Ban on Gun Ownership?

[Friday on my mind]

I have some mixed feelings on this issue (so I'm probably in the wrong place, I know, if I don't have a hardcore, extreme opinion one way or the other).

Some thoughts, though:

- I think a lot of self-serving interpretation has to be done by those who read the 2nd Amendment to mean that any individual ought to be able to own a gun.

- For those who say that assault weapons are already banned (are they? I've known people who own FULLY automatic weapons, and perhaps I've even fired one myself, for rec. purposes), but support gun ownership, why doesn't it bother you (or maybe it does) that the assault weapons are banned? Does the 2nd Amendment really make distinctions between different types of arms?

- If we're guaranteed the right to weapons ("arms" is a pretty ambiguous term, no?) , why stop at guns? Why shouldn't we be able to own other weapons that make bigger bangs, such as bombs and missiles and whatever else?

- For those who like the idea of gun ownership in the context of protecting themselves from a government run amok, do you really think that your small home arsenal will really do much good in the event that any actual despotic government comes after you for whatever reason (not just to collect your guns and melt them into a frame for a welfare daycare center or something)? If you haven't noticed, people who amass arsenals that actually reach combat levels are usually "approached" by various authorities at some point.

- All that said, I DO have some sympathies for the dwindling number of good, responsible (and safe & careful) hunters out there, but I suspect that gun control policy could find a way to carve out exceptions for hunters. Likewise with collectors.

- Having read pretty widely on both sides of the issue, incl. various arguments that the more guns in a society, the safer it is, I gotta say I don't feel convinced about the pro-gun arguments. I think the U.S. probably would be better off with some serious restrictions, at the least.

- For those who worry about a despotic government, I don't think that amassing arms is the best way to prevent that or (realistically) create a chance to stop it. You'd be better off trying to take over the military and stage a coup of some sort if you think violence is the only way in the given situation...

Facial King I see alot of how I think about this in your post.While I have argued many times what the 2nd amendement was about (as being a defense against tyranny) and nothing else,not crime, hunting etc I do admit that it may be outdated and that is a fair issue to debate.
But I have also argued that the idea that more guns somehow makes us safer is not supported at all by the facts.The majority of shooting in this country are not by people commiting crimes or by people defending themselves from crimes.They are the product of things like domestic disputes where a handy gun gets used in a fit of rage and also guns are used in a high percentage of suicides.IMO way less guns would make society much safer in day to day living.Problem is there are so many out there now that it would be very difficult to reduce the amount of guns out there.But when people talk about illegal guns they must keep in mind they were all legal once.
But back to the issue of opposing a tyrannical govt,while I agree modern weapons make the issue different then it was in the late 1700s I still think a 100,000 people marching on Washington with shotguns in hand is more intimadating then 100,000 without.And if it ever came down to the govt trying to call out the army on the people I wonder how many soldiers would obey and might refuse or even join the people.That one is really a question I can't determine the answer to.:dunno:
And I think their are some examples of people who are relatively not nearly as well armed being able to still mount quite credible fights even against very well armed militaries.Just look at Iraq,The US the most powerfull military in the world is bogged down by people much less well equipped.
But again I do admit all that is based on circumstances(like an armed revolution)that are pretty far fetched and very unlikely,while all the carnage from the wide availabilty of guns here now is real and happening as we see in the news all to often.You don't see these things in countries that don't have large amouts of guns.I guess the more we debate this the less I see the strength of the pro-gun arguement.But if thats true then we do need a constitutional amendment because it is in there as a right.

 

[Imagine]

I have some mixed feelings on this issue (so I'm probably in the wrong place, I know, if I don't have a hardcore, extreme opinion one way or the other).

So do what I do. Pick one. It's much more fun that way, even if you don't give a damn one way or another.

 

[negator]

I have some mixed feelings on this issue (so I'm probably in the wrong place, I know, if I don't have a hardcore, extreme opinion one way or the other).

Some thoughts, though:

- I think a lot of self-serving interpretation has to be done by those who read the 2nd Amendment to mean that any individual ought to be able to own a gun.

- For those who say that assault weapons are already banned (are they? I've known people who own FULLY automatic weapons, and perhaps I've even fired one myself, for rec. purposes), but support gun ownership, why doesn't it bother you (or maybe it does) that the assault weapons are banned? Does the 2nd Amendment really make distinctions between different types of arms?

