2nd Amendment - Slipping away

[joerockhead]

This link is promoted by CNN

And we know CNN never lies....


US Gun Owners To Face Extradition And Foreign Prosecution (http://patdollard.com/2009/05/us-gun-owners-to-face-extradition-and-foreign-prosecution-obama-wants-international-control-of-gun-ownership/)

[supersatch]

Is it just me, or is he trying to say that the guns are getting smuggled from the US to mexico as opposed to the other way around?

This is almost as good as his "make war vets pay for their combat injury medical bill" idea.

[Juan.Camaney]

Give me liberty or give me death. I for one will not give up my guns no matter who comes asking for them.

I live in CA, one of the most strictest when it comes to gun ownership. We have been stripped of a lot of rights around here, but at least we can still own. Registering guns, ammo, whatever...as long as I can still own one. The day they tell me, turn in your guns, you can no longer have them, thats the day I go give them my guns, but not after unloading everything in the cartridges.

[Krasch]

Give me liberty or give me death. I for one will not give up my guns no matter who comes asking for them.

I live in CA, one of the most strictest when it comes to gun ownership. We have been stripped of a lot of rights around here, but at least we can still own. Registering guns, ammo, whatever...as long as I can still own one. The day they tell me, turn in your guns, you can no longer have them, thats the day I go give them my guns, but not after unloading everything in the cartridges.

We're even stricter up here in Canada, Juan. But know I'd be right there unloading cartridges beside ya.

There's enough laws out there right now to deal with gun crime, maybe too many. What there NEEDS to be is harsh enough sentences for those convicted, and for the existing laws to be properly enforced.

[drktitan56]

I served my country to keep our rights not have them taken away. I will defend my rights to the end.

[bobburgster]

I don't see a threat about guns being taken away. Granted the NRA thrives on promoting fear about losing 2nd Amendment rights.....but that is their meal ticket for raising money.

[Juan.Camaney]

I don't see a threat about guns being taken away. Granted the NRA thrives on promoting fear about losing 2nd Amendment rights.....but that is their meal ticket for raising money.

Are you a member? Have you read any of their publications? Or are you just relaying regurgitated information from a website that is anti gun?

[joerockhead]

I don't see a threat about guns being taken away. Granted the NRA thrives on promoting fear about losing 2nd Amendment rights.....but that is their meal ticket for raising money.

You do not see the fact that it is OUR right to own a gun if we so choose?

Lose that right.

What is next?
Lose the right to own private property?
Lose the right to speak freely AGAINST your government?
Lose your right to Vote?
Lose your Freedom?

[CD]

You do not see the fact that it is OUR right to own a gun if we so choose?

Lose that right.

What is next?
Lose the right to own private property?
Lose the right to speak freely AGAINST your government?
Lose your right to Vote?
Lose your Freedom?
What about the right to not have your phone calls tapped unless there is a warrant?
What about the right to trial or not be locked up indefinitely?

Funny that some people argue about some rights but ignore the others...



PS I'm all for the right to bear arms, but I also think it's responsible to have a 7 day wait period and better safety mechanisms.

[CD]

Oh yeah, and all men are created equal... except women, blacks, and fags.

What? Women and blacks got their rights years ago? God God man, please tell me that fags are still unequal or I might shit my pants! Thank God I still have my guns so I can send those gays back to their makers.

[joerockhead]

What about the right to not have your phone calls tapped unless there is a warrant?
What about the right to trial or not be locked up indefinitely?

Funny that some people argue about some rights but ignore the others...



PS I'm all for the right to bear arms, but I also think it's responsible to have a 7 day wait period and better safety mechanisms.

Where in the Hell did I say they can tape phone calls or lock up people (i.e. Gitmo)????? Do not put words in my Mouth BITCH!

[Krasch]

What about the right to not have your phone calls tapped unless there is a warrant?
What about the right to trial or not be locked up indefinitely?

Funny that some people argue about some rights but ignore the others...



PS I'm all for the right to bear arms, but I also think it's responsible to have a 7 day wait period and better safety mechanisms.

Correct this Canadian if he's wrong, but isn't the whole taping phone calls thing covered under the 4th Amendment?

And as for the obvious reference to Gitmo, those are military prisoners and military law has never strictly adhered to the law civilians live by, nor is it appropriate that they do so.

[CD]

Where in the Hell did I say they can tape phone calls or lock up people (i.e. Gitmo)????? Do not put words in my Mouth BITCH!

I didn't mean to put words in your mouth specifically. I'm referring mainly to the KKK members that quote the bible, ultra left wingers that forget the right to bear arms, the ultra right wingers that forget civil liberties, the pro war people who forget habeas corpus, etc...

Hell, I'm probably guilty of it too, but I try to compromise when I can. Case in point: I'm ok with people owning guns, but the 7 day wait prevents a lot from getting into the hands of criminals. I don't believe in abortion (especially in the 3rd trimester), but I think it should definitely be allowed for all rape/incest cases.

Oh... such language JRH... I'm hurt.

[Juan.Camaney]

CD, man, this thread isn't about conservatives versus liberals or why some people won't defend rights over others, its about the 2nd Amendment; stay on track.

[bobburgster]

Are you a member? Have you read any of their publications? Or are you just relaying regurgitated information from a website that is anti gun?


Show me a legislative bill that wants to take our gun rights away. I reread my comment 3 times and I can't seem to find where I said I was anti-gun...please show me.

[Juan.Camaney]

Show me a legislative bill that wants to take our gun rights away. I reread my comment 3 times and I can't seem to find where I said I was anti-gun...please show me.

I didn't say you were anti-gun, I asked if you had ever read any of the NRA's publications? I asked if your biased opinion was formed on your own by reading their publications and developing your own opinion, or if you just read a headline here and there and had someone else say it was fearmongering.

The amendment says that the specific right shall not be infringed upon. That means we have the right to keep and bear arms PERIOD. Not just arms that legislators feel are safe for us to keep (ban on assault rifles) not just arms that are for hunting (pocket rocket bans in certain cities), not limiting round capacity! It says nothing about flash supressors being illegal. Nothing about engraving numbers on bullets, or guns for that matter.

See, all the bullshit started when individual states felt they needed to bastardize something so brilliantly clear and simple and attaching a bunch of restrictions to it.

[Juan.Camaney]

I'm ok with people owning guns, but the 7 day wait prevents a lot from getting into the hands of criminals.
Common misconception. When a criminal wants to purchase a gun to commit a crime, he won't go to a store where he has to provide ID to buy a gun. He'll go to his buddies' buddies who know "some guy" or to the black market. The only thing the 7 day period does is make people who want to protect themselves vulnerable for 7 extra days. How many times have you read on the paper about some broad who was threatened by an ex who called the cops only to have them tell her a crime has not been commited then gets slashed up by the same dude? Are you going to throw out the suicide thing? Why is there no waiting period on buy a bottle of pills that do the same?

Gun restrictions are supposed to take care of people...what ever happened to responsibility for one's actions?

[CD]

Common misconception. When a criminal wants to purchase a gun to commit a crime, he won't go to a store where he has to provide ID to buy a gun. He'll go to his buddies' buddies who know "some guy" or to the black market. The only thing the 7 day period does is make people who want to protect themselves vulnerable for 7 extra days. How many times have you read on the paper about some broad who was threatened by an ex who called the cops only to have them tell her a crime has not been commited then gets slashed up by the same dude? Are you going to throw out the suicide thing? Why is there no waiting period on buy a bottle of pills that do the same?

Gun restrictions are supposed to take care of people...what ever happened to responsibility for one's actions?
Common misconception? Dude, what facts back up your opinion?

Obviously a criminal can get a gun. Being a criminal means you are more likely to know other criminals who can get a gun. However, I would also assume that there are quite a few people who would commit a crime if they could get a gun quickly. These crimes of passion could be caused by being fired, catching a cheating spouse, etc...

But there are a lot of people who don't like guns, and we all know that the easiest victim is someone who looks like an easy victim (women, children, elderly). I'm not an easy victim at all, but I also know that if something came up where I felt threatened, would having a gun instantly make me qualified to shoot it accurately if I was attacked the following day? That woman who is being threatened by her ex? Do you honestly think that a girl would be able to out shoot a psycho exbf, who may or may not have experience with a gun?

All I know is that the 2nd amendment allows us the privilege of owning and keeping a gun. But a lot of things weren't even dreamed up in 1791, and assault rifles were one of them. Or what about a chain gun mounted on a turret? That would be a great way to defend my home!

You know, if I applied to get an assault rifle and I was turned down, I wouldn't bitch and moan to my congressmen. I can still get a handgun or shotgun if I wanted it, so my 2nd amendment rights haven't been bamboozled.

[Juan.Camaney]

Common misconception? Dude, what facts back up your opinion?
A lifetime of having friends and family in low places. Statistics like crazy (do your own homework).

Obviously a criminal can get a gun. Being a criminal means you are more likely to know other criminals who can get a gun.
Good, then we agree.

However, I would also assume that there are quite a few people who would commit a crime if they could get a gun quickly. These crimes of passion could be caused by being fired, catching a cheating spouse, etc...
So assumptions should dictate our rights, now? Crimes of passion could be commited with things other than guns and do. Most states still sell you a shot gun over the counter except a select few. Why don't more and more "passionate" people go and use shot guns in crime?

But there are a lot of people who don't like guns, and we all know that the easiest victim is someone who looks like an easy victim (women, children, elderly). I'm not an easy victim at all, but I also know that if something came up where I felt threatened, would having a gun instantly make me qualified to shoot it accurately if I was attacked the following day? That woman who is being threatened by her ex? Do you honestly think that a girl would be able to out shoot a psycho exbf, who may or may not have experience with a gun?
People who don't like guns? Like guns? WTF?! A gun is a tool. Like a hammer, a screw driver, etc. What's there to like about an inanimate object? You are most certainly an easy victim, everyone is. You are a white male, go stand in a rough neighborhood where they don't like whitey and see how easy a victim you are. Would simply owning a gun instantly make you qualified to shoot it? No, don't be ridiculous. But its a known fact that simply drawing a gun is enough to get people to back away. That woman who is threatened by her ex at least has a tool to care for her. You can't rely on 911....all they do is clean up messes.

All I know is that the 2nd amendment allows us the privilege of owning and keeping a gun. But a lot of things weren't even dreamed up in 1791, and assault rifles were one of them. Or what about a chain gun mounted on a turret? That would be a great way to defend my home!
Its not a priviledge, its a right. There is a difference. Moreover, its a civic duty! They might not have had assault rifles, but they did have cannons. :coold:

You know, if I applied to get an assault rifle and I was turned down, I wouldn't bitch and moan to my congressmen. I can still get a handgun or shotgun if I wanted it, so my 2nd amendment rights haven't been bamboozled.
So when are you going to say enough is enough? They take your assault rifles away. You think criminals are really going to obey and turn theirs in too? So now you are out gunned...not a nice place to be, ask the police officers who were involved in the bank robbery here in Hollywood a few years back. What if in a few months they said you can't own certain caliber hand guns and stick you with a .22 only. Bamboozled...that's a funny word. Okay, take this for a comparison. You have the freedom of speech, and here you are practicing it on this forum. What if Mr Government started telling you which days you can post here? Which topics you can post about? How many times you can reply per day? What words you can use? Who you can talk to? What if they made you take a test before you were even allowed to post here? Or worse, what if they told you to wait 7 days before you can hit reply? They are still allowing you the right? Really?

Thats not my freedom. Thats not what my america is about.

[CD]

A lifetime of having friends and family in low places. Statistics like crazy (do your own homework).
The crimes that may have been committed but weren't because of the current gun laws are awful hard to be a part of your life experiences.

Good, then we agree.
:kiss:

So assumptions should dictate our rights, now? Crimes of passion could be commited with things other than guns and do. Most states still sell you a shot gun over the counter except a select few. Why don't more and more "passionate" people go and use shot guns in crime?
Because shotguns are a lot harder to conceal and hide.


People who don't like guns? Like guns? WTF?! A gun is a tool. Like a hammer, a screw driver, etc. What's there to like about an inanimate object? You are most certainly an easy victim, everyone is. You are a white male, go stand in a rough neighborhood where they don't like whitey and see how easy a victim you are. Would simply owning a gun instantly make you qualified to shoot it? No, don't be ridiculous. But its a known fact that simply drawing a gun is enough to get people to back away. That woman who is threatened by her ex at least has a tool to care for her. You can't rely on 911....all they do is clean up messes.
Huh?

There are people who don't like guns. I'd rather not have one, and I don't think I'd be alone in saying that. But if I did own one right now, I wouldn't be very good at using it. That takes practice, and for those people who don't care for firearms (for whatever reason), they won't get that practice needed.


Its not a priviledge, its a right. There is a difference. Moreover, its a civic duty! They might not have had assault rifles, but they did have cannons. :coold:

So when are you going to say enough is enough? They take your assault rifles away. You think criminals are really going to obey and turn theirs in too? So now you are out gunned...not a nice place to be, ask the police officers who were involved in the bank robbery here in Hollywood a few years back. What if in a few months they said you can't own certain caliber hand guns and stick you with a .22 only. Bamboozled...that's a funny word. Okay, take this for a comparison. You have the freedom of speech, and here you are practicing it on this forum. What if Mr Government started telling you which days you can post here? Which topics you can post about? How many times you can reply per day? What words you can use? Who you can talk to? What if they made you take a test before you were even allowed to post here? Or worse, what if they told you to wait 7 days before you can hit reply? They are still allowing you the right? Really?

Thats not my freedom. Thats not what my america is about.
You can't honestly say, "first the assault rifles, next our handguns". That's fear mongering. People have been saying this stuff for as long as I can remember. My roommate has a gun he JUST got. My Grandfather has a few that he's had for years, another friend got one a few years back and is picking up another soon. Now granted, they didn't attempt to buy an assault rifle that could put down Godzilla, but I haven't once heard any of them say their rights were slowly being taken away. (BTW they are all Republican)

Don't bring in Freedom of Speech, cause that "freedom" only goes so far. I can't scream fire in a theater. I can't say I was raped by Jessica Biel if I haven't been (but I'd like to be). I can't say that I want to bomb a US embassy (I don't, but hell if I wouldn't pay the price if I did!). Besides, even this forum has rules that are put in place for protection.

Look Juan, I'm ok with shotguns, I'm ok with handguns, I'm ok with hollow point rounds, I'm ok with rifles. But if you honestly think that assault rifles being able to be bought as easily as Tylenol to anyone is a good thing, I will just have to disagree with you.

Oh, can a person that gets out of jail for a violent crime be allowed to buy a gun?

[Car Enthusiast]

I felon isn't allowed to own a firearm CD by law.

[Car Enthusiast]

Show me a legislative bill that wants to take our gun rights away. I reread my comment 3 times and I can't seem to find where I said I was anti-gun...please show me.

Blair Holt bill referred to comitte in February
H.R. 45: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 (GovTrack.us) (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-45)

do you want more than just that one or have you not been paying attention to what has been going on.

(yes I know that bill is dead in committee)

[bobburgster]

I didn't say you were anti-gun, I asked if you had ever read any of the NRA's publications? I asked if your biased opinion was formed on your own by reading their publications and developing your own opinion, or if you just read a headline here and there and had someone else say it was fearmongering.

The amendment says that the specific right shall not be infringed upon. That means we have the right to keep and bear arms PERIOD. Not just arms that legislators feel are safe for us to keep (ban on assault rifles) not just arms that are for hunting (pocket rocket bans in certain cities), not limiting round capacity! It says nothing about flash supressors being illegal. Nothing about engraving numbers on bullets, or guns for that matter.

See, all the bullshit started when individual states felt they needed to bastardize something so brilliantly clear and simple and attaching a bunch of restrictions to it.

I was referring to another poster about the anti-gun thing.
My biased opinion( Why is it biased, because it doesn't agree with your opinion?) was formed by many sources of information, both pro and con, over many years.

The amendment says that the specific right shall not be infringed upon. That means we have the right to keep and bear arms PERIOD.

Isn't everything in the constitution interpreted? That's why we have a judicial branch. Before you even say it...I agree their interpretation can be a slippery slope...but that's a whole other topic.

Section 1 - Judicial powers

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

As you can see, there is a lot of onterpretation that has alreay taken plane.

[licupssy]

When you speech of the 2nd amendment you do have to take into consideration that the only firearms at the time were single shot flintlock rifles and pistols. (not counting the Punkle Gun a 9 shot revolver rifle mounted on a tripod invented in the UK which never went into mass production - I'd love to see the the second version which had square bullets for fighting the Muslim turks). Whether or not there would have been any restriction to weapons covered under the 2nd amendment if todays firearms existed then are hard to say.

The situation in Iran today shows the obvious reason that the 2nd amendment was written into the constitution.

The greatest problem with making firearm laws is that the laws are only going to effect the law abiding citizen. The criminal neither cares about gun laws or has any necessity to purchases them legally.

What really needs to be done if have judges prosecute criminals that commit crimes while using a firearm to the full extent of the law. Get them off the street and keep them in jail.

What hurts gun owners is criminals like this 18 to 20 old with a partner has robbed 6 businesses in just 3 days in West Philly. Hopefully they'll be caught soon but how long is the court going to keep them off the street.

http://llnw.image.cbslocal.com/26/2009/06/18/320x240/robberyspree.jpg

[Juan.Camaney]

The crimes that may have been committed but weren't because of the current gun laws are awful hard to be a part of your life experiences.
You know what I meant.

Because shotguns are a lot harder to conceal and hide.
They really aren't. Did you ever see the video about the kid with all the guns in his pocket?

Don't trust kids with baggy pants - Best of Google Video (http://www.bestofgooglevideo.com/video.php?video=160)


Huh?
I never understood the term liked guns. How can you say you don't "like" guns? It's a tool. Can you hate a hammer?


There are people who don't like guns. I'd rather not have one, and I don't think I'd be alone in saying that. But if I did own one right now, I wouldn't be very good at using it. That takes practice, and for those people who don't care for firearms (for whatever reason), they won't get that practice needed.
That's okay. You do own swords, right? Mainly for display though, I know. I don't own a riding lawn mower either. I have a regular push around with no bag and a weed wacker. I have no use for a riding mower. But that doesn't mean just because someone could potentially use a weed wacker or a push around to mow an acre or two of grass doesn't mean I'd force everyone else to buy a push around too. People have the right to build the meanest riding lawn mower and put a fucking helicopter engine in it for all I care.

You can't honestly say, "first the assault rifles, next our handguns". That's fear mongering. People have been saying this stuff for as long as I can remember. My roommate has a gun he JUST got. My Grandfather has a few that he's had for years, another friend got one a few years back and is picking up another soon. Now granted, they didn't attempt to buy an assault rifle that could put down Godzilla, but I haven't once heard any of them say their rights were slowly being taken away. (BTW they are all Republican)
No it is NOT fear mongering, CD, it's exactly what is happening. Remember where I live, again, one of the strictest gun control areas. I've seen law after law just leak through like a sieve. Waiting periods, registration for ammo, finger printing, background checks, 10 day waiting period on SHOTGUNS! Limits on magazine capacity. Limits on which guns you can transport through which cities. They make it so the only place you can keep a gun is locked up in your house. It's only getting worse, too.

