Gun Control, what is reasonable?

[Eagle732]

acco,

You could purchase and mount on your home full auto weapons if you choose. You just need a $200 federal permit for each one.

 

Your high school daughter is not old enough to carry a weapon and we have Gun Free School laws. However school shootings in Israel are rare, maybe heres why: http://www.standeyo.com/NEWS/12_Pics_of_Day/121214.pic.of.day.c.html

 

If you have a permit to carry a concealed weapon (CCW) you could carry in church. It might come in handy one day. We had a guy come into a local church here and rob everyone at gun point during the service. Fortunately he chose not to shoot anyone.

 

Of course we would be safer if NO weapons of any type existed, but that's not the world we live in is it?

 

So I'll play your game. All firearms in the US are banned, now what? Are we safer?

 

[JMHawkins]

The right to bear arms is in our constitution. I suggest as a start, this country should consider strongly regulate the ammunition and ammunition supplies for reloading etc

 

Disingenuous and in violation of the spirit of the law. The 2nd Ammendment isn't an obstacle course you're supposed to cleverly weave your way through. If you think guns are bad, then advocate repealing the ammendment, don't try to weasel around it by claiming the right to keep and bear arms doesn't guarantee the right to load them while chanting "Ha ha, clever lawyer found a loophole..."

 

So let's look at the second amendment. In this case each additional restriction on the right to bear arms is feared as a way to get to the complete negation of the amendment itself...

 

Which of course it is - that's the approach the people who favor gun control take. After banning one type of weapon, they then argue (as folks here are doing) that it's inconsistent not to ban others. While of course simultaneously using the specter of the already-banned weapons as a boogyman to scare folks not paying attention with.

 

As to what is reasonable? I think a far more important, and relevant, question is asking what laws are reasonable for institutionalizing the mentally unstable. It's not an easy question. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest was inflamatory and exaggerated, but not entirely so. The abuses were real. But, lax control of unsable people is far more dangerous than lax control of firearms. The anti-gun crowd is aggitating for the wrong debate.

 

 

[JoeBob]

Guns exist. Sorry, that is the way it is now and always will be.

Can anyone think of a tool or piece of technology that has been legally banned and then disappeared?

 

But the existence of guns is a good thing:

 

"Yes, the handgun is one of the most equalizing pieces of technology ever made without a doubt. The firearm is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats.

 

The firearm is the best tool ever invented to remove the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender. The firearm is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable."

 

 

God made man, but Samuel Colt made them equal.

 

 

 

[Basementdweller]

It says the right to bear arms.....But not what type.......remember it was 230+ years ago.

 

I wonder if the founding fathers had AK's, SKS or any of the AR clones in mind.

 

 

I have no idea, but the hardware available exceeds the performance of the firearms of our founding fathers by several thousand percent.

 

 

[JMHawkins]

I wonder if the founding fathers had AK's, SKS or any of the AR clones in mind.

 

Absolutely they did.

 

Well, they didn't call them that back then. They just called them "arms." They wrote the 2nd Ammendment in a way that it guaranteed people the right to bear the most sohpisticated, deadly, weapons of the day. They didnt' even ban private citizens from owning field artillery (though honestly it was expensive and hard to come by).

 

The Founders trusted the average citizen with firepower. You can argue they were wrong, or you can argue they were right then but times have changed and they're wrong now, but either way, the agreement they proposed to the country, and the country adopted, said citizens could own military grade weaponry.

[HICO_Eagle]

What's reasonable? Not selling to convicted felons or proven violent mentally disturbed people. Oh wait, that's already in the law.

 

The fact of the matter is that NONE of the laws being proposed by Feinstein, Schumer, the Brady Campaign, etc. would have made any difference at Columbine, Aurora, Clackamas or Sandy Hook. In fact, they very well might have made things worse as the Klebold and Harris would likely have set off the propane bombs they'd made, Holmes probably would have set off firebombs at the theater exits, etc.

 

One of you said fewer kids would have died if Lanza had a single-shot rifle instead of a semi-automatic. Probably true -- also probably true is that fewer children would likely have died if a trained and equipped CCW holder had been present as happened at New Life Church in 2007.

