Obama and Guns

[midcan5]

But still why do they bring comfort to some and make them happy? No one answered yet.

Pick up lines for gun huggers:

Haven't I seen you at the firing range?
Damn, you look even better out of your hunting orange!
What's your sign? NRA all the way.
Damn, you are one shapely woman, is that a Glock 9 or 45?
What's your favorite powder, good looking?
Maybe we can get together at my place and load some ammo.
I'll let you hold mine if you let me hold yours.

 

[BrianH]

I can't for the life of me figure out why guns are so important to some men? No one is taking your security blanket away, they only want to control them as you would any dangerous device. I don't buy the 2nd amendment freedom baloney as those were different times and it is open to other interpretations. We ain't fighting the King of England any longer or other local tyrants. So who the hell needs an assault rifle unless you are a terrorist? I am missing something here. So why do guns make any one happy?

The same reason that pornography may make you happy. You have a hobby and it makes you happy.

I like collecting guns, as well as shooting them. I also enjoy hunting. And since I don't care to run around like the Cambodian wild man and hunt animals with a knife and bare hands, I choose to do it with a gun.

I enjoy seeing (not seeing) a projectile travel at 4000 feet per second and striking a wild hog (that tear up our fields) in the ear. I also enjoy driving nails and making clovers with my gun on a target. But, why take out one hog with a bolt-action, when you can take out two, three, four, or even five with an assault rifle? And if you really want to get technical, couldn't you "assault" someone with any type of rife.

Where you may enjoy one thing, I enjoy another. There's nothing wrong with having and enjoying a hobby. And considering it's my persuit of happiness to own and shoot firearms, I'm entitled to do so.

 

[AllieBaba]

That's arguable.



That's arguable.



That's arguable.



That's arguable.

Yeah, and that's meaningful, considering you also argue whether ammunition is really an arm or not.

You can argue anything you like, but it won't change the facts.

 

[AllieBaba]

But still why do they bring comfort to some and make them happy? No one answered yet.

Pick up lines for gun huggers:

Haven't I seen you at the firing range?
Damn, you look even better out of your hunting orange!
What's your sign? NRA all the way.
Damn, you are one shapely woman, is that a Glock 9 or 45?
What's your favorite powder, good looking?
Maybe we can get together at my place and load some ammo.
I'll let you hold mine if you let me hold yours.

They bring comfort to some the same way horses bring comfort to some, or works of art bring comfort to some, or woodwork bring comfort to some. Some people appreciate the mechanics and the materials used in a gun, they like the way they look and feel, they like the variety. Some people like guns because it's a hobby they've shared with a loved one, or because they enjoy hunting, or because they make them feel safe.

Like I said, just because you don't derive anything out of it doesn't mean others are wrong when they do.

 

[midcan5]

The same reason that pornography may make you happy. You have a hobby and it makes you happy.

I like collecting guns, as well as shooting them. I also enjoy hunting. And since I don't care to run around like the Cambodian wild man and hunt animals with a knife and bare hands, I choose to do it with a gun.

That's a fair answer and I agree, I have shot often and enjoyed it. I guess I need to modify my question to, 'that right is still yours' but it is still a dangerous device and control won't stop that hobby, it will only make it safer for everyone. So then why is it important in the scheme of things.

 

[AllieBaba]

Who will be made safer by more control? Who, exactly, are the legal owners of guns hurting now? Why should they be further restricted?

People are missing the mark when they take aim at law abiding gun owners. They aren't a problem, and it's asinine to continue restricting their access to guns more and more because criminals out there are using illegal weapons to wage gang wars.

 

[Shogun]

But still why do they bring comfort to some and make them happy? No one answered yet.

Pick up lines for gun huggers:

Haven't I seen you at the firing range?
Damn, you look even better out of your hunting orange!
What's your sign? NRA all the way.
Damn, you are one shapely woman, is that a Glock 9 or 45?
What's your favorite powder, good looking?
Maybe we can get together at my place and load some ammo.
I'll let you hold mine if you let me hold yours.

It's a hobby like any other activity that people use to occupy their time. Do you enjoy building and breaking down cars? I dont but some people do. Computers? I do but some people don't. classical Music? Obscure Books? Same difference. In this case, a hobby that provides ample protection in the event of a criminal situation; hence happiness derived from the ideal of safety. Would you feel happy about having a new door on your house after living a month without one in the ghetto? Would you feel happy knowing that the cop who comes to your rescue has something with which to protect you with besides the authority of a badge and pepper spray?


I mean, do have fun with the generalizations and jokes. Lord knows I do the same with my pet demographic. But, to be honest, your question indicates a very narrow scope of those who enjoy having guns.

 

[Paulie]

Midcan, if you were being mugged, or your house was being robbed while you were home, would you rather HAVE a gun or NOT have a gun?