You know what the stupidest thing on those assault rifles is? You can still buy "hunting" rifles that use as big, if not bigger ammo than some of the stuff that "assault riffles" use and do more damage. An AR-15 uses the same as a Mini 14. Just because the AR has a pistol grip, it is now unsellable?

Don't bring in Freedom of Speech, cause that "freedom" only goes so far. I can't scream fire in a theater. I can't say I was raped by Jessica Biel if I haven't been (but I'd like to be). I can't say that I want to bomb a US embassy (I don't, but hell if I wouldn't pay the price if I did!). Besides, even this forum has rules that are put in place for protection.
Right. Lets treat one right different than another then. I'm not talking about letting everyone waltz in to a walmart and come out with a submachine uzi. I'm not talking about strapping in a 50 cal belt fed machine gun to the bed of the truck and shooting shit up. YOU CAN say that you were raped by Jessica Biel, she is a public figure. You can also say you want to bomb the embassy...a lot of wire taps will hit your area, but whatev. This forum has rules that are put in place to protect the owner from law suits because of copy right infringement and just for the general enjoyment of people. The BOTH is pretty much a free for all though.

Look Juan, I'm ok with shotguns, I'm ok with handguns, I'm ok with hollow point rounds, I'm ok with rifles. But if you honestly think that assault rifles being able to be bought as easily as Tylenol to anyone is a good thing, I will just have to disagree with you.
Don't exagerbate, CD, I don't want to be able to buy an m-16 as easy as a tylenol. But just because you are okay with something and not okay with others means you have the right to push your beliefs on a right that is guranteed to the people.

Oh, can a person that gets out of jail for a violent crime be allowed to buy a gun?
No, they can't. However, how many of those convicts get their hands on guns anyway and end up back in prison for crimes commited with guns? Gun control just keeps guns away from responsible people.

:draggon: :draggon: :draggon: :draggon: :draggon: :draggon:

[Juan.Camaney]

My biased opinion( Why is it biased, because it doesn't agree with your opinion?) was formed by many sources of information, both pro and con, over many years.
Opinions are biased, brother, that's just the way it is. Facts are facts, opinions, are not.

IIsn't everything in the constitution interpreted? That's why we have a judicial branch. Before you even say it...I agree their interpretation can be a slippery slope...but that's a whole other topic.
Yes it is. How someone can interpret that into the gun laws we have today is why purists are up in arms, literaly.

As you can see, there is a lot of onterpretation that has alreay taken plane.
Did it fly coach or business class?

[CD]

I never understood the term liked guns. How can you say you don't "like" guns? It's a tool. Can you hate a hammer?
Dynamite is a tool used to remove rock from mountainsides (among other uses)... and I'd rather not hold it or have a bunch in my house. Face it, some people just don't feel comfortable in the presence of firearms.


That's okay. You do own swords, right? Mainly for display though, I know. I don't own a riding lawn mower either. I have a regular push around with no bag and a weed wacker. I have no use for a riding mower. But that doesn't mean just because someone could potentially use a weed wacker or a push around to mow an acre or two of grass doesn't mean I'd force everyone else to buy a push around too. People have the right to build the meanest riding lawn mower and put a fucking helicopter engine in it for all I care.
I do have a few. I also have no problems with what you use to mow lawns, but I think there is a limit to certain things. With the mower, there might be a limit on how big and powerful it can be before it starts to possibly have a dangerous side. Just like the car industry. I can own a car, but I am not able to own a 2500 HP jet fueled ricer, because then it's state of being could endanger the lives of someone else on the road. What if you decide to get the badass assault rifle and while protecting your road, YOUR bullet goes through your bedroom window and into the body of a neighbor's kid? Do your rights to own any and all guns supercede the right to life or the possibility of snuffing out an innocent?

No it is NOT fear mongering, CD, it's exactly what is happening. Remember where I live, again, one of the strictest gun control areas. I've seen law after law just leak through like a sieve. Waiting periods, registration for ammo, finger printing, background checks, 10 day waiting period on SHOTGUNS! Limits on magazine capacity. Limits on which guns you can transport through which cities. They make it so the only place you can keep a gun is locked up in your house. It's only getting worse, too.
I think it was Chris Rock who said that guns can be cheap but if bullets were expensive you would eliminate drive byes! Anyway, here goes:
1) Waiting periods: They can prevent crimes. I'm pretty open to most everything you are saying, but I strongly believe that it is no different then having to wait a year to go from a permit to a drivers license.
2) Ammo registration: I don't like it at all. Cause a smart criminal would collect casings and frame someone innocent.
3) Finger printing: Seems excessive since I almost view it as the previous example.
4) Background checks: Really? You have a problem with making sure a gun doesn't go to a disturbed home?
5) 10 day waiting on shotguns: I like the 7 day system, so I will agree with you to a point.
6) Magazine capacity: Tough call. If on one hand you need 100 shots to defend yourself from a robber, then you suck at guns, and possibly shot a neighbor by accident. On the other hand, if you are famous and need protection from possibly quite a few assailants, the increased capacity would be a godsend. In this case, I will have to agree with you.
7) Gun limits by city: Is it not up to the city? What if the city voted that they don't want 2 types of guns in their area? Remember, a license to carry a concealed firearm doesn't grant you that right everywhere. Schools being a good example. Are your gun rights being shat on by the US school system?

You know what the stupidest thing on those assault rifles is? You can still buy "hunting" rifles that use as big, if not bigger ammo than some of the stuff that "assault riffles" use and do more damage. An AR-15 uses the same as a Mini 14. Just because the AR has a pistol grip, it is now unsellable?
Deadliest Warrior on Spike TV taught me a different way of looking at it. The AR-15 bullet may do less damage, but 10 of them per second adds up. A "hunting" rifle lives up to it's name. A single shot kill from far away, and not up close death in a wide radius. I don't know anything about the Mini 14, so I can't say.

Right. Lets treat one right different than another then. I'm not talking about letting everyone waltz in to a walmart and come out with a submachine uzi. I'm not talking about strapping in a 50 cal belt fed machine gun to the bed of the truck and shooting shit up. YOU CAN say that you were raped by Jessica Biel, she is a public figure. You can also say you want to bomb the embassy...a lot of wire taps will hit your area, but whatev. This forum has rules that are put in place to protect the owner from law suits because of copy right infringement and just for the general enjoyment of people. The BOTH is pretty much a free for all though.
Alas, I was not raped by Jessica Biel. All I was trying to say is that they are limits on even the freedom of speech. Shouldn't there also be limits on the freedom to own and bare arms? The US government made a "Davy Crockett" short range nuclear launcher (http://www.noahshachtman.com/archives/002997.html), and I'm ok with there being an exception to that retarded weapon.


Don't exagerbate, CD, I don't want to be able to buy an m-16 as easy as a tylenol. But just because you are okay with something and not okay with others means you have the right to push your beliefs on a right that is guranteed to the people.
LIMITS. There are limits to all rights. If Iran says they want nuclear power for their country, why do we deny them that right? They have the money to get it. They have the connections... Even the amendments to the constitution have been wrong before. (*cough* Amendment 18 *cough*) Does the 2nd Amendment say that formerly jailed criminals cannot own a gun?

No, they can't. However, how many of those convicts get their hands on guns anyway and end up back in prison for crimes commited with guns? Gun control just keeps guns away from responsible people.
If everyone had a gun, murders would still take place. The only difference is that the court system would be empty since justice would take place on the streets.

[Krasch]

No it is NOT fear mongering, CD, it's exactly what is happening. Remember where I live, again, one of the strictest gun control areas. I've seen law after law just leak through like a sieve. Waiting periods, registration for ammo, finger printing, background checks, 10 day waiting period on SHOTGUNS! Limits on magazine capacity. Limits on which guns you can transport through which cities. They make it so the only place you can keep a gun is locked up in your house. It's only getting worse, too.

You know what the stupidest thing on those assault rifles is? You can still buy "hunting" rifles that use as big, if not bigger ammo than some of the stuff that "assault riffles" use and do more damage. An AR-15 uses the same as a Mini 14. Just because the AR has a pistol grip, it is now unsellable?

No, they can't. However, how many of those convicts get their hands on guns anyway and end up back in prison for crimes commited with guns? Gun control just keeps guns away from responsible people.

Damn right Juan. Here in Toronto, we have far more restrictive laws than even your neck of the woods and we're still up to our 14th homicide by shooting this year and we're what, halfway through June?

If gun laws had any real impact on gun crime, we'd be in the low single digits at most with the draconian gun laws in Canada. Still a few times a year we see the cops do a major bust and grab a whole cache of guns and other weapons that makes the cops' own stuff look puny.

[Juan.Camaney]

Dynamite is a tool used to remove rock from mountainsides (among other uses)... and I'd rather not hold it or have a bunch in my house. Face it, some people just don't feel comfortable in the presence of firearms.
Great, so don't hold it or have a bunch in your house. But just because you are uninterested and ignorant doesn't mean some well qualified person can't have access to it for his own use in whatever he does. Same with other firearms. Just because you are uncomfortable with it doesn't give you the power to strip anyone of their rights to keep it which are GURANTEED. We aren't talking having some control, here, these people want to basically have every single shell lazer inscribed and tabs being kept on everything. If they want to do that, and put the effort to something so unimportant, why not do that with stuff that is really a problem, like keep track of every cent spent in their departments, keep track of every illegal alien, etc etc. Funny how they have enough money to do this but not enough money to do the same thing for other more important problems.

I do have a few. I also have no problems with what you use to mow lawns, but I think there is a limit to certain things. With the mower, there might be a limit on how big and powerful it can be before it starts to possibly have a dangerous side. Just like the car industry. I can own a car, but I am not able to own a 2500 HP jet fueled ricer, because then it's state of being could endanger the lives of someone else on the road. What if you decide to get the badass assault rifle and while protecting your road, YOUR bullet goes through your bedroom window and into the body of a neighbor's kid? Do your rights to own any and all guns supercede the right to life or the possibility of snuffing out an innocent?
Don't be stupid. Any responsible gun owner knows what is good for self defense, home defense, hunting, and for show. Just like you couldn't be able to drive a 2500 HP jet fueled ricer on the street, but are more than welcome to drive it on a closed road under the provisions of whatever racing league you want to follow (if any at all), I should be able to go buy an AK-47, pick up some rounds, take it to the range, and blow up watermelons for my own fucking amusement. We should preach gun education, not simply start banning shit some dick face in office who probably hasn't even fired a gun thinks I should be able to own. What if someone came into your house and told you you can not own any of the swords you love? They told you you could only own something small, like a nail clipper, for your own safety? Would you like that?

I think it was Chris Rock who said that guns can be cheap but if bullets were expensive you would eliminate drive byes! Anyway, here goes:
1) Waiting periods: They can prevent crimes. I'm pretty open to most everything you are saying, but I strongly believe that it is no different then having to wait a year to go from a permit to a drivers license.
2) Ammo registration: I don't like it at all. Cause a smart criminal would collect casings and frame someone innocent.
3) Finger printing: Seems excessive since I almost view it as the previous example.
4) Background checks: Really? You have a problem with making sure a gun doesn't go to a disturbed home?
5) 10 day waiting on shotguns: I like the 7 day system, so I will agree with you to a point.
6) Magazine capacity: Tough call. If on one hand you need 100 shots to defend yourself from a robber, then you suck at guns, and possibly shot a neighbor by accident. On the other hand, if you are famous and need protection from possibly quite a few assailants, the increased capacity would be a godsend. In this case, I will have to agree with you.
7) Gun limits by city: Is it not up to the city? What if the city voted that they don't want 2 types of guns in their area? Remember, a license to carry a concealed firearm doesn't grant you that right everywhere. Schools being a good example. Are your gun rights being shat on by the US school system?
1. It does not prevent crime. Someone who is looking to commit a crime will do so, waiting period be damned. Why do people keep preaching this bullshit?
2. Werd.
3. Excessive? To me this makes more sense. Prints on my application can pinpoint me in a crime pretty easily. Guns really are a sloppy way to commit crimes, they leave evidence.
4. Do you have a common name? I do. Do you know how many people with my name get into trouble? Do you know how faulty the system we have in place is in differentiating between those idiots and me? Background checks are fine if the system worked.
5. Even 7 days is stupid. I can kill more people with my truck than I can with any of my guns, and I can go pick up a truck right fucking now.
6. 100 shots goes by pretty quick, brother. You ever try to shoot a moving target? Again, the 100 shot capacity would not be needed for home protection. A shot gun with bird shot is enough for that. Here in CA they limit caps on pistols. That nice 15 round I have for my 9 mm...yeah, illegal to be sold now a days. Mostly everything is limited to like 7 or some such bullshit.
7. It shouldn't be up to the city. Its a right guranteed by the US Constitution. To put this into perspective, we have a city around here called Reseda. They banned certain small caliber guns (saturday night specials). So in order for me to get my sub compact from one city to the other, I have to go around Reseda. Comon sense does not prevail.

Deadliest Warrior on Spike TV taught me a different way of looking at it. The AR-15 bullet may do less damage, but 10 of them per second adds up. A "hunting" rifle lives up to it's name. A single shot kill from far away, and not up close death in a wide radius. I don't know anything about the Mini 14, so I can't say.
I can fit a high cap mag on the mini and shoot just a fast as the AR dude. There is no difference other than grip.

LIMITS. There are limits to all rights. If Iran says they want nuclear power for their country, why do we deny them that right? They have the money to get it. They have the connections... Even the amendments to the constitution have been wrong before. (*cough* Amendment 18 *cough*) Does the 2nd Amendment say that formerly jailed criminals cannot own a gun?
You already know my stance on the Iran issue. The second amentment says nothing about formerly jailed criminals. And formerly jailed criminals CAN own and receive guns. Felons cannot, a limit made by altering rights.

If everyone had a gun, murders would still take place. The only difference is that the court system would be empty since justice would take place on the streets.
Same thing happens in countries with no guns, so I don't know what you are trying to prove.

[bobburgster]

Blair Holt bill referred to comitte in February
H.R. 45: Blair Holt's Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 (GovTrack.us)

do you want more than just that one or have you not been paying attention to what has been going on.

(yes I know that bill is dead in committee)

Sorry, should have included the phrase, "... a bill that has a better chance of passage than you winning the lottery." If you check, you'll notice that most hot button bills, like gun control, are filed by congressmen motivated by self-preservation or increasing campaign contributions.

[CD]

Great, so don't hold it or have a bunch in your house. But just because you are uninterested and ignorant doesn't mean some well qualified person can't have access to it for his own use in whatever he does. Same with other firearms. Just because you are uncomfortable with it doesn't give you the power to strip anyone of their rights to keep it which are GURANTEED. We aren't talking having some control, here, these people want to basically have every single shell lazer inscribed and tabs being kept on everything. If they want to do that, and put the effort to something so unimportant, why not do that with stuff that is really a problem, like keep track of every cent spent in their departments, keep track of every illegal alien, etc etc. Funny how they have enough money to do this but not enough money to do the same thing for other more important problems.
I would LOVE to see them spend more manpower and resources into more important things! It's a vendetta that certain people in power have. I like discussing these things with you because a lot of your counterpoints open my eyes to things I never realized or heard about. Look, I am not a fan of government snooping over my shoulder, and I think that a lot of the gun control laws are aimed at that. I oppose those laws.


Don't be stupid. Any responsible gun owner knows what is good for self defense, home defense, hunting, and for show. Just like you couldn't be able to drive a 2500 HP jet fueled ricer on the street, but are more than welcome to drive it on a closed road under the provisions of whatever racing league you want to follow (if any at all), I should be able to go buy an AK-47, pick up some rounds, take it to the range, and blow up watermelons for my own fucking amusement. We should preach gun education, not simply start banning shit some dick face in office who probably hasn't even fired a gun thinks I should be able to own. What if someone came into your house and told you you can not own any of the swords you love? They told you you could only own something small, like a nail clipper, for your own safety? Would you like that?
Key word is responsible. Since when have people in this country been responsible? I will agree with you though... I really would like to pick up an AK-47 and lay waste to a few watermelons. I am also a big fan of gun education, but unless it's taught in schools, it would be hard to teach kids with anti-gun parents (hell, with those parents it'd be hard to teach them IN school). I do see your point though... I love my swords, but I consider them art more then defense. The person who dares break into my place though will strongly disagree with me.

1. ... we disagree, CD...
2. Werd.
3. Excessive? To me this makes more sense. Prints on my application can pinpoint me in a crime pretty easily. Guns really are a sloppy way to commit crimes, they leave evidence.
4. Do you have a common name? I do. Do you know how many people with my name get into trouble? Do you know how faulty the system we have in place is in differentiating between those idiots and me? Background checks are fine if the system worked.
5. Even 7 days is stupid. I can kill more people with my truck than I can with any of my guns, and I can go pick up a truck right fucking now.
6. 100 shots goes by pretty quick, brother. You ever try to shoot a moving target? Again, the 100 shot capacity would not be needed for home protection. A shot gun with bird shot is enough for that. Here in CA they limit caps on pistols. That nice 15 round I have for my 9 mm...yeah, illegal to be sold now a days. Mostly everything is limited to like 7 or some such bullshit.
7. It shouldn't be up to the city. Its a right guranteed by the US Constitution. To put this into perspective, we have a city around here called Reseda. They banned certain small caliber guns (saturday night specials). So in order for me to get my sub compact from one city to the other, I have to go around Reseda. Comon sense does not prevail.
3) Good point. But a GOOD criminal will wear gloves and still be able to frame someone.
4) Let's fix the system. I don't think I've ever been a fan of keeping a broken system.
5) Someone who wants to commit murder can also kill someone with their bare hands. But it's easier with a gun since it's easier to hide, dispose of, and conceal. Anyway, everything can be a weapon. It's just that a car was never originally designed to kill.
7) Good point... I'll concede the city, but I still win with the school system. That "right" doesn't go inside the school.

I can fit a high cap mag on the mini and shoot just a fast as the AR dude. There is no difference other than grip.
I'm not a gun expert, so I'll take your word on the Mini.

[Car Enthusiast]

the reason my AR isn't a hunting rifle is because it is banned from being a hunting rifle in Ohio, if it wasn't banned then I could use it to hunt and gun control groups couldn't demonize it so easily, but there are states where you can hunt with high powered rifles and AR's (assault rifle) are used to hunt. Actually they say a high powered rifle is more humane to hunt with since it is more likely to instantly kill the game instead of letting it suffer and have to be tracked and bleed out. Really there isn't much different from an assault rifle than a regular hunting rifle as Juan said. I am just tired of my hobby being attacked because some lame ass politician can't get elected by coming up with fixes to real problems and have to go after the easy issues to scare people into thinking they will get something accomplished

[Juan.Camaney]

Great thread guys.

