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.
This is my point, you are straying off topic thinking rational gun laws would threaten your right to asemble and wroship. That's paranoia. Why is it neccessary for civilians to possess these extreme this extreme type of weaponry?
Actually, Glitch is pointing out, rightfully, that taking away inherent rights is a slippery slope. Today it's the 2nd amendment, but next year it could be the 1st amendment.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,754 posts, read 23,832,257 times
Reputation: 14671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Old Gringo
On most issues, the extremes make the most noise and gain the most attention. And they make finding an acceptable solution that much less likely by polarizing opinions.
So true, I'm sure this thread will go in the usual irrational circles defying logic and end up into a spin doctor thread. But my intent was to show two poignant examples.
Rational gun laws: The man in the Florida internet cafe that saved the day
Irrational: The mother in the Connecticut home that posssed an automatic weapon (why?) that got into the hands of a mentally unstable citizen.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,754 posts, read 23,832,257 times
Reputation: 14671
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimRom
Actually, Glitch is pointing out, rightfully, that taking away inherent rights is a slippery slope. Today it's the 2nd amendment, but next year it could be the 1st amendment.
No that's a constant state of subconcious fear and worst case scenarios, not rational thought or simple logic. Typical extemes enhanced by media hype.
At the time of our country's founding, the weapons available to civilians were the same as those available to the military. What makes you think that the founding fathers would have wanted it to be otherwise?
Perhaps, because, the idea at the time of military was the volunteers, a well-regulated militia, in defense of the nation, rather than to engage in gang wars, or go shoot kids in school.
So true, I'm sure this thread will go in the usual irrational circles defying logic and end up into a spin doctor thread. But my intent was to show two poignant examples.
Rational gun laws: The man in the Florida internet cafe that saved the day
Irrational: The mother in the Connecticut home that posssed an automatic weapon (why?) that got into the hands of a mentally unstable citizen.
It's my opinion (right now, anyway) that controlling individuals rather than controlling guns will have a better outcome. Connecticut has some of America's strictest gun laws but they certainly didn't do anything to prevent this tragedy. And cities across the country with the most Draconian gun laws often have the highest rates of violent crime.
Since the mid 90s, a lot of states have passed concealed carry laws and the argument against those laws was that America's city streets would become the scenes of wild west shoot-outs as relatively untrained civilians would blast away at the slightest provocation. To the contrary, gun violence has not escalated and statistics bear out that law-abiding gun owners are not a problem.
With the story posted up above, I'd like to bring up a point. The 71 year old guy in Florida was able to intervene with a simple handgun. The 2nd amendment laws protecting the right of gun ownership should remain intact. One question that begs to be asked though is why is it that automatic assault weapons such as the ones used in Aurora and Newtown are in the hands of civilians?
Why is it that we must have the extremes. What is the purpose of having the NRA crowd vehemently defending civilian rights to own assault weapons firing up to 50 rounds per minute. Do we really think that our 18th century forefathers envisioned this when authoring the Constitution? And at the other extreme why must the discussion of gun regulations be a threat to the NRA crowd, since when does that have to mean taking away all guns for use of self defense?
Should we all go back to single shot pistols, or bolt action rifles?
We had 500 lb mortars, cannons and they even had muli-barreled duck foot or volley guns pistols to quell riots and mutinies. Did our founders list these as not lawful for civilian use?
From a rational point of view I don't believe they envisioned automatic weapons firing 50 rounds per minute falling into the hands of mentally unstable people with intent to harm their own citizenry.
Yet there were were weapons like cannons and mortars back during their time which had the potential to cause major destruction. The first laws were enacted by states for various specific purposes, not the federal government. Before such, even with such devices as I mentioned, laws did not restrict ownership of the individual.
The founders envisioned and established a nation to which the people could defend themselves against a tyrannical government. If we are to be reasonable in our discussion of such intent, then it would be unreasonable to establish that the people should be armed with pitch forks while the government is armed with guns. The point is that the defense of liberty ultimately is in the hands of the people and in order for them to reasonably attend to such, they must have access to the means to achieve it.
If you read the founders comments on such duties and responsibilities, it would be a reach to claim that the founders intended the people to be severely lacking in their capability to defend against a governments standing army. This is why laws of ownership have been loose and unsupported to any definitive means. Why it has taken hundreds of years for such to be introduced and through each introduction it has been a result of increased power in government.
We can not defend ourselves against a tyrannical government if all of our arms are limited in the favor of the oppressor.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,754 posts, read 23,832,257 times
Reputation: 14671
Quote:
Originally Posted by OICU812
Should we all go back to single shot pistols, or bolt action rifles?
We had 500 lb mortars, cannons and they even had muli-barreled duck foot or volley guns pistols to quell riots and mutinies. Did our founders list these as not lawful for civilian use?
I opened this thread to have a realistic conversation and up to date
Here, (the post I opened the thread with) once again this is resonable....
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.
