continued: gun control/2nd ammendment

[Cbass]

Continued from another thread, it was getting OT.

Originally Posted by Franko914

Bush Administration US Attorney General) John Ashcroft directed the US Justice Department in a memo on Dec. 17, 2004 to advise its US attorneys that the Second Amendment is, in fact, an individual right, stating, "The Second Amendment secures a personal right invoked by a State or a quasi-collective right restricted to persons serving in organized militia units."

Read "restricted to persons serving in organized militia units.". That means people in militia units organized BY the government in time of war or emergency. Anyways, that's not what I'm debating and it's OT.

Originally Posted by Franko914

Ahhh, you are describing the Clinton administration in the first part of your statement. <snip>

http://www.strike-the-root.com/3/powers/powers2.html

The neocon republican party has betrayed gun owners, and in many cases they are more adamant in their persecution of gun owners than their democrat counterparts.

[YogsVR4]

Neither party handles the gun rights issue very well. There are many laws on the books now that aren't enforced. Some politician pass gun restrictions that are moronic just to placate a few fringe groups out there (both sides).

I think if the existing laws were enforced on gun crimes and right to carry laws were uniformly written, there would be a whole lot less ambiguity and less crime using a gun. Start giving an extra fifteen years for any crime that involved a gun. Make it a natural life sentence on a second offense. If it was first degree murder, give them the chair.

Legal gun ownership has never been a problem. It’s the disjointed laws about illegal gun ownership that gets the ball rolling on the problems from there.

[ct91rs]

gigiddy, gigiddy, gigiddy - aaallllriiight...

I agree with Yogs in part, but I think there should be something done about the gun show loophole, and maybe on the owning of assult rifles. Doesn't quite seem necessary to me for personal protection.

[Ace$nyper]

Honestly I think gun crime needs alot stiffer laws and safety classes for free would be great the Eddy Eagle program should be pushed like dare.

but as far as "assault weapons" read the laws alot are vauge and dont make sence if you know guns.

Last time i read the 2nd Ammendment it never said but....

I found this and stick by it.

[Franko914]

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Neither party handles the gun rights issue very well. There are many laws on the books now that aren't enforced. Some politician pass gun restrictions that are moronic just to placate a few fringe groups out there (both sides).

I would agree with the last sentence -- it's called politics.

I would tend to disagree with the first only because "very well" is subjective. The likes of Schumer, Kennedy and Clinton are simply rabid anti-gun Democrat/Liberal fanatics who have to be countered at every opportunity with the same level of pro-gun fanaticism. If they weren't so anti-gun, there wouldn't be a reaction as such from the pro-gun backers. It's called politics.

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

I think if the existing laws were enforced on gun crimes and right to carry laws were uniformly written, there would be a whole lot less ambiguity and less crime using a gun. Start giving an extra fifteen years for any crime that involved a gun. Make it a natural life sentence on a second offense. If it was first degree murder, give them the chair.

Sadly, everytime an innocent civilian or police officer is gunned down, I curse the anti-gun lobby and politicians for not focusing on the criminals -- instead, they focus on passing anti-gun laws that will have no effect on the criminals themselves. Anti-gun rhetoric sells more than common sense. It's called politics.

"...10-25 years for any crime that involved a gun that results in serious injury"

"25-50 years for any crime that involved a gun that results in grevious injury or death."

"...natural life on a second offense that involved a gun that results in death (not first degree) -- if the first offense resulted in grevious injury or death, the sentence should be death."

"...first degree murder, give them the chair."

Originally Posted by YogsVR4

Legal gun ownership has never been a problem. It’s the disjointed laws about illegal gun ownership that gets the ball rolling on the problems from there.

Exactly...

[Franko914]

Originally Posted by ct91rs

gigiddy, gigiddy, gigiddy - aaallllriiight...

I agree with Yogs in part, but I think there should be something done about the gun show loophole, and maybe on the owning of assult rifles. Doesn't quite seem necessary to me for personal protection.