[licupssy]

the reason my AR isn't a hunting rifle is because it is banned from being a hunting rifle in Ohio, if it wasn't banned then I could use it to hunt and gun control groups couldn't demonize it so easily, but there are states where you can hunt with high powered rifles and AR's (assault rifle) are used to hunt. Actually they say a high powered rifle is more humane to hunt with since it is more likely to instantly kill the game instead of letting it suffer and have to be tracked and bleed out. Really there isn't much different from an assault rifle than a regular hunting rifle as Juan said. I am just tired of my hobby being attacked because some lame ass politician can't get elected by coming up with fixes to real problems and have to go after the easy issues to scare people into thinking they will get something accomplished
Living in PA, we have the same restrictions on semi-automatic weapons. I was brought up by an avid hunter and have been hunting since I was 12. I also so spent almost every weekend at the gun club with my father since I was discharged from the Navy until he died a few years back.

If you ever spent the two weekends before deer season at a shooting range, you realize there is good cause not allowing semi-automatic rifles be used for hunting. Every year you get a new group of young guys on the range usually with new Remington pumps. Some would listen to range officers and get their rifle on paper, others on the other hand run through a hundred rounds an never cut a 3 foot square piece of paper with a bullet. Could you imagine these guys spraying the woods with AR-15 rifles. Pity the poor deer that get out in an open field around these guys.

True, you can probably kill just about anything with the AR-15 if you're proficient enough. But it's really too light for hunting in the woods and in PA I've see of a deer doing a dance caused by gun fire on the top a hill in an open field during doe season. After being missed by about 60 rounds the deer ran off. Which was good since I hate to have seen the fight between all the guys that would have claimed they shot it. Imagine the number of rounds fired if they were all using AR-15 rifles.

In states highly populated like PA you have to consider the danger to not only other hunters but to peoples homes were bullets that can travel a mile could be peppered by the likes of these hunters. It be more sensible to take a trip out west we're you have miles of open fields and can shot prairie dogs to your hearts content.

[Krasch]

I would LOVE to see them spend more manpower and resources into more important things! It's a vendetta that certain people in power have. I like discussing these things with you because a lot of your counterpoints open my eyes to things I never realized or heard about. Look, I am not a fan of government snooping over my shoulder, and I think that a lot of the gun control laws are aimed at that. I oppose those laws.

Agreed, Big Brother does enough snooping as it is.

Key word is responsible. Since when have people in this country been responsible? I will agree with you though... I really would like to pick up an AK-47 and lay waste to a few watermelons. I am also a big fan of gun education, but unless it's taught in schools, it would be hard to teach kids with anti-gun parents (hell, with those parents it'd be hard to teach them IN school). I do see your point though... I love my swords, but I consider them art more then defense. The person who dares break into my place though will strongly disagree with me.

I too own a sword, and consider it both art and a means of defense. And I pity the crook who decides to break into my place, at least up to the point I carve him into sushi.

3) Good point. But a GOOD criminal will wear gloves and still be able to frame someone.
4) Let's fix the system. I don't think I've ever been a fan of keeping a broken system.
5) Someone who wants to commit murder can also kill someone with their bare hands. But it's easier with a gun since it's easier to hide, dispose of, and conceal. Anyway, everything can be a weapon. It's just that a car was never originally designed to kill.
7) Good point... I'll concede the city, but I still win with the school system. That "right" doesn't go inside the school.

Doubly agreed. Kids may have the right to bear arms under the Constitution, but that doesn't mean they can or should be allowed to bring them to school. The other students' right to a safe learning environment supersedes a kid's right to bear arms.

I'm not a gun expert, so I'll take your word on the Mini.

[CD]

Great thread guys.
I have to agree. This one is my new favorite thread.

[bobburgster]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobburgster View Post
As you can see, there is a lot of onterpretation that has alreay taken plane.

Did it fly coach or business class?


Juan, I was doing well...nodding my head in agreement, until I came t this one.
No idea what you meant.

[bobburgster]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bobburgster View Post
My biased opinion( Why is it biased, because it doesn't agree with your opinion?) was formed by many sources of information, both pro and con, over many years.
Opinions are biased, brother, that's just the way it is. Facts are facts, opinions, are not.

Not true Juan.

Bias: "a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation"

An opinion can be biased, but doesn't have to be.

I've been teaching photography for some 20 years, and also have been involved in the on-line photographic community for at least that long. In hundreds of face-to-face discussions about equipment choices during my workshops and seminars and at conferences, no one has ever failed to be reasoned and polite. Disagreements? Of course. Loads of them, and some quite heated. But never has anyone said anything insulting, or told me that I was biased.
But online such behavior appears to be the norm rather than the exception. Why?...because the topics discussed are usually emotional and/or controversial.

[Car Enthusiast]

When it comes to guns, someone can come up with a seemingly excellent point to one side of this issue that makes sense or a scenario played out supports their way of thinking and then the other side can come back and do the same thing. So I always have to go to statistics or what has happened in the real world when someones agenda's are put to the test. Does anyone know the stats on how many LEGALLY obtained assault weapons were used in a crime? I know people say that gun crimes are out of control but I do not agree with that, I know here in Ohio it is becoming less frequent to hear of a crime with a firearm anymore. I mean it still happens, but I don't think it is fair to talk ban or restriction or gun control when there are larger problems out there to start the process of taking a right away from people who feel gun ownership is okay. If someone wants to talk about punishments for people who commit guns crimes great and am with you on that, lets get it hammered out and figure out the details. As a gun owner I am always on the defense because there isn't a compromise from the gun control activists. It may sound like a compromise but when it comes down to it, it comes down to me not being able to keep a firearm, or enjoy my hobby or protect myself.

[Juan.Camaney]

Quote:
Juan, I was doing well...nodding my head in agreement, until I came t this one.
No idea what you meant.

Read what I quoted. I was making a joke about a typo.

[supersatch]

I've yet to meet the mass-murderer that used .50 cal bullets. Just though I'd point that out...CALIFORNIA!!!

[Juan.Camaney]

I've yet to meet the mass-murderer that used .50 cal bullets. Just though I'd point that out...CALIFORNIA!!!

People call them soldiers.:bowdown:

[supersatch]

People call them soldiers.:bowdown:

Did you reciently move to Berkeley, Juan?

[joerockhead]

People call them soldiers.:bowdown:

You really need to take that back. joking or not, that is not a funny comment. :mad1:

[Krasch]

You really need to take that back. joking or not, that is not a funny comment. :mad1:

Agreed, I almost neg rep'd that one.

Even if you don't agree with where we send them or why, those people have willingly chosen to go into harm's way and get shot at to protect the rights we get to enjoy. Mocking them is just wrong.:nono:

[gemo]

"Key word is responsible. Since when have people in this country been responsible? I will agree with you though..."

HEY! fuck you. I'm responsible. never commited a crime, never used any drugs, Even when prescription opiates. I have never used a firearm illegally. There are many like me otherwise half the country would already have been killed off by gun fire.

[CD]

"Key word is responsible. Since when have people in this country been responsible? I will agree with you though..."

HEY! fuck you. I'm responsible. never commited a crime, never used any drugs, Even when prescription opiates. I have never used a firearm illegally. There are many like me otherwise half the country would already have been killed off by gun fire.
*sigh* I said this country as a whole and you claim that since you are responsible, everyone else must be as well.

Sociology... a person can be smart, but groups of people can be collectively dumb. We as a country have collectively allowed the government to grow too powerful, to get us into tremendous debt, to circumvent the constitution. We have allowed ourselves to become the most overweight, gluttonous nation in the world.

Guns can be used responsibly. I will not dispute that. But if something ever happened where you felt the need to commit a crime, would the gun help? Remember gemo, not everyone can be as intelligent as you or I or the other number of people that post in the EOTH.

[bobburgster]

Sociology... a person can be smart, but groups of people can be collectively dumb. We as a country have collectively allowed the government to grow too powerful, to get us into tremendous debt, to circumvent the constitution. We have allowed ourselves to become the most overweight, gluttonous nation in the world.


Isn't that the truth! I enjoyed your thoughtful post.

[Car Enthusiast]

*sigh* I said this country as a whole and you claim that since you are responsible, everyone else must be as well.

Sociology... a person can be smart, but groups of people can be collectively dumb. We as a country have collectively allowed the government to grow too powerful, to get us into tremendous debt, to circumvent the constitution. We have allowed ourselves to become the most overweight, gluttonous nation in the world.

Guns can be used responsibly. I will not dispute that. But if something ever happened where you felt the need to commit a crime, would the gun help? Remember gemo, not everyone can be as intelligent as you or I or the other number of people that post in the EOTH.

I am with you on not everyone is responsible CD, but gun rights (and I should say some, because some are retarded and want no rules) advocates want better laws, punishments, and firearm education. All gun control advocates want is ban, ban, and more bans. That way of thinking keeps people from choosing, the other way to me in my way of thinking (in a perfect world) leads to responsibility and the idea that their are consequences to your actions. I mean honestly if I am hunting and I even accidently shoot someone there should be reprocussions for my actions. Now to me the debate lies in what those reprocussions should be, the debate shouldn't be in if I can own a firearm or not.

[PistolPoet]

Let me start by saying that I am a proud gun owner, and that I count in my family many gun collectors, at least one gun shop owner, and an uncle-in-law who has (unlike the vast majority of gun owners) actually used his gun to stop a spree killing before it began (in Glasgow, MT).

That said, many of the posters in this thread are being paranoid and ridiculous.

I didn't say you were anti-gun, I asked if you had ever read any of the NRA's publications? I asked if your biased opinion was formed on your own by reading their publications and developing your own opinion, or if you just read a headline here and there and had someone else say it was fearmongering.

I was an NRA member from 1987 to 2002, when I finally became so tired of their hysteria, lies and misrepresentations that I could no longer in good conscience give them money or support them.

The amendment says that the specific right shall not be infringed upon. That means we have the right to keep and bear arms PERIOD. Not just arms that legislators feel are safe for us to keep (ban on assault rifles) not just arms that are for hunting (pocket rocket bans in certain cities), not limiting round capacity! It says nothing about flash supressors being illegal. Nothing about engraving numbers on bullets, or guns for that matter.

No, point of fact, the second amendment does not say that, and it does not mean that. You know very well that the second amendment is not a free pass that gives everyone the right to own any weapon they want. You are entirely ignoring the militia clause, just like every other gun-nut out there does -- when it's convenient!

The second amendment says that being necessary to the security of a free State and a well regulated militia the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It is a well-established fact of US law that if a citizen wants access to weapons beyond small arms used for self-defense they must join a branch of the US military, such as the national guard. You know already that it is illegal to own bombs, rocket launchers, missiles, and other heavy ordnance.

Yet if we are to believe the statements you make in this post, those are all protected by the 2nd! But the reality is that they are not, and you're squealing to the contrary doesn't make it true.

If we we're to listen to people like you, this country would be reduced to a chaotic warzone, and our cities would become as awful as places like Terhan and Bagdad, with anyone able to commit atrocious acts of terrorism with ease.

But of course, as sane and reasonable people, we understand that ordinary citizens do not need assault weapons and flash suppressors. The people who need these things are the military, law enforcement and criminals. So if you want to play with them, join the military or become a cop. And if you can't do either (they screen out most of the real whack-jobs), then maybe it's for the best you not get them.

As for the rest of the paranoia in this thread, I would remind gun advocates of two very important facts:

1) It's still easier to get a gun than a car. I am personally in favor of gun licenses and gun registration. We require licenses and registration for cars, and guns require at least as much responsibility as cars.

Furthermore, despite decades of the government having a list of every person who owns a car, they have never rounded up all the car owners and thrown them in a gulag. Because that is a ridiculous paranoid fantasy, and if you are so out of touch with reality that you think you are in some sort of danger because you own a licensed and registered firearm, then honestly I don't think you are mentally stable enough to own one.

Gun control laws only ensure that the only guns owned are owned by responsible citizens willing to accept the consequences of their actions. If it were required, I would gladly license my registered firearm. I have no intention of murdering anyone with my gun, and so I see absolutely no reason to worry if the police can trace it back to me.

If you think you have reason to worry that your gun will be traced back to you, then I seriously have to question what sort of crime you are planning to commit with it. Only criminals, terrorists and paranoids want guns no-one else knows about.

2) No one is ever going to overthrow the American government violently. Please, get this through your heads. Your guns will not stop the US government. People have tried to start violent revolutions in this country. Go research the history of the Weather Underground, and recognize the reality of the situation: between local police departments and the FBI, any attempt to create a revolutionary army has no chance AT ALL of succeeding.

One man against the state is a terrorist. One man against the government is that guy who shot up the Holocaust Museum: a lone psycho disconnected from reality. If it's you vs the state, YOU LOSE.

If you want to keep America a free society, then don't vote for fascists who promise you they won't enact gun control, vote for people who support an open government that discloses all the facts to its people. Vote for people who support fair and honest elections. Vote for people who genuinely appreciate the diversity of opinion that makes America great.

Because those are the things that guarantee our freedom, not our guns.

[Krasch]

Gun control laws only ensure that the only guns owned are owned by responsible citizens willing to accept the consequences of their actions. If it were required, I would gladly license my registered firearm. I have no intention of murdering anyone with my gun, and so I see absolutely no reason to worry if the police can trace it back to me.

Except of course all the illegally obtained guns the criminals are using out there, which are without a doubt MOST of the guns used in crimes these days.

2) No one is ever going to overthrow the American government violently. Please, get this through your heads. Your guns will not stop the US government. People have tried to start violent revolutions in this country. Go research the history of the Weather Underground, and recognize the reality of the situation: between local police departments and the FBI, any attempt to create a revolutionary army has no chance AT ALL of succeeding.

One man against the state is a terrorist. One man against the government is that guy who shot up the Holocaust Museum: a lone psycho disconnected from reality. If it's you vs the state, YOU LOSE.

If you want to keep America a free society, then don't vote for fascists who promise you they won't enact gun control, vote for people who support an open government that discloses all the facts to its people. Vote for people who support fair and honest elections. Vote for people who genuinely appreciate the diversity of opinion that makes America great.

Because those are the things that guarantee our freedom, not our guns.

Largely correct, except it ignores one simple fact. ONE man against the state IS a terrorist. MANY against the state, however, is a revolution, something that has in fact occurred in the history of the US already amd could happen again IF enough people decided to make it so. That is the unmitigated genius of the 2nd Amendment. The right given under law by the government to forcibly toss out the government if you can get enough to agree with you and carry out the job.

To quote, (For its insight and because I just happen to have watched it again recently.) "People shouldn't be afraid of their governments, Governments should be afraid of its people...Remember, remember the 5th of November..." - V.

[Car Enthusiast]

I am not sure if pistol poet understands what a militia is. It is a group of individuals who in times of needs band together to defend themselves/country against whatever they need to. The military and national guard are all federal bodies who are under the control of state and federal governments not the people, since Bush now even the President can control the national guard without the consent of the governors (unless it has been changed, I know I think vermont was challenging this). Also the Military and National guard are federally funded. Federal money, Federal weapons, and Federal land. So don't think that the National guard is so far away from being used by a government we don't follow

And for the fact of going out and rounding up guns by law officials in this country it has happened in the last 10 years. It isn't some historic issue that has no relevance to modern society

PistolPoet, your speech gives me the impression you are really a gun control advocate, since you are okay with registration, please list your what firearms you own, your address the address and names of your family including your gunshop owning uncle and what firearms they own

[Car Enthusiast]

Oh and Iran, and Iraq is an absolutely unbelievable and ironic example you give, I mean where in the world am I going to find a modern day example of a government where the ones in power are opposed by the majority of people in their country yet can maintain power through the use of the military and oppression to keep their power. Also I am not sure but I do not believe Iran and Iraq (under Suddam) had the ability to personally own firearms themselves or at least the wild west scenario you put forth. So kudos sir for making a statement and defeating your own arguement in one fell swoop.

Flash suppressors, sounds suppressors and assault weapons are all legal in this country. Please pull up some statistics showing where these legally owned items have been used to commit crimes. Once again same rhetoric I hear from gun grabbers.

[PistolPoet]

Except of course all the illegally obtained guns the criminals are using out there, which are without a doubt MOST of the guns used in crimes these days.

The nice thing about illegal, unregistered, unlicensed firearms is that you can arrest someone for owning one, possibly before they use it in the commission of a more serious crime. Which is sort of the point. Get the guns out of the hands of the gang-bangers.

Largely correct, except it ignores one simple fact. ONE man against the state IS a terrorist. MANY against the state, however, is a revolution, something that has in fact occurred in the history of the US already amd could happen again IF enough people decided to make it so. That is the unmitigated genius of the 2nd Amendment. The right given under law by the government to forcibly toss out the government if you can get enough to agree with you and carry out the job.

But you can't, because inciting sedition is a crime. And you cannot attract the number of people you would need to fight a sustained war against the US government without drawing the attention of the US goverment. Which will crush you. And the vast majority of people in this country will cheer them on.

Don't believe me? Go ask David Koresh. Oh wait he's dead.

Look, the days of the American Revolution are long gone. These days the government has access to technology that makes fomenting rebellion impossible. And the US government, unlike the British, isn't separated from the people they are fighting by a large ocean, nor are they limited to sail-powered wooden boats to get troops to various points in the country. Even the Civil War can't happen again. The country has become both too small to hide in, and too large to overcome.

These days revolutions are won peacefully, without firing a shot. Martin Luther King Jr. taught us that, that a peaceful march and non-violent resistance wins far more battles in the modern world than guns and bullets.

The modern revolution looks more like the Velvet Revolution of the Czech Republic (a place I had the wonderful opportunity to live in shortly after the fall of communism) than the armed revolt of Iran.

To quote, (For its insight and because I just happen to have watched it again recently.) "People shouldn't be afraid of their governments, Governments should be afraid of its people...Remember, remember the 5th of November..." - V.

On the 5th of November Guy Fawkes accidentally blew himself up with a bomb he intended to use against the British Parliament, which you'll note is still standing. Coincidentally, the only people the Weather Underground ever managed to kill where some of their own members, also with their own bomb.

It's good to try to remember the difference between fantasy (lone nut takes down uber powerful fascist government with a few bombs and public support), and reality (would be revolutionaries blowing themselves up with their own bombs).

[PistolPoet]

I am not sure if pistol poet understands what a militia is. It is a group of individuals who in times of needs band together to defend themselves/country against whatever they need to. The military and national guard are all federal bodies who are under the control of state and federal governments not the people, since Bush now even the President can control the national guard without the consent of the governors (unless it has been changed, I know I think vermont was challenging this). Also the Military and National guard are federally funded. Federal money, Federal weapons, and Federal land. So don't think that the National guard is so far away from being used by a government we don't follow

The National Guard is a militia. The idea that militias are composed of private citizens and not responsible to the local authorities is...patently absurd nonsense only promoted by right-wingers ignorant of actual history.

And for the fact of going out and rounding up guns by law officials in this country it has happened in the last 10 years. It isn't some historic issue that has no relevance to modern society

Cite please, as I strongly suspect that a rational examination of the facts will show that your description of whatever event you are referring to will turn out to be a paranoid overreaction to nothing.

