.

There’s nothing to work with there.

So I try to use reality to smack them with. Pointing out how things actually work, over and over, and over again. I doubt any of it is actually sinking in, but what other choice is there?

being at each other’s throats up until then.

I’m never happy with that kind of world. There’s too much physical violence as it is. Too many use their fists to argue their ideology. Usually they come from the same ’I’m holier than thou’ crowd.

It’s why i’ve never sat well with european democracies

Most of them I find too slow and clunky, waaay too conservative and stuck in their ways. I’m a girl of action. I need progress, change, improvement. Too many ‘jobs for the boys’, and adherence to how things were traditionally done, is cloying.

The biggest problem I think, is the humans. They’re such dim-witted, slow, instinct-bound creatures for the most part. Half the time I feel its a wonder anything gets done at all.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Except guys like jhco or scoop know i’m not with them, or Ung isn’t with them, but they know that we’re not with you either. And I know i’m not with Ung, or Beauval, or Issendorf, and vice versa. I make no attempt to cover my buddy’s ass when he stumbles (unless he’s tenco and he’s worth it), and nobody covers my ass when i stumble. But you guys do it constantly, and that’s the clearest indication to me that you’re in a camp, and by what you say to the opposition, it’s irresolvable.

Nope, not at all. I cover the ass of people I respect, when I understand what they’re trying to say, but they’ve made a hash of it, or someone’s trying to challenge who clearly doesn’t know one end of their weapon of choice from the other.

I do it to you, I do it to Twilight, Karma, Beau, Softest, Ung, Issendorf, the list goes on and on. Ideology, and PoV has got bugger all to do with it. Your arguments are solid, are understandable. More often than not, are downright useful. I know you don’t like Karma very much, but I find his PoV is brilliant. I disagree with it half the time, but he provides a point of view I myself would never have, that I can understand.

He’s a moderate to me, because he is way, way, waaay to the right of me. I would put Twilight and Issendorf in the same category. Great points of view, pervasive, solid arguments from sound minds. That’s the closest I come to caring about ideology.

Scoop and Jhco get my scorn, not because they’re conservatives, but because they can’t put an argument together worth a damn. no sources, flawed reasoning, a refusal to bend even when someone tries to bend for them. Being conservative doesn’t mean your brain is leaking out your ears.

I am a bit elitist, in that the person I’m talking with has to have a brain, and know how to use the damn thing. I don’t care if their argument is diametrically opposite to mine, so long as they have covered their bases, and it is solid. Their reasoning is backed up and well thought out. Sources are a bonus too.

If it is solid, I can pick it apart and learn from it. If it is wishy-washy and threatening to collapse under its own weight, it is completely useless.

If I can learn from it, then the person earns a bit of my respect. If they keep posting like that, then yes, I’m going to defend them when they slip.

 
Flag Post

I deleted that post because it was starting to sound lecture-y.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

I had to look that up, but I was very amused when i found what it was. i thought you meant maybe marykate and Ashley or some other famous twins, but indeed, this does do justice!

Ah, to be honest though, I’m shopping around for a new forum. All my friends suggest reddit but i expect i’d be deluged by anti-theist fucktards. But, I really gotta find something because, as much as i love kong, this uh, this tire retreading is really getting kind of painful. in the teeth area, because i grit them so much instead of shouting out something obscene, and it’s not 100% foolproof either.

Naw you should stay here, I think this is an interesting and eclectic group we have going.

Although if you need another forum, might I suggest Jedi Council Forums. It discusses everything from politics to movies.

Or city-data….although that tends to be broken up into geographic locations.

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

It’s an odd thing. I’m unsure what to make of it exactly, but i think…well the general theory goes that liberals are much less tolerant than they suppose to be.

I think in some instances this is true. For instance, in the California State University system, where I last attended college, they were all about “celebrate diversity”—they had a Gay Pride events, Muslim week, all that—as long as diversity didn’t include traditional matters like Christianity, veterans, etc.

Liberals by definition are supposed to be open-minded and progressive (it can be a positive attribute), but when the open mindedness of some evolves into being open minded only about certain things, it loses it’s original intent and becomes just an opposing ideology.

