What should people be allowed to possess? (firearms, etc) (enforcement, cartridge, weapons)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think that being "anti gun" is misdirected. A gun is an inanimate object that does only what its user directs. People have used cars to kill others. Should we be "anti car?" Or what about that whack job in Florida who attacked the homeless man and bit his face off? Should we now be "anti teeth?" You see, a gun is simply a tool, same as any thing else that mankind has made. Tools are designed for a specific purpose and you often have to use them right. A gun requires responsible use, but irresponsible use is the fault of the user and not the tool itself.
Those who wish to curb gun ownership rights (READ: defy the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution) are treating a symptom and ignoring the disease. Anti gun laws only restrict those who use guns responsibly and legally. It does not serve to avoid gun-related crime because the vast majority of gun related crimes involve guns that are obtained illegally. Making more laws does will not result in criminals suddenly changing their ways. It may even make it worse.
What about some crazy fool who causes a 10-car pileup on the freeway and ends up killing 3 kids because of wreckless driving? Where is the call for car control? You do not need a background check to buy a car.
The issue is nearly everyone owns a car, but many do not own guns. Hence why many are not affected by gun laws.
A gun is an inanimate object that does no harm by itself.
Its a hard question that I can see both sides of. I have been to many gun shows and can tell you that after going for over 30 years, there are many people there I don't feel comfortable with them having a gun. I have seen people buy under names like John doe sub sonic ammo and machine gun parts. I remember a company out of South Carolina called Rhino selling all the parts to convert an AR to an M16 including the sear and a template for drilling the hole. This is a bit harder to come by today but if you look its there. If its your kid who some nut starts to shoot up the play ground at rescess, then I think most of us will see it from a different POV. I love guns and shooting but when some nut goes out and starts to shoot people like the idiot in AZ did a year and a half ago, then I can understand why people are anti gun.
Ms. McCarthy who is in Congress on a anti gun platform, I may not totally agree with her, but I do understand that her husband was killed and son brain damaged by some totally crazy fool that had not right to be out in public not to mention own a gun. You have the Reagan Republicans who want to slash and cut spending on programs that keep these people in mental hospitals and then have loop holes that allow people to buy a gun in a FTF sale without so much as a whats your name. I have sold many guns like this in Kansas and Florida. Its legal but I always get a DL number at least so I can send the authorities in the right direction.
This is why I dropped the NRA, they were so rabid as to what they believed and then voting idiots like Ted Nugent into office, how exactly does yelling sit on this Hillary and suck on this you punk Obama while holding up an AR15 help gun owners? It does not , it makes us all look like idiots.
the problem I have with congress is, is that they say they have the legal autority to make law against firearms. when in fact they have no authority at all to make any law against firearms.
look up regulated in our founding fathers days. it did not means or talk about making laws, but in fact talked about being able to hit a target at a set range with a set charge.
I disagree with your premise. By your logic a rocket launcher is only a tool, and so is anti aircraft guns and missiles. I could use your logic and say that people took planes and flew them into towers, so why not have a tool that can take a plane out. I could have saved the towers if some NRA members had some stinger missiles on the towers or in NY that day. Lets be prepared and have individuals own artillery and missile defense systems. I am sure some wealthy industrialist would say they are a high target for terrorist attack and they need a ring of anti missile and aircraft defense guns surrounding their home.
I also see both sides of your last argument, and its far from one sided. I have seen crime drop in some cases where people were arming them selfs, I remember Jacksonville Fla, when rapes were on the rise and eighty percent of women bought guns and the crime dropped. I also see many crimes rise in places because of the ease of gun access like in Virgina, then transporting them to places like NY or NJ. Many of the guns used in crimes in Mexico were straw purchased in the states. Yes it illegal but it is also legal to sell an AK47 or the semi auto version of it with out any check at all to some illegal, and how do you tell someone is and illegal or not? You don't they hand you the money and you hand them the gun. In most cases this is how its done and the seller has not done anything illegal, but they have armed a criminal.
it just goes to show that states that have laws against firearms are more likely to have more crime and states that have less firearm restrictions have les crime overall.
take kennesaw georgia, look at their crime rate, quite low in fact too.
I also believe that if the goverment can use it and have it, then the private citizen can also have and own it if they can afford it.
another point I always hear people talk about is the criminals. if you dont trust a former convict with a firearm, then keep them in jail.
What about some crazy fool who causes a 10-car pileup on the freeway and ends up killing 3 kids because of wreckless driving? Where is the call for car control? You do not need a background check to buy a car.
The issue is nearly everyone owns a car, but many do not own guns. Hence why many are not affected by gun laws.