PistolPoet, your speech gives me the impression you are really a gun control advocate, since you are okay with registration, please list your what firearms you own, your address the address and names of your family including your gunshop owning uncle and what firearms they own

Um, no. I'm not posting the addresses of my family on the internet. Are you crazy? As for what firearms I own, I have two .22 pistols (one's a Ruger Mark III, the other's a nice Chinese model used in the Olympics), and Winchester Model 70, and a bolt-action .22 rifle that I haven't fired since I was 12.

[Krasch]

The National Guard is a militia. The idea that militias are composed of private citizens and not responsible to the local authorities is...patently absurd nonsense only promoted by right-wingers ignorant of actual history.



Cite please, as I strongly suspect that a rational examination of the facts will show that your description of whatever event you are referring to will turn out to be a paranoid overreaction to nothing.



Um, no. I'm not posting the addresses of my family on the internet. Are you crazy? As for what firearms I own, I have two .22 pistols (one's a Ruger Mark III, the other's a nice Chinese model used in the Olympics), and Winchester Model 70, and a bolt-action .22 rifle that I haven't fired since I was 12.

Ahhhh but there is a decided difference between being "responsible to the local authorities" and being "under the control of state and federal governments".

Are militias held responsible by the government? Sure, if one started committing crimes the government would rightly arrest them to answer for said crimes.

Are those same militias under CONTROL of the government? Certainly not. They exist as a totally separate entity from the infrastructure of the government, inlike police, federal agencies, and the Armed Forces.

[Krasch]

The nice thing about illegal, unregistered, unlicensed firearms is that you can arrest someone for owning one, possibly before they use it in the commission of a more serious crime. Which is sort of the point. Get the guns out of the hands of the gang-bangers.

Agreed, except that gun controls laws do nothing and will do nothing about criminals using illegally obtained weapoins. The very act of obtaining one illegally circumvents all laws by definition. So more gun control laws will serve only to inconvenience and screw over law-abiding citizens.

But you can't, because inciting sedition is a crime. And you cannot attract the number of people you would need to fight a sustained war against the US government without drawing the attention of the US goverment. Which will crush you. And the vast majority of people in this country will cheer them on.

Expressing displeasure about the state of the government is no doubt technically sedition, but yet people, even the media, does so on a regular basis. The Smith Act hasn't been used since 1961. If you could get enough people on your side, things change. Imagine if all those million-odd people who attended the Obama Inauguration had then decided to forcibly remove the present government. Think they wouldn't have succeeded?

Don't believe me? Go ask David Koresh. Oh wait he's dead.

A useless example since Koresh had nothing to do with militias, but the leader of a religious sect.

Look, the days of the American Revolution are long gone. These days the government has access to technology that makes fomenting rebellion impossible. And the US government, unlike the British, isn't separated from the people they are fighting by a large ocean, nor are they limited to sail-powered wooden boats to get troops to various points in the country. Even the Civil War can't happen again. The country has become both too small to hide in, and too large to overcome.

These days revolutions are won peacefully, without firing a shot. Martin Luther King Jr. taught us that, that a peaceful march and non-violent resistance wins far more battles in the modern world than guns and bullets.

The modern revolution looks more like the Velvet Revolution of the Czech Republic (a place I had the wonderful opportunity to live in shortly after the fall of communism) than the armed revolt of Iran.

On the 5th of November Guy Fawkes accidentally blew himself up with a bomb he intended to use against the British Parliament, which you'll note is still standing. Coincidentally, the only people the Weather Underground ever managed to kill where some of their own members, also with their own bomb.

It's good to try to remember the difference between fantasy (lone nut takes down uber powerful fascist government with a few bombs and public support), and reality (would be revolutionaries blowing themselves up with their own bombs).

Sure the government has more technology at their disposal these days, but the concept is in itself still sound. The key is if you can attract a critical mass of people to your cause. It's the "public support" not the bombs that do the job in V for Vendetta. Let's say for the sake of argument that V didn't even use bombs. Let's say he showed up with that crowd and simply marched on the gates of Parliment. Then let's say he tells the asembled crowd, who now is SURROUNDING the armed forces on the ground that they need to forcibly take control back from the government. The armed forces soldiers would have been rendered helpless in seconds, and the same end would have occurred.

If Martin Luther King had said the same words he spoke in Washington with only a few people around, he would no doubt have been arrested. But it's a whole other story when you have a million standing there hanging on your every word. It's that same other story that had the police largely standing around impotent during the L.A. riots.

The whole key is in the numbers. And it's not at all impossible to get those numbers, in fiction or otherwise.

[bobburgster]

Are those same militias under CONTROL of the government? Certainly not. They exist as a totally separate entity from the infrastructure of the government, inlike police, federal agencies, and the Armed Forces.

If you are referring to the National Guard....it is most definitely under the CONTROL of the government.

[Krasch]

If you are referring to the National Guard....it is most definitely under the CONTROL of the government.

No I wasn't. The National Guard is a special case of a citizen militia that is under control of the government. Most militias in the US are not.

The National Guard is the exception that proves the rule.

[CD]

This talk of militias sounds like a neighborhood watch group that is strapped.

[PistolPoet]

Agreed, except that gun controls laws do nothing and will do nothing about criminals using illegally obtained weapoins. The very act of obtaining one illegally circumvents all laws by definition. So more gun control laws will serve only to inconvenience and screw over law-abiding citizens.

That's simply not true. Stricter gun control laws do make it harder for criminals to gain access to firearms, and do make it easier to get criminals off the streets for simple possession of an illegal firearm.

Expressing displeasure about the state of the government is no doubt technically sedition, but yet people, even the media, does so on a regular basis.

We're not talking about expressing displeasure, we're talking about fomenting revolution. Apples and oranges.

The Smith Act hasn't been used since 1961. If you could get enough people on your side, things change. Imagine if all those million-odd people who attended the Obama Inauguration had then decided to forcibly remove the present government. Think they wouldn't have succeeded?

First of all I don't think that those million-odd people there to celebrate the inauguration of the new President would suddenly and spontaneously transform into a revolutionary army, and I think relying on such hypothetical only illustrates how ridiculous the idea of armed revolution really is.

And yes, I do believe the US government could have put down that crowd long before the state was in any danger of collapsing.

A useless example since Koresh had nothing to do with militias, but the leader of a religious sect.

I was illustrating the futility of attempting to organize a group of armed soldiers towards the end of overthrowing or resisting the government.

Sure the government has more technology at their disposal these days, but the concept is in itself still sound. The key is if you can attract a critical mass of people to your cause. It's the "public support" not the bombs that do the job in V for Vendetta. Let's say for the sake of argument that V didn't even use bombs. Let's say he showed up with that crowd and simply marched on the gates of Parliment. Then let's say he tells the asembled crowd, who now is SURROUNDING the armed forces on the ground that they need to forcibly take control back from the government. The armed forces soldiers would have been rendered helpless in seconds, and the same end would have occurred.

Actually, in the real world, the soldiers would have opened fire with their fully automatic weapons and mowed down those civilians, which would have resulted in mass panic and total rout. But hey, don't let a little thing like reality intrude on your little fantasy here.

If Martin Luther King had said the same words he spoke in Washington with only a few people around, he would no doubt have been arrested. But it's a whole other story when you have a million standing there hanging on your every word. It's that same other story that had the police largely standing around impotent during the L.A. riots.

MLK was arrested, multiple times, despite having a large following. Do the words "Letters From A Birmingham Jail" mean anything? It was MLK's message of non-violence that allowed him to gain such a huge following and have such tremendous impact.

The whole key is in the numbers. And it's not at all impossible to get those numbers, in fiction or otherwise.

It's impossible to get those numbers by preaching armed revolution against the state. At least in modern America.

[joerockhead]

All this BS talkin about militias and such, is making me thing of Clint Eastwood and the movie "The Outlaw Josie Wales". he was rebling and doing a damn fine job of it!

So go get your six shooter's!

:mstad:

[Krasch]

That's simply not true. Stricter gun control laws do make it harder for criminals to gain access to firearms, and do make it easier to get criminals off the streets for simple possession of an illegal firearm.

Bollocks! Just ask any citizen of Toronto or any other major Canadian city where our gun laws make the most stringent in the US look like the Wild West by comparison how effective those laws are in making it harder for criminals to get guns and you'll see how wrong your statement is.

We're not talking about expressing displeasure, we're talking about fomenting revolution. Apples and oranges.

First of all I don't think that those million-odd people there to celebrate the inauguration of the new President would suddenly and spontaneously transform into a revolutionary army, and I think relying on such hypothetical only illustrates how ridiculous the idea of armed revolution really is.

And yes, I do believe the US government could have put down that crowd long before the state was in any danger of collapsing.

If someone had decided to spur that million people to violence the police et al would have been helpless. Get real. There were far fewer people actively involved in the L.A. riots and the cops were just as helpless. How much harder would it be for them to reassert control with many times the number of the L.A. rioters.

I was illustrating the futility of attempting to organize a group of armed soldiers towards the end of overthrowing or resisting the government.

A few dozen people. Not a large number by any stretch. Now who's talking apples and oranges. Like I said before, things change radically when the numbers climb.

Actually, in the real world, the soldiers would have opened fire with their fully automatic weapons and mowed down those civilians, which would have resulted in mass panic and total rout. But hey, don't let a little thing like reality intrude on your little fantasy here.

Surrounded on all sides by a horde of people? Not at all likely. It's far more likely those few soliders would have gotten some shots off then been collectively pulped by the rest of the massive throng.

MLK was arrested, multiple times, despite having a large following. Do the words "Letters From A Birmingham Jail" mean anything? It was MLK's message of non-violence that allowed him to gain such a huge following and have such tremendous impact.

It's impossible to get those numbers by preaching armed revolution against the state. At least in modern America.

He may have had a following, but they wren't there at the time ready to pound the police were they? In Washington during the march it was a whole different ball game. And a different result.

Just think back. Race relations at the time were incredibly frayed. What would have happened in MLK had decided to foment violence at that podium with all those people there instead of a message of peace? The police outnumbered over 100 to 1...

[PistolPoet]

Bollocks! Just ask any citizen of Toronto or any other major Canadian city where our gun laws make the most stringent in the US look like the Wild West by comparison how effective those laws are in making it harder for criminals to get guns and you'll see how wrong your statement is.

I'm going to hazard a guess that it's easy to get an illegal gun in Canada precisely because it borders the Wild West, i.e. America. It can't be easy to control the sale of guns when you share a huge open border with Uncle Sam's 24 Hour Gun Show.

But you're not actually proving your point. It may not be difficult to get a gun in Toronto now, but it would be even easier if Canada had no gun control laws.

If someone had decided to spur that million people to violence the police et al would have been helpless. Get real. There were far fewer people actively involved in the L.A. riots and the cops were just as helpless. How much harder would it be for them to reassert control with many times the number of the L.A. rioters.

Sure. For awhile. But order would be restored. If the state was in serious danger, they would call in the National Guard. If somehow it got that desperate, they'd suspend posse commitas and send in the flippin' Marines.

I know some Marines. I'm always putting my money on them. Jarheads do not lose.

What made the cops "helpless" in the LA riots was the strong desire to not have a bunch of white cops kill a large number of black rioters and thus set off race riots across the country. So the decision was made to contain the riots and let them run their course. That's politics, not power.

And ultimately, what did the LA riots accomplish? A bunch of angry black people destroyed their own neighborhood, and nothing much changed.

A few dozen people. Not a large number by any stretch. Now who's talking apples and oranges. Like I said before, things change radically when the numbers climb.

The point you seem to be missing is that they come and stop you when you're big enough to notice but small enough to contain. Like David Koresh. See, you start with one. But before you are ten million, you must be ten. Then one hundred. Then the ATF kills everyone at your compound and the Attorney General gos on national TV and explains how it was all your fault they blew you up.

Hell, they got Randy Weaver when he was still just one guy. And his dog too.

Surrounded on all sides by a horde of people? Not at all likely. It's far more likely those few soliders would have gotten some shots off then been collectively pulped by the rest of the massive throng.

No, untrained civilians do not rush firing embankments of soldiers with automatic weapons. Maybe a few do, but the greatest mass -- the women, the children, the cowardly men, the smart men -- rout. They hear gunfire and screams, they smell blood and smoke, and they flee.

Soldiers have to be trained to march into gunfire. Ask some guys who went through boot-camp. Given the type of board is this, I bet we've got at least a few veterans about.

Just think back. Race relations at the time were incredibly frayed. What would have happened in MLK had decided to foment violence at that podium with all those people there instead of a message of peace? The police outnumbered over 100 to 1...

Have you ever heard the story of Boadicea and the Celts?

Boadicea was Queen of the Iceni, early Brits, at the time when the Romans were first conquering the British Isle. Her husband was killed by the Romans, and they raped her daughter in a town square. This really pissed off the Celts, and they were ready to back their queen up no matter what that meant.

So she formed them into an army and lead them into battle. Some estimate it was over 100,000 men strong. And they took after the Romans. They surprised part of the IX Hispania (a Roman legion) on the road to Colchester and lay waste to them, going on to seize the city.

Flush with success, they sacked three more cities before the Roman governor could recall the XIV Gemini Legion and assembled bits of other legions from the field and try to stop Boadicea. Her army outnumbered the XIV by about 25 to 1 -- 10,000 against a quarter of a million men. But when the two armies met, they met on the Romans terms. There was no surprise in this battle. The Celts fought mostly naked and without formations, seeking out individual battles. The Romans used the shield phalanx and formed a saw-tooth v formation line, choosing a long gorge that left their flanks cover and their rear protected as the battleground. The Celts brought their families with them, set their wagon in a large cresent behind their army so they could watch the defeat of the Romans.

When the Celts hit the Romans, they could not penetrate their shield wall. Because they were a unformed mass, they became trapped in the v's of the formation and could not escape. The Romans were able to cut them down with their gladius, and as each Roman tired, he could fall back in his formation and be instantly replaced with a fresh troop.

The Romans advanced, and the Celts were pressed back against their own supply lines, their families wagons. The sawtooth v formation kept them from escaping to either side. They were routed by had nowhere to flee, and could not escape or break through that damn phalanx. So they died. And the Romans sacked their supply lines, slaughtered their families.

Some 10000 Romans. Close to 250,000 Celts. Roman casualties numbered around 400. The Celts lost half their number.

What is the moral of this story?

Surprise and overwhelming numbers will win a battle even if your troops are untempered and untrained barbarians. But over the long term, the military force with superior training and superior technology wins. Bet on it.

[rudel]

The supreme court has determined in the Heller case that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right ,not a collective right as liberals would have you believe.Anyone who has studied early American history knows the reason the second amendment was added to the constitution was fear of a strong central government getting out of control(sound familiar) after all they had just fought a war against a tyrannical government for independence.

There is no rational reason to enact more gun control laws unless you have an ulterior motive other than crime control . The number of guns in the US has grown since the assault weapons ban was lifted, yet the crime rate has dropped. Look at almost any city with strict gun control laws and you have a city with a high crime rate. Miami however has made it easier for law abiding citizens to get guns and carry them and their crime rate has dropped dramatically despite liberal's concerns it would turn to a wild west mentality and blood would run in the streets.

Another recent tactic is to say the drug violence in Mexico is due to the easy flow of guns from the US and we need to reenact the "assault weapons ban" to help Mexico.In fact they say that 90% of the guns used by the drug cartels are from the US. What they fail to mention is that the 90% figure is that 90%of the small number of guns that they gave to BATFE to trace came from the US not 90% of the total guns seized. The Mexican government has Photo OPS to show all the guns they've seized. They show tables covered with all the full auto M16s AKs RPGs and grenades they've recovered. What they don't tell you is that those are all impossible to buy legally in the US. Full auto weapons are illegal to possess unless you pay a $200 tax for each one and you have to be approved by the federal government,state law enforcement and local law enforcement. Fully automatic weapons are also in short supply in the US and range in price from $10,000 and up. Why would a drug dealer go to all the trouble when you can get all the AKs and RPGs you need from any of the many Russian supplied countries in the area for a fraction of the cost and hassle, or cut out the middle man and go directly to the Russian mob. As for the M16 and M4s (several of them in the photo ops had M203 grenade launchers attached that's not something you can get at the local gun shop) Those most likely come from corrupt Mexican army officers or corrupt police officers .

So boys and girls the moral of the story is fear the government that fears your guns and tells half truths and outright lies to get them.

[Juan.Camaney]

Let me start by saying that I am a proud gun owner, and that I count in my family many gun collectors, at least one gun shop owner, and an uncle-in-law who has (unlike the vast majority of gun owners) actually used his gun to stop a spree killing before it began (in Glasgow, MT).
:juan: nice. I own a power drill, most of the men in my family own power drills, one of my cousins has a power tool repair shop and sells used power drills, and many people in my family use power drills daily at work. Doesn't make any of us power drill experts, and definitely not myself. :tongue: So whatever you say on here is about as biased as everyone elses info.

That said, many of the posters in this thread are being paranoid and ridiculous.
Remind us which state you live in and how strict/lose the rules are.

I was an NRA member from 1987 to 2002, when I finally became so tired of their hysteria, lies and misrepresentations that I could no longer in good conscience give them money or support them.
Took 15 years? Really?!

No, point of fact, the second amendment does not say that, and it does not mean that. You know very well that the second amendment is not a free pass that gives everyone the right to own any weapon they want. You are entirely ignoring the militia clause, just like every other gun-nut out there does -- when it's convenient!
:bsflag: We don't ignore it. We simply read it differently than people like you and others. The text of something so simple is twisted for personal views. There *ARE* militias in the US operating quite freely and within the law. Thanks to groups like the NRA ensures everyone equal rights to guns.

The second amendment says that being necessary to the security of a free State and a well regulated militia the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It is a well-established fact of US law that if a citizen wants access to weapons beyond small arms used for self-defense they must join a branch of the US military, such as the national guard. You know already that it is illegal to own bombs, rocket launchers, missiles, and other heavy ordnance.
Really? Explain how I was able to pay 50 bucks to shoot 20 rounds of a fully automatic 50 cal at the gun show then. Was I paying it to the military? I don't want everyone to own grenades, that would be ridiculous. But if we keep letting people reclassify guns as military grade, the line becomes too blurry. Before long, they will say a whistle is as good a weapon as a shot gun and take that away too.

Yet if we are to believe the statements you make in this post, those are all protected by the 2nd! But the reality is that they are not, and you're squealing to the contrary doesn't make it true.

If we we're to listen to people like you, this country would be reduced to a chaotic warzone, and our cities would become as awful as places like Terhan and Bagdad, with anyone able to commit atrocious acts of terrorism with ease.