 
Flag Post

So the GOP has killed a bill that would have EXPANDED hunting rights, because it also legislated conservation measures.
I thought conservation of the land that you hunt would be common sense, especially when it comes hand in hand with more rights to hunt that land.
Apparently not.

SOURCE

 
Flag Post

That is interesting. I wish I could see the actual bill as there must have been something in it that was a rider that so often gets attached to the bills. Either that or the republicans can’t be trusted either. I don’t know where to turn sometimes as both parties are so corrupt.

 
Flag Post

I have said this before and I didn’t get any takers. This guy did and you see the results.

Introduced some antis to shooting
They were against guns and admited they were only against guns because they haven’t been around them. My cousin (pink) is from Chicago, and her friend is from France. I did a solid hour pre safety lesson including grip, stance, how the gun works ext.

Now the best part is I started them on suppressed 22 to take the muzzle blast out of the equation. THEY ARE HOOKED! After a mag each they couldn’t put the guns down. Now they want to shoot every week and have me teach them.

Just goes to show that most antis are only against guns because of how they were brought up or what they learn from the media/movies. Good times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR8GzA18NJM
 
Flag Post
Originally posted by NeilSenna:

Why? Because like it or not, not everyone is as good a gun owner as you. Idiots + guns = a dangerous combination, and out of a population of over 300m, just think how many gun-owning idiots there are in the US…

I’m British, and we have far stricter gun control laws – handguns are 100% illegal, as are semi-autos, and long-barrelled shotguns of no more than 3 shots are heavily-regulated and only legal when genuine and valid need is shown (self-defence isn’t a valid reason). Rifles are also massively-regulated with firearms licenses. Air-weapons are available, but over a certain PSI you need a firearms license.

Of course some people still have them, criminal and non-criminal. But if you get caught with one, you’re in deep trouble.

The murder rate here is almost 4 times lower than it is in the US. The percentage of murders involving a gun is 6.6%. In the US, the percentage of murders involving a gun is way over 50%… and a gun is used in over 70% of murders of those aged 13-35.

You can probably see where I’m coming from… stricter gun control would undoubtedly lead to less murders, because the more guns you take out of the hands of the common idiot, the less chance there is of that common idiot killing someone.

That, no doubt, is why such proposals are said to be on the table.

On a personal note, I’d really like to target-shoot and stuff like that, and think it’s a shame morons reduce freedoms for the rest of us. So I’m not anti-gun at all – I’m anti-idiots-with-guns.

Self defense is always a valid reason.

 
Flag Post

In law, here at least (which is where NeilSenna was discussing), self defense is not a valid reason to go equipped with any weapon – be that a knife, gun, baseball bat, etc.

To qualify as ‘reasonable’ force in self defense your actions have to be taken in the ‘heat of the moment’ (and can include any damage to a burglar/attacker up to and including killing them depending on circumstances)… ‘going equipped’ shows premeditation to cause harm and will, if caught, see you up on charges.

Additionally, lack of weapons on the street generally makes people feel safer (and the stats, posted previously, seem to support that)… yes people still get drunk and brawl outside the pub/bar, rob people/places, etc but the victims of such crimes generally live to tell the tale… add weapons to a drunken brawl, robbery, etc and you start to see dead people (and not in the sense of the movie).

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

I have said this before and I didn’t get any takers. This guy did and you see the results.

Introduced some antis to shooting
They were against guns and admited they were only against guns because they haven’t been around them. My cousin (pink) is from Chicago, and her friend is from France. I did a solid hour pre safety lesson including grip, stance, how the gun works ext.

Now the best part is I started them on suppressed 22 to take the muzzle blast out of the equation. THEY ARE HOOKED! After a mag each they couldn’t put the guns down. Now they want to shoot every week and have me teach them.

Just goes to show that most antis are only against guns because of how they were brought up or what they learn from the media/movies. Good times.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lR8GzA18NJM

Wow, 2 people out of how many ‘anti gunners’… as you know, I’m generally pro firearms already but I’m sorry to say that this is almost completely meaningless.

Yes, some might change their mind… some might have such an experience reinforce their thoughts/beliefs… most, I suspect, would be completely neutral about it (by which I mean they might give it a go out of curiosity and then carry on exactly as they were).