A gun is an inanimate object that does no harm by itself.
you dont even have to be 16 and have a drivers license to buy a car. in fact you can drive drunk on your own property legally if you so wish to.
I disagree with your premise. By your logic a rocket launcher is only a tool, and so is anti aircraft guns and missiles. I could use your logic and say that people took planes and flew them into towers, so why not have a tool that can take a plane out. I could have saved the towers if some NRA members had some stinger missiles on the towers or in NY that day. Lets be prepared and have individuals own artillery and missile defense systems. I am sure some wealthy industrialist would say they are a high target for terrorist attack and they need a ring of anti missile and aircraft defense guns surrounding their home.
You are "what-iffing" to extreme levels. You cannot make policy based on the outliers, you have to plan for the average. The average gun owner is a law abiding citizen who is never in a position to use his or her weapon on another human being for purposes of self defense but is equipped (and hopefully prepared) to do so should the need arise. This is the group whose rights are often trampled. This group applies proper application to the tools they use. All government policies relating to firearm regulation needs to be constructed from this baseline. Unfortunately, it is constructed from the "whack-job=the baseline" perspective, which results in restrictions of liberties to the individuals who use their firearms in a legal and responsible manner.
Quote:
Originally Posted by farfromnugin
I also see both sides of your last argument, and its far from one sided. I have seen crime drop in some cases where people were arming them selfs, I remember Jacksonville Fla, when rapes were on the rise and eighty percent of women bought guns and the crime dropped. I also see many crimes rise in places because of the ease of gun access like in Virgina, then transporting them to places like NY or NJ. Many of the guns used in crimes in Mexico were straw purchased in the states. Yes it illegal but it is also legal to sell an AK47 or the semi auto version of it with out any check at all to some illegal, and how do you tell someone is and illegal or not? You don't they hand you the money and you hand them the gun. In most cases this is how its done and the seller has not done anything illegal, but they have armed a criminal.
Always be careful when either side rolls out the statistics to support their side of an argument. I trust that you are an intelligent person, and therefore consider every case on its own merit. I don't look at crime going down after 80% of females purchasing a concealable handgun as proof that gun ownership results in lower crime. I consider first and foremost (and almost exclusively) the fact that a person is afforded the liberty and opportunity by our Constitution to equip themselves with the tools necessary to protect themselves. Crime going down (if it in fact does) is a nice by product, but even better is the thought that a would be victim is instead giving a witness statement to the police as the EMT pulls a blue sheet over her assailant's head. THAT is why I support gun ownership rights.
What about some crazy fool who causes a 10-car pileup on the freeway and ends up killing 3 kids because of wreckless driving? Where is the call for car control? You do not need a background check to buy a car.
I'm talking only of cases of auto-homicide. Deliberate misuse of a vehicle as a weapon with the intent to cause harm or death to another human being.
look up regulated in our founding fathers days. it did not means or talk about making laws, but in fact talked about being able to hit a target at a set range with a set charge.
In addition to that, the Bill of Rights from front to back applies to individuals, not the collective society. That should render obsolete generations of debate about the correct interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.
Another way to look at is in terms of plain English grammar. Remember learning about sentence clauses in school? In our language, our sentences often have dependent clauses and independent clauses. For example:
In order to do this, we have to do that.
The dependent clause, "In order to do this..." is meaningless on its own. Hence the term "dependent." It needs the independent clause for its content to mean anything.
The independent clause; however, "...we have to do that." is quite capable of surviving on its own. It does not need the dependent clause in order to make any sense.
Now let's apply this logic to the text of the 2nd Amendment, where we have both a dependent clause and an independent clause:
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.
The dependent clause, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." leaves ambiguity. It is meaningless without an independent clause.
The independent clause, "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." is quite capable of standing on its own. It leaves no room for debate. The founding fathers clearly intended this liberty to apply to individuals and left little room for the government to wiggle out of it.
Perhaps all 2nd Amendment lawyers should have to take a grammar exam before arguing any cases in court.
Very east to do - steal a car from a parking lot and drive 80mph down a city street.
Intent is everything. At least in court. What you described does not necessarily prove intent to harm or kill someone. Intent to escape perhaps, but not intent to harm someone.
Either way, it is still miss use of a vehicle. We should not restrict the rights of those legally using a vehicle because of those who are using them improperly. Same as with firearms.
Intent is everything. At least in court. What you described does not necessarily prove intent to harm or kill someone. Intent to escape perhaps, but not intent to harm someone.
Either way, it is still miss use of a vehicle. We should not restrict the rights of those legally using a vehicle because of those who are using them improperly. Same as with firearms.
Then why must I pass a background check to purchase a firearm?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