But of course, as sane and reasonable people, we understand that ordinary citizens do not need assault weapons and flash suppressors. The people who need these things are the military, law enforcement and criminals. So if you want to play with them, join the military or become a cop. And if you can't do either (they screen out most of the real whack-jobs), then maybe it's for the best you not get them.
Riiiight. So in contrast taking all the guns away from the public would create utopian societies where the only crimes commited are multi sylabic insults in drive by format. Give me a break, here! We used to have access to most of the weapons available to what the random thug carries in "Terhan and Bagdad" and we used to be just fine. I love that last statement, by the way...first you say military, law enforecement and criminals, then you lump them altogether and leave out the criminal part. :graffin: I'm able minded and bodied enough to be in the military. I don't need to go through boot camp and have some asshole bark orders at me in order for me to learn how to handle small and medium caliber multi round hunting rifles. It should be my right as an american, tax paying, law abiding citizen to be able to take classes elsewhere and prove myself competent enough as a c- average 19 year old who put on a uniform and was trained by the federal government.

As for the rest of the paranoia in this thread, I would remind gun advocates of two very important facts:

1) It's still easier to get a gun than a car. I am personally in favor of gun licenses and gun registration. We require licenses and registration for cars, and guns require at least as much responsibility as cars.

Furthermore, despite decades of the government having a list of every person who owns a car, they have never rounded up all the car owners and thrown them in a gulag. Because that is a ridiculous paranoid fantasy, and if you are so out of touch with reality that you think you are in some sort of danger because you own a licensed and registered firearm, then honestly I don't think you are mentally stable enough to own one.
So much misinformation here. First, we do not require licenses or registration to take a street rod in for saturday night test and tune at the drag strips. Second, if you think the government doesn't keep lists based upon car ownership and government issued ID's then you haven't been paying attention lately at the no fly lists and other BS lists the government keeps. Thankfully, people like you aren't in charge of saying who gets a gun and who doesn't.

Gun control laws only ensure that the only guns owned are owned by responsible citizens willing to accept the consequences of their actions. If it were required, I would gladly license my registered firearm. I have no intention of murdering anyone with my gun, and so I see absolutely no reason to worry if the police can trace it back to me.
Judging by this statement, I can tell you live in a state that is pretty lax with gun laws. How do you feel about the people of Washington DC and their gun rights? What about Californians? See, a few weeks ago, an off-duty police officer was able to protect himself and his family against 2 thugs at an angels game, thus proving the need in california for average citizens to be able to carry and protect their own. We already license our registered firearms. We already show ID when buying ammo. Essentialy, every state out there is pretty much WAY WAY WAY easier when it comes to gun owneship and the laws that come with it....and we still have the highest rates of crime, the highest rates of crimes commited with illegaly owned or aquired guns, etc. Proving that extreme gun control doesn't do shit.

If you think you have reason to worry that your gun will be traced back to you, then I seriously have to question what sort of crime you are planning to commit with it. Only criminals, terrorists and paranoids want guns no-one else knows about.
If you read through the thread, I don't think anyone really minds having a gun traced back to them. Its the sillyness that comes with getting a gun in the first place. If you live in some hillbilly state where the population is sparse and not too many people have the same name, its not really a problem. When you live in CA and there are a lot of Jose Lopez and many of those have criminal records, it goes to show that giving everyone unique ID numbers, unique SS numbers, even UNIQUE finger prints doesn't do shit but make me wait a few more weeks so I can call some jack ass and have him clear my record so I can get my piece.

2) No one is ever going to overthrow the American government violently. Please, get this through your heads. Your guns will not stop the US government. People have tried to start violent revolutions in this country. Go research the history of the Weather Underground, and recognize the reality of the situation: between local police departments and the FBI, any attempt to create a revolutionary army has no chance AT ALL of succeeding.
:cool: I have no desire to go against the US Army. I have every intent in doing their job for them should they need me to while they get dispatched over to my area. Take Katrina, for instance. Not enough military there to go around and protect certain areas. Thanks to gun owning citizens who were brave enough to hold back criminals, many were able to return home to get their important documents and valuables. Those who waited for the military were rushed into buses and taken away from their property.

One man against the state is a terrorist. One man against the government is that guy who shot up the Holocaust Museum: a lone psycho disconnected from reality. If it's you vs the state, YOU LOSE.
Yeah, and if you lay your arms down completely and quit fighting back, you got Korea. Prefiero morir de pie que vivir de rodillas!

If you want to keep America a free society, then don't vote for fascists who promise you they won't enact gun control, vote for people who support an open government that discloses all the facts to its people. Vote for people who support fair and honest elections. Vote for people who genuinely appreciate the diversity of opinion that makes America great.
Transparency? :bowrofl: :bowrofl: :bowrofl: How's that working out for the Obama people? Fair and honest elections...what an oxymoron.




Because those are the things that guarantee our freedom, not our guns.
:draggon: just remember, kids. This Saturday when you are barbquing and lighting up morning glories for the kids, remember those brave men who wrote strongly worded letters at England so we can get our freedom. :bowrofl: :bowrofl: :bowrofl: :bowrofl: :bowrofl:

[Krasch]

The last two posts are just so... right.

Bravo you guys for giving this Canucklehead something to smile about...

[Car Enthusiast]

Cite please, as I strongly suspect that a rational examination of the facts will show that your description of whatever event you are referring to will turn out to be a paranoid overreaction to nothing.



Um, no. I'm not posting the addresses of my family on the internet. Are you crazy? As for what firearms I own, I have two .22 pistols (one's a Ruger Mark III, the other's a nice Chinese model used in the Olympics), and Winchester Model 70, and a bolt-action .22 rifle that I haven't fired since I was 12.

New Orleans siezed law abiding citizens weapons after hurricane Katrina

Louisiana Sportsman-You don’t lose gun rights in traffic stop (http://www.louisianasportsman.com/details.php?id=1226)

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/43347632.html?bunfingers

I especially like how Milwaukee's police chief says he will ignore this and continue to harrass law abiding citizens for doing what they are allowed to do by Federal and State law
"Law officers preparing
Meanwhile, some law enforcement officials are preparing to face more open-carry situations, and some are clear the memo won't change their approach.

Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn said he'll continue to tell officers they can't assume people are carrying guns legally in a city that has seen nearly 200 homicides in the past two years.

"My message to my troops is if you see anybody carrying a gun on the streets of Milwaukee, we'll put them on the ground, take the gun away and then decide whether you have a right to carry it," Flynn said. "Maybe I'll end up with a protest of cowboys. In the meantime, I've got serious offenders with access to handguns. It's irresponsible to send a message to them that if they just carry it openly no one can bother them." "

also you can check out the current situation in Cleveland where the state has said their gun laws are illegal but the Mayor will not comply and continues to try to keep unconstitutional laws in place.

And my point about posting your address on the internet was about gun registration. Once I have to register my weapons with a Governmental body someone can use that against me. For what you ask, who knows but I would rather someone not know what property I own or what is inside of my home. If you think it hasn't happened in the past already you can check out Ohio's ccw law revision where they had to include legislation because gun control advocates who were newspaper editors were getting the list of people who had concealed carry permits and were putting that information in the newspapers for public view.

And explain to me if you enacted complete weapons bans throughout the united states how you would keep the already unregistered weapons out of criminals hands? And yes Canada you say can't keep weapons out because America is next door, but how do you explain the crime rates in countries with weapon bans that don't border the United States

[PistolPoet]

Juan, I would reply to these rather weak and mostly spurious arguments, but your tone is so obnoxious that I'm not interested in discussing anything with you. Feel free to try again with less attitude.

[PistolPoet]

No I wasn't. The National Guard is a special case of a citizen militia that is under control of the government. Most militias in the US are not.

The National Guard is the exception that proves the rule.

Militias in America are militias in the same sense that the pop-synth band Army of Lovers is a military force. American militia groups are like Civil War re-enactors, but not as cool.

A bunch of men who aren't qualified to serve in the National Guard engaging in quasi-military training while wearing camo face-paint is more a sad joke than anything else, and it's certainly not a meaningful part of our nation's defense forces. These things are like fan clubs for people who have seen Red Dawn too many times.

The reality is that if America was attacked, these militia groups would be more of a hindrance than help. They would not be called on by the government to help defend the country, and would probably end up being put down by the National Guard as a nuisance.

[PistolPoet]

I especially like how Milwaukee's police chief says he will ignore this and continue to harrass law abiding citizens for doing what they are allowed to do by Federal and State law

They're well within their rights. It's a complicated issue, but the right of law enforcement officers to temporarily secure weapons in the interest of public safety is well-established.

And my point about posting your address on the internet was about gun registration.

That's a silly point then, because clearly registering with a government agency and posting things on the internet are nothing at all alike. I'm registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles, but they don't just give out my address and particulars to just anyone.

Once I have to register my weapons with a Governmental body someone can use that against me.

That's just paranoid speculation. Someone could use your driver's license registration against you. Does anyone? No.

And explain to me if you enacted complete weapons bans throughout the united states how you would keep the already unregistered weapons out of criminals hands?

Well obviously you can't. But guns, especially when owned by moron criminals with no firearms training, rust and break down. They get lost, they get swept up by the police during routine law enforcement and destroyed. Eventually their numbers will dwindle. It may take awhile, but it's certainly possible.

Remember that most illegal guns aren't seized after their use in a crime, but before, during other routine arrests. Gang-banger gets popped for slinging crystal on the corner, cops find a revolver tucked in his waistband, that's a gun off the streets.

And yes Canada you say can't keep weapons out because America is next door, but how do you explain the crime rates in countries with weapon bans that don't border the United States

Gun control has little to do with crime rates overall, but rather gun crimes. Nations with strong gun control tend to have much lower rates of gun crime, though not necessarily lower rates of crime.

[supersatch]

Ironic that a guy named "PistolPoet" is the gun law advocate.

Those who know me know that two of my greatest hero's are Voltaire and Thomas Jefferson.

Voltaire- "It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."

"An ideal form of government is democracy tempered with assassination."

Jefferson- "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

and one more from TJ for Obama; "The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not."

Though I could go on forever on this topic I think Penn and Teller tell it best on their tv show Bullshit.
If you don't want to watch the whole thing, the main points that I want people to get out of this are in Part 2 at 1:50-2:50, Part 2 at 8:00-8:34, and part 3 at 1:04-2:00. It mainly deals with the inability of gun laws to accomplish their mission and the intended rights of the founding fathers. If you agree with the interpretation but disagree with the founding fathers then we might as well throw out the entire Constitution.

Part 1
SCXtfR0_roE&feature=related

Part 2
MtqufzEFCzw&feature=related

Part 3
YoIKlO20RqM&feature=related

[Juan.Camaney]

Juan, I would reply to these rather weak and mostly spurious arguments, but your tone is so obnoxious that I'm not interested in discussing anything with you. Feel free to try again with less attitude.

That's okay, guy. We aren't here to impress anyone with our above average writting proficiency and to apease to everyones sandy crotch. If you can't take the fact that I rebutted each and every one of your posts with obnoxious yet very valid points, then move on. Read the rules though:
Edge of the Hole Serious Discussions and debates. Forum Rules are strictly enforced. No Post whoring, flaming, thread hijacking or smart ass replies.
:nono:

Please, in the name of all gun enthusiests everywhere, stop spreading your missinformation.

Are you aware of the military near border towns asking to search vehicles at random and asking them where the guns are? A clear violation of illegal search and seizure. They are detaining people for no reason other than to search their cars for guns, and whether they be legal, or illegal, registered or unregistered, they are being stopped and detained with no legal right. Their excuse, to stop the weapons trade into mexico...another tired point. Do guns make it south of the border from the US....yeah. Are they the same guns the cartels are using in their heavily armored war against each other? Nah. Last I heard, no one could own bazookas around here. Those come from the black market where the majority of high powered weapons that criminals use come from.

:hay:

[Juan.Camaney]

In Border States, BATFE Asks: "May We See Your Guns?"

Friday, June 19, 2009


NRA-ILA has recently received several calls from NRA members in border states who have been visited or called by agents of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. In some cases, agents have asked to enter these people's homes, and requested serial numbers of all firearms the members possess.

In each case, the agents were making inquiries based on the number of firearms these NRA members had recently bought, and in some cases the agents said they were asking because the members had bought types of guns that are frequently recovered in Mexico.

This kind of questioning may or may not be part of a legitimate criminal investigation. For example, when BATFE traces a gun seized after use in a crime, manufacturers' and dealers' records will normally lead to the first retail buyer of that gun, and investigators will have to interview the buyer to find out how the gun ended up in criminal hands. But in other cases, the questioning may simply be based on information in dealers' records, with agents trying to "profile" potentially suspicious purchases.

On the other hand, some of the agents have used heavy-handed tactics. One reportedly demanded that a gun owner return home early from a business trip, while another threatened to "report" an NRA member as "refusing to cooperate." That kind of behavior is outrageous and unprofessional.

Whether agents act appropriately or not, concerned gun owners should remember that all constitutional protections apply. Answering questions in this type of investigation is generally an individual choice. Most importantly, there are only a few relatively rare exceptions to the general Fourth Amendment requirement that law enforcement officials need a warrant to enter a home without the residents' consent. There is nothing wrong with politely, but firmly, asserting your rights.
If BATFE contacts you and you have any question about how to respond, you may want to consult a local attorney. NRA members may also call NRA-ILA's Office of Legislative Counsel at (703) 267-1161 for further information. Whether contacting a local attorney or NRA, be sure to provide as many details as possible, including the date, time, and location, agent's name, and specific questions asked.

[Juan.Camaney]

23 State Attorneys General To Attorney General Holder: "No Semi-Auto Ban"

Friday, June 12, 2009


On June 11, the top law enforcement officials of nearly half the states signed a letter to U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, expressing their opposition to reinstatement of the federal ban on semi-automatic firearms.

"We share the Obama Administration's commitment to reducing illegal drugs and violent crime within the United States. We also share your deep concern about drug cartel violence in Mexico. However, we do not believe that restricting law-abiding Americans' access to certain semi-automatic firearms will resolve any of these problems," the letter said.

The letter notes congressional opposition to bringing back the ban, and calls for increasing enforcement of existing laws.

We encourage NRA members to let these state officials know we appreciate them standing up to the incessant clamor for gun control that is currently coming from anti-gun groups and their media allies.

The 23 state Attorneys General, in alphabetical order, by state, are:

Arkansas – The Honorable Dustin McDaniel
Alabama - The Honorable Troy King
Colorado - The Honorable John W. Suthers
Florida - The Honorable Bill McCollum
Georgia - The Honorable Thurbert E. Baker
Idaho - The Honorable Lawrence G. Wasden
Kansas - The Honorable Steve Six
Kentucky - The Honorable Jack Conway
Louisiana - The Honorable James D. Caldwell
Michigan - The Honorable Mike Cox
Missouri - The Honorable Chris Koster
Montana - The Honorable Steve Bullock
Oklahoma - The Honorable W.A. Edmonson
Nebraska - The Honorable Jon Bruning
Nevada - The Honorable Catherine Cortez Masto
New Hampshire - The Honorable Kelly A. Ayotte
North Dakota - The Honorable Wayne Stenehjem
South Carolina - The Honorable Henry McMaster
South Dakota - The Honorable Lawrence Long
Texas - The Honorable Greg Abbott
Utah - The Honorable Mark L. Shurtleff
Wisconsin – The Honorable J.B. Van Hollen
Wyoming - The Honorable Bruce A. Salzburg

To read the letter in its entirety, please click here.

http://www.nraila.org/media/PD...eAGsLetter061109.pdf

[Juan.Camaney]

"Encoded Ammunition"/Bullet Serialization


"Encoded Ammunition" (Bullet and Cartridge Case Serialization) Means:

* Forfeiture of Currently-Owned Ammunition

* A Separate Registration for Every Box of New Ammunition

* Outrageously Expensive Ammunition Costs for Police & Private Citizens Alike

*A Waste of Taxpayer Money, Better Spent on Traditional Police Programs

In 2007, the sponsor of "encoded ammunition" legislation in Maryland urged lawmakers across the country to introduce the same kind of legislation in their states. The bill would require ammunition manufacturers to engrave a serial number on "the base of the bullet and the inside of the cartridge casing of each round" of ammunition for popular sporting caliber center-fire rifles, all center-fire pistols, all .22 rimfire rifles and pistols, and all 12 gauge shotguns.

Reasons to Strenuously Oppose This Legislation

People would be required to forfeit all personally-owned non-encoded ammunition. After a certain date, it would be illegal to possess non-encoded ammunition. Gun owners possess hundreds of millions of rounds of ammunition for target shooting, hunting and personal protection. Consider that American manufacturers produce 8 billion rounds each year.

Reloading (re-using cartridge cases multiple times) would be abolished. There would be no way to correspond serial numbers on cartridge cases, and different sets and quantities of bullets.

People would be required to separately register every box of "encoded ammunition." This information would be supplied to the police. Most states do not even require registration of guns. Each box of ammunition would have a unique serial number, thus a separate registration.

Private citizens would have to maintain records, if they sold ammunition to anyone, including family members or friends.

The cost of ammunition would soar, for police and private citizens alike. The Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturing Institute estimates it would take three weeks to produce ammunition currently produced in a single day. For reason of cost, manufacturers would produce only ultra-expensive encoded ammunition, which police would have to buy, just like everyone else.

A tax of five cents a round would be imposed on private citizens, not only upon initial sale, but every time the ammunition changes hands thereafter.

Shotgun ammunition cannot be engraved. Shotgun pellets are too small to be individually engraved. Shotgun cartridge cases are made of plastic, which would be difficult to engrave.

Criminals could beat the system. A large percentage of criminals' ammunition (and guns) is stolen. Criminals could also collect ammunition cases from shooting ranges, and reload them with molten lead bullets made without serial numbers.

Congress eliminated a similar requirement in the 1980s, because there was no law enforcement benefit. Federal law had required purchasers of handgun ammunition to sign a ledger, but Congress repealed that requirement in 1983 (.22 rimfire) and 1986 (center-fire handguns), because it burdened purchasers, vendors and police, with no law enforcement benefit.


Video
YouTube - Ammo Serialization Interview with ACS's Russ Ford (Pt 1of 5) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gppekgor-jE)

There are multiple parts to this video on Youtube.

[Car Enthusiast]

They're well within their rights. It's a complicated issue, but the right of law enforcement officers to temporarily secure weapons in the interest of public safety is well-established.

You are absolutely right, it is okay for them to secure a gun during a stop, but to stop someone just because they have a gun isn't, and to throw someone to the ground is ridiculous



That's a silly point then, because clearly registering with a government agency and posting things on the internet are nothing at all alike. I'm registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles, but they don't just give out my address and particulars to just anyone.

Um what? People use license information all the time against someone, and if you have been on the internet at all you know people do not post their license plates as people can track you down with it. And having a conceal carry license at least in the state of Ohio puts that information in the public light for all who want to go to the courthouse and see who has one can.


That's just paranoid speculation. Someone could use your driver's license registration against you. Does anyone? No.

What? you really don't think someone has used someone else's Driver's license against someone else. Once again, put your driver's license information up online or at least pm it to me and see what I can do with that information.


