Gun Ownership / Laws Discussion & Debate

Discussion in 'Politics' started by IndependntLogic, Aug 13, 2011.

  1. IndependntLogic
    Offline

    IndependntLogic Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Messages:
    2,997
    Thanks Received:
    399
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +399
    At the invitation of a poster whom I respect, I'm starting this thread as an off-shoot from another (Things I Disagree with Tea Party / Liberals...).

    "When you are done with this topic, we can discuss this one in more detail.

    * I own a gun. If anyone breaks into my home and holds perfectly still while I move to within three feet of them, they're dead meat. Or their leg will hurt. Maybe a toe. In any case, you guys are all over the danm place on this issue. Some of you have told me I should be able to own a machine gun or even an RPG. Others have told me I should be able to take these fine weapons anywhere I want. I disagree with those of you who have that view.
    On the other side, Libs if I have a gun in my home, I am not a "NeoCon" or "Out to prove my manhood".

    Good post otherwise."

    So apparently my new found friend thinks this part of my post was bad. I'm betting it's not because he thinks all guns should be banned...

    What's funny is, in the same thread, for the paragraph above, I was called a Conservative who puts human life before property and a Liberal who wants to take away our protection from that tyrannical government that we all know is going to invade ou homes any day now.

    So there it is.
    If you don't think we need gun ownership at all and can state your reasons why, guess what? I can respect those views. I'm not going to call you names or sling petty insults like some arrogant moron who thinks I know all.
    If you think we should have more gun rights and can state your reasons why, guess what? Same thing. Intelligent people can appreciate differing views.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. BoycottTheday
    Offline

    BoycottTheday CEO

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2011
    Messages:
    1,301
    Thanks Received:
    94
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +95
    Humans have a fundamental right of self protection. That s my view, in a thousand years the weapons we use today will be museum pieces at best.

    What the issue is do you or dont you have the right to protect yourself.

    After that is answerd i could say the right to bear arms wont mean much when technology advances beyond the firearm.

    What good is a right to bear arms when nukes can be the size of a grapefruit.

    To be honest i put more faith in my Point
    Blank vest
    than any weapon i have.

    My chances of shooting someone before they shoot me out in the streets isnt that good.


    :eusa_whistle:
     
  3. LordBrownTrout
    Offline

    LordBrownTrout Gold Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2007
    Messages:
    15,490
    Thanks Received:
    2,962
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    South Texas
    Ratings:
    +6,352
    Anyone who breaks into another person's house should realize that it could be the last day of their life.
     
  4. tonystewart1
    Offline

    tonystewart1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2011
    Messages:
    914
    Thanks Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    McDowell County, WV
    Ratings:
    +155
    There is a system of check and balances that keep the 3 branches of govt in check. What is the check that keeps the govt in check with me and you; an armed population. We have the right to defend oursleves from others and an overbearing govt.

    That being said; what defines a weapon? A knife, pump shotgun, semi-automatic rifles, fully automatic rifles, explosives.

    Personally i beileve that we have to draw the line at what will give you more fire power than those who would do you harm. Street gangs and police both use full auto wepons so we should be allowed to have them also. RPGs are pretty silly you will do more damage to yourself and your property than you would do to an intruder. Armour piercing ammo should be legal.

    We should teach our children to handle guns safetly and with responsibility.
     
  5. JoeB131
    Online

    JoeB131 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    80,406
    Thanks Received:
    6,869
    Trophy Points:
    1,815
    Location:
    Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
    Ratings:
    +14,993
    Here's my underlying take.

    Haven't handled a firearm since I parted with the military in 1992, and frankly, I'm totally good with that. Don't need one, and don't feel I'm missing anything.

    But I think that anyone who wants to own a gun, and isn't a criminal or has a mental illness, and can show he can handle the thing responsibly should be allowed to own one if that is what he enjoys.

    Now, all of that said, this issue is dominated by two irrational, loud groups, the NRA Gun Nuts and the Sarah Brady Gun Grabbers.

    For the Sarah Brady types, you are irrational. YOu can't ban something after people have enjoyed the right for decades. The horse got out of that barn a long time ago, and every jurisdiction that has tried to ban guns has seen the effort fail miserably. Guns are completely illegal in Chicago, but the city still averages a few hundred handgun deaths, every year.

    For the gun nuts, the two reasons you give for wanting a gun are also irrational. The first is to protect yourself from an evil government that wants to do bad things to you. The fact is, if the government ever thinks you are someone they need to take out, probably so do most of your neighbors. And no matter how many guns you've stockpiled, they have more, bigger ones and they are better with them. Ask the Branch Davidians how well that worked out.