- If we're guaranteed the right to weapons ("arms" is a pretty ambiguous term, no?) , why stop at guns? Why shouldn't we be able to own other weapons that make bigger bangs, such as bombs and missiles and whatever else?

- For those who like the idea of gun ownership in the context of protecting themselves from a government run amok, do you really think that your small home arsenal will really do much good in the event that any actual despotic government comes after you for whatever reason (not just to collect your guns and melt them into a frame for a welfare daycare center or something)? If you haven't noticed, people who amass arsenals that actually reach combat levels are usually "approached" by various authorities at some point.

- All that said, I DO have some sympathies for the dwindling number of good, responsible (and safe & careful) hunters out there, but I suspect that gun control policy could find a way to carve out exceptions for hunters. Likewise with collectors.

- Having read pretty widely on both sides of the issue, incl. various arguments that the more guns in a society, the safer it is, I gotta say I don't feel convinced about the pro-gun arguments. I think the U.S. probably would be better off with some serious restrictions, at the least.

- For those who worry about a despotic government, I don't think that amassing arms is the best way to prevent that or (realistically) create a chance to stop it. You'd be better off trying to take over the military and stage a coup of some sort if you think violence is the only way in the given situation...

you're a gun agnostic? i respect that. i was raised to be deathly afraid of guns. you know, a machine that is designed to kill? that's just pure evil.
when i came of age, i decided to confront all the irrational fears from my childhood. i fired a gun. it was a pretty big deal, and words can't rightly express what happened, so that's that. now i am what you might call a "gun nut"

the 2nd amendment doesn't need to be interpreted.

when james madison and friends wrote the bill of rights, they chose the term 'arms', not knowing what future technology would bring. repeating arms, 120mm smoothbore cannons, icbms, railguns, death-rays, we need to use common sense to define 'arms' per the 2nd ammendment. in 1968 a bill was passed that limits ownership of various classes of firearm, including guns capable of automatic fire, like the one you perhaps fired. since then, a number of states and the fed have set various laws further limiting gun rights.

so define 'serious restrictions'

worrying about a despotic government? you bet. arms are the last resort. and it doesn't take an arsenal, just the will to act. here is a quote from aleksandr solzhenitsyn, the gulag archipelago: 1918-1956

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you'd be cracking the skull of a cutthroat. Or what about the Black Maria sitting out there on the street with one lonely chauffeur -- what if it had been driven off or its tires spiked. The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt!

i don't spend a lot of time worrying about the bluecaps, but it's pure naivete to think that it can't happen here. :2 cents:

 

[marquis2]

There seems to be something in the American psyche about governments ; I correspond with a lot of Americans from all walks of life about a variety of topics but mention the word "government" and there's an almost paranoid response.
The founding fathers set up a system of checks and balances and wrote a pretty good Constitution which has more than stood the test of time.It has allowed the Courts to strike down legislation and prevent unconstitutional action by authorities which is probably-certainly-a better protection for the public than having a gun at home.
This side of the pond governments (however inept some may have been) have in general made life a hell of a lot better for people .We have removed some of the worst fears from our daily lives such as the financial worry of sickness or job loss.Swings and roundabouts but we are every bit as free as our American friends.This has come about not by owning guns but by reasoned argument and persuasion.

 

[Friday on my mind]

There seems to be something in the American psyche about governments ; I correspond with a lot of Americans from all walks of life about a variety of topics but mention the word "government" and there's an almost paranoid response.
The founding fathers set up a system of checks and balances and wrote a pretty good Constitution which has more than stood the test of time.It has allowed the Courts to strike down legislation and prevent unconstitutional action by authorities which is probably-certainly-a better protection for the public than having a gun at home.
This side of the pond governments (however inept some may have been) have in general made life a hell of a lot better for people .We have removed some of the worst fears from our daily lives such as the financial worry of sickness or job loss.Swings and roundabouts but we are every bit as free as our American friends.This has come about not by owning guns but by reasoned argument and persuasion.

Agreed and that kind of issue you mention about sickness being financial ruin for americans with our current system is what I think Fox is talking about as what we should really should concern ourselves with, not diversions like guns or gays and the like.

