Observations regarding the anti-gun crowd

[Dr Grump]

At the end of the day, the US is one of the most violent countries in the Western World. It's too late for any type of gun control....let them have their guns....

 

[Father Time]

What -I- find most amusing about the anti-gun crowd - especially the anti-gun crowd on this board - is your inabaility to engage in a knowledgeable, reasoned conversation about the issue. Your posts are full of strawmen, abject ignorance, unsound reasoning, non-sequitur and ad hom, all of which, of course, are useless for a meaningful conversation among adults.

If you are -so- right, why can you not present a sound, knowledgeable argument to back your position?

Care to give an example? Without one it's just useless flamebait.

Here I'll give you one.

"The pro-gun side says they want to use military grade weapons for hunting" -there's an anti-gun straw man I hear too often.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I would still like somebody to point out why we shouldn't make it so people who're selling guns would need a license to do so? This way it enforces that background checks being done, and if you're a law-abiding citizen you can still get guns (I'm not for banning any additional guns for the record).

-It doesn't violate the constitution (which states you have the right to own them-not sell them)
-It doesn't violate private-selling laws, because you can't sell any restricted item privately you want to just anybody (see alcohol, cigarettes, prescription medications)
-It helps keep guns away from criminals
-It doesn't violate the rights, or place any additional restrictions on them of any law-abiding citizens

I posed this a little earlier, but I think it got lost in the whole name-calling and such. Just curious what the pro-gun people think of this, and if they can give me their reasoning. (I'm pro-gun btw).

You don't understand the Constitution, do you? The Constitution does not give me the right to sell a gun, because that is not it's purpose. The US Constitution restricts the rights of government and specifically lists it's powers.
Nowhere in the list of enumerated powers do I find justification for restricting private commerce within the boundaries of a state.

And no! You are not "pro-gun".

Can you be truly said to own a gun if you do not have the right to sell it when you don't want it any more?

 

[Father Time]

Mini, I'm not anti-gun. I don't own one and never have, but I've considered it and if I wanted one, it's nice to know I could.

What I find aggravating is the pro-gun crew seems unwilling to discuss reasonable restrictions. Why must assault weapons be legal?

Because from what I've heard they're virtually never used in crimes so ... why not?

And I greatly fear the day they produce a plastic gun that does not show up on an x-ray, which seems inevitable to me.

I hate to break it to you but ...

 

[Cecilie1200]

I would still like somebody to point out why we shouldn't make it so people who're selling guns would need a license to do so?

They do. Federal Firearms License. All dealers need them.

All dealers yes-not all people who are private sellers-but sell to the general public. And while you certainly raised a good example of my argument about not being able to privately sell prescription-you didn't answer the same for alcohol. This is because for prescriptions you need have a need to take them, and have it certified by a doctor.

The government restricts who can sell alcohol, and you can't sell it privately to the general public without a license to do so (garage sales, flea markets for example). You can't do that with tobacco products either. So why should guns be an exception?

And nobody's who is against my argument for making it so everybody who sells has to be licensed, has told me why this shouldn't be in place. Can you tell me what rights this would infringe upon?

You might also notice that while the Constitution has an Amendment specifically protecting the right to keep and bear arms from infringement, it does NOT have a corresponding Amendment protecting the right to keep and bear alcohol from infringement. That right there is a good reason why they are not equivalent: because one is a Constitutional right, and the other isn't.

 

[CMike]

I'm still waiting to hear what liberals consider "assault weapons" other than them being black and look menacing ?

 

[CMike]

What -I- find most amusing about the anti-gun crowd - especially the anti-gun crowd on this board - is your inabaility to engage in a

If you are -so- right, why can you not present a sound, knowledgeable argument to back your position?

Care to give an example? Without one it's just useless flamebait.

Here I'll give you one.

"The pro-gun side says they want to use military grade weapons for hunting" -there's an anti-gun straw man I hear too often.

what's a military grade weapon?

I have guns because I collect, self defense, and they are a lot of fun.

 

[Cecilie1200]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


27 words. 13 of them describe the conditions under which this amendment was intended.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

Why do you deny practically half the wording of the amendment? Certainly the framers intended those words to be there and to mean something. Would the framers think that owning a high caliber cannon is a protected right? Or, would they envision such a weapon in the hands of a well regulated militia?