 
Flag Post
Introduced some antis to shooting
They were against guns and admited they were only against guns because they haven’t been around them. My cousin (pink) is from Chicago, and her friend is from France. I did a solid hour pre safety lesson including grip, stance, how the gun works ext.

Now the best part is I started them on suppressed 22 to take the muzzle blast out of the equation. THEY ARE HOOKED! After a mag each they couldn’t put the guns down. Now they want to shoot every week and have me teach them.

Just goes to show that most antis are only against guns because of how they were brought up or what they learn from the media/movies. Good times.

Ya just gotta luv a “hair-of-the-tail-wagging-the-dog” argument. LOL

I prefer these videos:
one
two
three ya just gotta luv this one. Couldn’t these “gun gangsters” NOT realize she didn’t have her arm fully extended & locked?
four several different ones.
five Do these “gun fools” NOT know that ya can load a gun WITH ONLY ONE ROUND in an auto for a first time shooter?

 
Flag Post

In law, here at least (which is where NeilSenna was discussing), self defense is not a valid reason to go equipped with any weapon – be that a knife, gun, baseball bat, etc.
To qualify as ‘reasonable’ force in self defense your actions have to be taken in the ‘heat of the moment’ (and can include any damage to a burglar/attacker up to and including killing them depending on circumstances)… ‘going equipped’ shows premeditation to cause harm and will, if caught, see you up on charges.

Awhile back I was reading a guide on Canadian Home Defense, suited to ‘hostile’ nature of the courts and laws to force used in protection of the homestead/property. Generally the use of anything typified as a weapon without signs of a struggle will be a legal loss. I’ve had a family friend coached by the police into altering his story after ganking an intruder around the corner with a golf club into something more ‘appropriate’. The trick is weaponizing things that are not conceptually considered so. A bottle of high strength spray oven cleaner was recommended.

Grandpa’s old rifle is still kicking about, but actually using it would be quite the legal quagmire. I’ve always preferred the idea of having superior force available and have little qualms about possessing or using a fire arm. It’s extending that to everyone else that I get a bit iffy with.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Introduced some antis to shooting
They were against guns and admited they were only against guns because they haven’t been around them. My cousin (pink) is from Chicago, and her friend is from France. I did a solid hour pre safety lesson including grip, stance, how the gun works ext.

Now the best part is I started them on suppressed 22 to take the muzzle blast out of the equation. THEY ARE HOOKED! After a mag each they couldn’t put the guns down. Now they want to shoot every week and have me teach them.

Just goes to show that most antis are only against guns because of how they were brought up or what they learn from the media/movies. Good times.

Ya just gotta luv a “hair-of-the-tail-wagging-the-dog” argument. LOL

I prefer these videos:
one
two
three ya just gotta luv this one. Couldn’t these “gun gangsters” NOT realize she didn’t have her arm fully extended & locked?
four several different ones.
five Do these “gun fools” NOT know that ya can load a gun WITH ONLY ONE ROUND in an auto for a first time shooter?

Can’t you discuss anything without some kind of sarcastic rant? Sit back and just enjoy the thread. Add to it. You are supposed to be a gun owner and I would bet you are not the best at it in others eyes, which means you are just another gun owner. Discuss and you may get some useful information.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by donseptico:

Wow, 2 people out of how many ‘anti gunners’… as you know, I’m generally pro firearms already but I’m sorry to say that this is almost completely meaningless.

Yes, some might change their mind… some might have such an experience reinforce their thoughts/beliefs… most, I suspect, would be completely neutral about it (by which I mean they might give it a go out of curiosity and then carry on exactly as they were).

Don, this guy showed two people but he is not a professional instructor, just one of the guys who took the time to introduce these two people the shooting sports. I have offered to take anyone out and teach them the basics and allow them to experience the shooting sports too. I’m not trying to insult anyone or create any hard feelings, just offering an opportunity.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

In law, here at least (which is where NeilSenna was discussing), self defense is not a valid reason to go equipped with any weapon – be that a knife, gun, baseball bat, etc.
To qualify as ‘reasonable’ force in self defense your actions have to be taken in the ‘heat of the moment’ (and can include any damage to a burglar/attacker up to and including killing them depending on circumstances)… ‘going equipped’ shows premeditation to cause harm and will, if caught, see you up on charges.

