Topic: Gun Control (Read 33699 times)

Crystalmonkey · « **on:** February 06, 2006, 09:04:28 PM »

I was wondering how you folks feel about the issues about gun control. (Should be ban them, is it effective, don't we have a right to bear arms, etc...)

Just thought I would start up a new conversation, though I am going to finish what I was saying in the other thread.

Phife · « **Reply #1 on:** February 07, 2006, 03:41:42 AM »

We have a right to bear arms because or founders said so...and I am for making it as hard as possible to get them. And why would anyone need a fully automatic weapon...really? Rifles and shotguns for hunting and pistols for security. That's it. Semi-automatic is okay. Fully is not.

reimero · « **Reply #2 on:** February 07, 2006, 07:58:25 AM »

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That says all you need to know right there.

TheJudge · « **Reply #3 on:** February 07, 2006, 08:15:35 AM »

Banning guns all together isn't a viable solution to a gun related problem. Guns have a legitimate purpose and they can be a lot of fun. I have a friend who's into clay shooting. He owns multiple guns. His guns are registered, and locked into a massive steel safe. Each gun as a trigger lock. He doesn't take out his guns to show them to all his friends when they come over for drinks. He also hunts. He doesn't shoot at anything that moves. He doesn't shoot at a hare when there's a road with traffic just behind the target. He doesn't point his gun at people. In other wors, he's a responsible gun owner.

He owns a semi automatic (12 gage I think) which he use only for gun sports, clay shooting in his case. He won't take out that gun to go hunting. He'll stick with a pump, single shot, or double barrel gun when he hunts.

All that to say, there is legitimate reasons why people have guns. But who needs an AK47, or any other fully automatic gun? Why were these guns designed in the first place? To hunt elk? No. These guns were created with a single purpose in mind: killing people. That is the difference. Guns that fall into this category should be banned out right. They serve no positive purpose. Obviously, the military would be excluded from this ban, as they are in the human killing business. The general public, however, has no use for such weapons.

People will use the good old "right to bear arms" argument to say they are entitled to own these kinds of guns. To them, I say "Come on!" and the reason I say this is simple. The founders didn't specify what "arms" refers to. If we put things into context and look at what kind of "arms" they had back then, well we're talking riffles and handguns. Not AKs and bazookas.

It would be nice if the courts brought scope to the word "arms" and resolve the question once and for all.

reimero · « **Reply #4 on:** February 07, 2006, 08:58:00 AM »

Actually, they intended people to be allowed to own guns in order to keep governments in check and prevent effective military governments.

LuciferSam · « **Reply #5 on:** February 07, 2006, 09:32:42 AM »

Love guns... never ask an irishman about gun control...

TheJudge · « **Reply #6 on:** February 07, 2006, 09:52:11 AM »

Quote from: reimero

Actually, they intended people to be allowed to own guns in order to keep governments in check and prevent effective military governments.

Was it actually related to prevent governments from anything, or more towards the ablility to act in self defense when the sherif doesnt' show up. In other words, the inability to rely on the government. I don't think it prevents the governemnt from anything.

LuciferSam · « **Reply #7 on:** February 07, 2006, 10:08:57 AM »

Citizens Right to Bear Arms:

Citizens Right to Bear's Arms:

/harharhar
/uptheIRA!

Dark Shade · « **Reply #8 on:** February 07, 2006, 10:46:26 AM »

I'm in agreement with The Judge on this one. Citizens should have the right to bear 'arms', however, for specific purposes only. If you're responsible, careful, etc. with your firearm, I see no reason why you should not continue owning it. Judge's friend is a great example of what more gun owners should attempt to behave like: Responsible hunting, target shooting, etc. S'all good in my books.

reimero · « **Reply #9 on:** February 07, 2006, 10:51:25 AM »

Quote from: TheJudge

Was it actually related to prevent governments from anything, or more towards the ablility to act in self defense when the sherif doesnt' show up. In other words, the inability to rely on the government. I don't think it prevents the governemnt from anything.

There was a strong distrust of central governments at the time, and in fact a strong distrust of militaries. A standing army was a necessary evil that should only barely be tolerated. The bulk of the military might rested in militias, which were comprised of private citizens.

The right to bear arms has nothing to do with hunting or shooting for sport and everything to do with military applications, specifically, keeping the standing army in check.

TheJudge · « **Reply #10 on:** February 07, 2006, 11:26:04 AM »

So in that case, would you say that the right to bear arms has nothing to do with the discussions on gun control when the motives of those discussions are related to safety (prevention of accidental gun wounds) and crime reduction?

Demosthenes · « **Reply #11 on:** February 07, 2006, 11:29:57 AM »

I will not accept a government removing my ability to protect my family, property, and myself unless they can 100% guarantee my safety.

Since that is impossible, then I believe law-abiding, private citizens without felony backgrounds should be allowed to possess whatever means they deem necessary for home and self defense.

I won't have a Senator or Representative with a $70,000 security system and Secret Service agents telling me I cannot own a firearm to protect my loved ones.

sociald1077 · « **Reply #12 on:** February 07, 2006, 12:23:16 PM »

Judge and Demo hit this on on the head for me.