 

[Facetious]

The "Antis" are using specious arguments again ! Just spinning wheels !

It's out of the 'ol Hegelian Dialect (Marxist Technique In Argument)

√ Create a condition or make a statement that will draw a reaction

√ Generate fear and hysteria via specious arguments

√ Cite controversial sources (if any at all) i.e. - Wiki as a database for "study"

√ Appeal to the government apparatus to embolden laws complimentary to the eventual prohibition of firearms

√ File (Shop) for 3rd party liability lawsuits where applicable (to see if they "fly")


And on and and on.

Actually, I could live with the Fox plan. Let's examine that further . . . More Later . . . gotta go ~

 

[negator]

Cops with rifles to hit streets this summer

The Washington Times reported Wednesday that the department is arming the officers with the rifles as part of a national trend to protect them from criminals with increasingly powerful weapons.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080509/METRO/996294229/1004

 

[Facetious]

Huh ?

Officer Scott Fike, a canine handler, said his certification for the AR-15 expired in the past three months and was told he cannot re-qualify because the department does not have ammunition.

slick ! real slick ! :updown:

 

[Member2019]

All I know is ...

All I know is that I don't fear the law abiding citizen who owns a gun.

Hell, in the state of Florida, merely pulling a gun out will automatically get you 10 years in jail, unless it is justified defense. And that's how it should be, you don't pull it out unless you tend to use it.

The saddest thing is that I have now known two people who saved the lives of others by being armed after people stormed a public area and started shooting. And the sad part was that people were complaining about the person who saved them having a gun in the first place.

Yeah, like criminals legally buy guns, but you're worried about the person who did? Fear drives a lot of what people think, not reality. And until a supermajority of Americans decide it was wrong to have the 2nd Amendment, the Supreme Court will uphold it.

The supermajority of states thought it was damn important, 2nd most and by a huge margin, before they'd pass the US Constitution. And that view hasn't changed enough to override it either, and will likely never.

 

[Facetious]

Re: All I know is ...

The saddest thing is that I have now known two people who saved the lives of others by being armed after people stormed a public area and started shooting. And the sad part was that people were complaining about the person who saved them having a gun in the first place.

:updown:

Yep ! This reminds me of when a young woman jogger was ambushed by a mountain lion in a rural area in the sierra foothills above Sacramento. She was on a paved thoroughfare, not out in the boondocks or anything, just a normal, well traveled path. Needless to say, she died from her injuries.
Fish and game later located the cat and were instructed to destroy it, which they did. A special fund was set up for said jogger's child (IIRC). Animal rights activists then set up a fund for the mountain lion ! Long and short of it, the fund for the cat brought in more money than the one for the woman ! :thefinger Some people are such self loathing nuts ! All in the name of their religion - political correctness.

Although this has nothing to do with your story, it illustrates just how mad "we've" become.

Bassackwards nuttiness ! For where are our priorities ?

:booty: Up "our" ass !

 

[marquis2]

Re: All I know is ...

:updown:

Yep ! This reminds me of when a young woman jogger was ambushed by a mountain lion in a rural area in the sierra foothills above Sacramento. She was on a paved thoroughfare, not out in the boondocks or anything, just a normal, well traveled path. Needless to say, she died from her injuries.
Fish and game later located the cat and were instructed to destroy it, which they did. A special fund was set up for said jogger's child (IIRC). Animal rights activists then set up a fund for the mountain lion ! Long and short of it, the fund for the cat brought in more money than the one for the woman ! :thefinger Some people are such self loathing nuts ! All in the name of their religion - political correctness.

Although this has nothing to do with your story, it illustrates just how mad "we've" become.



Bassackwards nuttiness ! For where are our priorities ?

:booty: Up "our" ass !

Individual cases don't help the argument really;for example there are people who didn't use their car seat belts and survived because of it-but nobody would argue that you're safer not wearing them.

 

[Nomad 800]

Re: All I know is ...

Individual cases don't help the argument really;for example there are people who didn't use their car seat belts and survived because of it-but nobody would argue that you're safer not wearing them.

very good point

 

[Facetious]

In the court of law you're likely correct.

I was merely illustrating where our priorities reside.