Awhile back I was reading a guide on Canadian Home Defense, suited to ‘hostile’ nature of the courts and laws to force used in protection of the homestead/property. Generally the use of anything typified as a weapon without signs of a struggle will be a legal loss. I’ve had a family friend coached by the police into altering his story after ganking an intruder around the corner with a golf club into something more ‘appropriate’. The trick is weaponizing things that are not conceptually considered so. A bottle of high strength spray oven cleaner was recommended.

Grandpa’s old rifle is still kicking about, but actually using it would be quite the legal quagmire. I’ve always preferred the idea of having superior force available and have little qualms about possessing or using a fire arm. It’s extending that to everyone else that I get a bit iffy with.

I would like to answer both of these posts at once. Self defense should be one of the most important things for gun ownership. Why should a person give up his life, or his family’s lives because your government doesn’t deem you lives as important enough to defend? I find this odd that you are left defenseless and at the mercy of the criminal element.

Ung, I thought Canada did away with their draconian laws about gun ownership and self defense. Last I heard they did away with their registration scheme because of the cost and public condemnation. Do you ever shoot grandpa’s old rifle? You should, grandpa would be honored.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

Can’t you discuss anything without some kind of sarcastic rant?

Sure can….AND DO.
BUT, since life is pretty much about PERSPECTION….
I doubt YOU will see it as ANYTHING BUT “sarcasm”.
MY opinions on MOST OF YOUR ideology just won’t allow ya to do otherwise.

Sit back and just enjoy the thread.

Geeeeee…thanks for the “helpful” advice.
And, here I didn’t think ya cared….lol
Why do ya think I AM NOT enjoying the thread?
Inquiring minds wanna know.

Add to it.
Already am…in case ya haven’t noticed.
I guess ya didn’t notice the areas where we concur.
That leads me to further confirm my belief that YOU tend to “mentally filter” data they ONLY AGREES w/ YOUR ideological agenda.
Why would I then say that ya’ve not noticed the areas that I do agree w/ ya?
Well, ya’ve stated such a bias AGAINST me that ya’ve very likely set your filter and a complete: DO NOT ALLOW ALL.
Of course, ya’ve already stated that ya don’t read my posts.
LOL

You are supposed to be a gun owner and I would bet you are not the best at it in others eyes, which means you are just another gun owner.

Well, since all of that SHIT is nothing more than SUBJECTIVE….it’s not even worthy of discussion. I can tell ya this….I’m certainly NOT a member of the NRA.
AND, I’m NOT a hunter…after “hunting” the ultimate animal (an ARMED & HUNTING ME ONE), killing defenseless animal just sucks. I don’t need the meat. Shooting fruit trees seems a bit much.
Setting out year-round food bins to attract deer so asshole city dudes can shoot them from a heated (w/ bar, etc.) blind only causes me to want to “hunt” THEM…sniper wise.

Discuss

WAIT….just above ya said I DID discuss.

and you may get some useful information.

YUP…certainly do//have.
BUT, since most of the “pro-gun” side tends to be overly “cheerleaderly” about the issue,,,,
and, I find the “anti-guns” to NOT be arguing for BANS, just reasonable CONTROLS….
I think most of their positions on the matter have strong merit.
At least they are shitting their pants via a ridiculous “boogeyman-slippery-slope” theory about it all.

NOW, if ya’re limited this “my learning some useful information” to guns only….
well, all THAT shit deserves is: LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
Ya see, right there is something that is at the core of too many “gun nuts”: THEIR ARROGANCE & their scorn for ppl who know enough about guns & THEIR ULTIMATE RESULTS—the really bad ones—to form an opinion that this calls for (justifies?) some kinds of measures that can address the negativity associated w/ (usually) handguns & assault weaponry.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Setting out year-round food bins to attract deer so asshole city dudes can shoot them from a heated (w/ bar, etc.) blind only causes me to want to “hunt” THEM…sniper wise.