People buy guns for several reasons, one of which is for personal protection.

If you are going to set limits on gun ownership for personal protection only, who is going to decide what is sufficient, and for what situation?

I buy guns for hunting, target shooting and collecting. I have yet to sell a gun for profit. "Assault rifles" are excellent for off-hand brush hunting. What we do with our guns is our business as long as it isn't illegal. Pass laws to ban ownership of any one gun and our own business now becomes illegal -- that's why there is an ongoing uproar to counter the anti-gun fanatics.

When I lived in a high-rise apartment, I took the elevator down one time to meet my buddies to go to the archery range. I had my bow and quiver in a case and when a couple got on the elevator, the lady was piqued by the case. The lady asked what was in it and I replied, "My bow and arrows... headed to the archery range." The lady recoiled and exclaimed, "How VIOLENT!" I laughed at her and replied, "How IGNORANT!" Her husband looked at her and laughed, too. No nookie for him that night...

[AlmostStock]

More guns equals more gun crime. It's simple math. Even "legal" guns often find a way to kill innocent people. Any thing that cuts down on the amount of guns (including laws) will cut down on crimes committed with guns.

[fredjacksonsan]

Originally Posted by AlmostStock

More guns equals more gun crime. It's simple math. Even "legal" guns often find a way to kill innocent people. Any thing that cuts down on the amount of guns (including laws) will cut down on crimes committed with guns.

Do you really and truly believe that? It is the irresponsible gun owners that cause problems. The majority of gun owners in the US follow the law and use their weapons safely and appropriately.

If you remove guns from the citizens, then the old adage will become true: Only the criminals will have guns.

Do you have any statistics to back up your position? How many guns cause crime? Exactly zero. Without a person to use them, guns are inanimate objects, and as such are incapable of taking action on their own. If guns did not exist, people would find something else with which to force their will upon others, whether sticks, rocks, knives, martial arts, or some other weapon. It's human nature you're unhappy with, and I don't think that will ever be changed.

['94F-150]

Almost Stock, You are wrong. That is a lie that all the stinking liberals are trying to make everyone believe. Take a look a England, they recently did away with all guns. Rounded them up and crushed them with steamrollers. Since then their crime rate has shot up. I'm a proud member of the North American Hunting Association and my Father is also a member of the NRA, which I will soon join. I'm also a proud owner of over 20 guns and I have never once used a gun in a way that would harm others, neither has my father or his father, and they have hunted their whole lives also. If guns are done away with that means there is no protection for actual law abiding citizens. There is still a black market and will be forever. It's not people who have guns and respect the fact of how deadly they can be if in the wrong hands who are dangerous, it's the people who were raised thinking guns are toys or that if you have a gun your cool or "hard". I strongly support anyone who has a gun or wants one to take a gun safety course so they can learn about the way to handle guns and that they aren't to be taken lightly. Granted they can be dangerous, but that is usually when in the wrong hands. It isn't guns that are dangerous, it's whose hands their in. Fredjacksonsan, I couldn't agree with your post more.

[tenguzero]

It's definately tough to determine gun control laws. Just using the "less guns = less crime" approach is rather useless, as less guns only means less legal, law-abiding ownership. The bad apples couldn't give a rat's ass about whether their "gat" is legal or not.

In respect to damage potential, the thing that often stands out in anti-gun lobbyists minds, I think, is not the the difference between a gun or a knife as inanimate objects, and the gun or the knife as a weapon -- it's the difference in the potential of each. When you point a gun at something and pull the trigger, the chances are good that it will die. When you stab something, the chances are still there that it could die, but the chances of it LIVING are better than with the gun.

