Observations regarding the anti-gun crowd

[CMike]

Stop trolling.

He makes a valid point:
If you aren't familiar enough with the subject matter to correctly use the basic terminology of that subject, how can you possibly form any sort of sound argumenr regarding said subject.

I've owned guns since I was twelve; I qualified 2nd out of about 150 with M-16 in basic, and 2nd out of about 150 with a .45 in military police AIT. So unless you did better, STFU. You know fucking well people call magazines clips all the time and don't give a shit what a tight-ass poser like CMike thinks about it.

Magazines are not clips. People who call magazines clips are making a mistake.

I don't see how anyone who had a rudimentary knowledge of firearms can call magazines clips.

Once again.




magazine - definition of magazine by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

mag·a·zine (mg-zn, mg-zn)
n.
4.
a. A compartment in some types of firearms, often a small detachable box, in which cartridges are held to be fed into the firing chamber.


Clip

Clip (ammunition - encyclopedia article about Clip (ammunition.)

Clip (ammunition)
Inserting an en bloc clip on the M1 GarandA clip is a device that is used to store multiple rounds of ammunition together as a unit, ready for insertion into the magazine of a repeating firearm. This speeds up the process of loading and reloading the firearm as several rounds can be loaded at once, rather than one round being loaded at a time. Several different types of clips exist, most of which are made of inexpensive metal stampings that are designed to be disposable, though they are often re-used.

The term clip is commonly used to describe a firearm magazine, though this usage is incorrect. In the correct usage, a clip is used to feed a magazine or revolving cylinder, while a magazine or a belt is used to load cartridges into the chamber of a firearm.[1]

 

[liebuster]

Always an interesting topic of "gun control"

I guess the most interesting fact about the "resisting tyrany" argument is that there is plenty of evidence to back up their fear about tyranical government.


20th Century Democide

Total people killed by government in 20th century

1900 to 1999 174,000,000 people

Just to give perspective on this incredible murder by government, if all these bodies were laid head to toe, with the average height being 5', then they would circle the earth ten times. Also, this democide murdered 6 times more people than died in combat in all the foreign and internal wars of the century. Finally, given popular estimates of the dead in a major nuclear war, this total democide is as though such a war did occur, but with its dead spread over a century.

In my opnion you need to fear government with guns instead of your neighbor with guns.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

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?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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?

Alcohol and tobacco have taxes associated with them. You have to have tax stamps. One is not allowed to privately sell them because one would not be paying the Taxes associated ( and I do not mean sales tax) with these items.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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?

The Government may not infringe on the right to owning firearms.

 

[jgarden]

At the very least, anyone who owns a gun should have to undergo
regular "psychological/psychiatric" testing to determine if they are mentally stable.

The Arizona shootings are just one in a long list of incidents whereby somebody who is mentally unstable is able to obtain a weapon - legally!

 

[liebuster]

At the very least, anyone who owns a gun should have to undergo
regular "psychological/psychiatric" testing to determine if they are mentally stable.

The Arizona shootings are just one in a long list of incidents where somebody who is mentally unstable is able to obtain a weapon - legally!

The reason he was able to buy a firearm was because Sheriff Dipshit's department failed to charge him for making numerous death threats to other people that had been reported to the department.

If they had simply charged him with a crime when they were informed of him making death threats he would have been denied the purchase through the background check until the pending charges were resolved.


Maybe we should have Psycological testing for you using your first amendment rights of posting such nonsense on this board.....

 

[M14 Shooter]

At the very least, anyone who owns a gun should have to undergo
regular "psychological/psychiatric" testing to determine if they are mentally stable.

The right to own a gun is a fundamental right proteted by the constitution.
How would your suggestion get past Strict Scrutiny?

The Arizona shootings are just one in a long list of incidents whereby somebody who is mentally unstable is able to obtain a weapon - legally!

In a free country, you get to exercise your rights until you do someting that warrants those rights being taken away. To do otherwise means you do not live in a free country.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

RGS touched on this quite well, thank you.

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?

The right to own a firearm necessrily includes the right to buy them and then to sell them.
Any infringemeent on either is an infringement on the right to arms. You suggest a precondition to the exercise of the right that is not inherent to the right, which thusly infringes said right.

 

[boedicca]

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?

That is bunk. Private wine collectors sell bottles to each other without being licensed.

What I find very alarming in this call for more gun control is the implication that the overwhelmingly vast majority of law-abiding gun owners are the equivalent of an insane person such as Loughner.

We're not; and should not be preemptively judged guilty.