There used to be a service called Live-Shot, which ran in 2004-2005 before being forcibly closed down, that went one stage worse than that. It allowed remote control of the rifles in the dug-out, via computer mouse across the internet, wherever you happened to be. Pay to play, shoot real rounds at deer from the comfort of your own home, and they ship the meat to you.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by jhco50:

I would like to answer both of these posts at once. Self defense should be one of the most important things for gun ownership. Why should a person give up his life, or his family’s lives because your government doesn’t deem you lives as important enough to defend? I find this odd that you are left defenseless and at the mercy of the criminal element.

The reply to each of those sentences is: But that is not the case. The chances of coming into a situation where a gun is necessary for self defense are close to zero for the average person. And as the statistics show, wide spread gun ownership and lax gun control laws(or uncontrolled boarders to places with lax gun control laws) actually increases the number of cases where a person has to give up his life or his family´s lives to attacks from criminal elements.
In burglary cases the money spent on guns for home defense would be better spent on building modifications to make the building more secure.
The reality is that both recreational and criminal use are more than 100 times more likely than use in self defense(with recreational use again being more likely than criminal use).

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
Setting out year-round food bins to attract deer so asshole city dudes can shoot them from a heated (w/ bar, etc.) blind only causes me to want to “hunt” THEM…sniper wise.

There used to be a service called Live-Shot, which ran in 2004-2005 before being forcibly closed down, that went one stage worse than that. It allowed remote control of the rifles in the dug-out, via computer mouse across the internet, wherever you happened to be. Pay to play, shoot real rounds at deer from the comfort of your own home, and they ship the meat to you.

Hmmmm…“weirdly” interesting.
As per usual, my “compulsion” to see as many trees of an issue so that I may better understand the forest pushes me to want to know, at the very least, just a few of the more salient points on the matter.

I’d very greatly like to be in the mind(s) of those who created this utterly sick “enterprise”.
I (mostly?) see this as being at the negative extreme of the “bell-curve”.

Then, I’d be even more interested in how the banning of it came about.
Was it entirely the efforts of the “Bambi” folk? Yes, I do see an “overly positive” extreme of the curve. I’m NOT a “Bambi hugger”.
What part did sensible hunters play?
How did the movement get its initial information (likely hunting devotees) and how this segued into a strong opposition?

Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:

The reply to each of those sentences is: But that is not the case. The chances of coming into a situation where a gun is necessary for self defense are close to zero for the average person.

In burglary cases the money spent on guns for home defense would be better spent on building modifications to make the building more secure.

The reality is that both recreational and criminal use are more than 100 times more likely than use in self defense(with recreational use again being more likely than criminal use).

Those are really great points, Johnny B.
I’m pretty sure, that in the preceding 223 pages, these positions have been brought up.
BUT, your post gives a “25-or-less” spin to it all (well, MOST of it).
NOTE: in my post here, I’ve NOT quoted his entire post.

It is of huge importance that ppl understand your comparison of the “need” for carrying a gun for self defense and the actual great potential for harm due to “wide spread gun ownership and lax gun CONTROL laws”

Of equal importance is how ya make the astute comparison of “recreational & criminal use being far greater than self defense" (w/ the caveat given of the criminal usage being hugely smaller). I say this because of how the “self-defense-arguement” mantra (ala jake-o) seems to be the banner flag of the pro-gunners. Of course, the “gunners” are going to say that “criminal usage” is the reason FOR “self-defense”. BUT, does anyone here have any statistics on how much such usage is on we non-criminals and how much is “criminal-on-criminal” (gangs)?

While jake-o just can’t “get it” and likely will NEVER SEE this as being the crux of the “anti’s” position because of his “slippery-slope” fear for the 2nd Amend,,,your simply yet concise description of the issue will hopefully foster a sharp clarity for a great number of other ppl.
A huge “dent” in the 2nd Amend. JUST IS NOT GONNA HAPPEN. At least not in the foreseeable future. IF & when crime rates drop dramatically(at least those associated w/ guns),,,THEN, we might actually see that some restrictive control laws MIGHT have done their job and no longer are needed.

Sometimes, in order to “get forward”, ya just have to “backup” some in order to get a good running effort going to overcome the REAL PROBLEM. That being: criminal use of guns.

In jhco’s “defense”, I want to point out that I DO NOT think he is being overly zealous in his promotion of his side on the issue. I think his great “fault” is that he tends to refuse to reasonably “see-&-analyse” (any?) of the “gun CONTROL” side’s points. But, this isn’t anything new in regards to ideology that differs from his (a penchant for egocentrism).