 

 

Six Star Wars movies with massive death and destruction from Sith Lords but no one blamed the light saber.

[HICO_Eagle]

acco40 said:

 

So my question to those that disagree is this. If arming the citizenry is a good thing, why limit a good thing. Why can't I have 0.50 cal gun turrets mounted on the four corners of my house to stop home invasion? Why can't my high school age daughter carry an Uzi to school? Why can't I take my Glock to mass on Sunday?

 

---

 

Carry, store and use them responsibly and I have no problem with any of that. Of course, that very condition means you're wasting your money with the .50-cal turrets since you can't fire them without severe risk of overshoot -- but it's your money if you want to spend thousands on useless metal decorations. The daughter probably won't much like the weight of the Uzi and ammo or how it clashes with her dress but she might well want that if she was attending school in Israel. Oh ... and if you take your Glock to Mass then you too might save lives like Jeanne Assam did.

[click23]

Any discussion on gun control needs to examine the second amendment, "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"

 

Well regulated- This had a different meaning in 1791 than it does today, more like well disciplined/well trained.

militia- No, this has nothing to do with the national guard. The militia, per federal law, is all able body males between 17 and 45, with a few exemptions.

the right of the People- Nowhere else in the Constitution does a right attributed to the people refer to anything other than an individual right

shall not be infringed- Pretty self explanatory

 

The reason behind the second amendment is not to protect hunting rights, it is to protect all of our rights. It is to protect us from our government. During the time of the American Revolution hunting and military firearms were pretty close to the same, that is how we were able to fend off the British. If we were to have a tyrannical government today, and that in itself is a separate conversation, how could we defend our selves against modern military arms with bolt action rifles and single shot shotguns? Semiautomatic rifles will put the people at a severe disadvantage.

 

I am with Papadaddy on this, life without parole for crimes committed with a firearm, and let nonviolent drug offenders out.

 

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" -Patrick Henry

 

 

[Eagle732]

"It says the right to bear arms.....But not what type.......remember it was 230+ years ago."

 

Basement, 230 years ago the only way to communicate was either verbally (speech) or print (press). Would you agree to banning the internet and cell phone use because both are extensively used in crime?

 

Didn't we just have this discussion on giving up freedoms?

(This message has been edited by Eagle732)

[Stosh]

Ever wonder why when a construction contractor builds a house and the windows aren't square, the roof leaks, the plumbing drips, the lights don't come on, the doors don't shut and we blame the tools the workers used...???

 

As far as being armed? I have carried a knife just about every day of my life since I was 8 years old and know that if a police officer has his weapon holstered and secured, from 25-feet I can still get to him with that knife before he can draw and shoot. If the weapon is holstered and unsecured, from 20-feet I can still get to him before he can draw and fire. AND, if I am deranged enough, if the officer has the gun pointed at me, from 10-feet, I can still do damage with a knife. Why would I do such a thing? If a person is crazy enough, what difference does it make what the law says?

 

I have conceal carried all of my life. One doesn't need a permit to carry a concealed knife.

 

Have I "carried" on a scout outing? Yep, belt knife, belt axe, 6'X1" walking stick, jack knife,

 

Am I a gun nut? By definition I probably am. The largest caliber rifle I own is .58 caliber, the largest caliber hand gun I own is .50 caliber, and the largest gauge shotgun I have is a double barreled 10-gauge.

 

Have I ever been involved in questionable gun activity? Yep. On a family vacation to New Orleans, back in the 1960's with all the racial riots, my father told me (I was 15 years old at the time) that the loaded 12-gauge was in the house trailer under the mattress and if he couldn't get to it in time, I was supposed to do what I needed to do to protect the family if necessary.

 

So when all is said and done, I have owned many guns and yet to this day, I have never owned a registered gun nor have I ever had to register one. And all my guns are 100% legal, even when I had 14 "military assault" rifles in my house. Not to worry, I sold all of them to minors. Isn't it exciting to not know the whole story????