TheJudge · « **Reply #13 on:** February 07, 2006, 01:02:13 PM »

Quote from: Demosthenes

should be allowed to possess whatever means they deem necessary for home and self defense.

So anything at all? What if you are unreasonable or unfit to deem what is necessary? There is such a thing as overkill.

Demosthenes · « **Reply #14 on:** February 07, 2006, 01:13:46 PM »

You've obviously never been to Newport News, VA.

TheJudge · « **Reply #15 on:** February 07, 2006, 01:29:02 PM »

Well, let me illustrate my point.

Say there's an ant on your driveway. The ant is heading towards your house and you want to put a stop to that by Killing it. The resonable thing to do would be to stomp on it. On the other hand, maybe you think it would be more fun to pour a couple of gallons of gasoline on your drivway, and set the whole thing on fire, roasting the ant to death.

But let's say it's windy out. The driveway fire spreads to your lawn, then to mine, and then to my home.

what you think is resonable just cost me my home. Thanks a lot jackass!

Demosthenes · « **Reply #16 on:** February 07, 2006, 03:13:56 PM »

"Reasonable" is in the eye of the beholder, more often than not.

But "responsible" isn't. What you described was irresponsible, even if to the person doing such a thing it seemed reasonable.

Nothing I am suggesting would give people carte blanche to behave in a manner that is irresponsible toward the safety of their neighbors.

Crystalmonkey · « **Reply #17 on:** February 07, 2006, 04:24:43 PM »

Quote from: TheJudge

So in that case, would you say that the right to bear arms has nothing to do with the discussions on gun control when the motives of those discussions are related to safety (prevention of accidental gun wounds) and crime reduction?

Yes, it does.

Firstly, I could probably get a gun. I don't mean legally. If I can get a gun, it's not unreasonable to assume a ganger can get a gun. Actually, it's been shown that they CAN get guns, including AK's.

What reduces crime more than the thought that someone you want to rob may be armed? It's a deterrent.

Second, it's more likely that a kid will die in a swimming pool than they will from a gun accident. (Freakonomic, Pg. 149)

It's fine to say "you must lock up your gun because it can cause problems" but it's not fine to completely ban people from having guns.

Third, the founding fathers had just fought a REVOLUTION where the GOVERNMENT was in control of the ARMY and was trying to take away their GUNS so they couldn't fight back. The whole purpose of having guns was that if "we", the people, had to fight another revolution against the government, we'd be able to.

Denying someone the means of self-defense is to essentially deny someone the right to self-defense.

MISTER MASSACRE · « **Reply #18 on:** February 07, 2006, 05:07:06 PM »

If anything, I think we need more guns. I would like to incorporate firearms into our daily lives in a more intuitive manner.

By way of example, take my idea for a telephone with a gun in it - should you receive bad news, you can immediately shoot yourself in the head before the gravity of the news makes you cry like some kind of weepy sad pussy babyface.

LuciferSam · « **Reply #19 on:** February 07, 2006, 08:51:27 PM »

Printers with installed firearms to weed out the workplace inept?

hackess · « **Reply #20 on:** February 07, 2006, 09:17:20 PM »

Quote from: LuciferSam

Printers with installed firearms to weed out the workplace inept?

Yesplz.

MISTER MASSACRE · « **Reply #21 on:** February 07, 2006, 11:31:35 PM »

Quote from: LuciferSam

Printers with installed firearms to weed out the workplace inept?

Heh, "PC LOAD CARTRIDGE"

-- does it want ink or bullets?

LuciferSam · « **Reply #22 on:** February 08, 2006, 01:19:56 AM »

Could be either. With my new 8 1/2 x 11 x 9x9mm brand printer, you have one chance and two choices. Can you survive the office?

Actually, I was at a bar ***(and 'pizzeria') the other night for a high school blues band showdown between 5 groups (as a judge, no less) and began to imagine what a microphone/gun combination would do for the Seattle blues singer scene.

EDIT:***

reimero · « **Reply #23 on:** February 08, 2006, 08:13:27 AM »

Quote from: LuciferSam

Printers with installed firearms to weed out the workplace inept?

Best. Idea. EVAR!!

Stratofortress · « **Reply #24 on:** February 08, 2006, 09:43:45 AM »

I can see both sides, but I choose not too look at one of them very much.

I'm fond of boomsticks, and I don't know that saying felons aren't allowed to own them is really helpful. They're felons, after all! Felon status usually indicates a low opinion of the law. These individuals are not likely to lose sleep after acquiring a firearm. (Not from Wal*Mart, mind you. More likely from the trunk of someone's car. Or steal one. Or carve one out of a bar of soap.) Shooting them will prevent them from commiting crimes in the future. Since the police can't be everywhere it's up to the non-felons to help out by shooting the ciminals.

As for keeping the military in check, do you really think that guys with shotguns and 9's are going to have much impact on an M-1 Abrams tank? Or a sqaud of Rangers? Or - I dare say - a B-52 Stratofortress? Death from the sky baby! Carpet bombing for the masses!

News:

Recent Forum Posts

Shout Box

Author Topic: Gun Control (Read 33699 times)