 

[CrAzYLeGz]

No Matter What The Laws Say Or Might Say In The Future I'll Never Give Up My Guns

 

[Nomad 800]

No Matter What The Laws Say Or Might Say In The Future I'll Never Give Up My Guns

Which means you are only a law abiding citizen when it suits your needs/wants.

 

[Facetious]

^ Fiat of the judiciary is a tyranny, so if I may be so bold, yeah !

 

[georges]

Which means you are only a law abiding citizen when it suits your needs/wants.

giving up your guns means you have no wish and no will to protect your beloved ones and your neighborhood from scum. In the USA, people who are whining about guns and who want to see them pulled will be the ones who will dearly regret it because there will be none to defend them, and police can't be everywhere. The gun will help you when it is needed. Someone forces your property and wants to rob you and aggress your beloved ones, what do you do? I shoot or stab the fucker enough seriously and don't give shit about him.
Eye for eye, teeth for teeth and no pity for any form of scum.

 

[sputnikgirl]

1. It's reasonable to own 2 or 3 firearms, but anything more is simply excessive and shouldn't be tolerated.

2. There should be an intelligence test and a psychological test administered as part of the application process. If you fail either part, then no guns for you. If they find you with one after your application has been denied, $10,000 fine per firearm that's found in your possession.

3. Crackdown on pawn shops and other facilities who try to sell guns "under the table". Loss of business license permanently for anyone found guilty of illegal gun sales. Heavy fines (and possible jail time) for individuals who run illegal operations.

There are too many stupid and psychotic people running around with firearms. Too many innocent people have been victims of senseless gun violence, whether gang-related or domestic. Nobody, I don't care who you are, needs to own an excessive amount of firearms.

 

[negator]

Cops with rifles to hit streets this summer

The Washington Times reported Wednesday that the department is arming the officers with the rifles as part of a national trend to protect them from criminals with increasingly powerful weapons.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20080509/METRO/996294229/1004

did anyone find it odd that, in a city with a total ban on handguns and a severe restriction on all other arms, that the police feel the need to up-gun?

1. It's reasonable to own 2 or 3 firearms, but anything more is simply excessive and shouldn't be tolerated.

2. There should be an intelligence test and a psychological test administered as part of the application process. If you fail either part, then no guns for you. If they find you with one after your application has been denied, $10,000 fine per firearm that's found in your possession.

3. Crackdown on pawn shops and other facilities who try to sell guns "under the table". Loss of business license permanently for anyone found guilty of illegal gun sales. Heavy fines (and possible jail time) for individuals who run illegal operations.

There are too many stupid and psychotic people running around with firearms. Too many innocent people have been victims of senseless gun violence, whether gang-related or domestic. Nobody, I don't care who you are, needs to own an excessive amount of firearms.

1. your first statement is absurd. substitute the word "cars", "drinks", or "children" for "firearms" and you'll see both the irrationality and hopelessness of it.

2. an intelligence test? does the army use such a test? the men who designed our constitutional government knew about dumb, and planned for it. that's why they decided against direct democracy. they simultaneously recognized the right of the people to keep and bear arms. the mental test i believe is already on the books. implementing it is the trick (columbine, virginia tech, hundreds of others).

3. pawn shops and gun dealers are very heavily regulated and severely punished for even the slightest errors in paperwork. here is a gun shop in phoenix that got shut down:
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0507akbust0507.html

i don't mean to sound disrespectful, but i intend to own as many firearms as i can comfortably accomadate.
and yes, if they were prohibited, i'd be 'in the speakeasy.'

 

[Nomad 800]

1. your first statement is absurd. substitute the word "cars", "drinks", or "children" for "firearms" and you'll see both the irrationality and hopelessness of it.

I see nothing absurd about stating that it is excessive to own more then 2 or 3 firearms. If the point is to protect one's family against crime, why would you reasonably need more then 2 or 3?

i don't mean to sound disrespectful, but i intend to own as many firearms as i can comfortably accomadate.
and yes, if they were prohibited, i'd be 'in the speakeasy.'

I believe many gun owners feel as you do. The old 'Cold Dead Hands' thing.
It is interesting that gun owners use the Constitution as a reason for gun ownership. But were that legal framework to be taken away, that they (including yourself) would knowingly break the law to keep your weapons.
So it's not that you want your guns exclusively because it is your Constitutional Right to own one. You just want your guns; whether it is legal or not.