Why do YOU insist on misreading it? It doesn't say, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms in order to belong to a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed." It merely states ONE reason why the writers thought the right of individuals to keep and bear arms was a good idea. It ALSO does not say that that is the ONLY reason, and there certainly is nothing in the wording to restrict the right to only that purpose.

As I've said before, even the Supreme Court can see this, and they're not exactly renowned for understanding the plain wording of laws. So what's YOUR problem?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why is it a federal offense to traffic in drugs? Why are drugs illegal? Because of their destructive nature. No drug can kill on its own. It takes a human to use that drug in order to die from its effect.

Just like guns.

Actually, drugs are NOT "just like guns" for one very large and simple reason: the current laws as written do not draw or assume that equivalency. Gun ownership is a Constitutional right, AND has been upheld by the Supreme Court as an INDIVIDUAL right - off the top of my head, I can't think of any collective rights, but the left seems to think they exist - while alcohol and drug ownership is not.

You go get a law passed stating that guns are just like alcohol and drugs and should be treated that way, and then you come back to us and talk about that being the way things are.

 

[Nosmo King]

I'm still waiting to hear what liberals consider "assault weapons" other than them being black and look menacing ?

Magazines with a capacity of greater than six rounds and a semi or full automatic firing system.

 

[Nosmo King]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


27 words. 13 of them describe the conditions under which this amendment was intended.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

Why do you deny practically half the wording of the amendment? Certainly the framers intended those words to be there and to mean something. Would the framers think that owning a high caliber cannon is a protected right? Or, would they envision such a weapon in the hands of a well regulated militia?

Why do YOU insist on misreading it? It doesn't say, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms in order to belong to a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed." It merely states ONE reason why the writers thought the right of individuals to keep and bear arms was a good idea. It ALSO does not say that that is the ONLY reason, and there certainly is nothing in the wording to restrict the right to only that purpose.

As I've said before, even the Supreme Court can see this, and they're not exactly renowned for understanding the plain wording of laws. So what's YOUR problem?

As I said before, I have no problem with individuals owning guns for sport or self defense. I do have problems with guns designed to kill many individuals; high capacity magazines and semi or full automatic firing systems. Weapons like these belong in well regulated militias, not on the streets.

 

[Dr Grump]

Why do YOU insist on misreading it? It doesn't say, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms in order to belong to a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed." It merely states ONE reason why the writers thought the right of individuals to keep and bear arms was a good idea. It ALSO does not say that that is the ONLY reason, and there certainly is nothing in the wording to restrict the right to only that purpose.

Why only state ONE reason, then? Can I own a nuke?

As I've said before, even the Supreme Court can see this, and they're not exactly renowned for understanding the plain wording of laws. So what's YOUR problem?

Most laws are ambiguous because scholars and lawyers spend half their time trying to decide the definition of a word as it should be applied to law (see Clinton's example of what the definition of 'is' is as an extreme example). If they spent more time worrying about the spirit of the law and how it was written, rather than trying to score Brownie points on how they think a word or phrase should be 'interpreted', then the 'people' would be much better off.

That aside, if any body or people should look into "understanding the 'plain wording' of laws", then SC justices are a good place to start.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I do not agree with your assertion that assault weapons are legitimate, responsible and constitutionally protected. I never will agree that putting that type of weapon in the hands of the public is something our founders would have endorsed. I believe the destruction wrought by such weapons is self evident and should be admitted as People's Exhibit A when the indictments against manufacturers are issued.

I think such weapons bear as much regulatory scrutiny as a rocket propelled grenade launcher or a flame thrower.

But, you have a very narrow interpretation of the 2nd amendment. You cannot conceive that bearing arms is something a well regulated militia should do, not anyone with the price of a sub-machine gun.

If all these destructive weapons should be allowed, then all drugs should be legalized. Drugs wreak just as much havoc as guns. And the drugs don't kill. The people using drugs kill. Just like guns.

Just curious, where in the Constitution do you have the right to take away my guns?

Not every law is in the constitution, is it? Can you legally own a machine gun without any registration? Guess what! Machine guns were not on the radar of 18th century lawmakers!

Insofar as the right to keep and bear arms IS in the Constitution, any law pertaining to that - especially any law involving the taking away of arms - would also need to be there in order to be valid and Constitutional.