Want evidence: given the high rate of gun ownership in the U.S., if we were, there would be an epidemic of rampage shootings by legal gun owners. There is absolutely no evidence of such an epidemic.

I've said it before. I'll say it again. Extreme outlier incidents are a very bad basis for broad public policy. The government cannot eliminate every risk of random individual behavior and exercise of free will. And if it could, the cure would be far worse than the disease.

 

[JamesInFlorida]

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?

That is bunk. Private wine collectors sell bottles to each other without being licensed.

What I find very alarming in this call for more gun control is the implication that the overwhelmingly vast majority of law-abiding gun owners are the equivalent of an insane person such as Loughner.

We're not; and should not be preemptively judged guilty.

Want evidence: given the high rate of gun ownership in the U.S., if we were, there would be an epidemic of rampage shootings by legal gun owners. There is absolutely no evidence of such an epidemic.

I've said it before. I'll say it again. Extreme outlier incidents are a very bad basis for broad public policy. The government cannot eliminate every risk of random individual behavior and exercise of free will. And if it could, the cure would be far worse than the disease.

Not to the general public. In the privacy of their own homes? Absolutely. But not in say flea markets or garage sales. You cannot sell alcohol at these venues. Go do it at a flea market, or at the end of the driveway during a community garage sale-and see what happens.

And as I said earlier nowhere in the 2ndA does it say you have the right to sell firearms to whoever you wish. And the US has a very high homicide rate compared to the rest of the western world.

 

[BrianH]

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? Why do you need to be allowed to carry guns in churches, schools, government buildings or bars?

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.

Isn't it only an "assault" weapon if you've "assaulted" someone and/or plan to "assault" someone with it. There have been plenty of people stabbed by knives. (not to mention there are some pretty fancy and scary looking knives out there.) But I don't here people calling them "Assault Knives." As long was we're on this subject, I don't consider it a weapon unless it's used as one. I haven't used any of my guns on anyone, so as far as I'm concerned, they're just firearms.

What people seem to forget, is that many hunters own regular deer rifles (non-"assault) that can reach out there and really hurt someone. From not only a further distance, but also intended to do more damage. People don't blame mispelled words on a pencil, so it is inconcievable to plame gun violence on a gun or type of gun.

As far as the carrying guns in schools, churches, etc... The criminals and nut-jobs are not going to follow these laws that restrict them from carrying them into schools, churches, and public places. This is why they are labeled criminals. I'm not advocating that any joe blow should be allowed to, but let's be honest, if a jackass like Jared Loughner wants to carry a gun to a school, church, or public place, he's going to do so regardless of a law that restricts him to do so. We have laws that restrict people from murdering other people, but it seems individuals can't restrain from that. I guess the next step is to illegalize people...

There are two main things that can be done at home (by parents), along with other goverment legislation, that would definately put a dent in this national problem.

1. Parents, regardless of their decision to own a gun, should EDUCATE their children about them. You have parents that teach their kids that "GUNS ARE BAD" and "GUNS ARE FOR KILLING PEOPLE." This is rediculous, since the vast majority of privately owned firearms are not used for killing people. Even some pro-gun advocates and gun owners seem to not educate their children about firearms. Hence the numerous times on the news where a child accidently shoots his or herself.

2. Parents also need to play a more pivotal roll in educating and teaching their children on emotion management. We live in a society where an increasing number of children grow up without understanding how to control their own emotions. Hence the mall shooter a few years ago. The teenager lost his job at McDonalds and his girlfriend broke up with him. This is stuff that happens to almost everyone throughout their life. Getting fired from McDonalds was probably the best thing that ever happened to him. In an age of text and tweets, kids and now adults do not know how to deal with small (sometimes big) issues in their lives. Anyway, I'll quit my rant...sorry. lol

 

[BrianH]

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?

I agree with the "concept" of this but do not believe that everyone should be licensed. What I would support, is an individual being able to apply for and/or print a federal firearms buyers form off of the internet and have the potential buyer of the firearm fill it out before attempting to purchase the firearm privately. The seller could then phone the NICS background check (just as dealers do) with the buyer's information. If they are denied by the background check, then you can't sell it to them. If the buyer is approved, then he or she can take it to the nearest firearm dealer to turn it in for file.

This would piss many gun-owners off...especially those who attend and sell at gun-shows, but it wouldn't bother me. I would have no problem making sure I'm not selling a gun to someone with a criminal or mentally unstable background.