Well obviously you can't. But guns, especially when owned by moron criminals with no firearms training, rust and break down. They get lost, they get swept up by the police during routine law enforcement and destroyed. Eventually their numbers will dwindle. It may take awhile, but it's certainly possible.

Remember that most illegal guns aren't seized after their use in a crime, but before, during other routine arrests. Gang-banger gets popped for slinging crystal on the corner, cops find a revolver tucked in his waistband, that's a gun off the streets.

statistics please, as you are just making scenarious up to support your views. But I absolutely agree with firearms aren't siezed after a crime, as statistically there aren't that many firearm crimes as you think.


Gun control has little to do with crime rates overall, but rather gun crimes. Nations with strong gun control tend to have much lower rates of gun crime, though not necessarily lower rates of crime.

Why do you keep saying things that only support owning a firearm. You just said that having firearms don't lower crime rates just gun crimes. Which says to me that you are still going to have crimes/deaths even though guns are gone. Kinda like guns don't kill, People do

Jeez it seems you are very uninformed about how the world works, that or you live in a gated community and are married and who's husbands last name is Brady

[kawligia]

I haven't been here in a while so I have only skimmed through most of these posts. But here are my general thoughts:

The 2nd Amendment reads "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."

There almost was no federal government to begin with. People were afraid that even a federal government of limited powers would grow too large and infringe on the rights of the people. The federal government was agreed on and formed by the Constitution only when there was a guarantee that the Bill of Rights would be quickly formed to limit the power of the government and protect the rights of the PEOPLE. It was the limited nature of the federal government that protected the STATES. The states maintained all powers except those expressly granted to it by the Constitution. Thus, the Bill of Rights is almost entirely a way to protect individual rights. That alone is strong evidence of the 2nd Amendment's intention to protect individual rights.

Furthermore, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights are very carefully worded documents. The words "people" and "state" are used deliberately, as is the word "militia." In the 2nd Amendment, the word "people" is used in contrast to the "militia." If they intended to protect the rights of the "militia" only, they would have used the word "militia" again, not the word "people."

Also, the Bill of Rights was supposed to be simple and concise. If they wanted to protect only the state's rights to have a militia or the rights of militiamen to have weapons while "serving" in the militia, they would have said it in a MUCH more direct fashion. Something along these lines "Congress shall pass no law restricting the rights of the militia to keep and bear arms" or "The rights of militiamen to keep and bear arms for the defense of the state shall not be infringed." That is not what they said. In no other place in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights did they use such vague language as is required under the "collectivist" interpretation; an interpretation which would make the 2nd Amendment an aberration. The Constitution cannot be interpreted to assume that words are used mistakenly or superfluously.

What the first clause of the 2nd Amendment was designed to do is to tell us WHY the 2nd Amendment is there. It is saying that because we simply must have an armed fighting force to protect us, the people must also be armed. The idea is that a government of the people could not survive if the government itself could not be opposed. The difference between a REQUEST and a DEMAND is the having the WILL AND ABILITY to force compliance. If the people have no means with which to oppose tyranny, by force if absolutely necessary, then the demand for freedom becomes nothing more than a request.

That is also why the 2nd Amendment is placed where it is. The freedom of speech embodied in the 1st Amendment is the first line of defense when the government starts to go wrong. Only when that fails to keep the government in line should we turn to rebellion as a last ditch effort to maintain freedom. Those two things, in that order, are what protects all other rights and liberties. Their placement as 1st and 2nd Amendments was not accidental.

And no, it is not just about self-defense, though most people use that approach because they don't like to talk about the ugly truth of potential rebellion. The right to self-defense is a fundamental right but I don't believe the 2nd Amendment has that protection as its MAIN purpose. Not all rights are included in the Bill of Rights because it was not meant to be an exclusive list of all rights. If you notice, the rights to freedom and privacy are not mentioned specifically. That is because it was understood that they, like the right to self-defense, were fundamental rights that were so well ingrained that they didn't even need special mention. Even in England before the American Revolution there were recognized rights to privacy and self-defense. The rights specifically mentioned in the Bill of Rights are the ones that England violated, not the ones they upheld.

Lastly, even IF you want to consider the first clause as more than prefatory explanation of purpose, but a substantive qualification, the argument that the people can be stripped of the right to keep and bear arms still fails. The militia, as it was understood back then, was composed of all able bodied men. The militia was NOT a standing army that was issued service weapons. They were regular citizens that banded together voluntarily, or involuntarily through conscription, for the common defense. Until actually conscripted, the militia was nothing more than the total pool of all people capable of being conscripted. In order for them to be effective as conscripts, they had to have their own weapons and know how to use them. So even under that interpretation, the PEOPLE have an individual right to keep and bear arms so that they were ABLE to take them up when needed.

And no, the National Guard is NOT our version of the militia. The National Guard is equivalent to a standing army that only acts infrequently. Even though times have changed and even our modern militiamen (those drafted into service) are provided weapons and trained in their use, the RIGHT to keep and bear arms has already been granted. Even if you feel that the change in the times has rendered the right granted by the 2nd Amendment unnecessary, you MUST go through the amendment process to change it. If a vested right can be taken away through mere interpretation, then ALL of our rights can be interpreted away just as easily.

[Ryan]

I have a question for both sides of this argument:

Should the issue of citizens arming themselves be a black and white issue? ("The constitution says the right to bear arms...PERIOD")

...or is it an issue with gray areas?

I tend to believe that you can't argue this particular issue without arguing larger scale issues like the rights that are afforded to the government in the constitution. I believe it is fair to compare different rights to each other on a high level, but of course they are vastly different in the details. Realistically, though, it's all a balancing act that was created to essentially protect people from themselves and each other.

Should the government infringe upon our individual rights by protecting us from potentially (though not necessarily) dangerous situations?

I believe that is the greater issue here. Seatbelt laws, helmet laws, etc... These are all instances where the government is intervening in the name of safety and security of its citizens. Was this type of intervention expected when the constitution was written?

I don't think we're ever going to solve this gun control debate without first solving the larger issue.

[kawligia]

I believe that is the greater issue here. Seatbelt laws, helmet laws, etc... These are all instances where the government is intervening in the name of safety and security of its citizens. Was this type of intervention expected when the constitution was written?


No, that type of intervention was not expected when the Constitution was written. Do a search on quotes of the founding fathers. You will find stuff like this:

He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither. -Benjamin Franklin

A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have. -Thomas Jefferson

It's clear that they would have scoffed at the notion of paternalistic government.

That being said, no right is absolute, not even the freedom of speech. For example, the 1st Amendment will not protect you from threatening to murder someone, defrauding your business partner, or committing perjury.

The 2nd Amendment is not absolute either. Certain weapons can be restricted and certain people can be forbidden from any weapon. The thing is, those laws are already on the books. Criminals and the insane are already not permitted to own weapons. Citizens are not allowed to have grenades, howitzers, or fully automatic machine-guns. I'm ok with that, but I draw the line there. If you want my pistol, shotgun, semi-auto rifle, or ammo for any of them, you're going to have to come and fucking take it.

Stuff like bullet stamping, bullet bans, and national registration are just small steps to the ultimate goal of gun bans. It's like when the anti-spanking crowd wanted to ban spanking kids around here. They started by proposing a ban on spanking a child less than 1 year old. After all, why would you spank a 1 year old? They can't do anything wrong and can't be disciplined. The point was not to protect the 1 year old babies from spankings. They wanted to get a spanking ban on the books and let people get used to it. They they would parade some isolated abuse stories to up the age. And they up it some more later on, until eventually spanking was banned. Luckily, people saw through their ruse and it failed.

[Car Enthusiast]

Stuff like bullet stamping, bullet bans, and national registration are just small steps to the ultimate goal of gun bans. It's like when the anti-spanking crowd wanted to ban spanking kids around here. They started by proposing a ban on spanking a child less than 1 year old. After all, why would you spank a 1 year old? They can't do anything wrong and can't be disciplined. The point was not to protect the 1 year old babies from spankings. They wanted to get a spanking ban on the books and let people get used to it. They they would parade some isolated abuse stories to up the age. And they up it some more later on, until eventually spanking was banned. Luckily, people saw through their ruse and it failed.

Dead on truth right there, I don't know why it took me to own what they wanted to take to realize that it isn't about assault rifles or different types of ammunition, it is about the slippery slope that gun control groups want to start down on until the ultimate goal of taking all guns from everyone

[Juan.Camaney]

If you think the founding fathers didn't want our people to own guns, take a look and read this:

Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men

who signed the Declaration of Independence?

Five signers were captured by the British as traitors,

and tortured before they died.

Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned.

Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army;

another had two sons captured.

Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or

hardships of the Revolutionary War.

They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes,

and their sacred honor.

What kind of men were they?

Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists.

Eleven were merchants,

nine were farmers and large plantation owners;

men of means, well educated,

but they signed the Declaration of Independence

knowing full well that the penalty would be death if

they were captured.

Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and

trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the

British Navy. He sold his home and properties to

pay his debts, and died in rags.

Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British

that he was forced to move his family almost constantly.

He served in the Congress without pay, and his family

was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him,

and poverty was his reward.

Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer,

Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton.

At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson, Jr., noted that

the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson

home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General

George Washington to open fire.. The home was destroyed,

and Nelson died bankrupt.

Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed.

The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.

John Hart was driven from his wife's bedside as she was dying.

Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill

were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests

and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his

children vanished.

So, take a few minutes while enjoying your 4th of July holiday and

silently thank these patriots. It's not much to ask for the price they paid.

Remember: freedom is never free!

Yeah, that sounds like people who want their government to tell them which guns they can keep.

[bloomboom]

I love having guns, and I am going to have them whether the govt wants me to or not. Why else have them?

What truly bothers me about all gun advocates all worried about Obama taking away their 2nd amendment rights is that they sat on their asses when BUSH was sacking our 1st, 4th, 5th 6th, 7th, 8th amendments... So keep you mouth shut! The opportunity to defend our rights was forfeited many years ago, from an inordinate fear "terrorism".

And another thing: thank you all for driving up the cost of ammo. I couldn't help but notice everyon is making runs on cheap, poor quality ammo. Hollow points, lead tips and 00 buck are still on the shelves, albeit at ridiculour prices.

[Ryan]

... no right is absolute, not even the freedom of speech. For example, the 1st Amendment will not protect you from threatening to murder someone, defrauding your business partner, or committing perjury.

The 2nd Amendment is not absolute either. Certain weapons can be restricted and certain people can be forbidden from any weapon. The thing is, those laws are already on the books. Criminals and the insane are already not permitted to own weapons. Citizens are not allowed to have grenades, howitzers, or fully automatic machine-guns. I'm ok with that, but I draw the line there. If you want my pistol, shotgun, semi-auto rifle, or ammo for any of them, you're going to have to come and fucking take it.

See that's my problem. You drew the line there. What gives you the right to draw the line there instead of what Juan was saying earlier in the thread (we have the right to own guns...period)?

Or... what about some of the liberals who have said the line should be drawn in a difference place where guns are more controlled?

I just don't see how this can EVER be solved with such wildly different interpretations of a document that was written before any of today's technology and problems existed.

For the record:
I'm anti seat-belt laws, helmet laws, and especially against laws that allow dumb bitches to sue mcdonalds over their coffee being hot.

I personally don't care WHAT guns people can buy or how much ammo. I don't care how many bullets fit in a clip, and as long as we're not allowing anything other than bullet-firing weapons, it's fine with me. I DO, however, believe in a registration program that ensures that every gun sold is sold to a qualified owner (not crazy, not a felon, etc... the existing laws), and I don't see why that can't be the final resolution. I don't think any pro-gun people can offer anything wrong with a gun-owner registry besides "this is the first step in taking away our guns!!!".

It's only the first step if another follows it. You can't cite spanking or anything else as an example of what is GOING to happen. You don't know what is GOING to happen. You THINK something bad is going to happen because it's the worst case scenario to you.

Making people register for weapons and keeping tabs on gun owners is not necessarily the first step to taking away guns. It could be the compromise that satisfies a lot of anti-gun people WHILE allowing pro-gun people to keep their constitutionally protected rights.

[mstad]

"Never trust a government that doesn't trust its own citizens with guns." -Benjamin Franklin


Here's a link that brings up some great points on many gun issues, give it a read.
Why Adopt a Vermont-style CCW Law? (http://gunowners.org/vtcarry.htm)

[Krasch]

See that's my problem. You drew the line there. What gives you the right to draw the line there instead of what Juan was saying earlier in the thread (we have the right to own guns...period)?

Or... what about some of the liberals who have said the line should be drawn in a difference place where guns are more controlled?

I just don't see how this can EVER be solved with such wildly different interpretations of a document that was written before any of today's technology and problems existed.

For the record:
I'm anti seat-belt laws, helmet laws, and especially against laws that allow dumb bitches to sue mcdonalds over their coffee being hot.

I personally don't care WHAT guns people can buy or how much ammo. I don't care how many bullets fit in a clip, and as long as we're not allowing anything other than bullet-firing weapons, it's fine with me. I DO, however, believe in a registration program that ensures that every gun sold is sold to a qualified owner (not crazy, not a felon, etc... the existing laws), and I don't see why that can't be the final resolution. I don't think any pro-gun people can offer anything wrong with a gun-owner registry besides "this is the first step in taking away our guns!!!".

It's only the first step if another follows it. You can't cite spanking or anything else as an example of what is GOING to happen. You don't know what is GOING to happen. You THINK something bad is going to happen because it's the worst case scenario to you.

Making people register for weapons and keeping tabs on gun owners is not necessarily the first step to taking away guns. It could be the compromise that satisfies a lot of anti-gun people WHILE allowing pro-gun people to keep their constitutionally protected rights.

I'd say one CAN draw the line in certain cases, such as convicted felons being unable to own firearms. Would anyone REALLY want someone who's proven a proclivity to break the law to be in possesion of admittedly deadly weapons? I wouldn't. But in general I agree the government shouldn't be able to tell you what kinds of weapons to own.

[Ryan]

I'd say one CAN draw the line in certain cases, such as convicted felons being unable to own firearms. Would anyone REALLY want someone who's proven a proclivity to break the law to be in possesion of admittedly deadly weapons? I wouldn't. But in general I agree the government shouldn't be able to tell you what kinds of weapons to own.

Convicted felons lose more than their right to bear arms. When you're a felon, you're not afforded the same rights as regular citizens. I'm cool with that, and it makes sense. As long as you're a law-abiding citizen in good standing, I see no reason why you can't own whatever firearm you want to own with whatever bullets or clips or whatever.

[mstad]

As long as you're a law-abiding citizen in good standing, I see no reason why you can't own whatever firearm you want to own with whatever bullets or clips or whatever.

Exactly. If I want to own and shoot a fully automatic machine gun, how does that hurt anybody else? I'm a law-abiding citizen, not using any weapons to commit any crime. How is it anybody's business besides myself and maybe the government what I own/shoot?

[PistolPoet]

Should the issue of citizens arming themselves be a black and white issue? ("The constitution says the right to bear arms...PERIOD")...or is it an issue with gray areas?

That's the thing. It's clearly an issue with gray areas. It's all well and good to say that every law abiding citizen should be allowed to own whatever arms they want, regardless of the fact that such arms have neither historical or collector value, or any civilian use. But when as bad as gang violence is, imagine if assault weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, and all other manner of "arms" were legal. Chicago would look like the Gaza Strip.

When guns that have no real civilian use -- assault weapons, grenades, etc. -- are made legal, the first people who buy them are criminals and wanna-be terrorists. So gun control makes sense on at least that level.

Now, the arguments being made against gun control are ridiculous.

Quoting the founding fathers is ludicrous. These were not idiots you people are quoting, but they did live in a very different world. A world that didn't have mass manufacturing, assault rifles, jet fighters, tanks, etc. To try to apply the words of men who were amazed by the modernity of the breech-loading rifle to the modern world of mass manufactured weapons that can kill dozens in seconds...that's insane.

And I'm sorry, but if you really think that an armed insurrection will ever be so popular in America as to avoid being labelled a terrorist movement, and crushed accordingly, then you really don't know jack about politics, history or the modern military.

Really at the end of the day, what it boils down to is that owning guns beyond those needed for hunting and self-defense is unnecessary. There's no good reason to own such weapons, and plenty of reasons -- from high school shooters to gang-bangers to

I mean Christ, some of the people in this thread are actually, seriously arguing that the Founding Fathers wanted the average Crip or Blud to be able to stroll down the streets of Compton with an AK-47 slung from his shoulder. That would be the ACTUAL, REAL CONSEQUENCE of these militia-daydreaming fantasies, the actual end result of combing this love of "open carry" and "why shouldn't I have an assault rifle?"

That's why people call you gun nuts, because you can't see that such an irresponsible viewpoint turns these guys:
http://www.masmenosuno.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/crip02.jpg

Into these guys:
http://www.fmft.net/African%20Infantryman%20of%20the%20Year%20Liberian %20militias%20RPG%207%20FN-FAL%20AK%2047.JPG

And guess what? Nobody wants that! Just because the founding fathers wanted to protect the right of a bunch of farmers to defend themselves from a bunch of politicians doesn't mean that the wisdom still applies. The cost of entertaining these fairy tales of a second american revolution are just too damn high.

[mstad]

When guns that have no real civilian use -- assault weapons, grenades, etc. -- are made legal, the first people who buy them are criminals and wanna-be terrorists. So gun control makes sense on at least that level.

So what you're saying is that because I'm not gonna use a machine gun for hunting or military use, that there's no reason for me to own one?

[Ryan]

When guns that have no real civilian use -- assault weapons, grenades, etc. -- are made legal, the first people who buy them are criminals and wanna-be terrorists. So gun control makes sense on at least that level.

...as long as we're not allowing anything other than bullet-firing weapons, it's fine with me.

No one has been saying that grenades and rocket launchers should be made available. You're spreading misinformation when you start adding in those items. You're creating a straw man argument.

It's well known that I'm a liberal around here, and yet I have to disagree with what you're saying. Have you ever thought about the GOOD that could come from more people owning guns? Sure, the criminals might have more access to them, but what about business owners and home owners? You don't think criminals would stop to think about whether or not the person they were about to rob was strapped?

Right now, criminals can pretty safely assume that most of the public is walking around with no means of defending themselves. They get by on robbing people merely by threatening force, but not actually using it. You'd have to have balls of steel to start pulling out a gun and robbing people if the majority of the population was carrying.

I can really see it going either way, to be honest.

My bottom line:
If the weapon exists, the criminals are going to find a way to get it regardless of gun control laws.

p.s. I guarantee every single one of the "gang-bangers" in your picture could easily get any of the weapons in the "terrorists" picture you posted in under 24 hours.

[mstad]

Really at the end of the day, what it boils down to is that owning guns beyond those needed for hunting and self-defense is unnecessary. There's no good reason to own such weapons, and plenty of reasons -- from high school shooters to gang-bangers to

Ok, this is a better one for me to quote.



What are your thoughts on people putting turbos and nitrous in cars that they drive every day? These people aren't Nascar or NHRA drivers, so what good reason do they have to do that? Do you speak out against that as much as you are about guns?

