Texans and their Guns (Austin, West: loan, tax, prices)

[Truth713]

Originally Posted by zombieApocExtraordinaire

There is no meaningful way to confiscate 50 million weapons in circulation. An attempted confiscation would probably yield to hundreds of police fatalities if not an outright rebellion/insurrection. At least half of America wants her guns and second amendment. I'm one of them.

There is a much easier solution: post police/security guards at school entrances. They already have this in poorer neighborhoods.

which oddly enough these type of attacks are almost unheard of

[Truth713]

Originally Posted by TexasReb

Truth, you have always seemed a reasonable and intelligent person, but (bolded above) reminds me quite a bit of a heated debate I often have with my own brother, who is an avid hunter and gun-owner too (and I look forward to shooting him down this Christmas time as well! LOL).

Anyway, he too take that position of (in summation), "People don't need this type weapon..."

Well, excuuuuuze the hell out of me, but he isn't the grand-judge of just who needs what. I could just as easily say I don't understand why people need (whatever the hell I think they don't need just because I don't need one).

It isn't a matter of "need" according to some people's inability to understand the same. It is a matter of "rights" and that that a gun-collector, target shooter, or just plain collector, does not need to justify their ownership, in any case. Some like a military style weapon because they are nicely made. Some like to shoot them and some might want them for utility purposes. So long as they don't use them in an illegal manner? Then what the hell is the problem?

And like others have said, there is a big difference between automatic and semi-automatic? (I know you know this, Truth, but so many do not...).

Then your augument is not one of protecting yourself , it becomes I want what I want.. So by that logic you should be allowed to stockpile muster gas, or bio- agent . if your interested in those ?

[War Beagle]

Most of the people in favor of banning certain types of guns don't even know what the terms "semi-automatic" and "assault rifle" even mean. They probably have never handled a firearm or know how they work.

An "assault rifle", as used by the news media, is basically a hunting rifle that is made to look like a military weapon. It does not have the full-auto or burst capabilities of military or law enforcement models.

[Gree Mountain]

What staunch defenders of gun ownership fail to recognize is that all rights, even Second Amendment rights, are not absolute. They are relative and conditional. They can only be exercised relative to the well-being of their fellow citizens and these rights can be limited or taken away if the conditions (public safety, public health, or common good) justify doing so. The government has the power to determine the relative and conditional scope of individual rights, and the people can demand that the government use this power through new federal and state laws as well as local ordinances. The point is that if enough of us who support stricter gun regulations make our voices heard, then gun owners, in Texas or any other state, will have no choice but to surrender their illegal weapons or face prison.

[War Beagle]

Originally Posted by Gree Mountain

What staunch defenders of gun ownership fail to recognize is that all rights, even Second Amendment rights, are not absolute. They are relative and conditional. They can only be exercised relative to the well-being of their fellow citizens and these rights can be limited or taken away if the conditions (public safety, public health, or common good) justify doing so. The government has the power to determine the relative and conditional scope of individual rights, and the people can demand that the government use this power through new federal and state laws as well as local ordinances. The point is that if enough of us who support stricter gun regulations make our voices heard, then gun owners, in Texas or any other state, will have no choice but to surrender their illegal weapons or face prison.

You have a warped view of our rights as Americans. Our rights are natural rights, they are not granted to us by government. The only way for the government to ban guns would be through a constitutional amendment, which would never happen.

As for your second statement, there would be other choices. Those choices would, unfortunately, lead to a lot of dead law enforcement officers and gun owners.

[TexasReb]

Originally Posted by Truth713

Then your augument is not one of protecting yourself , it becomes I want what I want.. So by that logic you should be allowed to stockpile muster gas, or bio- agent . if your interested in those ?

That isn't exactly what I said. I said -- in so many words -- that the primary intent of the 2nd Ammendment was to assure that private citizens have the means to protect themselves against a tyrannical government. This -- as the wording of the ammendment correctly says -- is necessary to the security of a free state. It is a timeless truism, and as relevant today as it was 200 years ago. It was not about hunting or self-defense, those things were a given.

The mustard gas or bio-agent argument? Well, for one thing, stockpiling them would be an obvious public safety issue, and would not fit the definitition of "keep and bear arms" at any rate....

[Gree Mountain]

A constitutional amendment is not necessary to ban certain types of guns, gun buying habits, or ammunition just as a constitutional amendment is unnecessary to limit certain types of speech. The NRA and their shills have defined the discourse surrounding gun ownership as an issue of absolute rights and fictional "natural rights" for too long. Once a majority of people and politicians in this country who are less beholden to NRA ideology or their campaign contributions come together (many of whom are gun owners, I might add), then the U.S.'s rates of gun violence will become closer to our peer nations in western Europe.

[Gree Mountain]

P.S. Please give me one example form U.S. history after the Revolutionary War when an armed citizenry either defended or expanded liberty against a tyrannical government?

[War Beagle]

Originally Posted by Gree Mountain

A constitutional amendment is not necessary to ban certain types of guns, gun buying habits, or ammunition just as a constitutional amendment is unnecessary to limit certain types of speech. The NRA and their shills have defined the discourse surrounding gun ownership as an issue of absolute rights and fictional "natural rights" for too long. Once a majority of people and politicians in this country who are less beholden to NRA ideology or their campaign contributions come together (many of whom are gun owners, I might add), then the U.S.'s rates of gun violence will become closer to our peer nations in western Europe.

The gun ban will work out as well as the drug ban and the alcohol ban have.

That said, there will be no major legislation regulating buying habits or banning ammunition. The best you progs can hope for is another fake assault rifle ban, but people will just go buy a regular semi-auto hunting rifle instead. The problem for you all is the Republicans hold the House and there are too many Democrats who support gun rights for major changes to occur.

[Gree Mountain]

If you view the gun issue through a partisan lens then you should have even less hope that your concept of absolute gun rights has much of a future. The Republican Party of today will vanish in less than a generation and popular pressure can be placed on out of step Democrats to get in line with stricter gun regulations.