Gun Ownership / Laws Discussion & Debate

[IndependntLogic]

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.

 

[BoycottTheday]

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.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Anyone who breaks into another person's house should realize that it could be the last day of their life.

 

[tonystewart1]

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.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

 

[WillowTree]

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.

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.

 

[tonystewart1]

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.

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.

 

[JoeB131]

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.

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.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If you think we should have more gun rights…

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.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

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.

Question, Joe...

Is the avi that of the Hammerskins?

 

[tonystewart1]

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.

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.

So that was Lafeyette's blood that was spilled on every battlefield during the American Revolution. No. It was the blood of an armed population that where fighting for their country.

 

[JoeB131]

Question, Joe...

Is the avi that of the Hammerskins?

I'm a huge Pink Floyd fan...

 

[JoeB131]

So that was Lafeyette's blood that was spilled on every battlefield during the American Revolution. No. It was the blood of an armed population that where fighting for their country.

A lot of people have fought valiently in wars, most of them in not very good causes.

The American Revolution would have ended much differently hadn't a few European powers decided that the British Empire needed to be taken down a peg or two. Ironically, we provided the templete for them to lose their American possessions as well.

 

[tonystewart1]

So that was Lafeyette's blood that was spilled on every battlefield during the American Revolution. No. It was the blood of an armed population that where fighting for their country.

A lot of people have fought valiently in wars, most of them in not very good causes.

The American Revolution would have ended much differently hadn't a few European powers decided that the British Empire needed to be taken down a peg or two. Ironically, we provided the templete for them to lose their American possessions as well.

Do your totally ignore George Washinton as a military leader and stategist? No matter the reasons for the war or the leaders of it; the war was possible because the citizens where already armed. There would not have been a way to quickly and succesfully arm all those people who fought.

 

[Full-Auto]

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.

I have read this post and your last that you posted this.. As you can tell from my avatar, It is something I enjoy immensely. We should be allowed the same access to weapons as the government. No I am not talking about nukes, there is no place on the planet to enjoy shooting those off without irreparable harm. I get a damn kick at blowing stuff up. Some of my most enjoyable moments in my life have been on a firing range. My passion is military firearms, I love exotic ammo.

But to put it in a different perspective. I am posting an email I received form a friend.
Enjoy it, cuss it swear by it. All of them is an individual choice.



PEOPLE ASK WHY?
Why Carry a Gun?

My old grandpa said to me 'Son, there comes a time in every man's life when he stops bustin' knuckles and starts bustin' caps and
Usually it's when he becomes too old to take an ass whoopin.'

I don't carry a gun to kill people.
I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don't carry a gun to scare people.
I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid.
I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I'm evil.
I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I hate the government.
I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don't carry a gun because I'm angry.
I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.
I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy.
I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.

I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man.
I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.

I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate.
I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

I don't carry a gun because I love it.
I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

Police protection is an oxymoron.
Free citizens must protect themselves.
Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.

Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to take an ass whoopin'.....author unknown (but obviously brilliant)

 

[Full-Auto]

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.

How can your stats be accurate when deterrent use is never or seldom reported.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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.

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.

I disagree with that. We whipped the Hessians, Britain's hired conscripts, hard in Trenton even though we were hugely outnumbered. That was a huge turning point in the war. The continental army had trudged through snow, freezing temperatures, an ice storm in tattered and torn clothing, some without shoes, many with dysentary, consumption. The continental army was very literate also.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.

"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."

Link?

 

[Full-Auto]

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.

"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."

Link?

Its a common parroted theme from the brady bunch.

 

[BoycottTheday]

I dunno about the i cant beat the govt thing, since affirmative action has put allot of short chicks on the force around here..

So much so they have had to double and triple the amount of officers they send whenever i cause a stir now.

Used to be one big cop showed up and told me to shut up that was enough.

Those days are gone now the ACLU wont even allow the big cops to be cops anymore.

i could probably take this country over armed only with a wirst rocket to be honest.

if it wasnt for the armed citiZen of course. Only thing saving your asses now i got lots of marbles ya know.