In other words, listing an Unconstitutional law as proof of the legality of an action doesn't get it done.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm still waiting to hear what liberals consider "assault weapons" other than them being black and look menacing ?

Well, you use them to assault people. Of course, that would sort of be the definition of ANY weapon. In fact, that would be what MAKES something a weapon, wouldn't it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


27 words. 13 of them describe the conditions under which this amendment was intended.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State

Why do you deny practically half the wording of the amendment? Certainly the framers intended those words to be there and to mean something. Would the framers think that owning a high caliber cannon is a protected right? Or, would they envision such a weapon in the hands of a well regulated militia?

Why do YOU insist on misreading it? It doesn't say, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms in order to belong to a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed." It merely states ONE reason why the writers thought the right of individuals to keep and bear arms was a good idea. It ALSO does not say that that is the ONLY reason, and there certainly is nothing in the wording to restrict the right to only that purpose.

As I've said before, even the Supreme Court can see this, and they're not exactly renowned for understanding the plain wording of laws. So what's YOUR problem?

As I said before, I have no problem with individuals owning guns for sport or self defense. I do have problems with guns designed to kill many individuals; high capacity magazines and semi or full automatic firing systems. Weapons like these belong in well regulated militias, not on the streets.

Okay, now you're just deflecting.

"The Second Amendment is about militia members. No, wait, I'm only talking about assault weapons! Forget what I just said, that you just proved wrong!"

You are correct that militias are mentioned in the Second Amendment for a reason. You are incorrect in your original assertion, from which you cravenly backpedaled, that it was to limit the right to keep and bear arms to only those people and that purpose. You are FURTHER incorrect in the assertion that it was to restrict the ownership of assault weapons, defined by you as high-capacity magazines and semi- or full auto firing systems, to militias and their members, since those things didn't exist at the time.

The purpose of that phrase is simple: It is to provide a reason for specifically delineating the right to keep and bear arms in its own Amendment, rather than leaving its protection up to the 9th and 10th Amendments.

 

[BrianH]

At the end of the day, the US is one of the most violent countries in the Western World. It's too late for any type of gun control....let them have their guns....

That's kind of a given, considering that the U.S. is also one of the largest countries in the world, which mean that we're probably one of the world's "most" of alot of things.

Does anyone ever wonder why we're having so much trouble quelling the uprisings in Iraq and Afghanistan? That's because everyone has a frickin gun. I belive American citizens owning guns provides the same protection against foreign invasion....now let's see how many people say that a foreign invasion is impossible in this day in age....

 

[Cecilie1200]

Why do YOU insist on misreading it? It doesn't say, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms in order to belong to a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed." It merely states ONE reason why the writers thought the right of individuals to keep and bear arms was a good idea. It ALSO does not say that that is the ONLY reason, and there certainly is nothing in the wording to restrict the right to only that purpose.

Why only state ONE reason, then? Can I own a nuke?

According to the Second Amendment? Sure. Please learn the difference between "legal" and "a good thing".

Realistically, of course, you cannot legally own or purchase uranium and other such radioactive materials.

As I've said before, even the Supreme Court can see this, and they're not exactly renowned for understanding the plain wording of laws. So what's YOUR problem?

Most laws are ambiguous because scholars and lawyers spend half their time trying to decide the definition of a word as it should be applied to law (see Clinton's example of what the definition of 'is' is as an extreme example). If they spent more time worrying about the spirit of the law and how it was written, rather than trying to score Brownie points on how they think a word or phrase should be 'interpreted', then the 'people' would be much better off.

Most laws are ambiguous because they were written by lawyers trying to leave manipulable loopholes. The Constitution, however, does not fall into that category. It's quite clear to anyone who can read English and who isn't looking to twist it to their own ends.

That aside, if any body or people should look into "understanding the 'plain wording' of laws", then SC justices are a good place to start.

That's rather my point. The Supreme Court isn't famous for its common sense or ability to read plain English, even when it doesn't suit their personal agendas. So if even THEY can see that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, rather than a collective one - whatever that hell that even IS - the idiots who normally worship at the feet of "The Supreme Court says so, so who cares what the actual laws says?" ought to be able to figure it out.

 

[BrianH]

What I find aggravating is the pro-gun crew seems unwilling to discuss reasonable restrictions.