I do not agree with individuals having to be licensed. This would then allow individuals to stock up on all the firearms they want and start their own businesses. The bigger industry doesn't want that. And also, having to be licensed (to me) is no different than having to register your guns. People have also brought up that you have to be licensed to drive a car, so why don't you have to be licensed to own a gun. Simple explanation: Second Amendement. There is no amendment in the constitution that gives anyone the right to drive a car, so those two things are apples compared to oranges.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on that...not that they're worth much on the internet.

 

[BrianH]

The difference here is licensed dealers v private sales. Licensed dealers are currently required to follow exsting law regardless where they sell. The 'flea market' example, above, is almost certainly a private sale, and is then under the exact same restrictions as if you were to sell a gun to your brother while standing in your house.
You are suggesting that you should not be able to so sell a gun to your brother?

I can buy prescription drugs with a prescription but I doubt I'm allowed to resell them legally to someone without a prescription,

is that wrong?

The difference is that the drugs were prescribed to you and are non-transferrable. Guns (most of them anyway) are under no such restriction.

Agreed...

 

[BrianH]

Simple. If you are in a gun battle you may need high capacity magazines.

Then the restrictions/bans on automatic weapons can't be justified, can they?

They cannot. All of them are considered "arms" as the term is used in the 2nd.

Anti-gun people think it means actual bear arms...like from a grizzly.

 

[BrianH]

Pretty clearly, there can be no need for assault weapons unless some are permitted to be sold. Nobody "needs" a street sweeper, except for the military and law enforcement.

And "no restrictions" is a lovely slogan but if we followed it, people could own grenade launchers, etc. Is that what the constitution requires? Is it rational?

According to the gun nut rationale, the right to bear arms is about the right of the people to protect themselves from a tyrannical government;
if that were true, then logically the 2nd amendment protects the right of the People to own any weapons the government owns.

False premise; non sequitur

The 2nd was, among other things, intended to ensure the people in the militia would always have access to weapons suitable for use in said militia, as the militia is necessary for the security of a free state, The security of a free state has many facets, only one of which deals with opposing a tyrannical government.

To this end, it has been held that "arms", as the term is use din the 2nd, refers to weapons sutiable for use in the militia that are in common use, and are examples of 'ordinary military equipment'. This precludes any notion of nukes or B52s or SSBNs.

Aside from that, this is a red herring - the issue is guns, not nukes or B52s or SSBNs.

Exactly...The founding fathers' intent was to allow the POPULATION To defend themselves against a tyrannical government. Much like they had to do. The continental army and militia found themselves battling a much superior force with better weapons. Pitchforks and shovels would not have done much good against the British. Much like airsoft and BB-Guns wouldn't do much good against and M4 and most military weapons.

 

[BrianH]

The right to bear arms is settled law now. What you have a right to be armed with can still be regulated.

It's no different than speech, religion, the press, etc. You get rights, you don't get unlimited rights.

"The right to bear arms shall not be infringed". Is something unclear about that?

You've already conceded that the government can infringe on your right to own automatic weapons and rocket launchers - what part of that don't YOU understand?

I think what he means is that they're already being infringed upon enough, despite the
2nd Amdentment promising no infringement.

(Freedom of Speech) You can pretty much say whatever the hell you want without getting arrested

(Freedom of Press). The Press pretty much report on whatever the hell they want (I.E. the National Inquirer

(Freedom of Religion) Religions practice male circumcision, why should a female one (if that's possible) be any different. After all, this is the land of equal opportunity and treatment right?

The point of all of this is that gun rights are already being infringed upon more so than any of the other 1st Amendment rights...why should we keep infringing on it???

 

[Missourian]

According to the gun nut rationale, the right to bear arms is about the right of the people to protect themselves from a tyrannical government;
if that were true, then logically the 2nd amendment protects the right of the People to own any weapons the government owns.

False premise; non sequitur

The 2nd was, among other things, intended to ensure the people in the militia would always have access to weapons suitable for use in said militia, as the militia is necessary for the security of a free state, The security of a free state has many facets, only one of which deals with opposing a tyrannical government.

To this end, it has been held that "arms", as the term is use din the 2nd, refers to weapons sutiable for use in the militia that are in common use, and are examples of 'ordinary military equipment'. This precludes any notion of nukes or B52s or SSBNs.

Aside from that, this is a red herring - the issue is guns, not nukes or B52s or SSBNs.

Then I guess all those guys who say the right to bear arms is about defending us from tyranny are full of shit?

The issue is automatic weapons, hand held grenade launchers, rocket launchers. What makes it constitutional for any of those to be banned?

Grenades and rockets are explosives, not arms.

 

[Missourian]

 

[Joe Steel]

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.

This from the guy who presumes to lecture on logic.