 

And yet after 50 years I have never shot, nor intend to shoot anybody.

 

So, does that mean I'm a danger to society? Some people think so, but that's a different story that doesn't involve guns.

 

How does one write reasonable legislature when there are so many different "exceptions" that in the long run will never be covered in the first place. And then when was the law ever a major concern to a criminal? It's kinda like crossing the street. You might have the right-of-way as a pedestrian, but if the semi-truck isn't going to stop, what difference does the law make? If someone is shaking you down for your wallet at gun-point, does gun legislature ever cross your mind?

 

Knee-jerk, Chicken Little, rants for gun-control laws are nothing more than political posturing giving people the false sense of security that something in the world of reality is really being done, when in fact it isn't.

 

Stosh

[scoutingagain]

" If we were to have a tyrannical government today, and that in itself is a separate conversation, how could we defend our selves against modern military arms with bolt action rifles and single shot shotguns? Semiautomatic rifles will put the people at a severe disadvantage. "

 

Our military is the best trained and best equipped in the world. We fund it at a level to take on the rest of the world's military combined. Talk about paranoia. The civilian population would have absolutely zero chance against it in any kind of armed confrontation regardless of any access to weapons that are currently available to civilians, legal or illegal.

 

The idea that US civilians need to be armed to protect themselves from their own military is up there with the Zombie Apocalpse.

 

Me I've walked this planet and country for more than 50 years totally unarmed. It's amazing I've survived.

 

SA

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[perdidochas]

Basement,

 

Following the technology argument, do you think the Founders would have expected the internet, TV and Radio? How about Scientology or the LDS? Should all of those new-fangled things not have the relevant amendment applied? After all, the Founders may not have anticipated them?

[Basementdweller]

perdidochas You are correct that the founding fathers didn't anticipate those. But we also created laws regarding those technologies regarding proper utilization. We can keep going, how about an Automobile, we have plenty of laws regarding those.

 

Far as Religion, It has rules too. the LDS church the men can't have multiple wives. I would like to see churches get taxed just like any other business.

 

So your argument doesn't work.

[OldGreyEagle]

I am pro gun but don't think I fall in the class of "gun nut" but that is a relative term. As in a gun nut is anyone who has more guns that myself

 

For the record its a 22 revolver, 12 gauge shotgun, 45 caliper muzzleloading pistol and 3 muzzleloader rifles.

 

Just typing that makes me falter a bit on the "gun nut" comment I just made.

 

Anyway, the Founding Fathers could not have forseen the internet, cars, etc but they were smart enough to know they didnt know what the future would bring so they put in the Constitution the ability for it to change. Its called Amendments. Now, the last time the Consitution was changed to ban something, we called it Prohibition and that didnt work out the way it was intended at all.

 

I thougt the founders had thought there should be a Constitutional Covention every 20-30 years or so to keep current. Anybody else remember that?

 

 

[Beavah]

Yah, let's try to be a bit careful about da conditions in the early U.S.

 

Most of da population was livin' on da frontier, or was only a generation or two removed from livin' on da frontier. Arms were necessary for protection, and quite frequently for defense from hostile natives that didn't care for disease-ridden trespassers.

 

Those militias of citizens trained for mutual defense. They had an organizational structure, a chain of command, and a system of ranks. They could be "raised" or called up by da civilian leadership.

 

So if we're goin' to properly equate then with now, da expectation would be that all those who keep and bear arms should expect to train regularly with others for mutual defense as part of an organized civilian volunteer response team within a chain of command. They should expect to be called up when needed by civilian authorities, report to those authorities, and be subject to da regulation of those authorities.

 

In a lot of ways, I'm not always hearin' that sense of responsibility and personal commitment on da part of many folks who only focus on da last words of da Second Amendment. They tend to express a desire to defend themselves from the state and their fellow citizens, where da clear intent of da Constitution was to allow citizens to bear arms in organized support of da state and their fellow citizens.

 

That's a big difference, eh? It's a difference that crosses da line between good, responsible citizen and paranoid nutter.

 

Beavah