 

[BrianH]

That's a fair answer and I agree, I have shot often and enjoyed it. I guess I need to modify my question to, 'that right is still yours' but it is still a dangerous device and control won't stop that hobby, it will only make it safer for everyone. So then why is it important in the scheme of things.

You're absolutely right. A firearm is a very dangerous device, but if properly taught how to handle them in the safest way possible, they could possibly be safer.

When I was a little kid, and I asked my Dad what that was in the cabinet. He told me they were guns. He got one out and explained to me to me what it was and how it worked. He helped me hold it and he preached safety safety safety. He told me that they were dangerous and that if I ever wanted to look at them, to come find him and ask him, and he would get it out for me to look out. And I should never try to handle them by myself.
He didn't scream "That's a gun son! It could kill you!" "Don't ever touch them!" Alot of parents do this to their kids, never take them shooting, so the curiosity remains. And one day the kid slips the gun out from under the bed and accidently shoots him/herself. Or they want to see what it'll do, so they point it at their friend (in play) and pull the trigger.

Gun education will not solve firearm crime, but it will definately help younger kids to understand what they are, and how to operate them safely. Just my opinion.

 

[AllieBaba]

I think if schools teach "sex education" they should also teach firearm safety.

I mean, they're both things where one screw up can cost you your life.

 

[jillian]

I think if schools teach "sex education" they should also teach firearm safety.

Why? Everyone has sex.

I mean, they're both things where one screw up can cost you your life.

gee...there's an analogy. perhaps we should have mandatory home wiring classes, too?

 

[midcan5]

I have to revise my thinking on this topic a bit, as I have been coming at it only from one angle. I agree it can be a great hobby.

Midcan, if you were being mugged, or your house was being robbed while you were home, would you rather HAVE a gun or NOT have a gun?

I have been in enough fights that mugging doesn't bother me, I only hope the other person is not armed. And I am not really concerned with robbery, may sound naive but a bat or hammer may be the better weapon.

 

[BrianH]

I have to revise my thinking on this topic a bit, as I have been coming at it only from one angle. I agree it can be a great hobby.



I have been in enough fights that mugging doesn't bother me, I only hope the other person is not armed. And I am not really concerned with robbery, may sound naive but a bat or hammer may be the better weapon.

Well that's great, it's good to see a poster willing to look at it from a different angle.

Yeah, those could be good weapons. Alot of it depends on the situation, if you were able to know that someone was trying to get in, and suprise them with a bat or hammer, that might be a better technique. But burglars don't all break in the same. What I fear, is someone who's been watching my house for a few weeks, then breaks in and makes a mad dash down the hall in the time it takes me to wake up and get out of bed. A gun by the bedside would do best in this scenario. The only thing that worries me, is that a gun will reach a "hair" farther than a bat or hammer. If the burglar has one, you're at an immediate disadvantage. Good luck to any man who brings a knife to a gun fight.

 

[KungFusion]

"But a precondition not inherent to that right is.
Can you show that licensing and registration are inherent to the right to arms?
If not, then its an infringement."

Can you show that they're not? Define what's inherent to the right to arms one way - i'll define it another. The right to arms is not a basic human right, it is one that is granted and bestowed by the government under which one lives. Move or travel to certain other nations, that right dissapears, while all your basic human rights remain the same and enforcable by international law. The "right" to arms is one written into the American Constitution, and therefore part of the law of this country, but as a right granted by the law, it remains subject to those laws - so if those laws deliniate that licensing and registration are inherent preconditions to the right to bear arms, then there is no infringement. Weapons bans are an infringment, because they entirely and universally PRECLUDE the right to arms, but licensing and registration are merely preconditions because they don't in themselves prevent anyone from exercising the right. There's no injustice there.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"But a precondition not inherent to that right is.
Can you show that licensing and registration are inherent to the right to arms?
If not, then its an infringement."

Can you show that they're not?

Given the argument -- that they are not infringements -- its not up to me to show anything; it is up to those claiming that they are not infringements to show that licensing and registration ARE restrictions inherent to the right to armd.

The right to arms is not a basic human right, it is one that is granted and bestowed by the government under which one lives....
The "right" to arms is one written into the American Constitution, and therefore part of the law of this country, but as a right granted by the law...

False.
No rights are granted by the government or the Constitution; all rights pre-exist government -- including the right to arms.

So, show that licensig and registration are inherent restrictions to the right to arms. Explain, sepcifically, that if they are --inherent-- to the right to arms that they are conditions that not exist until relatively recently and even now are exceptionally rare.