This is not at all true. Like most pro-gun people, I am willing to dicsuss any restriction that:
-Keeps guns from criminals
-Does not infringe on the right to arms.
Have any suggestions?


To ban them infringes on the right to arms, especially in that 'assault weapons' are -exactly- the sort of "arms" the 2nd was created to protect.


As we see, repeatedly, these places are not immune to violent crime. Thus, the need.

And I greatly fear the day they produce a plastic gun that does not show up on an x-ray, which seems inevitable to me

The pressures involved in the discharge of a firearm are rather dramatic, and so what you fear is quite far away.

I'm afraid you're reaching on your claim that assault weapons are the types of weapons those who drafted the second amendment had in mind. Considering they were not invented at the time of the amendment's writing.


I don't own a gun. But I have nothing against those who are sportsment and marksmen and use their weapons responsibly. I cna't conceive of a sportsman needing a 15 round clip. After 14 shots, you'd think a hunter would then consider stamp collecting because he obviously sucks at hunting.

Ban high capacity weapons. These weapons are not a sportsman's choice. They are designed to spread as much death and damage as possible, nothing NOTHING more.

And if you think you're going to hold off the American Army with a shot gun and a .22, you must never watch the news. That Army has predator drones, Abrams tanks and more killing technology than any other fighting force in the history of mankind. Saying Uzis and 15, 20, 30 round clips are your constitutional right is, on it's face, wrong and poorly reasoned.

While I have no interest in owning Uzis, I do respect the right of law-abiding citizens to buy "assault" style firearms. Many people in larger cities have no clue. I live in a large farming community and let me tell you, a ten round clip won't do a damn thing to a pack of 30 wild pigs tearing up crops and pastures. I think many people in the city would freak if they knew how many "assault" style firearms are owned by farmers and country folk for precisely the reason of annihalting the hog population.

Also, living near the Mexican border doesn't help either. I think until people in the North take a little trip down towards the border, they'll never understand the fear. There are cities WELL within the U.S. border that are so dangerous that white boys such as myself not dare walk out in public. My step-brother had a fender bender in a south Texas town a year or so back. The town is numerous miles from the border and well into Texas. After the wreck, a Texas Ranger was dispatched to the site for the sole purpose of protecting him from a possible crime. The Ranger stayed the entire time until the local cops were done with the reports and tickets, and then the Ranger escorted him back home. Anyway, just a little taste of what it's like down here.

 

[BrianH]

Why do YOU insist on misreading it? It doesn't say, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms in order to belong to a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed." It merely states ONE reason why the writers thought the right of individuals to keep and bear arms was a good idea. It ALSO does not say that that is the ONLY reason, and there certainly is nothing in the wording to restrict the right to only that purpose.

Why only state ONE reason, then? Can I own a nuke?

According to the Second Amendment? Sure. Please learn the difference between "legal" and "a good thing".

Realistically, of course, you cannot legally own or purchase uranium and other such radioactive materials.

Most laws are ambiguous because scholars and lawyers spend half their time trying to decide the definition of a word as it should be applied to law (see Clinton's example of what the definition of 'is' is as an extreme example). If they spent more time worrying about the spirit of the law and how it was written, rather than trying to score Brownie points on how they think a word or phrase should be 'interpreted', then the 'people' would be much better off.

Most laws are ambiguous because they were written by lawyers trying to leave manipulable loopholes. The Constitution, however, does not fall into that category. It's quite clear to anyone who can read English and who isn't looking to twist it to their own ends.

That aside, if any body or people should look into "understanding the 'plain wording' of laws", then SC justices are a good place to start.

That's rather my point. The Supreme Court isn't famous for its common sense or ability to read plain English, even when it doesn't suit their personal agendas. So if even THEY can see that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, rather than a collective one - whatever that hell that even IS - the idiots who normally worship at the feet of "The Supreme Court says so, so who cares what the actual laws says?" ought to be able to figure it out.

That's right. The Supreme Court once said "Separate but Equal" was constitutional....what idiots

 

[BrianH]

I'm still waiting to hear what liberals consider "assault weapons" other than them being black and look menacing ?

Well, you use them to assault people. Of course, that would sort of be the definition of ANY weapon. In fact, that would be what MAKES something a weapon, wouldn't it?

I'm still waiting for someone to coin the term "Assault Knife" or "Assault Chrysler" or "Assault Sword"