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by karmakoolkid:
A huge “dent” in the 2nd Amend. JUST IS NOT GONNA HAPPEN. At least not in the foreseeable future. IF & when crime rates drop dramatically(at least those associated w/ guns),,,THEN, we might actually see that some restrictive control laws MIGHT have done their job and no longer are needed.

Sometimes, in order to “get forward”, ya just have to “backup” some in order to get a good running effort going to overcome the REAL PROBLEM. That being: criminal use of guns.

Well so far most people here are not against banning guns, which would actually effect the 2nd amendment. What most anti-gun people want is that gun owners are held accountable for the misuse of their guns, when misuse happens. Including by stolen guns. Its about responsibility. A normally very conservative value.
Fact is in the USA more guns are stolen and thus enter criminal hands in a year than there are legal uses of Guns in self defense in a Century. (Ironic how many guns get stolen when anti-gun laws apologists claim that guns are supposed to scare off criminals)
To make owners take responsibility effective registering of guns and making the owners liable for damages caused by the misuse of their guns is necessary and making sure that owners can actually cover the cost of such misuse. (The owners do get a legal Title against the criminals. Which naturally is only useful when the criminals are caught and if the criminals can pay).
One could cover all of the above with a mandatory insurance for gun owners, covering all damages their guns inflict. The free market can then valuate the risks and set prices accordingly.

 
Flag Post

Jhco,
bq. I would like to answer both of these posts at once. Self defense should be one of the most important things for gun ownership. Why should a person give up his life, or his family’s lives because your government doesn’t deem you lives as important enough to defend? I find this odd that you are left defenseless and at the mercy of the criminal element.

I quite agree. I believe the governments angle is that the police are more then capable, and that one should defer to them entirely in matters of home/property defense. I am not quite so convinced, obviously. Technically one is still allowed to use reasonable force in the case that ones life is threatened. But it is typically something fought over legally time and time again. In the case of property defense, it is not allowed, which I find innane.

Ung, I thought Canada did away with their draconian laws about gun ownership and self defense. Last I heard they did away with their registration scheme because of the cost and public condemnation. Do you ever shoot grandpa’s old rifle? You should, grandpa would be honored.

The gun ownership laws are still quite limited. There are three tiers with different rule sets. Long arms are fairly open, requiring permits for possession, storage, and transportation. Handguns are technically legal, but personal storage is quite difficult to get, and carrying license is all but impossible. Automatics and such are illegal, perhaps outside of certain collectors. The registration program was also partly balking as it was held to be retroactive. I know neither of my grandparents ever bothered, feeling it was a waste of their time and money. When they passed and came into the family the attempt to process and rectify things legitimately was a massive and ridiculous hassle that we generally regret. A great deal of the vintage rifles which most of the family had no interest in were surrendered to the authorities who summarily destroyed them. I myself have taken a few group shooting classes, never with the rifle in question; I’d have to file a permit to remove it to the household, to a vehicle (which I don’t have, and I can’t imagine they’d let me get away with having it public transit or just walking down the street.), to the shooting range and back again. It’s something I mean to do ‘one of these days’ that just hasn’t quite come around yet.

Ultimately I am not against the idea of registration (it was the fee attached which balked many.) or of planned transportation and lack of carry. But I find the restrictions upon home possession and use irksome. I am far more comfortable empowering my personal options then being forced to defer to the timely intervention of others. Boyscout rules.

Johnny,

The chances of coming into a situation where a gun is necessary for self defense are close to zero for the average person.

I’ve personally drawn a knife I carry for the purposes of defending myself about a half a dozen times. I suppose, ultimately, it was not necessary as I have never had to use it. Nevertheless, I would have much preferred to have overwhelming force then an edge. Not that I disagree with the rest of your post, but I have trouble believing that the average person is never involved or nearly involved in a violent crime. How that should effect gun control is of course another issue.

 
Flag Post

Well, if you plan ahead Ung, you don’t have to resort to firearms to secure your property. All manner of passive defense systems can quite easily come into play. As well as a few more…creative ones.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
As well as a few more…creative ones.

A sign saying exactly why people shouldn’t fuck with you house?