2nd Amendment - Slipping away

[Ryan]

Originally Posted by PistolPoet

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.

Originally Posted by Ryan

...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]

Originally Posted by PistolPoet

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]

Originally Posted by PistolPoet

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:


Into these guys:


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]

Originally Posted by Krasch

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]

Originally Posted by licupssy

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Juan.Camaney

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.

Originally Posted by Juan.Camaney

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]

Originally Posted by CD

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.

Originally Posted by CD

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

Originally Posted by CD

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

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.

Originally Posted by cbs.com

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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.

Originally Posted by NYTimes.com

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]

Originally Posted by CD

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.