[CD]

For anyone posting the words of the founding fathers, do you also want to wager that that "RIGHT" (not a privilege) was also directed at black men and women?

If you believe that when this country was being created, a black man had the right to own a gun, then I will bow out of this argument. If not, then I think time and technology has changed the validity of their wisdom at that time.

[Krasch]

That's the thing. It's clearly an issue with gray areas. It's all well and good to say that every law abiding citizen should be allowed to own whatever arms they want, regardless of the fact that such arms have neither historical or collector value, or any civilian use. But when as bad as gang violence is, imagine if assault weapons, grenades, rocket launchers, and all other manner of "arms" were legal. Chicago would look like the Gaza Strip.

When guns that have no real civilian use -- assault weapons, grenades, etc. -- are made legal, the first people who buy them are criminals and wanna-be terrorists. So gun control makes sense on at least that level.

Now, the arguments being made against gun control are ridiculous.

Quoting the founding fathers is ludicrous. These were not idiots you people are quoting, but they did live in a very different world. A world that didn't have mass manufacturing, assault rifles, jet fighters, tanks, etc. To try to apply the words of men who were amazed by the modernity of the breech-loading rifle to the modern world of mass manufactured weapons that can kill dozens in seconds...that's insane.

And I'm sorry, but if you really think that an armed insurrection will ever be so popular in America as to avoid being labelled a terrorist movement, and crushed accordingly, then you really don't know jack about politics, history or the modern military.

Really at the end of the day, what it boils down to is that owning guns beyond those needed for hunting and self-defense is unnecessary. There's no good reason to own such weapons, and plenty of reasons -- from high school shooters to gang-bangers to

I mean Christ, some of the people in this thread are actually, seriously arguing that the Founding Fathers wanted the average Crip or Blud to be able to stroll down the streets of Compton with an AK-47 slung from his shoulder. That would be the ACTUAL, REAL CONSEQUENCE of these militia-daydreaming fantasies, the actual end result of combing this love of "open carry" and "why shouldn't I have an assault rifle?"

That's why people call you gun nuts, because you can't see that such an irresponsible viewpoint turns these guys:
http://www.masmenosuno.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/07/crip02.jpg

Into these guys:
http://www.fmft.net/African%20Infantryman%20of%20the%20Year%20Liberian %20militias%20RPG%207%20FN-FAL%20AK%2047.JPG

And guess what? Nobody wants that! Just because the founding fathers wanted to protect the right of a bunch of farmers to defend themselves from a bunch of politicians doesn't mean that the wisdom still applies. The cost of entertaining these fairy tales of a second american revolution are just too damn high.

Only one big problem with your argument is...

If people were able to carry freely without all the silly restrictions, that old guy in the bottom wouldn't be standing there with his dick in his hand looking helpless.

Punks with gun who chose to commit crimes are far more likely to do so if they know their targets are essentially helpless. It's a lot more daunting if that ol' granny is packing.

It's also the reason why most B & E robberies actually happen to homes left unlocked or with extremely poor locks. Crooks will always go for the easy score versus a hard one. Gun control laws serve to make the law abiding a bunch of easy score sheep amongst the wolves.

[licupssy]

Only one big problem with your argument is...

If people were able to carry freely without all the silly restrictions, that old guy in the bottom wouldn't be standing there with his dick in his hand looking helpless.

Punks with gun who chose to commit crimes are far more likely to do so if they know their targets are essentially helpless. It's a lot more daunting if that ol' granny is packing.

It's also the reason why most B & E robberies actually happen to homes left unlocked or with extremely poor locks. Crooks will always go for the easy score versus a hard one. Gun control laws serve to make the law abiding a bunch of easy score sheep amongst the wolves.

I'd love to see that guy with the rocket launcher fire that in the direction he's aiming.

I've yet to see a convenience store robbed by a guy with a rocket launcher. On the other hand, we had about 12 local convenience stores robbed by a guy who threated the clerk with a carpenter's hammer. What are you going to do pass a law were only a license carpenter can own a carpenter's hammer.

Anyone who thinks gun laws will or have ever prevented a crime needs to look at court records. Most times all small time hoods have been arrested several times and put on probation or let out having severed little of their sentence.

I really doubt the guy in the boat would have done anything if he had a gun. He's totally out gunned. I really don't think the concealed weapon's law are that much a problem.You should know the responsibility you have when carrying a firearm for personal defense. Unless you put yourself in situations where you would be unsafe by yourself, you'll find little use in carrying a weapon.

[Krasch]

I'd love to see that guy with the rocket launcher fire that in the direction he's aiming.

I've yet to see a convenience store robbed by a guy with a rocket launcher. On the other hand, we had about 12 local convenience stores robbed by a guy who threated the clerk with a carpenter's hammer. What are you going to do pass a law were only a license carpenter can own a carpenter's hammer.

Anyone who thinks gun laws will or have ever prevented a crime needs to look at court records. Most times all small time hoods have been arrested several times and put on probation or let out having severed little of their sentence.

I really doubt the guy in the boat would have done anything if he had a gun. He's totally out gunned. I really don't think the concealed weapon's law are that much a problem.You should know the responsibility you have when carrying a firearm for personal defense. Unless you put yourself in situations where you would be unsafe by yourself, you'll find little use in carrying a weapon.

MAYBE he wouldn't have done anything. MAYBE he might have tried blowing their heads off before they got in his boat. Not like the rocket launcher guy was a danger holding it backwards and all. (Great catch, I missed that little detail)

Don't know about you, but I'd rather at least have the option to make that choice, even if I ended up choosing to do nothing.

[Krasch]

For anyone posting the words of the founding fathers, do you also want to wager that that "RIGHT" (not a privilege) was also directed at black men and women?

If you believe that when this country was being created, a black man had the right to own a gun, then I will bow out of this argument. If not, then I think time and technology has changed the validity of their wisdom at that time.

That might depend on the founding father and whether he was a Northern Yankee or not. One might imagine not ALL of them believed in slavery.

[Juan.Camaney]

Wow, can't believe this one is still going.

I believe someone said something about that idiot with the rocket launcher. Someone get that piece away from that idiot before he does somethign stupid(er). One can easily see that that rocket launcher was obtained from the big 5 by that guy who waited the 5 or 10 day waiting period and who is now using it for a crime so therefore we need to make more laws making it harder for him. Oh wait...he is from Liberia? I see. So then maybe those ferocious looking crips will follow the law and get guns to commit their crimes? Good to see if they moved in next to me I am free to protect my house from them...in 2 weeks.

CD, back then, black people were tools just like guns are. You know the answer to what you are asking. Slavery was abolished and along with it, more laws were passed while time passed on to give them more and more rights. People lost their lives, and fought til death to get those rights. The people have a similar right (the one in question on this topic ;) )that is similarly threatened day in and day out by gun ignoramoses (sp?) and that can never be defeated in the courts and I'd bet you a million pesos we aren't about to let our rights go in the same fashion the abolitionists did.

Funny how someone mentioned that the 2nd was meant for a bunch of farmers to defend themselves from evil england or evil government. They were not just farmers. Look at the quotes I posted about the people who signed our important documents. Those farmers won the right for you to even be on here and not sippin tea sending tax moneys to the queen!

Also, I love the argument about the turbos in street cars. It makes perfect sense. Anyone into car modifications knows whats up as far as street cars in a drag strip. Mod your car to within the limits of the class you are using, if you are running certain times or trap speeds you need certain safety equipment, the cars are obviously not for every day use nor for use on the street, if your car can run fast enough times, you even have to be licensed to drive it (or sand bag)!

Again, I can take out more people with my car than with my .40 and I don't have to wait a few weeks to take that bitch out for murder.

[CD]

CD, back then, black people were tools just like guns are. You know the answer to what you are asking. Slavery was abolished and along with it, more laws were passed while time passed on to give them more and more rights. People lost their lives, and fought til death to get those rights. The people have a similar right (the one in question on this topic ;) )that is similarly threatened day in and day out by gun ignoramoses (sp?) and that can never be defeated in the courts and I'd bet you a million pesos we aren't about to let our rights go in the same fashion the abolitionists did.
So basically what you are saying is that the founding fathers didn't have enough foresight to realize blacks were actually people too, but they DID have enough smarts to foresee the right to own automatic rifles that can spray 800+ bullets a second. You can't have it both ways. I personally think that they did an amazing job at that time in history, but since attitudes and technology change over the years, they left it open for amendments. The problem we have going forward is finding the right balance.

Also, I love the argument about the turbos in street cars. It makes perfect sense. Anyone into car modifications knows whats up as far as street cars in a drag strip. Mod your car to within the limits of the class you are using, if you are running certain times or trap speeds you need certain safety equipment, the cars are obviously not for every day use nor for use on the street, if your car can run fast enough times, you even have to be licensed to drive it (or sand bag)!

Again, I can take out more people with my car than with my .40 and I don't have to wait a few weeks to take that bitch out for murder.
So should you be required to have gun insurance in case you accidentally hit or kill someone? You're required to have car insurance...

I've given my points about this topic in numerous previous posts, and although I have changed my opinion on a few things based on what I've read here, I still feel that there are certain weapons that just shouldn't be allowed to be sold outside of military applications.

[Juan.Camaney]

So basically what you are saying is that the founding fathers didn't have enough foresight to realize blacks were actually people too, but they DID have enough smarts to foresee the right to own automatic rifles that can spray 800+ bullets a second. You can't have it both ways. I personally think that they did an amazing job at that time in history, but since attitudes and technology change over the years, they left it open for amendments. The problem we have going forward is finding the right balance.
No. What I am saying is they had enough forsight to leave the amendment clear and concise without the need to "interpret" anything. The ammendment says what it says. What federal and state law feels like mandating is up to the legistlators and activist judges. There is nothing in the constitution that made slavery legal, it just was. There *ARE* many things now on the books against slavery and indentured servitude.

Look, I understand this tired point. We "gun nuts" like our guns and want to keep them without the government telling us much about them besides, register them, keep them safe, don't kill anyone or anything unless it needed it. Therefore we keep our reading of the 2nd pretty strict. People who don't understand guns, are "afraid" of guns, or are just downright morons jumping on some bandwagon movement having never really even used a gun the way it was intended to will want to place laws involving guns on the books so they can further tweek them until they make owning a gun about as hard as sewing moon beams to farts.

So should you be required to have gun insurance in case you accidentally hit or kill someone? You're required to have car insurance...
Again, ignorance. First off, one of the questions that insurance companies do ask is whether or not you own weapons. They don't make you prove one way or another, so its up to you, I guess. Personaly, for fear I may actually once shoot someone, I always keep it on the books that I am armed and will shoot an intruder. Second, you are not required to have car insurance. There are many circumstances in which you can keep a vehicle and have it not be insured. Planned non-operation. Vehicles with no vin numbers on them. Vehicles destined for the crusher that are considered salvaged titled. Cars in drag strips all over the world running single digit 1/4 mile trap speeds at deep DEEP tripple digit speeds are often refered to as rolling chassis; its the engine and other drive train components that matter. What does matter is that you follow the rules that competent people have put on the books according to what class you run...just an FYI, there is such a thing called an OUTLAW class :hay:

I've given my points about this topic in numerous previous posts, and although I have changed my opinion on a few things based on what I've read here, I still feel that there are certain weapons that just shouldn't be allowed to be sold outside of military applications.
We accept your points as your own. We are glad you continue to change your opinions based upon some new facts presented to you. We understand you feel a certain way about weapons. But, however, just how we gun owners and proponents of less restriction are not demanding you change the way you can present your views and we "allow" you to discuss your views openly, and we aren't trying to force a whole bunch of retarded laws about your freedom of speech, we don't want anyone else infringing on our right to pack and protect.

Many people might think making gun laws about what the public can and cannot own will eventually stop gun violence. It won't, proof is in the countries that do not allow the public to own guns.

Many people might think making gun laws about what the public can and cannot own will reduce gun related crimes and make it harder for criminals and citizens looking to commit crimes to own and posses. This is false. Proof, the black market. Comparison: prohibition of alcohol.

Many people might think that engraving numbers on casings will trace a gun back to you. False. Its easier to steal ammo with someone elses number on it. Its also just as easy to take some sand paper and erase those numbers off.

Many people might think that making people wait 5 to 10 days to be able to own a gun will create a "cooling off" period and allow proper background checks and clearences. It doesn't and they don't. True criminals will not buy a gun they have to register to commit a crime. True crimes of passion involve guns already owned by those people or a better weapon, or they can buy a throw away just as easy.

This thread is pretty much over. We have thrown around arguments on both sides quoting a bunch of documents and legislation and have not proven anything other than, those who own guns want to preserve their right to keep them and those who "don't like" guns are gay not going to like them.

For those who have lost a friend or family to gun violence and have begun to hate guns for those reasons, please remember that you continue to enjoy freedom because of guns and those of us who know how to use them.

[Juan.Camaney]

The El Paso Miracle: How can a comparatively poor, high-immigration town that sits across the border from super-violent Ciudad Juarez be one of the safest big cities in America? - Reason Magazine (http://www.reason.com/news/show/134579.html?bunfingers)

Just a little info for shiggles.

El Paso, Texas....relatively a poor city, high number of immigrants and illegals live there, Texas has some of the most lax gun laws in the union....so it should be a crime fest, right?

[licupssy]

Good point Juan although the article doesn't address the issue of how many households have guns in them. I think the greatest problem in other cities is the lack of fear of the criminal system. Most criminals end up back on the street in a very short time due to the lack of space in many large urban area prisons.

I think this article points to the real problem of crime on the streets. As I suggested in an earlier post, the real problem is keeping criminals off the street. It shows the need for a three strike rule to be implimented across state lines.

GASTONIA, N.C. (AP) ― The serial killer who terrorized a South Carolina community by shooting five people to death before police killed him Monday was a career criminal paroled just two months ago, authorities said.

Patrick Burris, 41, was shot to death by officers investigating a burglary complaint at a home in Gastonia, N.C., 30 miles from where the killing spree started June 27. Bullets in his gun matched those that killed residents in and around Gaffney over six days last week, said State Law Enforcement Division Chief Reggie Lloyd.

Investigators did not have an address for Burris. While evidence left no doubt he was the killer, they still had no idea why he did it.

"He was unpredictable. He was scary. He was weird," said SLED Deputy Director Neil Dolan.

Burris had a long rap sheet filled with charges such as larceny, forgery and breaking and entering from states across the Southeast, including Florida, Virginia, West Virginia and Maryland. He had been paroled from a North Carolina prison in April after serving nearly eight years.

"Look at this," Lloyd said, waiving a stapled copy of Burris' criminal record. "This is like 25 pages. At some point the criminal justice system is going to need to explain why this suspect was out on the street."

[Krasch]

The El Paso Miracle: How can a comparatively poor, high-immigration town that sits across the border from super-violent Ciudad Juarez be one of the safest big cities in America? - Reason Magazine (http://www.reason.com/news/show/134579.html?bunfingers)

Just a little info for shiggles.

El Paso, Texas....relatively a poor city, high number of immigrants and illegals live there, Texas has some of the most lax gun laws in the union....so it should be a crime fest, right?
I swear I've said much the same thing before, and maybe in this thread too.

Bravo monsieur! One must love that subtle yet musky scent of sarcasm...

[licupssy]

Another point where gun control laws didn't prevent a crime.

The Nashville police confirmed Monday night that the handgun found in the apartment where Steve McNair was found shot to death Saturday was purchased Thursday by Sahel Kazemi, the 20-year-old woman who was found dead alongside him.

The police spokesman Don Aaron said that Kazemi bought the gun Thursday night from someone he did not name.

Kazemi was too young, under federal law, to buy a handgun from a registered dealer. The law requires purchasers to be 21, the same age required for a permit to carry a gun in Tennessee

[Kimber1911]

Common misconception? Dude, what facts back up your opinion?

Obviously a criminal can get a gun. Being a criminal means you are more likely to know other criminals who can get a gun. However, I would also assume that there are quite a few people who would commit a crime if they could get a gun quickly. These crimes of passion could be caused by being fired, catching a cheating spouse, etc...

But there are a lot of people who don't like guns, and we all know that the easiest victim is someone who looks like an easy victim (women, children, elderly). I'm not an easy victim at all, but I also know that if something came up where I felt threatened, would having a gun instantly make me qualified to shoot it accurately if I was attacked the following day? That woman who is being threatened by her ex? Do you honestly think that a girl would be able to out shoot a psycho exbf, who may or may not have experience with a gun?

All I know is that the 2nd amendment allows us the privilege of owning and keeping a gun. But a lot of things weren't even dreamed up in 1791, and assault rifles were one of them. Or what about a chain gun mounted on a turret? That would be a great way to defend my home!

You know, if I applied to get an assault rifle and I was turned down, I wouldn't bitch and moan to my congressmen. I can still get a handgun or shotgun if I wanted it, so my 2nd amendment rights haven't been bamboozled.

The 2nd Amendment gives us the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. This is NOT a privilege, that would infer that it can be taken away, which is what the anti-gun zealots want you (us) to think. This is a RIGHT! not given to us by the government, and cannot be taken away by the government. If they take away our 2nd amendment rights then what is to stop them from taking away our 1st and all the others in the constitution. It's all or nothing.

[Krasch]

The 2nd Amendment gives us the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. This is NOT a privilege, that would infer that it can be taken away, which is what the anti-gun zealots want you (us) to think. This is a RIGHT! not given to us by the government, and cannot be taken away by the government. If they take away our 2nd amendment rights then what is to stop them from taking away our 1st and all the others in the constitution. It's all or nothing.

I would offer that it is the 2nd Amendment that ultimately ensures the safety of the other Amendments by preserving the right to forcibly remove a despotic government if necessary. This makes the 2nd the most important Amendment there is.

[Ryan]

The 2nd Amendment gives us the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. This is NOT a privilege, that would infer that it can be taken away, which is what the anti-gun zealots want you (us) to think. This is a RIGHT! not given to us by the government, and cannot be taken away by the government. If they take away our 2nd amendment rights then what is to stop them from taking away our 1st and all the others in the constitution. It's all or nothing.

I don't believe anyone is trying to take away the "right" to bear arms. They want to define "arms" in a specific way.

Why does everyone always assume that if they further define one amendment to the constitution that was written before current technology necessitated an update that it means that suddenly we're going to rewrite the whole damn thing?

I'm with you guys when you say that we have the right to bear arms, and I'm against the limitations proposed. But lets be realistic instead of exaggerating- gun control laws aren't going to spurn 1st amendment rights being taken away. Even if you're against some of the laws proposed, at least admit that you're simply making an unprovable assumption when you bring up the 1st amendment at all as a basis for an argument.

That's fearmongering. You'd do well in arguments to avoid it- it riles up those who agree with you already, and makes those who oppose you less likely to listen to you.

[Juan.Camaney]

The thing with regulation is once its on the books, its easier to keep modifying it until they make it virtually impossible to exercise your rights. Better to keep stuff off the books, IMO.