    The other reason given is that you want to be able to protect your family. BUt statistics have shown a gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than a bad guy - suicides, arguments and accidents.
     
  6. WillowTree
    Offline

    WillowTree Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    68,122
    Thanks Received:
    10,159
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Ratings:
    +14,671
    I've never heard the NRA say anthing of the sort. Can you link us to that statement? We own a variety of guns and have cwp. That said. I don't carry. I use mine for home portection only. If the dog wakes me up in time the breaker inner loses. If he's stupid enough to do so then it's on him.
     
  7. tonystewart1
    Offline

    tonystewart1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    May 26, 2011
    Messages:
    914
    Thanks Received:
    142
    Trophy Points:
    78
    Location:
    McDowell County, WV
    Ratings:
    +155
    When I refer to our need for guns against the govt I am refering to "we the people". When we all decide that our govt has become tyranical and needs to be replaced then that requires an armed citizenry. Thats how our war for independence was won when the British became to tyranical. Govts fear armed citizens because then we have recourse when they become to overbearing. Thats why the govt wants to take them away.
     
  8. JoeB131
    Online

    JoeB131 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    80,406
    Thanks Received:
    6,869
    Trophy Points:
    1,815
    Location:
    Chicago, Chicago, that Toddling Town
    Ratings:
    +14,993
    I don't subscribe to the worship of the Founders a lot on the right do. They were a bunch of rich slaveholders who didn't want to pay for a war (The French and Indian War) that they provoked and they benefited from.

    I credit them with establishing a good enough system that allowed something good to come about. Usually revolutions lead to things being a lot worse for everyone when all is said and done.

    We won our war against Britian because France and Spain (no lovers of democracy there) decided they were going to get some payback on England for screwing them over in the last couple of wars. Not because there were a bunch of plucky guys with squirrel guns. We won because guys from Europe like Pulaski, Lafayette, Von Stueben (who was as ka-weer as a square donut) came over and showed our guys how to fight a war.

    So, oddly, my fellow right wingers, we owe our freedom today to a Gay Prussian officer who showed the hillbillies how to march and stand in formation.
     
  9. C_Clayton_Jones
    Offline

    C_Clayton_Jones Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Apr 28, 2011
    Messages:
    41,543
    Thanks Received:
    8,933
    Trophy Points:
    2,030
    Location:
    In a Republic, actually
    Ratings:
    +23,869
    The above made me smile…

    As with the right to privacy, free speech, and due process, we have ‘all our rights,’ the question is the extent to which the government may preempt or restrict those rights.

    Since the right to self defense, and the individual right to own a gun consequently, wasn’t decided until 2008 in the Heller ruling and incorporated to the states via the 14th Amendment in McDonald last year, the case law on this is still relatively new and evolving.

    Nordyke v. King is among the oldest of the cases, still pending in the Ninth Circuit. It was on hold waiting for Heller and McDonald to be resolved. It has to do with the right of a local jurisdiction to ban gun shows, and if that constitutes an inappropriate preemption to own firearms.

    The exciting aspect of this is we’re on the ‘ground floor’ of writing new Constitutional case law, and it could take another 20 or 30 years before this is all sorted out.

    Until things are sorted out, then, I consider the following to be un-Constitutional:

    Waiting periods

    Purchase restrictions (allowing only the purchase of a set number of handguns during a calendar month, for example).

    Magazine capacity

    Cosmetic configuration (pistol grips, detachable magazines, flash suppressors, etc)

    Permits/licenses

    Training requirements (exception to concealed carry)

    Open carry restrictions

    Gun registration

    I believe restrictions on fully automatic weapons and so-called ‘weapons of mass destruction’ will be upheld, along with restrictions to the mentally ill owning guns and background checks.

    Two final notes: first, the fundamental flaw with regard to gun regulations is what I consider to be a ‘presumption of guilt,’ that if one wishes to own a gun, considered by many to be a dangerous, scary thing, that criminals have done terrible things with, then you should be subject to excessive restrictions accordingly. This is obviously in conflict with the basic tenets of Anglo-American jurisprudence. And the Court has consistently held that the potential that one may abuse a given right doesn’t justify its restriction.

    Second, in light of Heller/McDonald, the likelihood of further legislation is remote. A majority of restriction advocates have given up on the issue, moving on to more promising battles.
     
  10. PoliticalChic
    Online

    PoliticalChic Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    55,689
    Thanks Received:
    15,594
    Trophy Points:
    2,190
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +24,828
    Question, Joe...

    Is the avi that of the Hammerskins?
     

Share This Page