I think most of us, regardless of our stance, are in agreement on the fact the people are the first problem when it comes to guns. There are far too many people out there who just shouldn't have access to guns due to mental instability, violent tendencies, living situation, or just plain ignorance. Let's face it: guns are for the most part useless to most of the people out there who own them. Chances are good that the person you turn a gun on in self-defense may have one themselves. And if they don't, it's a good bet they'll be back some other night when you're walking that route -- and they'll have one then. The vast majority of our society hasn't needed to turn to hunting for sustenance in a good century or so. I've fired guns before, and I don't see how anyone could ever really justify NEEDING one: they're loud, dirty, unwieldy, and dangerous -- but then again so are automobiles. And I don't see anti-gun people lobbying to have THEM taken off the market.

I thoroughly dislike guns, and I'll probably always feel uncomfortable around them. It's just too much power for a person to have, and unlike cars, which have many useful applications, guns are designed to do only one thing -- shoot a small pointed projectile 2 or 3 times the speed of sound at something. They are completely unnecessary, but that doesn't mean a person shouldn't have the right to play with a highly dangerous item if they so choose. Banning them would serve no purpose other than to keep them out of the hands of the people who are (ideally) responsible enough to own, maintain, and use them. It would do nothing to address the issue of gun VIOLENCE, which is perpetrated by people who don't give a shit what the law says (otherwise they wouldn't be abusing them.)

Banning just certain guns is kind of stupid too. Do you really NEED an assault rifle? No. For that matter, do you really NEED a .22 plinker? No. But it's your right to HAVE it. Although it's just as much my right to feel free of the threat of being accidentally shot by you when I'm walking through the woods. If I thought banning guns would solve our issues with gun violence, I'd be the first one up there pushing to get the things destroyed. But only education, proper legal enforcement, and responsible ownership can drive down gun violence.

[AlmostStock]

If less guns is not the answer does that mean more guns will somehow make crime go down? It sounds ridiculous to me. The more guns that are out there the more that can be used for evil, even if it's not by the "responsible, well trained" original owner. Legal guns are stolen all the time. Or used by family members. Or even used by the owners kids. Are we to believe that lessening the availability of "legal" guns would not prevent some of these tragedies? If less guns is not the answer then what is? The US already has the highest gun violence rates around. It's hard to imagine that limiting the supply could make it worse. (no matter what happened somewhere else)

[fredjacksonsan]

Originally Posted by AlmostStock

If less guns is not the answer does that mean more guns will somehow make crime go down? It sounds ridiculous to me. The more guns that are out there the more that can be used for evil, even if it's not by the "responsible, well trained" original owner. Legal guns are stolen all the time. Or used by family members. Or even used by the owners kids. Are we to believe that lessening the availability of "legal" guns would not prevent some of these tragedies? If less guns is not the answer then what is? The US already has the highest gun violence rates around. It's hard to imagine that limiting the supply could make it worse. (no matter what happened somewhere else)

I feel I must point out the fallacy of your argument.....

By your logic, we should all have our vehicles taken away from us. There are too many tragedies, too many accidents, and too many outright acts of violence performed by people in cars.

http://www.safecarguide.com/exp/stat...statistics.htm

So since driving motor vehicles is the leading killer here in the US, we should scrap the automobile entirely.




The answer here I believe is not gun control, but rather controlling who can have guns. It's a fine distinction....you've committed a felony? Sorry, no gun. Insane? No gun. History of violence? No gun. Normal citizen that hasn't been shown to be any of the above? Which gun would you like to buy, sir?

['94F-150]

Almost Stock, Of course more guns aren't the answer, but like fredjacksonsan said it's about who has the gun. Take me for example. I own guns, a lot of guns, but I have never used them in any way to harm others. I have been taught ever since I can remember how to use a gun safely. Keep the barrel pointed down, never point at any person, never shoot in any direction where someone or something that you don't intend to shoot could be harmed, etc. I could go on and on. I have also taken hunting safety courses. I know how to handle a gun the right way, and that is what gun owners need to know too. As for children and family members getting ahold of them, and guns being stolen, that is the gun owners personal responsibility to keep the gun/guns in a place where children or other people can't get ahold of it. That is why there are gun safes. My father has always kept our guns locked away and I didn't obtain access to them until he felt I was ready. Gun safety and knowledge is the issue, not the gun. Again, I could not agree with fredjacksonsan's post more. Wow, you really know your stuff. sweet.