[shiiboi]

I don't believe anyone is trying to take away the "right" to bear arms. They want to define "arms" in a specific way.

Why does everyone always assume that if they further define one amendment to the constitution that was written before current technology necessitated an update that it means that suddenly we're going to rewrite the whole damn thing?
I'm a dedicated pacifist-- but the authors of the constitution were very clear that the purpose of the 2nd amendment was to enable the population to resist any tyrannical government that may be insinuate itself in the future.

Attempts to define what weapons citizens are permitted to possess always insures that the government will have the superior firepower.

There is a conflict of interest. Perhaps we want to insure that criminals cannot possess superior firepower than our police. But then how do we insure that our citizens have the wherewithal to defend ourselves in the event of a coup?

[Ryan]

The thing with regulation is once its on the books, its easier to keep modifying it until they make it virtually impossible to exercise your rights. Better to keep stuff off the books, IMO.

I understand the slippery slope argument, but just because something is easier doesn't mean it WILL happen.

The gun thing has two distinct sides to it (look at this thread for proof). Freedom of speech isn't exactly a 50/50 issue. I just don't think they can be thrown in together like people keep doing.

[Juan.Camaney]

The gun thing has two distinct sides to it (look at this thread for proof). Freedom of speech isn't exactly a 50/50 issue. I just don't think they can be thrown in together like people keep doing.

So you are trying to say one specific right guranteed by a piece of paper (so to speak) is more important than another right guranteed by a piece of paper not to mention it immediately follows the previously mentioned right?

There shouldn't be two sides is what my "side" is saying. WE have the right to bear arms, if you don't want to bear arms, don't, but quit telling us we can't either.

I understand the slippery slope argument, but just because something is easier doesn't mean it WILL happen.

That's exactly what is happening in California, Ryan. Do you think its fair that someone in Washington can go apply for a permit to carry and all he has to answer is what are you packing and what for, and almost instantly get it while someone in a more dangerous part of the country like say, you and I, pretty much get laughed at if we even bothered to apply? Or how about a 10 day waiting period for a shot gun in CA while some people can go buy one over the counter, fair? That's like telling CD over on his side that he can talk all he wants, but you have to wait a few days before you can even whisper.

I know it sounds ludicrous to some people to compare talking with owning a gun, but its not! Thats what you have been taught to think because guns are seen as an evil thing that kills. Well, hate speech is often protected by the 1st and it has been causing people to die for ages!

Any of the gun laws proposed are just ridiculous, save for a few of them. Can you imagine laser inscribing every single bullet? Dude, have you ever been to a shooting range? Have you ever taken a look at how many shells there are on the floor? Imagine if someone were to keep a bunch of spare primers and stuff, repacks it, and then goes and frames you for murder! lol scare tactics, but it CAN happen. Nothing is fool proof and there will always be gun violence. The safest bet is to just let everyone arm themselves. Eventually, stupid people will just kill themselves off.

[Krasch]

So you are trying to say one specific right guranteed by a piece of paper (so to speak) is more important than another right guranteed by a piece of paper not to mention it immediately follows the previously mentioned right?

There shouldn't be two sides is what my "side" is saying. WE have the right to bear arms, if you don't want to bear arms, don't, but quit telling us we can't either.


That's exactly what is happening in California, Ryan. Do you think its fair that someone in Washington can go apply for a permit to carry and all he has to answer is what are you packing and what for, and almost instantly get it while someone in a more dangerous part of the country like say, you and I, pretty much get laughed at if we even bothered to apply? Or how about a 10 day waiting period for a shot gun in CA while some people can go buy one over the counter, fair? That's like telling CD over on his side that he can talk all he wants, but you have to wait a few days before you can even whisper.

I know it sounds ludicrous to some people to compare talking with owning a gun, but its not! Thats what you have been taught to think because guns are seen as an evil thing that kills. Well, hate speech is often protected by the 1st and it has been causing people to die for ages!

Any of the gun laws proposed are just ridiculous, save for a few of them. Can you imagine laser inscribing every single bullet? Dude, have you ever been to a shooting range? Have you ever taken a look at how many shells there are on the floor? Imagine if someone were to keep a bunch of spare primers and stuff, repacks it, and then goes and frames you for murder! lol scare tactics, but it CAN happen. Nothing is fool proof and there will always be gun violence. The safest bet is to just let everyone arm themselves. Eventually, stupid people will just kill themselves off.

In evolution, that's just called thinning the herd...

Gotta agree with you Juan.

[Ryan]

So you are trying to say one specific right guranteed by a piece of paper (so to speak) is more important than another right guranteed by a piece of paper not to mention it immediately follows the previously mentioned right?

There shouldn't be two sides is what my "side" is saying. WE have the right to bear arms, if you don't want to bear arms, don't, but quit telling us we can't either.


There shouldn't be two sides, but there are. Just because it's in our constitution doesn't make it right. There was a time when everyone thought slavery was fine- times change. Gun technology has drastically changed. Thermonuclear weapons exist, as do many weapons of mass destruction. Re-visiting our constitution to update things that are no longer valid as written isn't something I take lightly, but it's something that needs to be continually done. If you've ever worked on a project, you know that the initial plan is rarely if ever put 100% into action at the end. Things change, and we have to adapt to these changes.

Guns have changed drastically since the 2nd amendment was written. When written, guns could only do so much damage. Now, even the weakest guns would blow those old-time muskets away. We're kidding ourselves if we think that the world can change around us and we'll be fine just sticking to our outdated laws without altering them to keep up.

Freedom of speech isn't threatened in that manner, though. It's not like I can suddenly shout at you specific words that didn't exist previously that are suddenly going to kill you. I have no idea how many people out there are anti gun, but lets throw a number at it like 30% of Americans. If 30% of Americans are anti-gun, then .000000001% are anti-free-speech. You can't ignore that and simply lump them in together, even if they are conveniently written right after one another. 30% of Americans might have a prayer at changing gun laws. .000000001% don't have a prayer of accomplishing anything with free speech laws.

No matter what happens with gun control laws, free speech laws will not be changed and anyone who argues that they will is simply fearmongering. There is a good argument against gun control- mentioning free speech isn't it.

[Ryan]

Any of the gun laws proposed are just ridiculous, save for a few of them. Can you imagine laser inscribing every single bullet? Dude, have you ever been to a shooting range? Have you ever taken a look at how many shells there are on the floor? Imagine if someone were to keep a bunch of spare primers and stuff, repacks it, and then goes and frames you for murder! lol scare tactics, but it CAN happen. Nothing is fool proof and there will always be gun violence. The safest bet is to just let everyone arm themselves. Eventually, stupid people will just kill themselves off.

I agree with you that most of the proposed laws are ridiculous. Not because it threatens my 1st amendment rights, though. Because they threaten my 2nd amendment rights. I'm with you on the anti-gun control thing... I just refuse to use "if they do this they'll surely take away free speech next" as an argument.

Yes, I've been to a shooting rang. Yes, I've shot a gun. No, I don't own one today, but I may in the future if I ever feel the desire or need.

I agree that we should let nature run its course and just arm everyone, for the record. :)

And take off the warning labels on everything while we're at it. If you can't figure out that coffee is hot without a warning, you deserve to get burned.

[CD]

Nothing is fool proof and there will always be gun violence. The safest bet is to just let everyone arm themselves. Eventually, stupid people will just kill themselves off.
Pfffft. There will always be new stupid people to take their place. That argument is also the argument I hear about killing terrorists. The war on terror can never be won, just like the war on drugs will never be won. It's ingrained into the psyche of select people. The smart thing to do is to minimize the outside damage done by those we are supposedly at war with.

[Juan.Camaney]

There shouldn't be two sides, but there are. Just because it's in our constitution doesn't make it right. There was a time when everyone thought slavery was fine- times change. Gun technology has drastically changed. Thermonuclear weapons exist, as do many weapons of mass destruction. Re-visiting our constitution to update things that are no longer valid as written isn't something I take lightly, but it's something that needs to be continually done. If you've ever worked on a project, you know that the initial plan is rarely if ever put 100% into action at the end. Things change, and we have to adapt to these changes.
I've already answered this issue. Show me where the constitution, bill of rights, or anything says "In order to keep our nation productive, the people reserve the right to own blacks as property" I'll go ahead and wait until the 5th of Never because you know there is no such thing. The constitution is over 200 years old and the ammendments since it was first drafted have served to make certain things right. Its served its purpose well, and the more people try to ammend it, the more fucked up it gets.

Guns have changed drastically since the 2nd amendment was written. When written, guns could only do so much damage. Now, even the weakest guns would blow those old-time muskets away. We're kidding ourselves if we think that the world can change around us and we'll be fine just sticking to our outdated laws without altering them to keep up.
I don't get this argument. Guns have changed....well no kidding. They still serve the same purpose. You aim it at something's general direction, squeeze the trigge and it will make a hole in it. It doesn't matter if it shoots one bullet or a pellet, and it takes 20 minutes to reload, or if its a .50 cal mounted to the back of a humvee, if you aim it at something human and pull the trigger, it will probably die.

Freedom of speech isn't threatened in that manner, though. It's not like I can suddenly shout at you specific words that didn't exist previously that are suddenly going to kill you. I have no idea how many people out there are anti gun, but lets throw a number at it like 30% of Americans. If 30% of Americans are anti-gun, then .000000001% are anti-free-speech. You can't ignore that and simply lump them in together, even if they are conveniently written right after one another. 30% of Americans might have a prayer at changing gun laws. .000000001% don't have a prayer of accomplishing anything with free speech laws.
Assumptions and random numbers, guy. New words are added to the dictionary every year. New terms are coined by guys at bars every day too. You go back in time and call someone a taint licker and most will look at you like, wtf mate?!

No matter what happens with gun control laws, free speech laws will not be changed and anyone who argues that they will is simply fearmongering. There is a good argument against gun control- mentioning free speech isn't it.
You really think so eh? Have you been paying attention to people trying to silence the right wing media? Granted I hate Limbaugh with a passion and would kick the guy in the back of the head until he flat lined if left alone with him for longer than a few minutes, but why silence only those who oppose those in power? So many are clueless as to what the government really does until they do it to you.

No, I don't own one today, but I may in the future if I ever feel the desire or need.
You might not be able to if things keep swinging too far left.



Pfffft. There will always be new stupid people to take their place. That argument is also the argument I hear about killing terrorists. The war on terror can never be won, just like the war on drugs will never be won. It's ingrained into the psyche of select people. The smart thing to do is to minimize the outside damage done by those we are supposedly at war with.
I'd rather have an abundance of idiots being killed than just an overall abundance of idiots :D

[Ryan]

You really think so eh? Have you been paying attention to people trying to silence the right wing media? Granted I hate Limbaugh with a passion and would kick the guy in the back of the head until he flat lined if left alone with him for longer than a few minutes, but why silence only those who oppose those in power? So many are clueless as to what the government really does until they do it to you.

People are always going to try to silence those who they disagree with. The fact that Limbaugh, Coulter, (and left wing extremists like Olbermann for that matter), etc are still on their soap boxes should be enough proof that people can complain all they want but are never going to get anywhere.

The best anyone can do is get the person fired from whatever company is amplifying their voice. Google "nappy headed ho's" for more info. It's not like Imus went to jail.

I think you and I are going to simply disagree on whether or not the 1st amendment is threatened by gun control. I've laid out my opinion and don't need to restate it. I understand where you are coming from, but neither of us can prove whether or not a potential event could have a certain outcome. I can accept that as the best we're going to do with this disagreement.

Bottom line, though, is that we agree that many of the proposed gun control laws DO threaten 2nd amendment rights. Regardless of the affect on free speech, it's not a road I'd like to travel down.

[Juan.Camaney]

I don't know how you define freedom, Ryan, but to me its the liberty to do something without consequences. I also don't know how you define rights, but to me its a list of things I can do freely. Regulation infringes freedom.

[Ryan]

Some people define freedom as not having to pay taxes or any responsibilities whatsoever.

Unless you're comfortable with no police / military to protect you, you have to give up at least a LITTLE freedom. It's about how much freedom we're willing to give up in the name of safety and security.

If LA was bombed, you and I both know the government would institute a curfew of some sorts. We would be forced to stay in our homes. To me, that's infringing upon my rights as a citizen, but I understand that sometimes my rights have to bend a bit for the safety of myself and others.

If you refuse to admit that sometimes certain freedoms need to be regulated for the safety of the populace, then to me you are arguing in favor of anarchy (of course it's an exaggeration- but it's a slippery slope and anarchy is the end of the slope).

I think the government needs to step in and regulate certain things. Without regulation, any idiot could go out and buy nuclear weapons. Are you arguing for COMPLETE deregulation?

If you admit, on the other hand, that there are certain areas where regulation or government intervention is necessary, you can't tell me that one area is more valid than another- that's merely an opinion.

Other thoughts on regulation: would you argue that regulation of cigarettes and alcohol with regards to children should cease? Should we stop age requirements? Are we not infringing upon the rights of the children to smoke and drink? Who are we to arbitrarily set an age where the government feels a citizen should finally be afforded that right? Obviously I'm not suggesting you want children to smoke and drink, but I'd like to hear your feelings on that regulation compared to gun regulation. Bear in mind that alcohol is regulated on age of purchaser and strength of the liquor (among others). Although not defined with an amendment that we should have the right to drink alcohol, both alcohol and guns are regulated in a similar fashion.

Take note, everyone watching Juan and I go back and forth. This is how you respectfully argue two sides to a disagreement without being a giant douche.

[Car Enthusiast]

Ryan I agree with you that things need regulated, but I think to need to impose regulations on someone's belief's, hobbies or way of life it should be an actual risk to someone's safety. Statistics show that firearms aren't a big enough cause of violence that it needs to be restricted, actually the numbers I have seen show that without firearms crime actually rises. I guess it is a ratio of pro's and con's, and the pro's definitely out weight the cons. So why regulate something that isn't the main problem with why crimes are committed? Well because fixing the real reason we have crime is hard and a long term fight that politicians don't want to tackle because to me it is harder to show results before elections come around, and it is easier to stand in front of a table of guns and say we have to protect the children. For the public standpoint it is a long term fight/investment that takes a lot of faith and perserverence not to mention a stiff upper lip when sob stories come along and pull on your heart strings.

CD, I found a stat to go along with your car and licensing arguement earlier that I couldn't find till now:

There are more guns in the U.S. than cars (228,000,000 guns and 207,754,000 automobiles). Yet you are 31 times more likely to be accidentally killed by a car than a gun according to the National Safety Council... despite cars having been registered and licensed
for almost 100 years.

Automobiles estimates, Federal Highway Administration, October 1998. Firearm estimates, FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1996. (I know they are a little old but I think the point is still the same)

[CD]

CD, I found a stat to go along with your car and licensing arguement earlier that I couldn't find till now:

There are more guns in the U.S. than cars (228,000,000 guns and 207,754,000 automobiles). Yet you are 31 times more likely to be accidentally killed by a car than a gun according to the National Safety Council... despite cars having been registered and licensed
for almost 100 years.

Automobiles estimates, Federal Highway Administration, October 1998. Firearm estimates, FBI Uniform Crime Statistics, 1996. (I know they are a little old but I think the point is still the same)
Are you also more then 31 times more likely to drive then shoot a gun? I agree though, that are far more dangerous things out there as far as deaths go. Cars kill a lot of people but they are also FAR more prevalent to be used daily.

[Juan.Camaney]

Some people define freedom as not having to pay taxes or any responsibilities whatsoever.

Unless you're comfortable with no police / military to protect you, you have to give up at least a LITTLE freedom. It's about how much freedom we're willing to give up in the name of safety and security.

If LA was bombed, you and I both know the government would institute a curfew of some sorts. We would be forced to stay in our homes. To me, that's infringing upon my rights as a citizen, but I understand that sometimes my rights have to bend a bit for the safety of myself and others.

If you refuse to admit that sometimes certain freedoms need to be regulated for the safety of the populace, then to me you are arguing in favor of anarchy (of course it's an exaggeration- but it's a slippery slope and anarchy is the end of the slope).

I think the government needs to step in and regulate certain things. Without regulation, any idiot could go out and buy nuclear weapons. Are you arguing for COMPLETE deregulation?

If you admit, on the other hand, that there are certain areas where regulation or government intervention is necessary, you can't tell me that one area is more valid than another- that's merely an opinion.

Other thoughts on regulation: would you argue that regulation of cigarettes and alcohol with regards to children should cease? Should we stop age requirements? Are we not infringing upon the rights of the children to smoke and drink? Who are we to arbitrarily set an age where the government feels a citizen should finally be afforded that right? Obviously I'm not suggesting you want children to smoke and drink, but I'd like to hear your feelings on that regulation compared to gun regulation. Bear in mind that alcohol is regulated on age of purchaser and strength of the liquor (among others). Although not defined with an amendment that we should have the right to drink alcohol, both alcohol and guns are regulated in a similar fashion.

Take note, everyone watching Juan and I go back and forth. This is how you respectfully argue two sides to a disagreement without being a giant douche.

Good points here, Ryan. No one is arguing for anarchy, we are trying to keep government away from a right guranteed to us because most of us here will agree whatever the government touches, it ruins.

I'd like it to be more like the regulation of alcohol. Need a permit to make it, distribute it, market it, etc. (let the onus be on the producer) and just make the consumer show ID and be on his or her merry way.:coold:

[Ryan]

I'd like it to be more like the regulation of alcohol. Need a permit to make it, distribute it, market it, etc. (let the onus be on the producer) and just make the consumer show ID and be on his or her merry way.:coold:

I think we'd be wise to learn lessons from prohibition and recognize that there is one agency that oversees Alcohol, Tobacco, AND Firearms for a reason. Perhaps aligning the regulatory controls over each would be in the country's best interest.

The big difference is that there are certain people that I don't think should be afforded the right to bear arms (felons, for example) while I don't give two shits about whether or not that same group smokes themselves to death.

[Juan.Camaney]

Dude, felons, as far as I'm concerned, are dealt with fine in regards to owning weapons. They gave up their freedoms the moment they chose to comit a felony.

It would be fine if ATF would be the only governing agency. My beef is with the overall rules varying from state to state. Too many people imposing their own personal beliefs over something guranteed to us.

The real "fear" is that the more states limit and impose restrictions, the more "normal" it becomes because of the obvious stigma with guns, and the more some people think the whole country should be pushed to these rules. There's an old saying, when California gets sick, the rest of the States start sneezing....or something like that, meaning that what we do, other states turn around and follow soon enough. Take a look at clean air regulations for proof.

[Ryan]

That's the same reason why a lot of the prop 8 funding (for AND against) was coming in from other states. They know that CA sets the precedent a lot of times.

It's like the US is conflicted as to whether the states should govern themselves or the federal government should have the control. Look at the feds raiding medical marijuana dispensaries as just another area where state law and federal law contradict each other and cause problems.

I've frequently wondered how our forefathers would react if they saw how laws were applied and interpreted now. Would they be pleased, or pissed off as hell?

I know a certain founding father (or two) who would probably shiat bricks if they saw a black president.