 

[KungFusion]

Furthermore there are practical restrictions placed on the exercising of ANY right. The old cliche example of yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre for instance. Free speech is a right, but it's still subject to certain practical restrictions being placed on it by the law in order that society can continue to function effectively. Thus, if someone wants to stockpile weapons on their own property, that is their right under the constitution, but they should, for the sake of social peace and order, be required by law to notify the authorities of their actions and register those arms, as well as abiding by certain basic safety regulations (not storing crates of ammunition in the basement next to the furnace for instance). These are not infringements upon the stockpiler's rights - but they SHOULD be preconditions for the exercising of them.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Furthermore there are practical restrictions placed on the exercising of ANY right. The old cliche example of yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre for instance. Free speech is a right, but it's still subject to certain practical restrictions being placed on it by the law in order that society can continue to function effectively.

Restrictions on free speech are all based on the idea that the 'speech' in question --inflammatory speech, fighting words, inciting a riot, libel, slander -- causes direct harm to others. Your right to swing your fist ends just as hit hits my nose...

How is this at all similar to 'stockpiling weapons'?

These are not infringements upon the stockpiler's rights - but they SHOULD be preconditions for the exercising of them.

The only way that are not infringements is if they are inherent to the exercise of the right.
Show that to be the case.

 

[KungFusion]

"Originally Posted by KungFusion
Quote:
"But a precondition not inherent to that right is.
Can you show that licensing and registration are inherent to the right to arms?
If not, then its an infringement."

Can you show that they're not?

Given the argument -- that they are not infringements -- its not up to me to show anything; it is up to those claiming that they are not infringements to show that licensing and registration ARE restrictions inherent to the right to armd."

This simply isn't true at all. There is no "burden of proof" in semantic interpretations of law. Otherwise, you could claim that even having to PAY for firearms as a precondition was an infringment of your rights and it would be incumbent on the gov't to prove you wrong. That's ridiculous.

"Quote:
The right to arms is not a basic human right, it is one that is granted and bestowed by the government under which one lives....
The "right" to arms is one written into the American Constitution, and therefore part of the law of this country, but as a right granted by the law...

False.
No rights are granted by the government or the Constitution; all rights pre-exist government -- including the right to arms."

No. FALSE: In the absence of the rule of law, nobody has ANY rights as such, because there is no enforcement and no protection. In an anarchic society, you can come along and steal away all my guns and i have no recourse; for me to claim that you had "no right" to do so, or that you were violating my rights as granted to me by some intangible, metaphysical rule of the universe would be spurious and laughable.

"So, show that licensig and registration are inherent restrictions to the right to arms. Explain, sepcifically, that if they are --inherent-- to the right to arms that they are conditions that not exist until relatively recently and even now are exceptionally rare."

Exceptionally rare? Really? I think most major US cities above a certain threshold population density require licenses for gun ownership . . .

Again, as a right granted under the law, it is subject to those laws. Unless you can show how registering your weapons effectively infringes upon your ability to exercise your right to arms, i don't see that there's anything wrong with it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This simply isn't true at all. There is no "burden of proof" in semantic interpretations of law

Then you'll agree that was silly for you to ask me to show that they are not inherent to the right to arms.

No. FALSE: In the absence of the rule of law, nobody has ANY rights as such, because there is no enforcement and no protection.

Just exaplining to you how our system works.
You can disagree with it, but that doesnt make you right.
But you will note that the Constitution is written in such a way that it presumes the existence of the rights and then protects them, rather than granting said rights to us.

Exceptionally rare? Really? I think most major US cities above a certain threshold population density require licenses for gun ownership . . .

I see you skipped the part where you were to show that licensing and registration are --inherent-- to the right to arms.

Unless you can show how registering your weapons effectively infringes upon your ability to exercise your right to arms, i don't see that there's anything wrong with it.

Been there, done that -- they are preconditions placed on the right not inherent to that right.

 

[KungFusion]

Quote:
Originally Posted by KungFusion
Furthermore there are practical restrictions placed on the exercising of ANY right. The old cliche example of yelling FIRE in a crowded theatre for instance. Free speech is a right, but it's still subject to certain practical restrictions being placed on it by the law in order that society can continue to function effectively.

"Restrictions on free speech are all based on the idea that the 'speech' in question --inflammatory speech, fighting words, inciting a riot, libel, slander -- causes direct harm to others. Your right to swing your fist ends just as hit hits my nose...

How is this at all similar to 'stockpiling weapons'?"

Because a insecure weapons stockpile (even one on private property) poses a major potential risk public safety.


"Quote:
These are not infringements upon the stockpiler's rights - but they SHOULD be preconditions for the exercising of them.

The only way that are not infringements is if they are inherent to the exercise of the right.
Show that to be the case."

Well, you can try arbitrarily to declare that the burden of proof is on my end, but it doesn't work that way by law. Laws are made by representative govt officials and then, if questionable, challenged - and the burden of proof generally rests in the challenger's lap. You know, "I fought the law and the law won"? If you can't show how, as an already active gun owner and user, registration requirements "infringe" upon your right to arms, then the question of wether or not the preconditions are "inherent" becomes moot.