[tenguzero]

The problem is, even if we eliminated HALF the guns on the market right now, what would that mean, as long as there was still some guns out there. They would undoubtedly find their way into bad hands eventually, whether through theft, or or unregulated private sale, or no doubt one of the chief methods of illegal mass-firearm acquisition: the black market. Even if every gun shop in the country shut its doors, there are already so many guns out there, it would be impossible to round them all up for destruction. The NRA would be prolonging the court battles for YEARS, private residents would be holding onto the things in secrecy, and the number of gun crimes probably wouldn't dip all that much, since (as I mentioned previously) it stands to reason that those offenders who would hold up an old lady, or shoot at police, or pop some rival gang member, are already far away from law-abiding.

The second type of gun violence, is the kind that affects far too many private, generally otherwise law-abiding citizens -- and that is the child finding mommy or daddy's gun and becoming a front page tragedy, or the teenager who's cleaning his "unloaded" gun in the livingroom when the thing goes off and kills a tenant in the next apartment, or the hunting partner who trips and falls with his gun while not safety locked. These unfortunate incidents, while probably being drastically reduced by a gun ownership prohibition, are still speaking of an issue far deeper than just the inanimate object that is the outlet for it -- and that is lazyness, ignorance, and stupidity. Lock your gun up so children can't get to it (or better yet just don't own one.) Check and double-check that your gun is not loaded before cleaning or disassembly (and please point it in a safe direction moron!) Don't keep your gun loaded unnecessarily (especially if you're going to be walking around difficult terrain or moving between treestands or whatnot.) These accidents are often the result of someone who's obviously too ignorant or careless to responsibly manage a gun, or maybe even a car for that matter!

Criminals will get their hands on guns one way or another, because the fact is, guns make people feel important and/or powerful for some reason -- and it's a lot easier to hold the police at bay or settle a turf war when you're packing a big gun. Give someone a hunk of steel with a trigger, a load noise, and the ability to kill something instantaneously, and suddenly they're a bigger man (or woman.)

94'F-150: That whole "stinking liberals/conservatives" thing is a line used by people who can't formulate valid opinions arguing their point until they've first made it blatantly obvious where their stance is (because we obviously can't figure it out by reading your viewpoint.) Any educated person can make a decision on their own about whether or not they feel increased gun control would cut down on crime. There just happens to be citizens and politicians out there who feel less guns = less crime. I don't really feel that way personally, but far be it for me to rag on someone else's views -- at least these people are trying to address the problem somehow instead of just throwing up their hands and saying "Oh well, we're a nation destined to be ruled by guns -- shit happens!"

Much like abortion, welfare, narcotics control, energy, and many other things, this is an issue that is bound to be debated for a long time to come, so gun nuts need not worry about what their hands are still gripping -- at least until they're cold and dead -- for a while to come. We all want to see solid progress made in combating gun violence, but we may need to try many different approaches along the way. Alcohol prohibition failed, so they repealed it. This could be no different. But it's still worth trying every avenue, if only so we can say we tried.

[Cbass]

I find it hilariously ironic that Franko keeps calling gun control proponents "fanatics", especially when he himself has "Enforce the First Gun Law: The Second Amendment" in his god damned signature.

I don't care what kind of hunting you do, there is no need for a semi/fully auto rifle with chopped stock and high magazine capacity. If you can't make do with a 5 round magazine of .308 and a bolt, you're not competent enough with a rifle to use one. I don't hunt, but I can iron sight with a good rifle at 100 meters, given a good day without a lot of wind.

The personal protection issue goes back to what I was saying in another thread. You guys are so paranoid and fearful that you think you need guns to protect yourselves. So much for "badass" americans. This from the birthplace of political correctness. You decry "wishywashy liberals", but at least they don't cry about needing a gun to protect themselves against imaginary assailants.